Kerry loves Israel, Bill (Clinton) tells Jews

[Rose Siding]

BOCA RATON, Fla. - Trying to help stanch defections of Jewish voters to President Bush, Bill Clinton insisted yesterday that John Kerry is a solid supporter of Israel.

"There is no doubt in my mind that his commitment to the security of Israel, including its ... military superiority, would be unshaken if he were President," Clinton told more than 1,000 cheering people at the B'nai Torah Congregation. "You can rely on it. You can take it to the bank."

The former President, who enjoys major support among Jews after his efforts to foster peace in the 1990s, added that if Israel gets "a partner for peace" - as opposed to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat - Kerry would be involved "in a way that never compromises, but enhances, the security of Israel."

"When we are involved, fewer people die," Clinton added at his third, and longest, stump stop for Kerry.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/246610p-211278c.html

[Larkspur]

1. Shouldn't Kerry love Palestinians too?

They're human beings being persecuted unjustly by Israel.

[sangh0]

2. Oy vey

.

[Rose Siding]

4. Kerry will have to be able to work with both sides

I haven't been very encouraged by his rhetoric either, but these remarks don't indicate a lack of respect for anyone.

Clinton was far more fair than Bush has ever dreamed of being. Anyway, a Temple would be an odd place to go to lavish praise on Palestinians, imo.

[Gaffey Duck]

16. Ahem!

THE Temple has not existed for nearly 2000 years.

Synagogue = Place of worship and learning
Temple = Spiritual centre of Judaism. Some currents of the faith see it as a literal rebuilding of the Temple that stood in Jerusalem, others taking a more spiritual and metaphorical approach to it.

[Rose Siding]

46. Thanks

I knew it didn't look right when I wrote it! I even looked back and only found "congregation" in the article. The correct word just didn't come to me. lol happens all the time lately

I hope no one's offended.

[AntiFascist]

50. I vote for the metaphorical approach....

taking the bible literally leads to racism, anyway.

[PCIntern]

5. Oh come on already...

yeah that would be a big winner - let's have Kerry go out and speak for the Palentinians' rights and the honor and probity and dignity of that terrorist Arafat, whom Clinton himself pointed to as the greatest obstacle to peace in the Middle East and thus the greatest failure of his presidency.

And then you can watch * be re-inaugurated. and you'll feel much better.

Oy vey is right.

[funnymanpants]

9. More Palestinian bashing

It's so encouraging to see DUers, who might be for justice in most areas, continually bash Palestinians.

So if you speak for Palestinian rights you are honoring "that terrorist Arafat?" Why can't you simply want justice for the Palestinians?

When Clinton speaks for the love of Israel, is he speaking for that war criminal Sharon?

[PCIntern]

11. You're changing the subject

I didn't say that Palestinians were not people who deserve human rights.

Palestinians were offerred a state and Arafat, not the Palestinians, refused it. So talk to him, not me.

[Larkspur]

13. Technically Israel has no right to exist on Palestinian land

Mahatma Gandhi opposed the Zionists who sought his blessing on their colonial adventure, so why should Kerry bless Israel's apartheid and terrorist policies against Palestinian civilians? Why couldn't he say that he would be "evenhanded" when dealing with the I/P issue? That is what I, a neo-Pagan, expect of a Democratic President.

[PCIntern]

14. ...and thus we in the US

have no right to exist.

Is that what you're saying?

The Mods are gonna close this thread in a minute anyway...

[Larkspur]

15. Yes, the United States was built upon the murder of Native Americans

and the slave labor of African Americans, so it's right to exist from a humanitarian point is questionable. But Israel was created in modern times, long afer the lessons of colonial and racist rule had been learned. Israel was supported by Harry Truman, who was under election year pressure, against the advice of the US State Department. His decision which he hoped would swing Jewish voters to his side helped him win re-election, but it started the US down the long messy road of Arab-Israeli conflict and made the US again a supporter of indigenous slaughter.

Kerry is wrong to blindly support Israel, who is murdering Palestinian civilians and American citizens, like Rachel Corrie.

[PCIntern]

21. OK, so Truman should have

sent the Jews back to Europe or to some deserted island...or to MARS!

That's the ticket...but then, after the Jews turned Mars into a paradise from a desert, you would be telling everyone that Mars was co-opted by the Jews and would have to give it back to the Martians who might or might not have ever existed, since they were denying them basic human rights. What about the rights denied in every single Arab country to their own countrymen? Where is your fair and balanced outrage? I can't hear you...

All people inhabit lands which others inhabited before - as far as 'modern times' goes, there ain't no such thing as 'modern times' in history. BTW, where were the Palestinians when Moses led the Jews back to ....Israel. I don't think it was called Palestine 5000 years ago.

[funnymanpants]

27. Wow, talk about hateful rhetoric

The Israelis turned the desert into a paradise? This may come as a surpise to you, but the Palestinians had their own thriving culture. They didn't need the Jewish settlers to turn it into a "paradise" any more than Native Americans needed white settlers to give them civilization.

And I notice how you keep switching the topic. Unable to defend Israel's dispossesion of Palestinians, you revert to gneralizations. "Well, it happened before," and "We had the land over 5,000 years ago." As if either point were moreal or relevant.

If brutality always happens, why get upset about any of it? Why be agains ethnic cleansing, since "All people inhabit lands which others inhabited before?"

[The Stranger]

51. The "desert" only becomes a paradise with over $8 billion per year

as fertilizer. Actually, you could probably build paradise on Mars for cheaper. Talk to NASA about that one.

The problem Israel faces -- trying to establish a democracy based on the enfranchisement of the ethnic majority and the disenfranchisement of the original inhabitants -- is what South Africa faced.

The two are essentially one and the same.

[hughee99]

47. For that matter, all countries in the western hemisphere!

The Canaanites (if you can find any) would probably be happy to get their country back after the Philistines (after whom the country was later named), Egyptians, Israelites, Amorites, Hittites, and Hurrians invaded their land. I'm sure the Saxons, Normans, Celts, Norse and for that matter, the Aborigine, and would like to get in on this discussion. It is a slippery slope.

Since the UN created the state of Israel in 1948, shouldn't we hold that organization personally responsible, rather than just blame it on Harry Truman's election year ploy?

[The Stranger]

52. Not all of them, but countries like the former South Africa were

founded on lands of other people, and there was an attempt to localize them in townships (refugee camps) and prevent them from becoming citizens (Apartheid).

[sangh0]

56. That reminds me. Why is the left so anti-Hittite?

You NEVER hear ANYONE on the left speaking out about the abuses they've had to endure

[funnymanpants]

57. Yes

>>Since the UN created the state of Israel in 1948, shouldn't we hold >>that organization personally responsible, rather than just blame it on Harry Truman's election year ploy?

Resolution 181, which partioned the land, was blatantly against the very UN charter. Two independent committees which examined 181 came to this conclusion.

The Jews only owned 5 percent of the land, and consisted of 33 percent of the population. However, 181 gave them 55 percent of the land, and the best land at that. The Palestinians feared they would become sub-citizens in their own country, and that is what happened.

However, I don't think it's moral to say that Israel has no right to their land. They are there now. To uproot them (even if remotely possible) would simply mean more gross injustice.

Both people need to live on the same land. Personally, I favor a bi-national state.

[Red State Rebel]

40. Wasn't there a war in which Israel took that land?

Why should they have to give it back? That would be like letting England have America even tho we fought the revolutionary war...???

[funnymanpants]

44. No, not like that

There were two wars that resulted in Israel getting more land.

Historians argue endlessly who is responsible for both wars, so I'll avoid that.

In 1947, the UN partitioned Israel and the occupied territories, giving Israel 55 percent of the land and the Palestinians 45 percent. After the 48 war, Israel ended up with 78 percent.

The UN never wanted to recognize the extra 13 percent.

In the war of '68, Israel captured all of the land.

UN security council 242 (amongst many others as well) required that Israel give back the land it caputred in return for peace. In crafting this resolution, the UN tacitly conceded that Israel could legally possess he 78 percent of the land it captured in the 48 war.

Resolution 242 states that it is illegal to acquire land through war. This is one of he main precepts of inernational law. It doesn't matter if the war was defensive (as pro-Israelis claim) or offensive (as pro-Palestinians claim). You cannot acquire territory through war.

The UN affirmed 242 through other rulings, such as Security Council resolution 446.

The differnece between the Amercian war for independence and the war of '68 are huge. In the American war, the Americans were fighting the brutal occupation of the British. In the modern day case of Israel, the Palestinians are fighting the illegal occupation of the Israelis.

Israel has neither a moral nor legal right to the occupied territories.

[funnymanpants]

20. No, I'm not changing the subject

Read what you posted.

>>let's have Kerry go out and speak for the Palentinians' rights and the honor and probity and dignity of that terrorist Arafat

In one sentence you went from human rights to terrorism.

Arafat was not offered a state. He was offered apartheid.

*He did not refuse!* He continued to negotiate until Taba, when Sharon broke off neogiations.

The main obstacle to peace in the Middle East is Isral's illegla annexation of Palestinian land, their "willful killing and torture" (to quote a human rights report)--actions condemned by every country except the US.

[PCIntern]

22. No,

the main obstacle to peace in the M.E. began on the Day of Independence when the Egyptian Army started dive-bombing Jews in Metropolitan Areas. Or it began when truck bombs were detonated in the Jewish quarter in Jersalem before the Day of Independence.

I know, I know, Jews are just supposed to sit back and die, right? Never Again.

[funnymanpants]

25. Now who's avoiding the subject?

I cite specifics involving the latest offer, and you reply with the usual platitudes.

I could equally say that the main obstacle of peace started when the Jewish founding fathers decided to establish a country on other peoples' land. Read their own writings.

I could go own to quote the long litany of abusus perpretated by Israel agains the Palestinians. I could point out that the coalition government of Arial Sharon involves a party that believes in ethnic cleansing.

And I could then start quoting how every human rights group has found Israel guilty of "deliberate killing and torture." And how the Isralis continute to steal land and water against international law.

I know, I know, Palestinians are supposed to sit back and die right?

[The Stranger]

53. You could start with the Irgun and Sturn gang massacring the locals.

The blowing up of the King David Hotel with the British in it?

[Jacobin]

10. Palestinians are the Indians and Israelis are the Cowboys

We support the genocide of indiginous peoples and always have.

This time, its coming back to bite us on the ass because its easy to put a stick in the spokes of highly industrialized, tecnhologically advanced civilizations. See: 9/11.

[PCIntern]

12. See my post above...n/t

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[funnymanpants]

23. What are you talking about?

This makes no sense. The Jews went specifically to what is now Israel and the Occupied territories to establish a contry on land that did not belong to them. This is what the founding father's of Israel say in their own writing.

They succeeded in expelling and killing the Palestinians in much the same way as we did with the Native Americans.

Are you saying that if some other ethnic group was involved, they would have even been more brutal? How much more brutal can you be?

[PCIntern]

24. Are you kidding?

You better buy a book and read it, pal.

[funnymanpants]

26. I have read many books

including that written by Israeli historian Avri Shlaim *The Iron Wall.*

What kind of anti-intellectual stuff are you now spouting. "He pal, you better read a book."

Why not respond to the specifics?

[dave123williams]

33. Glad you asked; here's how much more brutal it gets:

Oh, there's the genocide in Rwanda, where half a million were killed with just machettes:



Or, there's the current conflict in Darfur, tens of thousands starved to death:

http://www.ushmm.org/conscience/sudan/darfur/

Or, you could just think about the Jewish Holocaust, 6 million dead, more or less:



Or, you could get in to the Turk massacre of the Armenians:




Or, you could go buy a FUCKING BOOK. The Palestenians don't know how good they have it.

[funnymanpants]

36. What an irrational response

>>Or, you could go buy a FUCKING BOOK. The Palestenians don't know how good they have it.

Oh yes. 1/4 of their population is starving because of the illegal occupation of thier country. The Israelis have kille 3,000 in the latest intifada--that would be the equivelent of 300,000 Americans if you take the population. They are subject to torture. They live in a dictatorship. Their farmland is destroyed, their source of living, olive trees, are uprooted. Menacing settlers harrass and sometimes kill them because the settlers think that God gave them the land. But they don't know how good they have it.

And what's the reason? Why, they don't have it as bad as the vicitims in Rawanda!

Brilliant, moral, compassionate reasoning there.

As I wrote in my post above, I have read many books on the conflict, including the Israeli historian Avri Shlaim.

So think before you post.

[dave123williams]

39. They're starving because they're getting buggered by their own leadership.

If they're hungry, maybe they should stop blowing up busses with civilians on them, or pizza places in malls; maybe their little terror campaign isn't so good for their own people, ya think? You think maybe peaceful negotiation might be the way to go?

You're also forgetting the actuality of Israeli policy there; they don't kill your whole family if you're a suicide bomber - they just knock down your family's house. Israelis don't round people up and execute them; they're building a big damned wall.

So, the Palestenians lose some land, some olive trees; boo fucking hoo...cry me a river. Their stated goal is to wipe Israel out; guess what? It's NEVER going to happen. NEVER AGAIN. Israel isn't going anywhere. You're not mentioning that the Palestenians think the whole country, right to the sea, belongs to them. You're not mentioning the hundreds of thousands of Arab Israelis that live in peace within the borders of Israel; you're taking the side of radical, Islamist fundamentalists.

You're implying that it's state policy for Israel to wipe out the Palestenians; if it was, mark my words, there would be no Palestenians left. Not one.

The Israelis know from genocide; they're not for it.

Note that burgeoning anti-Semites, such as yourself, never once question the total lack of support the Palestenians get from neighboring Arab countries, save for explosive vests.

[funnymanpants]

41. Yes, switch the topic again

You made the ridiculous assertion that Palestinians don't know how good they have it. I shoot down this ridiculous assertion, and you change the subject by making such brilliant arguments as " boo fucking hoo...cry me a river." Maybe that convinces your knee-jerk pro-Israeli friends. I'm not too impressed.

One party that forms the coaliation government with Arieal Sharon believes in ethnic cleansing.

According to a recent poll, over 60 percent of Israelis are for expelling the Palestinians. So I could argue that the stated goal of the Israelis is ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.

The Palestinians did negotiate in much the same way that the Native Americans negotiated with the Eurpopean settlers. In both cases, the dominate party (the Israelis in the modern day case) used negoatiations as a stalling tatic. In fact, someone in Sharon's cabinet stated this explictily about 10 days ago, stating that the plan of the govenrment was to stall so that there never would be a Palestinian state.

Last, it is a stupid rhetorical trick to accuse me of anti-semitism just because I think Israeli has a brutal policy.

[dave123williams]

43. Yeah; but you're not denying that you're throwing in with Islamists.

You get on board with these people, and yes, you're an anti-Semite.

You're siding with people who want to push all Israelis in to the sea, make no mistake about it. That doesn't make you Jew-friendly, pal.

Palestenians don't know how good they have it. As you so deftly pointed out; it could be a hell of a lot worse for them, and yet they still take on the 'victim' mentality. Their current leadership has no interest whatsoever in a Palestenian state, either. At Wye river, and in Oslo, Arafat was handed as equitable an offer as could possibly be imagined...it would have yeilded a Palestine for him and his people.

Too bad Arafat's gotten his power being supported by a base of people who don't just want their own state; they want it all. He's made too much money, and gotten too much advantage in an adversarial position; he's not about to walk away from it now. Conflict is good for business where ol' Yassir is concerned.

You're also glossing over the fact that Israel is a pleuralistic democracy, and that the radicals within Sharon's government don't dictate policy, now do they...

[funnymanpants]

45. Wow, you need to start thinking before you post

I'm an Islamist, anti-Semite for being pro-Palestinian? Do you even think before you post such nonsense? Are you aware that many Israelis share my position, recognzing that peace only comes through justice? Are they also anti-semitic?

As I posted below, you are using the typical propaganda of quoting the hardliners and making them sound like they represent everyone. Yes, some Palestinians want to push Jews into the sea. But guess what? Some Israelis want to do the same to Palestinians, as you can read almost regularly!

As for Arafat refusing a state, he was never offered a state. He was offered apartheid. Israel never would have accepted that for its own people, and Arafat didn't accept it for his. He continuted to negotiate untl *Sharon* broke off negotiations.

Conflict is good for the Sharon government, which explains why one of his cabinet ministers stated quite explicitly several days ago that the goal of hsi administration was to delay so there never could be a Palestinian state.

So it does seem that the radicals are dictating policity in Israel.

PS

My name is *Paul,* not pal.

[dave123williams]

48. I'm an Islamist, anti-Semite for being pro-Palestinian?

Yes; that about sums it up. It's a war, genius. Pick your side; the only thing you'll ever find in the middle of the road is yellow lines and dead armadillos.

I never said conflict wasn't good for Sharon, and as a matter of fact, I'd say this current imbroglio is mostly his fault for taking that little stroll by the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

However, you'll find that the understanding that the surrounding peoples want to push Israel in to the sea is a sentiment shared by nearly all Israelis, mostly because they've been attacked, sometimes on major religious holidays, by serious armies half a dozen times in their 50 year history. You're not pulling the wool over anybody's eyes in suggesting otherwise.

Also, Apartheid? Don't be fatuous. If ever there was a statement that required a 'Wow, you need to start thinking before you post', that's it. Here's a breakdown of Israeli Nationals, by segment:

Jewish 80.1% (Europe/America-born 32.1%, Israel-born 20.8%, Africa-born 14.6%, Asia-born 12.6%), non-Jewish 19.9% (mostly Arab) (1996 est.)

So, a good 20% of the population of Israel are....that's right! Arabs. Arabs who are entitled to *exactly* the same constitutional protections, the same educational opportunities, the same laws and civic responsibilities afforded every other Israeli.

Non-citizens, like Palestenians, don't get that kind of consideration. If you think that's not fair, talk to a Mexican immigrant to California about their lot in life.

So, it's kind of like this; if you attacked Israel in '48, '67, '72, and then a couple of intifadas, and lose every single time....well, things aren't going to go your way in life. Boo fucking hoo.

[funnymanpants]

55. This sounds like Bush rhetoric

>>Yes; that about sums it up. It's a war, genius. Pick your side; the only thing you'll ever find in the middle of the road is yellow lines and dead armadillos.

Bush says "You are with us or against us." This is a crude representation of any situation in life. If you believe Bush, you are either for the war in Iraq, or you are for terrorism. Well, a great many DUers are both against the war and against terrorism.

Likewise, you can be against suicide bombers, for Israel, but totally against the policies of the Israeli governments.

I won't be put into your either or fallacy.

>>However, you'll find that the understanding that the surrounding peoples want to push Israel in to the sea is a sentiment shared by nearly all Israelis, mostly because they've been attacked, sometimes on major religious holidays, by serious armies half a dozen times in their 50 year history. You're not pulling the wool over anybody's eyes in suggesting otherwise.

Get your history right. In 1956, the Israelie army attacked Egypt. Before they did so, Ben Gurion visited Paris and created an elaborate plan that would carve up the Middle East in his favor. This was a purely aggressive war.

In 1982, Israel attacked Lebanon, a soveriegn country. The invasion was condemned by the UN as illegal. In the invasion, based on a completely faulty pretext, tens of thousands of people were killed. Another act of aggression.

Historiains argue who was the agressor in 48 and 67. Clearly, the Arab countries attacked Isael in 48, but that was because they wanted to resist the colonial plan imposed on them. In addtion, historians point out that Israel refused several cease-fire offers so it could grab more land, which, if you read he intentions of he founders of Israel, was their intention all along.

In 1967, some historians use Arab threats to state that Israel acted in self-defense. Others point out that Israel attacked the Egyptian air force while it was on the ground, and state that Israel used the empty Arab threats to justify war. The Israeli historian Shlaim claims that neither side wanted war.

In 1972, Egypt cleary attacked Israel--but only because Israel would not give back the land it captured in 67.

So far from suffering through a dozen attacks, Israel was as oftne the agressor as not.

Likewise, you are trying to justify the statments of the Israelis who want to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians by stating that the Isarelis live in fear. Well, yes, but guess what--so do the Palestinians, who have every reason not to trust Israel, which continues to steal land even as we speak.

Your apartheid argument is absurd. Are you following the situation or not? When one accuses Israel of aprathied, they are referring to Israel's control over the occupied territories. What Barak offered Arafat at Olso was apartheid. Arafat would not have had a state, but a series of cantons with no contiguity. But don't take my word for it: Nobel prize winner Nelson Mendela, who suffered under apartheid, uses the same phrase.

Yes, the Palestinians launched two intifadas. In the first, they used stones--not suicide bombers. The Israelis responded by killing them. Don't you think natives have a right to resist illegal occupation? Do you think the Native Americans also deserved what they got?

Last, I like the way you keep using very moral and sophisticated arguments. "Boo fucking hoo." That's how you describe the brutal life Israel has inflicted on the Palestinians. And here I was thinking I wa on DU, and not that other infamous right-wing board.

[geek tragedy]

19. Are the Palestinian supporters a swing constituency in Florida?

He's running for president, and there are no votes in backing Palestine.

Welcome to politics.

[funnymanpants]

29. Yes, you are right

but it still rankles people who care about justice for the Palestinians.

It is the envirnoment we live in. The US is the most anti-Palestinian country in the world.

[geek tragedy]

31. Second most.

You forgot Israel.

[funnymanpants]

32. Not really

I thought of that. But at least in papers like H'aretz, you can read very critical articles of the military brutality against the Palestinians.

Also, there is a frank admission in Israel regarding their onw history. You can go to many Iraeli places and see the remains of Palestinian villages, so it makes it hard for Israelis to claim that the Palestinians never were a people.

In contrast, the ugly propaganda that Palestinians never were a people and are only terrorists appears reguarly in American newspapers and books--and the purporoters of this propaganda take it seriously.

Of course, Americans aren't sending Apache hellicopters into the occupied territories. We are simply providing the Israelis with the means to do so.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

34. Care to elaborate on that my friend?

How does Israel's right to defend itself from Palestinian terror, count as persecution?

[funnymanpants]

37. Because they are not defending themselves

Every human rights group that has looked at the conflict has found Israelis guilty of "deliberate murder and torture." That is not defending themselves.

If the Israelis only had to defend themselves, why are they continually building new, illegal settlements? If you felt threatened from Candada, would you move women and children into settlements there?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

38. Which human rights groups?

Look, I'll admit that both sides make mistakes, but I don't think its fair, accurate, or just to label all the Israelis (or all the Palestinians for that matter) murderers or persecutors. Israelis have the right to defend themselves from terror, and keep in mind that many Palestinian hardliners want Israel gone. Period.

[funnymanpants]

42. Good question

B'tsleem, human rights watch, amnesty internaional, doctors without borders, and the UN human rights commission.

I don't mean to imply that all or even a majority of Israelis are murderers. But their foreign policy is resulting in mass brutality, condemned by every country in the world except the US. For example, the quote I keep using "deliberate murder and torture" comes from a UN human rights report issued in December 2001. 141 countries endorsed it. Only 2 didn't--the US and Israel.

Yes, hardline Palestinians do want to destroy Israel. Thank you for making the distinction between hardliners and everyone!

But keep in mind that hardline Israelis want the same thing and state so. One of the parties in Sharon's cabinet advocaes cleansing the Palestinains. I just read an article today about how everyone is Israel is talking about the real possibility of a civil war between the hardline religious fanatics who think God gave them all the land, and the rest of the citizens.

[umtalal]

54. Ofcourse not. Arabs be it Palestinians and Muslims are third world country

kind of people. We are just pathetic and do not desereve a hearing or a fair share in this coutnry or the world.

[sweetheart]

3. Its pathetic that he felt he had to say that

Well then why not say the same for south koreans, or north korean
peoples, or chinese peoples or indian people, or iraqi people.
It pays fodder in to the "jewish conspiracy" theory, and will serve
no good for anyone who believes in justice for all peoples, and not
just the squeeky wheel.

[Copperred]

6. Sad so many people who care about foreign interests...

Jews should vote for America....who gives a shit about the Middle East.....Saudi or ISrael...F_C_ them both.

time will time decide it all out.... and for sure 20 years from now it will be said America did have alot more enemies within then we ever thought......

[American Tragedy]

7. To be fair, what else was he gonna say at B'nai Torah Congregation???

Personally I think that both the Israeli and Palestinian leadership are crooked as hell and privately thrive on permanent conflict, and I'd rather wash my hands of the whole goddamn thing, but I don't know how that would go over.

[Jacobin]

8. whoop ti do

[theboss]

18. Good for Bill....

And out come the bashers....

[Senator Lamb]

28. though i do have some symapthy

for the suffering of the palestinan people, if they didnt commit acts of terror, and pursued independence like india or south africa, they would have an independent country long ago. but that was never the goal of arafat or is ilk. the total destruction of israel while pushing the jews into the sea was

[funnymanpants]

30. No, not true

The Palestinians are the victims. Israel has killed three times as many Palestinians as the to other way around in the latest intifiada.

In the first intifida, the Palestinians used no suicide bombers. The threw stones. And where did that get them? The Israelis mowed them down. After it was over, the Israelis continued to steal land from the Palestinians.

In South Africa and in India, independence was achieved both through violent rebellion and diplomacy. That's not to say that the suicide bombers are legitimate--they are brutal acts that achieve nothing. But just keep in mind that peacful struggle doesn't seem to accomplish much, either.

[Taverner]

35. I will get flamed for this but

The leaders of Israel and the leaders of Palastine BOTH SUCK!!!!!!

Too much testosterone and too many weapons...

[Hatalles]

49. /groan

/slap head

[Moderator]

58. We have an election in less than a week

This thread is not productive and has degenerated into an I/P discussion which belongs elsewhere.