Understanding Terrorist Minds...

[Mr. Kotter]

Oscar nominee: People hate Israelis for a reason

Hany Abu-Assad, Israeli-born director of Oscar-nominated film ‘Paradise Now,’ which has stirred controversy for its depiction of two young Palestinian suicide bombers, says in interview with Yedioth Ahronoth terror derives from another terror and that suicide bombings are a reaction to Israel's terror.

Avner Hofstein

HOLLYWOOD - Hany Abu-Assad's film "Paradise Now" left few Israelis indifferent. The movie, which depicts the story of two young Palestinians in Nablus who were chosen by a local terror group to carry out a suicide bombing in Israel, and which trails their preparations ahead of the attack, infuriated many in the country, most notably publicist Irit Linor, who in an opinion column in Ynet called "Paradise Now" "a quality Nazi film."

In an interview with Yedioth Ahronoth, the Israeli-born director of the Golden Globe award winner for Best Foreign Film emerges as no less controversial than his recent production. At the beginning of our talk he demands that when quoting him I would refrain from using the term "terrorist" to describe people sent to explode themselves in buses and markets.

This is an act of terror, but this terror derives from another terror, Abu-Assad explains. Suicide bombings are a reaction to your terror, he says, and suggests the most accurate term to describe a suicide bombing would be "a counter-terrorist act."

The occupiers and the occupation are the real terrorists. The real terror is stealing the Palestinians' right to live free on their land, Abu-Assad claims.

Confronted with the statement that his words seem to come close to justifying the bombers' actions, Abu-Assad says that in order to stop terror, there is a need to look at the full picture.

'Jews forget they were victims'

Abu-Assad deeply resents Linor's article, which stirred a row of its own upon publication. Articles like this make it harder for me to fight prejudice against Jews, he says.

Someone dares speak up against your movie and already it's hard for you to avoid being critical toward Jews?

They are not just opposed to my film; they also claim to represent all Jews, he states. This is why such an article is "racist and fascist," he says.

Abu-Assad says Linor truly believes people who belong to another nation are different than her. She thinks people who don't accept the fact the occupation is the source for suicidal acts in effect says the Palestinian culture is the root of terror, evil, he explains.

It's hard to see the way Jews, who were once the victims of prejudice and paid a heavy price for anti-Semitism, today act the same, he states. "It makes you want to stop believing in humanity."

Even during the Holocaust, people did not strap on a bomb and set out to kill innocent people.

This was a different situation that only lasted six years, Abu-Assad replies, adding that in the first 30 years of occupation there were no suicide bombings. Who knows what would have happened in Germany had the oppression continued for 30 years, he asks rhetorically.

Abu-Assad stresses he is a pacifist who believes any killing is wrong, and that he advocates a non-violent struggle as the right method for obtaining one's goals. However, he states, while he currently has the privilege to make such a stand, in a different situation his moral position may have been different.

In other words, had you been living in the territories, you would have become a shahid (martyr)?

Abu-Assad hesitates for a second before replying, "yes." He recounts an episode in which he was humiliated by a soldier at the Kalandiya checkpoint near Jerusalem, and says this was what made him realize what runs through the heads of people who later become suicide bombers.

You feel like such a coward it kills you, he describes, saying this cowardice makes people start hating life and feel impotent.

I realized, Abu-Assad explains, that when a man systematically goes through such humiliation, he chooses to kill his own impotency by carrying out an act of "let me die with the philistines."

And there are no suicide bombers who do what they do because of anti-Semitism?

That's a racist notion. No one hates Jews because they are Jews like in Europe, he replies. People have a reason for hating Israelis. You force them to live in refugee camps, and they tell you 'our home is in Ashdod'," he states.

Do you really believe they kill in order to kill Jews, He asks. They are no different than you as people. If you believe they are different, that's racism, he adds.

According to Abu-Assad, it is the situation that brought about the loss of control. I think, he says, that you have been "brainwashed" by the country to believe all Arabs are either a security risk or a danger to democracy.

When asked what he believes could be a solution for the conflict, Abu-Assad says equality is the key.

Group mails petition with more than 32,000 signatures to Motion Picture Academy of America, calls for Oscar nomination for suicide bomber film to be rescinded; Bereaved father: Paradise Now is hell now for us, every day

The solution would come once you recognize the equal rights of Jews and Arabs over all the land, including Tel Aviv and Nazareth, Abu-Assad declares, adding this also includes recognition in the Right of Return. After you recognize these principles, we would be able to split the country 50-50. This would be the practical solution, he says.

'I'm not Israeli'

Abu-Assad, was born and raised in Nazareth, but left Israel more than 20 years ago, and never returned to the country for a permanent stay. He resides in Holland, where he creates most of his films and secures most of the funding for his projects.

As a Palestinian teen, you don't have the same privileges others have, he says. Abu-Assad says he was a curious person that knew that if he stays in Israel he would become crippled, because he wouldn't have the same access to knowledge Israelis have.

I remind him he may become the first Israeli director to win an Oscar. He, in return, chuckles.

"Darling," he says with slight cynicism and contempt, "I am not Israeli."

But you carry an Israeli passport.

That's true, but I'm not Israeli, he says. Israel calls itself a Jewish state, and I'm not Jewish. If it becomes everybody's state, then I would be able to be called Israeli, he concludes.

I cannot accept the Jewish state as long as there is no settlement over the land, he adds.


http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3223216,00.html

[Donger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:28794607_2dc0935235.jpg

WARNING GRAPHIC

[Reaper16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:28794607_2dc0935235.jpg

WARNING GRAPHIC
:eek:

[Donger]

:eek:

It's okay. It's just a "celebration." They even do it to little boys.

[Nightwish]

He's not the first Israeli film-maker to go against the grain and dare to lay a share of the blame on Israel's doorstep. There were two Jewish Israeli (I think they were Israeli, I know they were Jewish) documentary film-makers a couple years ago who made a documentary chronicling the events of the Nakba, which was the combined terrorism, ethnic cleansing, and mass slaughter carried out by the Israeli Haganah against thousands of Palestinians shortly after the Partition. If I recall correctly, those two guys received several death threats because of it. It is extremely politically incorrect, and sometimes dangerous, to recall any of the wrongs of Israel that might have contributed to the problems between Israel, Palestine and the Arab world.

[Mr. Kotter]

It's okay. It's just a "celebration." They even do it to little boys.

I hear it's a popular celebration at American terrorists' sympathizer's houses--birthday parties for children too.

[JBucc]

It's okay. It's just a "celebration." They even do it to little boys.
Does a clown pop out of a cake at the end?

[Adept Havelock]

It is extremely politically incorrect, and sometimes dangerous, to recall any of the wrongs of Israel that might have contributed to the problems between Israel, Palestine and the Arab world.


No kidding. It's not limited to them. Look into the attack on the picket ship USS Liberty, and read the crews testimony about the US Navy's "Investigation".

[Mr. Kotter]

No kidding. It's not limited to them. Look into the attack on the picket ship USS Liberty, and read the crews testimony about the US Navy's "Investigation".

As a self-professed conservative, and bluedog Democrat....which, according to the critics, is close to being a member of the GOP..... :rolleyes:

I'll agree. I'll say, Israel is not blameless in all the crap that's gone down over the decades. They do seem to have a short memory, of what it's like to be treated the way they treat the Palestinians. However....you knew that was comin'....heh....

They aren't the ones strappin' bombs to kids and sending them off to kill innocent civilians.....they aren't the ones rejecting any attempt at compromise.....and they aren't the ones who keep gettin' their asses handed to them, every MF'ing time they attempt to "get tough."

Some suckers don't learn very fast; and I ain't talkin' about the Israelis. :shake:

[MarcBulger]

Jews have never killed 3000 people with Planes. The Enemy of my enemy is my friend....

[Mr. Kotter]

Jews have never killed 3000 people with Planes. The Enemy of my enemy is my friend....

That may have worked in the old days. Things are a wee bit more complicated than that today....

I'm not suggesting Israel is not our friend; but their actions toward the Palestineans, at times, appears counter-productive....although, as I've said....their impatience is certainly understandable.

[Nightwish]

They aren't the ones strappin' bombs to kids and sending them off to kill innocent civilians.....No, instead they strap missiles onto airplanes and conduct airstrikes against elementary schools to prevent the upbringing of "the next generation of Hamas." Instead, they plow bulldozers through entire Palestinian neighborhoods because they suspect that one house might house a member of Hamas.they aren't the ones rejecting any attempt at compromise.....Actually, they kind of started the whole rejection of compromise trend. Back in the 80s, I think it was, there was a peace plan offered that was satisfactory to both sides. Arafat agreed to sign on to the plan, and requested only one thing in exchange: that Israel admit to having a role in creating the Palestinian refugee situation. Israel refused to sign any compromise that required them to make such an admission. Israel basically started the whole thing, and has made almost no attempt to make it any better. They want the Palestinians, who they brutally victimized for decades, to compromise, but have been remarkably unwilling to hold themselves a similar standard.

[Mr. Kotter]

No, instead they strap missiles onto airplanes and conduct airstrikes against elementary schools to prevent the upbringing of "the next generation of Hamas." .

Really? Link, please. NON-ARAB propaganda/corroborated link....please.

..... Arafat agreed to sign on to the plan, and requested only one thing in exchange: that Israel admit to having a role in creating the Palestinian refugee situation.... They want the Palestinians, who they brutally victimized for decades, to compromise, but have been remarkably unwilling to hold themselves a similar standard.

Let's talk about recent history. Examples in the last 10 years, since talks became more compromising from the Israeli point of view? :hmmm:

[Nightwish]

Really? Link, please. NON-ARAB propaganda/corroborated link....please.
Here's one to start you off:
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2436


Other incidents targeting Palestinian children:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1516362,00.html
http://web.amnesty.org/web/web.nsf/print/C6E3085990930CEC80256FDA004611D5
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1358173,00.html (this one is really disturbing)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1320735,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1306313,00.html
http://www.rafahtoday.org/

From Israeli paper Ha'aretz, 10-17-2004
"More than 30 Palestinian children were killed in the first two weeks of Operation Days of Penitence in the Gaza Strip. It's no wonder that many people term such wholesale killing of children "terror." Whereas in the overall count of all the victims of the intifada the ratio is three Palestinians killed for every Israeli killed, when it comes to children the ratio is 5:1. According to B'Tselem, the human rights organization, even before the current operation in Gaza, 557 Palestinian minors (below the age of 18) were killed, compared to 110 Israeli minors."


From Israeli paper Ha'aretz, 12-4-2004
"Nablus is mourning its children. Those among us - including the chief of staff - who were so horrified by the affair of the "confirmed killing" of 13-year-old Iman al-Hamas in the Rafah refugee camp - including the chief of staff - can have the same reaction 323 times over, once for each of the 323 children under the age of 14 (according to the statistics of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, PHRMG) who were killed in this intifada by IDF fire. Anyone who thought that the case of Iman al-Hamas was exceptional should know that killing children is a routine matter, without commissions of inquiry and without public interest. Nablus alone has buried 29 children, two of them on Shabbat two weeks ago."


Let's talk about recent history. Examples in the last 10 years, since talks became more compromising from the Israeli point of view? :hmmm:
Why? This problem didn't just start 10 years ago. Is it inconvenient for you to realize that the Israelis may not be as blameless in that particular regard as you thought, thus you have to move the goalposts and declare a rather narrow foul/fair timeline?

[patteeu]

Actually, they kind of started the whole rejection of compromise trend. Back in the 80s, I think it was, there was a peace plan offered that was satisfactory to both sides. Arafat agreed to sign on to the plan, and requested only one thing in exchange: that Israel admit to having a role in creating the Palestinian refugee situation. Israel refused to sign any compromise that required them to make such an admission. Israel basically started the whole thing, and has made almost no attempt to make it any better. They want the Palestinians, who they brutally victimized for decades, to compromise, but have been remarkably unwilling to hold themselves a similar standard.

This does not sound familiar at all. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I don't believe you are right. If you are talking about the Oslo process of the 90's, you've spun it (perhaps unintentionally if you are just regurgitating what you've been told) beyond recognition. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember anything like this at all happening in the 80's.

The closest Israel and Arafat ever came to a peace agreement was during the Oslo process and, as it turned out, Arafat wasn't really interested in making peace AFAICT.

[Nightwish]

This does not sound familiar at all. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I don't believe you are right. If you are talking about the Oslo process of the 90's, you've spun it (perhaps unintentionally if you are just regurgitating what you've been told) beyond recognition. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember anything like this at all happening in the 80's.

It appears that I'm mentally combining two different talks. During the earliest, which I believe was Oslo, but I'm not sure, as I can no longer find the list of rejected proposals that used to be available online, there was a stipulation requested by Arafat that Israel should admit its role in the refugee crisis and commit aid to improving and alleviating some of that suffering. In that case, Israel refused, but the talks still went forward and the Accords were eventually signed. The later summit, scheduled to occur in Egypt in 2000, was cancelled. In that summit, Clinton had proposed a number of concessions from both sides. One of the concessions asked of the Palestinians was that they give up their "right of return" objective. Israel tentatively agreed to the package deal, on the condition that Palestine not challenge any of the proposals. Obviously, Palestine raised questions about the "right to return" proposal, which Barak took as a challenge to the proposal, and Israel summarily nixed the entire deal, and the summit was cancelled.

The closest Israel and Arafat ever came to a peace agreement was during the Oslo process and, as it turned out, Arafat wasn't really interested in making peace AFAICT.
I've found numerous references to the Oslo Accords and the ultimate failure of that process. Some of those were from liberal sources, some were from conservative sources, some American, some Israeli, some Arab. There was one thing that they all seemed to agree on: the root of the failure of those accords was Israel's refusal to comply to their side of the agreement and begin withdrawing from areas they had agreed to withdraw from. Rather than withdrawing from those areas as agreed, they actually became more aggressive in their occupation of some of those areas. That refusal on the part of Israel to abide by their agreement prompted the renewal of violence on the part of the Palestinians. Though the Palestinians have gone about the wrong way, so has Israel, and in my opinion, Israel deserves the lion's share of the blame for the way things have turned out since Oslo. Of course, you can conjecture until you're blue in the face (as I'm sure some of you will), that the Palestinians would have taken up arms again, no matter what, "because that's all they know," but it would be just that - conjecture. What remains a fact is that after Oslo and the promise of peace that it offered, it was Israel who initially undermined the agreement and made their own bed.

[patteeu]

It appears that I'm mentally combining two different talks. During the earliest, which I believe was Oslo, but I'm not sure, as I can no longer find the list of rejected proposals that used to be available online, there was a stipulation requested by Arafat that Israel should admit its role in the refugee crisis and commit aid to improving and alleviating some of that suffering. In that case, Israel refused, but the talks still went forward and the Accords were eventually signed. The later summit, scheduled to occur in Egypt in 2000, was cancelled. In that summit, Clinton had proposed a number of concessions from both sides. One of the concessions asked of the Palestinians was that they give up their "right of return" objective. Israel tentatively agreed to the package deal, on the condition that Palestine not challenge any of the proposals. Obviously, Palestine raised questions about the "right to return" proposal, which Barak took as a challenge to the proposal, and Israel summarily nixed the entire deal, and the summit was cancelled.


I've found numerous references to the Oslo Accords and the ultimate failure of that process. Some of those were from liberal sources, some were from conservative sources, some American, some Israeli, some Arab. There was one thing that they all seemed to agree on: the root of the failure of those accords was Israel's refusal to comply to their side of the agreement and begin withdrawing from areas they had agreed to withdraw from. Rather than withdrawing from those areas as agreed, they actually became more aggressive in their occupation of some of those areas. That refusal on the part of Israel to abide by their agreement prompted the renewal of violence on the part of the Palestinians. Though the Palestinians have gone about the wrong way, so has Israel, and in my opinion, Israel deserves the lion's share of the blame for the way things have turned out since Oslo. Of course, you can conjecture until you're blue in the face (as I'm sure some of you will), that the Palestinians would have taken up arms again, no matter what, "because that's all they know," but it would be just that - conjecture. What remains a fact is that after Oslo and the promise of peace that it offered, it was Israel who initially undermined the agreement and made their own bed.

You just got done describing how, when it came to the endgame of the Oslo process, it was the Palestinians who found the Clinton-mediated proposal unacceptable and then you turn around and try to heap the blame on Israel. I don't believe there was any committment on the part of Israel to withdraw from any particular territory as a precursor to negotiations so they couldn't have been responsible, on that count, for causing the Oslo accord negotiations to fail. LMAO.

The bottom line for me is that the Israelis owe the palestinians nothing, IMO. Anything they offer the palestinians is more than the palesitnians deserve. The surrounding Arab states who forced the palestinians to live in refugee camps instead of accepting them as immigrants are more to blame for the current plight of the palestinian people than the Israelis.

[Nightwish]

You just got done describing how, when it came to the endgame of the Oslo process, it was the Palestinians who found the Clinton-mediated proposal unacceptable and then you turn around and try to heap the blame on Israel.
The Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. The Palestinian rejection of one proposal, which prompted the Israeli rejection of all proposals, happened in 2000. Nice try, though.

I don't believe there was any committment on the part of Israel to withdraw from any particular territory as a precursor to negotiations so they couldn't have been responsible, on that count, for causing the Oslo accord negotiations to fail.
Perhaps you're right on a technical leve - commitment to withdraw from territories in Gaza and Jericho were not required precursors to negotions. They were the endresult of negotions, and were a part of the signed agreements reached in the Oslo Accords:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords#Annex_2:_Withdrawal_of_Israeli_forces

Annex 2: Withdrawal of Israeli forces

An agreement on the withdrawal of Israeli military forces from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area. This agreement will include comprehensive arrangements to apply in the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal.
The above agreement will include, among other things:
Arrangements for a smooth and peaceful transfer of authority from the Israeli military government and its civil administration to the Palestinian representatives. Structure, powers and responsibilities of the Palestinian authority in these areas, except: external security, settlements, Israelis, foreign relations, and other mutually agreed matters. Arrangements for the assumption of internal security and public order by the Palestinian police force consisting of police officers recruited locally and from abroad holding Jordanian passports and Palestinian documents issued by Egypt). Those who will participate in the Palestinian police force coming from abroad should be trained as police and police officers. A temporary international or foreign presence, as agreed upon. Establishment of a joint Palestinian-Israeli Coordination and Cooperation Committee for mutual security purposes. Arrangements for a safe passage for persons and transportation between the Gaza Strip and Jericho area. Arrangements for coordination between both parties regarding passages: Gaza - Egypt; and Jericho - Jordan. [/quote]
The bottom line for me is that the Israelis owe the palestinians nothing, IMO.
They owe them nothing? They forcibly ejected hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes, engaged in widespread ethnic cleansing, went on ethnic killing sprees when the Partition Plan took effect. None of this was instigated by the Palestinians, except by the very fact that they were Palestinian and that they were living in places where Jews wanted to live. Do you also believe that the US owes and never owed anything to the Native Americans? True, the Palestinians have engaged in acts of terror and mayhem in response to the Nakba and the subsequent occupation, but in terms of the number of lives displaced, the number of dead, and the amount of damage done, they will have to continue in that vein for many decades to catch up to what Israel ultimately owes them.

Anything they offer the palestinians is more than the palesitnians deserve. The surrounding Arab states who forced the palestinians to live in refugee camps instead of accepting them as immigrants are more to blame for the current plight of the palestinian people than the Israelis.
Right, the people who wouldn't take them into their homes are more to blame than the people who kicked them out of their (the Palestinians') own homes. Uh huh. Go try that one on someone who doesn't have a brain!

[patteeu]

The Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. The Palestinian rejection of one proposal, which prompted the Israeli rejection of all proposals, happened in 2000. Nice try, though.

When the one proposal represents the culmination of 7+ years of negotiations, it's a pretty important proposal. The fact that the one that Arafat rejected came at the end of a long process was exactly my point. Maybe you didn't get that.


Perhaps you're right on a technical leve - commitment to withdraw from territories in Gaza and Jericho were not required precursors to negotions. They were the endresult of negotions, and were a part of the signed agreements reached in the Oslo Accords:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords#Annex_2:_Withdrawal_of_Israeli_forces

Annex 2: Withdrawal of Israeli forces

An agreement on the withdrawal of Israeli military forces from the Gaza Strip and Jericho area. This agreement will include comprehensive arrangements to apply in the Gaza Strip and the Jericho area subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal.
The above agreement will include, among other things:
Arrangements for a smooth and peaceful transfer of authority from the Israeli military government and its civil administration to the Palestinian representatives. Structure, powers and responsibilities of the Palestinian authority in these areas, except: external security, settlements, Israelis, foreign relations, and other mutually agreed matters. Arrangements for the assumption of internal security and public order by the Palestinian police force consisting of police officers recruited locally and from abroad holding Jordanian passports and Palestinian documents issued by Egypt). Those who will participate in the Palestinian police force coming from abroad should be trained as police and police officers. A temporary international or foreign presence, as agreed upon. Establishment of a joint Palestinian-Israeli Coordination and Cooperation Committee for mutual security purposes. Arrangements for a safe passage for persons and transportation between the Gaza Strip and Jericho area. Arrangements for coordination between both parties regarding passages: Gaza - Egypt; and Jericho - Jordan.

And Israel did withdraw from substantial portions of Gaza and the West Bank. They did recognize and support a Palestinian Authority run by the PLO. But continuing violence from Hamas and other noncooperative palestinian groups forced Israel to defend herself when the PA could not or would not reign in these groups on its own. From your source:

The Israelis trust in the accord was undermined also by the fact that after the signing of the accord the terrorist attacks against Israel did not cease and even intensified, which could be explained as an attempt of the terror organizations [Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.] to thwart the peace process.

They owe them nothing? They forcibly ejected hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes, engaged in widespread ethnic cleansing, went on ethnic killing sprees when the Partition Plan took effect. None of this was instigated by the Palestinians, except by the very fact that they were Palestinian and that they were living in places where Jews wanted to live. Do you also believe that the US owes and never owed anything to the Native Americans? True, the Palestinians have engaged in acts of terror and mayhem in response to the Nakba and the subsequent occupation, but in terms of the number of lives displaced, the number of dead, and the amount of damage done, they will have to continue in that vein for many decades to catch up to what Israel ultimately owes them.

That's right. Nothing. The Israelis fought a series of defensive wars in which territory was taken and refugees were created. That's the nature of war. And although the world might have been better off if Israel hadn't been created in the first place, it was and it's too late now to turn back the clock on that decision. Here is how the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel) describes the birth of Israel:

Immediately following the declaration of the State of Israel, Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, Jordanian, and Lebanese forces invaded the newly formed state on all fronts. In a desperate and costly war characterized by use of makeshift armaments and resourceful tactics, Israel eventually repelled the attacking armies, and then advanced its forces to occupy some of the territory set aside under the Partition Plan for the Arabs and for the City of Jerusalem.

And palestinians weren't the only refugees created by this violent birth of a nation. Again from the wikipedia:

As a result of this war, about 711,000 Arab refugees were created (according to the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine[2]) and over 800,000 Jewish refugees were created.

But unlike Israel, who accepted the Jewish refugees, the beligerent Arab states refused to accept the palestinian refugees. Instead, they sought to use them as pawns in an ongoing campaign to destroy Israel. If the Arab states had accepted the refugees and if they had agreed to make peace with Israel at that time, Gaza and the West Bank would still be Arab territory and the entire region would have prospered.

FWIW, no I don't think we owe the American Indians anything more than what we've agreed to by treaty. And even there, I'm in favor of negotiating an end to Indian sovereignty and the reservation system.

Right, the people who wouldn't take them into their homes are more to blame than the people who kicked them out of their (the Palestinians') own homes. Uh huh. Go try that one on someone who doesn't have a brain!

Must... resist... temptation... [/kinder, gentler patteeu prevails]

:p

[go bowe]

Must... resist... temptation... [/kinder, gentler patteeu prevails]

:paw c'mon...

where's the entertainment value in that?

[go bowe]

. . . If the Arab states had accepted the refugees and if they had agreed to make peace with Israel at that time, Gaza and the West Bank would still be Arab territory and the entire region would have prospered. . .that's an interesting observation...

it's been almost constant warfare between the israelis and the palestinians, with the occasional inept assistance of neighboring arab states since the creation of israel...

could they (the arab nations in the area) have resisted the notion of pushing the jews back into the sea, even with a "peace" agreement in place?

they might have even lost more land than they have...

i dunno, i think the notion of long term prosperity in that region is a bit overly... well, optimistic...

even in a what if scenario...

but it is an interesting observation... :harumph: :harumph: :harumph:

[go bowe]

btw, three :harumph: 's means i'm being "deep" or thinking hard about something...

i should use the :hmmm: instead, but it looks too gay to me somehow...

[patteeu]

btw, three :harumph: 's means i'm being "deep" or thinking hard about something...

i should use the :hmmm: instead, but it looks too gay to me somehow...

That's probably because SDChiefsFan used a lot of :hmmm: 's

[Dave Lane]

Jews have never killed 3000 people with Planes. The Enemy of my enemy is my friend....


They haven't? shoot well I guess history has been rewritten. I'd like a memo next time people do that.

Dave

[Mr. Kotter]

That's probably because SDChiefsFan used a lot of :hmmm: 's

Yeah, whatever happened to the gay-wad. :shake:

[go bowe]

...They aren't the ones strappin' bombs to kids and sending them off to kill innocent civilians.....no, but in all fairness, they are the ones conducting airstrikes against suspected terrorists in the palestinian territories that often kill innocent civilian bystanders...

sucide bombs kill people but israeli airstrikes in highly populated areas don't?

suicide bombers are the equivalent, in some small measure, to the israeli air force...

[Dave Lane]

It's okay. It's just a "celebration." They even do it to little boys.


Same thing Christians used to do. But now we're civilized.

Dave