Israel engages in indirect peace talks with Syria.<br><br>Incidentally, there's a very good column in this week's Newsweek, by Fareed Zakaria, which ends, [color:blue]President Bush's remarks on the solemn occasion of Israel's 60th anniversary may have been political. But much worse, they were dishonest.</font color=blue><br><br>[color:red]</font color=red> [color:orange]</font color=orange> [color:yellow]</font color=yellow> [color:green]</font color=green> [color:blue]</font color=blue> [color:purple]</font color=purple>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
There's been a lot of knee-jerk belligerence and not too much thought going into US foreign policy on Dubya's watch and this has only made victims of everyone affected by it. Backing Israel's ramshackle army of conscript amateurs against the disciplined professional soldiers of Hezbollah in the 2006 war for example was for many a monumentally stupid suicide mission which, as Newsweek points out, served only to strengthen the movement's grip on power at the expense of the Prime Minister. The better strategy would have been to enter into discussions with the Hezbollah over the exchange of hostages especially since, as it now transpires, the only real foreign policy successes have been provided courtesy of Iran though diplomatic contacts that Dubya chooses to publicly deny.<br><br>km<br><br>
Loc: Syracuse, NY
They are only following Barack's lead. Not trying to veer off in too far from your subject. But I just read Krauthammer's latest op-ed tonight in the Buffalo News. He places peace in the region as being Arab acceptance of Israel as a nation. <br><br>"Palestinian dispossession is a direct result of the Arab rejection, then and now, of a Jewish state of any size on any part of the vast lands the Arabs claim as their exclusive patrimony. That was the cause of the war 60 years ago that, in turn, caused the refugee problem. And it remains the cause of war today.<br><br>Six months before Israel's birth, the United Nations had decided by a two-thirds majority that the only just solution to the British departure from Palestine would be the establishment of a Jewish state and an Arab state side by side. The undeniable fact remains: The Jews accepted that compromise; the Arabs rejected it.<br><br>With a vengeance. On the day the British pulled down their flag, Israel was invaded by Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan and Iraq -- 650,000 Jews against 40 million Arabs.<br><br><br><br>
I love how the bs gets spouted about. Take a look at the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 or the Deir Yassan massacre of 1948. Hardly a sign of Jewish acceptance.<br><br>Why does Israel not accept the existence of the Palestinians?<br><br>The facts of history demonstrate that the land that was Palestine was taken over by force, effectively wiping Palestine off the map.<br><br>Oh and the numbers you give are completely bogus (4 million to 950,000). Try 90,000 well trained and very well armed zionist militants against about a 30,000 poorly trained and poorly equipped men.<br><br>The fact remains Israel is a racist state.<br><br>The actual history is there for us to understand and expose the propaganda for what it is.<br><br><br>A Collection of Documentaries <
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>the United Nations had decided by a two-thirds majority that the only just solution to the British departure from Palestine would be the establishment of a Jewish state<p><hr></blockquote><p>The UN didn't authorise a Jewish state but the establishment of armistice lines. In 1948 however the Israeli army proceeded to expel Palestinians from their villages by force, destroying their homes and appropriating their lands and possessions. Inhabitants exercising their right of resistence were systematically massacred in a process of ethnic cleansing which culminated in the establishment of Jewish settlements on the expropriated lands. These crimes are in many cases irreversible but if after all this time there is going to be a settlement of the conflict the first thing that needs to happen is an Israeli apology for past behaviour.<br><br>km<br><br>
INTERESTING:<br>When I read about the proposed peace talks in Turkey, several weeks ago,<br>the thing holding it up was Syria's insistence upon TOTAL TRANSPARENCY <br>to which Israel was routinely refusing, insisting upon secrecy and behind<br>closed doors deal brokering.<br><br>HOWEVER<br>Upon reading that article, it's written to give the EXACT OPPOSITE Impression. <br><br>Also Interesting the way language is slanted:<br>Syria "wants" while Israel "demands"<br><br>Why do I get the impression that the prerequisite to the talks goes something <br>along the lines of, You SWEAR to withdraw all aid & support, and we'll THINK <br>about honoring the withdrawal of the "settlers".<br><br>BTW:<br>Checkout the map: Plze notice that ALL THE CONTESTED LAND ALWAYS Relates Directly to WATER RIGHTS!<br>The GOLAN HEIGHTS controls a HUGE Body of water that the Syrian Farmers depended upon for thousands <br>of years. In Israel, the contested "The LEFT BANK" is the left bank of the biggest GD Lake anywhere in <br>the region)And the GAZA STRIP * surprise * is the most lush section of the Mediterranean Shoreline!<br><br>All I'm saying is that<br>It doan take Batman to figure out why Israel wants it all ,and why that is unacceptable to their neighbors.<br><br>(sorry: for having to include so much desert in the map, but it was to make the point.)<br><br><br><br>[color:green]"...or am I a butterfly that's dreaming she's a woman?"</font color=green> [color:green]. . . _ _ _ . . .</font color=green><br>
[color:blue]The undeniable fact remains: The Jews accepted that compromise; the Arabs rejected it.<br></font color=blue><br><br>So, you have this piece of land, which you have owned and used for as long as anyone can remember.<br>Suddenly, this chap comes over, armed to the hilt and demands that you move or at least give him some 70% of the land, because that was his family's a few thousand years ago. Besides, you have relatives close by, so what would be the problem of you moving in with them anyway? "Sure thing, buddy!" you scoff.<br>But he isn't alone.<br>He has brought with him the police, the National Guard, and a decision by the Supreme Court of the USA, that there will be a division of your lands.<br><br>That other chap gladly accepts this "compromise" but you don't. Youre not about to compromise your land away.<br>"Over my dead body!", you holler, as you arm yourself and become a terrorist.<br><br><br><br>
"Humor ist, wenn man trotzdem lacht" (Humour means laughing despite of it)
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.