V
vern_humphrey
Guest
First of all, how do you know that to be true?
Seconly, what do you conclude from it?
- Status
Seconly, what do you conclude from it?
I
IsaacSheen
Guest
Well, ever heard of a city called Dearborn in MI? I lived most of my life there. It brings you in touch with people from the middle east. That being said, most of them, many of them good friends of mine HATED Israel and HATED Jews.
I never took much notice because it just wasn’t on my radar. I was naive. Then I read the book “Salvation is From the Jews”. Along with various (name removed by moderator)ut, some credible some probably not over the course of my life…it is almost not possible to deny they want the Jews gone and they want all Israeli territory.
What do I conclude from that? I don’t know. How can I conclude anything? Can you?
I never took much notice because it just wasn’t on my radar. I was naive. Then I read the book “Salvation is From the Jews”. Along with various (name removed by moderator)ut, some credible some probably not over the course of my life…it is almost not possible to deny they want the Jews gone and they want all Israeli territory.
What do I conclude from that? I don’t know. How can I conclude anything? Can you?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Did you ever hear of a city called Lake Charles, in Louisiana? I grew up there – it had a large Catholic population and was segregated. Many of the people there hated Blacks – and those who would’t admit to hatred thought them inferior and “dirty.”
I suggest that there is no consensus on what the Palestinians want or will accept.
Do they look on the Jews as European colonists? Yes.
Do they think the state of Israel was constructed at their expense? Yes.
Both those attitudes contribute to the animosity they hold toward Israel. But does that mean there can be no peace? And if there can’t, then what?
I
IsaacSheen
Guest
vern humphrey:
vern:
Vern:
As for peace, I don’t know. It is nice to strive for it, obviously the Israelis are. How can I say this? Think about all the times the Israelis flexed a little military might…they could invade most of the countries around them, they could’ve taken Arafat out anytime they wanted. They even surrounded his base at one point. All out of self defense, for an end to the suicide bombers.
All the Israelis want is their state. And now, they are even giving up land that is basically theirs. If you don’t believe it is theirs, look into the 1967 war and pull out the facts. Any other country would laugh at the Palenstinians and say “your fault” because of the war. Israel is saying, “ok, let’s try to establish peace despite the past” and is giving the land up anyways.
You are comparing Apples to Oranges. Dearborn has a huge population of middle eastern people. Middle Eastern meaning Arabs, most of which are Muslim. What does hating blacks have to do with the Muslim/Arab Israeli conflict?
Need evidence.
The “animosity” (which is really hatred) was there before any of this happened. I suggest you read the book I mentioned in my last post.
As for peace, I don’t know. It is nice to strive for it, obviously the Israelis are. How can I say this? Think about all the times the Israelis flexed a little military might…they could invade most of the countries around them, they could’ve taken Arafat out anytime they wanted. They even surrounded his base at one point. All out of self defense, for an end to the suicide bombers.
All the Israelis want is their state. And now, they are even giving up land that is basically theirs. If you don’t believe it is theirs, look into the 1967 war and pull out the facts. Any other country would laugh at the Palenstinians and say “your fault” because of the war. Israel is saying, “ok, let’s try to establish peace despite the past” and is giving the land up anyways.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Hatred is hatred. The fact that SOME Catholics hated Blacks (and that many other considered them inferior or dirty) doesn’t mean ALL Catholics hate Blacks, or that those Catholic who did were not able eventually to see the error of their ways.
In other words, what you saw in Dearborne and I saw in Lake Charles isn’t really a good example of what Muslims or Catholics think.
The rule is, the burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim – if YOU say that the Palestinians will only be satisfied by dismantling Israel, YOU have to offer the proof.
I will – but there are a lot of books out there, and for every one that says it’s all the Palestinians’ fault, I can find one that says it’s all the Israelis’, one that says it’s the United States’ fault, one that says it’s no one’s fault.
I suggest that if we want peace, we have to find a solution that satisfies both parties – and writing either party off at this point would be irresponsible.
I
IsaacSheen
Guest
This is a lost cause. Even when I agreed with you on things in this thread, you retorted my agreement just to argue with me. Whenever I offer evidence , you discount it and approach it as not being valid. Many times you had valid points. Ultimately though, we will find out what is really going on over there after Israel hands some or all of that land over. We’ll see if the suicide bombings remain. We’ll see if the Palestinians will remain hostile towards Israel. I promise you, if peace is established, my mind will think back and say “wow, he was right…nicely done Vern”. But, you know what I think right now…
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I’m not sure I understand you.This is a lost cause. Even when I agreed with you on things in this thread, you retorted my agreement just to argue with me. Whenever I offer evidence , you discount it and approach it as not being valid. Many times you had valid points. Ultimately though, we will find out what is really going on over there after Israel hands some or all of that land over. We’ll see if the suicide bombings remain. We’ll see if the Palestinians will remain hostile towards Israel. I promise you, if peace is established, my mind will think back and say “wow, he was right…nicely done Vern”. But, you know what I think right now…
People with fixed viewpoints often offer a book as** the** book. There are dozens, perhaps thousands of books about the Israeli-Palestinian issue. They’re all over the map when it comes to causes, solutions, and opinions.
It seems clear, however, that there must be either a one-state solution or a two-state solution. The one-state solution, as I pointed out, seems impossible to achieve, for the reasons I stated.
That leaves a two-state solution.
I
IsaacSheen
Guest
The book isn’t about Israeli Palestinian conflict. I never said it was the book. I merely suggested you read it. Enjoy.
H
Hospitaller
Guest
I don’t think he’s open to logic or reason Isaac. Everything he says represents a desperate attempt to continue the Western world’s major cultural trend of white-washing Islamic violence. In essence, Vern Humphrey is the archetype of the modern-day dhimmi.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
In my life I’ve found that nothing makes a hater so mad as someone else who refuses to hate.
R
Richardols
Guest
vern humphrey:
But, bad police in Poland? Probably. The police in every country, including our own, are natural bullies, but mostly suppress it, but when they get license to run wild with their powers, it’s a rare cop who does the right thing.
Poland had no puppet government, the Germans ran it all, and the Germans carried out their own edicts. There was no Polish government cooperation with the Nazis.
But, bad police in Poland? Probably. The police in every country, including our own, are natural bullies, but mostly suppress it, but when they get license to run wild with their powers, it’s a rare cop who does the right thing.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Well, I’m not THAT down on our police.
But in Poland, and in every country, there were police who arrested Jews, people who ran the railroads, people who participated in keeping the water on and the electricity. People who carried out the functions of government, in other words, even while not being the actual rulers.
The site I referred you to – and yes, like all holocaust sites, it has an ax to grind – quotes the Polish Government-in-Exile as taking the position that confiscated Jewish property could not be returned, as people would resist.
But the point is, the Arabs didn’t carry out the Holocaust. And to blame them for it is simply wrong.
R
Richardols
Guest
vern humphrey:
To be sure, even in the countries that did the very most to help the Jews, there were those who carried out the day-to-day functions of government operations. I can’t argue with that.
H
Hospitaller
Guest
vern humphrey:
Which would explain why my continued refusal to stoop to the kind of petty name-calling you expect enrages you.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
H
Hospitaller
Guest
vern humphrey:
Real comments please.
J
jaydog77
Guest
It’s strange that there is still a question about the sincerity of not just the so called Palestinians but of Muslims in the region as a whole of their claims to want peace. A bit lower I’ll let the Muslims speak for themselves. But one interesting question I’ve always had trouble getting answers on is the following; In the US, Western Europe, and even Israel you have a large and vigorous debate about the merits of both the Israeli and “Palestinian” points of view.
There are even Israelis who advocate a one state solution that would be national suicide. Yet where is the debate in the Muslim world? Why does there appear to be near 100% unanimity in the evil nature of Jews, Israel in particular, and assignment of blame solely on Israel? When’s the last time that bastion of journalistic integrity and freedom Al Jazeera had a Muslim Imam say “Arabs were the aggressors and Israel has a right to live in peace”? Aside from the fact that freedom does not exist in the region and never has, it’s really indicative of the type of enemy Israel faces and must face every day. Something we cannot relate to.
As far as the Muslim desire for peaceful resolution of the conflict, these sorts of statements show just how much they tend to think of Jews in general and Israel in particular (and just how likely any real peace will take hold):
“The Jews try to kill the principle of religions with the same mentality that they betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to betray and kill the Prophet” - Bashar Assad in a welcoming ceremony for THE POPE 5-5-01
“Thanks to Hitler, blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals on the face of the earth. Although we do have a complaint against him for his revenge on them was not enough” - Columnist Ahmad Ragab, Al-Akhbar (Egypt) 4-18-01
“All weapons must be aimed at the Jews, at the enemies of Allah, whom the Koran describes as monkeys and pigs, worshipers of the calf and idol worshippers.” - Palestinian Authority TV Sermon - 8-3-01
“Our people have been subjected to the daily and extensive use of poisonous gas by the Israeli forces” - Suha Arafat (while on a break from shopping in Paris with money looted from the Palestinian government in an appearance with Hillary Clinton) 11-11-99
"The Palestinian people accepted the Oslo agreements as a first step and not as a permanent arrangement, based on the premise that the war and struggle on the ground is more efficient than a struggle from a distant land…for the Palestinian people will continue the revolution until they achieve the goals of the 65 revolution (BEFORE they lost the West Bank and Gaza, so I wonder what Palestine they refer to) - PA Minister Abd El Aziz Shahain 5-30-00
“Israel is much smaller than Iran in land mass, and therefore far more vulnerable to nuclear attack” - Former Iranian President Ali Rafsanjani 3-4-02
There are even Israelis who advocate a one state solution that would be national suicide. Yet where is the debate in the Muslim world? Why does there appear to be near 100% unanimity in the evil nature of Jews, Israel in particular, and assignment of blame solely on Israel? When’s the last time that bastion of journalistic integrity and freedom Al Jazeera had a Muslim Imam say “Arabs were the aggressors and Israel has a right to live in peace”? Aside from the fact that freedom does not exist in the region and never has, it’s really indicative of the type of enemy Israel faces and must face every day. Something we cannot relate to.
As far as the Muslim desire for peaceful resolution of the conflict, these sorts of statements show just how much they tend to think of Jews in general and Israel in particular (and just how likely any real peace will take hold):
“The Jews try to kill the principle of religions with the same mentality that they betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to betray and kill the Prophet” - Bashar Assad in a welcoming ceremony for THE POPE 5-5-01
“Thanks to Hitler, blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals on the face of the earth. Although we do have a complaint against him for his revenge on them was not enough” - Columnist Ahmad Ragab, Al-Akhbar (Egypt) 4-18-01
“All weapons must be aimed at the Jews, at the enemies of Allah, whom the Koran describes as monkeys and pigs, worshipers of the calf and idol worshippers.” - Palestinian Authority TV Sermon - 8-3-01
“Our people have been subjected to the daily and extensive use of poisonous gas by the Israeli forces” - Suha Arafat (while on a break from shopping in Paris with money looted from the Palestinian government in an appearance with Hillary Clinton) 11-11-99
"The Palestinian people accepted the Oslo agreements as a first step and not as a permanent arrangement, based on the premise that the war and struggle on the ground is more efficient than a struggle from a distant land…for the Palestinian people will continue the revolution until they achieve the goals of the 65 revolution (BEFORE they lost the West Bank and Gaza, so I wonder what Palestine they refer to) - PA Minister Abd El Aziz Shahain 5-30-00
“Israel is much smaller than Iran in land mass, and therefore far more vulnerable to nuclear attack” - Former Iranian President Ali Rafsanjani 3-4-02
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Let me point out that the Iraqi elections and our current progress came as a great surprise to many people. Why? Not because the information wasn’t there, but because it wasn’t getting out.
The fact that no one covers moderate Islam doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. As I have pointed out before, more Muslims have been killed fighting on our side in the current war than Americans. (Those who denegrate their sacrifices should themselves have at least one Purple Heart.)
A second point is that the Isralis are a western society – the majority of citizens came from Europe. Islam is not western, and we cannot look deeply into Islamic society without a great deal of personal experience – which is not gained in a week or two behind a microphone.
A third point is that the men of peace on both sides have a difficult role to play. Men of violence have it much easier in situations like this – an air strike, a bomb, and they’ve done something. What do the men of peace have to show for their efforts?
Finally, even in Israel a Prime Minister was assassinated for being too committed to peace. Imagine what it would be like living in a Palestinian refugee camp and speaking openly against the men of violence.
The question we should address is not how we can blackguard one side or the other, but how can we further the cause of peace?
T
The_Black_Knight
Guest
vern humphrey:
An endless exercise in futility.
F
FightingFat
Guest
**Israel challenges Bushs warning, moves ahead with settlements construction
4/13/2005 6:56:00 AM GMT
**Disagreement between Israel and Washington over the Jewish settlements issue is slight and expansion of the West Bank settlements will continue, despite the U.S. refusal, Israel’s government spokesman said on Wednesday.
“I’m not afraid of that,” Mr. Pazner said on i-tele. “Sharon explained that what we are doing is within the agreement we have with the United States.”
Speaking to a private French television channel, Israeli government spokesman Avi Pazner challenged the U.S. President George W Bush’s warning to stop expansion of a major West Bank settlement.
“There is a slight disagreement on the interpretation of this accord, but I must say it pales in comparison with the vast strategic agreement between Bush and Sharon. It is essential for the peace process … that Israel retreats from Gaza in July and that is evident to all.”
“Our strategic plan is the retreat of Israel from Gaza but in return we have asked that areas mostly populated by Israelis in the West Bank are, in a future agreement with the Palestinians, attached to Israel and we continue to populate them,” Mr. Pazner said.
“This is what the American president wrote” in a letter to Mr. Sharon in April 2004, he said.
On Tuesday, bulldozers cleared rubble and cranes hoisted equipment in the largest West Bank settlement a day after criticism from President Bush that clouded his Texas meeting with the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon. Israel argues that the work is taking place within existing boundaries.
But Israel’s distinction is lost on the Palestinians and possibly the Americans, too. For Washington has insisted that Israel stick to the roadmap peace plan that demands Israel stop all settlement construction.
Finishing touches were being put yesterday on buildings at the edge of Maaleh Adumim, which houses to 30,000 Israelis.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has told reporters on Tuesday that the aim behind building those settlements is to solidify control over areas of the West Bank it deems vital to its security. “It was not to antagonize the U.S., but to keep areas that seem strategic to Israel,” Sharon said.
Bush issued an unusually stern warning against Israel, demanding it respect all terms of the U.S.-backed roadmap peace plan and halt all settlement activity.
But the Israeli premier on the other hand insists that despite Bush’s remarks, there had been “no disagreement whatsoever” over the expansion of the Maaleh Adumim settlement, where Israel is preparing to build 3500 new homes.
In an interview published by Le Figaro newspaper on Tuesday, Mr. Pazner said that Bush had promised to support Israel keeping Jewish settlements in the West Bank and not insist on a return to the border before the 1967 war.
“There has been an exchange of letters between George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon which envisages that a peace agreement will take into account the presence of Jews in the (West Bank) and there won’t be a return to the 1967 border,” Mr. Pazner said.
According to Mr. Pazner, the decision to expand Maaleh Adumim settlements and link it with Israel was taken in light of this understanding.
4/13/2005 6:56:00 AM GMT
**Disagreement between Israel and Washington over the Jewish settlements issue is slight and expansion of the West Bank settlements will continue, despite the U.S. refusal, Israel’s government spokesman said on Wednesday.
“I’m not afraid of that,” Mr. Pazner said on i-tele. “Sharon explained that what we are doing is within the agreement we have with the United States.”
Speaking to a private French television channel, Israeli government spokesman Avi Pazner challenged the U.S. President George W Bush’s warning to stop expansion of a major West Bank settlement.
“There is a slight disagreement on the interpretation of this accord, but I must say it pales in comparison with the vast strategic agreement between Bush and Sharon. It is essential for the peace process … that Israel retreats from Gaza in July and that is evident to all.”
“Our strategic plan is the retreat of Israel from Gaza but in return we have asked that areas mostly populated by Israelis in the West Bank are, in a future agreement with the Palestinians, attached to Israel and we continue to populate them,” Mr. Pazner said.
“This is what the American president wrote” in a letter to Mr. Sharon in April 2004, he said.
On Tuesday, bulldozers cleared rubble and cranes hoisted equipment in the largest West Bank settlement a day after criticism from President Bush that clouded his Texas meeting with the Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon. Israel argues that the work is taking place within existing boundaries.
But Israel’s distinction is lost on the Palestinians and possibly the Americans, too. For Washington has insisted that Israel stick to the roadmap peace plan that demands Israel stop all settlement construction.
Finishing touches were being put yesterday on buildings at the edge of Maaleh Adumim, which houses to 30,000 Israelis.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has told reporters on Tuesday that the aim behind building those settlements is to solidify control over areas of the West Bank it deems vital to its security. “It was not to antagonize the U.S., but to keep areas that seem strategic to Israel,” Sharon said.
Bush issued an unusually stern warning against Israel, demanding it respect all terms of the U.S.-backed roadmap peace plan and halt all settlement activity.
But the Israeli premier on the other hand insists that despite Bush’s remarks, there had been “no disagreement whatsoever” over the expansion of the Maaleh Adumim settlement, where Israel is preparing to build 3500 new homes.
In an interview published by Le Figaro newspaper on Tuesday, Mr. Pazner said that Bush had promised to support Israel keeping Jewish settlements in the West Bank and not insist on a return to the border before the 1967 war.
“There has been an exchange of letters between George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon which envisages that a peace agreement will take into account the presence of Jews in the (West Bank) and there won’t be a return to the 1967 border,” Mr. Pazner said.
According to Mr. Pazner, the decision to expand Maaleh Adumim settlements and link it with Israel was taken in light of this understanding.
- Status