Hezbollah night-vision gear manufactured in Britain

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Then why all these "quotes" in your above messages? Didn't you forgot Faux News in your reference list?

No, I didn't forgot anything; if I were to quote Fox News I'd attribute it.

VBulletin provides quote markeup that essentially wraps the HTML blockquote tag, although the formatting is actually accomplished though CSS rather than <blockquote>. I use quotes when I'm quoting...are those scare quotes you've put around the word "quotes"? If so, why?

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Then why all these "quotes" in your above messages? Didn't you forgot Faux News in your reference list?

Hip, you're being an ass. Drop it. You're attacking Maggie, rather than the arguments that she's making.
Neither side 'caused' this particular flareup. Hezbollah kidnapped some Israeli soldiers. Israel didn't negotiate this time. You could argue that they didn't because the Bush administration pushed them not to, but that's out of the realm of what I want to get into in this post. Both sides of this are f'ups. Hezbollah for being militant a'holes. Israel for being stupid enough to be bated into military action by this nonsense.
Rmemeber: this conflict has literally been raging for thousands of years. What do you think the Old Testament is about? One particluar tribe (the Jews) in the region that goes around getting its ass kicked or kicking ass, depending on which side of the Universe YHWH woke up on that day. None of it is going to make any damn sense.

[Hippikos]

Did I hit a nerve Head? I'm just asking for arguments, not quotes.

The Jews are claiming a piece of land because of the 80 years of the David Kingdom in the last 2500 years, some claim...

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

Did I hit a nerve Head? I'm just asking for arguments, not quotes.

The Jews are claiming a piece of land because of the 80 years of the David Kingdom in the last 2500 years, some claim...

You were, and are, resorting to ad hominem attacks and outright dismissal of an opposing viewpoint without providing a counter-argument.
No, you didn't ask for arguments, you complained about the style in which Maggie responded to you. You implied that you were looking for a rational argument, but couched it in personally attacking terms. The stupidest part is, you completely missed the point of the quote. It, in and of itself, was an argument and then you were an dick about being ignorant.
So, in direct reponse to your question: Yes. You hit a nerve. I hate it when people argue like you just have. In counterpoint: do you have a problem with me calling when I see it?

Back on topic: yeah, that's the claim. Deal with it. Conversely, the state of Israel has to deal with the fact that there will/be is a Palestinian state, otherwise everyone's going to die.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

I'm just asking for arguments, not quotes.

The quotes support the arguments. It's not my fault if you feel disadvantaged by that.

Seems to me that by erecting walls and withdrawing behind them, Israel was accepting the existance of a Palestinian state. In fact, they'd been collecting taxes for them. (But when a party took power that has the annihilation of Israel as a platform plank, they stopped providing that service. Boo hoo.)

The PA may not have been happy with the de facto boundaries...but even Arabs don't get to dictate terms after they've been defeated. It's just amazing to watch them time after time attack, get pushed back, and then when they've lost enough ground, suddenly the bazzar opens, the rug-merchantry starts, and it's time for the other side to back up to the status quo ante, and then start making concessions to soothe the wounded Arab egos.

Then, having negotated something vaguely resembling peace, the attacks start again, this time perhaps from the new splinter group du jour. If peace ever were to be achieved, it would probably have to include welfare payments to all the poor unfortunate unemployed terrorists who must find new careers.

[Hippikos]

You were, and are, resorting to ad hominem attacks and outright dismissal of an opposing viewpoint without providing a counter-argument.
No, you didn't ask for arguments, you complained about the style in which Maggie responded to you. You implied that you were looking for a rational argument, but couched it in personally attacking terms. The stupidest part is, you completely missed the point of the quote. It, in and of itself, was an argument and then you were an dick about being ignorant.
So, in direct reponse to your question: Yes. You hit a nerve. I hate it when people argue like you just have. In counterpoint: do you have a problem with me calling when I see it?

Take 2 Prozac and call me in the morning. Again there were no viewpoints, only quotes. Go back and read. In the meantime Maggie has made her point as you can see.

Conversely, the state of Israel has to deal with the fact that there will/be is a Palestinian state, otherwise everyone's going to die.

I agree with you on this point.

[9th Engineer]

I don't think Israel has ever espoused the goal of totally annihilating Palestine. They are vicious when provoked, but if no one is waging war on them they've never been conquerors.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

The problem could maybe be solved by making Israel, with the West Bank, and Jordan a single political entity again, but no involved party is interested, and neither is any external party.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I don't think Israel has ever espoused the goal of totally annihilating Palestine.

So they just take over most all the good land in the West Bank, put up wall to claim land that they would otherwise not get, and call that fair? No different from the bully in a parking lot taking purses from old ladies. At least the old ladies leave with most of what they came with. Therefore that is fair. And that is MaggieL's agrument which is found mostly in extremist sources.

All depends on which Israel you are looking at. If looking at centrists, then no, they did not espouse the goal of totally annihilating Palestine. However if calling Israel the Likud Zionists, then yes, the purpose of every Israeli action is Pax Israel (annihilation of the Palestinians). Accoring to this latter group, all Arabs should go back to where they came from.

It is why Areil Sharon's attitude change after Arafat was gone made him persona non-grata in Likud Israel. His agenda was no longer the conquest of the West Bank and Gaza.

Maggie would have you believe that Israel would permit Palestines capital to be in East Jerusalem. That is why the wall is so many tens of miles inside the West Bank - to drive the Palestinians out of more land. That is the agenda of Likud extremists. Pax Israel - no matter how many myths and half truths MaggieL may post. Israelis don't wear white as MaggieL's sources would have us all believe.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

Maggie would have you believe...

Nice straw man you have there.

No, I don't think Israel would give half of Jerusalem to the PA. Nor do I think they should. And it's too bad that the PA doesn't like where the wall is...but the wall is to keep terrorists out of Israel; if they were actually willing to allow Israel to exist (they aren't, remeber?), the wall would be unnecessary.

I think I have a pretty good idea of where the Palestinians would draw the borders if they were in control. But they aren't; the withdrawal was a unilateral action because negotiating with the Palestinians has proven a futile and pointless shell game for decades.

[Hippikos]

Israel is systematically destructing any prospects for a viable Palestinian existence as it annexes valuable land and major resources (water particularly), leaving the shrinking territories assigned to Palestinians as unviable cantons, largely separated from one another and from whatever little bit of Jerusalem is to be left to Palestinians, and completely imprisoned as Israel takes over the Jordan valley (and of course controls air space, etc.). Less than 11% of original Palestine land after 1967 is left over for the Palestinians and these are mostly separated from each other.

The "Hinkansut" or withdrawal (how cynic) is of course completely illegal, in violation of Security Council resolutions and the unanimous decision of the World Court (including the dissenting statement of US Justice Buergenthal).

The cantons are very much like the bantustans in S-Africa inflicted by the SA Apartheid regime which all the world hated. No wonder Mandela fully condems the Israeli Apartheid system.

I wonder what MaggieL would say if complete strangers would take over her house claiming their family lived there 150 years ago, exiled her to the backyard shed and even there has to give up half of that living space. Would she say: "It's too bad"?

[Ibby]

Maggie wouldnt wait for them to get past the word 'family', she'd have 'both guns drawn' and firing. Well, drawn at least.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Maggie wouldnt wait for them to get past the word 'family', she'd have 'both guns drawn' and firing. Well, drawn at least.

Maybe in that case they would have to build a wall?

[Undertoad]

Your little analogy is flawed. Allow me to correct.

"complete strangers" - the Jews were already there and a substantial majority

"would take over her house" - have the UN partition the area previously partitioned by everyone else because it was useless and unwanted

"exiled her to the backyard shed" - because she refuses to share the area peacefully

"and even there has to give up half of that living space" - after she unilaterally attacks them from her area scores of times and loses


And let me finish your story with the words you keep leaving off the end of every post you write:

"...and that's why international terrorism is justified."

[MaggieL]

Can somone offer a plausible description of an end state to all of this that:

1) would be acceptable to Israel's enemies, and would not be followed by further terroristic attacks to see what further could be gained, and

2) leaves something recognizable as Israel in existence?

I remain unconvinced there is such a thing. Certainly Iran + surrogates seem to preclude such a possibility.