Sharon admits blowing up synagoges and to creating terrorism!!

Note...
The UN Resolution 242, that I brought forth, does not require the withdrawal of Israel from all the territories....only "territories".
If not...then there would have been no need to mention "territorial adjustments" of the or any kind at Camp David or at the meeting at Taba in the year 2000, now would there?
Matter of factly though, Israel has implemented the operative principles of UN Resolution 242, again, that I mentioned, by the eventual return of all the captured "territories" sought and claimed by Egypt and has returned those "territories" sought and claimed by Jordon. Israel has also offered to return all those "territories" that remained to Palestine or the Palestinian's but alas, this was turned down and rejected by them. I mean, Israel was willing to do this based on an agreement that would give those "territories" back in exchange for peace.....now I know why the Palestinian's rejected it.

Peace.....no, there will be no Peace. Hamas and PLO Charters so forbid it. They mandate and decree the full destruction and eradication of all Jews and the nation of Israel. I have yet to see a formal document by or from Israel, as with the Hamas and PLO Charters, that dictate and mandate the eradication of all Palestinians...have you? In such, till the Palestinian mind-set changes and the PLO and Hamas Charters are disbanded and ripped to shreds, with honest earnest, there will be no peace. To Israel, as long as those documents are adhered to and mandated as dogmatic 'law', this is a matter of national security to Israel.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by Seekerof]

The UN Resolution 242, that I brought forth, does not require the withdrawal of Israel from all the territories....only "territories".

No, but it states:

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"

The preamble of the resolution makes it clear that aquiring territory by force in not admissible. There is no foundation for Israels claim to the land.

The invasion, and occupation are illegal. There is no question that Israel must withdraw from arab lands.

Anything less is a violation of international law.

You have not shown any reason for Israel to be in the West Bank, or Gaza, or the Golon.

None of these excuses are justification for what Israel has done over the last 36 years.

You point at the arabs with the finger of blame while ignoring what Israel has done.

What if it were reversed, and Israel was occupied by Arabs? What would be your position on occupation then?

You act as if it is nothing, but the Palestinians have less freedom than any other group on earth.

You try to present the false statements that Israel has offered to withdraw, but you neglect to ststae that in every case Israel has demanded that The Dome of the Rock be given to them.

Not acceptable.

this is from the rense article:

We must only assume that the Jews referred to in the protocols do not necessarily reflect the actions or intentions of all Jews but of a small group of Zionist Jews as well as gentile oligarchs, rulers and Freemasons.
�
So, one can see now the true revolt against civilization. A constant subversion and perversion of the old order of things leads a path for the despotic way of the new world order.
�
No man, woman, or child, gentile or Jew, in support of this new world order shall remain unpunished.

this is how i see it also.

billybob, respectfully....you quoted this and then made the statement/comment that you agree:

"No man, woman, or child, gentile or Jew, in support of this new world order shall remain unpunished."

I suppose those who killed 6-7 million Jews felt the same way...do you?



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by Seekerof]

I suppose those who killed 6-7 million Jews felt the same way...do you?

Have you read the protocols?

You would compare the dead Jews of WWII to the people behind the protocols today?(if they exist)

How poor.

Originally posted by Seekerof
billybob, respectfully....you quoted this and then made the staement/comment that you agree:

"No man, woman, or child, gentile or Jew, in support of this new world order shall remain unpunished."

I suppose those who killed 6-7 million Jews felt the same way...do you?

regards
seekerof

i believe some 80 million people died in WW2.

i agree that this is the way it is. i don't agree with it. i would only punish the wicked who force their will on others.

and, yes. i think the same bankster/industrialists FEEL the same way.

ArchAngel....
"illegial occupation" is what exactly? How do the Palestinians interpret "illegial occupation"?
This?


Link and source:
www.industry.gov.ps...


Seems to me that the PLO/Hamas/Palestinian definition applies and means the whole nation of Israel!

This is what Arafat wears on his uniform:





Its ALL of Israel again....I mean geez, if all we are going to do is throw around "propaganda" spewage, lets do it with factual earnest shall we?

And here:


Page 64 of a PLA official 5th grade school book: "There is no Israel"

As been posed by this website:
www.frontpagemag.com...


Are you refering to the "end of the occupation" to equate or mean:
A state or nation alongside Israel
or to mean....
NO Israel?

I would seriously encourage you to read the Hamas and PLO/PLA Charters in about as much earnest as you read anti-Israel, anti-"Zionist" material.....I would certainly hate to see another 6-7 million killed for no reason.


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by Seekerof]

too bad they just can't all call themselves 'people' and share the land. it's the hatfeilds and the mcoys on a grand scale.

I think a fair solution to all of this is that the palestinians leave Israel and its parts and resettle in Jordan under the King in a semi-autonomous state.

BUT...

will the Israeli's incessant need to spread their influence not lead to further problems in years ahead?

"illegial occupation" is what exactly? How do the Palestinians interpret "illegial occupation"?
This?

Israels army outside the green line.


Are you refering to the "end of the occupation" to equate or mean:
A state or nation alongside Israel
or to mean....
NO Israel?

Israel behind the green line. What is so wrong with that?

I would seriously encourage you to read the Hamas and PLO/PLA Charters in about as much earnest as you read anti-Israel, anti-"Zionist" material.....I would certainly hate to see another 6-7 million killed for no reason.

I have read those too, along with countless other materials on the issue. I grew up learning more about this than anyone else I ever met.

Please understand that I am not anti-Israel, or pro-Palestinian.

Although I am not ethnicly Jewish I grew up thinking of myself to be Israel. The small church I went to was called Israel. Although it was Christian it would seem to be Jewish to others. I followed the calander, and holy days that the Karaite Jews do, and ate Torah Kosher for most of my life. I lived more like a Jew than most Jews themselves.

I am not on any side other than the humans in this conflict. My sympathies are to those who suffer no matter what 'side' they are on.

[Edited on 13-1-2004 by ArchAngel]

Thank you ArchAngel, and please forgive me if I have come across wrong to you on this and have caused you any unnecessary comfort. I meant no disrespect.

I would agree with what you have mentioned.
I have to go for a bit, but I would be interested on this "Green Line" issue you have spoken of. I have read a little on this but my focus was on other matters dealing with this conflict and not regulated to the "Green Line".

Any good factual information on this issue, other than extremely biased, would be appreciated.

It won't be long before I will go before Advisor and seek to do a Research Project on this issue of the Israel-Palestinian Conflict and its very beginnings up to current, since I have spoken with him before on this, as I have with JohnBull1....
I hope that time will allow me and those asked/selected to be able to do this worthy project.


Thank you again billybob and ArchAngel for your comments and discussions with me on this and other issues.


regards
seekerof

Here you can find the full text of the Oslo Accords:

www.mfa.gov.il...


Here is good general info on the accords and events following it from different perspectives:

en2.wikipedia.org...

www.palestinefacts.org...

www.yahoodi.com...

www.hartford-hwp.com...

www.mideastweb.org...

Well well, seems that some folks are still in the habit of talking about things they know nothing about. Alright, we've done it before so why the hell not.

Never since has Israel offered to withdraw without taking the Dome of the Rock.

I think the concept that you seem to not be able to understand is that both religions have holy sites on that same spot. As it stands now (under Israel's control) the Muslim religious authorities have exclusive authority over their entire holy site and visitors pray there daily. As it stood before 1967 (under Muslim control) the Wailing Wall (aka only remaining piece of the great jewish temple) was covered in garbage and # and jews were barred from going to it.

Please spare myself and anyone else who has ever been to Israel any bull# tirades about "giving the dome of the rock back". You are ignoring the existence of a jewish holy site (historically older) on the same spot. You are ignoring the hateful neglect of the site by the Muslims who controlled it pre-1967. What kind of moron would give back land that included the holiest spot of their religion to the same people that caked it in # and locked them out of it? Thank god people with views like what you typed have zero control over what goes on in Israel.

As for your references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, all I can say is if you'd like at some point in the future I'd love to debate physics with you and as my source I'll use the script of Peter Pan. You can fly by thinking happy thoughts because this "factual document" here says so.

The problem is that Israel does not have a border.

Where that border should be is questionable, but it is not all of the West Bank, or Gaza, or Golon.

No matter where it is not one Palestinian should have to lose their home and land. But some people will have to move, and it should be those who moved in after 1967.

Some of the settlements will have to be removed, or the people will have to become part of a Palestinian state.

That will be the hard part, but the ones to blame are the administrations of Israel that created the settlements in the first place.

I think the concept that you seem to not be able to understand is that both religions have holy sites on that same spot.

The temple of Israel was destroyed almost 2000 years ago. Al Aqsa has been there for over 1300 years.

"You are ignoring the existence of a jewish holy site (historically older) on the same spot."

I am very well aware of it.

But so what?

That temple was destroyed.

The question this leads to is who owns it? The answer, no matter what anyone else says, is the Muslims. Like it, or not it is theirs.

Taking it would be a crime of the highest order.

"As for your references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, all I can say is if you'd like at some point in the future I'd love to debate physics with you and as my source"

I have read the Protocols, and much about them. I understand that it is based on older works.

As presented it is not a real document. But no one can deny that much of what is presented in this work is happening today. Weather this is because the author had insight into the nature of man, or the inner working of the illuminati is debatable.

" As it stood before 1967 (under Muslim control) the Wailing Wall (aka only remaining piece of the great jewish temple) was covered in garbage and (c) and jews were barred from going to it. "

This does not justify anything Israel does.

Originally posted by John bull 1
�I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian woman and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian childs existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian women is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do. (Ariel Sharon, current Prime Minister, In an interview with General Ouze Merham, 1956)

Now does this sound like a Nazi ???

The man you are defending said that.

I�m not defending a man, I�m defending the truth. It just happens that in this case, it is the same.

This thread was started with a slander against Ariel Sharon. Someone made up a lie, attributed a quote from some anonymous extremist to Ariel Sharon, and because the lie fits someone�s political agenda, it got picked up and repeated hundreds of times on the Internet.

It took me all of five minutes to discover that Amos Oz never met Sharon, and that the interview was with someone else. Since this information is so easily available, I wonder that this particular slander is so common. The answer? Because many people, for whatever reason, only apply their skepticism in one direction.

I think it�s odd that when this dishonesty is pointed out, nobody stops and considers how much disinformation is out there. Nobody stops to think, Hmmm, I was fooled by this, I wonder what else I�ve read that�s wrong? Instead of learning a lesson in skepticism, I get more propaganda from the same sources that produced the first falsehood. Hello?!

John Bull 1 your quote is fake too. Just like the Amos Oz quote, somebody made it up, and then because it fit an anti-Sharon political agenda, it�s been picked up and repeated on a hundred or more websites by people whose skepticism only goes in one direction. You can find this quote in lots of places, but none of them identify a source beyond saying it was an �interview� from 1956. Nowhere can be found such basic information such as:

1) What was the context of the interview?

2) Where was it published? Newspaper? Book?

3) It�s in English, who did the translation?

4) Who is General Ouze Merham? How come no mention of him can be found anywhere except as part of this supposed interview?

5) If the interview was in 1956, how come Sharon uses the term Palestinian which didn�t become popular until the mid �60s?

The Internet is a great source of information. It�s also a great source of disinformation.


www.israelactivism.com...

Originally posted by ArchAngel
The UN Resolution 242, that I brought forth, does not require the withdrawal of Israel from all the territories....only "territories".

No, but it states:

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war"

The preamble of the resolution makes it clear that aquiring territory by force in not admissible. There is no foundation for Israels claim to the land.

The foundation for Israel�s claim to the land would be the League of Nations Mandate.

Keep in mind that the same territory was acquired in war by Jordan (and Egypt for the Gaza Strip) in 1948. One could argue that Israel did not capture the land, but liberated it.

"The foundation for Israel?s claim to the land would be the League of Nations Mandate. "

The League of nations was replaced by the UN before there was an Israel. The British gave the mandate to the UN. They partitioned Palestine into two almost equal halves which were Israel, and Palestine. Today Israel is way past this line.

What you say is the foundation of Israel's claim does not exist.

If you feel I am wrong please provide a link to the mandate you speak of.

"Keep in mind that the same territory was acquired in war by Jordan (and Egypt for the Gaza Strip) in 1948. One could argue that Israel did not capture the land, but liberated it."

This land was never controled by Israel BEFORE they stole it in the sneak attack of 1967. The people in these lands were not ever represented by Israel, and they still are not today. Liberation would include Israel giving the people the same rights enjoyed by Jewish Israelies.

If it was Israel's intent to liberate these people they have failed.

[Edited on 14-1-2004 by ArchAngel]

ArchAngel - I beg to differ.

Israel controlled the entire area at one point, although at the time it was referred to as Judea, not Israel.

The same people, a homogenous collection of individuals who are bound by race, creed, and national identity, owned that land before. The fact that this ownership occurred in Roman times does not mitigate their legitimate claims to this land as their own. One has only to pull a Bible from one's own bookshelf to ascertain this fact.

The Palestinians, or more correctly the rabble who refer to themselves as "Palestinians", have no legal claim to this land. The never was a country named Palestine, these people are Jordanian cast-outs whose own country forced them out after they tried to take Jordan over as well.

Israel is being more than generous with a neighbor who wants nothing more than to slip into their houses at night and cut the throats of the same people who would make peace with them.