BF2S Forums Palestine & Israel Discussion Thread

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

It is hard for me to support a country that severely handicaps the way the Palestinians live.

Then again, your signature implies that you think the US are terrorists:

The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault.
Major Ralph Peters, US Military
Because I do it with one small ship, I am called a terrorist. You do it with a whole fleet and are called an emperor.
St. Augustine's "City of God"

Whatever opinion you have of Israel is obviously skewed in some way or another.

I think the robber barons and elite that run this country are terrorists, yes.

Opinions are skewed by definition, no?

edit: and what does my opinion about the US have to do with Israel severely limiting Palestinian society?

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-11-25 17:25:09)

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

So, now we have your little terrorist comment. As you have consistently shown throughout your posting history, you try to rationalize any war as terrorism, and any nation that goes to war as terrorists. You intentionally adopt an absurdly broad understanding of the term so you can apply that label to countries such as the US and Israel. So, in the face of logic and facts, you simply throw out the term "terrorist" wherever you see fit, while ignoring the REAL terrorism. And by that I am talking about the every day occurrences in the Middle East where any large civilian crowd can become victim to a suicide bomber, or families that are kidnapped and murdered in the night by patrolling death squads. It's almost as if you are trying to imply that the US, Israel, and other Western nations are the real terrorists, and not those committing these barbaric acts every day. Conventional warfare is not terrorism. Going to war in pursuit of one's interests is not terrorism. Exploiting the vagueness of some dictionary definitions of the term detracts from its true meaning. Otherwise, we could label the common criminal or school bully as a terrorist. Sounds a little ridiculous, doesn't it? Then again, so does the entire liberal mindset.

Thanks for taking the time to look through my post history
I am unaware that I tried to rationalize any war as terrorism.  I adopt the dictionary definition of terrorism, for what it's worth.  The dictionary does not differentiate between minor terrorists and major terrorists, and neither do I.  I don't throw out the word terrorist wantonly, nor do I feel that I use a watered-down meaning.  I simply refuse to adopt the philosophy that people that attack civilian centers with dynamite are the only terrorists.  So yes, your "REAL terrorism" is extremely cruel and sickening, and I don't condone it at all.  Like I have said before, the US Government/Military has committed acts of terrorism.  So has Israel.

I am not trying to imply anyone is "the real terrorist" because that would mean I would take sides, which I am adamantly against.  I agree that conventional warfare is not terrorism, according to the dictionary definition.  I do not believe the dictionary definition is vague at all.  It explains the essence of what terrorism is and tries to accomplish.

As for the remark that the entire liberal mindset is ridiculous, well, I don't consider myself a liberal.  Then again, you would know that, because I have said that in many posts, and you went through my post history.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2006-11-25 18:47:30)

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

ATG wrote:

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20061126/D8LKEGL00.html


Its about time.

And just hours after the cease fire began, Palestine launched several rocket attacks on civilian neighborhoods in Israel:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/ … index.html

I find this a very dumb act, even for extremists.  Why would they launch 3 rockets, after a cease fire?  Who is getting profit of this?  Palestinians certainly aren't.

sergeriver wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

ATG wrote:

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20061126/D8LKEGL00.html


Its about time.

And just hours after the cease fire began, Palestine launched several rocket attacks on civilian neighborhoods in Israel:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/ … index.html

I find this a very dumb act, even for extremists.  Why would they launch 3 rockets, after a cease fire?  Who is getting profit of this?  Palestinians certainly aren't.

Some morons just don't know when to stop.

LOL you did your research! Nice... I'll address each of these bits via pm because this is off subject.
And for the record, this is not flipping out. I'm just makin fun of your pic.

Last edited by oug (2006-11-27 05:32:45)

Hey! Was just gonna post that link. +1 to Olmert

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

oug wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

they were mostly a nomadic people without any serious attachment to the land. Palestine was not a country at the time. There was no government, no currency, no flag, no national anthem or anything else that's required to classify something as a country. In other words, there was no sense of unity there. There were just a couple hundred thousand random people living throughout without any real attachment to the land.

Nomads may not have had a permanent residence, but they did have a use for the land. Their attachment to it is as serious as anybody else's. The boarders within which they moved are vague, but boarders nonetheless.

The fact that at the time there was no "state" of Palestine or whatever, does not grant anyone the right to move into said region and claim it as their own. Government, flag, currency, anthem and sense of unity are completely irrelevant.

Just because these people lived a different kind of life (which did not entail a central government and currency) does not mean that the land they occupied was up the grabs.

I addressed this earlier:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Yes, I acknowledged that there were Arabs in the region, but that fact is irrelevant. This is because like any established country today, there was a time when it was not formally a country but still had people living on its land. By your logic, we could go back and argue like this about every country on earth. The only reason why this topic is even this common is due to the turmoil in that region. The key here is that there was no formal country of Palestine at the time.

They had no formally declared country or borders, so "their" land is, in fact, up for grabs. That's how colonization works. Your argument is irrelevant because it can be applied to EVERY nation on earth. The fact of the matter, as I have also outlined before, is that the Arabs have rejected all all proposals to formally allocate the land and live in peace. They will not negotiate for peace and continue to wage war until Israel is moved or annihilated.

Legally, the land is Israel's. This also raises the question of whether or not the land is morally their's as well.  Israel is a secular liberal democracy in every sense. It believes in the rule of law and in human rights. No one is above the law, just as things should be in a Western democracy. Israel supports gay rights, women's right, and it offers full rights to all citizens, regardless of color or creed. Israel has Arab Members of Knesset (Israeli Parliament) and even Arabs on the Israeli Supreme Court as well. It offers Jews, Muslims, and Christians fulls rights in every sense.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, are the complete opposite. They live in a dictatorial society in which speaking out against the government will get you publicly hung. Homosexuals are murdered, women's rights are virtually non-existent, and the general population is taught to hate from birth through constant propaganda in schools, at home, and in the media. They are subjected to constant brainwashing, including classic Jewish blood-libels that create a disgusting bloodlust within their society.

The two societies are not even remotely comparable. Israel wants peace and is continually forced to fight for its right to exist, while the Palestinians continually fight to destroy Israel and "push the Jews into the sea", as the popular saying goes.

In the end, Israel legally and morally has the right to the land on which it resides.

This whole post is so full of holes I don't know where to begin.

I suppose I'll start with this:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

They had no formally declared country or borders, so "their" land is, in fact, up for grabs.

No formally declared borders? Nonsense.

After WWI and the collapse of the Ottoman empire, the region now known as Palestine (and various other places) was placed under British jurisdiction following an international treaty (during the Versailles Peace Conference). The region had very specific borders. The original mandate of Palestine included Cisjordan and Transjordan, Transjordan later became seperate from Palestine and was not included in any deals involving the settlement of Jews. The borders of Transjordan were not well defined from the outset of the mandate and were altered to fit in with British oil pipeline interests from the mandate of Iraq, as can be seen from this map:


Cisjordan, or modern day Palestine, did have proper borders. Proper internationally agreed borders, this is something that really can't be argued against because it's what happened, plain and simple.

Oh, and they did have a flag.


Moving on....

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Yes, I acknowledged that there were Arabs in the region, but that fact is irrelevant. This is because like any established country today, there was a time when it was not formally a country but still had people living on its land. By your logic, we could go back and argue like this about every country on earth.

OK, maybe the fact there were Arabs living there is irrelevant. What is very relevant are international laws laid down upon the creation of the UN preventing nations from being formed through colonisation and invasion. When Israel declared themselves a state in 1946, they were not only in breach of the league of nations mandate for Palestine but in breach of international law as laid down by the UN. These laws did not exist when any colonialism took place and the introduction of such laws makes all the arguments you have just made completely irrelevant.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Legally, the land is Israel's.

Why? You've stated that as fact without offering any reason or justification. Which land? None of the land should legally be Israel's, although the 1947 Partition Plan does give Israel legitimacy as a state (which should never have happened and only came about because of US support for Palestine as a homeland for the Jews). Under the partition plan all the land offered to Israel is all their state can have ever, for reasons I have outlined above, namely the fact that under modern international law any expansion of borders through military actions is utterly illegal.


Those don't look like the borders Israel claims are theirs today, so the land isn't legally theirs.

If you want to get really technical, then none of the land is theirs. Under the conditions of the mandate, which was still valid when Israel declared themselves a nation their actions were illegal.

OK, so we've established that whilst under existing legal conditions the establishment of Israel was not legal, yet they were still granted legal status as a nation because of US support. We have also established that any territory not included as under Israeli rule in the 1947 Partition Plan is not legally Israel's in any sense.
It's pretty conclusive that, legally, the land is NOT Israel's.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

This also raises the question of whether or not the land is morally their's as well.

How do you define whether the land is morally Israel's? Since you have used a lot of biased, unresearched and ultimately ludicrous gibberish in your definition I am at a loss as to which points to respond to.

Let us focus on how the land became Israel's and look at the totally moral behaviour of all concerned.
As the Zionist movement gained momentum with the emancipation of Jews throughout Europe (which happened long before any of these other events) Zionism became a formal organisation in 1897, right about when all the trouble began. Jewish immigration to Palestine was allowed under the terms of the mandate (only into Cisjordan, not Transjordan) and under the terms of the Balfour declaration. Conditions were placed upon Jewish immigration which were not adhered to.

The most central of these conditions, which is reflected in many of the more specific drafts of agreements concerning the Mandate of Palestine, is:

Jewish immigrants being allowed to settle on land not under private or public use in a way that did not prejudice the rights of the indigenous populace.

League of Nations, Terms of the Mandate of Palestine, Article 4 wrote:

The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

(The complete text of the terms for the mandate can be found here.)

Reinforced by the Balfour declaration.

Balfour declaration, 1917 wrote:

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour

Later inquiries, such as the Hope-Simpson Royal Commision (and even the American King-Crane report, which acknowledged the prejudicial treatment of Arabs by Jewish immigrants, yet still supported Jewish dominance in the region in spite of this) found the Jewish immigrants to be in breach of the terms laid down.

Hope-Simpson Report wrote:

Actually the result of the purchase of land in Palestine by the Jewish National Fund has been that land became extra territorial. It ceases to be land from which the Arab can gain any advantage either now or at any time in the future. Not only can he never hope to lease or cultivate it, but, by the stringent provisions of the lease of the Jewish National Fund, he is deprived forever from employment on the land.

Which shows exactly how Jewish immigrants were able to unfairly deprive Arabs of their land, with the backing of the Jewish National Fund.

Hope-Simpson Report wrote:

It is impossible to view with equanimity the extension of an enclave in Palestine from which the Arabs are excluded. The Arab population already regards the transfer of lands to Zionist hands with dismay and alarm. These cannot be dismissed as baseless in light of the Zionist policy described above.

Which demonstrates the deliberate social and civil exclusion of Arabs. Intrinsically infringing on their social and civil rights.

Hope-Simpson Report wrote:

The policy of the Jewish Labour Federation is successful in impeding the employment of Arabs in Jewish colonies and in Jewish enterprises of every kind. There is therefore no relief to be anticipated from an extension of Jewish enterprise unless some departure from existing practice is effected.

This also shows the deliberate exclusion of Arabs by the Jewish Labour Federation. A body whose sole purpose was to ensure Jewish economic dominance within Palestine. An action expressedly forbidden under the terms of the mandate.

The full text of the document can be found here.

When further restrictions were imposed on immigration in the 1939 White Paper, the Zionist organisation decided to take the law into their own hands and encourage illegal immigration into Palestine. The organisation also sponsored the creation of several militant Jewish groups who were internationally recognised as terrorists. These terror groups were Irgun, Lehi and the somewhat more acceptable Haganah.
These terrorists conducted a large number of terror attacks against British and Arab targets, these actions (most notably the bombing of the King David Hotel by Irgun) led to the British withdrawal from Palestine (the British could not afford (after having just fought 2 world wars virtually bankrupting the nation) to maintain a military presence of over 100'000 troops in Palestine under terrorist attack). The withdrawal of British forces left the Jewish militant groups in the strongest position in Palestine and allowed them to declare the formation of the nation of Israel.

How this campaign of terrorism and economic oppression in any way entitles the Jewish immigrants, particularly the Zionist organisation itself, to any sort of moral right to the land is a mystery to me.

You also refered to human rights, which the UN has ruled Israel to be in breach of many more times than Palestine. In fact, many senior members of the Knesset have been ex-terrorists (much like Arafat) and one of the leaders of the terror group Irgun (Begin) later became Israeli Prime Minister.

I'll ignore your rantings about Palestine being a dictatorial society where speaking out against the government gets you hung and where homosexuals are murdered and women have no rights, because you clearly haven't researched any of those 'facts' which simply are not true. Palestine is a democracy where women have plenty of rights, many women become teachers and doctors which is totally inconsistent with your arguments.

In fact, I think it best to ignore your entire post.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-11-27 15:50:08)

I was going to respond to Pollux but Bertster did the dirty work for me. If you want to see endless cycles of bullshit 'anti-semite' remarks and explanatory responses click the links in my sig below.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. I am not accusing any of you of being anti-semites, but I do not understand your blind hatred of Israel and blind support of radical Islam and terrorism. Does this all stem from the fact that you hate the US and Bush? Are you angry that the US invaded Iraq and suddenly feel the need to take a 14 year old internet liberal stance on any world conflict regardless of the facts? It seems as if you are set on ignoring the facts and providing only conjecture that supports your ridiculous claims and biased opinions. The sad thing is that people are actually buying into your fluff. Since you seem so one-sided on these issues, I must ask do you support bombing buses filled with civilians? Do you support deliberate rocket attacks into civilian neighborhoods (especially after a cease-fire is agreed upon)? Consider the facts. The Palestinian National Authority officially sponsors terrorism. The Palestinian Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades also deliberately target civilians and are recognized as a terrorist organization by the US and the European Union. When Ahmadinejad vowed to "wipe Israel off the map", that Palestinian militant group vowed to carry it out. The list goes on and on and on and on. These types of animals have no place in civilization. It is unfortunate for the moderate Palestinian civilians caught up in this, but do not argue in favor of the terrorist-run Palestinian government and their claims solely based on that. These people will not settle for peace unless Israel is "wiped off the map".

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-30 11:11:21)

Kmarion wrote:

Olmert says ready to free Palestinian prisoners
It appears that he is reaching out to work together to me.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&a … east_dc_81

In the speech, Olmert repeated a willingness to dismantle, for "real peace," some of the settlements Israel has built in the West Bank, territory captured in the 1967 Middle East war.

"With Gilad Shalit's release and his return safe and sound to his family, the Israeli government will be willing to release many Palestinian prisoners, even those who have been sentenced to lengthy terms," Olmert said.

"We, Israel, will agree to the evacuation of many territories and communities we have created," Olmert said, referring to Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

He said Palestinians must first form a unity government that met Western demands to recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept existing interim peace accords, and Shalit must be freed.

Kmarion wrote:

SDE BOKER, Israel (Reuters) -
Israel is ready to release many jailed Palestinians in return for a soldier seized by militants in June, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced on Monday, saying he was reaching out for peace.


In a major policy speech, Olmert offered to ease travel restrictions on Palestinians and free up frozen funds if violence against Israel ended. He repeated his readiness to give up some occupied land for an eventual peace agreement.

"We are ready and willing to pursue this path, and persevere until we reach the sought-after solution," Olmert said.

Just wanted comments on this development.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

And just hours after the cease fire began, Palestine launched several rocket attacks on civilian neighborhoods in Israel:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/ … index.html

As well as what happened here.

Last edited by rawls2 (2006-11-30 15:42:36)

I am disappointed. After all that trouble Bertster7 went through you still talk about "blind hatred", "blind support" and 14 year-old mentality. It is a pity, to say the least.

As a first step, I would suggest that you do not limit your definition of "terrorism" to Hamas, Hezbolah and the like, as this is just one side of the coin, and in fact, if I may say so, it is the less harmful.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Hamas is a terrorist organization. I am not accusing any of you of being anti-semites, but I do not understand your blind hatred of Israel and blind support of radical Islam and terrorism. Does this all stem from the fact that you hate the US and Bush? Are you angry that the US invaded Iraq and suddenly feel the need to take a 14 year old internet liberal stance on any world conflict regardless of the facts? It seems as if you are set on ignoring the facts and providing only conjecture that supports your ridiculous claims and biased opinions. The sad thing is that people are actually buying into your fluff. Since you seem so one-sided on these issues, I must ask do you support bombing buses filled with civilians? Do you support deliberate rocket attacks into civilian neighborhoods (especially after a cease-fire is agreed upon)? Consider the facts. The Palestinian National Authority officially sponsors terrorism. The Palestinian Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades also deliberately target civilians and are recognized as a terrorist organization by the US and the European Union. When Ahmadinejad vowed to "wipe Israel off the map", that Palestinian militant group vowed to carry it out. The list goes on and on and on and on. These types of animals have no place in civilization. It is unfortunate for the moderate Palestinian civilians caught up in this, but do not argue in favor of the terrorist-run Palestinian government and their claims solely based on that. These people will not settle for peace unless Israel is "wiped off the map".

Oh dear.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Hamas is a terrorist organization.

Are they though? There are recognised as a terrorist organisation by a small minority of nations.

Hezbollah are recognised as a terrorist organisation by even fewer countries. For example Britain does not class Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation at all.

Neither are strictly terrorist organisations per se. They do have terrorist branches and acts of terrorism have been commited by both. But both are also democratically elected political organisations, which is first and foremost what they are.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

I am not accusing any of you of being anti-semites, but I do not understand your blind hatred of Israel and blind support of radical Islam and terrorism. Does this all stem from the fact that you hate the US and Bush? Are you angry that the US invaded Iraq and suddenly feel the need to take a 14 year old internet liberal stance on any world conflict regardless of the facts?

Blind hatred of Israel? I think it is you who are blindly supporting Israel with erroneous ideas rooted more in fantasy than fact. You make sweeping statements about how the land is legally and morally Israel's without any real evidence to support them.

I have outlined in reasonable detail why I am opposed to the Zionist movement and the Israeli government. Because of their policies depriving Arabs of their lands and because of the terrorist roots of the Israeli government (the very fact that an Israeli Prime Minister was an ex head of the terror group Irgun says a lot). The continuing illegal policies of Israel (which is why they have more UN resolutions against them than any other country) reinforce these beliefs.

Since you have failed to provide any real facts as to why you 'blindly support' Israel, I find it highly hypocritical that you condemn everyone with opposing beliefs (which while they may not be compatible with your views are perfectly valid, especially considering the plentiful reasoning behind them).

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

It seems as if you are set on ignoring the facts and providing only conjecture that supports your ridiculous claims and biased opinions. The sad thing is that people are actually buying into your fluff.

Which facts are being ignored? I am deeply opposed to the suicide bombing campaigns conducted against Israel. That does not change the way I feel about Israel or their government policy.

Conjecture? Which conjecture is that? What has been said that is conjecture? I think your muddling up conjecture with cold, hard facts. Just because the facts don't fit in with your warped perception of Israel as the US's golden boy in the Middle East does not make them any less true.

Which of these facts are you dismissing as conjecture? I would be interested to know so I can furnish you with some more evidence, since you seem to find it so lacking.

The really sad thing is that you can't accept the truth even when someone slaps you round the face with it.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Since you seem so one-sided on these issues, I must ask do you support bombing buses filled with civilians? Do you support deliberate rocket attacks into civilian neighborhoods (especially after a cease-fire is agreed upon)? Consider the facts. The Palestinian National Authority officially sponsors terrorism.

As I have said before, I am absolutely opposed to terrorist actions of any sort. Hezbollah's guerilla resistance of an invading force is an exception to that.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

When Ahmadinejad vowed to "wipe Israel off the map", that Palestinian militant group vowed to carry it out. The list goes on and on and on and on. These types of animals have no place in civilization.

There is widespread hatred for Israel throughout the Arab world. But looking into the history of the situation there is little wonder why.

I think your last sentence lets slip your prejudices against the Arab world.
It's sad but it seems you are:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

set on ignoring the facts and providing only conjecture that supports your ridiculous claims and biased opinions.

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

It is unfortunate for the moderate Palestinian civilians caught up in this, but do not argue in favor of the terrorist-run Palestinian government and their claims solely based on that. These people will not settle for peace unless Israel is "wiped off the map".

It is unfortunate indeed. I would be interested if you could explain the difference between a terrorist established Palestinian government and a terrorist established Israeli government? Are you denying that Zionist terror groups were instrumental in the creation of Israel as a state?

Israel need not be wiped off the map. If Israel were to return to the borders laid out in the partition plan (their legal(ish) borders) and withdraw all occupying forces and stop all incursions into foreign territory, that would do it. The Israeli government, however, believe themselves to be above international law and while they have US backing there is nothing anyone will do about it.

Why are you trying to defend terrorists? Hamas targets civilians in terrorist attacks. Is that okay to you?

Hamas' first use of suicide bombing occurred on April 16, 1993 when a suicide bomber driving an explosive-laden van detonated between two buses parked at a restaurant. It was Hamas' 19th known attack since 1989 (the others being shootings, kidnappings and knife attacks).

Hamas continued to launch suicide attacks during the Oslo Accords period (see List of Hamas suicide attacks).

During the second Intifada, Hamas, along with the Islamic Jihad Movement, spearheaded the violence through the years of the Palestinian uprising. Since then Hamas has conducted many attacks on Israel, mainly through its military wing - the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades. These attacks have included large-scale suicide bombings against Israeli civilian targets, the most deadly of which was the bombing of a Netanya hotel on March 27 2002, in which 30 people were killed and 140 were wounded. This attack has also been referred to as the Passover massacre since it took place on the first night of the Jewish festival of Passover. Overall, from November 2000 to April 2004, 377 Israeli citizens and soldiers were killed and 2,076 wounded in 425 attacks by Hamas. (Source: IDF website.) The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs maintains a comprehensive list of Hamas attacks.

Since 2002, Hamas has used homemade Qassam rockets to hit Israeli towns in the Negev, such as Sderot. The introduction of the Qassam-2 rocket has allowed Hamas to reach large Israeli cities such as Ashkelon, bringing great concern to the Israeli populace and many attempts by the Israeli military to stop the proliferation and use of the rockets.

On November 8, 2006 the military wing of Hamas called on Muslims around the world to attack American targets. "America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons," Hamas said in a statement sent to The Associated Press

Bertster7 wrote:

Fancy_Pollux wrote:

Why are you sympathizing with terrorists? The Palestinian government is an official sponsor of terrorism. With that in mind you actually think the land in which Israel resides is morally Palestine's?

The Israeli government sponsors terrorism. Do you know who made up the IDF when Israel was established as a state? Hagannah, Irgun and Lehi formed the IDF. 3 terrorist organisations. The most sucessfull terrorist organisations I can think of certainly, but still defined as terrorist organisations by significantly more nations than either Hezbollah or Hamas.

Israel is a much a terrorist nation as Palestine or Lebannon, it's just that they have bigger weapons these days.

Are you condoning Israel's bombing campaigns against the British and Palestinians?

There is no crime commited by the Palestinians that the Israelis have not already commited against them.

Palestine until just recently has rejected all proposals of peace. Even then they launched rockets into civilian neighborhoods just hours after the cease-fire started. You're obviously so set in one direction that you will ignore all fact and spew out your exaggerated interpretation of the word "terrorist". Hell, just today you argued using nothing of substance against mathematical proof that .999~ = 1.

Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-30 16:49:48)