falxori

yes you are confused. the UN recognized that BOTH nations have a claim to this land and divided between them. it wasn't "their" land. and if you claim it was "their" land, please back it up with some facts. the jewish part was also offered less than half of what they considered to be historic Israel (including Jerusalem who was mean to be international ground) but they accepted it. why? because they wanted to build a nation in peace. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

i'm a bit tired of having this discussion over and over but it seems that in every new post about this subject you go back to your old mantras even though you were proven wrong over and over in the past... last time I've checked, Israel was the smaller outnumbered country surrounded by many countries (including well funded ones) that try to destroy it over and over again. don't forget the "rocks" that come in the forms of AK-47's , RPG's, rockets and many many tons of explosives that accidently (i'm sure the pure palestinians don't mean to) find their ways into school busses... My family's house in Hebron was stolen in 1937 during the arab riots (and there was no israel then) and i have family members and friends who were blown up in busses. but still I don't want to kill all palestinians and if they stop their terroristic ways i'm more than willing to give up some of the land i hold sacred for the chance of living in peace. but as you mentioned, you, as the palestinians, wouldnt. that sums it all. if they want it all and would never compromise, there will be no peace. the reason is because it exists and has a right to exist. the palestinians are the reason why the two countries can't exist side by side peacefully. it seems that you don't get peace by pulling out and leaving them to run their own businesses. what you get is rockets across the border. or is that the palestinians' idea of peace? "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

actually, no she's not. Israel's claim to this land is as strong if not stronger than the palestinians. both nations have a proven history in this area (although the jewish one runs a lot deeper) and you can't call it a "land grab". the difference in 1948 was that the Israeli side was willing to settle for less than it deserved in order to build a state and the arab side did not. can you really call the poor WWII refugees who had lost everything but their lives and then the immigrants who were kicked out of the arab states and northern africa without their property people "with lots of cash" ? your description is absurd. Israel was not founded "within" any country's borders. there was no palestine on top of which Israel was founded. you simply don't know the historic facts (like many others here) "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

based on the fact that there was also a civilian who was kidnapped and murdered in the west bank this week, i think your assumption is wrong "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

and you know for a fact what happened there? you assume you know based on reports you read, you just chose the ones you like to believe to... "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

here's an idea, stop using these houses as cover, and how about stop shooting all together? the minute civilian areas are used for war activities, they can no longer be considered civilians. the Geneva convention clearly states that all war activities must be seperated from civilians and that militants must be clearly marked by uniform and cannot hide within civilians. fine, use your right to vote and vote for someone who thinks like you. as fun (and important) as this debate has been, tomorrow i'm leaving for two weeks in Ireland so it may take longer to reply... "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

and i stand by it. the green line may become the future border and it may not (most likely it will be close to it) but it will be decided when there are peace talks. when the palestinians will realize and accept that they can't have it all, like most israelis have in recent years. having a superior army may mean gaining more land by war, i don't see why it "certainly" means israel will gain more land in any peace process. Israel has a lot more to lose in war, Israel wants peace and is willing to go far by giving up lands that are historically ours. but it cannot and will not go all the way and cease to exist. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

I didnt say the interest in Iraq was a wrong one. I don't think that US supporting israel is the main/only cause for that and even if it is, i think its wrong to desert your allies just because someone else doesnt like it. what's wrong with being an advocate for one side if you share the same values and believe this side is right? O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

the border didn't disappear and Israel has not declared that it did. anyway, i don't consider the UN to be a nuetral body in this conflict with the automatic arab/muslim majority (and thats the real reason why israel is the most popular country in its decisions) the US veto is pretty much what keeps a shred of dignity for this organization. one can describe your "occupied Palestinian territory" as liberated israeli land. the arguement of whos land is it is as old and this region itself. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

they werent prejudged, they were judged based on their actions and agenda. they didnt even take the basic step of accepting signed treaties and recognize israel's right to exist. when they do, they will be a hell lot acceptable to talk to exactly, when he resorted back to his old ways of terror and violence (not that he has ever really left them) buldozing the home of a suicide bomber is one of the very few things you can do in order to make a suicide bomber rethink his actions. and as for buldozing house with innocent people inside, thats simply not true. that's the US, not the UN and the US has an interest in Iraq that goes beyond the well being of the poor average Iraqi. and honestly, i don't think an American soldier would or should risk his life here. but what happens if they don't? you keep saying peace talks is the way and I agree. but what do you do if you have no one to talk to? i don't exactly like the comparison, but for the sake of arguement, it only proves that people can change and that they are judged by their actions. Abbas has a long way in front of him, i hope he choses to take that road. the road that Araffat chose not to take. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

there is no "official border". Israel has controlled the west bank since 1967 (beside parts given to the PA during the peace talks) but has never annexed it. the final border should and will be determined by peace talks. first of all, who says they have no right to exist? second of all, if we were talking about suicide bombers, most of them blew up in towns within the 67 border. and just so you know, gush etzion, was actually supposed to be a part of israel according to the plans but was taken by jordan during the 1948 war. there are many suggested routes, some by the military who considered the easier way to defend israel and some that are harder to implement but cause less damage to the population, and some parts are even debated by the israeli supreme court. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

that was part of the plan of post wwII. and Israel (or the leaders of the jewish community then) accepted it. the arabs did not. according to your suggestion, i can refuse to accept a plan, start a war, if i win, cool. but if i lose i can ask to go back to that plan. well i'm pretty sure most of the suicide bombers blew themselves up in israeli towns (within the 67 borders), unless you don't consider Tel-Aviv, Netanya, Hadera, etc to be Israeli towns (and more than once arab israelis got hit too, but they are also israelis) hmmm thats simply not true. i looked at some maps (in pro palestinians sites actually) and most of the security fence (especially in the northern part, near Jenin) is pretty much on the 1967 border line (the green line) get your facts straight first no problem, come again... O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

actually it is. but dialog with who? Hamas does not want to talk (not that pretending to talk while still carrying out terror attacks like Arafat did is any better) supposed to? why? and there are checkpoints where needed. and as long as terrorist try to blow themselves up in our cities, there will be. maybe because Jenin is one of the major terrorists' nests in the west bank? i can't control what it looks like to you. and you know what? if the PA insists not to talk and keep shooting then let it be the border until they are willing to talk. so was Hitler. the fact that they were democratically elected doesn't make them ok. it makes the people who chose them wrong, but that's their problem. if you want to go into details, the tax money israel is collecting for the PA is a part of the agreements already signed with the PA. as long as Hamas refuses to accept these agreements they can't demand anything that was agreed upon there. a basic concept of democracy is that a new government is committed to signed treaties. otherwise, what's the point is signing them? Hamas may be accepted as their leaders as soon as they renounce terrorism. Arafat did it (at least publicly, for awhile) and was accepted. if you still think israel is just shooting into gaza for fun and at anything moving, nothing i'll say will make a difference. israel is trying to hit those who try to hit it, and although civilians get hurt, they have only the terrorist groups to blame. and we already talked about the beach incident and that its very likely that it was not israeli fire at all. if i thought for one second that UN peace keepers will be effective in stoping terrorists, i'd agree. will they confront terrorists in gaza and stop them from lunching rockets? will they check them at checkpoints risking getting blown up? i'm not sure i would if it wasnt in order to save my family and friends. not the type of extremists like the one who shot Rabin. and anyway they do not control the government. Hamas IS the government. but it IS happening in gaza now. even arafat (not to mention Hamas) did not want to settle for the west bank. they want it all. i'm realistic. one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. some of israel's founding fathers were also considered terrorists by the brits. the difference is that they knew when to change. just so you know, the current PA president Abbas was one of the bloodiest terrorists of the PLO, but he's realized there is a good chance for talking rather than shooting and he is accepted as a moderate leader now. if Hamas commit to stopping terrorism and start talking, i have no problem talking to them. but i refuse to talk at gun point, israel has more guns, more powerful than the ones being used now. sure, if you can help make hamas accept the signed treaties, stop shooting and start talking, be my guest. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

i'll try to answer your questions. I do. mainly because they target civilians and use their own civilians as cover. this is not a valid way of conducting war, its terrorism. you could say that although the international stand is that the future of these parts needs to be decided by negotiations. when the peace process was alive, palestinians got more and more self rule and at camp david they were about to get more than 90% of the west bank (note that i dont say "get back" because if anything, it was jordanian) and the rest would have been settled by swaping pieces of land in other places. shall i remind you how the camp david process ended? now? yes. getting from the west bank into israel is a matter of 2 minutes walk and these checkpoints have stopped more suicide bombers than you can imagine. after the oslo accords, most of the major palestinian cities were under PA rule completely and even during the violent times "quiet" cities like jerico were almost free. does it make life hard on the west bank? yes. but as long as terrorists ARE being stopped at checkpoints, you can't convice me that they are not needed. its a security barrier and it has proven itself. i wish it was not needed. but sadly it is. yes. when they are at war with you, does it make sense to give them money? and money is being transferred for humanitary causes to non governmental organization (since hamas is the government) since the Gaza strip only borders with israel and egypt, i don't see your point. looking at the history of "un peacekeepers", i think it will do more harm then good. when they were posted in the PA, the were threatened by terror organizations and fled. in lebanon (another place were israel is at gun point for no reason, the un peace keepers are often actually helping hezbollah. if you were a swedish un peace keeper, would you risk more than you have to and actually stand up against these groups? yeah, ok, and? the difference is that Rabin's killer is an extermist. hamas are extremists who are also the government. huge difference. as for the rest of your post. the fight here is not about religion (although it doesnt help). at the end, its about land (culture etc. is a secondary reason IMO). they think its their land and we think its our land. who is right? both (and lets skip the who was here first debate) most israelis have come to accept that the solution will be dividing this land between the two nations. if it can be by negotiation , cool, and if not israel is planning to pull out of the west bank like it did from gaza. i support that move, but what will happen if rockets will also fly out the west bank? will it be ok to blindly use artillary like they do? if they want to fight they will find a reason to fight and we'll get pulled in again. yes the US is an ally of israel and israel is one of the strongest ally of the US and its not only israel who benefits from it. I think Israel IS taking the high road, i'm pretty sure that if san diego was bombarded day and night , Tijuana would be a flat desert (and the same goes for any other country). believe it or not, israel is using its advanced weapons in order to surgically target the terrorists only (and i know its not 100% effective) by that logic, why were france/UK/spain/etc. were targeted? terrorism is a method that cannot be tolerated. if you accept it here in israel you will soon get it all over the world (and you already do) i think Israel's interest is even greater. but what can you do if you have no one to talk to on the other side and the PA government refuses to accept your existance? and the BBC is biased (something like FOX, just to the opposite) news is always biased. when the network used local palestinians as reporters that's what you get. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

the BBC is pro palestinians and always have been. stories about the civilians armed with rocks (no matter that its not true) standing in front of a tank will always make a better news story. now for your canada comarison... Israel is not controling anything in Gaza. not the strip itself nor the border with egypt. and through this border "just for the record" most of the weapons smuggling is done and terrorist cross it into israel so they could then cross into israel through the relatively open israeli/egyptian border. if you use your field or your back yard as cover to lunch rockets at canada, you have nothing to complain when it gets hit in response. first of all its not clear what killed that family but thats not the issue because its sad no matter how it happened. the issue is that this is a state of war and as long as they fire from civilian areas and use civilians as cover, civilians will get hurt. what do you suggest? that we accept the more than 400 rockets in the last month alone and do nothing? and dont give me the old " they only fire back" or "they are fighting the occupation" because its not true and israel does not control anything in gaza. if bush was a terrorist who openly calls for the destruction of canada, does not recognize its right to exist and refuses to accept alread signed treaties between the US and canada, then why should canada help fund him? and anyway just so you know, its not israel who is blocking funding from Hamas, its the whole world (beside Iran maybe) and like other countries Israel has transferred funds for civilian purposes in ways that will bypass Hamas. but i guess you didnt see it on BBC I don't know from which year the BBC story you've seen is, but try replacing rocks with explosives, AK47s and rockets. first of all, if we're talking about Gaza, israel is not occuping anything. as for the west bank, "theirs" and "not theirs" is a subjective thing. this land is mine just as much as it is any palestinian's and for every reason you can give i can give you two. but it doesnt matter, we both have to compromise and divide the land, but you can't sit and talk with a gun to your head. this rockets have wounded and killed enough people. would you like to leave in a town where any minute one of these "primitive" rockets can land on your house? no? so why do you think its ok for me? "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

yes, start with Al Jazeera, the Palestinian TV and maybe the Iranian news agency, i'm sure they'll match your "balanced" views better. Israel is not poor, but it is the victim of ongoing terrorism. i'm pretty sure that most countries would be a lot less forgiving if their towns were bombarded endlessly like those near the border with gaza. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

if your only condition for peace and quiet is that israel will cease to exist and give the whole land to the palestinians than there will never be peace. there is a big difference between having a right and a claim for this land (and both sides do) and accepting the fact that we both have to live here and compromise. there is no reason for rockets to fly out of gaza now that israel is no longer there, but if they chose to fire and do it from within civilian areas, they can't complain when these areas get hit in response. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

hmm, and your point is? the israeli investigation was thorough and it took several days in which it took all of the heat. are the conclusions wrong? could be. it doesn't change the fact that this area is used for lunching rockets and as such is considered a combat zone. I promise you that if there will be no rockets from gaza, there will be no response. sadly, you can't say the opposite. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

if you mean the several dozens in the past few days, you may be right. these rockets never stopped, in the past few months they kept falling down every few days, after awhile its just now "exciting new" so you dont hear about it. what evidence? Israel didn't say at once it wasn't an israeli shell. it took several days of investigation in which the common knowledge and what will be remembered is that its israel's fault. just like the Muhamed A dura incident and when a few months ago a truck full of rockets blew up and killed almost 30 people and immediately Hamas blamed israel (back then the PA, before Hamas took over it exposed the fact that israel had nothing to do with it) O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

in gaza? none. even the border between the gaza strip and egypt is under full palestinian/egyptian control. the wall is a defensive measure that is proving itself. i'd prefer another way, but as long as there is no one to talk to and thats the only way of stopping terrorists from bombing buses, then so be it. so? the fact that they were democratically elected doesn't make them good (if anything, it makes the population who elected them worse). oh give me a break... they still support (and carry out themselves) terrorism, they refuse to accept any agreement signed by the PA in the past and they still refuse to accept Israel's right to exist. step one in "making peace" is to accept already signed agreements. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

first of all, i haven't read the article (i'm too busy watching the world cup at the moment...) I don't know what exactly was written in this article, but in recent weeks and even months, rockets were lunched from the gaza strips almost daily. so there was no peace nor quiet. true, it was mostly not hamas who fired them lately (and Hamas leaders were not targeted in response) but since Hamas is the PA now, they are responsible (just like fatah was when they were in control.) I can honestly tell you that if no aggression will come out of gaza, no aggression will be aimed towards it. and if there will be someone to talk to in the PA soon there will be almost no israeli in the west bank just like there are none in the gaza strip (although rockets still fly out of there...) so to answer your question, i don't know of any "plan" to storm any beach, there was no peace nor quiet in that area, and it is VERY frustrating that there is no effective way of targeting those assholes without risking the civilians they use as cover. and i feel bad for that family no matter if they were hit by mistake by israeli fire or by their own people's idiotic way of doing things. O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

FYI, some of the injured in this incident are now in Israeli hospitals (and palestinians are taken care of in Israeli hospitals more often than you think) the UN peacekeepers are a joke. in the one place they were stationed (in Jerico, guarding murderers) they've fled as soon as they were threatened. I'm not sure i can blame them. I don't know what happened there. it wouldn't be the first time Israel is blamed for no reason but it wouldn't be the first time civilians got in the line of fire either. its not so hard to hit civilians when they use their back yards to fire rockets from (more than 40 were launched in the past few days. "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

ok, this discussion was fun but if you're looking for the way we'd say it here is Israel, here it is. its simply Ta-mar, with just a slight accent on the "mar", if any at all (and Ta, not Tay). anyway, its a beautiful name that (from my experience) results in a pretty girl...

how about asking one of the 50+ of your local friends who were there at least once or twice? anyway, we're going in august, not may O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."

oh, ok. so now its acceptable... let them have their nukes O "Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero."