Salty

iTrader: (14)

Of course he does...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=40988

Actually, there's a lot of violence on both sides because of the Palestinians.

psoper

Yeah, that violence over there has got nothing at all to do with IDF bulldozing over orchards and houses, or the wall - its all the fault of those Palestinians!

Perhaps they should all be rounded up and put into poison gas chambers, that would be a "final solution" to the "palestinian problem" eh, Salty?

Unregistered

Come on now psoper we all know that Isreals have not done anything... Its those damn sucide bombers!!! They are just killing out of no reason at all!!!


Who would you rather have a rational person as a leader or a dunce to deal with? I think I'll pick the rational leader who can think things through rationally, alex for 1000.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

The IDF wouldn't be there in the first place if the Arab states refused to recognize Israel or make peace with it numerous times. Most of the violence is has always been initiated by Palestinian terrorists cells and riots with Israeli reprisals in return.

subaruguru

Salty has it dead on. It is clearly a two way street. Now, think of this: There have been numerous Israeli leaders over the years dealing with this problem, including Barak whose plan offered something like 95 percetn of the territory that Palestinians claim...and guess what? Arafat has rejected them all.

Arafat personally makes billions by stealing the aid money from the arab states intended to help poorer palestinians. He has no interest in ending this war, and everything he's done demonstrates that.

If Arafat thinks Kerry is going to be good for business...what's that tell you?

SilverScoober02

It tells me nothing since nothing Arafat says holds any weight in my mind anyways. Plus I think that it is not that Kerry is good for business but that Bush is bad for Arafat business. He probably thinks that anything will be better for him than Bush.

I agree that Arafat is the crookedest mother on the planet when it comes to the aid $$ he steals from his own people. As self-serving SOB as there is on this planet.

Unregistered

Where not the Israelis the one who started this by premetivily taking land? And why should he settle for 95% when they deserve all 100% of the land they claim and the UN gave them. Would you settle for 95% of your pay check?

And you do know that their have been MORE Palestinian deaths than Isreal deaths? I could keep going on and on.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Nice to know someone knows their history on Israel and Palestine.

subaruguru

No, that's not how it happened. Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon all attacked Israel at the same time. The Israelis fought back, and seized land in souther lebanon, western jordan, and southwestern syria in response. The UN hasn't "given" anybody anything, but they have made several resolutions on Israeli practices and troop presence in the region.

That there are more palestinian deaths than israeli is obvious. Palestinians use suicide bombs, Israelis use tanks. Not too surprising.

As for settling, would you settle for 95 percent of your check if it meant you got to own your own house, have the Israeli soldiers out of it, and start building your own state?

That's right, you wouldn't settle if you were yasser arafat, because 110 percent of your check comes from stealing all the help the Muslim states send to your people.

Unregistered

No I wouldn't settle because that is not what is OWED to me. Same as you wouldn't. Especially when the land means so much to you.

My point was that this is far from black and white. But the Israels in my oppinion have made things worse on themselves of late. ]

Also Im glad you mentioned those resolutions, are they not the leading nation of refusing resolutions put on them by the UN? Yet didn't we attack Iraq for this? But thats a side note.

And your wrong. You might want to read this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...eline/1947.stm

It clearly states that the jews took more land than was alloted to them. BEFORE those other countries even attacked. You should really read up on what happened during those years and to the present. Israel was the clear argressor.

subaruguru

Did you read that site yourself? Arab states and palestinians REJECTED a proposal that would've divided up the land pretty evenly.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

Exactly.

The land has been a game of cat and mouse for over a thousands of years. The only offensive Israel ever took was during the Zionist movement which consisted of mostly ****-talking. That movement quickly became obsolete after the first peace treaty set forth by Israel and Britain in the Balfour declaration. This and numerous other peace/land agreements were rejected like a fat hooker by the Palestinians. As a result, a major conflicted persisted every decade from denied peace agreements on the Palestinians’ part. The last attempt, which is still up in the air today, are the Oslo accord and the Road Map peace plan set forth by Bush and the UN. Once again, Palestinians wanted to have all the milk and cookies so they revolted against the few Jewish settlers in 2000. The rest is still on the offering table with the Road Map peace plan.

Furthermore, The Israeli military is one of the strongest in the world. If they weren't playing defense they could turn Palestine into liquid sh*t in a matter of days. Hell, they could become the new Roman empire of our time if they wanted. What does that tell you? It tells you that they're heavily involved in peace negotiations and want change for the better. The only people that are keeping this from happening are Yasser Arafat, a large population of anti-jew Palestinians and Hamas. The only extreme opposition the Israeli's have are the Zionist and they're substantially smaller than the stubborn Palestinian opposition combined. The other 95% of the attacks from Israel are done in reprisal of attacks from Hamas and the anti-Jewish settlers.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

How much of U.S. land are we going to return to the Indians, or to European nations that funded the initial conquests?

Borders are defined by power. Israel shouldn't budge.

As far as far as the topic of this thread, it's obvious that Arafat and all sworn enemies of America want Kerry to win. He's the epitome of anti-nationalism the the perfect recipe for ruining what's left of our country.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

I wouldn't necessarily call Yasser Arafat a sworn enemy even though he is a crooked SOB on our sh*t-list. The only thing that keeps him off the other list is because of the thousand year political motivation between the two countries. I can assure you that the White House and this current administration won't be inviting him to dinner anytime soon. Couldn't ever say that for Clinton though...

It's a tricky situation because both are fighting over religion and land. It would potentially be the same thing for the U.S.A and the WOT except we're not retaliating in the name of Jesus. Whatever….

psoper

Don't count on that Salty- you know there are plenty of people who think we are- amongst them our commander in cheif- seriously, you can't be a born-again evangelical christian without thinking everything you do is in Jesus' name, and he's even said as much.