List of the steps taken by Palestinians toward Peace

[Ody]

? What?

We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem.

• in front of an Arab audience in Stockholm, 1996 [1]

 

[Booko]

what does lebanon have to gain by attacking israel? nothing! what does israel have to gain by attacking lebanon? land that they have wanted to get their claws in for a long time now, and this is no secret.

Please forgive me if this is a quibble, but it isn't Lebanon that's attacking Israel, but Hezbollah, isn't it?

I was under the impression that many if not most of the Lebanese are not too keen on escalating anything with Israel. I can't imagine they'd like to return to the state of things in Lebanon in the 80s.

 

[almifkhar]

you know i could buy the arguement that hesbollah (which is not lebanon) attacked israel first, but i find a bit of a problem with this.
back in feb. of this year, israel and hesbollah started it up again a few missles fired on both sides.
the one that makes me really wonder about israel was when they killed that shephard boy on lebanese soil, then got busted for the crime because they drug him over the border and said look world he was on our turf and we were justified. it was the first time in a long time that the u.n. actually did their job and investagted and proved that israel is dirty. the boy by the way was unarmed and this was also verified by the u.n.

so it begs the question, if israel could get busted doing something like this, what would they do to gain all the land they desire?

another thing, hesbollah claims they didn't send any missles into israel. i got this news from yahoonews.

lets not forget, israel does lay claim to south lebanon just the same as they lay claim to golan heights, gaza, w.bank, and e.jerusalem.

they have the same m.o. that they did with gaza, and have commited the same crimes. countries worldwide along with the u.n. has publically stated that israel is wrong.

i will say it again, they have their spies all over the middleeast and any other time seem to find who they are looking for to kill or jail, but all of a sudden they can't find who they are looking for along with their low ranking military grunts? i smell a rat!

they are nothing but war criminals period. you don't go and blow up universities, public works buildings, airports, bridges, a counties oil supplies, etc. and think for one minunte i will have sympathy for someone who does things like this which does nothing but harm the innocent. if what israel says is true, then why attack an entire country when they have trainned assassinations and spies all over the place to quietly do their bidding for them?

 

[kiwimac]

Fact of the matter is that both sides have done things which are unacceptable. The question for now is to find ways that palestinians and jews can live together. This kind of thing cannot be imposed from above but must come from the people themselves.

Kiwimac

 

[greatcalgarian]

We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. . . . We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem.

• in front of an Arab audience in Stockholm, 1996 [1]

This is not what the thread ask for? It is stating the opposite? Or are you implying that eliminating the state of Israel is a step towards middle east peace

 

[greatcalgarian]

they have the same m.o. that they did with gaza, and have commited the same crimes. countries worldwide along with the u.n. has publically stated that israel is wrong.

Frubals to you for your elaboration of some facts. However in this current world, what the west (or shall I say) the US says go. So if US says that Israel is right and has done nothing wrong, then Israel could not have been wrong in all her doing? Right?

 

[nutshell]

This is not what the thread ask for? It is stating the opposite? Or are you implying that eliminating the state of Israel is a step towards middle east peace

He's quoting an anti-semetic...it's not his personal opinion.

 

[nutshell]

As to the question: What does Lebanon/Hesbollah possible gain from this?

They place Israel in a difficult situation. Basically they have 2 choices

1. Do nothing. This may give the impression that such attacks are tolerable, which is not true.

2. Defend self. This is what Lebanon/Hesbollah wants Israel to do because it makes Israel look like the big bad bully and increases sympathy for the Palestinian cause.

So, as you see, there is a lot to gain by attacking Israel.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...Or are you implying that eliminating the state of Israel is a step towards middle east peace

You obviously did not click the link. That line came from a speech by Yasser Arafat.

Fact of the matter is that both sides have done things which are unacceptable. The question for now is to find ways that palestinians and jews can live together. This kind of thing cannot be imposed from above but must come from the people themselves.

Very sad, yet very true.

I think the threads from each side of this debate are a bit ridiculous in that they portray their side as innocent victims and the other side as the only boogeyman.

 

[Ody]

This is not what the thread ask for? It is stating the opposite? Or are you implying that eliminating the state of Israel is a step towards middle east peace

No, I just wanted to show how much of a man commited to peace Arafat was. I find it funny of all things to die from, HIV!

 

[greatcalgarian]

I think the threads from each side of this debate are a bit ridiculous in that they portray their side as innocent victims and the other side as the only boogeyman.

I did not click the link, bad GC.

Anyway, to take ridiculous stand is the way to win a debate. That appears to be the normal practice in this forum. Not stating facts and arguing out the points, but seek emotion by reitering the extreme. Good observation on your part. Frubals to you.

 

[Ody]

I did not click the link, bad GC.

Anyway, to take ridiculous stand is the way to win a debate. That appears to be the normal practice in this forum. Not stating facts and arguing out the points, but seek emotion by reitering the extreme. Good observation on your part. Frubals to you.

I love how you sit on a high horse with such grammar!

It's HILARIOUS!

 

[kai]

what are the political asperations or goals of Hezbollah

 

[greatcalgarian]

Now I went in to read the Washington Post, and I think if readers just read that type of propaganda work painting a reasonably great leader of the Palestinian to be a complete lunatic terrorist, that is not very fair. Below is from Wikipedia, and is a more reasonable article:

Yasser Arafat (Arabic: ياسر عرفات&#8206 (August 4, 1929 or August 24, 1929 – November 11, 2004), born Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini (محمد عبد الرؤوف القدوة الحسين&#1610 and also known by the kunya Abu `Ammar (أبو عمّا&#1585, was Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) (1969–2004); President1 of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) (1993–2004); and a co-recipient of the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize alongside Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, for the successful negotiations of the 1993 Oslo Accords. Arafat, however, was a controversial and polarizing figure throughout his lengthy career. While his supporters viewed him as a heroic freedom fighter who symbolized the national aspirations of the Palestinian people, his opponents often described him as an unrepentant terrorist with a long legacy of promoting violence. Still others, on the Palestinian side, accused him of being a deeply corrupt politician or a weak leader who made too many concessions to the Israeli government during the 1993 Oslo Accords. However, Arafat has been widely recognized through-out the world for his leading of the Fatah, which he founded in 1957, to the 1993 recognition of Israel and the signature of the Oslo Accords. Scholars will long debate if he helped the people he sought to represent and lead toward self-actualization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat

But I doubt any anti-Palestinian guy ever read wikipedia.

 

[Ody]

The organization views an Islamic republic, on the Iranian model, as the ideal and eventual form of state. However, as their conception of an Islamic republic requires the consent of the people, and since Lebanon remains a religiously and ideologically heterogeneous society, their political platform revolves around more mundane issues. According to their published political platform in 2003, Hezbollah claims to favor the introduction of an Islamic government in Lebanon by peaceful democratic means.
Hezbollah supports the destruction of the state of Israel[59] and co-operates with other militant Islamic organizations such as Hamas in order to promote this goal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Ideology

 

[greatcalgarian]

I love how you sit on a high horse with such grammar!

It's HILARIOUS!

So glad I can be of entertainment value to you. Happy that you enjoy reading my postings.

 

[Ody]

No

But I doubt any anti-Palestinian guy ever read wikipedia.

Did I ever say I was against a creation of a state for the palestinian people?
I hope you grow up and stop putting words in my mouth, I hope thats not too much to ask of you

 

[Ody]

Now I went in to read the Washington Post, and I think if readers just read that type of propaganda work painting a reasonably great leader of the Palestinian to be a complete lunatic terrorist, that is not very fair. Below is from Wikipedia, and is a more reasonable article:

I used


WIKIQUOTE!

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yasser_Arafat

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

I did not click the link, bad GC.

Anyway, to take ridiculous stand is the way to win a debate. That appears to be the normal practice in this forum. Not stating facts and arguing out the points, but seek emotion by reitering the extreme. Good observation on your part. Frubals to you.

True that it's overused. But it's no way to win a debate. That would involve getting the other side to concede a point, or see things from your view, or (if you're very good) agree with you.

What you're talking about is a good way to end a debate, by making the other side so angry they won't debate anymore. Easier that way, I suppose.

Both sides (not in the debate, I mean, in the actual conflict) have done the wrong things. It seems a little silly to argue whose atrocities are worse. It's not as though you can add them up and cancel them out until whoever has the most is the bad guy. I don't know. I'm beginning to get scared that no one wants peace enough anymore.

 

[kai]

in my opinion there will be no peace, the world has changed considerably now and the likes of Hezbollah , do not want peace, if the lebanese were at peace with all that entails there would be no need of Hezbollah, Organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas feed off fear and keeping Israel an enemy supplies that fear. all these organizations wherever they are need Israel and the west to be an enemy for them to exist. peace is an illusion until people realise that these organizations are like nothing we have ever dealt with before, they have Islam as a binding thread that ties them to the populations of the middle east, add to this the monotonous onslaught of anti semitic and anti west propaganda and we have a problem that is far greater than most people imagine.