# Bush's excessive support for Sharon



## kouma (Sep 1, 2003)

This won't be reported on CNN simply because it shows the truth between the Bush and Sharon relationship and how it affects the the stability (as if there is one anymore) in the middleeast.

"Former U.S. diplomats slam Bush's support for Sharon
Last Updated Tue, 04 May 2004 11:59:33 EDT 
WASHINGTON - U.S. President George W. Bush's policy on Israel has come under fire from 60 former diplomats who signed a letter accusing him of squandering Washington's credibility in the Middle East.

The letter says Bush has cost the United States "credibility, prestige and friends" by supporting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Of particular concern to the 60 former diplomats was Bush's endorsement last month of Sharon's plan to unilaterally disengage from the Palestinians, which would include withdrawing from the Gaza Strip but keeping some Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

The plan, the letter says, would "toss away the rights of three million Palestinians, to deny the right of refugees to return to their homeland, and to retain five large illegal settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank."

Sharon's Likud party voted on Sunday to reject the plan.

The letter says that by supporting the plan, Bush has "proved that the U.S. is not an even-handed peace partner."

The letter accuses the Bush administration of ignoring the Palestinians in recent months.

The White House says it has maintained consultations with the Palestinians. Bush has said he wants to see a Palestinian state formed that would exist in peace alongside Israel. " -

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/2004/05/04...east_bush040504


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

thanks for the update


----------



## piranha45 (Apr 8, 2003)

I think sharon kicks ass. Liberal use of force is cool.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

The historic task of creating peace for Israel and a viable state for Palestinians has now seen two approaches fail within four years. And each one has had the prestige of a US president behind it.

Bush ditched the UN/US/RUSSIAN/EU backed 'Road Map' and supported Sharon's approach.

This is a political defeat not only for Sharon, but for Bush, who scrapped DECADES of US foreign policy in order to sign on with Sharon's plan.

Zionist influence/power has never been as paramount as it is today.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

As long as Israel exists AT ALL there will never be peace in the region. This is undeniable. Giving 'historical palestine' back to the Palestinians is not a means to long-term peace. So where do we draw the line when granting each side what they want?


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> As long as Israel exists AT ALL there will never be peace in the region. This is undeniable. Giving 'historical palestine' back to the Palestinians is not a means to long-term peace. So where do we draw the line when granting each side what they want?


 Saying Palestinian refugees, who were ethnically cleansed out of Historical Palestine, will not be allowed to return by a powerful, influential and partial third party is definitely not a way to make peace.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> The historic task of creating peace for Israel and a viable state for Palestinians has now seen two approaches fail within four years. And each one has had the prestige of a US president behind it.
> 
> Bush ditched the UN/US/RUSSIAN/EU backed 'Road Map' and supported Sharon's approach.
> 
> ...


 Please know what your saying before you imply Bush and Sharon ditched peace. You are insinuating that both men didn't want the previous road map to peace. If you remember, it was the palestinians inability to control their terrorists that led to this situation. They kept bombing israelis which led to the death of the hamas leaders. Things are always as simple and clean cut as you may think. Maybe you are reading too much al jeezera.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

diddye said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > The historic task of creating peace for Israel and a viable state for Palestinians has now seen two approaches fail within four years. And each one has had the prestige of a US president behind it.
> ...


 Amen.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

diddye said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > The historic task of creating peace for Israel and a viable state for Palestinians has now seen two approaches fail within four years. And each one has had the prestige of a US president behind it.
> ...


 This is how political threads get trashed.

Please DO NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS. Take other's words/points for what they are. Otherwise, you push an initially intelligent debate into the garbage.

My points are CLEAR and PRECISE. I, in know way, attempted to imply/insinuate. You, maybe for the purpose of gaining the upper hand, resorted to ASSUMPTIONS.

I will reiterate my points and remain with the thread's topic and subject:

Two approaches/plans backed by Bush have failed. How does this imply Bush does not want peace? It doesn't. The reason I believed they failed, is because the Bush administration is not an evenhanded moderator. Palestinians, as well as the UN, EU, RUSSIA, and now over 50 former U.S. diplomats contend Bush's stance with Sharon is unfair.

AGAIN, DO NOT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS. If you cannot do so, do not reply, otherwise there won't be a discussion.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

*sigh* no point in disagreeing with Moe, he knows all. I guess it was a HUGE leap for diddye to assume Moe was trashing Bush again. Tsk tsk.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

The "ditching" you are referring to is a plan thats already been given up on. The new one sharon just endorsed was just vetoed by his own party. Hes trying a last ditch effort for another new one. Bush didn't "ditch" it as you stated...the old plan just did not work and BOTH sides contributed to its demise. All your posts are always blaming israel and the US. My statements aren't assumptions when your choice of words and history of posts about this matter clearly shows your are blaming the problems of the region on sharon and bush. Peace is never gonna happen...at least not for long. Its just a fact of life and is pretty much engrained in both sides.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

MoeMZA:


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

diddye said:


> The "ditching" you are referring to is a plan thats already been given up on. The new one sharon just endorsed was just vetoed by his own party. Hes trying a last ditch effort for another new one. Bush didn't "ditch" it as you stated...the old plan just did not work and BOTH sides contributed to its demise. All your posts are always blaming israel and the US. My statements aren't assumptions when your choice of words and history of posts about this matter clearly shows your are blaming the problems of the region on sharon and bush. Peace is never gonna happen...at least not for long. Its just a fact of life and is pretty much engrained in both sides.


 While the EU, Russia, UN, continue to push hard to implement the Road Map, a plan that was endorsed by both Palestinians and Isrealis, Bush ultimately ditched the Road Map, by scrapping DECADES of US foreign policy, and agreeing to SHARON's new plan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3681821.stm

Sharon's new plan is the perfect reason why there will not be peace. It calls for the majority of ILLEGAL settlements in Palestine to remain. Also, the plan states that Palestinian Refugees, who have been ethnically cleansed from their legally owned property, will never be allowed to return. Bush endorsed this. Is this approach fair and impartial? Of course not, which is why it was met by a resounding condemnation from the world community and now by over 50 former U.S. diplomats.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...st_ex_diplomats


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

**WARNING* Off topic insight *WARNING**

why do we keep feeding the troll? if we wanted the little child (MoeZMA) to keep quiet, than we shouldn't bring up too many political debates, or else the troll will keep feeding off of it and get a bigger head than he already has...just my thoughts

**WARNING* Off topic insight *WARNING**


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

How come you guys always call someone with different political opinions a troll, and tell him to shut the f*ck up, and at the same time always preach about freedom of speech? The only word that comes to mind is "hypocrits"....
Even more because _both_ sides are doing the the very thing they accuse each other of....

Keep it clean and respect each other for different opinions, or I'll close this thread...


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> How come you guys always call someone with different political opinions a troll, and tell him to shut the f*ck up, and at the same time always preach about freedom of speech? The only word that comes to mind is "hypocrits"....
> Even more because _both_ sides are doing the the very thing they accuse each other of....
> 
> Keep it clean and respect each other for different opinions, or I'll close this thread...


 CLOSE IT! 
CLOSE IT! 
CLOSE IT!
















Oh, i just refer to moe as a troll because he comes out of hiding whenever he sees something that he wants to put some insight to, sorta like a real troll who comes out from beneath something only to f**k with someone.







I will be honest and have told him to "shut the f**k up a couple times, but thats because i felt that he truly deserves it.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Well, of course you're entitled to your own opinion, also about Mo, but this is a _discussion_ board - when you're discussing with someone that thinks different, you don't tell him to shut the f*ck up (especially since he broke no rules - and no, being annoyingly one-sided is not against the rules, and there's no denying he has made some valid points).
Besides that, from his point of view you may be the exact same you accuse him to be - only difference: I haven't seen Mo use profanity/disrespectful remarks in such a way it seems it is allowed here, as I've seen some from the pro-Bush camp do.....

Discussing things like politics is trying to convince the other that you have valid points, in a polite and respectful manner - if you or anyone else is unable to do so, don't discuss it at all, since it creates more unnecessay annoyance than anything else...

That's how I see things.


----------



## Malice (Feb 19, 2004)

MY OPINION & MY BIAS

*This is a post for people who seem to not know nothing of nothing. I am not jew but christian, I have been studying Middle East History for the past 2 years.. and Isreal.
I guess my bias is that Jews need a break, it was less then 65 years when all this horrible stuff happened to them, and their entire race was almost wiped off the planet. Who cares if they have a small little land, they do contribute to humanity, in 1 way or another. Jesus was born their and i feel that if every other country is arabic then if the FEW palistinians who have a problem, they should leave and goto seria etc etc.*

Isreal was the original land of jewish people, palistinians and jesus. lol

Jewish people once had a city with a temple, and houses etc. During this time, the Palistinians came into the city, but did not really live in the city, they lived in the outskirts in the desert, moving from area to area etc. (squatters) This was before borders of Jordan, Seria , Lebanon etc. The Middle East was all one teritory.. 
After a while many different countries (people) came in destroyed everything, made jews slaves and the Palistinains fleed to surrounding countries. which were other arab areas.

After jews were no longer slaves and the land was destroyed by war..

NOBODY lived their.. for hundreds of years.

Which is the reason why Jewish people, live all over the world, 
Europe, Russia, Africa , North America ETC ETC ETC.. and they immigrated to different countries everywhere, which has led to alot of anti semitisim ANY group of people who immigrates to another country are considered a "burden".
For example When people left Ireland, and came to NYC, for example the movie "Gangs from New York."

NOW.... Palistinians start coming into Isreal, because no one lives there.. building their own temple etc etc. few jews few arabs, but nothing worth saying a city/town or civilization. so the Palistinians live their for 500 years.. with a few jews.

More war in the region breaks out. people leave.
Adventually this continues until BRITIAN owns the land, very few people live their.. Palistinians, they had no city, they had no temple, and they had no town. They went from area to area.. and moved around in small groups over a wide area of land.
WW2 ends. In consideration of the Holocaust Britain and U.S. decided to give the land, that was a full desert with nothing more. To jewish people and said " You can have this"

then once jews build houses and temples and citys and buildings.. sh*t started going down. Every country around Isreal tried to invade at once. THE US was occupied with Viet Nam so they didnt get any help from them... And Isreal defeated all the countrys and won some more land.

BUSH and every other person trying to make peace is a good thing... its just hard to do, thats why it hasnt been done yet. Isreal is the most sacred place for JEWS,CHRISTIANS,PALISTINIANS in the world... and its a small peice of land.. ITS called a HOLY LAND FOR A REASON. no wonder everyone wants a piece of it.

OH their was almost peace.. but HAMAS assinated the person who was the peace talker. Isreal is the size of a small island, you could travel the country by car in 4-7 hours. Isreal is the only area in the middle east that is democratic, its the only place where woman have rights, and isreal is a 1st world country. they have Gucci and cell phones and buildings with 25+ stories. It is not just a big desert.
When jesus lived their, there were jews, romans (occupying) and arabs.

CANT jewish people have anything?? Just a little peice of land in the world??? If Palistinans dont like it, why dont they move to all the other sourrounding countries... Jordan,Lebanon,Syria,Iran?

If jewish people never had isreal, that means Jesus would never have been born... what would the world be like then??? Most people in Isreal are sic of the violence aswell as Palistinains, Its the groups like HAMAS etc, which murder people, and thats what the problem is.

HOW can there be peace if you know that when your kids get put on a bus for school, some guy might blows up the bus, so he can elevate to heaven and be sourrounded by 1000 virgins..????

People just need to start getting along.

sorry for the long post, but im sic of people talkin sh*t that they dont understand.


----------



## kouma (Sep 1, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> How come you guys always call someone with different political opinions a troll, and tell him to shut the f*ck up, and at the same time always preach about freedom of speech? The only word that comes to mind is "hypocrits"....
> Even more because _both_ sides are doing the the very thing they accuse each other of....
> 
> Keep it clean and respect each other for different opinions, or I'll close this thread...


 Well said. I think Moe is bringing up very good and valid points.


----------



## kouma (Sep 1, 2003)

Malice said:


> MY OPINION & MY BIAS
> 
> *This is a post for people who seem to not know nothing of nothing. I am not jew but christian, I have been studying Middle East History for the past 2 years.. and Isreal.
> I guess my bias is that Jews need a break, it was less then 65 years when all this horrible stuff happened to them, and their entire race was almost wiped off the planet. Who cares if they have a small little land, they do contribute to humanity, in 1 way or another. Jesus was born their and i feel that if every other country is arabic then if the FEW palistinians who have a problem, they should leave and goto seria etc etc.*
> ...


 Seriously from what you wrote and your 100% BIAS view you seem to know little to nothing, I really doubt your "studying Middle East History for the past 2 years" was in fact true, and if it did it would've been under some biased material and biased professors.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

I thought his post was very good. What does it matter if you "dont think" he studied for two years? Thats irrelavant as long as he posted facts. And to say he studied under biased teachers/books can also be said for the where you got your information. Next time, if you're trying to discredit him, provide facts to counter his.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

> Seriously from what you wrote and your 100% BIAS view you seem to know little to nothing, I really doubt your "studying Middle East History for the past 2 years" was in fact true, and if it did it would've been under some biased material and biased professors.


If he knows nothing, then prove that all of his facts were wrong...


----------



## vfrex (Jan 25, 2003)

Rabin was assasinated by an israeli jew I thought,,,


----------



## scrubbs (Aug 9, 2003)

to go the same way, why can't palestinians have anything? Why does israel build fences so palestinians are never able to see the sunrise in the morning?

That region will always have some sort of violence. I can't seen anything ever working. If israel gives all the west bank and gaza to them, then they will ask for more.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

vfrex said:


> Rabin was assasinated by an israeli jew I thought,,,


 Yup


----------



## vfrex (Jan 25, 2003)

> to go the same way, why can't palestinians have anything? Why does israel build fences so palestinians are never able to see the sunrise in the morning?


As I recall, israel was willing to hand over 95% of the land that the palestinians were demanding. The palestinians rejected that offer. Can anybody tell me what was wrong with it?


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

vfrex said:


> > to go the same way, why can't palestinians have anything? Why does israel build fences so palestinians are never able to see the sunrise in the morning?
> 
> 
> As I recall, israel was willing to hand over 95% of the land that the palestinians were demanding. The palestinians rejected that offer. Can anybody tell me what was wrong with it?


 Because they owned 100% of it. If in fact that was the offer, but it was not.


----------



## vfrex (Jan 25, 2003)

I'm sorry, I'm confused by your last comment. You are saying that the 95% figure is inaccurate? By the 'they owned 100% of it' argument, I guess Israel should give up all territorial claims and leave.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

MoeMZA said:


> vfrex said:
> 
> 
> > > to go the same way, why can't palestinians have anything? Why does israel build fences so palestinians are never able to see the sunrise in the morning?
> ...


 Well, fact is both groups live there now, so I guess abandoning the "We must have 100%"-thought both sides endorse would be the first, yet vital step towards a durable solution.

I don't think Sharon's plan is honest - he's a crook, and will always be one (so is Arafat, btw...), nor do I think any of the parties is willing to settle for less than 100% in the end.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

They can't claim any of the Palestinian territories, they legally own NONE of it, hence the name OCCUPIED.

Not to mention, present day Isreal is what Historical Palestine was, where nearly 400 villages were destroyed creating nearly 4,000,000 refugees to this day.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> vfrex said:
> 
> 
> > > to go the same way, why can't palestinians have anything? Why does israel build fences so palestinians are never able to see the sunrise in the morning?
> ...


So let me get this straight... you are saying that the Palestinians refused a peace offer because it didn't contain 5% of the land they wanted? Which could possibly be bargained for later... Even though it did include the other 95%?? I hope you see how blatantly ignorant it is to, after this, say that palestinians have tried everything in their power for peace... It seems as if they don't want land or peace at all, but rather to make a political statement.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> They can't claim any of the Palestinian territories, they legally own NONE of it, hence the name OCCUPIED.
> 
> Not to mention, present day Isreal is what Historical Palestine was, where nearly 400 villages were destroyed creating nearly 4,000,000 refugees to this day.


 Like hell they can't claim those territories... They claimed them when they came under attack, when war was declared on THEM. And those territories would continue / do continue to be staging grounds for continued attacks and terrorism to this day.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > vfrex said:
> ...


 As you always do, you purposely twist my point for your favoring........again.

Palestinians were never offered 95%, to put it even more BLUNTLY for yourself.

Second. They have EVERY RIGHT not to except anything but 100% of their LEGALLY OWNED LAND. This is my point.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > They can't claim any of the Palestinian territories, they legally own NONE of it, hence the name OCCUPIED.
> ...


Again, they can CLAIM THE ENTIRE MIDDLE EAST if they please. The war crime occurs when you ETHNICALLY CLEANSE.

And to correct you, they began CLAIMING/STEALING land with the UN's help, which is a war provocation. Arabs formely declared war to protect the Palestinians.


----------



## vfrex (Jan 25, 2003)

And by not accept, you mean they are justified in allowing suicide bombings to continue killing civilians in the name of creating a palestinian state. In the name of fighting back against the oppressive israeli government, which just offered me 95% of the land i want.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, not my intention. I am just stating what you are implying, probably unknowingly.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

AGAIN, you IGNORE my point, and SIMPLY decide to type sentences with a FEW BOLD WORDS. Well JUNIOR, sure they have a right to not ACCEPT anything but 100% of the land. They also have a right to accept 20% of the land or 15 or 75 or any other percent. But this does NOT, by ANY MEANS, mean that their decision is going to further the process of peace. Their refusal to accept any land at all, because its 'not enough' is counterproductive to their Public-Image aim (peace)... meaning that their true intentions are revealed when they make such decisions (elimination of Israel as a state.)


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

vfrex said:


> And by not accept, you mean they are justified in allowing suicide bombings to continue killing civilians in the name of creating a palestinian state. In the name of fighting back against the oppressive israeli government, which just offered me 95% of the land i want.


 Now you are changing subjects, you did so to gain an upper hand, but it's ok. We went from LAND OWNERSHIP and RIGHTS to bombings.

Please do not continue with the 95% offering B.S. This is a complete fabrication.

According to International Law, Palestinians have every right to SELF-DETERMINATION and resistance to an Occupation.

Killing civilians is completely wrong. Isreal has killed 4 times as many civilians.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

*Sigh* This is getting tedious. I could say that the sky is blue, and someone else could come back and tell me that its purple. I think I'm done trying to debate (This can hardly be called debate... It's two camps of people yelling at each other back and forth that what they beleive is right... is right) this issue.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> AGAIN, you IGNORE my point, and SIMPLY decide to type sentences with a FEW BOLD WORDS. Well JUNIOR, sure they have a right to not ACCEPT anything but 100% of the land. They also have a right to accept 20% of the land or 15 or 75 or any other percent. But this does NOT, by ANY MEANS, mean that their decision is going to further the process of peace. Their refusal to accept any land at all, because its 'not enough' is counterproductive to their Public-Image aim (peace)... meaning that their true intentions are revealed when they make such decisions (elimination of Israel as a state.)


You are basing your entire argument as if a FAIR and ACCEPTABLE land/peace proposal has been offered. This has never happened.


----------



## vfrex (Jan 25, 2003)

Can you should me evidence that the proposal wasn't really 95%?


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> Enriqo_Suavez said:
> 
> 
> > AGAIN, you IGNORE my point, and SIMPLY decide to type sentences with a FEW BOLD WORDS. Well JUNIOR, sure they have a right to not ACCEPT anything but 100% of the land. They also have a right to accept 20% of the land or 15 or 75 or any other percent. But this does NOT, by ANY MEANS, mean that their decision is going to further the process of peace. Their refusal to accept any land at all, because its 'not enough' is counterproductive to their Public-Image aim (peace)... meaning that their true intentions are revealed when they make such decisions (elimination of Israel as a state.)
> ...


Of course it hasn't, by your standards!! You are IGNORING my point. The palestinians beleive the ONLY FAIR and ACCEPTABLE offer is 100% of their land back in their hands. This is an EASY way out for you!! Ridiculous! RE-READ my post (quoted above within your quote) and you will REALIZE how ludacris and ironic your claim of "no fair or acceptable" peace offer is.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> MoeMZA said:
> 
> 
> > Enriqo_Suavez said:
> ...


 Please, your going in circles. (purposely?)

AGAIN, Palestinians have every RIGHT to accept nothing but 100% of their LEGALLY OWNED LAND.

I am not saying "Palestinians BELIEVE THE ONLY FAIR PROPOSAL is 100%," like your saying.

Just they HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THEIR LAND.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

vfrex said:


> Can you should me evidence that the proposal wasn't really 95%?


You made the fabricated CLAIM, not I.

It is not my job to prove your claim. The fact that you can't prove it show's the FALSEHOOD of it.


----------



## vfrex (Jan 25, 2003)

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I have better things to do than sit on an internet forum and bicker about something completely out of my control. Good day sir.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

vfrex said:


> > to go the same way, why can't palestinians have anything? Why does israel build fences so palestinians are never able to see the sunrise in the morning?
> 
> 
> As I recall, israel was willing to hand over 95% of the land that the palestinians were demanding. The palestinians rejected that offer. Can anybody tell me what was wrong with it?


 YOUR WORDS.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> Enriqo_Suavez said:
> 
> 
> > MoeMZA said:
> ...


 Your lack of intelligence is astounding. I am not the one who is traveling in circles. You are IGNORING points, and they are being RE-ITERATED. I don't beleive that your elevator goes all the way to the top floor, if you know what I mean (I highly doubt you do).

I am saying that PEACE would be closer if Palestinians accepted some of the offers to them. However, they refuse them, because, as they and yourself claim, the offers are 'not ENOUGH'. This is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE (Maybe you don't understand what that means, and that is why you ignored it). When Palestinians refuse peace offers on the grounds that they aren't getting 100% of their demands, they essentially refuse ANY AND ALL HELP. They hold THEMSELVES IN THEIR OWN POSITION. It is not Israel who is keeping them down, but THEMSELVES. This is blatantly obvious. Can you not see it?

Let me break it down. You say Israel is 'unlawfully' holding onto palestinians land. (We won't even go into the contradictory nature of your statement that the UN helped give Israel this land... ) You say that palestinians want this land back. Ok good, now lets see where we can go from here. Israel has made offers to give some of this land back. The acceptance of these offers would bring both people closer to PEACE! Why have these offers not been accepted? Because palestinians always demand more!! Well, now my question remains... Why doesn't palestine accept these offers one at a time, in essense eventually getting what they want, one chunk at a time? Because, you say, any offer of peace or land is 'unfair' unless it is 100% of what they want. This sounds more like a political statement than a means to an end. If palestine really wanted its land back, and was so desparate to get it, the best way to do this would be to accept offers of land!! HOWEVER, it makes a better political statement by refusing all offers, and claiming to be the victim! This does not stand up to inspection!! IF the TRUE AIM was land, than palestinians are taking the WRONG ROUTE. However, they are taking the CORRECT ROUTE to gaining anti-Israel supporters, for the long term goal of giving Israel the boot! Do not be fooled!


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

For the THIRD time, Palestinians have EVERY RIGHT to accept what they please in regards to their LEGALLY OWNED LAND.

I am not saying, "Because, you say, any offer of peace or land is 'unfair' unless it is 100%."
It is their land, they hold the right to deem what's fair and unfair.
Think logically please.

That being said.

Your now claiming, Palestinians have been offered land, they should accept it. The extremely important question you fail to ask yourself is, Was the offer, or any offer, FAIR and ACCEPTABLE? The answer is NO. This is what you can't seem to comprehend.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

MoeMZA: How many times must I address your tired points? I have addressed EVERY issue in your last point already, and you have ignored it EVERY TIME.



> MoeMZA: For the THIRD time, Palestinians have EVERY RIGHT to accept what they please in regards to their LEGALLY OWNED LAND.





> Enriqo Suavez: sure they have a right to not ACCEPT anything but 100% of the land. They also have a right to accept 20% of the land or 15 or 75 or any other percent. But this does NOT, by ANY MEANS, mean that their decision is going to further the process of peace.





> MoeMZA: I am not saying, "Because, you say, any offer of peace or land is 'unfair' unless it is 100%."


Really?


> MoeMZA: Because they owned 100% of it. If in fact that was the offer, but it was not.





> MoeMZA: AGAIN, Palestinians have every RIGHT to accept nothing but 100% of their LEGALLY OWNED LAND.


Telling me that Palestinians, who have said they will accept no offer that doesn't include 100% of their land, DO have this right, THEN telling me that this is NOT the case, is contradictory. Because I did NOT in fact say that YOU were the one who says 100% of land is the only FAIR and ACCEPTABLE offer. I said thats PALESTINIANS rule. Let me quote myself:


> Enriqo Suavaz: The palestinians beleive the ONLY FAIR and ACCEPTABLE offer is 100% of their land back in their hands.





> MoeMZA: Think logically please.


My logic has been well demonstrated, thank you. 


> MoeMZA: Your now claiming, Palestinians have been offered land, they should accept it.


Yes, this is what I have been saying for a while. I'm glad you finally caught on


> MoeMZA:The extremely important question you fail to ask yourself is, Was the offer, or any offer, FAIR and ACCEPTABLE?


I DO and HAVE asked myself this and the answer is YES, and this is where we differ. You tell me that I "can't seem to comprehend" because I do not share your view. I comprehend well, in fact. And when I look at the facts, and see that Palestinians are refusing offers of land, while at the same time crying in outrage because they do not have land, it becomes clear that their intention is not to gain land, but something else entirely.

Please MoeMZA, if you are going to debate, do so. But DEBATE involves paying attention to, comprehending, and refuting opposing points. You have done none of the above with my commentary.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

That land now belongs Israel. It was rightfully won in a war when Arab nations attacked Israel. Just like Texas belongs to US and not Mexico. And Arab countries do not want to take care of the Palestinians eiher - why ? because they could care less about Palestinian people, they're simply a tool for other Arabs to try and drive Israeli people completely out of the region.

Everybody knows that Hamas and Arafat, privately, want a lot more than just those territories. They will stop at nothing less than complete destruction of Israel. And if Israel really wanted to ETHNICALLY CLEANSE those people, how you put it, they could and would do it in a matter of hours. If Israel was interested in killing off entire Palestinian populatin, they would do it immediately and efficiently.

Who supplies the territories with electricity ? Israel. Where do a lot of these people travel for work ? Israel. Not only is Israel not ETHNICALLY CLEANSING Palestinians, it's actually supporting them. Do you think Palestinians would be as gracious to the Jews if they had won their land in a war ? Hell no, it'd be concentration camps and gas chambers all over again !!

Israel's only problem is they're way too kind to these bastards.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Are you saying Palestinians will only accept 100% of their land? Because this is not true, ala Oslo accords, where they accepted less than 100%. And they have proposed on numerous occassions to accept the illegal settlements, but they will be a part of a viable/soverign Palestinian State.

My point again, they have the right to only accept 100% if they please. According to logic, they LEGALLY OWN IT, so they can.

As far as offerings you state are 'fair'. What are they? If it's what BARAK offered at Camp David, the offer was 70% of West Bank and Gaza (15% of Historical Paletsine)
Is this FAIR?


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Hamas is not a freedom fighting organization. Their whole reason for being is the destruction of israel. They are not here to fight back for some land, compromise some kind of peace...it is to kill all israelis. It is to wipe out as many as they can and for them to leave the middle east. Point blank....either israel goes or terrorists.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

diddye said:


> Hamas is not a freedom fighting organization. Their whole reason for being is the destruction of israel. They are not here to fight back for some land, compromise some kind of peace...it is to kill all israelis. It is to wipe out as many as they can and for them to leave the middle east. Point blank....either israel goes or terrorists.


 Exactly what's your point?

Does Hamas speak for all Palestinians?

"Either Isreal goes or the terrorists" Is this your solution? Is this the problem?

End the Occupation, give refugees their rights, and no one would support Hamas. Isreal has every right to exist, but so does Palestine. A two-state solution has already been approved by the overwhelming majority of Palestinians.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

MoeMZA said:


> diddye said:
> 
> 
> > Hamas is not a freedom fighting organization. Their whole reason for being is the destruction of israel. They are not here to fight back for some land, compromise some kind of peace...it is to kill all israelis. It is to wipe out as many as they can and for them to leave the middle east. Point blank....either israel goes or terrorists.
> ...


 My point is, if hamas exists only to destroy israel by all means, doesn't that mean that any peace agreement wont work? If palestinians are given some land in a compromise, that STILL means israel has land too. They are still in the middle east and that means hama's objective has not been compelte...which leads to more bombers. Hamas does not represent all palestinians, but as long as they bomb, no matter what agreement has been made, israel will not stand for any bombings and will retaliate. This will only continue the cycle of violence. So yes, my statement that as long as hamas exists, there will be no peace. Terrorists organizations must be eliminated. You cant negotiate w/ extremists.


----------



## MoeMZA (Feb 19, 2004)

Who can exist with no support? Again, if the overwhelming majority of Palestinians accept a two-state solution, Hamas will die.

Speaking of Hamas, wonder who helped create them?
http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=18062002-051845-8272r

also,
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pag...d=1082793078162


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

http://www.moynihaninstitute.org/flame3.htm


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> http://www.moynihaninstitute.org/flame3.htm


 Nice link, but what are you trying to say?

It's one-sided propaganda, so it hold no real value.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2004)

Jewelz, thanks for posting that webpage. I learned alot. I like this quote:


> the Arab nations truly decided to make peace with Israel and to put an end to the century-long strife, they could easily accomplish it by accepting the "Palestinian refugees" in their countries and, just as Israel did with Jewish refugees from Arab countries, integrating them into their societies and making useful citizens of them. In fact, acceptance in their countries might also be offered to the Israeli Arabs, who, despite enjoying a higher standard of living, education, and health than Arabs in any of the surrounding countries and despite having the same civil rights as Israeli Jews, are not happy to live in a Jewish state.


I have to laugh when someone says the EU claims the U.S. is bias in favor of the Israelis. Well, most of the countries compromising the EU were complacent or were active participants in the slaughter of 6 million Jews! If I was an Israeli, I wouldn't stake my hopes on support from the EU.


----------

