southsider2k5 Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4816579/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 I am completely torn in this issue. On the one hand, I can see why Sharon would give up Gaza...it's too expensive to try to protect under 8,000 settlers there, and if the "palis" were put there, they could be better controlled. On the other hand, why reward terrorists by giving them their own territory? The probable offshoot of this is, if (when) Sharon steps down, Binyamin Netanyahu will probably get elected, and he won't negotiate with terrorists! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 It was a 60-40 vote within the Likud party not wanting the pullout of Gaza and 4 West Bank areas. I'm just amazed that 40% of the Likuds were supportive of a pullout. But then again, only 51% of the Likud party voted in the referendum according to Haaretz. Haaretz had a really good story on it yesterday. Haaretz reporters even saw Likud party supporters that were against Sharon verbally and physically beating Sharon's son to the point where he had to be escorted out of the area. In the same story it discussed how the IDF killed an 8 year old kid by shooting him in the head and arm when he didn't do anything (and this is according to an Israeli newspaper too) Two Palestinians, one of them eight-year-old boy, were shot dead by Israel Defense Forces troops during separate incidents in the West Bank and Gaza Strip on Saturday. Witnesses said eight-year-old Hussein Abu Eker died after he was hit in the head and arm by live fire from an IDF tank during an IDF raid in Khan Yunis refugee camp. The operation sparked clashes with Palestinian gunmen and stone-throwing youths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 3, 2004 Author Share Posted May 3, 2004 It was a 60-40 vote within the Likud party not wanting the pullout of Gaza and 4 West Bank areas. I'm just amazed that 40% of the Likuds were supportive of a pullout. But then again, only 51% of the Likud party voted in the referendum according to Haaretz. Haaretz had a really good story on it yesterday. Haaretz reporters even saw Likud party supporters that were against Sharon verbally and physically beating Sharon's son to the point where he had to be escorted out of the area. In the same story it discussed how the IDF killed an 8 year old kid by shooting him in the head and arm when he didn't do anything (and this is according to an Israeli newspaper too) They said the big sway in the vote was after Hamas surrounded the car of a 8 month pregnant along with her 4 other kids and AK-47ed them to death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 It seems like the Likud party is getting the idea... But Olmert, the principal proponent of Sharon's plan, went further, vowing a "supreme effort" to implement the plan in some form. "Will we make a supreme effort to continue in the correct direction, because that direction is unstoppable? I have no doubt that we will, and that in the end there will be a disengagement in Gaza, because the alternative to this disengagement is more murder, terrorism and attacks, without us having a wise answer for what 7,500 Jews have to do among 1,200,000 Palestinians," Olmert told Israel Radio. "What can we do there beside more wars, more army, and more victims?" Gee...1.2 million Palestinians in an area that is approx 24 miles long and 8 miles wide (if I remember the spacial data correctly otherwise it's the other way around) while 7,500 people get over 30% of the land and the majority of the resources in the area and hardcore Zionists have to wonder why Palestinians would be angry about it to the point where they'd support military action. I4E, you never did respond to me how during the 19th Century and early 20th Century when Jews were purchasing land in Palestine and living there going about their lives co-existing there were no suicide bombs, no military action taken against the Jews. It was only after the UN gave Israel 55% of the land and then the 1948 and 1967 wars that gave Israel 77% of the land that Palestine got angry. They were co-existing fine until the UN decided that it needed to do something without consulting the Palestinian and Jewish people that were living there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 It was a 60-40 vote within the Likud party not wanting the pullout of Gaza and 4 West Bank areas. I'm just amazed that 40% of the Likuds were supportive of a pullout. But then again, only 51% of the Likud party voted in the referendum according to Haaretz. Haaretz had a really good story on it yesterday. Haaretz reporters even saw Likud party supporters that were against Sharon verbally and physically beating Sharon's son to the point where he had to be escorted out of the area. In the same story it discussed how the IDF killed an 8 year old kid by shooting him in the head and arm when he didn't do anything (and this is according to an Israeli newspaper too) BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!! Can someone help me swat that little f**ing gnat that's buzzing around my head again?! BTW...no mention of those "heroic" terrorists gunning down an 8 month pregnant woman and her 4 daughters??? Hmmm! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 On the other hand, why reward terrorists by giving them their own territory? For this statement to be true, all Palistinians who settle there must be terrorists. :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 It was NEVER explained to me why Arafat and his cronies were committing terrorist acts against Israel in 1963-64, 3-4 years BEFORE the alleged "land grab"!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 For this statement to be true, all Palistinians who settle there must be terrorists. :headshake Not necessarily...because the "palis" who have been most vocal for their own State have historically been Hamas, Hezbollah, Jihad, etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 They said the big sway in the vote was after Hamas surrounded the car of a 8 month pregnant along with her 4 other kids and AK-47ed them to death. That was in response to the 8 year old being murdered. It's a tragic cycle of blood soaked revenge. Not saying at all what the HAMAS people did was right, I'm just saying that a rag tag force of guerrillas can't go toe to toe with a military getting millions in aid. It's deplorable that they'd kill kids. Collateral damage on both sides is a terrible loss and it doesn't really DO anything to further the cause on either side. Each body falling to the ground on both sides just cements further the sentiment against the opposition. But saying Arafat is in control of all the Fatah movements within Palestine is a statement that is incredibly ignorant because individuals and small factions are going to do things that not a lot of people agree with. I mean, its equivalent to saying that Bush controls all the troops so therefore he must have endorsed the torture that took place in Iraq by the US forces. A leader's control only exerts so far. Under occupation, there comes extreme militarism in certain veins of the population. Not saying that it is right...but is simply a byproduct of authoritarian regime control. I mean look at 1917 Russia and the Feb. revolution with the toppling of the tsar to Central American military dictatorships and the militarism of rebels against them from the Zapatistas in Chiapas to the FARC/ELN in Colombia (Note: I don't endorse what the FARC/ELN does because I know they kidnap random people to get funding and met a few people who had relatives kidnapped by the FARC, some of whom were killed) Militarism is a response to authoritian regimes, right or wrong...it occurs and has occured throughout history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Which side were the anti-semites on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 It's easy for the "palis" to end the "illegal occupation"...all they have to do is leave! Then they won't be illegally occupying Israel anymore. Problem solved. BTW...the terrorist said killing the woman and her daughters was in retaliation for Yassin and Rantisi. I can see how one could equate the killing of known murderers with that of killing a woman and her 4 daughters. :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Which side were the anti-semites on? YOUR side! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 YOUR side! I guess the leader of Israel is an anti-Semite. So sad for the country. Maybe they could take him out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!! Can someone help me swat that little f**ing gnat that's buzzing around my head again?! BTW...no mention of those "heroic" terrorists gunning down an 8 month pregnant woman and her 4 daughters??? Hmmm! Actually if you got to the Haaretz web site in a different story on the page, it discusses the 4 people that were murdered. It just was not in the story that I cited. As for the 1963-64 attacks. Research and most scholars believe that it had to do with the result of the UN redistributing the land without consulting the people living in the country. It was a mandate laid down from high by the UN Security Council (mainly because a lot of people in the Security Council countries did not want Jews in their own country. Oddly enough, the creation of Israel had an anti-Semitic basis. Look at the treatment of Jews at the time in the countries of the security council and you can see that the Jews were ostracized. That's why they helped to create Israel...so they would not have to deal w/ the Jews in their own countries. That even extends to the Balfour Declaration) Then the 1948 war began and no further negotiations began on the topic. I do indeed believe that is why, I4E. If the UN would have kept its damn nose out of it, I do think things would have been fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 It's easy for the "palis" to end the "illegal occupation"...all they have to do is leave! Then they won't be illegally occupying Israel anymore. Problem solved. I thought Israel treated them better than any other country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 I thought Israel treated them better than any other country? They do. Why do you think they won't leave? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 They do. Why do you think they won't leave? because it's home Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 It was NEVER explained to me why Arafat and his cronies were committing terrorist acts against Israel in 1963-64, 3-4 years BEFORE the alleged "land grab"!!! The REAL reason...cuz Arafat and his "pals"NEVER wanted a Jewish state to exist, in the Middle East or anywhere else! (just like the Nazis.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 3, 2004 Author Share Posted May 3, 2004 That was in response to the 8 year old being murdered. It's a tragic cycle of blood soaked revenge. Not saying at all what the HAMAS people did was right, I'm just saying that a rag tag force of guerrillas can't go toe to toe with a military getting millions in aid. It's deplorable that they'd kill kids. Actually what I saw was that it was in response for the assassination of Yassin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 because it's home Not their's! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Not their's! Pre-1948 it was. I4E, if they never wanted Jews in their country and the such as you claim, why then was there peace and prosperity with Jews moving to Palestine pre-1948 in the late 19th and early 20th Century and living there buying property? The militarism didn't start until the UN stuck its nose where it didn't belong (as I already stated) in 1948. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 I guess the UN has a history of sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Now the UN is hell-bent on f***ing Israel over, every chance it gets! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Not their's! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 Actually what I saw was that it was in response for the assassination of Yassin. From what I saw on Haaretz, it was about the death of Rantisi and not so much Yassin plus part of the clashes that resulted from the 8 year old being murdered. These people who were murdered were settlers in Gaza (among the 7,500 that were there) and it is those sorts of reasons that Sharon wants to remove them from Gaza and the 4 WB areas. These people knew what they were getting into (see photos of fenced in settlements with razor wire on top etc. that they have to protect themselves) Not saying their murder was sanctioned by any f***ing means at all...but I don't tend to move into an incredibly violent neighborhood myself because I value not getting a bullet shell lodged in my skull. From Haaretz: Islamic Jihad and the Fatah-related Popular Resistance Committees claimed responsibility for the attack. The Israel Defense Forces later attacked a Hamas radio station in Gaza City, apparently due to the assumption that Hamas was also behind the killings. The Popular Resistance Committees issued a statement saying the attack was a reprisal for Israel's assassination of Hamas leaders Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi. Other stuff I saw said a lot of the clashes were about the 8 year old getting whacked. And I4E, here's Haaretz's story on the murders...see they do cover everything. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/422750.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.