"When will Bush and Rice and Olmert and Livni take note"?

Posted by Hugh at March 14, 2008 10:51 AM

Never. These people all have mud (and more) caked on their faces, plugging up their eyes and ears and apparently, their brains as well. This is what happens when one spends years in an ostrich-like state.

Given the events of recent years with these clowns at the helm it's virtually miraculous that there still is an Israel at all.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 14, 2008 11:05 AM

Why havent early elections been called? How much more incompetant must Olmert be before that happens?

Posted by: Elric66 at March 14, 2008 11:06 AM

Olmert will have to recite the shehada in front of a world audience. Even then he might retain power.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 14, 2008 11:27 AM

"There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiative, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility."

From #13 of the Hamas Charter

Any stoppage of violence against Israel from the Palestinians is nothing more than a hudna. They are sworn to fight in the name of jihad until there is no Israel, they have locked the Hamas Charter into stone and it cannot be changed just as the words of the Quran are considered pure and cannot be changed. Abbas's intifada, and Hamas practice the art of taquiya, and kitman whenever they deal with unbelievers such as Condi Rice, The modern writings of the 36 articles of the Hamas charter as much of Islam still lives in the tenth century.

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam
is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just
want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true,
it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us
feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics
rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the
fanatics are ruling Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50
shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically
slaughter Christian. It is the fanatics
who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take
over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the
stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard
quantifiable fact is that the 'peaceful majority', the 'silent
majority', is cowed and extraneous.

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our
powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of
points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their
silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak
up, because like Germany , they will awaken one day and
find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun if we try and ignore or tolerate terrorist groups like Hamas, or Hezbollah because they are sworn to kill Jews and nonbelievers and no peace conference will ever change that.

Posted by: Mackie at March 14, 2008 11:46 AM

Here I am to tick everyone off with what some will undoubtedly see as an Islamophile opinion. The Palestinian Whateverthehellitis can't be blamed for the actions of an Israeli Arab.

(Not that there isn't plenty for which it should be held responsible, the obvious start being the constant Gaza rocket attacks. If the Palestinian Whateverthehellitis is too weak to stop these attacks, it is no use negotiating with it since it cannot deliver anything.)

Posted by: Karl Pov at March 14, 2008 11:46 AM

"If the Palestinian Whateverthehellitis is too weak to stop these attacks, it is no use negotiating with it since it cannot deliver anything."

Thats always been one of my main points. Either the Palis cant or arent willing to stop the attacks. In either case why negotiate?

Posted by: Elric66 at March 14, 2008 11:49 AM

"When will Bush and Rice and Olmert and Livni take note"?

Posted by Hugh at March 14, 2008 10:51 AM

Never.

These people will never see what they don't want to see, nor change beliefs when they think all people and religions are really the same.

Posted by: Sounder at March 14, 2008 11:52 AM

Okay. Stipulate that Muslims cannot be trusted to honor a treaty. That implies that they can't be trusted to keep their given word -- at least, not when it's been given to an "infidel." Indeed, that statement has strong Qur'anic backing. That implies...what?

If the Western nations are morally disallowed from quarantining Islam to the Arabian states, then what are we permitted to do?

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at March 14, 2008 11:53 AM

"If the Western nations are morally disallowed from quarantining Islam to the Arabian states, then what are we permitted to do?"

Die or submit

Posted by: Elric66 at March 14, 2008 11:55 AM

They won't take the tough road because they can't.

Ariel Sharon did that then towards the end of his political life - before his stroke - he decided to abandon Gaza. Did it make a difference?

Israeli leadership refuses to stoop to the same level of the Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims to be cast with the same brush. So they ignore reality.

The logic of the Palestinian 'cause' is that Israel must commit political suicide and cease to exist as a [secular] Jewish State in order for peace to be achieved.

Read any Memri dispatch to see how much that 'logic' is ingrained in the Palestinian/Arab/Muslim psyche.

Against that, Israel has no hope. Until the Palestinians *alone* change that perspective, no other Arab/Muslim country will allow Israel to live in peace.

Since that is unlikely to happen....

Posted by: Peacemaker18 at March 14, 2008 12:09 PM

Surely You're Joking?

Well, Rice isn't.

From Always On Watch:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/alwaysonwatch2/7568103855604712199/#694342

"The United States is participating in the OIC:

The United States has decided to send an envoy to the OIC summit for the first time. OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu welcomed Washington’s decision and hoped that it would contribute to improving US relations with the Islamic world. “There are plenty of problems and misunderstandings. But still there is plenty of potential for cooperation,” he said.

The US government said it had appointed Texas entrepreneur Sada Cumber to the OIC “to promote mutual understanding and dialogue between the US and Muslim communities.” Ihsanoglu said the OIC’s position on issues like the Palestine-Israel conflict is often misrepresented in the United States. “We want (Cumber) to listen and learn,” Ihsanoglu said.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the appointment of Cumber signals the deep respect for the values and ideals of Islam held by the US government and the American people. “This appointment is one part of a much larger effort that our government has undertaken to increase our engagement with Muslim communities worldwide,” she said...."

Posted by: Sounder at March 14, 2008 12:14 PM

I think we should take note that murderous attacks by Israeli Arabs are pretty rare. Most Israeli Arabs are too fond of their (by Arab standards) highly privileged position to support Arab violence by more than lip service, if that.

Posted by: Karl Pov at March 14, 2008 12:18 PM

Olmert STILL at the helm as another war looms.

My favorite description of Olmert is from Sarah Honig in the Jerusalem Post:

"He is no different from the electrician who, after short-circuiting your bathroom and starting a fire in the kitchen, insists that he is the best qualified to rewire the entire house because he has become familiar with your circuitry like nobody else."

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 14, 2008 1:08 PM

Surely You're Joking, All You Muslims!

Of course not, there is no fun in Islam.

Seriously, you cannot believe that any Muslim will keep an agreement with a kuffar. According to the Qur'an, he/she/them can lie, deceive, cheat, rob and kill kuffars with the blessings of Allah and his prophet.

In the duality of the Muslim world, only male believers are human beings. The rest of us simply do not matter.

Never submit.

Posted by: tanstaafl at March 14, 2008 2:41 PM

@Sounder: "US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the appointment of Cumber signals the deep respect for the values and ideals of Islam held by the US government and the American people."

Speak for yourself, Ms. Rice.

Islam is nothing more than piracy for the sake of piracy--Intolerant Shameless Liars Advocating Mass-murder.

Posted by: Stendec at March 14, 2008 3:36 PM

It is not so much that Bush, Rice, Olmert and Livni take note, as it is for the 4th Estate to make note.
When the 4th Estate can no longer deny Israels right to not defend itself, is the day Israel will be free to act.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at March 14, 2008 5:11 PM

"Islam means peace."

When 'social scientists', politicians, and the media begin to dissect statements like "Islam means peace" as well as Islamic history and philosophy, with the same skepticism and intellectual rigor Feynman approached understanding the physical world, I'll feel a lot better.

Until that happens, or conditions deteriorate to the point that discussion is no longer an option, I'll just keep trying to spread the word, shake my head in disbelief, and say:

Surely you're joking, Mr. President?

Stunningly, it seems he was serious.

On the other hand, it may allow us to lower our dependence on foreign oil just by harnessing the spinning motion of Thomas Jefferson and the other founding fathers.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at March 14, 2008 5:58 PM

Surely you're joking, Mr. President?

Stunningly, it seems he was serious. --Ralph Infidel

It's pretty amazing when you know you're smarter than the U.S. President, isn't it?

Concerning Islam, every JW'er is smarter than the U.S. President.

Posted by: darcy at March 14, 2008 6:10 PM

whether from rockets fired indiscriminately into cities, or attacks on civilians such as this one, by individual or groups of Arab attackers, then we will think about opening negotiations again. Since there never will be such a year, the negotiations, and the idiotic peace-processing that only those heedless of Islam could conceivably put any stock in, would stop.

Surely you are joking, Fitzy!

I mean, if what you ultimately want is the end of any perspective of peace in this conflict, why the hell do you preconize the precondition of a one year long cease-fire from Palestinian terrorists (and with no conditions for Israel!) when you know it won't happen??

The answer is simple: to make sure the peace will never come or, which is the same thing, to make look the Israel as the only one who wants peace, but at the same time doing in sort peace will never come. Surely you could tell us if you consider as a valid reason for the end of this one year long "probation" a lone rocket fired from Palestine??

Posted by: Tristan at March 14, 2008 6:23 PM

This contradiction is just like the complaints from the ziofeces and their useful idiots when Palestinian terrorists kill Israeli civilians who support the settlers terrorists, while at the same time they consider justified the killings of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians who, according to them, are complices because they support them.

Posted by: Tristan at March 14, 2008 6:26 PM

If the gov't was really interested in addressing the issues with the OIC he would have sent someone that can talk to them. I'm not sure who this Sada Cumber guy is, but I'm guessing that he is a) one of those "islam is peace it's all our fault for having a corrupt society" people, or b) he's a muslim that will help GW and Condi sell us down the river.
Since he was born and raised in pakistan, I'm guessing the latter.

Posted by: walterc at March 14, 2008 6:30 PM

Bush, Rice and Olmert; this entire collective of meatheads will never grasp that they are inept failures. Moreover, they are too enraptured with their egos and musings over personal legacies, to realise that this two state solution is nothing more than selling-out The State of Israel.
Nor should it come as any shock and awe to these weenies when Islam finally subjugates their nation, as well as their allies.
As mentioned, the fact that the seditious Olmert maintains the leadership of Israel is mindboggling – the weenies of the west are possessed by a death-wish, unfortunately it affects not just them but us all!

Posted by: ballzack at March 14, 2008 6:34 PM

"In the duality of the Muslim world, only male believers are human beings. The rest of us simply do not matter."

Actually, it's ARAB male believers who matter the most. Indian or Kurdish or Hazara or, Allah forbid, BLACK male believers simply aren't all that important.

Posted by: Professor PyroSkank at March 14, 2008 6:37 PM

Bush and Rice and Olmert and Livni: not one of them is pro-Israel.

Bush is connected with the Saudis. Rice obeys Bush, but also views the "Palestinians" as similar to the African-Americans before civil rights.

Olmert and Livni apparently put their own welfare ahead of Israel's.

The government of the U.S. need not be pro-Israel. As that is the case, however, need we hear, ad nauseam, the declaration that "Israel is our staunchest ally in the Middle East--being the only 'democracy?'"

The idiotic "peace process," "road map" and incessant demands that Israel not defend itself, are designed to destroy Israel. This would make the Arab-Islamic world (including Saudis) happy.

The "democracy" of Israel is not one that has representatives elected by and answerable to the people. It is a "spoils system." where the members of the parliament (Knesset) are beholden for perks and position to the "party" not the people (who elect "party" not "representatives").

That is why Israel is saddled with an incompetent (to be kind) government.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at March 14, 2008 8:11 PM

sounder,

re "US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the appointment of Cumber signals the deep respect for the values and ideals of Islam held by the US government and the American people."

" . . . by the the US government" perhaps, believable.

" . . . by . . . the American people." Count me out of that one!

Posted by: unicorns62000 at March 14, 2008 8:18 PM

"why the hell do you preconize [sic] the precondition of a one year long cease-fire from Palestinian terrorists (and with no conditions for Israel!) when you know it won't happen?"
-- from a posting above

Because "peace" cannot be achieved by forcing Israel to make further concessions, which is all that ever happens from all these negotiations and peace-processing.

Peace does not require a treaty. The Cold War was also a Cold Peace. A true and full "peace" is impossible as long as the texts of Islam inculcate, in Muslims the idea that they have a duty to make sure that Islam spreads and everywhere dominates, and that any Infidel nation-state on land that was once possessed by Muslims must again be possessed by them, through whatever means necessary.

But even if Islam requires Muslims, as a central duty, either to participate directly, or to support those who do, in Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, it does not mean that they cannot recognize a situation where they have more to lose from attacking an Infidel power, and when that happens, they don't. In the 19th and for most of the 20th century, it was not a change in the ideology of Islam that accounts for the relative quiet of Muslim peoples, but rather their relative weakeness, compared to the Western and other Infidel powers. That is what kept them from being aggressive.

However, over the past half-century, several things happened. Muslim states -- Pakistan, Indonesia, North African countries -- pushed out the European powers that had formerly dominated them. Then, the fantastic oil bonanza began, and allowed Muslims who, becasue of inshallah-fatalism, were likely never to be able to create wealth on their own, to simply be the beneficiaries of an accident of geology, and since 1973 alone, Muslim members of OPEC have taken in more than ten trillion dollars. This is the largest transfer of wealth in human history. With that money they have bought hundreds of billions of dollars worth of arms and have heavily invested in weapons proejcts, not all of which have been entirely in vain. They have, furthermore, spent vast sums (Saudi Arabia alone having spent nearly $100 billion) to pay for mosques and madrasas all ove the world, and especially in the Infidel lands, the Bilad al-kufr. And they have bought up armies of Western hirelings, people of influence and connections, sometimes former diplomats, former intelligence agents, politicians, jouranlists, and of course those who, in academic life, have managed to monopolize the teaching of Islam and related subjects (see John Esposito, see "MESA Nostra").

And at the same time, heedlessly, the Western countries allowed into their midst millions of Muslim immigrants, assuming rather casually that such immigrants would be just like all others, at first assimilating with difficulty, but like Hindus or Chinese or Vietnamese Buddhists, or black African Christians, would manage. The very idea that Islam itself inculcated permanent hostility toward the legal and political institutions of Infidels, and their social arrangements, and toward Infidels themselves -- well, that was never looked into, never investigated, and in large part, it still hasn't been properly investigated, much less widely understood.

Finally, the Western technological advances have been appropriated by Muslims, who have successfully made use of audiocassettes (think of what Khomeini in his French exile did with those tapes), and videocassettes, and websites on the Internet, and satellite television channels -- all used to better spread Islamic propaganda, bot to True Believers, and to the economicaly and psychically marginal Infidels who provide the largest pool of potential targets.

Those three reasons explain why Islam is on the march, why Muslims everywhere -- especially in Western Europe -- see their best hope of spreading Islam, is through the Money Weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest.

And that, too, is why they smell blood when it comes to Israel, and that is a very dangerous situation. That is why Israel should use any means, or any excuse, to stop this nonsensical negotiating with those who, as followers of Muhammad's example in the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, have no intention of honoring any commitments that they make with an Infidel nation-state. From a Muslim point of view, this would be to betray Islam.

And that, of course, is not permissible.

Posted by: Hugh at March 14, 2008 10:01 PM

"preconize the precondition"

What the hell does that mean, you semiliterate nitwit? One of the best things about being Jewish is that antisemites are always misfucks and born losers like you, Tristan.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at March 15, 2008 2:11 AM

Sada Cucumber:

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/03/11/condhimmi-i-know-this-much-about-islam/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 15, 2008 4:12 AM

Alas! I am afraid my point has not been answered!

Let's try putting the relevant parts in bold:

I mean, if what you ultimately want is the end of any perspective of peace in this conflict, why the hell do you preconize the precondition of a one year long cease-fire from Palestinian terrorists (and with no conditions for Israel!) when you know it won't happen??

The answer is simple: to make sure the peace will never come or, which is the same thing, to make look the Israel as the only one who wants peace, but at the same time doing in sort peace will never come. Surely you could tell us if you consider as a valid reason for the end of this one year long "probation" a lone rocket fired from Palestine??

"preconize the precondition"

What the hell does that mean, you semiliterate nitwit? One of the best things about being Jewish is that antisemites are always misfucks and born losers like you, Tristan.

This means you are the misfucked illiterate, stupid piece of shit. Take a dictionary, and read it before you come here making a clown of yourself.

Don't hesitate to come back and inform us of the results!

Now to come back to the topic, do you guys know Israel recognized Iran was not an existential threat???

Posted by: Tristan at March 15, 2008 1:53 PM

A poster above keeps confusing a "Peace Treaty" with "Peace." They are different things. If one side views all such "treaties" as merely "truce treaties," to be signed when one needs to buy some time, to get stronger, and also, if possible, to get the other side to commit to concessions in that treaty that will weaken that side, and make it weaker, then such "treaties" do not make a real and durable peace more, but rather less, likely.

That is the case with every single treaty signed by Israel with its Arab opponents. These treaties are not in Israel's long-term interests, because again and again Israel gives up tangible and indispensable assets -- land -- along, often, with "confidence-building measures" such as the release of terrorits -- why exactly it is always and everywhere Israel, which is hardly trying to wipe out the local Arabs (see how they live inside Israel, see what their standard of living is, the mortality rate, the health care made available, the level of education, compa4red to Arabs anywhere, even in the richest of Gulf oil states), that has to provide thes "confidence-building measures." It is the Arabs who ought, at a minimum, to be required to cut off all of the hysterical hate that is routinely broadcast on "Palestinian Authority's" must-see tv, and contained in the "Palestinian" textbooks at every level, and on every poster, every sign, every everything that makes up the daily life of those local Arabs who now call themselves, as they were carefuly trained to do, the "Palestinians."

Posted by: Hugh at March 15, 2008 2:26 PM

That is the case with every single treaty signed by Israel with its Arab opponents. These treaties are not in Israel's long-term interests, because again and again Israel gives up tangible and indispensable assets -- land -- along, often, with "confidence-building measures" such as the release of terrorits

Indeed, and the proof of it is the evacuation of the Golan Heights (with its colonies), the Sheeba Farms, and the fact that Israel is bigger than in 1948. Thanks god it gave land!

As for the release of terrorists, are you talking about the children the nazionists hold in their prisons, or actual terrorists? Or both??

Posted by: Tristan at March 15, 2008 4:04 PM

"These treaties are not in Israel's long-term interests, because again and again Israel gives up tangible and indispensable assets -- land -- along, often, with "confidence-building measures" such as the release of terrorists..."
-- from a posting by me, then quoted and responded to by a poster who says: "Indeed,, and the proof of it is the evacuation of the Golan Heights (with its colonies), the Sheeba Farms, and the fact that Israel is bigger than in 1948. Thanks god it gave land!"

Stop right there. There is no reason for Israel to give up everything it won in war. Few countries do. Just look at the last two world wars:

See America, and the Pacific Ocean, circa 1945. See Europe, and possessions formerly in German hands, circa 1945 (start with East Prussia, parts of which are now in Poland, and the city of Koenigsberg, now Russian Kaliningrad, and go from there).
See Europe, 1919 (start with formerly Austrian Sudtirol, which then was handed over permanently to Italy and became the Alto Adige).

There is hardly a country in the world that has not had its borders set, and re-set, by war.

And what's more, as this poster forgets, in 1949, Israel repeatedly offered to its Arab neighbors to make the ceasefire or armistice lines of 1949 into permanent borders. It was they, those Arabs, who rejected that idea. And it is preposterous for Arabs and Muslims today to pretend that Israel is under some kind of permanent obligation to return to those armistice lines. What Isreal possessed in 1949 simply identified the extent of what its soldiers had taken; it was Ben-Gurion who called a halt when they might have taken much more of those parts of Judea and Samaria that the Jordanians had not yet re-named as "the West Bank."

Israel is no more required to give up all of what it won in the Six-Day War than any other country that has been successful in such a war of self-defense. And even Resolutin 242 clearly rejected the notion that Israel had to give up all of the territories it had won, because that very issue was hotly contested, and as both the British and American ambassadors said at the time, and in their memoirs later, the Arab attempt to make the resolution read "all the territories" was deliberately rejected, and that rejection is why it took so long to get the resolution passed. This has all been so well understood, that it amazes that Arab and Muslim propagandists keep trying to distort the clear history.

Resolution 242, in any case, states that Israel must have "secure" and "defensible" borders, and that is a matter for Israel itself to decide. Furthermore, there is the little matter of the Mandate for Palestine, which clearly set aside, of all the vast territories formerly part of the Ottoman Empire, one thin little sliver -- it was to have consisted of historic Palestine, on both sides of the river Jordan, but in the end the mandatory authority, Great Britain, for its own reasons of Realpolitik, closed off all of Eastern Palestine to the clauses about encouraging "Jewish immigration" and "close Jewish settlement on the land" in order that the older brother of Feisal (he whom the British had put on the throne of Iraq), Abullah, might be given the consolation prize of running "the Emirate of Transjordan" and so cease to threaten to lay claim to Syria and so possibly cause trouble between Great Britain, as Abdullah's patron, and the French who then had the Mandate for Syria.

The fact is that the Arab states promised to "end hostilities" by the 1949 Armistice Agreements, and not one of them (save with the exception of Lebanon) did. They continued to maintain a state of war. Egypt's government sponsored fedayin attacks -- there were 19,000 separate attacks (most of them, fortunately, failed) on Israel between 1949 and 1967. The Suez Campaign was, on Israel's part, an attempt to punish Egypt for the continuing support of such fedayin. When Israel was pressured to give up the entire Sinai to Nasser, it was because Nasser promised he would 1) allow Israeli ships to use the Suez Canal 2) he would not re-militarize the Sinai 3) he would not try to block the Straits of Tiran. He broke the first one at once, the second one soon after, and the casus belli for the Six-Day War was his blockade of the Straits of Tiran, which would have throttled Israeli shipping to the east.

The Sheba Farms? That old canard? You are still claiming what? That Israel has to return them to Syria? Why? Should Italy, that was on the winnig side in World War I, return the Alto Adige (which was 98% ethnic German when handed over to Italy) to Austria? On what theory, please? The Golan Heights and the Shebaa Farms belong to Israel. It is called the spoils of war. Furthermore, if you look into the history of the territory orginally intended for Mandatory Palestine (and hence for the Jewish National Home that was to become Israel) the original disposition of the Golan Heights becomes a bit murkier.

Israel did, for the second time, turn over the entire Sinai -- together wtith 3 airfields, oilfields the Israelis had discovered, the resort built up at Sharm el-Sheik -- in all about $16 billion, in 1979 dollars, in infrastructure. By all the rules of warfare that have hitherto obtained, it was not required to give up any of this. The fact that the Israelis did is a tribute to their own clumsiness and inability to state their case clearly, and furthermore, to resist outside pressure. Finally, it also reflects their dim-witted belief that a permanent "peace" can be established or maintained with Arab Muslims on the basis of anything other than deterrence. Those Israelis who put their faith in treaties, treaties always based on surrender of tangible assets, again and again have been proven to be wrong. But the kind of people who tend to end up running Israel refuse to study Islam, refuse to figure out that deterrence, based on an end to any more concessions, is the only way to peace -- whatever the Arabs promise, with a smile, or whatever they demand, with a scowl.

Posted by: Hugh at March 15, 2008 6:27 PM

Except no Germans are claiming the Italian territory back, no Germans have been displaced from their land, and finally, no one in the world recognizes this territory as German. That would be the big differences. Oh, and the fact that Italy have committed slightly less violations of the human rights than Israel.

Now this is rather interesting, since at the same time you mention "how many" concessions Israel granted to Arabs, you pretend Israel doesn't have to give back what it has stolen, but you pretend Arabs should accept peace and leave to Israel what it has stolen from them?

You mention peace treaties proposal by Israel, but you don't mention the Arab proposal, consisting in unilateral recognition of Israel against the devolution of the Arab land occupied illegally by Israel?

Why would Israel make "generous proposals" and not accept the same generous proposals from Arabs? Israel is bigger than it was in 1948. You pretend it proposed a honest peace treaty in 1949, but now that Israel's situation is even better than in 1948, it would refuse to keep the Palestinian territory she conquerred until 1967, to which the Arabs have renounced, wanting, at the contrary, more?

You pretend Israel wants peace when it demands to Palestinians that idiocy about recognizing Isrel's "right to exist", furthermore the right to exist as a *Jewish state*, which means the ultimate humillation for them and is contrary to all possible international rules? Recognizing not only they were right to be disposessed from their land, but also recognizing the supremacy of an ethnicity over any else including their own? What kind of people would accept this kind of demand, especially when Israel intentionally got it off her sleeve when she saw Arabs were dangerously close to accepting peace? What kind of aberration is that? Did the US demand from Russia the right to exist as a capitalist state??? Were the native Americans asked to recognize the US' right to exist??? No, what you ask in these cases is simply peace, and you don't give a crap if the other recognizes you or not.

You see, accepting the Arab proposal is out of question for Israel, just as is accepting any proposal, unless Palestinians are asked to literally take their pants down. A just peace (one that would end the conflict) would mean for Israel to dismantle the illegal settlements, the ones where the Zionist version of Jihadists live, nutters who repeat over and over again their right to live on "Judea" and "Samaria", all this while they harrass their Palestinian neighbors, rolling over them or stabbing their kids to death under the comprensive eye of the IDF. For Israel to get these nutcases out of there would mean having them in Israel. Having them in Israel would perhaps mean terrorism like in the old days of the Mandate, when zionists were killing civilians with the same enthusiasm than today Palestinian terrorists, before delegating part of the job to the army. Because for this fascist trash would mean for Israel's rulers the risk of suffering the same fate as Isaac Rabin.

But anyway, who would believe anything truly good could come from a pseudo-democratic state who tortures, invades, occupies, steals, kills, imprisons ever children of low age or use them as human shields?

Posted by: Tristan at March 15, 2008 8:54 PM

The voice of illogic, fantasy, and underneath it all, hysterical hate, is on display in the posting above. Take a good look. It will remain up, on permanent exhibit.

Posted by: Hugh at March 15, 2008 9:43 PM

That's truly sad. I thought we could have a reasonable debate, but I guess I overestimated you. Indeed, the fault is not as much yours as it is mine. I guess that is what comes from writing in a site in which 99,9% of the posters agree with your point of view. You come to believe that what is said here is the absolute truth, while anything that differs is obviously illogic, false and, of course, hateful or antisemitic (never forget this canard!).

I answered. I contested your points with arguments based in facts, facts you haven't challenged because you were not able to, so the only thing you could do was to try to discredit the writer. I may be hateful, hysterical, and illogical, but the facts are out there for everyone to see! Look for them, Hugh; and if you (or anyone else) experiences difficulties in this task, I shall help you. Begin with the kids jailed or used as human shields.

Oh, almost forgot: before some moron out there accuse me of being an apologist of terrorism, I would like to make clear that I despise Hamas, and all the Palestinian losers who attack innocent civilians.

Posted by: Tristan at March 16, 2008 11:48 AM