Mrs. Clinton's remarks

[ForeverYoung436]

Secretary of State Clinton was asked by an Arab reporter why Israel did not respond to American requests to be more giving in the peace process. She said people react with past experiences in mind. Israel withdrew from Gaza. What did they get in response? Hamas and 40,000 rockets. They withdrew from Lebanon and what did they get? Hezbollah and 20,000 rockets. Very good statement.
Kalam--It seems everytime you don't like where an argument is going, then you call it "Zionist talking points and propoganda". Well, I call your arguments "Arab talking points and propoganda". And, as I told you before, "stereotypes" come from someplace, not out of thin air. You continually call references to the suicide bombings "stereotyping". But are you denying they ever happened? My friend who was visiting Israel was very nearly in one of them, and so was a cousin of mine. What country would not safeguard its citizens?
Also Kalam, this is a message board, not a Master's thesis or a term paper. Citations aren't always needed.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who told those settlers that it was safe living in a war zone on someone else's land?

 

[Big Black Dog]

Those folks over there have been fighting for over 2000 years. Just what is it that Clinton thinks she can say or do to put an end to it? Better have tried and failed - for hundreds of years.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Those folks over there have been fighting for over 2000 years. Just what is it that Clinton thinks she can say or do to put an end to it? Better have tried and failed - for hundreds of years.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5WuiBdlddU&feature=related[/ame]

 

[georgephillip]

Secretary of State Clinton was asked by an Arab reporter why Israel did not respond to American requests to be more giving in the peace process. She said people react with past experiences in mind. Israel withdrew from Gaza. What did they get in response? Hamas and 40,000 rockets. They withdrew from Lebanon and what did they get? Hezbollah and 20,000 rockets. Very good statement.
Kalam--It seems everytime you don't like where an argument is going, then you call it "Zionist talking points and propoganda". Well, I call your arguments "Arab talking points and propoganda". And, as I told you before, "stereotypes" come from someplace, not out of thin air. You continually call references to the suicide bombings "stereotyping". But are you denying they ever happened? My friend who was visiting Israel was very nearly in one of them, and so was a cousin of mine. What country would not safeguard its citizens?
Also Kalam, this is a message board, not a Master's thesis or a term paper. Citations aren't always needed.

Have you ever noticed how apologists for Empire never mention the UNSC peace proposal offered by the major Arab states in 1976?

Chomsky claims the US vetoed the Resolution during a Security Council session that Israel refused to attend.

"Who supports it?

"Everybody, including the Arab League, Europe, the Non-Aligned countries, the Organization of Islamic Unity, which includes Iran.

"It's supported by Hamas and Hezbollah (which says it will support anything the Palestinians accept).

"So there's exactly one barrier: the U.S./Israel refuse to accept it. And they refuse to accept it on grounds that were established in 1971 when Israel made probably the most fateful decision in its history.

"In 1971, Egypt, under President Sadat, offered Israel a full peace treaty.

"Egypt, of course, is the only significant military force in the Arab world. So a peace with Egypt meant full security.

"There was, of course, a quid pro quo—Israel should withdraw from Egyptian territory (he said all occupied territory, but clearly cared primarily about Egyptian territory).

"Israel didn't want to do that because it was then planning on expanding into the Sinai and building a big city of a million people in the north on the Mediterranean—settlements and so on.

"Israel had to make a choice: expansion or security. They settled on expansion."

ZCommunications...

 

[docmauser1]

[size="1']Who told those settlers that it was safe living in a war zone on someone else's land?[/size][/i][/quote][font="times new roman"]Oh! Fresh stale madrasa drivel![/font]

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Who told those settlers that it was safe living in a war zone on someone else's land?

So now you're calling my cousin, who lives in Tel-Aviv, a settler? And my friend, who was just a tourist? Yet they were nearly killed. Israel exists, Mr. Tinmore, get over it. This utopian society you're dreaming of, with Muslims, Jews and Christians living peacefully, under Hamas (yeah right!!), is not happening. (It's all in your head anyway.) Jews will not give up their one and only state in the world to make way for another unaccomplished Islamic-crazy Arab country--and especially not in ALL of Israel. So, if we were the 2 in charge, I would now ask you: "Do you want to negogiate over the West Bank, or do you want nothing at all? Which is it?"

 

[docmauser1]

In 1971, Egypt, under President Sadat, offered Israel a full peace treaty.

Does Chomskin's drivel include a violin cue to distract honest peeps from uncovering that, the clause was jevish unconditional withdrawal from all the territories, the latter took during the 1967 war, for a promise of considering a comprehensive ceasefire or truce? Not a full peace treaty our usual Chomskin likes so much to masturbate over, but a sorry promise of a promise.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Who told those settlers that it was safe living in a war zone on someone else's land?

So now you're calling my cousin, who lives in Tel-Aviv, a settler? And my friend, who was just a tourist? Yet they were nearly killed. Israel exists, Mr. Tinmore, get over it. This utopian society you're dreaming of, with Muslims, Jews and Christians living peacefully, under Hamas (yeah right!!), is not happening. (It's all in your head anyway.) Jews will not give up their one and only state in the world to make way for another unaccomplished Islamic-crazy Arab country--and especially not in ALL of Israel. So, if we were the 2 in charge, I would now ask you: "Do you want to negogiate over the West Bank, or do you want nothing at all? Which is it?"

Israel acquired all of its land at the point of a gun. It ran off the inhabitants and imported settlers to take their place.

Inrternational law states that it is inadmissable to acquire land through the threat or use of force. To this day Israel has no land to place a border around.

What would you call them?

 

[docmauser1]

Israel acquired all of its land at the point of a gun.

Oh! Well, let us entertain the contention. It is written in the resolution 181 that, "The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;"
The resolution was adopted on Nov. 29, 1947.
The UNSCOP reported to the Security Council on Feb. 16, 1948: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
It is clear now that, arabs wanted to wipe jewes off the map and to grab what was not theirs, and in the process got wiped themselves. Busted.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israel acquired all of its land at the point of a gun.

Oh! Well, let us entertain the contention. It is written in the resolution 181 that, "The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;"
The resolution was adopted on Nov. 29, 1947.
The UNSCOP reported to the Security Council on Feb. 16, 1948: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
It is clear now that, arabs wanted to wipe jewes off the map and to grab what was not theirs, and in the process got wiped themselves. Busted.

Resolution 181 violated the UN's own charter and was never implemented.

 

[docmauser1]

Israel acquired all of its land at the point of a gun.

Oh! Well, let us entertain the contention. It is written in the resolution 181 that, "The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;"
The resolution was adopted on Nov. 29, 1947.
The UNSCOP reported to the Security Council on Feb. 16, 1948: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
It is clear now that, arabs wanted to wipe jewes off the map and to grab what was not theirs, and in the process got wiped themselves. Busted.

Resolution 181 violated the UN's own charter

It didn't, of course.

and was never implemented.

Of course! The UNSCOP reported to the Security Council on Feb. 16, 1948: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
Arabs decided to murder jewes and plunder their property and in the process of trying that got their halal asses stomped. Busted.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Oh! Well, let us entertain the contention. It is written in the resolution 181 that, "The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;"
The resolution was adopted on Nov. 29, 1947.
The UNSCOP reported to the Security Council on Feb. 16, 1948: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
It is clear now that, arabs wanted to wipe jewes off the map and to grab what was not theirs, and in the process got wiped themselves. Busted.

Resolution 181 violated the UN's own charter

It didn't, of course.

and was never implemented.

Of course! The UNSCOP reported to the Security Council on Feb. 16, 1948: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
Arabs decided to murder jewes and plunder their property and in the process of trying that got their halal asses stomped. Busted.

Both sides had to agree on the resolution before it could go forward. The Palestinians rejected it, as they had the right to do, so it was never implemented.

It did nothing. It did not create any state. It did not change any borders.

 

[docmauser1]

Resolution 181 violated the UN's own charter

It didn't, of course.

and was never implemented.

Of course! The UNSCOP reported to the Security Council on Feb. 16, 1948: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
Arabs decided to murder jewes and plunder their property and in the process of trying that got their halal asses stomped. Busted.

Both sides had to agree on the resolution before it could go forward.

Assuming that, what do we have? We have jewz, who agreed to that formally, and arabs, who rejected that and started a war "in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein", in plain unmadrasized english, in an effort to relieve jewz of their lives and property. Doh.

The Palestinians rejected it, as they had the right to do, so it was never implemented.

• Arabs, rejected that, arrabs. Palestinians® popped (and pooped) up in about 1967 and couldn't have rejected anything 181, of course.
• Madrasa education sux.

It did nothing. It did not create any state. It did not change any borders.

What was that arab proverb? Cry "sugar" - won't feel sweetness in the mouth anyway. Should've accepted 181. Dooooh.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It didn't, of course.Of course! The UNSCOP reported to the Security Council on Feb. 16, 1948: "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein."
Arabs decided to murder jewes and plunder their property and in the process of trying that got their halal asses stomped. Busted.

Both sides had to agree on the resolution before it could go forward.

Assuming that, what do we have? We have jewz, who agreed to that formally, and arabs, who rejected that and started a war "in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein", in plain unmadrasized english, in an effort to relieve jewz of their lives and property. Doh.

The Palestinians rejected it, as they had the right to do, so it was never implemented.

• Arabs, rejected that, arrabs. Palestinians® popped (and pooped) up in about 1967 and couldn't have rejected anything 181, of course.
• Madrasa education sux.

It did nothing. It did not create any state. It did not change any borders.

What was that arab proverb? Cry "sugar" - won't feel sweetness in the mouth anyway. Should've accepted 181. Dooooh.

Why should the Palestinians accept foreigners giving over half their countery to foreigners.

Would you accept that in your country. I would not accept it in Mine.

 

[docmauser1]

Both sides had to agree on the resolution before it could go forward.

Assuming that, what do we have? We have jewz, who agreed to that formally, and arabs, who rejected that and started a war "in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein", in plain unmadrasized english, in an effort to relieve jewz of their lives and property. Doh.

• Arabs, rejected that, arrabs. Palestinians® popped (and pooped) up in about 1967 and couldn't have rejected anything 181, of course.
• Madrasa education sux.

It did nothing. It did not create any state. It did not change any borders.

What was that arab proverb? Cry "sugar" - won't feel sweetness in the mouth anyway. Should've accepted 181. Dooooh.

Why should the Palestinians accept foreigners giving over half their countery to foreigners.

Palestinians® popped (and pooped) up in about 1967 and couldn't have rejected anything 181, of course. And, quite frankly, they should be kissing the british anus, which gave "[arab] foreigners over half their [nonexistent] countery to [arab] foreigners."

 

[Ropey]

The Threat of the Human Shield Strategy Hamas Uses Extends Beyond Israel, Gaza;

* Read more about Gaza.
* Read more about Hamas.
* Read more about Israel.
* Read more about al Qaeda.

 

[Ropey]

Palestinians Terrorists use U.N. Ambulance

 

[Jos]

Palestinians Terrorists use U.N. Ambulance

Duvdevan is an elite special forces unit within the Israel Defense Forces, directly subordinate to the West Bank Division. Duvdevan are particularly noted for conducting undercover operations against militants in urban areas. During these operations, Duvdevan soldiers typically drive modified civilian vehicles and wear Arab civilian clothes as a disguise.[

Duvdevan Unit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
see also Mistaravim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[docmauser1]

Duvdevan is an elite special forces unit within the Israel Defense Forces, directly subordinate to the West Bank Division. Duvdevan are particularly noted for conducting undercover operations against militants in urban areas. During these operations, Duvdevan soldiers typically drive modified civilian vehicles and wear Arab civilian clothes as a disguise.

Woah, a jevish national stock-car racing unit!