Terrorist Israeli Airstrike in Gaza Kills 3 Children
cor
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [NYTr] Israeli Airstrike in Gaza Kills 3 Children
Date: 21 Jun 2006 13:18:19 -0500
From: nytr
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
The Washington Post - Jun 21, 2006
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001340_pf.html
Strike in Gaza Kills 3 Children
Palestinian Bystanders Say Israeli Attack Missed Targets
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
JERUSALEM, June 20 -- An Israeli airstrike in the Gaza Strip on Tuesday
killed at least three Palestinian children and wounded 14 people, many of
them children as well, according to witnesses and Palestinian health
officials.
Israeli military officials said the target of the strike, which occurred
around 7:30 p.m., was a car carrying gunmen from the al-Aqsa Martyrs
Brigades, the armed wing of the Fatah party. Military officials said the men
were planning to carry out an unspecified attack, perhaps preparing to fire
missiles into southern Israel.
But Palestinian witnesses said the men escaped from the Volkswagen Golf
station wagon before the missile struck the car, which was passing through a
busy commercial district of Gaza City. The scene turned quickly into an
angry rally with demonstrators denouncing the attack and vowing to take
revenge on Israel.
Shrapnel from the blast sprayed into a group of bystanders, Palestinian
witnesses said. Hospital officials in Gaza said three children -- Mohammed
Roqa, 5, Samia al-Shariff, 5, and Belal al-Hessi, 15 -- suffered fatal
wounds in the attack.
"If there were civilian casualties as a result of this, the IDF does regret
it, as it always does," said a spokesman for Israel's military, the Israel
Defense Forces. "But the fact is the terrorist organizations operate within
these civilian areas, and the Hamas government has done nothing to stop
them."
Hours earlier, the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, called on the various
armed groups at war with Israel to stop the rocket fire that has frightened
and infuriated Israeli communities on the periphery of the Gaza Strip. Among
the groups is the military wing of Hamas, the radical Islamic movement now
running the Palestinian ministries, although two smaller factions are
chiefly responsible for the missile fire.
At least three missiles landed in southern Israel on Tuesday before Abbas
made his appeal, although there were no reports of injuries. The missiles
are highly inaccurate and have not killed any Israelis since Israel
evacuated its settlements in Gaza last year. But the attacks have surged
recently, and one Israeli man was gravely injured this month.
The southern city of Sderot, the target of many of the missiles, closed
schools, streets and the municipal government Tuesday to protest what
residents say is the Israeli government's weak response to the rocket fire.
[On Wednesday, Israeli soldiers shot dead an armed Palestinian man and
wounded another man in a raid in the West Bank town of Nablus, medics and
Israeli military sources said, Reuters reported.]
The airstrike Tuesday came a week after an Israeli missile attack on a
minibus carrying at least one rocket in Gaza City killed at least 10
Palestinians Also this month, an explosion on a beach in northern Gaza
killed eight Palestinian civilians. Palestinian officials and a rights group
have said an Israeli artillery shell may have caused the blast. Israel has
denied involvement.
Special correspondent Islam Abdelkareem in Gaza City contributed to this
report.
) 2006 The Washington Post Company
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
Lobby Dosser
> Palestinian Bystanders Say Israeli Attack Missed Targets
IOW, it wasn't a terrorist strike like ... well, like blowing up an ice
cream parlor or a cafe. It was just colateral damage on a missed target
bombing run. And the Palestinians pointed it out.
Bill Shatzer
> cor <c...@exchangenet.net> wrote:
"Just" collateral damage?
I'm sure that is of great comfort to the families of the deceased.
Peace and justice,
Don Homuth
<lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>cor <c...@exchangenet.net> wrote:
>
>> Palestinian Bystanders Say Israeli Attack Missed Targets
>
>IOW, it wasn't a terrorist strike like ... well, like blowing up an ice
>cream parlor or a cafe. It was just colateral damage on a missed target
>bombing run....
Yeah -- the discussion is Ever so civil:
Aw gee, guys -- we were Trying to hit a Palestinian target out of
revenge for the Israeli target that y'all were hitting out of revenge
for our hitting a Palestinian target out of revenge for your hitting
an Israeli target out of revenge for....oh, never mind. Know what
we're saying here?
Anyway, in the recent action, one of our bombs missed the target we
were aiming at, and killed your family instead.
So sorry. These things just happen, doncha known and they are "just
collateral damage on a missed target bombing run," as one of our
American supporters states it so eloquently.
Now, don't y'all even be Thinking of exacting your own revenge for our
action seeking revenge, because if you do then we'll have to hit
another Palestinian target in revenge for your hitting an Israeli
target in revenge for....well, you see how it goes.
And always remember -- we have Airplanes, and you don't. That means
We are Noble and Good, and you aren't.
War without End, Amen.
Ed
"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1fol92dd4nks7jd7e...@4ax.com...
Yep, that's exactly how the Palestinians want it.
Don Homuth
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:1fol92dd4nks7jd7e...@4ax.com...
>> And always remember -- we have Airplanes, and you don't. That means
>> We are Noble and Good, and you aren't.
>>
>> War without End, Amen.
>
>Yep, that's exactly how the Palestinians want it.
Both sides, given their actions.
Revenge works like that. Each act requires another.
Without end.
Amen.
Ed
The solution is quite simple. All the Palestinians have to do is
acknowledge Israel's right to exist. The tit-for-tat violence would end
faster than you can blink.
Ben Cramer
"Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dLedncmKDq_j1wbZ...@comcast.com...
If the izzies hadn't swiped their land, there'd be no violence, you dopey
cunt.
lein
Don Homuth wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 08:50:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >cor <c...@exchangenet.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Palestinian Bystanders Say Israeli Attack Missed Targets
> >
> >IOW, it wasn't a terrorist strike like ... well, like blowing up an ice
> >cream parlor or a cafe. It was just colateral damage on a missed target
> >bombing run....
>
> Yeah -- the discussion is Ever so civil:
>
> Aw gee, guys -- we were Trying to hit a Palestinian target out of
> revenge for the Israeli target that y'all were hitting out of revenge
> for our hitting a Palestinian target out of revenge for your hitting
> an Israeli target out of revenge for....oh, never mind. Know what
> we're saying here?
Maybe Israel should say "we're so sorry you decided to elect a
terrorist organization to run your government who's goal is to drive us
into the sea".
lein
swiped who's land?
Ben Cramer
"lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1151033412.1...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Fair's fair. The yids want to wipe all the Palestinians out.
>
Ben Cramer
Oh, god. Another dickhead.
>
Lobby Dosser
Ahh, a self outing! What's a good word for outing one's self as Mr.
Cramer has just done? BT, Lein, any ideas?
Ed
Well, we know it's impossible to swipe Palestinian land that Palestinians
never owned.
there'd be no violence, you dopey
>> cunt.
>
> swiped who's land?
Good question....
>
Don Homuth
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:2fem925tf3f4nu5c5...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:41:15 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1fol92dd4nks7jd7e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> And always remember -- we have Airplanes, and you don't. That means
>>>> We are Noble and Good, and you aren't.
>>>>
>>>> War without End, Amen.
>>>
>>>Yep, that's exactly how the Palestinians want it.
>>
>> Both sides, given their actions.
>>
>> Revenge works like that. Each act requires another.
>>
>> Without end.
>>
>> Amen.
>
>The solution is quite simple. All the Palestinians have to do is
>acknowledge Israel's right to exist. The tit-for-tat violence would end
>faster than you can blink.
When revenge is left hanging out there unresolved in a lex talionis
world, then it must be satisfied.
Which position works equally for the Israelis and the Palestinians
alike.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>Maybe Israel should say "we're so sorry you decided to elect a
>terrorist organization to run your government who's goal is to drive us
>into the sea".
I can't imagine their saying what you suggest. What they've already
said and done speaks far more eloquently to their purpose than that.
They want Revenge. They intend to get it. They've said so publicly
and followed through thereafter.
So do the Palestinians.
For each, equally, that motivation trumps all others.
War without End.
Amen.
Ed
Well, you are dead wrong about that.
The Palestinians want to kill Israelis. It is the only reason they exist.
The Israelis just want to be left alone. But since the Palestinians refuse
to do that, the Israelis have no choice but to defend themselves. It's the
same thing that any other country would do.
cor
'Colateral damage'? My Ass!
9-11 victims were also collateral damage?
You can make up any other euphemism for it, it is still murder and terrorism.
cor
Ed wrote:
>
> > War without End, Amen.
>
> Yep, that's exactly how the Palestinians want it.
Because Israel has absolutely no control over the situation, right?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Norma
Unless one side wishes to get serious and end it, it will be unending.
However, the patience will soon wear thin, as the Palestinians are unable to
live and the Islraelis refuse to tolerate the constant attacks. In this
chaotic world, one can no longer say it will stay as it is, especially with
Jordan becoming increasling involved in their own safety if the unilateral
withdrawal creates new battle zones which will affect them, and if the
Hezbollah situation from Syria/Lebanon continues in the North.
Something will upset the equation sooner than many will think. Then what
with the "Amen" mean? Could be destruction of everyone in the area and
extension into the rest of the world or one clean swoop with a massive
attack. There is really no way to predict the outcome, but there is no way
it will continue as it is forever.
Norma
>
> Amen.
Don Homuth
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:im0o925gcvf0q5d01...@4ax.com...
>> When revenge is left hanging out there unresolved in a lex talionis
>> world, then it must be satisfied.
>>
>> Which position works equally for the Israelis and the Palestinians
>> alike.
>
>Well, you are dead wrong about that.
Nope. This is the Middle East. Those cultures have Family Feuds that
go back more than a millenium, and are Still being promulgated today.
Else why would the Shia and the Sunni be at each others' throats since
essentially forever?
It's a Culture Thing. It doesn't require a Rational Basis. It's a
worldview. If one believes that Blood demands Blood, and the process
never really ends, then that's what is going to happen.
>The Palestinians want to kill Israelis. It is the only reason they exist.
Oh, nonsense. Ever actually talk with an actual Palestinian?
>The Israelis just want to be left alone.
But are unwilling to leave others alone, and so nibble away at the
territor and (probably even more important) water rights of others in
the same general area over 4-5 decades. Which process remains ongoing
and has done so even given US disapproval.
Sorry, but that assertion really is Dead Wrong. The facts on the
ground demonstrate it clearly.
> But since the Palestinians refuse
>to do that, the Israelis have no choice but to defend themselves.
Well, of course! That's always the language used to defend the
Revenge Cycle. But your description doesn't really describe Defense
anyway. Ahmed shoots a rocket and the response is to kill Mohammed.
And his wife and children in the bargain -- writing them off as
Collateral Damage.
Ohfershur! That's going to work.
> It's the same thing that any other country would do.
Thus far, the rocket fire from the Palestinians has killed five
Israelis in five years. (An IDF figure, fwiw.) The IDF has, by its
own numbers, managed to kill 13 in collateral damage in the past 5-6
wereks.
Now -- do the Math. What's the outcome of that process going to be?
War without End.
Amen.
Norma
"cor" <c...@exchangenet.net> wrote in message
news:449C167D...@exchangenet.net...
But they could "take" it. The restraint of the past will not go on forever,
as Palestinians are unable to secure daily needs and the Israelis are
continuously hassled. So many have unestimated the lengths of toleration
for far too long.
What would you do if your neighbor continuously lobbed rockets into you back
yard?
Norma
Don Homuth
wrote:
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:po0o921ncr5qm6rr7...@4ax.com...
>> They want Revenge. They intend to get it. They've said so publicly
>> and followed through thereafter.
>>
>> So do the Palestinians.
>>
>> For each, equally, that motivation trumps all others.
>>
>> War without End.
>
>Unless one side wishes to get serious and end it, it will be unending.
Precisely.
So, if one wishes to be rational about it, then either get used to it
and simply accept the strike/coutnerstrike approach, or find some way
to end it.
>However, the patience will soon wear thin, as the Palestinians are unable to
>live and the Islraelis refuse to tolerate the constant attacks. In this
>chaotic world, one can no longer say it will stay as it is, especially with
>Jordan becoming increasling involved in their own safety if the unilateral
>withdrawal creates new battle zones which will affect them, and if the
>Hezbollah situation from Syria/Lebanon continues in the North.
Yes -- doubtless something will change. It always does. But only in
the details -- not in the general scope of things.
>Something will upset the equation sooner than many will think. Then what
>with the "Amen" mean? Could be destruction of everyone in the area and
>extension into the rest of the world or one clean swoop with a massive
>attack. There is really no way to predict the outcome, but there is no way
>it will continue as it is forever.
It can. It has, viz the Sunni and Shia who have kept it up for over a
thousand years now, with no particular signs of abating the
internecine religious-based killing.
It might take some doing, but perhaps we ought to consider the
possibility that All those folks rather Like killing each other -- and
that includes the Israelis and the Palestinians. Each rejoices when
the other is hit, and each merely casually writes off the victims --
but only of the Other Side. Their own are held up as martyrs and a
rationale for the outcome.
War without End.
Amen.
Don Homuth
<boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Maybe Israel should say "we're so sorry you decided to elect a
>terrorist organization to run your government who's goal is to drive us
>into the sea".
I can't imagine their saying what you suggest. What they've already
said and done speaks far more eloquently to their purpose than that.
They want Revenge. They intend to get it. They've said so publicly
and followed through thereafter.
So do the Palestinians.
For each, equally, that motivation trumps all others.
War without End.
Amen.
Norma
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:11:25 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:im0o925gcvf0q5d01...@4ax.com...
>
> >> When revenge is left hanging out there unresolved in a lex talionis
> >> world, then it must be satisfied.
> >>
> >> Which position works equally for the Israelis and the Palestinians
> >> alike.
> >
> >Well, you are dead wrong about that.
>
> Nope. This is the Middle East. Those cultures have Family Feuds that
> go back more than a millenium, and are Still being promulgated today.
>
> Else why would the Shia and the Sunni be at each others' throats since
> essentially forever?
Actually the difference between Sunni and Shia is a religious matter of who
succeeded Mohammed. It is much more than a family/tribal matter. They will
fight for power in the religion until one or the other is gone or convinced
to accept the other. It will lead to civil war wherever they do-exist in
any numbers that would affect the society at large, and is another factor in
the Middle East that has little to do with what else is happening today,
other than they are continuously killing one another. This additional
problem is not so apparent in the societies where the Sunnis prevail, such
as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where the Shia's are barely tolerated. They
are usually found in a small area around Dammam and have to stuggle to gain
status in the society.
You are correct there is no rationality to it, for instance a Shia health
care worker may not touch a member of the Royal Family and usually is not
employed in the King Faisal hospitals. I had one intern who did survive
because he could not be discredited, but he could never work in the area
where the royals were treated.
>
> It's a Culture Thing. It doesn't require a Rational Basis. It's a
> worldview. If one believes that Blood demands Blood, and the process
> never really ends, then that's what is going to happen.
>
> >The Palestinians want to kill Israelis. It is the only reason they
exist.
>
> Oh, nonsense. Ever actually talk with an actual Palestinian?
Certainly I have, and many of them do not want to kill Israelis. But you
have to look to the leadership for the what is going on. When the leader
states unequivocally that he wishes for Israel, Israelis, and Jews to be
absent from the world, that is what affect the activities of the country.
Just as anywhere, many of the "common folk" are willing to accept much more
than the leaders, so the problem will not disappear and will escalate until
there is a change in attitude and behaviors.
> >The Israelis just want to be left alone.
>
> But are unwilling to leave others alone, and so nibble away at the
> territor and (probably even more important) water rights of others in
> the same general area over 4-5 decades. Which process remains ongoing
> and has done so even given US disapproval.
Whe had the Israelis been agressor anywhere else other than Israel, except
when invited in? You won't find any examples of Israelis initiating war on
other countries, unless they have been attacked.
>
> Sorry, but that assertion really is Dead Wrong. The facts on the
> ground demonstrate it clearly.
>
> > But since the Palestinians refuse
> >to do that, the Israelis have no choice but to defend themselves.
>
> Well, of course! That's always the language used to defend the
> Revenge Cycle. But your description doesn't really describe Defense
> anyway. Ahmed shoots a rocket and the response is to kill Mohammed.
> And his wife and children in the bargain -- writing them off as
> Collateral Damage.
All wars have collateral damage. The position of retaliation is well known,
but still they push it to the limit. Have you ever wondered why? It makes
for good press--as crass as that may sound it is the bald truth. Where else
would you have gotten your ideas?
>
> Ohfershur! That's going to work.
>
> > It's the same thing that any other country would do.
>
> Thus far, the rocket fire from the Palestinians has killed five
> Israelis in five years. (An IDF figure, fwiw.) The IDF has, by its
> own numbers, managed to kill 13 in collateral damage in the past 5-6
> wereks.
That is due to the inefficiency and lack of knowledge needed to successfully
kill that is the real reason for that. It is not for lact of trying.
> Now -- do the Math. What's the outcome of that process going to be?
>
> War without End.
>
> Amen.
See my other post. It will NOT go on forever. The outside world is too
chaotic for this to continue as it is.
Norma
Ed
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:11:25 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:im0o925gcvf0q5d01...@4ax.com...
>
>>> When revenge is left hanging out there unresolved in a lex talionis
>>> world, then it must be satisfied.
>>>
>>> Which position works equally for the Israelis and the Palestinians
>>> alike.
>>
>>Well, you are dead wrong about that.
>
> Nope. This is the Middle East. Those cultures have Family Feuds that
> go back more than a millenium, and are Still being promulgated today.
By the Palestinians. Thank you.
I stand by my earlier assertion that if the Palestinians would stop trying
to kill Israelis, and accept the fact that Israel is there forever, the
violence on BOTH sides would stop.
>
> Else why would the Shia and the Sunni be at each others' throats since
> essentially forever?
This has nothing to do with the situation between Palestinians and Israelis.
>
> It's a Culture Thing. It doesn't require a Rational Basis. It's a
> worldview. If one believes that Blood demands Blood, and the process
> never really ends, then that's what is going to happen.
>
>>The Palestinians want to kill Israelis. It is the only reason they exist.
>
> Oh, nonsense. Ever actually talk with an actual Palestinian?
I've talked with informed Arabs who say that what the Palestinians are doing
is only hurting themselves.
>
>>The Israelis just want to be left alone.
>
> But are unwilling to leave others alone,
not at all true. Since the Palestinians STARTED the cycle of violence, it
is up to them to end it.
and so nibble away at the
> territor and (probably even more important) water rights of others in
> the same general area over 4-5 decades.
Again, not true. If the Arab nations hadn't forced Israel into a war in
1967 and LOSE, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.
Which process remains ongoing
> and has done so even given US disapproval.
>
> Sorry, but that assertion really is Dead Wrong. The facts on the
> ground demonstrate it clearly.
>
>> But since the Palestinians refuse
>>to do that, the Israelis have no choice but to defend themselves.
>
> Well, of course! That's always the language used to defend the
> Revenge Cycle. But your description doesn't really describe Defense
> anyway. Ahmed shoots a rocket and the response is to kill Mohammed.
> And his wife and children in the bargain -- writing them off as
> Collateral Damage.
Well, Ahmed shouldn't use Mohammed and his family as human shields.
>
> Ohfershur! That's going to work.
>
>> It's the same thing that any other country would do.
>
> Thus far, the rocket fire from the Palestinians has killed five
> Israelis in five years. (An IDF figure, fwiw.) The IDF has, by its
> own numbers, managed to kill 13 in collateral damage in the past 5-6
> wereks.
Again, because the extra eight deaths were due to the Pallie terrorists
using them as human shields, knowing full well that they would be killed
along with themselves.
>
> Now -- do the Math. What's the outcome of that process going to be?
More Palestinan deaths. Which the Palestinians seem to thrive on.
>
> War without End.
No, there is a possible end. I've stated that already.
>
> Amen.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:sk1o92hebh79tcick...@4ax.com...
>>This is the Middle East. Those cultures have Family Feuds that
>> go back more than a millenium, and are Still being promulgated today.
>>
>> Else why would the Shia and the Sunni be at each others' throats since
>> essentially forever?
>
>
>Actually the difference between Sunni and Shia is a religious matter of who
>succeeded Mohammed. It is much more than a family/tribal matter. They will
>fight for power in the religion until one or the other is gone or convinced
>to accept the other....
Same general religious family, according to those who study such
things under the more general rubric of Islam.
The initial fight was among a Family, if the historical evidence is to
be believed.
It remains so today, save that over the generations the size of the
family and its adherents have increased.
Xtians did the same thing several centuries back, and I'm convinced
some of them would still rather like to do it today, if they could get
away with it.
But the Sunni/Shia dispute began as a family fight, and remains even
now as it was then.
There are, of course, numerous other family/tribe/clan disputes in the
area as well. But noting the Sunni/Shia dispute establishes the point
specifically enough that the others need no specific mention.
Norma
Your estimation of the "liking" of killing the other is very wrong. I don't
believe that is true of either side as a general attitude. I have seen no
martyrs held up anywhere in Israel, except for Yani Netanyahu with the
kidnapping and rescue in Africa and the pilot, Arad, who is currently
somewhere being held captive in the Arab world--I don't know where he is
now. Of course all dead military are heroes to their families.
There are many fewer "heroes" (nationally proclaimed) in Israel than any
other country I know of. The people on both sides, when speaking
face-to-face want to live a normal life and to live well with their
families. Unfortunately, the leadership prevents that from happening. At
this time, if Hamas leaders would even make a remote attempt at negotiations
there would be a lot of change, unless they, once again, agree and renege as
others have done in the past.
Norma
>
> War without End.
>
> Amen.
Don Homuth
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:sk1o92hebh79tcick...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:11:25 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:im0o925gcvf0q5d01...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> When revenge is left hanging out there unresolved in a lex talionis
>>>> world, then it must be satisfied.
>>>>
>>>> Which position works equally for the Israelis and the Palestinians
>>>> alike.
>>>
>>>Well, you are dead wrong about that.
>>
>> Nope. This is the Middle East. Those cultures have Family Feuds that
>> go back more than a millenium, and are Still being promulgated today.
>
>By the Palestinians. Thank you.
No -- not only by them. The internal religious disputes amongst the
Israelis are nearly as nasty, but as a general rule they have more to
gain by attempting to band together rather than fighting openly
amongst themselves.
>I stand by my earlier assertion that if the Palestinians would stop trying
>to kill Israelis, and accept the fact that Israel is there forever, the
>violence on BOTH sides would stop.
Your conditional is unrealistic in a lex talionis society and
worldview. What you demand is that Revenge be eliminated as a
motivator. Neither side can do that, neither is willing to do that,
and so long as there is more satisfaction to be gained from revenge
than from survival, it will continue unabated.
>>>The Palestinians want to kill Israelis. It is the only reason they exist.
>>
>> Oh, nonsense. Ever actually talk with an actual Palestinian?
>
>I've talked with informed Arabs who say that what the Palestinians are doing
>is only hurting themselves.
Ever actually talk with an actual Palestinian?
>>>The Israelis just want to be left alone.
>>
>> But are unwilling to leave others alone,
>
>not at all true. Since the Palestinians STARTED the cycle of violence, it
>is up to them to end it.
That assertion is at least arguable, and arguably incorrect
altogether. It is not clear that the Palestinian started the cycle.
Google the term Irgun for starters to see the first evidence of
Organized Terrism in the area.
It is clear that once the cycle started, each side has been
enthusiastic about maintaining it thereafter, based not on what they
Say but on what they Do.
>and so nibble away at the
>> territor and (probably even more important) water rights of others in
>> the same general area over 4-5 decades.
>
>Again, not true. If the Arab nations hadn't forced Israel into a war in
>1967 and LOSE, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.
Which is all very nice, but how does it change the end result of
Israelis merely moving onto Palestinian territory and keeping it.
Or do you find that acceptable?
>>> But since the Palestinians refuse
>>>to do that, the Israelis have no choice but to defend themselves.
>>
>> Well, of course! That's always the language used to defend the
>> Revenge Cycle. But your description doesn't really describe Defense
>> anyway. Ahmed shoots a rocket and the response is to kill Mohammed.
>> And his wife and children in the bargain -- writing them off as
>> Collateral Damage.
>
>Well, Ahmed shouldn't use Mohammed and his family as human shields.
Where do you get this stuff?
>> Thus far, the rocket fire from the Palestinians has killed five
>> Israelis in five years. (An IDF figure, fwiw.) The IDF has, by its
>> own numbers, managed to kill 13 in collateral damage in the past 5-6
>> wereks.
>
>Again, because the extra eight deaths were due to the Pallie terrorists
>using them as human shields, knowing full well that they would be killed
>along with themselves.
No -- the eight "extra deaths" (strange term, that) are not within the
thirteen count. Those 8 were deliberately left out.
>> Now -- do the Math. What's the outcome of that process going to be?
>
>More Palestinan deaths. Which the Palestinians seem to thrive on.
And more Israeli deaths, which they seem to find endlessly worthwhile
as a rationale for the inevitable outcome, which is:
>> War without End.
>
>No, there is a possible end. I've stated that already.
This is not a place where Abject Surrender is taken lightly, nor is it
a place where the lex talionis blood debt is surrendered without some
cooperation.
Till then, best accept the fact that there is no Possible End.
Each side Likes killing the other. Each side will endlessly justify
doing it. Each successive killing will create more folks who demand
Blood for Blood.
That's how the lex talionis works.
>> Amen.
Norma
> n 22 Jun 2006 20:30:12 -0700, "lein"
> <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Maybe Israel should say "we're so sorry you decided to elect a
> >terrorist organization to run your government who's goal is to drive us
> >into the sea".
>
> I can't imagine their saying what you suggest. What they've already
> said and done speaks far more eloquently to their purpose than that.
>
> They want Revenge. They intend to get it. They've said so publicly
> and followed through thereafter.
Please provide proof of this statement. If there has been a public
statement, it isn't well known, except to those who wish to deduce/induce
that from actions occuring. What do they want revenge for? Those who are
dead, are dead--what revenge would change that? The goal is to stop the
killing.
If you would trace the history of the Arabs/Muslims ingaging in any battle,
you will see that they do imbed themselves amongst the innocent. Israel is
not responsible for that. To live as Muslim with the world view that amount
to the phrase, "Insha'Shallah" (Allah willing) you see that they believe
they will not be killed unless Allah allows it. That is very hard to
counter when taught from the womb to the grave. To the Muslim dying is not
the disaster that you or I might see it.
For the Jew, life is what matters, but for the Muslim, the way one dies is
the focus. That differences in worldview make all the difference. The Jew
wants what can be earned and worked for, and for the Muslim, one gets what
is provided by Allah. That is another major difference and not
understandable to the Western mind. Today, of course, who is providing
"for" Allah--it would seem that is a great difficulty.
Perhaps you need to examine the religion of Islam before making so many
sweeping generalizations. That is a major factor in all of this, and it
isn't going to disappear. Of the Abrahamic religions Judaism and
Christianity are more alike than different up to the point of when Paul
entered the picture. Islam and Christianity share a belief in the prophecy
of Jesus and that is about as close as they come. They believe that Jesus
was not killed and may still be alive and will be the Messiah coming in the
future when all have become Muslim. To deny the relgious part of all of
this is a huge mistake. It is the basis of everything that they do, and we
often ignore that. They are patient and do not mind generations dying
before the objective is achieved. The goal is for the future generations
rather than the life that they are presently living now--as is the focus of
the Jew. When looking at these kinds of differences, even in the secular
world that exists today, the religious differences are still the major key
to what goes on in the Middle East. This is now spreading to the rest of
the world--a world that isn't anticipating anything like this and will make
a major difference to the whole future of humankind.
To look at Israel and Palestinian Territores as discrete in what is
happening just there, is a huge mistake. The war can remain unending and
spread to the entire planet or it could be solved quickly with some major
nukes and who knows what the outcome would be? This is not a simple matter
by any means. Look to the total struggle around the globe rather than just
one small area.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:0b3o92l7sfd53d146...@4ax.com...
>> It might take some doing, but perhaps we ought to consider the
>> possibility that All those folks rather Like killing each other -- and
>> that includes the Israelis and the Palestinians. Each rejoices when
>> the other is hit, and each merely casually writes off the victims --
>> but only of the Other Side. Their own are held up as martyrs and a
>> rationale for the outcome.
>
>Your estimation of the "liking" of killing the other is very wrong. I don't
>believe that is true of either side as a general attitude.
The rhetoric aside, look at what each side Does -- not what they say.
Thus far, killing each other seems to be the One Single Activity each
side is most willing and even eager to be involved with. Clearly they
are not all that taken with trying to end things, else they'd spend
more effort trying to do that rather than continue the killing.
I don't see any particular evidence of that.
> I have seen no
>martyrs held up anywhere in Israel, except for Yani Netanyahu with the
>kidnapping and rescue in Africa and the pilot, Arad, who is currently
>somewhere being held captive in the Arab world--I don't know where he is
>now.
Really? You've not read the inflammatory articles and editorials in
the Israeli press about the Brave Folks who were murdered by
Palestinians here and there?
You might want to revisit that assertion.
> Of course all dead military are heroes to their families.
Yeah -- we've inflated the language so that the term "hero" is largely
meaningless in the current discussion.
Dead soldiers may be victims or casualties, but for certain they were
Not all "heroes."
>There are many fewer "heroes" (nationally proclaimed) in Israel than any
>other country I know of.
There was a time when the IDF didn't let military folks wear medals
openly, if memory serves.
But try to tell folks that there were no Military Heroes in the
history of the IDF, and we can all have a good laugh together.
What'shisface - the guy with the eye patch, name escapes me
momentarily -- certainly was one such. As were the folks from the
Irgun who later became national leaders because of their Heroism.
Which, had it been done on any other population, would have been
defined as Terrism, as the term is currently used. Same techniques.
> The people on both sides, when speaking
>face-to-face want to live a normal life and to live well with their
>families.
No doubt there are such folks on both sides. They are, however, not
in charge of anything at the moment.
A pity, that.
> Unfortunately, the leadership prevents that from happening.
The leadership gets re-elected time after time by supporting the Blood
for Blood rationale. It's a far more fundamental human emotion, and
being so, it's one of the most powerful.
>At this time, if Hamas leaders would even make a remote attempt at negotiations
>there would be a lot of change, unless they, once again, agree and renege as
>others have done in the past.
I don't see it happening. They are, as is the Likud and coalitions
derived therefrom, captives of their own rhetoric. To depart from it
now would be to abandon their philosophical raison for existence at
all, and would be considered either cowardice or blasphemy.
The Greater Israel crowd that holds the important margin in Israeli
politics is roundly supported by the more extreme sort of Xtian
Fundies here, who see what they are doing as promoting the End Times.
The same worldview derives from the Caliphate Restoration folks in
Islam, save that the discussion plays elsewhere in the world, rather
than in the US -- which receives most of its information and
discussion on it from AIPAC and Xtian Fundy Broadcasting.
But, each is merely a different side of the same coin, seemingly.
So long as those visions command the greater devotion of their
followers, then there's simply no solution to be found -- either way.
Killing each other off is simple, clear and Highly satisfying, after
all. No thought or effort is really required to do it. Just develop
the capacity, and as a policy, it's a no-brainer. Literally.
Which is why we ought simply to get used to the strike/counterstrike
approach each is taking, and accept the fact that to all intents and
purposes they continue to kill each other off because when all is said
and done, they rather Like to do it, instead of seeking some sort of
mutual accomodation.
War without end.
Amen.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:t44o92lhqt6188l8t...@4ax.com...
>> n 22 Jun 2006 20:30:12 -0700, "lein"
>> <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Maybe Israel should say "we're so sorry you decided to elect a
>> >terrorist organization to run your government who's goal is to drive us
>> >into the sea".
>>
>> I can't imagine their saying what you suggest. What they've already
>> said and done speaks far more eloquently to their purpose than that.
>>
>> They want Revenge. They intend to get it. They've said so publicly
>> and followed through thereafter.
>
>
>Please provide proof of this statement. If there has been a public
>statement, it isn't well known, except to those who wish to deduce/induce
>that from actions occuring. What do they want revenge for? Those who are
>dead, are dead--what revenge would change that? The goal is to stop the
>killing....
Google is your friend.
Look up the term Retaliation with respect to any action taken in the
area.
Ed
I agree that the whole mindset needs to change, but I still stand by what I
said, that this whole "revenge" motivator is solely the Palestinian M.O.
>
>>>>The Palestinians want to kill Israelis. It is the only reason they
>>>>exist.
>>>
>>> Oh, nonsense. Ever actually talk with an actual Palestinian?
>>
>>I've talked with informed Arabs who say that what the Palestinians are
>>doing
>>is only hurting themselves.
>
> Ever actually talk with an actual Palestinian?
No, I don't know any personally, but I am sure there are reasonable
Palestinians who realize that they are doomed if they continue on their
present course. I suppose they represent whomever did NOT vote for Hamas.
The fact that Hamas runs things now indicates that the reasonable
Palestinians are sorely in the minority.
>
>>>>The Israelis just want to be left alone.
>>>
>>> But are unwilling to leave others alone,
>>
>>not at all true. Since the Palestinians STARTED the cycle of violence, it
>>is up to them to end it.
>
> That assertion is at least arguable, and arguably incorrect
> altogether. It is not clear that the Palestinian started the cycle.
> Google the term Irgun for starters to see the first evidence of
> Organized Terrism in the area.
Arab violence against Jews in the area occurred WAY before Irgun.
>
> It is clear that once the cycle started, each side has been
> enthusiastic about maintaining it thereafter, based not on what they
> Say but on what they Do.
>
>>and so nibble away at the
>>> territor and (probably even more important) water rights of others in
>>> the same general area over 4-5 decades.
>>
>>Again, not true. If the Arab nations hadn't forced Israel into a war in
>>1967 and LOSE, we wouldn't be having this conversation today.
>
> Which is all very nice, but how does it change the end result of
> Israelis merely moving onto Palestinian territory and keeping it.
Because it was never Palestinian territory. In 1967, the WB was JORDAN, and
Gaza was EGYPT. Both countries lost. It had nothing to do with "Palestine"
becuase such a place didn't exist, just as it doesn't exist now.
israel has tried numerous times to offer up to 97% of that land for a
Palestinian state, but the Palestinians crapped on the deal every time.
Ever wonder why?
>
> Or do you find that acceptable?
It's acceptable in that the land IS Israeli to do with as they please, be it
giving it up for a Palestinian state as they've tried numerous times in the
past, or otherwise.
>
>>>> But since the Palestinians refuse
>>>>to do that, the Israelis have no choice but to defend themselves.
>>>
>>> Well, of course! That's always the language used to defend the
>>> Revenge Cycle. But your description doesn't really describe Defense
>>> anyway. Ahmed shoots a rocket and the response is to kill Mohammed.
>>> And his wife and children in the bargain -- writing them off as
>>> Collateral Damage.
>>
>>Well, Ahmed shouldn't use Mohammed and his family as human shields.
>
> Where do you get this stuff?
From the news.
>
>>> Thus far, the rocket fire from the Palestinians has killed five
>>> Israelis in five years. (An IDF figure, fwiw.) The IDF has, by its
>>> own numbers, managed to kill 13 in collateral damage in the past 5-6
>>> wereks.
>>
>>Again, because the extra eight deaths were due to the Pallie terrorists
>>using them as human shields, knowing full well that they would be killed
>>along with themselves.
>
> No -- the eight "extra deaths" (strange term, that) are not within the
> thirteen count. Those 8 were deliberately left out.
Whatever. They were human shields, no matter how many were killed.
>
>>> Now -- do the Math. What's the outcome of that process going to be?
>>
>>More Palestinan deaths. Which the Palestinians seem to thrive on.
>
> And more Israeli deaths, which they seem to find endlessly worthwhile
> as a rationale for the inevitable outcome, which is:
>
>>> War without End.
>>
>>No, there is a possible end. I've stated that already.
>
> This is not a place where Abject Surrender is taken lightly, nor is it
> a place where the lex talionis blood debt is surrendered without some
> cooperation.
IF only! The Palestinians have thus far refused to cooperate on anything.
cor
you confine them into ghettos! or ship them in trains to take long vacations
into Poland!
cor
Norma wrote:
>
> "Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:t44o92lhqt6188l8t...@4ax.com...
> > n 22 Jun 2006 20:30:12 -0700, "lein"
> > <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Maybe Israel should say "we're so sorry you decided to elect a
> > >terrorist organization to run your government who's goal is to drive us
> > >into the sea".
> >
> > I can't imagine their saying what you suggest. What they've already
> > said and done speaks far more eloquently to their purpose than that.
> >
> > They want Revenge. They intend to get it. They've said so publicly
> > and followed through thereafter.
>
> Please provide proof of this statement. If there has been a public
> statement, it isn't well known, except to those who wish to deduce/induce
> that from actions occuring. What do they want revenge for? Those who are
> dead, are dead--what revenge would change that? The goal is to stop the
> killing.
Are you playing the fool? and we are supposed to believe your ignorance?
> If you would trace the history of the Arabs/Muslims ingaging in any battle,
> you will see that they do imbed themselves amongst the innocent. Israel is
> not responsible for that.
Pesky civilians. Confine them to a Ghetto!
Select a few of them to police themselves!
Oh, wait, did that work for Mr H?
> To live as Muslim with the world view that amount
> to the phrase, "Insha'Shallah" (Allah willing) you see that they believe
> they will not be killed unless Allah allows it. That is very hard to
> counter when taught from the womb to the grave. To the Muslim dying is not
> the disaster that you or I might see it.
Christians and Jews do not think that God is all powerful?
Bwahahahahahahhahahahaha!
Is that what your rabbi taught you?
>
> For the Jew, life is what matters, but for the Muslim, the way one dies is
> the focus.
Are you stupid?
You main audience is Christian! The one that died is their main focus!
Even for the jews David and Abraham are important!
> That differences in worldview make all the difference. The Jew
> wants what can be earned and worked for, and for the Muslim, one gets what
> is provided by Allah. That is another major difference and not
> understandable to the Western mind. Today, of course, who is providing
> "for" Allah--it would seem that is a great difficulty.
No, for a Muslim earning your living is Ok. Living off interest on usury loans
and exploiting other people is not so OK.
>
> Perhaps you need to examine the religion of Islam before making so many
> sweeping generalizations.
A famous Jew said: "The straw that is in thy brother's eye, though seest;
but the beam that is in thine own eye, thou seest not! When thou
hast cast out the beam that is in thine own eye, then thou wilt see
to cast out the straw from thy brother's eye."
Norma
Ok, stick yourself in your rocker and feel self-satisfied with your
conclusions. It doesn't really matter to me. I know the people from
spending a considerable amount of time on the ground in the area. I have
read editorials from everywhere, but where is the real story--in the media
or with the real experience? I take that for myself, and you chose what you
want to do.
Just stay there until something happens, and you will be safe and secure in
your own mind, I am sure. It will not stay static forever. There is nothing
"no-brainer" unless that is what one chooses to not use their brain.
Norma
Norma
Why choose Google, when I can converse with those there? That is a silly
thing to do and why bother? Google is only the reflection of poster, many
of whom have no idea of what is the truth. Most of them really don't care
what the truth either, as long as their opinion is included in the mass of
junk.
Norma
If that is your first response, I suppose you would do that. I wouldn't
really want to do that, but whatever turns you on. Or maybe you should move
to a different location, that would at least solve "your" problem.
Don Homuth
>I agree that the whole mindset needs to change, but I still stand by what I
>said, that this whole "revenge" motivator is solely the Palestinian M.O.
Nah -- that is not the case. Discussions of Israeli "retaliation"
strikes are Revenge-based, straight up. There is seldom, if ever, an
affirmation that the targets hit are the ones that caused the initial
problem.
>> Ever actually talk with an actual Palestinian?
>
>No, I don't know any personally,
You might seek one out and discuss these things at some length. I had
two students who were Palestinian origin, and for them Everything was
about the Palestinian Struggle.
No capacity for anything other than that.
>... but I am sure there are reasonable
>Palestinians who realize that they are doomed if they continue on their
>present course. I suppose they represent whomever did NOT vote for Hamas.
Your surety is no cause for optimism. Fact is, a majority of folks
who had previous voted for the PLO (which now, strangely enough, is
looked upon almost wistfully by the US as a More Moderate force than
it was when Arafat was penned up by the IDF) voted for Hamas in the
last go-round.
Pay attention to that, because it speaks to something fundamental in
the way this whole process is unfolding.
>The fact that Hamas runs things now indicates that the reasonable
>Palestinians are sorely in the minority.
Heh! The "reasonable Palestinians" are now the folks whom we were
soundly criticizing scarce a year ago.
Funny how things change, idnit?
>Arab violence against Jews in the area occurred WAY before Irgun.
Violence generally in the area occurred Way before the Jews tried to
return in numbers. But clearly the Irgun were undertaking Terrism
against any convenient target -- including but hardly limited to both
Arabs and Pommies, btw -- in furthering their national identity before
they had an Actual Nation to discuss at all.
Continuation of the AW technique is hardly surprising. It worked
once, after all. Why not again, in a different cause?
>> Which is all very nice, but how does it change the end result of
>> Israelis merely moving onto Palestinian territory and keeping it.
>
>Because it was never Palestinian territory. In 1967, the WB was JORDAN, and
>Gaza was EGYPT. Both countries lost. It had nothing to do with "Palestine"
>becuase such a place didn't exist, just as it doesn't exist now.
Jordan walked away from it, deliberately. Egypt did likewise.
Israel took both and held them both for decades.
>israel has tried numerous times to offer up to 97% of that land for a
>Palestinian state, but the Palestinians crapped on the deal every time.
>Ever wonder why?
Why would the Palestinians willingly give up the 3% with the best
water rights?
>> Or do you find that acceptable?
>
>It's acceptable in that the land IS Israeli to do with as they please, be it
>giving it up for a Palestinian state as they've tried numerous times in the
>past, or otherwise.
So, your Solution is to have the Palestinians give up and merely
surrender.
Ever wonder why that's not likely to work? Would it work for you?
>>>>> But since the Palestinians refuse
>>>>>to do that, the Israelis have no choice but to defend themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Well, of course! That's always the language used to defend the
>>>> Revenge Cycle. But your description doesn't really describe Defense
>>>> anyway. Ahmed shoots a rocket and the response is to kill Mohammed.
>>>> And his wife and children in the bargain -- writing them off as
>>>> Collateral Damage.
>>>
>>>Well, Ahmed shouldn't use Mohammed and his family as human shields.
>>
>> Where do you get this stuff?
>
>From the news.
Which news? CBN?
Can I interest you in a Perfect Red Calf?
>>>> Thus far, the rocket fire from the Palestinians has killed five
>>>> Israelis in five years. (An IDF figure, fwiw.) The IDF has, by its
>>>> own numbers, managed to kill 13 in collateral damage in the past 5-6
>>>> wereks.
>>>
>>>Again, because the extra eight deaths were due to the Pallie terrorists
>>>using them as human shields, knowing full well that they would be killed
>>>along with themselves.
>>
>> No -- the eight "extra deaths" (strange term, that) are not within the
>> thirteen count. Those 8 were deliberately left out.
>
>Whatever. They were human shields, no matter how many were killed.
And therefore, to you, they simply don't matter.
You do comprehend that is unlikely to be acceptable to the families of
those involved.
My discussion is not about the beach incident, but more general
regardless. Those killed were not all Human Shields, and the Israelis
have not made that claim about them.
>> This is not a place where Abject Surrender is taken lightly, nor is it
>> a place where the lex talionis blood debt is surrendered without some
>> cooperation.
>
>IF only! The Palestinians have thus far refused to cooperate on anything.
What you define as cooperation they consider Abject Surrender, given
the conditions that Israel lays on them for cooperation.
lein
Lobby Dosser wrote:
> "Ben Cramer" <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:1151033412.1...@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Don Homuth wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 08:50:37 GMT, Lobby Dosser
> >>> <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >cor <c...@exchangenet.net> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Palestinian Bystanders Say Israeli Attack Missed Targets
> >>> >
> >>> >IOW, it wasn't a terrorist strike like ... well, like blowing up an
> >>> >ice cream parlor or a cafe. It was just colateral damage on a
> >>>
> >>> Yeah -- the discussion is Ever so civil:
> >>>
> >>> Aw gee, guys -- we were Trying to hit a Palestinian target out of
> >>> revenge for the Israeli target that y'all were hitting out of
> >>> revenge for our hitting a Palestinian target out of revenge for your
> >>> hitting an Israeli target out of revenge for....oh, never mind.
> >>> Know what we're saying here?
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe Israel should say "we're so sorry you decided to elect a
> >> terrorist organization to run your government who's goal is to drive
> >> us into the sea".
> >
>
> Ahh, a self outing! What's a good word for outing one's self as Mr.
> Cramer has just done? BT, Lein, any ideas?
perhaps "being cor'ed"?
lein
Don Homuth wrote:
> n 22 Jun 2006 20:30:12 -0700, "lein"
> <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Maybe Israel should say "we're so sorry you decided to elect a
> >terrorist organization to run your government who's goal is to drive us
> >into the sea".
>
> I can't imagine their saying what you suggest. What they've already
> said and done speaks far more eloquently to their purpose than that.
What they expect is the government they elected to live up to their
stated and well known goals. In this case the utter destruction of
Israel. Sort of like a U.S. politician who says "read my lips, no new
taxes".
Don Homuth
wrote:
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:c66o92hqvhk34uq0a...@4ax.com...
I merely observe what folks Do -- not what they write in editorials or
spoonfeed Murken Tursts who go there to spend time visiting relatives
or being on a kibbutz, the better to establish Solidarity with the
culture.
Their actions matter. Their words do not.
>Just stay there until something happens, and you will be safe and secure in
>your own mind, I am sure. It will not stay static forever. There is nothing
>"no-brainer" unless that is what one chooses to not use their brain.
Nice philosophical rant, from a personal slant, but content-free
otherwise.
What do I believe may happen?
Eventually, solving this will require that Both sides tire of their
mutual bloodlust. Both -- not just one.
There's a piece of me that believes our best tack would be simply to
walk away from both of them, not provide either with any Aid at all --
no military or financial aid to Israel (thereby pissing of AIPAC and
its millions in political contributions, so it's unlikely to happen)
and no humanitarian aid to the Palestinians (thereby pissing off
putative humanitarians, who feel that such things should reside
somewhere Above national policy in such matters), and wish them each
bon chance at killing each other off in droves.
If the rest of the world wishes to pick sides, that works. Who knows
-- it might Hasten The End Times that Xtian Fundies are forever going
on about. Which is another sort of Resolution in itself, and
doubtless the Fundies will be More than pleased.
Or maybe not. Never can tell which way it's going to go, can one?
If either side hits us in any way (which has happened) then hammer
them appropriately with our own armed might brought to bear.
Eventually -- no idea how soon -- both will tire of it (seems to be
the only way that Blood Feuds ever resolve historically) and will seek
a mutual accommodation on their own terms -- not ours. That's
probably for the best too. Seems to be the Only such terms each would
adhere to would be their own -- so it's for them to work out.
Since spending endless dollars and a lot of angst over the conflict
hasn't done that much good, best thing to do is let them at each other
as best they can. Maybe one will "win" out eventually, in which case,
problem solved for the nonce. Maybe neither will "win" as the term is
properly used.
Hell -- I don't know. What I do know is that War Without End doesn't
seem to have worked well over the past half century, and our policy of
constructive involvement seems inevitably to run up against the
intransigence of both sides one way or another.
Folks determined to kill each other off tend, as a rule, not to be
amenable to outside influence on the motivation. And when doing that
is preferable to survival or even prospering, maybe we just ought let
them do it.
It's probably the One Single Thing that hasn't been tried, thus far.
Who knows what the outcome might be? Would the numerically superior
adherents of Islam try to overwhelm Israel? Maybe. Would Israel use
it nukes? Perhaps. Anything is possible.
But one way or another, They will have to come to a solution, and
somewhere it might work out better to be Sooner rather than Later.
All we have to do is simply accept their actions, and let them have at
it and put an End to it on their own as best they can.
Otherwise, it's War Without End.
Amen.
Norma
But I'm nor a Murkin Turst... I have a stake in the country and may well
end up living there. So I am not so cavalier as you.
> Their actions matter. Their words do not.
>
> >Just stay there until something happens, and you will be safe and secure
in
> >your own mind, I am sure. It will not stay static forever. There is
nothing
> >"no-brainer" unless that is what one chooses to not use their brain.
>
> Nice philosophical rant, from a personal slant, but content-free
> otherwise.
Not just a philosophical rant either. I don't care if you see content or
not. As long as you feel you are safe and stay happy, just stay out of the
discussion. It is obvious that you have no reason one way of the other to
care. So your opinion is moot. Try "sharing" about something that is of
interest and maybe you will be taken seriously.
The "bloodlust" that you perceive isn't there for most Israelis, believe me
they just want to live peacefully and not be bothered with the rockets and
violence,like most good folks anywhere. They also wish to be free from the
criticism of those like you. How convenient that you can so blithely flip
off a few thoughts and in the doing insult many who are really interested.
> What do I believe may happen?
>
> Eventually, solving this will require that Both sides tire of their
> mutual bloodlust. Both -- not just one.
>
> There's a piece of me that believes our best tack would be simply to
> walk away from both of them, not provide either with any Aid at all --
> no military or financial aid to Israel (thereby pissing of AIPAC and
> its millions in political contributions, so it's unlikely to happen)
> and no humanitarian aid to the Palestinians (thereby pissing off
> putative humanitarians, who feel that such things should reside
> somewhere Above national policy in such matters), and wish them each
> bon chance at killing each other off in droves.\
That thought about no aid to either is what has been expressed many times by
me on this and other forums. Just let the natural things happen that will
happen. Do realize that you might regret that there is no interaction, if
that is your real desire, as the Israelis have talents and products that you
would sorely miss. You don't live on an island that is above the rest of
the world, we are all on the same plane and need one another. But,
whatever, you can stay clear of scolding those of us who are are involved
and care about the Middle East.
Norma
Ed
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:04:14 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I agree that the whole mindset needs to change, but I still stand by what
>>I
>>said, that this whole "revenge" motivator is solely the Palestinian M.O.
>
> Nah -- that is not the case. Discussions of Israeli "retaliation"
> strikes are Revenge-based, straight up. There is seldom, if ever, an
> affirmation that the targets hit are the ones that caused the initial
> problem.
Most of the time they DO hit the intended targets. Sometimes, not. The
Palestinians casualties are higher because the "intended targets" are so
often embedded within the general citizenry. Human shields.
I wonder how many of those shields do so willingly? My guess is, not very
many.
>
>>> Ever actually talk with an actual Palestinian?
>>
>>No, I don't know any personally,
>
> You might seek one out and discuss these things at some length. I had
> two students who were Palestinian origin, and for them Everything was
> about the Palestinian Struggle.
>
> No capacity for anything other than that.
It doesn't need to be a struggle. All they have to do is accept Israel's
right to exist. :-)
>
>>... but I am sure there are reasonable
>>Palestinians who realize that they are doomed if they continue on their
>>present course. I suppose they represent whomever did NOT vote for Hamas.
>
> Your surety is no cause for optimism. Fact is, a majority of folks
> who had previous voted for the PLO (which now, strangely enough, is
> looked upon almost wistfully by the US as a More Moderate force than
> it was when Arafat was penned up by the IDF) voted for Hamas in the
> last go-round.
Probably because of the corruption of the Palestinian Authority. Hamas
supposedly promised a better life for their people, but so far I see
absolutely nothing done to that end.
>
> Pay attention to that, because it speaks to something fundamental in
> the way this whole process is unfolding.
See above.
>
>>The fact that Hamas runs things now indicates that the reasonable
>>Palestinians are sorely in the minority.
>
> Heh! The "reasonable Palestinians" are now the folks whom we were
> soundly criticizing scarce a year ago.
>
> Funny how things change, idnit?
>
>>Arab violence against Jews in the area occurred WAY before Irgun.
>
> Violence generally in the area occurred Way before the Jews tried to
> return in numbers. But clearly the Irgun were undertaking Terrism
> against any convenient target -- including but hardly limited to both
> Arabs and Pommies, btw -- in furthering their national identity before
> they had an Actual Nation to discuss at all.
NOnsense. There was Arab violence against Jews as early as 1920. The Irgun
wasn't around for another 25 - 30 years, if I recall correctly. (Deb would
have the correct dates....)
>
> Continuation of the AW technique is hardly surprising. It worked
> once, after all. Why not again, in a different cause?
>
>>> Which is all very nice, but how does it change the end result of
>>> Israelis merely moving onto Palestinian territory and keeping it.
>>
>>Because it was never Palestinian territory. In 1967, the WB was JORDAN,
>>and
>>Gaza was EGYPT. Both countries lost. It had nothing to do with
>>"Palestine"
>>becuase such a place didn't exist, just as it doesn't exist now.
>
> Jordan walked away from it, deliberately. Egypt did likewise.
What do you suppose their motive was for doing that? Especially since
Israel was willing to hand it all back to them on a silver tray?
>
> Israel took both and held them both for decades.
OF course! Israel won the war, the land is Israeli.
The only mistake Israel made was in not annexing the land immediately, thus
making definitive borders.
>
>>israel has tried numerous times to offer up to 97% of that land for a
>>Palestinian state, but the Palestinians crapped on the deal every time.
>>Ever wonder why?
>
> Why would the Palestinians willingly give up the 3% with the best
> water rights?
Because they want not only that, but all of Isreal. Arafat's warcry: From
the sea to the river!!
>
>>> Or do you find that acceptable?
>>
>>It's acceptable in that the land IS Israeli to do with as they please, be
>>it
>>giving it up for a Palestinian state as they've tried numerous times in
>>the
>>past, or otherwise.
>
> So, your Solution is to have the Palestinians give up and merely
> surrender.
The solution would have been to take the 97% that was offered them, build a
viable state and get one with life instead of worrying about the neighbors.
>
> Ever wonder why that's not likely to work? Would it work for you?
As long as both sides mind their own business, absolutely!
>
>>>>>> But since the Palestinians refuse
>>>>>>to do that, the Israelis have no choice but to defend themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, of course! That's always the language used to defend the
>>>>> Revenge Cycle. But your description doesn't really describe Defense
>>>>> anyway. Ahmed shoots a rocket and the response is to kill Mohammed.
>>>>> And his wife and children in the bargain -- writing them off as
>>>>> Collateral Damage.
>>>>
>>>>Well, Ahmed shouldn't use Mohammed and his family as human shields.
>>>
>>> Where do you get this stuff?
>>
>>From the news.
>
> Which news? CBN?
CNN, NBC, Fox for TV. The Philadelphia Inquirer for printed news media.
>
> Can I interest you in a Perfect Red Calf?
What is that?
>
>>>>> Thus far, the rocket fire from the Palestinians has killed five
>>>>> Israelis in five years. (An IDF figure, fwiw.) The IDF has, by its
>>>>> own numbers, managed to kill 13 in collateral damage in the past 5-6
>>>>> wereks.
>>>>
>>>>Again, because the extra eight deaths were due to the Pallie terrorists
>>>>using them as human shields, knowing full well that they would be killed
>>>>along with themselves.
>>>
>>> No -- the eight "extra deaths" (strange term, that) are not within the
>>> thirteen count. Those 8 were deliberately left out.
>>
>>Whatever. They were human shields, no matter how many were killed.
>
> And therefore, to you, they simply don't matter.
No, to the Palestinian terrorists they simply don't matter.
>
> You do comprehend that is unlikely to be acceptable to the families of
> those involved.
Then why don't they do something about stopping the terrorism?
>
> My discussion is not about the beach incident, but more general
> regardless. Those killed were not all Human Shields, and the Israelis
> have not made that claim about them.
But the Palestinians have :-)
http://www.geocities.com/palestiniansarelies/HumanShields.html
http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=78521
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/plochild.html
Pictures don't lie.
>
>>> This is not a place where Abject Surrender is taken lightly, nor is it
>>> a place where the lex talionis blood debt is surrendered without some
>>> cooperation.
>>
>>IF only! The Palestinians have thus far refused to cooperate on anything.
>
> What you define as cooperation they consider Abject Surrender, given
> the conditions that Israel lays on them for cooperation.
And what you believe is Abject Surrender is the best possible deal that the
Palestinians ever were offered. They should have grabbed it while they had
the chance.
Norma
>
>
> Norma wrote:
> >
> > "Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:t44o92lhqt6188l8t...@4ax.com...
> > > n 22 Jun 2006 20:30:12 -0700, "lein"
> > > <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Maybe Israel should say "we're so sorry you decided to elect a
> > > >terrorist organization to run your government who's goal is to drive
us
> > > >into the sea".
> > >
> > > I can't imagine their saying what you suggest. What they've already
> > > said and done speaks far more eloquently to their purpose than that.
> > >
> > > They want Revenge. They intend to get it. They've said so publicly
> > > and followed through thereafter.
> >
> > Please provide proof of this statement. If there has been a public
> > statement, it isn't well known, except to those who wish to
deduce/induce
> > that from actions occuring. What do they want revenge for? Those who
are
> > dead, are dead--what revenge would change that? The goal is to stop the
> > killing.
>
>
> Are you playing the fool? and we are supposed to believe your ignorance?
Absolutely not!! My ignorance is out of many years of study about Islam
when I lived in Saudi Arabia and I was raised a Christian. I do know what I
am speaking of. The goal in Israel is to stop the killing of Israelis, if
others want to kill someone then they can go elsewhere. What sense does it
make to lob rockets into a town of innocents without provocation? At least
they could do it at the military and not at those who are going about their
lives without any intent to harm them.
Does it make sense to run into a pizzeria and blow up the people who are not
involved in any struggle with them? If so, please do point the logic in
that out to me and to others. To name all persons as legitimate targets is
as unreasonable as anything could be. If that is the kind of world you want
to see around you, than I feel very sorry for you.
>
> > If you would trace the history of the Arabs/Muslims ingaging in any
battle,
> > you will see that they do imbed themselves amongst the innocent. Israel
is
> > not responsible for that.
>
> Pesky civilians. Confine them to a Ghetto!
> Select a few of them to police themselves!
> Oh, wait, did that work for Mr H?
You are the fool in this one. Is Israel responsible if they sleep in a high
rise surrounded by innocents? If so, tell me how? Most of us in the West
wouldn't put our children in the path of harms way, and, still, where do you
see the Palestinians' children and women? Even in the war scenes in Africe,
you see the women holding infants in arms beside the snipers on roof tops.
Surely you know that Allah will determine when they will die... I would say
that is stretching the Insha'Allah principle a bit far. I would think that
Allah would want them to care more for the safety and welfare of their
children, even though they don't take caution for themselves.
>
> > To live as Muslim with the world view that amount
> > to the phrase, "Insha'Shallah" (Allah willing) you see that they believe
> > they will not be killed unless Allah allows it. That is very hard to
> > counter when taught from the womb to the grave. To the Muslim dying is
not
> > the disaster that you or I might see it.
>
> Christians and Jews do not think that God is all powerful?
> Bwahahahahahahhahahahaha!
> Is that what your rabbi taught you?
Not at all, I didn't say that they didn't. Reaching a bit, aren't you?
They do not believe that God or G-d dictates every minute of the day, as do
those who live in Shari'a based Muslim societies when all stops five time a
day for Salah and on and on. They need not make many decisions at all, if
they are constatntly observant. The day is spun around the prayer and
practice of Islam. Believe me, I know how difficult that can be to plan
when one shops for groceries and go places. It isn't much fun sitting in
the hot sun waiting for prayer time to end.
> > For the Jew, life is what matters, but for the Muslim, the way one dies
is
> > the focus.
>
> Are you stupid?
> You main audience is Christian! The one that died is their main focus!
> Even for the jews David and Abraham are important!
But the focus is in living as Jesus "lived". Abraham is "essential" to all
three religions or hadn't you noticed???? You are the one who is innocently
stupid.
To say that "even" David is important is as ridiculous as can be. You must
be crazy... Important doesn't quite do it...
>
>
> > That differences in worldview make all the difference. The Jew
> > wants what can be earned and worked for, and for the Muslim, one gets
what
> > is provided by Allah. That is another major difference and not
> > understandable to the Western mind. Today, of course, who is providing
> > "for" Allah--it would seem that is a great difficulty.
>
> No, for a Muslim earning your living is Ok. Living off interest on usury
loans
> and exploiting other people is not so OK.
Don't be ridiculous!! They live off from plenty of usury all over the rest
of the world and down right holding consumers hostage in the use of their
main resource. They don't invest much in Muslim institutions, they go to
the West and clean up big time. So get over this one...
> >
> > Perhaps you need to examine the religion of Islam before making so many
> > sweeping generalizations.
>
> A famous Jew said: "The straw that is in thy brother's eye, though seest;
> but the beam that is in thine own eye, thou seest not! When thou
> hast cast out the beam that is in thine own eye, then thou wilt see
> to cast out the straw from thy brother's eye."
And what "famous" Jew was that??? You might be surprised if you do look it
up.
You have proven yourself a limited and narrow thinker, and one who is not
so bright seeing reality.
Norma
<snip>
Don Homuth
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:6hao921pkljh2ejek...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 13:04:14 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I agree that the whole mindset needs to change, but I still stand by what
>>>I
>>>said, that this whole "revenge" motivator is solely the Palestinian M.O.
>>
>> Nah -- that is not the case. Discussions of Israeli "retaliation"
>> strikes are Revenge-based, straight up. There is seldom, if ever, an
>> affirmation that the targets hit are the ones that caused the initial
>> problem.
>
>Most of the time they DO hit the intended targets.
And everything else within the blast radius as well.
>Sometimes, not.
When that happens, your claim is that the outcome is not worth
discussing.
Wrong. It is.
>The Palestinians casualties are higher because the "intended targets" are so
>often embedded within the general citizenry. Human shields.
That's the IDF claim. But when the IAF shoots a missile at an
automobile on a street, what's the outcome to those who only Happen to
be in the vicinity, are unaware of who's in the automobile, and are
only tending to their business.
>I wonder how many of those shields do so willingly? My guess is, not very
>many.
And that matters precisely how?
The family killed standing at the market when the Hellfire hits the
Peugot in the street is every bit as dead.
Outcomes matter.
Motivations waythehellandgone less so.
>>>> Ever actually talk with an actual Palestinian?
>>>
>>>No, I don't know any personally,
>>
>> You might seek one out and discuss these things at some length. I had
>> two students who were Palestinian origin, and for them Everything was
>> about the Palestinian Struggle.
>>
>> No capacity for anything other than that.
>
>It doesn't need to be a struggle. All they have to do is accept Israel's
>right to exist. :-)
Under the Terms and Conditions that Israel lays down as a
precondition, that is. Including nabbing a bunch of land and water
rights that weren't really theirs, but which they'd like to have.
>>>... but I am sure there are reasonable
>>>Palestinians who realize that they are doomed if they continue on their
>>>present course. I suppose they represent whomever did NOT vote for Hamas.
>>
>> Your surety is no cause for optimism. Fact is, a majority of folks
>> who had previous voted for the PLO (which now, strangely enough, is
>> looked upon almost wistfully by the US as a More Moderate force than
>> it was when Arafat was penned up by the IDF) voted for Hamas in the
>> last go-round.
>
>Probably because of the corruption of the Palestinian Authority. Hamas
>supposedly promised a better life for their people, but so far I see
>absolutely nothing done to that end.
Once western aid was withdrawn, why would you even Expect such a
thing?
>> Violence generally in the area occurred Way before the Jews tried to
>> return in numbers. But clearly the Irgun were undertaking Terrism
>> against any convenient target -- including but hardly limited to both
>> Arabs and Pommies, btw -- in furthering their national identity before
>> they had an Actual Nation to discuss at all.
>
>NOnsense. There was Arab violence against Jews as early as 1920. The Irgun
>wasn't around for another 25 - 30 years, if I recall correctly. (Deb would
>have the correct dates....)
There was Jewish violence against Arabs at about the same time. The
precursor to the Irgun was the Haganah, composed of individuals who
had fought with the Pommies in WW1, and which met the Arab riots with
their own violence. It was founded in 1920.
The Irgun derived from a split in the Haganah in 1931, and it was an
underground army formally called Irgun Zvai Le'umi. (NB: You did Not
recall correctly - by at least two decades.)
AFter the murder of a Jewish leader allegedly by other Jews in a
political infight, the Irgun embarked on an activist role, including
the mass illegal immigration of Jews to Eretz Israel in an attempt to
swell the numbers in Palestine. It loaded and escorted ships, and on
arrival dispersed the passengers throughout Palestine.
In 1939, the Irgun then initiated Terrist attacks against the British
and Arab populations, including what would now be described as Terrist
Bombings, which on 6/2 killed 5 and injured many Arabs, after which
the group undertook guerilla activities against telephone junctions,
railroads, electric infrastructure, etc.
The Irgun split in 1940 after another infight over political
leadership.
When WW2 broke out, the Irgun suspended its own operations, which it
described as "offensive" in a leaflet which included:
To avoid disrupting the course of the war against Germany, and in
order to invest maximum effort in assisting Great Britain and its
allies, the Irgun Zvai Le'umi has decided to suspend all offensive
activities in Palestine which could cause harm to the British
government and in any way be of assistance to the greatest enemy the
Jewish people has ever known - German Nazism.
But in 1940, the split within the Irgun became permanent, and
thereafter became two groups -- Irgun Zvai Le'umi Be'yisrael (aka the
Stern Gang, which later took the name Lohamei Herut Yisrael) and Irgun
Zvai Le'umi Be'eretz Yisrael. Folks who assert that the Irgun did not
exist prior to 1940 tend, mistakenly, to start to date it from there,
or from post-WW2. Clearly they were Wrong in that.
During WW2, the Irgun cooperated with the British, and put together
guerilla raids within what is now Iraq, including Baghdad and Fallujah
(Which may have something to do with some of the hostility still felt
in those areas, one might suppose) after indigenous Iraqis threw out
the British occupation. But a German fighter hit the vehicle carrying
the Irgun commander, and thereafter the Irgun was confused, leaderless
and not operationally competent for the most part.
If you'd care to educate yourself on the matter, the information is
out there, and Google is your Friend. Have at it.
>> Jordan walked away from it, deliberately. Egypt did likewise.
>
>What do you suppose their motive was for doing that? Especially since
>Israel was willing to hand it all back to them on a silver tray?
Was it now?
The motive doesn't really matter, does it? The fact on the ground is
that they Did do it.
>> Israel took both and held them both for decades.
>
>OF course! Israel won the war, the land is Israeli.
>
>The only mistake Israel made was in not annexing the land immediately, thus
>making definitive borders.
So you'd side with the Eretz Israel group?
Explains much.
>> Why would the Palestinians willingly give up the 3% with the best
>> water rights?
>
>Because they want not only that, but all of Isreal. Arafat's warcry: From
>the sea to the river!!
Why would the Palestinians willingly give up the 3% with the best
water rights. Why would the Israelis insist on keeping the 3% with
the best water rights?
>> So, your Solution is to have the Palestinians give up and merely
>> surrender.
>
>The solution would have been to take the 97% that was offered them, build a
>viable state and get one with life instead of worrying about the neighbors.
>
>>
>> Ever wonder why that's not likely to work? Would it work for you?
>
>As long as both sides mind their own business, absolutely!
So, what we have here is Israel setting the terms for its cooperation,
which will necessarily include the Palestinians giving up on theirs.
You don't seek Peace -- you seek Surrender. You don't seek
Cooperation -- you seek Capitulation.
You and I are both aware that without the water on the West Bank, the
land isn't worth much. With it, an economy can exist. Without it,
one can't.
When you get your tongue from out of your cheek, at least admit that.
>> My discussion is not about the beach incident, but more general
>> regardless. Those killed were not all Human Shields, and the Israelis
>> have not made that claim about them.
>
>But the Palestinians have :-)
>
>http://www.geocities.com/palestiniansarelies/HumanShields.html
The site is not a Palestinian admission of anything.
>http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=78521
the site is an Israeli site.
>
>http://www.israelnewsagency.com/plochild.html
As is that.
>Pictures don't lie.
Interpretations of pictures surely do, viz Colin Powell's
interpretations before the UNSC inter alia.
>> What you define as cooperation they consider Abject Surrender, given
>> the conditions that Israel lays on them for cooperation.
>
>And what you believe is Abject Surrender is the best possible deal that the
>Palestinians ever were offered. They should have grabbed it while they had
>the chance.
If the best deal equates to abject surrender, why would they take it
at all?
You have leave to go refresh your Memory on other things.
Bill Shatzer
> "Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:im0o925gcvf0q5d01...@4ax.com...
-snip-
>>Which position works equally for the Israelis and the Palestinians
>>alike.
> Well, you are dead wrong about that.
> The Palestinians want to kill Israelis. It is the only reason they exist.
All Palestinians? Certainly not.
> The Israelis just want to be left alone.
Well, -some- Israelis certainly. But far from all. You might check out
the platforms of the right-wing Israel Beytenu and National Union
parties - two mention only two which have representation in the Knesset.
And the Kach Party still has a not insubstantial following in Israel.
> But since the Palestinians refuse
> to do that, the Israelis have no choice but to defend themselves.
And the Palestinians feel they've no choice but to defend themselves as
well.
War without end.
> It's the
> same thing that any other country would do.
In 1939, Germany might have advanced the same claim - having
successfully seized Poland they would have been happy to call off the
entire war thing.
But those damn Brits and Frenchies just wouldn't accept the status quo
and make nice, so Germany had to defend itself - just as any country
would do.
Peace and justice,
Ed
"Bill Shatzer" <bshat...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MvqdnaQMKf8FzgHZ...@comcast.com...
> Ed wrote:
>
>> "Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:im0o925gcvf0q5d01...@4ax.com...
>
> -snip-
>
>>>Which position works equally for the Israelis and the Palestinians
>>>alike.
>
>> Well, you are dead wrong about that.
>
>> The Palestinians want to kill Israelis. It is the only reason they
>> exist.
>
> All Palestinians? Certainly not.
The vast majority, though. Otherwise I don't see how Hamas could have won
any election.
>
>> The Israelis just want to be left alone.
>
> Well, -some- Israelis certainly. But far from all. You might check out
> the platforms of the right-wing Israel Beytenu and National Union
> parties - two mention only two which have representation in the Knesset.
That is frustration, I'm sure. I know that if MY next door neighbor kept
throwing fire bombs through my picture window for no other reason than me
being me, I would want to obliterate him.
>
> And the Kach Party still has a not insubstantial following in Israel.
>
>> But since the Palestinians refuse to do that, the Israelis have no choice
>> but to defend themselves.
>
> And the Palestinians feel they've no choice but to defend themselves as
> well.
Only thing is that since day one the Palestinians have been on the
offensive, not defense.
Ed
Just shows the barbarity of Islamofascists, that's all.
>
> The family killed standing at the market when the Hellfire hits the
> Peugot in the street is every bit as dead.
>
> Outcomes matter.
>
> Motivations waythehellandgone less so.
But somehow the eighty year old grandma shopping at that same market when
the Hamas suicide bomber sets off his bomb... that doesn't matter?
>
>>>>> Ever actually talk with an actual Palestinian?
>>>>
>>>>No, I don't know any personally,
>>>
>>> You might seek one out and discuss these things at some length. I had
>>> two students who were Palestinian origin, and for them Everything was
>>> about the Palestinian Struggle.
>>>
>>> No capacity for anything other than that.
>>
>>It doesn't need to be a struggle. All they have to do is accept Israel's
>>right to exist. :-)
>
> Under the Terms and Conditions that Israel lays down as a
> precondition, that is. Including nabbing a bunch of land and water
> rights that weren't really theirs, but which they'd like to have.
Well, the land IS theirs since they won it from Jordan and Egypt in '67 and,
as you said, those countries walked away from it.
What conditions do you suppose the Palestinians would accept? Please be
assured, that those terms and conditions of which you speak MUST include the
security of Israelis. Seems to me that THIS is the terms that the
Palestinians can't accept.
>
>>>>... but I am sure there are reasonable
>>>>Palestinians who realize that they are doomed if they continue on their
>>>>present course. I suppose they represent whomever did NOT vote for
>>>>Hamas.
>>>
>>> Your surety is no cause for optimism. Fact is, a majority of folks
>>> who had previous voted for the PLO (which now, strangely enough, is
>>> looked upon almost wistfully by the US as a More Moderate force than
>>> it was when Arafat was penned up by the IDF) voted for Hamas in the
>>> last go-round.
>>
>>Probably because of the corruption of the Palestinian Authority. Hamas
>>supposedly promised a better life for their people, but so far I see
>>absolutely nothing done to that end.
>
> Once western aid was withdrawn, why would you even Expect such a
> thing?
The aid was withdrawn from Hamas, not from other agencies supposedly acting
for the Palestinians. Hell, there are tons of charities in the Arabic world
that are supposed to be sending money to Palestinians, including to Hamas.
Where is that money going?
>
>>> Violence generally in the area occurred Way before the Jews tried to
>>> return in numbers. But clearly the Irgun were undertaking Terrism
>>> against any convenient target -- including but hardly limited to both
>>> Arabs and Pommies, btw -- in furthering their national identity before
>>> they had an Actual Nation to discuss at all.
>>
>>NOnsense. There was Arab violence against Jews as early as 1920. The
>>Irgun
>>wasn't around for another 25 - 30 years, if I recall correctly. (Deb
>>would
>>have the correct dates....)
>
> There was Jewish violence against Arabs at about the same time. The
> precursor to the Irgun was the Haganah, composed of individuals who
> had fought with the Pommies in WW1, and which met the Arab riots with
> their own violence. It was founded in 1920.
Ummmm yes. The Arab riots. Who started THAT?
Dodging the point, huh?
>>> Israel took both and held them both for decades.
>>
>>OF course! Israel won the war, the land is Israeli.
>>
>>The only mistake Israel made was in not annexing the land immediately,
>>thus
>>making definitive borders.
>
> So you'd side with the Eretz Israel group?
>
> Explains much.
It would certainly give the Palestinians a choice... either live as law
abiding Israelis, or go back to their homelands of Jordan and Egypt.
And, oh, by the way, if the Palestinians are so wonderful, why did Jordan
kick so many of them out in 1970? Ever hear of "Black September?"
>
>>> Why would the Palestinians willingly give up the 3% with the best
>>> water rights?
>>
>>Because they want not only that, but all of Isreal. Arafat's warcry:
>>From
>>the sea to the river!!
>
> Why would the Palestinians willingly give up the 3% with the best
> water rights. Why would the Israelis insist on keeping the 3% with
> the best water rights?
All the water was Israeli. They get to pick which 3% to keep and which 97%
(which could be developed) to the Palestinians.
>
>>> So, your Solution is to have the Palestinians give up and merely
>>> surrender.
>>
>>The solution would have been to take the 97% that was offered them, build
>>a
>>viable state and get one with life instead of worrying about the
>>neighbors.
>>
>>>
>>> Ever wonder why that's not likely to work? Would it work for you?
>>
>>As long as both sides mind their own business, absolutely!
>
> So, what we have here is Israel setting the terms for its cooperation,
> which will necessarily include the Palestinians giving up on theirs.
NO, all it would require is the Palestinians giving up the idea of pushing
all the Jews into the sea, and spend their time and energy developing their
own society.
>
> You don't seek Peace -- you seek Surrender. You don't seek
> Cooperation -- you seek Capitulation.
Ah, that must explain all that aid that Israel has been shoveling over to
the Palestinians to help form their state. YEah, that makes sense...
>
> You and I are both aware that without the water on the West Bank, the
> land isn't worth much. With it, an economy can exist. Without it,
> one can't.
The Palestinians were given the means to develope that. Instead, they
squandered all of that money on finding ways to kill Jews.
>
> When you get your tongue from out of your cheek, at least admit that.
>>> My discussion is not about the beach incident, but more general
>>> regardless. Those killed were not all Human Shields, and the Israelis
>>> have not made that claim about them.
>>
>>But the Palestinians have :-)
>>
>>http://www.geocities.com/palestiniansarelies/HumanShields.html
>
> The site is not a Palestinian admission of anything.
>
>>http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=78521
>
> the site is an Israeli site.
>>
>>http://www.israelnewsagency.com/plochild.html
>
> As is that.
>
>>Pictures don't lie.
>
> Interpretations of pictures surely do, viz Colin Powell's
> interpretations before the UNSC inter alia.
Yes, figures you would say that. Who cares what the source was. It
establishes the fact that Palestinians use children as human shields,
whether they admit it or not.
>
>>> What you define as cooperation they consider Abject Surrender, given
>>> the conditions that Israel lays on them for cooperation.
>>
>>And what you believe is Abject Surrender is the best possible deal that
>>the
>>Palestinians ever were offered. They should have grabbed it while they
>>had
>>the chance.
>
> If the best deal equates to abject surrender, why would they take it
> at all?
So they can have a state. Isn't that what all the fuss is about?
Don Homuth
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:keio92l035ba1vko3...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:43:31 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>The Palestinians casualties are higher because the "intended targets" are
>>>so
>>>often embedded within the general citizenry. Human shields.
>>
>> That's the IDF claim. But when the IAF shoots a missile at an
>> automobile on a street, what's the outcome to those who only Happen to
>> be in the vicinity, are unaware of who's in the automobile, and are
>> only tending to their business.
>>
>>>I wonder how many of those shields do so willingly? My guess is, not very
>>>many.
>>
>> And that matters precisely how?
>
>Just shows the barbarity of Islamofascists, that's all.
How is blowing someone apart with a Hellfire less Barbarous than
blowing someone apart with a vest bomb?
Describe it from an Outcome frame of reference.
>> The family killed standing at the market when the Hellfire hits the
>> Peugot in the street is every bit as dead.
>>
>> Outcomes matter.
>>
>> Motivations waythehellandgone less so.
>
>But somehow the eighty year old grandma shopping at that same market when
>the Hamas suicide bomber sets off his bomb... that doesn't matter?
The insight you ought to gain is that it matters Precisely The Same.
The one is not Better than the other. It may be more Personal, but
that's the lovely part of automated combat -- it removes the Personal
element from the one taking the action.
Wrong frame of reference.
Better frame is from the objects of either exercise, and when you do
that you will find that the barbarism is precisely the same, save that
as a general rule the automated machines kill rather more.
>>>It doesn't need to be a struggle. All they have to do is accept Israel's
>>>right to exist. :-)
>>
>> Under the Terms and Conditions that Israel lays down as a
>> precondition, that is. Including nabbing a bunch of land and water
>> rights that weren't really theirs, but which they'd like to have.
>
>Well, the land IS theirs since they won it from Jordan and Egypt in '67 and,
>as you said, those countries walked away from it.
They didn't give it to Israel.
>What conditions do you suppose the Palestinians would accept? Please be
>assured, that those terms and conditions of which you speak MUST include the
>security of Israelis. Seems to me that THIS is the terms that the
>Palestinians can't accept.
Conditions must be agreed to mutually. If both sides set out a set of
"conditions" that the other side Cannot meet, then there have been no
discussions -- only a Theatrical Performance for the voters back home.
which is what has happened.
Each gets to use the intransigence of the other as its reason for
setting out a hard line position.
>>> Hamas
>>>supposedly promised a better life for their people, but so far I see
>>>absolutely nothing done to that end.
>>
>> Once western aid was withdrawn, why would you even Expect such a
>> thing?
>
>The aid was withdrawn from Hamas, not from other agencies supposedly acting
>for the Palestinians.
You might check here for the US Formal action on point, but rest
assured it has been going on informally for some months:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/23/AR2006062300985.html
> Hell, there are tons of charities in the Arabic world
>that are supposed to be sending money to Palestinians, including to Hamas.
>Where is that money going?
Ask them, if you need to know. Their money; their charity.
>>>> Violence generally in the area occurred Way before the Jews tried to
>>>> return in numbers. But clearly the Irgun were undertaking Terrism
>>>> against any convenient target -- including but hardly limited to both
>>>> Arabs and Pommies, btw -- in furthering their national identity before
>>>> they had an Actual Nation to discuss at all.
>>>
>>>NOnsense. There was Arab violence against Jews as early as 1920. The
>>>Irgun
>>>wasn't around for another 25 - 30 years, if I recall correctly. (Deb
>>>would
>>>have the correct dates....)
>>
>> There was Jewish violence against Arabs at about the same time. The
>> precursor to the Irgun was the Haganah, composed of individuals who
>> had fought with the Pommies in WW1, and which met the Arab riots with
>> their own violence. It was founded in 1920.
>
>Ummmm yes. The Arab riots. Who started THAT?
Oh, the Arabs did. But it was hardly the first violence -- only the
first organized on such a scale.
Still and all, that's indicative of the lex talionis mindset -- once
started, the vengeance goes on essentially forever. You fit right
into the pattern.
Tell me -- do You think that the present stance ought to be based on
something that happened nigh unto 90 years ago?
You'd be an Excellent Middle Easterner with that mindset.
>>>> Jordan walked away from it, deliberately. Egypt did likewise.
>>>
>>>What do you suppose their motive was for doing that? Especially since
>>>Israel was willing to hand it all back to them on a silver tray?
>>
>> Was it now?
>>
>> The motive doesn't really matter, does it? The fact on the ground is
>> that they Did do it.
>
>Dodging the point, huh?
There is no Point to dodge. The motivation of Egypt and Jordan is
singularly unimportant. What really Is important is what's happened
since. I'd say that trying to dredge up the motivations of
non-players is what's dodging the important point here.
Once again, though, it's that same-old Blame Game that goes on in the
Middle East amongst all the players. Doesn't seem to matter who.
Discuss one incident, and someone points to an earlier one as
justification for it, then someone discusses an earlier one, und so
weiter ad nauseam. It just plays on forever, with each succeeding
generation adding its own outrage to the mix, and is the main reason
why folks can't ever get to what's important. They *all* keep
endlessly replaying past incidents as though they happened last week!
It's wholly human, entirely understandable, and completely Bogus as a
way to order national affairs. The dead are just dead. Let them Be
dead and concentrate on the living instead.
But when the living would rather concentrate on the dead, the recipe
for War Without End continues. And it takes two to make it work.
Always has.
>>>The only mistake Israel made was in not annexing the land immediately,
>>>thus
>>>making definitive borders.
>>
>> So you'd side with the Eretz Israel group?
>>
>> Explains much.
>
>It would certainly give the Palestinians a choice... either live as law
>abiding Israelis, or go back to their homelands of Jordan and Egypt.
The Israelis don't want them, won't take them, and refuse anything of
the sort. They know how to read a demographic projection.
There were no "homelands" in Jordan or Egypt.
>And, oh, by the way, if the Palestinians are so wonderful, why did Jordan
>kick so many of them out in 1970? Ever hear of "Black September?"
* No one has claimed that the Palestinians are Wonderful in this
discussion. Don't even try that ploy -- you'll be called on it.
* Jordan kicked them out because the Palestinians started to work
against the Jordanians. Understandably. Though the number of folks
they "kicked out" was small, and included mosly Arafat's ruling
council and few others.
* Yes.
>> Why would the Palestinians willingly give up the 3% with the best
>> water rights. Why would the Israelis insist on keeping the 3% with
>> the best water rights?
>
>All the water was Israeli. They get to pick which 3% to keep and which 97%
>(which could be developed) to the Palestinians.
No -- the Israeli's merely *claimed* all (most actually) of the water
rights. But it was not Israeli initially.
>> So, what we have here is Israel setting the terms for its cooperation,
>> which will necessarily include the Palestinians giving up on theirs.
>
>NO, all it would require is the Palestinians giving up the idea of pushing
>all the Jews into the sea, and spend their time and energy developing their
>own society.
Sorry -- but there are a whole Raft of conditions the Israelis have
laid onto that discussion, of which yours is but one. Revisit the
discussion.
>> You don't seek Peace -- you seek Surrender. You don't seek
>> Cooperation -- you seek Capitulation.
>
>Ah, that must explain all that aid that Israel has been shoveling over to
>the Palestinians to help form their state. YEah, that makes sense...
That "aid" is taxes administered by the Israelis, but is the
Palestinian's own money in the first place.
>> You and I are both aware that without the water on the West Bank, the
>> land isn't worth much. With it, an economy can exist. Without it,
>> one can't.
>
>The Palestinians were given the means to develope that. Instead, they
>squandered all of that money on finding ways to kill Jews.
The "means to develop" land that didn't include water rights?
Surely you are joking here.
>>>Pictures don't lie.
>>
>> Interpretations of pictures surely do, viz Colin Powell's
>> interpretations before the UNSC inter alia.
>
>Yes, figures you would say that. Who cares what the source was. It
>establishes the fact that Palestinians use children as human shields,
>whether they admit it or not.
It establishes only that it is the claim that they do -- not the Fact
that they do.
>> If the best deal equates to abject surrender, why would they take it
>> at all?
>
>So they can have a state. Isn't that what all the fuss is about?
A "state" is more than a land area. That's what the fuss is about.
Ed
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:04:23 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:keio92l035ba1vko3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:43:31 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>The Palestinians casualties are higher because the "intended targets"
>>>>are
>>>>so
>>>>often embedded within the general citizenry. Human shields.
>>>
>>> That's the IDF claim. But when the IAF shoots a missile at an
>>> automobile on a street, what's the outcome to those who only Happen to
>>> be in the vicinity, are unaware of who's in the automobile, and are
>>> only tending to their business.
>>>
>>>>I wonder how many of those shields do so willingly? My guess is, not
>>>>very
>>>>many.
>>>
>>> And that matters precisely how?
>>
>>Just shows the barbarity of Islamofascists, that's all.
>
> How is blowing someone apart with a Hellfire less Barbarous than
> blowing someone apart with a vest bomb?
What came first, the chicken or the egg?
No one has the answer to that one. However, since Arab violence against
Jews predates Jewish violence against Arabs, the difference is quite clear.
>
> Describe it from an Outcome frame of reference.
More violence. That's not the point.
>
>>> The family killed standing at the market when the Hellfire hits the
>>> Peugot in the street is every bit as dead.
>>>
>>> Outcomes matter.
>>>
>>> Motivations waythehellandgone less so.
>>
>>But somehow the eighty year old grandma shopping at that same market when
>>the Hamas suicide bomber sets off his bomb... that doesn't matter?
>
> The insight you ought to gain is that it matters Precisely The Same.
> The one is not Better than the other. It may be more Personal, but
> that's the lovely part of automated combat -- it removes the Personal
> element from the one taking the action.
>
> Wrong frame of reference.
>
> Better frame is from the objects of either exercise, and when you do
> that you will find that the barbarism is precisely the same, save that
> as a general rule the automated machines kill rather more.
How about the frame of international law?
Israel, a legitimate, sovereign nation according to the UN, was fully
prepared to accept the terms of the partition of Palestine, and was willing
to settle with far less than what they have today. Because the Arabs never
accepted the terms, which, I remind you, is INTERNATIONAL law, of which the
Arabs are NOT above, Israel ended up getting more.
Israel would have been much smaller if not for Arab stubbornness and
stupidity. If the Arabs had accepted the partition of Palestine as it was
back in 1920 or so, there would be no "endless war" today.
So..... there is your source of violence. Quite plain and simple.
>
>>>>It doesn't need to be a struggle. All they have to do is accept
>>>>Israel's
>>>>right to exist. :-)
>>>
>>> Under the Terms and Conditions that Israel lays down as a
>>> precondition, that is. Including nabbing a bunch of land and water
>>> rights that weren't really theirs, but which they'd like to have.
>>
>>Well, the land IS theirs since they won it from Jordan and Egypt in '67
>>and,
>>as you said, those countries walked away from it.
>
> They didn't give it to Israel.
No, they LOST it to Israel.
>
>>What conditions do you suppose the Palestinians would accept? Please be
>>assured, that those terms and conditions of which you speak MUST include
>>the
>>security of Israelis. Seems to me that THIS is the terms that the
>>Palestinians can't accept.
>
> Conditions must be agreed to mutually. If both sides set out a set of
> "conditions" that the other side Cannot meet, then there have been no
> discussions -- only a Theatrical Performance for the voters back home.
>
> which is what has happened.
Well, apparently, the ONE condition which the Israelis would accept, that
is, their security, was in danger from whatever conditions the Palestinians
set.
Palestinians want the "good water." If Israelis give the Palestinians the
area that contains the "good water", it would result in a serious compromise
of Israeli security. If the Palestinians give the Israelis security, then
they don't get the "good water."
Seems to me that security trumps out the water, since the water can be
obtained from other sources.
>
> Each gets to use the intransigence of the other as its reason for
> setting out a hard line position.
>
>>>> Hamas
>>>>supposedly promised a better life for their people, but so far I see
>>>>absolutely nothing done to that end.
>>>
>>> Once western aid was withdrawn, why would you even Expect such a
>>> thing?
>>
>>The aid was withdrawn from Hamas, not from other agencies supposedly
>>acting
>>for the Palestinians.
>
> You might check here for the US Formal action on point, but rest
> assured it has been going on informally for some months:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/23/AR2006062300985.html
>
>> Hell, there are tons of charities in the Arabic world
>>that are supposed to be sending money to Palestinians, including to Hamas.
>>Where is that money going?
>
> Ask them, if you need to know. Their money; their charity.
It's blatantly obvious that it isn't going to the Palestinians, at least not
in a way that would improve their lives.
Then shouldn't the Palestinians do what they need to do to create a viable
state next to Israel, if they can't be Israelis?
>
> There were no "homelands" in Jordan or Egypt.
????? What are you saying here, that the Palestinians who lived on the West
Bank, which was part of Jordan up to 1967, can not call Jordan their homes?
Why in the world would that be?
<snipped... becuase it's getting too long ....>
Norma
Don Homuth wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:04:23 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:keio92l035ba1vko3...@4ax.com...
> something that happened nigh unto 90 years ago?
<snip>>
> You'd be an Excellent Middle Easterner with that mindset.
But you must see that as one of the big difference in the whole
fiasco. The Palestinians are focusing on what has happened all that
tine ago, and want to change that for the future generations, no matter
what the cost it to the present one. Living now is "not" their focus
at all. It is to "regain" the land for the future generations, that
which many of them acknowledge they gave up too freely.
Even those young generations of Palestinians in Jordan who have never
been near the lands that were given up, call them their "own country".
To not have moved on is illogical in all respects, and so they have
made no progress in most ways. They have no intent of moving on
either. How can this be dealt with in that case? It defies all logic,
so what to do???
<snp>
.
>
> There were no "homelands" in Jordan or Egypt.
There is no homeland in all of Arabia, if you are honest about it.
They are hated and looked down upon by their Muslim "brothers" more
than by anyone else.
<snip<
> * Jordan kicked them out because the Palestinians started to work
> against the Jordanians. Understandably. Though the number of folks
> they "kicked out" was small, and included mosly Arafat's ruling
> council and few others.
Does this give you a clue to how they function? It is always in the
negative and always as those who wish to overthrow. They are not ever
going to completely "settle" anywhere. They will not be
satisfied--ever!! Those who would do well are outnumbered greatly.
Ask the Arab around them, and that is the first thing they will
identify about their Palestinian brothers. They will not help be
independent enough to help themselves. Hamas will not see that they
will get or will be allowed to keep anything.
> No -- the Israeli's merely *claimed* all (most actually) of the water
> rights. But it was not Israeli initially.
>
> >> So, what we have here is Israel setting the terms for its cooperation,
> >> which will necessarily include the Palestinians giving up on theirs.
> >
> >NO, all it would require is the Palestinians giving up the idea of pushing
> >all the Jews into the sea, and spend their time and energy developing their
> >own society.
>
> Sorry -- but there are a whole Raft of conditions the Israelis have
> laid onto that discussion, of which yours is but one. Revisit the
> discussion.
But you can't deny that is the number one condition issued from Hamas.
It is the one major area that has to be addressed.
> >Ah, that must explain all that aid that Israel has been shoveling over to
> >the Palestinians to help form their state. YEah, that makes sense...
>
> That "aid" is taxes administered by the Israelis, but is the
> Palestinian's own money in the first place.
Yes, it is the VAT,etc, but it is kept in the Israeli banks for a
reason--to earn interest and get greater yield. There are none of
those benefits in a Muslim bank, and they don't trust the other Arab
countries to keep their resources secure. The money will be turned
over in the event of recognition of Israel and the attempt, no mattier
how "feeble", to negotiateis made. Even a gesture has been
satisfactory in the past, but there is no current appreciation of the
attempts that were made in the past.
It is the ultimate standoff it would seem.
> >> You and I are both aware that without the water on the West Bank, the
> >> land isn't worth much. With it, an economy can exist. Without it,
> >> one can't.
> >
> >The Palestinians were given the means to develope that. Instead, they
> >squandered all of that money on finding ways to kill Jews.
>
> The "means to develop" land that didn't include water rights?
>
> Surely you are joking here.
It does mean water rights, and that is negotiable like everything else.
> >> If the best deal equates to abject surrender, why would they take it
> >> at all?
> >
> >So they can have a state. Isn't that what all the fuss is about?
>
> A "state" is more than a land area. That's what the fuss is about.
Please tell us more about this... The "land" is all that is heard, but
what will happen to the land if they get it? If history proves
anything, it will be in ruins in the near future. They will not accept
help or assistance, but will not be able to make the land produce if
they don't. And who will help them? If there is no negotiation, there
can be no sucess in way, shape, or form.
Norma
Don Homuth
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:2cmo92pnqhrt3ksmv...@4ax.com...
>> How is blowing someone apart with a Hellfire less Barbarous than
>> blowing someone apart with a vest bomb?
>
>What came first, the chicken or the egg?
The egg. No question about it.
The chicken is a Much later evolutionary development.
>No one has the answer to that one.
Oh, sure they do! You just aren't aware of it!
> However, since Arab violence against
>Jews predates Jewish violence against Arabs, the difference is quite clear.
No -- there is no reason to indicate that is a Fact. The specific
referent was to Arab Riots in 1920 -- but only to note the scale of
them within the overall return to Eretz Israel.
There was violence both ways previous to that as well.
>> Describe it from an Outcome frame of reference.
>
>More violence. That's not the point.
It's the point you'd prefer not to notice. But in a lex talionis
world, it is The important point, since each act is justification for
the next one seriatim.
It's that mindset that drives War Without End. So long as you or they
or anyone else prefers merely to toss of another historical reference
to past violence as justification for past or future violence, War
Without End will continue. It's just the way the lex talionis works
-- and has for thousands of years.
I didn't make that up. It's a Middle Eastern phenomenon that predates
Hammurabi.
>>>But somehow the eighty year old grandma shopping at that same market when
>>>the Hamas suicide bomber sets off his bomb... that doesn't matter?
>>
>> The insight you ought to gain is that it matters Precisely The Same.
>> The one is not Better than the other. It may be more Personal, but
>> that's the lovely part of automated combat -- it removes the Personal
>> element from the one taking the action.
>>
>> Wrong frame of reference.
>>
>> Better frame is from the objects of either exercise, and when you do
>> that you will find that the barbarism is precisely the same, save that
>> as a general rule the automated machines kill rather more.
>
>How about the frame of international law?
What international law? Be specific and cite it.
>Israel, a legitimate, sovereign nation according to the UN, was fully
>prepared to accept the terms of the partition of Palestine, and was willing
>to settle with far less than what they have today. Because the Arabs never
>accepted the terms, which, I remind you, is INTERNATIONAL law, of which the
>Arabs are NOT above, Israel ended up getting more.
The Arabs never agreed to it, and said so at the time. I am fully
prepared to agree that some sort of mutual accomodation ought to have
been made, but as to the current round of strike/counterstrike
actions, the truth is that neither of them can be justified any
longer.
Why?
Because other than for revenge, They Don't Work! Neither side stops
what it has been doing, neither is prepared to forego its Right to
Vengeance, and the stage is set for War Without End.
At this point, both sides are acting dumb. Today! Just write past
events off and look at the current situation. If what either side is
doing Now doesn't work, why will doing More of it work better?
Makes no damned sense!
And make no mistake -- Both Sides are playing the Vengeance game
equally, save that Israel has the materiel advantage. The
Palestinians try to make up for that with their version of "martyrdom"
since they can't fly a guided missile or run in a ship or tank.
>Israel would have been much smaller if not for Arab stubbornness and
>stupidity. If the Arabs had accepted the partition of Palestine as it was
>back in 1920 or so, there would be no "endless war" today.
Yes -- if the Arabs had surrendered Then, there would be no war Now.
Read what you write. Doesn't it seem idiotic to you?
Who the Hell cares what happened in 1920?
Answer: They do! They care Very much, and use it as a rationale for
ongoing War Without End. And complain that the others are the ones
responsible.
Nonsense! They both are.
>So..... there is your source of violence. Quite plain and simple.
You really ought to move to the Middle East. Clearly you have the
appropriate mindset for it, and are quite pleased to continue the
endless circle of violence for no particularly rational reason.
>>>Well, the land IS theirs since they won it from Jordan and Egypt in '67
>>>and,
>>>as you said, those countries walked away from it.
>>
>> They didn't give it to Israel.
>
>No, they LOST it to Israel.
Try to understand: In the modern world, conquest no longer means you
get to keep the territory.
>> Conditions must be agreed to mutually. If both sides set out a set of
>> "conditions" that the other side Cannot meet, then there have been no
>> discussions -- only a Theatrical Performance for the voters back home.
>>
>> which is what has happened.
>
>Well, apparently, the ONE condition which the Israelis would accept, that
>is, their security, was in danger from whatever conditions the Palestinians
>set.
Neither set conditions that would be agreeable to the other, which was
entirely by intent.
>Palestinians want the "good water." If Israelis give the Palestinians the
>area that contains the "good water", it would result in a serious compromise
>of Israeli security. If the Palestinians give the Israelis security, then
>they don't get the "good water."
Nevertheless, the water is the limiting factor in the area. Give the
Palestinians arid desert, and there's nothing there worth having.
>Seems to me that security trumps out the water, since the water can be
>obtained from other sources.
Look at a map. What other sources in Palestine are available?
Remember -- it's got to be Usable water. Saline water doesn't count.
>>> Hell, there are tons of charities in the Arabic world
>>>that are supposed to be sending money to Palestinians, including to Hamas.
>>>Where is that money going?
>>
>> Ask them, if you need to know. Their money; their charity.
>
>It's blatantly obvious that it isn't going to the Palestinians, at least not
>in a way that would improve their lives.
So the finger you wish to point now is to nations not involved in this
discussion directly?
Under what authority do you demand that another nation's charity be
directed as you prefer? Better yet, why should the Palestinians have
to rely on it anyway?
>>>It would certainly give the Palestinians a choice... either live as law
>>>abiding Israelis, or go back to their homelands of Jordan and Egypt.
>>
>> The Israelis don't want them, won't take them, and refuse anything of
>> the sort. They know how to read a demographic projection.
>
>Then shouldn't the Palestinians do what they need to do to create a viable
>state next to Israel, if they can't be Israelis?
One of the things they need to be Viable is usable water. Without it,
what do they have?
>> There were no "homelands" in Jordan or Egypt.
>
>????? What are you saying here, that the Palestinians who lived on the West
>Bank, which was part of Jordan up to 1967, can not call Jordan their homes?
No -- they cannot. They didn't live in that portion of Jordan.
>Why in the world would that be?
Their homes were located on what is now the West Bank.
Lobby Dosser
> Ever actually talk with an actual Palestinian?
Norma already handed you your ass on that one.
Lobby Dosser
Ahh, I do like that one. But I'm really looking for something along the
lines of 'defrocked'.
Lobby Dosser
> I merely observe what folks Do -- not what they write in editorials or
>
Face it, you just got your ass handed to you AGAIN! You lost $20 on the
Instant Replay!!!
Lobby Dosser
Lobby Dosser
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 11:45:32 -0500, "Norma" <njb...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:t44o92lhqt6188l8t...@4ax.com...
>>> n 22 Jun 2006 20:30:12 -0700, "lein"
>>> <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Maybe Israel should say "we're so sorry you decided to elect a
>>> >terrorist organization to run your government who's goal is to
>>> >drive us into the sea".
>>>
>>> I can't imagine their saying what you suggest. What they've already
>>> said and done speaks far more eloquently to their purpose than that.
>>>
>>> They want Revenge. They intend to get it. They've said so publicly
>>> and followed through thereafter.
>>
>>
>>Please provide proof of this statement. If there has been a public
>>statement, it isn't well known, except to those who wish to
>>deduce/induce that from actions occuring. What do they want revenge
>>for? Those who are dead, are dead--what revenge would change that?
>>The goal is to stop the killing....
>
> Google is your friend.
>
> Look up the term Retaliation with respect to any action taken in the
> area.
>
>
>
Have not seen you walk into so many ass kickings in one day! This is
bloody marvelous entertainment!
Lobby Dosser
>
> You have proven yourself a limited and narrow thinker, and one who is
> not so bright seeing reality.
>
>
I'm really enjoying this, so I shouldn't say anything. But, cor is a
resident anti-semite - once claimed that jews were to blame for their 'own
troubles' in Germany. And Homuth Knows Everything and will be the first to
tell you so in a 1000 words or more.
Anyway, thanks for the insight and the entertainment.
Lobby Dosser
>
>
> Lobby Dosser wrote:
>>
>> cor <c...@exchangenet.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Palestinian Bystanders Say Israeli Attack Missed Targets
>>
>> IOW, it wasn't a terrorist strike like ... well, like blowing up an
>> ice cream parlor or a cafe. It was just colateral damage on a missed
>> target bombing run. And the Palestinians pointed it out.
>
> 'Colateral damage'? My Ass!
> 9-11 victims were also collateral damage?
> You can make up any other euphemism for it, it is still murder and
> terrorism.
>
No, 9/11 victims were the Target. Read the statement you quoted:
Palestinian Bystanders Say Israeli Attack Missed Targets
Missed Targets, therefore collateral damage. By Definition.
Don Homuth
>
>Don Homuth wrote:
>> Tell me -- do You think that the present stance ought to be based on
>> something that happened nigh unto 90 years ago?
>
>> You'd be an Excellent Middle Easterner with that mindset.
>
>But you must see that as one of the big difference in the whole
>fiasco. The Palestinians are focusing on what has happened all that
>tine ago, and want to change that for the future generations, no matter
>what the cost it to the present one. Living now is "not" their focus
>at all. It is to "regain" the land for the future generations, that
>which many of them acknowledge they gave up too freely.
Doubtless that's true -- given what's been offered, an arid desert
with no usable water rights in exchange.
That equates to abject surrender. Can you not see that won't work?
It wouldn't work for you, would it? Why should you expect the
impossible from them?
As for the Past Time Focus, you can see right here in this discussion
Precisely that mindset being used as a rationale for continuing the
status quo. Why is it worse for the Palestinians to do that than for
Israel and its defenders?
>Even those young generations of Palestinians in Jordan who have never
>been near the lands that were given up, call them their "own country".
Just as the Jews returning to Eretz Israel called that land their own
country. Remember the song?
"This land is mine, God gave this land to me.
This brave and ancient land to me...."
Now though that derived from a mere Hollywood Movie, it is
nevertheless indicative of the Eretz Israel mindset. Prior to the
immigration through the Zionist movement, the Jews had been largely
out of the land even longer than the Palestinians have been -- yet
that was their take on it.
Why is the one better than the other? Why does one have a greater
claim to the land than the other?
God?
> To not have moved on is illogical in all respects,
When God supposedly Gives you someone else's land, occupying is it not
Logical either. It's religious, superstitious and emotional - but
it's not Logical.
But it is Easy to "move on" when where you're moving to belongs to
someone else, and you can just take it.
>... and so they have made no progress in most ways. They have no intent of moving on
>either. How can this be dealt with in that case? It defies all logic,
>so what to do???
No question on what to do. Kill each other off. That's been the
mutual accomodation each has undertaken for half a century, and it's
ongoing.
Now doing that, while noting that It Doesn't Work, for either side --
That's illogical. But both Israel and the Palestinians seem quite
determined to keep doing it withal, even in the face of that.
>> There were no "homelands" in Jordan or Egypt.
>
>There is no homeland in all of Arabia, if you are honest about it.
I am honest about it. Their family lands were on the West Bank.
>They are hated and looked down upon by their Muslim "brothers" more
>than by anyone else.
Arguable, but problematic. I've spoken with a bunch of Israelis, and
they don't carry much of an opinion about them either. Not even in
lip service.
>> * Jordan kicked them out because the Palestinians started to work
>> against the Jordanians. Understandably. Though the number of folks
>> they "kicked out" was small, and included mosly Arafat's ruling
>> council and few others.
>
>Does this give you a clue to how they function? It is always in the
>negative and always as those who wish to overthrow. They are not ever
>going to completely "settle" anywhere. They will not be
>satisfied--ever!! Those who would do well are outnumbered greatly.
In which case, the Logical take is to have Israel just nuke them, and
end it.
Care to go there?
Failing that, then either accept War Without End -- as I have been
suggesting -- or find Something Else to do that doesn't involve
endless Vengeance.
Who should make the First Move?
In such instances, the more powerful entity, for reasons that seem
quite obvious.
>Ask the Arab around them, and that is the first thing they will
>identify about their Palestinian brothers. They will not help be
>independent enough to help themselves. Hamas will not see that they
>will get or will be allowed to keep anything.
You've asked the Arabs around them, have you?
Pardon me if I find that just a Tad gratuitous.
I have. The Saudis, for example, assert this is a problem that The
West brought on itself deliberately by its actions in 1948, and it is
The West's problem to solve thereby. The Jordanians tried, but when
the Palestinians attempted to set up a Palestinian quasi-state inside
the monarchy, quite reasonably the Bedouins involved were less than
taken with that.
The Lebanese were used to their mixed secular society, and didn't
really take to having these religious interlopers forced on them
either. Which caused all Sorts of problems as well.
I find the stance of each quite reasonable. No one in The West was
offering any of them assistance with settlement of the Palestinians,
so why should They assume the responsibility for doing so?
Remember -- this is a Clan/Tribe/Family culture. They had their own
to deal with.
>> Sorry -- but there are a whole Raft of conditions the Israelis have
>> laid onto that discussion, of which yours is but one. Revisit the
>> discussion.
>
>But you can't deny that is the number one condition issued from Hamas.
> It is the one major area that has to be addressed.
It has been the Number One issue from Israel, conjoined with all the
other conditions -- many of which are unacceptable as well. The water
is, in my not the least bit humble opinion, the economic key to the
discussion. If it's kept entirely off the table, with no assurance of
being placed on it, why should the status quo be changed at all?
>> >Ah, that must explain all that aid that Israel has been shoveling over to
>> >the Palestinians to help form their state. YEah, that makes sense...
>>
>> That "aid" is taxes administered by the Israelis, but is the
>> Palestinian's own money in the first place.
>
>Yes, it is the VAT,etc, but it is kept in the Israeli banks for a
>reason--to earn interest and get greater yield. There are none of
>those benefits in a Muslim bank, and they don't trust the other Arab
>countries to keep their resources secure. The money will be turned
>over in the event of recognition of Israel and the attempt, no mattier
>how "feeble", to negotiateis made. Even a gesture has been
>satisfactory in the past, but there is no current appreciation of the
>attempts that were made in the past.
And meanwhile, the deposits can be used as Reserves by the Israeli
banks, and kept from the Palestinians in the short term.
Convenient arrangement, isn't it?
So what's really going on is that the Palestinians keep cash deposits
on a sort of Forced Loan, the promise of payment of which is sometime
in the indefinite future.
Can I get a piece of that action? You give me money, and I'll keep it
for you until I'm damned good and ready to give it back. With
interest, naturally. I'll even promise to be honorable about it.
Seem fair to you? It'd be in Your Best Interest, would it not?
Pfeh! Please -- don't even Try that argument. I know better. So do
you, ftm.
>It is the ultimate standoff it would seem.
It's a standoff. Whether or not it's Ultimate is arguable.
>> >> You and I are both aware that without the water on the West Bank, the
>> >> land isn't worth much. With it, an economy can exist. Without it,
>> >> one can't.
>> >
>> >The Palestinians were given the means to develope that. Instead, they
>> >squandered all of that money on finding ways to kill Jews.
>>
>> The "means to develop" land that didn't include water rights?
>>
>> Surely you are joking here.
>
>It does mean water rights, and that is negotiable like everything else.
Ah -- we Finally come down to something substantive. But in the
meantime, Israel gets the water, Israel decides which of the
"settlements" (previously found to be Illegal and which we didn't
approve of) will continue, which new ones will be built, where the
wall will be placed arbitrarily, and where the water will flow.
Also convenient. Nearly as good as the VAT funds, wouldn't you agree?
Give a decade or two more of that, and the outcome is quite positive
to the Israelis, and devastating back the other way.
Now mind you -- I do think the Palestinians have some concessions to
make, but I also believe the Israelis have some offers that should be
made rather more Seriously than the lip service being given to them
now.
See, so long as this impasse can be maintained, the VAT cash and the
water are controlled by the Israelis for their own benefit, and that's
just a Free Investment to play with from an economics frame of
reference.
Will they give both of those up willingly?
Remains to be seen. Hasn't been the case up to now.
>> >> If the best deal equates to abject surrender, why would they take it
>> >> at all?
>> >
>> >So they can have a state. Isn't that what all the fuss is about?
>>
>> A "state" is more than a land area. That's what the fuss is about.
>
>Please tell us more about this... The "land" is all that is heard, but
>what will happen to the land if they get it? If history proves
>anything, it will be in ruins in the near future.
So, probably really Is best for Israel to control it, because those
Palestinians would probably just mess it up anyway.
Your argument is that the Israeli control is not for the Palestinian's
benefit then, but for the sake of The Land itself?
Heh!
>They will not accept
>help or assistance, but will not be able to make the land produce if
>they don't. And who will help them? If there is no negotiation, there
>can be no sucess in way, shape, or form.
Best get prepared simply to accept it, because that's where Your
Logical Argument ends up inevitably, doesn't it?
If doing what you're already doing doesn't work, why do you Logically
assume that doing more of it Will work?
Makes no damned sense to me, surely.
As I said, War Without End.
Amen.
Ben Cramer
"Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rsmdneePKMdeZwbZ...@comcast.com...> news:1151033474....@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Ben Cramer wrote:
>>> "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:dLedncmKDq_j1wbZ...@comcast.com...>>> > news:2fem925tf3f4nu5c5...@4ax.com...
>>> >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:41:15 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> >>
>>> >>>> And always remember -- we have Airplanes, and you don't. That
>>> >>>> means
>>> >>>> We are Noble and Good, and you aren't.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> War without End, Amen.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Yep, that's exactly how the Palestinians want it.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Revenge works like that. Each act requires another.
>>> >>
>>> >> Without end.
>>> >>
>>> >> Amen.
>>> >
>>> > The solution is quite simple. All the Palestinians have to do is
>>> > acknowledge Israel's right to exist. The tit-for-tat violence would
>>> > end
>>> > faster than you can blink.
>>>
>>> If the izzies hadn't swiped their land,
>
> Well, we know it's impossible to swipe Palestinian land that Palestinians
> never owned.
The yids didn't own it, dopey. In December 1947 they only owned 7% of what
they swiped in 1948.
Don Homuth
Norma may have, but that portion of the discussion was with Ed.
Ed agreed that he had not.
My ass remains attached and my own, as previously.
Ben Cramer
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:57:20 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:2fem925tf3f4nu5c5...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:41:15 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1fol92dd4nks7jd7e...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>> And always remember -- we have Airplanes, and you don't. That means
>>>>>> We are Noble and Good, and you aren't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> War without End, Amen.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yep, that's exactly how the Palestinians want it.
>>>>
>>>> Both sides, given their actions.
>>>>
>>>> Revenge works like that. Each act requires another.
>>>>
>>>> Without end.
>>>>
>>>> Amen.
>>>
>>>The solution is quite simple. All the Palestinians have to do is
>>>acknowledge Israel's right to exist. The tit-for-tat violence would end
>>>faster than you can blink.
>>
>> world, then it must be satisfied.
>>
>> Which position works equally for the Israelis and the Palestinians
>> alike.
>
> Well, you are dead wrong about that.
>
> The Palestinians want to kill Israelis. It is the only reason they exist.
>
That's what you get for swiping land that's not yours, and continue to
occupy it and continue to persecute the original inhabitants.
The yids aren't wanted in the ME. Nor anywhere else, for that matter. Get
used to it.
>
>
Don Homuth
Lobby -- your personal need to referee a discussion with content-free
observations is noted.
Have fun.
We now return to substantive discussions.
Ben Cramer
"Norma" <njb...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:R%Tmg.1081$lc5...@fe07.lga...> news:po0o921ncr5qm6rr7...@4ax.com...
>> On 22 Jun 2006 20:30:12 -0700, "lein" <boomer_...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Maybe Israel should say "we're so sorry you decided to elect a
>> >terrorist organization to run your government who's goal is to drive us
>> >into the sea".
>>
>> I can't imagine their saying what you suggest. What they've already
>> said and done speaks far more eloquently to their purpose than that.
>>
>> They want Revenge. They intend to get it. They've said so publicly
>> and followed through thereafter.
>>
>>
>> For each, equally, that motivation trumps all others.
>>
>> War without End.
>
> Unless one side wishes to get serious and end it, it will be unending.
> However, the patience will soon wear thin, as the Palestinians are unable
> to
> live and the Islraelis refuse to tolerate the constant attacks. In this
> chaotic world, one can no longer say it will stay as it is, especially
> with
> Jordan becoming increasling involved in their own safety if the unilateral
> withdrawal creates new battle zones which will affect them, and if the
> Hezbollah situation from Syria/Lebanon continues in the North.
>
> Something will upset the equation sooner than many will think. Then what
> with the "Amen" mean? Could be destruction of everyone in the area and
> extension into the rest of the world or one clean swoop with a massive
> attack. There is really no way to predict the outcome, but there is no
> way
> it will continue as it is forever.
The yids are about to cause another world war, is what you're saying.
Ben Cramer
>>> n 22 Jun 2006 20:30:12 -0700, "lein"
>>> <boomer_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Maybe Israel should say "we're so sorry you decided to elect a
>>> >terrorist organization to run your government who's goal is to drive us
>>> >into the sea".
>>>
>>> I can't imagine their saying what you suggest. What they've already
>>> said and done speaks far more eloquently to their purpose than that.
>>>
>>> They want Revenge. They intend to get it. They've said so publicly
>>> and followed through thereafter.
>>
>>
>>statement, it isn't well known, except to those who wish to deduce/induce
>>that from actions occuring. What do they want revenge for? Those who are
>>dead, are dead--what revenge would change that? The goal is to stop the
>>killing....
>
> Google is your friend.
>
> Look up the term Retaliation with respect to any action taken in the
> area.
You're engaged in discussion with one of the most vile creatures ever to
have posted on usenet. Don't be sucked in by her grandmotherly demeanour.
She's a harpy and a harridan.
Ben Cramer
>>
>>
>> Ed wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > > War without End, Amen.
>> >
>> > Yep, that's exactly how the Palestinians want it.
>>
>> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
>
> But they could "take" it. The restraint of the past will not go on
> forever,
> as Palestinians are unable to secure daily needs and the Israelis are
> continuously hassled. So many have unestimated the lengths of toleration
> for far too long.
>
> What would you do if your neighbor continuously lobbed rockets into you
> back
> yard?
The sensible person would sit back and determine why those neighbours are
lobbing rockets into their back yards.
Don Homuth
<[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:o47o92h98m0btanln...@4ax.com...
>> Look up the term Retaliation with respect to any action taken in the
>> area.
>
>You're engaged in discussion with one of the most vile creatures ever to
>have posted on usenet. Don't be sucked in by her grandmotherly demeanour.
>She's a harpy and a harridan.
I could give a rip about Her personally.
Her words are posted here for my entertainment. So long as they
fulfill that function, it's OK.
Someone else's characterization of her personally just isn't Nearly so
entertaining. It's the vile ones that provide most of it, after all.
Ed
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:33:04 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:2cmo92pnqhrt3ksmv...@4ax.com...
>
>>> How is blowing someone apart with a Hellfire less Barbarous than
>>> blowing someone apart with a vest bomb?
>>
>>What came first, the chicken or the egg?
>
> The egg. No question about it.
How do you know that? In order for there to be an egg, doesn't there have
to be a chicken to produce one?
AND... Israel really didn't want to keep it. They kept trying to give it
back to Jordan and Egypt, and they didn't want it. Then they offered up the
land for a Palestinian state, and the Palestinians didn't want it.
Israel is stuck with the land, so they can do with it as they please.
>
>>> Conditions must be agreed to mutually. If both sides set out a set of
>>> "conditions" that the other side Cannot meet, then there have been no
>>> discussions -- only a Theatrical Performance for the voters back home.
>>>
>>> which is what has happened.
>>
>>Well, apparently, the ONE condition which the Israelis would accept, that
>>is, their security, was in danger from whatever conditions the
>>Palestinians
>>set.
>
> Neither set conditions that would be agreeable to the other, which was
> entirely by intent.
>
>>Palestinians want the "good water." If Israelis give the Palestinians the
>>area that contains the "good water", it would result in a serious
>>compromise
>>of Israeli security. If the Palestinians give the Israelis security, then
>>they don't get the "good water."
>
> Nevertheless, the water is the limiting factor in the area. Give the
> Palestinians arid desert, and there's nothing there worth having.
>
>>Seems to me that security trumps out the water, since the water can be
>>obtained from other sources.
>
> Look at a map. What other sources in Palestine are available?
> Remember -- it's got to be Usable water. Saline water doesn't count.
Nonsense, there are ways to treat saline water to make it potable.
>
>>>> Hell, there are tons of charities in the Arabic world
>>>>that are supposed to be sending money to Palestinians, including to
>>>>Hamas.
>>>>Where is that money going?
>>>
>>> Ask them, if you need to know. Their money; their charity.
>>
>>It's blatantly obvious that it isn't going to the Palestinians, at least
>>not
>>in a way that would improve their lives.
>
> So the finger you wish to point now is to nations not involved in this
> discussion directly?
No, still to the Palestinian authorities who misuse the money that is given
them, from whatever sources.
>
> Under what authority do you demand that another nation's charity be
> directed as you prefer? Better yet, why should the Palestinians have
> to rely on it anyway?
>
>>>>It would certainly give the Palestinians a choice... either live as law
>>>>abiding Israelis, or go back to their homelands of Jordan and Egypt.
>>>
>>> The Israelis don't want them, won't take them, and refuse anything of
>>> the sort. They know how to read a demographic projection.
>>
>>Then shouldn't the Palestinians do what they need to do to create a viable
>>state next to Israel, if they can't be Israelis?
>
> One of the things they need to be Viable is usable water. Without it,
> what do they have?
See above.
>
>>> There were no "homelands" in Jordan or Egypt.
>>
>>????? What are you saying here, that the Palestinians who lived on the
>>West
>>Bank, which was part of Jordan up to 1967, can not call Jordan their
>>homes?
>
> No -- they cannot. They didn't live in that portion of Jordan.
>
>>Why in the world would that be?
>
> Their homes were located on what is now the West Bank.
Which, before they decided to call themselves "Palestinians" was in JORDAN.
Look, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this. You seem like a
nice guy, but your sense of the history of the region is quite a bit skewed.
Try the following for answers:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/
And for an interesting insight to the Islamic mind, try this: (and
remember, Palestinians are Moslems, after all :-)
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
And I recommend this one as well: "All is never quite what it seems" :-)
http://www.honestreporting.com/
Lobby Dosser
Lobby Dosser
You don't have discussion, substantive or otherwise. You lecture. Which
is why you never learn anything.
Lobby Dosser
IOW, she renders speechless racist twits such as you.
Bibi C'ramer
"Lobby Dosser" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:tU%mg.2233$uo.1592@trnddc07...
Not at all. 1) She's incapable of providing meaningful, objective opinion on
any single subject. 2) I'm no racist.
Don Homuth
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:kjro929jmi4dda36r...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:33:04 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:2cmo92pnqhrt3ksmv...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> How is blowing someone apart with a Hellfire less Barbarous than
>>>> blowing someone apart with a vest bomb?
>>>
>>>What came first, the chicken or the egg?
>>
>> The egg. No question about it.
>
>How do you know that? In order for there to be an egg, doesn't there have
>to be a chicken to produce one?
No -- we have archaeological evidence that eggs predate birds by a
long shot.
If you wish to deal with a Specific Egg, then obviously the chicken
came first. It would have had to.
>> Try to understand: In the modern world, conquest no longer means you
>> get to keep the territory.
>
>AND... Israel really didn't want to keep it. They kept trying to give it
>back to Jordan and Egypt, and they didn't want it. Then they offered up the
>land for a Palestinian state, and the Palestinians didn't want it.
>
>Israel is stuck with the land, so they can do with it as they please.
No -- Israel is not Stuck with it. They could give it to the
Palestinians, but first they had some of it they wished to build their
own settlements on, and now they have a wall and some water to ensure
possession of.
When it's finally nothing but arid desert, they May choose to give it
to the Palestinians, when it's worthless.
>> Look at a map. What other sources in Palestine are available?
>> Remember -- it's got to be Usable water. Saline water doesn't count.
>
>Nonsense, there are ways to treat saline water to make it potable.
Lacking a source of available cheap energy, what would those be?
Solar? Capital intensive. Oil? The WB doesn't have any. Nuclear?
Who's going to allow that?
>> So the finger you wish to point now is to nations not involved in this
>> discussion directly?
>
>No, still to the Palestinian authorities who misuse the money that is given
>them, from whatever sources.
I'd be the first to assert that Arafat took a bunch of it. No
question about it -- probably The main reason why Hamas got elected
this time around, with Yassir gone.
But if Hamas and the Palestinian Authority simply don't Have the money
this time around, how does the end result differ in any reasonable
way.
Steal it -- money is gone.
Don't provide it -- there's still no money.
End result? Figure it out on your own.
>> One of the things they need to be Viable is usable water. Without it,
>> what do they have?
>
>See above.
I say again, without usable water -- what do they have?
>> Their homes were located on what is now the West Bank.
>
>Which, before they decided to call themselves "Palestinians" was in JORDAN.
True. But as you note, the Israelis took it.
>Look, I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this. You seem like a
>nice guy, but your sense of the history of the region is quite a bit skewed.
Not in the least. I just don't buy off on all the convenient political
answers that are out there.
>Try the following for answers:
Such as those.
Both sides in this conflict are perpetuating it, each for their own
reasons. Neither is entirely to blame; neither is entirely blameless.
Each would like to portray itself and the other side that way, though.
But fact of the matter is, It's Not Working!
First rule of Holes: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Or to put it another way, when what you're doing doesn't work, don't
do more of it. Do something else instead.
Neither side is going to Win a war of attrition. That's plain enough.
It's possible a war of annihilation might work -- but problem is such
things can work both ways.
Leaving the concept of Victory decidedly uninteresting, given the
circumstance.
So thus far, everyone seems to agree that War Without End is the best
of the choices available. So they strive to perpetuate it. And blame
it on the other side.
If that's the case, then the appropriate take is to quite Blaming
others, and just get used to it.
Amen.
Don Homuth
<lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Ed may find a way. If Norma left anything.
With you cheering them on from the sidelines, without adding any
substantive comment, you may get your wish.
And I will be entertained.
Everyone will Win.
And in the Middle East, War Without End will simply continue unabated.
Amen
Norma
> On 23 Jun 2006 15:36:10 -0700, "Norma" <njb...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Don Homuth wrote:
> >> Tell me -- do You think that the present stance ought to be based on
> >> something that happened nigh unto 90 years ago?
> >
> >> You'd be an Excellent Middle Easterner with that mindset.
> >
> >But you must see that as one of the big difference in the whole
> >fiasco. The Palestinians are focusing on what has happened all that
> >tine ago, and want to change that for the future generations, no matter
> >what the cost it to the present one. Living now is "not" their focus
> >at all. It is to "regain" the land for the future generations, that
> >which many of them acknowledge they gave up too freely.
>
> Doubtless that's true -- given what's been offered, an arid desert
> with no usable water rights in exchange.
It can be negotiated and there will be water. Now what can you say to
counter that? They have not been cooperative or paying the
bill--ever--again with the expectation that it have to be "given"--just
because...
>
> That equates to abject surrender. Can you not see that won't work?
> It wouldn't work for you, would it? Why should you expect the
> impossible from them?
>
> As for the Past Time Focus, you can see right here in this discussion
> Precisely that mindset being used as a rationale for continuing the
> status quo. Why is it worse for the Palestinians to do that than for
> Israel and its defenders?
Sorry that is not MY mindset at all. So why use the words of anyone else to
answer me. I don't think that was the intent of the others, but you will
have to validate that with them. It never has been in the past.
The problem is that YOU are looking for the familiar and not looking at what
is in this present exchange.
those young generations of Palestinians in Jordan who have never
> >been near the lands that were given up, call them their "own country".
>
> Just as the Jews returning to Eretz Israel called that land their own
> country. Remember the song?
>
> "This land is mine, God gave this land to me.
> This brave and ancient land to me...."
>
> Now though that derived from a mere Hollywood Movie, it is
> nevertheless indicative of the Eretz Israel mindset. Prior to the
> immigration through the Zionist movement, the Jews had been largely
> out of the land even longer than the Palestinians have been -- yet
> that was their take on it.
The song is only a symbol of something entirely different and is essentially
a movie ploy.
The land is given by Hashem to the Israelites. You can do with that "fact"
all that you want, but it is true. Being out of the land and returning to
tend it with love and care are much different than killing everyone in sight
just to possess the land. It is the value that is placed on it rather than
ownership that is important in who occupies it. Jews have never forbidden
Palestinians or anyone else from living there. The country is formed to
tend the land and to make it prosperous and to bloom in the sight of Hashem.
It isn't a playing field like some football game. Ownership is for Hashem
and the people who care for it. Essentially it is to be an exemplary land
in the world.
> Why is the one better than the other? Why does one have a greater
> claim to the land than the other?
>
> God?
Yes, Hashem is very much the important factor, and your beliefs do not
change that. As to "who"--see my comments above. The responsibility for
the land lies with the Jews
>
> > To not have moved on is illogical in all respects,
>
> When God supposedly Gives you someone else's land, occupying is it not
> Logical either. It's religious, superstitious and emotional - but
> it's not Logical.
Think what you want about religion, but if you examine my statements above,
it is a much different thing that the possession and ownership that is
important. It wasn't someone else's when given, and it never has been.
>
> But it is Easy to "move on" when where you're moving to belongs to
> someone else, and you can just take it.
If that was true, I would agree with you. But you have flawed thinking
about all of this.
> >... and so they have made no progress in most ways. They have no intent
of moving on
> >either. How can this be dealt with in that case? It defies all logic,
> >so what to do???
>
> No question on what to do. Kill each other off. That's been the
> mutual accomodation each has undertaken for half a century, and it's
> ongoing.
And killing each other doesn't solve anything. Why do you always have to
retreat into death? Now I believe you are more Muslim than you might think.
>
> Now doing that, while noting that It Doesn't Work, for either side --
> That's illogical. But both Israel and the Palestinians seem quite
> determined to keep doing it withal, even in the face of that.
No, most Israelis, do not want to do this. They have not instigated any
violence and have only retaliated or answered direct violence.
>
> >> There were no "homelands" in Jordan or Egypt.
> >
> >There is no homeland in all of Arabia, if you are honest about it.
>
> I am honest about it. Their family lands were on the West Bank.
They were to be part of Jordan, and they were kicked out--you have already
discussed that and why it happened.
> >They are hated and looked down upon by their Muslim "brothers" more
> >than by anyone else.
>
> Arguable, but problematic. I've spoken with a bunch of Israelis, and
> they don't carry much of an opinion about them either. Not even in
> lip service.
Exactly, there isn't much talk about the Palestinians in the streets of
Isreal, it seems to flourish everywhere else, esp. on Usenet. They want to
live and be left alone and don't consider the Palestinians in their daily
life. That must be a shock to those of you who would wish that to be
different, but you would be horribly disappointed if you were to go there.
They say little more than they want to live in peace, for the Palestinians
to stop the violence. That is the usual extent of conversation. This is
opposition to the verbose posts from you and others who are trying to make
much more of it that it need be. The negative attitude is present in the
Palestinians with manifest hatred, but not in Israel.
>
> >> * Jordan kicked them out because the Palestinians started to work
> >> against the Jordanians. Understandably. Though the number of folks
> >> they "kicked out" was small, and included mosly Arafat's ruling
> >> council and few others.
> >
> >Does this give you a clue to how they function? It is always in the
> >negative and always as those who wish to overthrow. They are not ever
> >going to completely "settle" anywhere. They will not be
> >satisfied--ever!! Those who would do well are outnumbered greatly.
>
> In which case, the Logical take is to have Israel just nuke them, and
> end it.
>
> Care to go there?
It may go there whether any of us care to go or not... That is what I have
been trying to make patently clear to you.
>
> Failing that, then either accept War Without End -- as I have been
> suggesting -- or find Something Else to do that doesn't involve
> endless Vengeance.
>
> Who should make the First Move?
We will see. Or perhaps it will be who will NOT make a move. Waddya think?
>
> In such instances, the more powerful entity, for reasons that seem
> quite obvious.
>
> >Ask the Arab around them, and that is the first thing they will
> >identify about their Palestinian brothers. They will not help be
> >independent enough to help themselves. Hamas will not see that they
> >will get or will be allowed to keep anything.
>
> You've asked the Arabs around them, have you?
>
> Pardon me if I find that just a Tad gratuitous.
As a matter of fact I am familiar with the attitude of the Jordanians, the
Egyptians, the Saudis, the Lebanese,etc. I worked with people from all of
those countries and the Palestinians are regarded as "nothing ". They were
really disregarded in any way possible--to the point of my hearing a Saudi
threaten to kill a gentle Palestinian woman because she dared to brush
against his bare arm. I took him aside for disciplinary action, and his
response was,"Why, she is just a dirty Palestinian, what do you care?"
When I flew into the Amman airport to present a paper at an International
Conference the taxi driver looked at the herds of sheep in the country and
shouted, "How can we get rid of these Palestinians?" That was repeated with
some restraint in Egypt, after a very nasty comment about a Saudi in the
area. The Lebanese employees refused to sit in a room with Palestinians at
an educational conference I was giving. It had to be televised into another
room for those employees.
Now you give me your assessment of all of that. It was repeated over and
over. Palestinians are not allowed to move to Egypt, if they are married to
an Egyptian they either live in Palestine or immigrate elsewhere. Should
we continue this attitude and what it means to the lives of those people.
The Palestinians are allowed to live freely in Israel, and no matter what
you think or hear from those who would rather that not be so, it is the
truth.
>
> I have. The Saudis, for example, assert this is a problem that The
> West brought on itself deliberately by its actions in 1948, and it is
> The West's problem to solve thereby. The Jordanians tried, but when
> the Palestinians attempted to set up a Palestinian quasi-state inside
> the monarchy, quite reasonably the Bedouins involved were less than
> taken with that.
>
> The Lebanese were used to their mixed secular society, and didn't
> really take to having these religious interlopers forced on them
> either. Which caused all Sorts of problems as well.
>
> I find the stance of each quite reasonable. No one in The West was
> offering any of them assistance with settlement of the Palestinians,
> so why should They assume the responsibility for doing so?
>
> Remember -- this is a Clan/Tribe/Family culture. They had their own
> to deal with.
See my statements above, and realize that is a lived experience and not the
outline of a proposed "something" that usually doesn't work anywhere. The
Lebanese accept Christians freely and they often speak kindly of Israel, but
they do not want anything much to do with the Palestinians. They deal with
Hamas, but remember many of those people are not native Palestinians. They
are a fringe terrorist group by anyone's definition, and they haven't
changed anything since gaining control in a "mock" democratic" election,
done by people who were voting for a "change" from Fatah.
>
> >> Sorry -- but there are a whole Raft of conditions the Israelis have
> >> laid onto that discussion, of which yours is but one. Revisit the
> >> discussion.
> >
> >But you can't deny that is the number one condition issued from Hamas.
> > It is the one major area that has to be addressed.
>
> It has been the Number One issue from Israel, conjoined with all the
> other conditions -- many of which are unacceptable as well. The water
> is, in my not the least bit humble opinion, the economic key to the
> discussion. If it's kept entirely off the table, with no assurance of
> being placed on it, why should the status quo be changed at all?
Then why keep it off the table? You are "expecting" something that may not
be true?
>
> >> >Ah, that must explain all that aid that Israel has been shoveling over
to
> >> >the Palestinians to help form their state. YEah, that makes sense...
> >>
> >> That "aid" is taxes administered by the Israelis, but is the
> >> Palestinian's own money in the first place.
> >
> >Yes, it is the VAT,etc, but it is kept in the Israeli banks for a
> >reason--to earn interest and get greater yield. There are none of
> >those benefits in a Muslim bank, and they don't trust the other Arab
> >countries to keep their resources secure. The money will be turned
> >over in the event of recognition of Israel and the attempt, no mattier
> >how "feeble", to negotiateis made. Even a gesture has been
> >satisfactory in the past, but there is no current appreciation of the
> >attempts that were made in the past.
>
> And meanwhile, the deposits can be used as Reserves by the Israeli
> banks, and kept from the Palestinians in the short term.
>
> Convenient arrangement, isn't it?
Except they aren't using it, in hopes that the negotiations are possible.
Who is keeping the money away from those who should have it? The answer is
Hamas.
>
> So what's really going on is that the Palestinians keep cash deposits
> on a sort of Forced Loan, the promise of payment of which is sometime
> in the indefinite future.
>
> Can I get a piece of that action? You give me money, and I'll keep it
> for you until I'm damned good and ready to give it back. With
> interest, naturally. I'll even promise to be honorable about it.
>
> Seem fair to you? It'd be in Your Best Interest, would it not?
That is not the agreement and never has been. This has been done before and
it was ready and given when terms were met.
> Pfeh! Please -- don't even Try that argument. I know better. So do
> you, ftm.
Look to the history of the process.
>
> >It is the ultimate standoff it would seem.
>
> It's a standoff. Whether or not it's Ultimate is arguable.
>
> >> >> You and I are both aware that without the water on the West Bank,
the
> >> >> land isn't worth much. With it, an economy can exist. Without it,
> >> >> one can't.
> >> >
> >> >The Palestinians were given the means to develope that. Instead, they
> >> >squandered all of that money on finding ways to kill Jews.
> >>
> >> The "means to develop" land that didn't include water rights?
> >>
> >> Surely you are joking here.
> >
> >It does mean water rights, and that is negotiable like everything else.
>
> Ah -- we Finally come down to something substantive. But in the
> meantime, Israel gets the water, Israel decides which of the
> "settlements" (previously found to be Illegal and which we didn't
> approve of) will continue, which new ones will be built, where the
> wall will be placed arbitrarily, and where the water will flow.
There are no new settlements and haven't been for a long time.
Just keep in mind, if the unilateral withdrawal does occur, the new battle
lines will be impinging on the Palestinians and the Jordanians. That is not
the desirable soluation.. and never has been. Israel are willing to give up
more than they ever have been to have it done, but, if you are correct, then
why do it, if it won't be done? Then why not keep killing over and over
until someone pulls out the big one and it definitely is over for the
majority of one people?
> Also convenient. Nearly as good as the VAT funds, wouldn't you agree?
> Give a decade or two more of that, and the outcome is quite positive
> to the Israelis, and devastating back the other way.
You are hedging on things that you anticipate will happen. You are like the
Palestinians and aren't going to give anything a chance. Why are you so
willing to punish the Palestinians by supporting their paranoia?
>
> Now mind you -- I do think the Palestinians have some concessions to
> make, but I also believe the Israelis have some offers that should be
> made rather more Seriously than the lip service being given to them
> now.
>
> See, so long as this impasse can be maintained, the VAT cash and the
> water are controlled by the Israelis for their own benefit, and that's
> just a Free Investment to play with from an economics frame of
> reference.
They will not be using the money, so can that. That is a weak and stupid
assumption.
>
> Will they give both of those up willingly?
>
> Remains to be seen. Hasn't been the case up to now.
They gave the money over freely and immediately in the last round, and it
was forth coming until the election of Hamas. So you decide...
> >> >> If the best deal equates to abject surrender, why would they take it
> >> >> at all?
> >> >
> >> >So they can have a state. Isn't that what all the fuss is about?
> >>
> >> A "state" is more than a land area. That's what the fuss is about.
> >
> >Please tell us more about this... The "land" is all that is heard, but
> >what will happen to the land if they get it? If history proves
> >anything, it will be in ruins in the near future.
>
> So, probably really Is best for Israel to control it, because those
> Palestinians would probably just mess it up anyway.
>
> Your argument is that the Israeli control is not for the Palestinian's
> benefit then, but for the sake of The Land itself?
>
> Heh!
You have a strange and convoluted way of thinking, and it does not bode well
for you in these posts. You have gone in circles for quite some time, and
still have nothing to add.
>
> >They will not accept
> >help or assistance, but will not be able to make the land produce if
> >they don't. And who will help them? If there is no negotiation, there
> >can be no sucess in way, shape, or form.
>
> Best get prepared simply to accept it, because that's where Your
> Logical Argument ends up inevitably, doesn't it?
>
> If doing what you're already doing doesn't work, why do you Logically
> assume that doing more of it Will work?
And why do you assume it won't?
>
> Makes no damned sense to me, surely.
And that is the truest thing and most honest thing that you have stated all
day!! Toda raba, this is a find admission of doom for the Palestinians.
Norma
Norma
And you have been MOST entertaining as you have tripped all over your tongue
all day.
You are talking to the vilest of bigots from Australia, and I am sure the
two of you could be fast friends, as neither one of you want the situation
to improve for some reason. I wonder why?
Benjie is just a small and silly guy who is "hurt" by something I have
stated in the past. Poor thing. His title, per others, is Mr. Irrelevancy,
and it does seem to fit.
Norma
Norma
Yup, and Benjie doesn't like that...
Ed
Just get used to it?
Sorry, I just can't settle for that. There has to be a solution for BOTH
sides. Unfortunately, all the objective evidence firmly points to the fact
that the Palestinians clearly don't want a solution, and as long as they
have that attitude, there will always be violence. I can't "get used to
that."
Ed
Exactly, Lobby.
Norma has spent more time in Israel than anyone on this newsgroup who isn't
Israeli. She has family living there, and in fact has lost a son (or a
son-in-law) to a Palestinian bomb.
She knows. She's lived it. And THAT is what racist twits like Benji find
so hard to tolerate. The truth.
Bibi C'ramer
You bloody idiot. A) There is no hashem B) the yids pissed off and left the
land. On more than one occassion I might add, C) the stinky yids owned only
7% of the land in December 1946, D) the stinky yids swiped the land in 1948
Now split those facts up amongst you.
Bibi C'ramer
>
> "Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:qr0p92tp79qr3mu4i...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:40:39 +1000, "Ben Cramer"
>> <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >news:o47o92h98m0btanln...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> Look up the term Retaliation with respect to any action taken in the
>> >> area.
>> >
>> >You're engaged in discussion with one of the most vile creatures ever to
>> >have posted on usenet. Don't be sucked in by her grandmotherly
>> >demeanour.
>> >She's a harpy and a harridan.
>>
>> I could give a rip about Her personally.
>>
>> Her words are posted here for my entertainment. So long as they
>> fulfill that function, it's OK.
>>
>> Someone else's characterization of her personally just isn't Nearly so
>> entertaining. It's the vile ones that provide most of it, after all.
>
> And you have been MOST entertaining as you have tripped all over your
> tongue
> all day.
>
> You are talking to the vilest of bigots from Australia, and I am sure the
> two of you could be fast friends, as neither one of you want the situation
> to improve for some reason. I wonder why?
How many times do I have to tell you, alteh machashaifeh, I am no bigot.
Pointing out the lies and perfidy of the Zionazis is hardly the act of a
bigot.
I do indeed want the situation to be resolved. Again, you make with the
dishonest statements.
I am actually flying out to the ME tomorrow, for approximately 2 weeks, and
will be spending some of my spare time observing closely, what the situation
currently is. What you fail to understand, is that I see fault on both sides
of the fence, unlike your lot, who cannot, nor will not accept that the yids
are capable of any wrong.
>
> Benjie is just a small and silly guy who is "hurt" by something I have
> stated in the past.
How on earth did you come up with that delusion, you stupid old crone. I am
one of the only posters who can see right through you, to the rotten core of
you. I know you for what you really are, not what you profess to be.
>Poor thing. His title, per others, is Mr. Irrelevancy,
One other, you lying old harpy. One, despicable jew slag.
When are you ever going to be honest? Hmmmmm?
Bibi C'ramer
When have you ever rendered me speechless, hmmmmmm? You're the one who has
me killfiled due to the fact I've been able to counter each and every one of
your ridiculous, hate filled rants, with counter argument. You can't stand
being questioned. Never could by all accounts.
Now fuck off, and try to be honest. Difficult, I know, but give it a shot.
OK?
>
>
Bibi C'ramer
I spend a significant amount of time in israel myself, you dopey twat, and
am, in fact, leaving tomorrow for another two weeks there.
>
> She knows. She's lived it. And THAT is what racist twits like Benji find
> so hard to tolerate. The truth.
I see the truth on every visit, you dopey twat.
Have you ever been there? Hmmmmm?
Don Homuth
wrote:
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:eeso92l9gfnnoqi6f...@4ax.com...
>> On 23 Jun 2006 15:36:10 -0700, "Norma" <njb...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Don Homuth wrote:
>> >> Tell me -- do You think that the present stance ought to be based on
>> >> something that happened nigh unto 90 years ago?
>> >
>> >> You'd be an Excellent Middle Easterner with that mindset.
>> >
>> >But you must see that as one of the big difference in the whole
>> >fiasco. The Palestinians are focusing on what has happened all that
>> >tine ago, and want to change that for the future generations, no matter
>> >what the cost it to the present one. Living now is "not" their focus
>> >at all. It is to "regain" the land for the future generations, that
>> >which many of them acknowledge they gave up too freely.
>>
>> Doubtless that's true -- given what's been offered, an arid desert
>> with no usable water rights in exchange.
>
>It can be negotiated and there will be water.
It could, but it hasn't been. Nor is there any assurance that there
will be water either.
>Now what can you say to counter that?
I can say that if You were doing the negotiating, perhaps things might
be different. But you aren't. Your promises are empty and
content-free.
Someone might want to talk to you about conditions and timetables,
however, and expect you to be reasonable about setting them forth.
If you can do it, why can they not?
>They have not been cooperative or paying the
>bill--ever--again with the expectation that it have to be "given"--just
>because...
What "bill?" What do they have to pay a Bill with in the first place?
>> As for the Past Time Focus, you can see right here in this discussion
>> Precisely that mindset being used as a rationale for continuing the
>> status quo. Why is it worse for the Palestinians to do that than for
>> Israel and its defenders?
>
>Sorry that is not MY mindset at all.
It is that of the Israeli government, however, of which You are not a
member. We are not discussing what You might do, but what it does do.
>So why use the words of anyone else to
>answer me.
As indicative of the Lex Talionis mindset that drives the entire sad
spectacle.
> I don't think that was the intent of the others, but you will
>have to validate that with them. It never has been in the past.
All you must needs do is look at what is Done -- and ignore what is
Said by the peanut gallery in sidebar conversations here and there.
The words are without meaning or application. The actions matter.
>The problem is that YOU are looking for the familiar and not looking at what
>is in this present exchange.
I am quite On Point right across the board here, point by point.
There is a pernicious mindset in both the Israelis and the
Palestinians that continues the War Without End.
After fifty years or so of watching it, I've concluded that it's being
done quite Deliberately -- on both sides. That's what the outcome
indicates, anyway.
When folks don't really Want something to happen, they tend to ensure
that it doesn't. No one is doing that -- on either side.
>> Just as the Jews returning to Eretz Israel called that land their own
>> country. Remember the song?
>
>>
>> "This land is mine, God gave this land to me.
>> This brave and ancient land to me...."
>>
>> Now though that derived from a mere Hollywood Movie, it is
>> nevertheless indicative of the Eretz Israel mindset. Prior to the
>> immigration through the Zionist movement, the Jews had been largely
>> out of the land even longer than the Palestinians have been -- yet
>> that was their take on it.
>
>The song is only a symbol of something entirely different and is essentially
>a movie ploy.
As I said, it's indicative of a mindset. If The Lowered allegedly
Gave you land 3k or so years ago, what is the Right to claim it after
being gone for a thousand years?
If you speak with the WB settlers, that's the cant they use
inevitably. The land is theirs, because the God of Abraham gave it to
them, and they've come to reclaim it now. The song is just a familiar
repetition of the same theme. Don't overinterpret it, but likewise
don't ignore the sentiment embedded within it either.
>The land is given by Hashem to the Israelites. You can do with that "fact"
>all that you want, but it is true.
Nonsense! It *was* given millennia back, and somehow The Lowered
managed to arrange things so the Israelites ceded claim to it by doing
Something Bad and being dispersed because of that. More than once, in
fact.
Where is the Claim to possession of it now?
And the answer is, Armed Force, followed by International Law derived
from guilt after the Holocaust. But truth be told, Western Europe was
largely pleased to have them go at the time. They could become
someone else's problem elsewhere.
Which is truly a Sad Statement, but all one needs to do is read up on
the anti-Semitic stance of large portions of many nations. France was
one -- and it was an ally. Germany was the greatest offender, but so
was the Soviet Union. A friend I tutored through graduate school for
her MBA now lives in Lithuania and works with a Jewish entity there,
but on a personal level she really and truly believes in her Heart of
Hearts that Jews are not and cannot really be Lithuanians. She thinks
that they ought to go to Israel, but not because of any reason other
than it would be a sort of peaceful ethnic cleansing. But then, she
feels even more so about the Russians, whom she Hates with a passion
that transcends that sentiment.
>Being out of the land and returning to
>tend it with love and care
If I take your property and tend it with more love and care than you
do (I am an accomplished gardener, and probably could manage it) will
that justify my taking it from you?
>... are much different than killing everyone in sight
>just to possess the land.
Gardening is different from ethnic cleansing. Just no doubt about it.
Insightful observation, truly.
> It is the value that is placed on it rather than
>ownership that is important in who occupies it.
If I aver that I value your land more than you do, can I just take it
without resistance from you? I'd be willing to swear to that. Unless
you live in TX, in which case I probably wouldn't bother.
> Jews have never forbidden
>Palestinians or anyone else from living there.
Wrong. They have indeed. The whole Right of Return argument is
precisely on point on that.
> The country is formed to
>tend the land and to make it prosperous and to bloom in the sight of Hashem.
If I make up a superstition and claim it supersedes yours, can I take
your land? I promise I'll love it and care for it better than you do,
after all.
>It isn't a playing field like some football game. Ownership is for Hashem
>and the people who care for it. Essentially it is to be an exemplary land
>in the world.
So for you, it comes down to a god figure, and that trumps all else?
Well, superstitions work like that, so you may have it.
Kindly do Not in future discussions start to discuss Logic, in that
case. There is none in a discussion with superstition as its basis.
>> Why is the one better than the other? Why does one have a greater
>> claim to the land than the other?
>>
>> God?
>
>Yes, Hashem is very much the important factor, and your beliefs do not
>change that. As to "who"--see my comments above. The responsibility for
>the land lies with the Jews
Why? Because a superstition says so?
I ain't buyin it. No logical or rational person would. I will note,
however, that one superstition does not trump another, in any
reasonable sense. Nor does a superstitious belief trump the Real(tm)
World.
>> When God supposedly Gives you someone else's land, occupying is it not
>> Logical either. It's religious, superstitious and emotional - but
>> it's not Logical.
>
>Think what you want about religion, but if you examine my statements above,
>it is a much different thing that the possession and ownership that is
>important. It wasn't someone else's when given, and it never has been.
Nonsense! Read the OT on the matter. Those who owned the land were
driven out, and in some cases exterminated in what can only reasonably
be described as genocide. It's part and parcel of the history of the
superstition.
>> But it is Easy to "move on" when where you're moving to belongs to
>> someone else, and you can just take it.
>
>If that was true, I would agree with you. But you have flawed thinking
>about all of this.
Nope. I have Thinking as defined. Your superstition doesn't rise to
that level or descriptor. Your superstition merely is as you prefer
it to be. So long as Armed Might backs it, it prevails. Always has
worked that way.
That is inevitably a temporary situation, however.
>> No question on what to do. Kill each other off. That's been the
>> mutual accomodation each has undertaken for half a century, and it's
>> ongoing.
>
>And killing each other doesn't solve anything.
Sure it does! It makes part of your opposition dead. That's the
point of it.
>Why do you always have to retreat into death?
Because that's what Each Side does, when it wishes to confront the
other. I don't kill them -- They do. Deliberately, willfully, and
each in the Name of The Lowered.
> Now I believe you are more Muslim than you might think.
Your beliefs are not at issue here. I am not in the Least bit Muslim.
I describe what folks Do -- not what they Say is done in the Name of
The Lowered.
Superstition continues to kill folks off at a high rate. Always has.
Nothing different here. If the Israeli rational is based on one kind
of superstition, and the Palestinian based on a different kind, we are
then not dealing with Rationality and Thought.
We are dealing with a Religious War, straight up and down.
Used to be that Xtians went to war with Jews on a small scale, and
rather liked it when it was useful to do so. The various pogroms were
always supported by the Holy Mother Churches -- Roman and Orthodox
alike.
This merely supplants that as a rationale, with Israel having an upper
hand militarily.
The Lowered, meanwhile, sits back and takes no active part. He could
end it all in an eyeblink, yet chooses not to do so.
The Lowered has an insight you lack.
>> Now doing that, while noting that It Doesn't Work, for either side --
>> That's illogical. But both Israel and the Palestinians seem quite
>> determined to keep doing it withal, even in the face of that.
>
>No, most Israelis, do not want to do this. They have not instigated any
>violence and have only retaliated or answered direct violence.
That is just plain Nonsense, historically. They have done so, and by
their actions wish to continue to do it. The "retaliatory" strikes
aren't always aimed at those who have done them direct harm.
>> >There is no homeland in all of Arabia, if you are honest about it.
>>
>> I am honest about it. Their family lands were on the West Bank.
>
>They were to be part of Jordan, and they were kicked out--you have already
>discussed that and why it happened.
Why were they to be a part of Jordan, when their homes were on the
West Bank? Who decided they must be a part of Jordan? Them? No --
that doesn't follow. The Bedouins in Jordan? Clearly not the case.
Who made that decision for them? And why did they think they could do
so?
>> >They are hated and looked down upon by their Muslim "brothers" more
>> >than by anyone else.
>>
>> Arguable, but problematic. I've spoken with a bunch of Israelis, and
>> they don't carry much of an opinion about them either. Not even in
>> lip service.
>
>Exactly, there isn't much talk about the Palestinians in the streets of
>Isreal,
There is on the noozemeeja, clearly enough. I monitor several of them
on a regular basis.
>... it seems to flourish everywhere else, esp. on Usenet. They want to
>live and be left alone and don't consider the Palestinians in their daily
>life.
Except when the Palestinians manage to get their attention again. So
far, the Wall works OK to keep them feeling safe. The credulity given
to Fixed Fortifications over the years, however, leads one to believe
it buys time, so other things can continue.
> That must be a shock to those of you who would wish that to be
>different, but you would be horribly disappointed if you were to go there.
Not in the least.
>They say little more than they want to live in peace, for the Palestinians
>to stop the violence.
They wish to live in the Peace, the terms of which They will dictate.
They wish the Palestinians to surrender to those terms.
At least be up front enough to admit that's the Reality(tm) of the
situation.
>That is the usual extent of conversation. This is
>opposition to the verbose posts from you and others who are trying to make
>much more of it that it need be. The negative attitude is present in the
>Palestinians with manifest hatred, but not in Israel.
Sorry, but that is not my experience. In addition to the two
Palestinian students I had, I also had Jewish students whose parents
derived from the Eretz Israel movement -- the ones wanting to keep the
entire West Bank and toss everyone out because God gave them the land
and it was theirs to keep.
They were folks who praised the assassination of the Israeli Prime
Minister who didn't agree with them. They asserted that if the
Palestinians didn't leave the West Bank, they should be forcibly
removed, and killing them in the process wasn't a bad idea at all.
Those are the folks who have, for some time, held the margin in
Israeli politics, so they have more influence than their mere numbers
would indicate. But they Do exist, they Are powerful, and their
pressure was the driving force behind the attempt to build illegal
settlements on the WB by driving Palestinians off of land that had
previously been theirs.
That's History, child -- it's not religion or superstition. It's what
really happened, and what they really say, when they get all honest
about it.
Your characterization is really good PR, fostered for years by AIPAC
and others. But it's mostly unrealistic. Israel and the Israelis are
hardly as monolithic on the matter as you assert.
>> In which case, the Logical take is to have Israel just nuke them, and
>> end it.
>>
>> Care to go there?
>
>It may go there whether any of us care to go or not... That is what I have
>been trying to make patently clear to you.
Why? It's been clear enough all along that there is a substantial
population both in Israel and in the US that would like to glassify
substantial sections of the Middle East, just to prove how easily it
could be done.
In a strictly Humanitarian sense, of course.
I think of them as nutcases, pretty much across the board.
>> Who should make the First Move?
>
>We will see. Or perhaps it will be who will NOT make a move. Waddya think?
>
>>
>> In such instances, the more powerful entity, for reasons that seem
>> quite obvious.
That's the answer to your statement above. The more powerful entity
has the best opportunity to act in a humane fashion, even if it's
difficult. That's where the moral imperative resides.
>> >Ask the Arab around them, and that is the first thing they will
>> >identify about their Palestinian brothers. They will not help be
>> >independent enough to help themselves. Hamas will not see that they
>> >will get or will be allowed to keep anything.
>>
>> You've asked the Arabs around them, have you?
>>
>> Pardon me if I find that just a Tad gratuitous.
>
>As a matter of fact I am familiar with the attitude of the Jordanians, the
>Egyptians, the Saudis, the Lebanese,etc. I worked with people from all of
>those countries and the Palestinians are regarded as "nothing ".
Given their circumstance, is that so surprising? The Poor are always
regarded as Nothing, in pretty much every nation around. Being
Destitute is considered a moral failing. But they were not always so.
> They were
>really disregarded in any way possible--to the point of my hearing a Saudi
>threaten to kill a gentle Palestinian woman because she dared to brush
>against his bare arm. I took him aside for disciplinary action, and his
>response was,"Why, she is just a dirty Palestinian, what do you care?"
Saudis live in a Strange World Indeed -- being Wahhabists and all.
Think of them as the Fundies of the Middle East.
>When I flew into the Amman airport to present a paper at an International
>Conference the taxi driver looked at the herds of sheep in the country and
>shouted, "How can we get rid of these Palestinians?" That was repeated with
>some restraint in Egypt, after a very nasty comment about a Saudi in the
>area. The Lebanese employees refused to sit in a room with Palestinians at
>an educational conference I was giving. It had to be televised into another
>room for those employees.
Yeah -- that same set of utterances would, in this nation, receive
some considerable social disapproval.
>Now you give me your assessment of all of that. It was repeated over and
>over. Palestinians are not allowed to move to Egypt, if they are married to
>an Egyptian they either live in Palestine or immigrate elsewhere. Should
>we continue this attitude and what it means to the lives of those people.
They are likewise not allowed to move to Israel either. They have the
West Bank, which cannot possibly support them.
What's going to happen? They will start meditating and become
Peaceful and Gentle thereby?
Don't kid yourself. The conflict is being continued because all
parties want it to continue, since it serves their best interests to
do so.
>The Palestinians are allowed to live freely in Israel, and no matter what
>you think or hear from those who would rather that not be so, it is the
>truth.
No -- only the ones that Were there previously and stayed, provided
they behave themselves. The ones that were there and fled have no
Right of Return.
Israel can read a demographic projection reasonably well, and know
full well why they will Never allow such a thing. They'll get
outbred.
>> Remember -- this is a Clan/Tribe/Family culture. They had their own
>> to deal with.
>
>The Lebanese accept Christians freely
they should -- since a major part of their population is Christian.
No sense fromaging your own folks yet again, is there?
But there are parts of the Lebanese society that do Not as well.
>... and they often speak kindly of Israel,
They would, in your earshot. They don't always do so, however.
>... but they do not want anything much to do with the Palestinians.
They fear where events will lead the Palestinians to settle,
eventually.
>They deal with Hamas,
No fools, they! Hamas has a large following in Lebanon.
>...but remember many of those people are not native Palestinians. They
>are a fringe terrorist group by anyone's definition,
Not any more, they aren't. They now have legitimacy.
>... and they haven't changed anything
What do they have to change anything with?
>.. since gaining control in a "mock" democratic" election,
No -- the international observers on hand did not indicate anything
fraudulent about the election. No less than Dubya himself so
indicated after it happened.
They won, if not 100% Fair and Square, at least enough to get under
the bar this time around.
At which point, their ability actually to govern was removed.
>done by people who were voting for a "change" from Fatah.
Not unreasonably. They got a change. What change do you figure they
were looking for? Peace with Israel?
>> The water
>> is, in my not the least bit humble opinion, the economic key to the
>> discussion. If it's kept entirely off the table, with no assurance of
>> being placed on it, why should the status quo be changed at all?
>
>Then why keep it off the table? You are "expecting" something that may not
>be true?
The action that is Known is that the Israelis have carefully emplaced
settlements where the water can be controlled. That's a Fact. It's
been an ongoing process for several decades, and is the critical
factor in the Middle East.
Without the water, it's an arid desert, incapable of supporting
anywhere near the population it might otherwise.
You continually describe Palestinians as not caring for the land. But
they did do that. Where the land was farmable, they had olive groves,
grazed herds -- just the whole shebang. A large part of the Israeli
occupation was to bulldoze the groves, tear up the pastures and divert
water to the settlements.
Were you somehow not aware of that?
It's less noisy than Open Shooting Warfare, but it's every bit as an
arguably even More effective.
>> >Yes, it is the VAT,etc, but it is kept in the Israeli banks for a
>> >reason--to earn interest and get greater yield. There are none of
>> >those benefits in a Muslim bank, and they don't trust the other Arab
>> >countries to keep their resources secure. The money will be turned
>> >over in the event of recognition of Israel and the attempt, no mattier
>> >how "feeble", to negotiateis made. Even a gesture has been
>> >satisfactory in the past, but there is no current appreciation of the
>> >attempts that were made in the past.
>>
>> And meanwhile, the deposits can be used as Reserves by the Israeli
>> banks, and kept from the Palestinians in the short term.
>>
>> Convenient arrangement, isn't it?
>
>Except they aren't using it, in hopes that the negotiations are possible.
Do I need to explain to you how Banking works?
If the Israeli banks are earning a return, I can quite assure you that
they are indeed Using it?
>Who is keeping the money away from those who should have it? The answer is
>Hamas.
Where is the money? In Israeli banks.
Who can release it? The Israeli government.
Now explain again how it is the Palestinians "keeping the money away"
from themselves once again.
You'll see how ludicrous your argument really is.
>> >It does mean water rights, and that is negotiable like everything else.
>>
>> Ah -- we Finally come down to something substantive. But in the
>> meantime, Israel gets the water, Israel decides which of the
>> "settlements" (previously found to be Illegal and which we didn't
>> approve of) will continue, which new ones will be built, where the
>> wall will be placed arbitrarily, and where the water will flow.
>
>There are no new settlements and haven't been for a long time.
Sure there are. The ones being relocated behind the wall.
>Just keep in mind, if the unilateral withdrawal does occur, the new battle
>lines will be impinging on the Palestinians and the Jordanians. That is not
>the desirable soluation.. and never has been. Israel are willing to give up
>more than they ever have been to have it done, but, if you are correct, then
>why do it, if it won't be done? Then why not keep killing over and over
>until someone pulls out the big one and it definitely is over for the
>majority of one people?
I fully expect that, given the current policies from both sides, that
is an entirely likely outcome. War Without End augurs in that
direction, clearly, but there's no guarantee that either will Win, as
the term is correctly used.
>> Also convenient. Nearly as good as the VAT funds, wouldn't you agree?
>> Give a decade or two more of that, and the outcome is quite positive
>> to the Israelis, and devastating back the other way.
>
>You are hedging on things that you anticipate will happen.
No -- I've followed the water diversion for some time. It's not an
anticipation -- it's what is really happening.
> You are like the
>Palestinians and aren't going to give anything a chance. Why are you so
>willing to punish the Palestinians by supporting their paranoia?
I'm neither supporting nor opposing either side. I'm describing the
joint idiocy of both sets of policies, in that for the moment each
side has determined their best course of actions is to continue
killing each other off, because their culture, politics and religion
each Demand that they do so.
To give up Land from The Lowered is an act of blasphemy to those who
believe they have a Divine Right to take it and keep it.
Down that road lies War Without End, clearly.
It's not rational or logical, requires no thought. It just requires
capability and will -- and each side has some of that in spades.
Which is why resigning ourselves to it may be Our best course of
action, while simultaneously deciding not to participate further in
such foolishness.
>> See, so long as this impasse can be maintained, the VAT cash and the
>> water are controlled by the Israelis for their own benefit, and that's
>> just a Free Investment to play with from an economics frame of
>> reference.
>
>They will not be using the money, so can that. That is a weak and stupid
>assumption.
If they are garnering interest, then they are Using The Money. That
is as ironclad a law as there can be.
>They gave the money over freely and immediately in the last round, and it
>was forth coming until the election of Hamas. So you decide...
They decided to keep the money that wasn't theirs. In most places,
we'd call that Stealing. Their rationale doesn't matter -- their
action does.
I have no need to decide. They do. Their decision is not terribly
wise that I can see. It's the Palestinians' money -- not theirs.
>You have a strange and convoluted way of thinking,
I have a way of observing Actions, and disregarding Public Relations
statements, from whatever the source./
>... and it does not bode well for you in these posts.
It need not. I am not in danger here. Neither the Palestinians nor
the Israelis threaten me or mine.
> You have gone in circles for quite some time, and
>still have nothing to add.
I have consistently noted the application of the same observations and
principles to the Actions being taken in the Middle East. There is
nothing particularly circular in those discussions. They are about as
objective as is possible. I just don't buy into the superstitious
argument that there is a Divine Hand in all of this.
Others may do that. Some do, and then they complain about a Lack of
Logic in such an illogical and irrational belief set.
It's quite odd.
>> If doing what you're already doing doesn't work, why do you Logically
>> assume that doing more of it Will work?
>
>And why do you assume it won't?
Fifty years of practice.
>> Makes no damned sense to me, surely.
>
>And that is the truest thing and most honest thing that you have stated all
>day!! Toda raba, this is a find admission of doom for the Palestinians.
Doom is remarkably even-handed, and Winning is subject to all sorts of
conditions that are unexpected.
I didn't make that up. It's the way the Universe works.
Don Homuth
>Just get used to it?
Better than spending more money, time and lives on it. If two groups
of folks want to kill each other off, and the best of assistance won't
stop them, maybe it's just time to stand back and let them do it.
>Sorry, I just can't settle for that.
Oh, sure you can! Folks have been settling for that for fifty years,
and are fully prepared to continue.
>There has to be a solution for BOTH sides.
One would think so and hope so, but it seems not to be the case in any
operational sense. The two sides are talking -- again -- for the
moment. Will something come of it? Maybe. Never can tell.
No one is holding out much Hope in the meantime.
>Unfortunately, all the objective evidence firmly points to the fact
>that the Palestinians clearly don't want a solution,
And the objective evidence, from Norma anyway, is that the Israeli
occupation is divinely inspired -- which is not Objective in the
larger sense on its own.
>... and as long as they
>have that attitude, there will always be violence. I can't "get used to
>that."
Better try.
When the discussion starts with the observation "I can take and keep
your land because God said so," then it's unreasonable and illogical
to assume that much positive will occur thereafter.
Ed
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:52:35 -0400, "Ed" <nes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Just get used to it?
>
> Better than spending more money, time and lives on it. If two groups
> of folks want to kill each other off, and the best of assistance won't
> stop them, maybe it's just time to stand back and let them do it.
>
>>Sorry, I just can't settle for that.
>
> Oh, sure you can! Folks have been settling for that for fifty years,
> and are fully prepared to continue.
>
>>There has to be a solution for BOTH sides.
>
> One would think so and hope so, but it seems not to be the case in any
> operational sense. The two sides are talking -- again -- for the
> moment. Will something come of it? Maybe. Never can tell.
>
> No one is holding out much Hope in the meantime.
>
>>Unfortunately, all the objective evidence firmly points to the fact
>>that the Palestinians clearly don't want a solution,
>
> And the objective evidence, from Norma anyway, is that the Israeli
> occupation is divinely inspired -- which is not Objective in the
> larger sense on its own.
>
>>... and as long as they
>>have that attitude, there will always be violence. I can't "get used to
>>that."
>
> Better try.
Sorry, I just can't accept that. God help those who do.
Don Homuth
wrote:
>
>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:qr0p92tp79qr3mu4i...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:40:39 +1000, "Ben Cramer"
>> <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >news:o47o92h98m0btanln...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> Look up the term Retaliation with respect to any action taken in the
>> >> area.
>> >
>> >You're engaged in discussion with one of the most vile creatures ever to
>> >have posted on usenet. Don't be sucked in by her grandmotherly demeanour.
>> >She's a harpy and a harridan.
>>
>> I could give a rip about Her personally.
>>
>> Her words are posted here for my entertainment. So long as they
>> fulfill that function, it's OK.
>>
>> Someone else's characterization of her personally just isn't Nearly so
>> entertaining. It's the vile ones that provide most of it, after all.
>
>And you have been MOST entertaining as you have tripped all over your tongue
>all day.
Hardly. I started off with an objective look at actions - while you
retreated to an argument based on mere superstition. I have remained
in my position consistently, and based it on observable actions. You
have, in the process, started to invoke a Divine Hand.
Given the two, I'd opine that I haven't tripped on anything at all.
>You are talking to the vilest of bigots from Australia,
I am addressing a set of words on a screen. I have told that
individual that I could give a rip about who you are, and I can now
tell you that I could likewise give a rip about who he is.
The entertainment comes by seeing you each describe the other in the
same terms.
>... and I am sure the two of you could be fast friends,
I am friends with many folks of differing religions, politics,
philosophies, nationalities -- the whole shebang.
But I wouldn't judge too quickly which I might or might not choose on
my own behalf. I'm reasonably picky about such stuff. I tend not to
approve of bigotry, even when based on Divine Insight or mere economic
status.
>... as neither one of you want the situation
>to improve for some reason. I wonder why?
I'd like it to, because it would remove a considerable source of
Bother which is long overdue for removal. But after watching the
situation unfold for five decades or thereabouts, I've reached some
conclusions about why I have concluded that it most likely won't.
The reasons derive in part from the superstitions, in part from the
economics of it and in part from the overall bullheadedness of those
who are trapped by their own rhetoric.
I further conclude that each side rather Likes killing off the other.
If they didn't, they wouldn't be quite so eager to strike and
counterstrike as they do.
Other than a sort of arms-length curiosity about it, I'm personally
largely indifferent.
>Benjie is just a small and silly guy who is "hurt" by something I have
>stated in the past. Poor thing. His title, per others, is Mr. Irrelevancy,
>and it does seem to fit.
All I see it words on the screen. Nothing else.
Your identification of someone you don't like has no particular
credence, one way or another. Neither does his -- as I have noted.
Don Homuth
It will improve your mental health. But if you can't, then just get
used to it. You are not in charge of what's happening.
>God help those who do.
God is supposedly helping each side to continue the conflict.
Each superstition appears to be driving a major portion of it.
"In God We Trust"
"Gott mit Uns"
Everybody claims God.
Bibi C'ramer
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:48:13 -0500, "Norma" <njb...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:eeso92l9gfnnoqi6f...@4ax.com...
>>> On 23 Jun 2006 15:36:10 -0700, "Norma" <njb...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Don Homuth wrote:
>>> >> Tell me -- do You think that the present stance ought to be based on
>>> >> something that happened nigh unto 90 years ago?
>>> >
>>> >> You'd be an Excellent Middle Easterner with that mindset.
>>> >
>>> >But you must see that as one of the big difference in the whole
>>> >fiasco. The Palestinians are focusing on what has happened all that
>>> >tine ago, and want to change that for the future generations, no matter
>>> >what the cost it to the present one. Living now is "not" their focus
>>> >at all. It is to "regain" the land for the future generations, that
>>> >which many of them acknowledge they gave up too freely.
>>>
>>> Doubtless that's true -- given what's been offered, an arid desert
>>> with no usable water rights in exchange.
>>
>>It can be negotiated and there will be water.
>
> It could, but it hasn't been. Nor is there any assurance that there
> will be water either.
Ask her what the izzies did to the water supplies in Gaza before they were
made to leave.
The yids love to tell us that the Palestinians destroyed greenhouses in
Gaza, but fail to tell us that the Palestinians were pretty pissed off
because the yids totally destroyed the reticulated water supply feeding the
greenhouses.
Greenhouses without water, are pretty useless in that country.
Lobby Dosser
>
> And the objective evidence, from Norma anyway, is that the Israeli
> occupation is divinely inspired -- which is not Objective in the
> larger sense on its own.
No need to make up shit just because she handed you your ass.
Lobby Dosser
Homuth can. If it doesn't Directly affect him Right Now, he can accept
anything.
Bibi C'ramer
struck the nail very firmly on the head with this particular post.
As a direct result of your refusal to acquiesce to her way of thought, you
are about to be labelled a liar, a jew-hater, an anti-semite, a denier, all
the above, or some other quite meaningless ticket.
She turns on the hate very quickly subsequent to responses such as yours.
None dare disagree with the mighty norma, or they will face the wrath of the
old harpy.
Jolly good work. Keep it up.
Ben
"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ji6p92d0khm2c7phe...@4ax.com...
Lobby Dosser
> Your promises are empty and
> content-free.
>
And your ass is getting handed to you every time you respond. Hope BT is
watching this.
Lobby Dosser
> With you cheering them on from the sidelines, without adding any
> substantive comment, you may get your wish.
Substantive content? What the hell would you know about substantive
content?
Don Homuth
So can you, wrt the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It doesn't affect
you. You will accept whatever happens as beyond your control.
And just live with it.
Lobby Dosser
>
> "Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:qr0p92tp79qr3mu4i...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:40:39 +1000, "Ben Cramer"
>> <[remove]bencr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Don Homuth" <dhom...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> >news:o47o92h98m0btanln...@4ax.com...
>>
>> >> Look up the term Retaliation with respect to any action taken in
>> >> the area.
>> >
>> >You're engaged in discussion with one of the most vile creatures
>> >ever to have posted on usenet. Don't be sucked in by her
>> >grandmotherly demeanour. She's a harpy and a harridan.
>>
>> I could give a rip about Her personally.
>>
>> Her words are posted here for my entertainment. So long as they
>> fulfill that function, it's OK.
>>
>> Someone else's characterization of her personally just isn't Nearly
>> so entertaining. It's the vile ones that provide most of it, after
>> all.
>
> And you have been MOST entertaining as you have tripped all over your
> tongue all day.
Thank you again. It has been a most welcome and enlightening interlude.
>
> You are talking to the vilest of bigots from Australia,
I think we all figured that out pretty quick.
> and I am sure
> the two of you could be fast friends, as neither one of you want the
> situation to improve for some reason. I wonder why?
Homuth just doesn't care - about anything or anyone. If it doesn't
directly affect him in the here and now, it has no meaning for him at
all.
Don Homuth
She's the one who indicated a personal belief in the divine hand in
the Israeli occupation of the West Bank.
At this point, you're merely emoting to no particular effect, because
you have nothing substantive to offer.
Don Homuth
<yall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ask her what the izzies did to the water supplies in Gaza before they were
>made to leave.
I will ask her nothing.
Fight your own battles.