Iranian Militay is no joke!

[destroyer]

Quote from a_person:
Because everybody thinks we're silly? The world doesn't think we're silly,
I did not say everybody thinks you're silly, I said no one thinks about you at all as you are completely irrelevant.

You seem to have misunderstood something. When people are talking about European influence, they're not talking about the influence of the nation of Europa (which, as explained, does not exist), they're talking about the combined influence of European countries. You can read about who does what in the world here: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11664289

Let's take a look at the statistics:

A public opinion poll across 23 countries finds that in 20, a majority (17) or a plurality (3) of citizens think it would be mainly positive for Europe to become more influential than the US in world affairs. Currently, Europe is seen as having a mainly positive influence in the world in 22 countries.

http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/GS_PIPA_EU.html

We beat you hands down.

Quote from a_person:
While we long acknowledged that the war in Iraq is a disaster you're still unable to recognize that your negotiating efforts are not any better. And having completely failed to achieve even minimum objectives in your negotiations you keep smugly lecturing us on how to deal with Iran and insist that we keep negotiating with them all the way till their first nuclear test.

Do you think we're gonna let the destruction of Iraq and slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people (including Americans) go because you say "oops"? That ain't gonna happen, it will always be taken into consideration when you're talking about who to annihilate next.

Yes, we need to keep negotiating with Iran, we need to keep trying until the very last second. We need to show them that our goal is not to dictate or dominate them, but to secure peace. We should even bring Israel to the table and talk about an anti-nuclear treaty calling for all the countries in the region to dismantle these weapons. Preferably even offer to dismantle our own. If that doesn't work - if even the sincerest approach don't work, and we have valid intelligence telling us that Iran still wants to build nuclear bombs (powellpoint not sufficient), we might consider attacking them. But if it comes to that, we have to acknowledge how unfair and hypocritical we're being, our leaders needs to be people who truly does not want war, and we have to be ready to take whatever comes back, because we would deserve it. I'd rather be a hypocritical than dead and fair.

The way you're proposing to approach this however - to simply attack them tomorrow because Ahmedinejad said some ugly things about Israel, is out of the question. We don't know if they're going to build bombs. The very implication Israel and the US is making by threatening them, is that we have some sort of right to tell them what they can do and what they can't do in their own country. It's a ridiculous approach and it will do nothing more than fuel the fire.

Quote from a_person:
Somehow all I hear from you is Bush, O'Reilly and Iraq. Do you seriously think that if Bush is an idiot that automatically makes you smart? I don't think life is that simple and that black and white even in Stockholm. Bush is a moron and so are you, Bush is ignorant and so are you, Bush does not have any idea what he is doing and so are you, Iraq is a disaster and so are your negotiations with Iran... [/B]

That's because you deliberately ignore 99% of my posts, probably because they often contain questions you cannot answer. If you read and comprehended all, you would see that there is more. You might not be in support of Bush today, but I bet your ass you supported the war on Iraq and probably even voted for Bush twice. You also support McCain now, who is a Bush with the ability to speak.

 

[a_person]

Quote from destroyer:

When people are talking about European influence...
Let's take a look at the statistics:
The statistics is not about influence, it's about popularity and a cute little puppy will always beat an 800 pound gorilla in a popularity contest. My point was about influence and no one in the world gives a shit what Europe thinks or does.

We beat you hands down.
in popularity contest - of course. In your attempts to stop Iranian nuclear program - you have egg all over your face.

Do you think we're gonna let the destruction of Iraq and slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people (including Americans) go because you say "oops"?
I don't want to sound cynical but do you actually have a choice? What are you going to do, close all IKEA stores in the US? Are you going to negotiate us to death like you're trying with Ahmadinejad? You are spineless, impotent, irrelevant, totally and completely unimportant. As the arabs say "Dogs bark, but the caravan goes on".

That ain't gonna happen, it will always be taken into consideration when you're talking about who to annihilate next.
Actually your buddy gringinho here was the one talking about the annihilation of Israel. Your buddy in Tehran has been talking about the same thing for years.

Yes, we need to keep negotiating with Iran
And you're so good at it, the success of your current negotiations can only be compared to the smashing success of your negotiations with Hitler 70 years ago. Boy, do you ever learn.

We need to show them that our goal is not to dictate or dominate them, but to secure peace.
What are you smoking, it's 6 am in Helsinki and you're already on drugs.

We should even bring Israel to the table
Sounds like a plan at last. Why don't you suggest it to Ahmadinejad. He'll die from laughter.


if even the sincerest approach don't work, and we have valid intelligence telling us that Iran still wants to build nuclear bombs (powellpoint not sufficient), we might consider attacking them.
We who? Scandinavians? Hahahahaha. Guess what, your valid intelligence will tell you that Iran still wants to build a bomb when they successfully test it at which point attacking them will be too late. BTW both Israel and the US say that the attack is the last resort so we are not really that far apart in theory.

I'd rather be a hypocritical than dead and fair.
You are hypocritical but your hypocrisy will kill people in Haifa, not Oslo. It's safe for you to wait until it's too late and then say "Oops". It's not good enough for them.

The way you're proposing to approach this however - to simply attack them tomorrow because Ahmedinejad said some ugly things about Israel,
I never said anything remotely similar to that. What Ahmadinejad said is the indication of his intentions and objectives, not the reason for an immediate attack.

I bet your ass you supported the war on Iraq and probably even voted for Bush twice. You also support McCain now, who is a Bush with the ability to speak.
I can't prove it but you'd lose this bet on all points about Bush and Iraq. As far as McCain is concerned, I will not vote for him but I may not vote for Obama either. See, you're so brainwashed by your "free" media that you can only think in simplistic stereotypes - if someone disagrees with you he must be a neocon, warmonger, christian evangelic fanatic and an AIPAC supporting trigger-happy cowboy. That a lot of people support Israel's right to exist and vigorously (and pre-emptively) defend itself and yet don't support Bush and the war in Iraq does not even occur to you.

 

[destroyer]

Quote from a_person:
why then are they building permanent settlements there?
They built "permanent" settlements in the Sinai and Gaza. As it turned out those settlements were not that permanent.

Look at the numbers and the statistics. Sharon went through hell to remove those settlements in Gaza, and those weren't even that popular. The West Bank is considered somewhat holy land to Jews (Judea and Samaria). The grand majority of settlements there is not going anywhere.

Quote from a_person:
When you oppress a people for decades, crushing their homes, bombarding them, arresting them, torture them, kill them, you can't expect them to play nice once you let go of the iron grip.
Blah, blah blah, give me a break. When you start several wars, when five-seven countries invade one, when 350 million arabs want to drive 5 mln jews into the sea, when 0.2% of middle eastern land Israel occupies is 0.2% too many, when you start intifadas, murder civilians, fire rockets....and then you have your ass handed to you and whine, whine, whine, whine, whine...

Oh yeah, those fire crackers are really scary. Israeli officials actually take visiting politicians to the areas where rockets might land so they can set off the alarm and make a scary situation out of it. How many have these rockets killed so far? One? Sure, that's one to many but it's not that big a deal. Amazing how Israel plays it out. Israelis are also four times more likely to get killed in traffic and three times as likely to get murdered by fellow Israelis than they are to get killed by a terrorist act. Palestinian cruelty towards Israelis is, rationally speaking, quite trivial. Israeli cruelty towards Palestinians on the other hand is extremely significant; it governs Palestinian life from cradle to grave in a highly negative way. In 2004 alone the state of Israel demolished nearly 2000 homes, leaving about 15 000 people homeless. Often families of three generations, from grandparents to small children and babies, lose everything they own and have to live on the streets. Add the constant restriction of movement, the frequent bombardments, the extensive shortage of medicine and even food at times - 60 years of this life in refugee camps, preceded by the loss of your country to immigrants, and you should get kind of cranky.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Index.asp
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/safety-in-israel.htm

Quote from a_person:
The reaction of Gaza-Palestinians was no surprise to anyone
Glad you recognize that. Why don't you try to explain it to your buddy grininho who still seems to think that should Israel withdraw from territories it will be immediately embraced by their arab brothers. At least you and I both realize that unilateral withdrawals lead to intensified attacks against Israeli civilians.

Gringinho is right, but it has to be done the right way. Israel can't just leave all occupied territories over the night, they have to reach out and propose a viable, valid solution. They have to somehow make up for the population transfer, either by letting Palestinians get their properties back or by compensating for it in some other way, the same way Germans compensated and are still compensating for the Holocaust.

The very best solution in my opinion would be to draw up a plan for transforming the area (Israel, Gaza and the West Bank) into a binational state over as long a time as needed. Both the state of Israel and the state of Palestine on common territory with a common constitution and economy. A federal government made up of 50/50 jews/arabs, with two national administrations under it.

Before you tell me what a communist hippie I am, let me make it clear that I completely understand how tough it would be to achieve that. However, with the current developments, I don't believe it's the most viable solution, I believe it is the only possible solution. It's the only way to solve the population transfer-problem without turning Israel into a majority Arab-nation, it's the only way to solve the settler-problem without transferring Jews, it's the only way to satisfy both parts completely. If a solution like this is NOT achieved within a couple of decades, I fear catastrophe will be the inevitable outcome because of the demographic problem. Jews have been, and still are, the majority in the area today, but as a consequence of the tough life in refugee camps, Palestinians are breeding like rabbits. I believe they're expected to outnumber the Jews already in 2020.

Quote from a_person:
Israel offered to create a state on 73% of the West Bank,
* Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
* The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
* The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
* Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
* Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
* "Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

In return Arafat had to declare the "end of conflict" and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future. Despite the considerable concessions by Israel, Arafat chose not to negotiate, not to make a counter-offer but to just walk out.
http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php [/B]

Please, Palestinefacts.org is a ridiculous source of information. You might as well refer me to the Israeli government.

Here are some of the points they missed:

* The state would not have an army with heavy weapons,
* The state would not make alliances with other countries without Israeli approval and would not allow introduction of foreign forces west of the River Jordan.
* Israel would be allowed deploy troops in the Jordan Valley if Israel were to be threatened by invasion from the east.
* Israeli aircraft could overfly Palestinian airspace.
* Israeli would install early warning stations in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley and other areas.
* Palestinians would control border crossings with Jordan and Egypt along with Israeli security observation.
* The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians.
* Israel would lease areas in the Jordan Valley or maintain temporary sovereignty over them for up to 25 years.
* Israel would not accept any legal or civilian responsibility for their displacement.
http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm

You can see the proposed maps here: http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid orient.htm

Anyone with the slightest understanding of what it takes to run a country would see that the state of Palestine would by no means be an independent state. Anyone with the slightest understanding of the history of the conflict would know that no people would accept this solution. The Israeli leaders knew that as well as I do, but they made a huge PR stunt out of it, making Arafat look like a greedy savage. The guy would not be President for very long if he had accepted.

 

[destroyer]

Quote from a_person:
When people are talking about European influence...
Let's take a look at the statistics:
The statistics is not about influence, it's about popularity and a cute little puppy will always beat an 800 pound gorilla in a popularity contest. My point was about influence and no one in the world gives a shit what Europe thinks or does.

Alright, Europe is insignificant when it comes to world influence. You keep your eyes and ears closed while telling that to yourself.

Quote from a_person:
Do you think we're gonna let the destruction of Iraq and slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent people (including Americans) go because you say "oops"?
I don't want to sound cynical but do you actually have a choice? What are you going to do, close all IKEA stores in the US? Are you going to negotiate us to death like you're trying with Ahmadinejad? You are spineless, impotent, irrelevant, totally and completely unimportant. As the arabs say "Dogs bark, but the caravan goes on".

We're going to remind you what happened every time some neocon moron suggests attacking the evildoers.

Quote from a_person:
That ain't gonna happen, it will always be taken into consideration when you're talking about who to annihilate next.
Actually your buddy gringinho here was the one talking about the annihilation of Israel. Your buddy in Tehran has been talking about the same thing for years.

My buddy in Tehran is opposed to the racist regime that Israel is (sources can be provided). That's not the same as annihilating the people.

Quote from a_person:
if even the sincerest approach don't work, and we have valid intelligence telling us that Iran still wants to build nuclear bombs (powellpoint not sufficient), we might consider attacking them.
We who? Scandinavians? Hahahahaha. Guess what, your valid intelligence will tell you that Iran still wants to build a bomb when they successfully test it at which point attacking them will be too late. BTW both Israel and the US say that the attack is the last resort so we are not really that far apart in theory.

There is a huge difference; Israel and the US are threatening them daily, conducting military demonstrations while telling them they have to be our bitches. All this, while acting like they have the right to do so - to tell Iran what they can research and what they cannot research. Because of this rhetoric, allot of Iranians thinks these hostilities are about preventing Iran from becoming technologically advanced rather than the fear of nuclear bombs.

Quote from a_person:
I'd rather be a hypocritical than dead and fair.
You are hypocritical but your hypocrisy will kill people in Haifa, not Oslo. It's safe for you to wait until it's too late and then say "Oops". It's not good enough for them.

Lots of Arabs in Haifa (as well as the rest of Israel), so Iran would never attack first. Take into consideration that Israel has 150-500 nuclear bombs, most of them probably directed towards Iran, and you'll understand that Iran would never do such a thing. To Iran, nuclear bombs would only serve as a security against Israeli use of nuclear bombs, kind of like the US and Soviet during the cold war, on a much smaller scale.

The only scenario I can see where Iran might use nuclear bombs against Israel without being attacked first, is if Israel somehow gets a war going on in which they transfer the rest of the Palestinians living in Israel to fix the demographic problem. Maybe that's why Israel are so afraid, because they understand how badly they will need to do that sooner or later.

Quote from a_person:I bet your ass you supported the war on Iraq and probably even voted for Bush twice. You also support McCain now, who is a Bush with the ability to speak.
I can't prove it but you'd lose this bet on all points about Bush and Iraq. As far as McCain is concerned, I will not vote for him but I may not vote for Obama either. See, you're so brainwashed by your "free" media that you can only think in simplistic stereotypes - if someone disagrees with you he must be a neocon, warmonger, christian evangelic fanatic and an AIPAC supporting trigger-happy cowboy.

But you ARE a neocon. In fact, you're the very definition of a neoconservative*, and your knowledge about the mideast conflict is completely aligned with the narrow Zionist interpretations. And you seem to have no problem at all with AIPACs influence on your government**. If you didn't support the war on Iraq, you're very inconsistent because the Iraq issue was presented as even a bigger threat to the world than Iran is being today.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

** http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp_06_011_walt.pdf
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/lobby.html

[Mitchell Bard] found the Israeli lobby won; that is, achieved its policy objective, 60 percent of the time. The most important variable was the president's position. When the president supported the lobby, it won 95 percent of the time. At first glance it appears the lobby was only successful because its objectives coincided with those of the president, but the lobby's influence was demonstrated by the fact that it still won 27 percent of the cases when the president opposed its position."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970058,00.html

Jimmy Carter:
"It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defence of justice or human rights for Palestinians."

Thats just mentioning a couple on this point.

Quote from a_person:I
That a lot of people support Israel's right to exist and vigorously (and pre-emptively) defend itself and yet don't support Bush and the war in Iraq does not even occur to you.

It's because no rational mind would accept to be in the situation of the Palestinians, and therefor no fair mind would support Israel the way you do. Whether it's because you believe in the second coming of Jesus Christ or your ideology allows for the oppression of certain peoples, or if you're simply brainwashed by your media watchdog CAMERA*, I cannot know. But I do know that something governs your opinions, something else than rationality and sincere understanding of the situation.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Accuracy_in_Middle_East_Reporting_in_America

Jimmy Carter:
"The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations — but not in the United States. For the last 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.

[...]

What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed quite forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970058,00.html

 

[Gringinho]

a_person,
I do think that Israel, the US and many others do mind what Europe does and what their opinion is. If you had only seen the reaction that the new EU laws for detention of illegal immigrants have provoked here in Brazil and South America ...

So, arguing that EU is irrelevant - that lines up nicely with isolating the Middle East to let them resolve the problems and learn to live together. And of course the non-existence of Israel would drastically change the situation in the Middle East. I don't think it's likely it could happen, but on the other hand - I can't imagine how it can continue like it has for the next 100+ years. World opposition to the Israelis is growing, and has been growing very strong over the last decade.

Both the US and Israel say that the UN is irrelevant from time to time, but in the end the UN is needed. The US oppose the ICC - at least when it comes to US citizens, but still the ICC might show it has an important role to play.

There is no question that the Middle East is organizing itself after they have been put under so much pressure and they are changing - uniting their opposition towards enormous blunders like the latest Israeli war in Lebanon and the Iraq invasion by the US. The same goes for the rest of the world - voicing their opposition to the US and Israel. Thinking that this will simply go away is wishful at best.

Iran has a leadership that speaks out and makes statements that are outrageous, but the removal of iranian leadership would not change anything in the region, the arab nations would still object to Israel. And in fact the problem seem to be that since Israel can bully around in the region, that perceived threat spills over to objection of the US using Israel to apply pressure.

A continued strong Iran and better organized opposition to Israel in the region means a better balance, and maybe that will equalize the situation so some progress can be made. Either that or they could have a conflict, and I think some countries would gladly sacrifice half their population to rid themselves of their perceived problem - and that has to be something that makes Israel want to change.

 

[a_person]

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told state TV on Monday that he won't accept any conditions on his country's disputed nuclear program during talks with EU officials this weekend.

Major world powers have offered Iran a package of incentives in exchange for a halt to Iran's uranium enrichment - a process that can be used to generate electricity, or make a nuclear weapon.

Ahmadinejad told state television Monday that he rejected that condition.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215330967541&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

 

[a_person]

Quote from destroyer:

The very best solution in my opinion would be to draw up a plan for transforming the area (Israel, Gaza and the West Bank) into a binational state
LOL, why am I not surprised that you don't want Israel to exist at all? Guess what, this is what it was all about from the very beginning, the Jews wanted a two state solution and the arab wanted a 24th arab state (with jewish minority) - exactly what you're proposing. You realize that your "very best solution" completely disregards the views and interests of the jews and 100% sides with the view of the arab/islamic world that no jewish state should exist in the Middle East, don't you?

Guess want, the UN ruled in favor of the partition, the jews have been successfully defending their right to a state for the last 60 years and I bet they are not going to give up their country because some absolutely ignorant and brainwashed cretins in Oslo think it's "the very best solution".

If you believe that a two state solution is not viable, let me tell you what is - Gaza merges with Egypt, the West Bank with Jordan and Israel is left alone. How about that? It's so much better, makes so much more sense, should satisfy absolutely everybody and easy to implement than the nonsense completely unacceptable to Israel and spelling its end as a jewish state that you and the arab world have been unsuccessfully trying to push down the jewish throats for the last 60 years. But I don't think you'll get behind it because Israel will still exist and you (together with Ahamdinejad) can't have that.

They have to somehow make up for the population transfer, either by letting Palestinians get their properties back or by compensating for it in some other way
The compensation was part of the proposal Arafat rejected in 2000. What do you think about the plight of Jewish refugees from the arab world though? Do you know that 800,000 jews were kicked out of the arab land after Israel was created, their property was confiscated. Most of them resettled in Israel without a penny (a krona) of financial aid from international aid agencies. They and their descendants constitute about half of Israel's population today. Do you think the arab world is ready to compensate half of Israel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands

 

[destroyer]

Quote from a_person:
The very best solution in my opinion would be to draw up a plan for transforming the area (Israel, Gaza and the West Bank) into a binational state
LOL, why am I not surprised that you don't want Israel to exist at all? Guess what, this is what it was all about from the very beginning, the Jews wanted a two state solution and the arab wanted a 24th arab state (with jewish minority) - exactly what you're proposing.

It doesn't matter how many Arab states exists, it doesn't matter how many percent the jewish state makes up and it doesn't matter whether you define the neighbors as Arabs, Muslims or sandniggers for that matter; they've got no say in the issue. The conflict is between those who were removed from the area and those who removed them. It is between Palestinians and Jews, not Arabs and Jews and certainly not Islam and Judaism. The binational proposal is not about removing Israel, it's about making things right without removing any of the populations. Israel would have as much control over the Jewish part of the nation as they have today. Only difference would have been that they would have had to accept the possibility of having Palestinian neighbors. You might understand why this is so horrible better than me, since you actually hate Muslims more than anything, but to be honest that's Israelis own fault. They shouldn't have chosen land settled with Muslims if they hate them, they should have taken that unsettled land in Argentina (proposed) if they can't stand Palestinians.

The two-state solution has failed again and again and will keep failing until another war breaks out. Sure, the Jews can hold their ground now, but nobody knows what will happen in 20 years. In 50 years, the entire middle east might be completely transformed. The ONLY way to completely secure the existence of Israel is by making the wrongs right.

Quote from a_person:
You realize that your "very best solution" completely disregards the views and interests of the jews and 100% sides with the view of the arab/islamic world that no jewish state should exist in the Middle East, don't you?

Am I supposed to just split my regards in the middle and give each part a half? Guess it sounds fair, but it wouldn't be right. Racism is racism no matter how terrible the Holocaust was, and the Palestinians where not the once responsible for it.

Quote from a_person:
If you believe that a two state solution is not viable, let me tell you what is - Gaza merges with Egypt, the West Bank with Jordan and Israel is left alone. How about that? It's so much better, makes so much more sense, should satisfy absolutely everybody and easy to implement than the nonsense completely unacceptable to Israel and spelling its end as a jewish state that you and the arab world have been unsuccessfully trying to push down the jewish throats for the last 60 years. But I don't think you'll get behind it because Israel will still exist and you (together with Ahamdinejad) can't have that.

Ah, the classic "forget that Palestinians ever existed". The problem with this solution is that they DO exist and they DO remember what's been taken away from them. If you invent a gadget that erases certain parts of an entire peoples memories, a solution like this might work. But not until you invent this.

Quote from a_person:
They have to somehow make up for the population transfer, either by letting Palestinians get their properties back or by compensating for it in some other way
The compensation was part of the proposal Arafat rejected in 2000. What do you think about the plight of Jewish refugees from the arab world though? Do you know that 800,000 jews were kicked out of the arab land after Israel was created, their property was confiscated. Most of them resettled in Israel without a penny (a krona) of financial aid from international aid agencies. They and their descendants constitute about half of Israel's population today. Do you think the arab world is ready to compensate half of Israel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_lands

Of course I know, it's one of the classic mantras alongside with "the land was empty when the Jews arrived" and "the Palestinians fled on their own". Only difference between this and the rest is that we have no real data to suggest how many was actually refugees and how many chose to move to the new Jewish homeland at free will, so it's really hard to make this one out. When considering how the Israeli government was acting back then (Lavon-affair, etc.) it would be no surprise if they did most of the scaring them self. The point in this argument is that since Jews gave up as much as Palestinians gave up, they should be square. But the problem is that Palestinians did not move to Arab lands and turn into Tunisians, Iraqis and Saudis; they stayed, they're still here and they have a right to their land. So to answer your question, I would say absolutely, the jews should be given back every single cent that was taken away from them. If it is as much as Zionists claim, then so be it; if it belonged to Jews, it belongs to Jews.

 

[ByLoSellHi]

There will be a day where jews and arabs live together in peace, desiring nothing more strongly than to see their children safe, thriving and living in a world unlimited in spiritual, economic and artistic potential.

Simple idealism? No. Inevitability.

It's happened time and time again with people who allegedly hated each other more than jews and arabs.

Remove the 'they' and 'us.' Remove the hate.

Life is too short to kill each other. Life is too beautiful to kill each other.

It has to be grassroots movement. The grass has to grow high enough and sturdy enough to overcome the weeds that are typically the politicians, militants and generals that serve to block the process - by using petty issues, scare mongering, and financial greed - that is reconciliation and realization of commonality.

We are all in this together. Every last one of us.

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from ByLoSellHi:

There will be a day where jews and arabs live together in peace, desiring nothing more strongly than to see their children safe, thriving and living in a world unlimited in spiritual, economic and artistic potential.

Simple idealism? No. Inevitability.

It's happened time and time again with people who allegedly hated each other more than jews and arabs.

Remove the 'they' and 'us.' Remove the hate.

Life is too short to kill each other. Life is too beautiful to kill each other.

It has to be grassroots movement. The grass has to grow high enough and sturdy enough to overcome the weeds that are typically the politicians, militants and generals that serve to block the process - by using petty issues, scare mongering, and financial greed - that is reconciliation and realization of commonality.

We are all in this together. Every last one of us.

Spoken like a true Lennonite....

Hopefully that day will come. In the meantime, there are small things to worry about, such as most Muslim countries wanting Israel wiped off the face of the earth.