Finally, something I agree with...

[Schizoid Man]

The US veto of the condemnation of the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. Like
John Negroponte correctly said: "It (the assassination) has to be looked at
in context".

I find it hypocritical that nations like Algeria are always ready to condemn
Israel's actions, but never ready to condemn suicide bombings by Hamas (at
least, not be name anyway).

[Lionel]

Schizoid Man wrote:
> The US veto of the condemnation of the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. Like
> John Negroponte correctly said: "It (the assassination) has to be looked at
> in context".
>
> I find it hypocritical that nations like Algeria are always ready to condemn
> Israel's actions, but never ready to condemn suicide bombings by Hamas (at
> least, not be name anyway).

If it's not an assassination it's an act of war because an execution
would have requiered at least a minimum judgment. Right ?
So if we are in a logic of war this fully justify all suicide bombings
by Hamas.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:


>Schizoid Man wrote:
>> The US veto of the condemnation of the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. Like
>> John Negroponte correctly said: "It (the assassination) has to be looked at
>> in context".
>>
>> I find it hypocritical that nations like Algeria are always ready to
>condemn
>> Israel's actions, but never ready to condemn suicide bombings by Hamas (at
>> least, not be name anyway).
>
>If it's not an assassination it's an act of war because an execution
>would have requiered at least a minimum judgment. Right ?
>So if we are in a logic of war this fully justify all suicide bombings
>by Hamas.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

There's some faulty logic involved here. Israel's policy of targeted
assassinations is directed towards specific military personnel, or in the case
of Yassin, a leading Hamas suicide bombing advocate and planner. By contrast,
Hamas' suicide bombings are directed at innocent civilians for the most part.
It requires quite a leap of the imagination to try and compare Hamas militants
and Israeli school children et al. riding in a commuter bus.



Bruce J. Richman

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: Lionel

>Schizoid Man wrote:
>> The US veto of the condemnation of the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. Like
>> John Negroponte correctly said: "It (the assassination) has to be looked at
>> in context".
>>
>> I find it hypocritical that nations like Algeria are always ready to
>condemn
>> Israel's actions, but never ready to condemn suicide bombings by Hamas (at
>> least, not be name anyway).
>
>If it's not an assassination it's an act of war because an execution
>would have requiered at least a minimum judgment. Right ?
>So if we are in a logic of war this fully justify all suicide bombings
>by Hamas.
>
>
>
War implies military targets. Hamas kills primarily civilians and will not be
happy until it kills everysingle Jew in Israel. Hamas is an organization of
murder and child abuse. Nothing justifies murdering civilians simply because
they are Jewish, or even (ugh) French.

Once again you show that while you pretend to care about human life, you really
are just another idiot commie fool.

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: (Bruce J. Richman)

>There's some faulty logic involved here. Israel's policy of targeted
>assassinations is directed towards specific military personnel, or in the
>case
>of Yassin, a leading Hamas suicide bombing advocate and planner. By
>contrast,
>Hamas' suicide bombings are directed at innocent civilians for the most part.
>
>It requires quite a leap of the imagination to try and compare Hamas
>militants
>and Israeli school children et al. riding in a commuter bus.
>
>
>
>Bruce J. Richman
>
>
>
>
>
How about that? We agree on something.

[Schizoid Man]

"Mikermckelvy" > wrote in message


> War implies military targets. Hamas kills primarily civilians and will
not be
> happy until it kills everysingle Jew in Israel. Hamas is an organization
of
> murder and child abuse.

Child abuse? Lol. That's a fresh one, I admit.

>
> Once again you show that while you pretend to care about human life, you
really
> are just another idiot commie fool.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Schizoid Man wrote:

> The US veto of the condemnation of the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. Like
> John Negroponte correctly said: "It (the assassination) has to be looked at
> in context".
>
> I find it hypocritical that nations like Algeria are always ready to condemn
> Israel's actions, but never ready to condemn suicide bombings by Hamas (at
> least, not be name anyway).

This actually restores a LITTLE faith in this country.

Terrorists=scum. Get shot being a terrorist? So sorry.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Schizoid Man wrote:

> "Mikermckelvy" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>>War implies military targets. Hamas kills primarily civilians and will
>
> not be
>
>>happy until it kills everysingle Jew in Israel. Hamas is an organization
>
> of
>
>>murder and child abuse.
>
>
> Child abuse? Lol. That's a fresh one, I admit.

Brainwashing children to to your dirty work that you won't
go out and get off your leader ass to do is abuse, pure and simple.

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Lionel wrote:
>
>
>
>>Schizoid Man wrote:
>>
>>>The US veto of the condemnation of the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. Like
>>>John Negroponte correctly said: "It (the assassination) has to be looked at
>>>in context".
>>>
>>>I find it hypocritical that nations like Algeria are always ready to
>>
>>condemn
>>
>>>Israel's actions, but never ready to condemn suicide bombings by Hamas (at
>>>least, not be name anyway).
>>
>>If it's not an assassination it's an act of war because an execution
>>would have requiered at least a minimum judgment. Right ?
>>So if we are in a logic of war this fully justify all suicide bombings
>>by Hamas.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> There's some faulty logic involved here. Israel's policy of targeted
> assassinations is directed towards specific military personnel, or in the case
> of Yassin, a leading Hamas suicide bombing advocate and planner.

This is where you are faulting Bruce, you are trying to find a *logic*
weakness in my above comment about US veto and your argument is really
weaker than my "faulty logic". If my english was better we could debate
a long time about that, but... I remember you that since the begining of
the second intifada there is approximatively 2 Palestinian deaths for 1
Israelian, are you sure that all Palestinian deaths were precisely
targeted assassinations ?
I just want to demonstrate to "Schizoid man" that, as soon as you are
*partisan* in a conflict you cannot have an interesting or better a
*usefull* opinion.

> By contrast, Hamas' suicide bombings are directed at innocent civilians for the most part.
> It requires quite a leap of the imagination to try and compare Hamas militants
> and Israeli school children et al. riding in a commuter bus.

The answer to the above remains the same. I'm not sure that a country
who has murdered so much innocents in Nagasaki and Hiroshima is really
in a good position to give such lesson moreover when the so-called
country is managing a colonial war in an Arab country. Not necessary to
remember you that this war is based on the most laughable "official"
justification.

The danger in the precise case is to "officialize" the state of war. As
ScottW remembered us yesterday there is no *clean* way to make a war. In
a logic of war suicide bombings are not better or worst than nuclear
bombs, phosphor, napalm, agent orange... :-(

You are in a good position to know that all the conflicts continuation
is always based on such "leap of the imagination". You perfectly know
that all conflicts have their own continuation logic and that the only
way to stop a conflict is to break this logic by the introduction of a
logic of concession.
In this context I don't thing that Yassin assassination was opportune
nor the American veto.
Far from me to justify suicide bombing.

Lionel

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: "Schizoid Man"

>"Mikermckelvy" > wrote in message
>
>
>> War implies military targets. Hamas kills primarily civilians and will
>not be
>> happy until it kills everysingle Jew in Israel. Hamas is an organization
>of
>> murder and child abuse.
>
>Child abuse? Lol. That's a fresh one, I admit.
>
When you recruit children as suicide bombers, I call it child abuse.

Your humor is wierd.

>>
>> Once again you show that while you pretend to care about human life, you
>really
>> are just another idiot commie fool.
>
>
>

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: Lionel

>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>> Lionel wrote:

>>Schizoid Man wrote:

>>>>The US veto of the condemnation of the assassination of Ahmed Yassin. Like
>>>>John Negroponte correctly said: "It (the assassination) has to be looked
>at
>>>>in context".
>>>>
>>>>I find it hypocritical that nations like Algeria are always ready to
>>>
>>>condemn
>>>
>>>>Israel's actions, but never ready to condemn suicide bombings by Hamas (at
>>>>least, not be name anyway).
>>>
>>>If it's not an assassination it's an act of war because an execution
>>>would have requiered at least a minimum judgment. Right ?
>>>So if we are in a logic of war this fully justify all suicide bombings
>>>by Hamas.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> There's some faulty logic involved here. Israel's policy of targeted
>> assassinations is directed towards specific military personnel, or in the
>case
>> of Yassin, a leading Hamas suicide bombing advocate and planner.
>
>This is where you are faulting Bruce, you are trying to find a *logic*
>weakness in my above comment about US veto and your argument is really
>weaker than my "faulty logic". If my english was better we could debate
>a long time about that, but... I remember you that since the begining of
>the second intifada there is approximatively 2 Palestinian deaths for 1
>Israelian, are you sure that all Palestinian deaths were precisely
>targeted assassinations ?

If the Palestinians weren't trying to kill every Jew in Israel there wouldn't
be any Israeli targeting of Palestinian terrorists.

>I just want to demonstrate to "Schizoid man" that, as soon as you are
>*partisan* in a conflict you cannot have an interesting or better a
>*usefull* opinion.
>
You don't have any useful opinions. You have admitted voting for Communists
for 23 years, thereby demonstrating you are useless.



>> By contrast, Hamas' suicide bombings are directed at innocent civilians for
>the most part.
>> It requires quite a leap of the imagination to try and compare Hamas
>militants
>> and Israeli school children et al. riding in a commuter bus.
>
>The answer to the above remains the same. I'm not sure that a country
>who has murdered so much innocents in Nagasaki and Hiroshima is really
>in a good position to give such lesson moreover when the so-called
>country is managing a colonial war in an Arab country.

It was a wartime act to end a war with Japan. Had teh Japanese not attacked
first there would have been no bombs dropped on them.

Not necessary to
>remember you that this war is based on the most laughable "official"
>justification.
>
In your opinion.

>The danger in the precise case is to "officialize" the state of war. As
>ScottW remembered us yesterday there is no *clean* way to make a war. In
>a logic of war suicide bombings are not better or worst than nuclear
>bombs, phosphor, napalm, agent orange... :-(
>

War have miltary targets Hamas and the PLO are targeting civilians and consider
all Israeli's as targets.

Much like the Comunists would target anybody that had money for execution.



>You are in a good position to know that all the conflicts continuation
>is always based on such "leap of the imagination". You perfectly know
>that all conflicts have their own continuation logic and that the only
>way to stop a conflict is to break this logic by the introduction of a
>logic of concession.

The only way to stop the war in the middle east is to have the terrorists stop
being terrorists.



>In this context I don't thing that Yassin assassination was opportune
>nor the American veto.
>Far from me to justify suicide bombing.
>
>Lionel
>
But then you are a communist and as such your perspective is flawed.


>

[Schizoid Man]

"Mikermckelvy" > wrote in message

> >From: "Schizoid Man"
>
> >"Mikermckelvy" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> >> War implies military targets. Hamas kills primarily civilians and will
> >not be
> >> happy until it kills everysingle Jew in Israel. Hamas is an
organization
> >of
> >> murder and child abuse.
> >
> >Child abuse? Lol. That's a fresh one, I admit.
> >
> When you recruit children as suicide bombers, I call it child abuse.
>
> Your humor is wierd.

So is your spelling. Weird, that is.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Schizoid Man wrote:

> "Mikermckelvy" > wrote in message
>
>
>>>From: "Schizoid Man"
>>
>>>"Mikermckelvy" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>War implies military targets. Hamas kills primarily civilians and will
>>>
>>>not be
>>>
>>>>happy until it kills everysingle Jew in Israel. Hamas is an
>
> organization
>
>>>of
>>>
>>>>murder and child abuse.
>>>
>>>Child abuse? Lol. That's a fresh one, I admit.
>>>
>>
>>When you recruit children as suicide bombers, I call it child abuse.
>>
>>Your humor is wierd.
>
>
> So is your spelling. Weird, that is.

Waa! I run out of things to say and have to attack spelling
mistakes! What a putz.

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: "Schizoid Man"

>> Your humor is wierd.
>
>So is your spelling. Weird, that is.
>

Old news.

[Lionel]

Mikermckelvy wrote:

> How about that? We agree on something.

Hey Bruce did I miss something ?

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:

>Mikermckelvy wrote:
>
>> How about that? We agree on something.
>
>Hey Bruce did I miss something ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

We agree that it is unfair and illogical to equate Hamas' targeted suicide
bombings of civilians (e.g. women, ;children, school buses, restaurants, etc.)
with Israel's targeted killings of known Hamas military leaders and terrorists.



Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Lionel wrote:
>
>
>>Mikermckelvy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How about that? We agree on something.
>>
>>Hey Bruce did I miss something ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> We agree that it is unfair and illogical to equate Hamas' targeted suicide
> bombings of civilians (e.g. women, ;children, school buses, restaurants, etc.)
> with Israel's targeted killings of known Hamas military leaders and terrorists.

Sorry to insist but you don't help me to understand. For example you
don't explain why since the begining of the second intifada there's
nearly 2 times more Paslestinian killed compared to Israelian...
This sordid arithmetic let me bewildered.

[ScottW]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sorry to insist but you don't help me to understand. For example you
> don't explain why since the begining of the second intifada there's
> nearly 2 times more Paslestinian killed compared to Israelian...
> This sordid arithmetic let me bewildered.

Your sordid arithmetic leaves me bewildered as well.
In a war (which you claim is in progress), you feel there
are some rules requiring sides to maintain equal
casualty levels?
I think you watched too much Star Trek, time for
you to report to your annihilation chamber.

ScottW

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:


>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mikermckelvy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>How about that? We agree on something.
>>>
>>>Hey Bruce did I miss something ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> We agree that it is unfair and illogical to equate Hamas' targeted suicide
>> bombings of civilians (e.g. women, ;children, school buses, restaurants,
>etc.)
>> with Israel's targeted killings of known Hamas military leaders and
>terrorists.
>
>Sorry to insist but you don't help me to understand. For example you
>don't explain why since the begining of the second intifada there's
>nearly 2 times more Paslestinian killed compared to Israelian...
>This sordid arithmetic let me bewildered.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Perhaps you would be less bewildered if you considered the following:

(1) When a war against terrorists is being fought, it is not unusual or
unreasonable to expect collateral damage.

(2) Number of casualties does not justify arguments over who is right and who
is wrong - especially in this case, or for that matter, in many other wars of
self-defense.

(3) Less Israeli casualties then Palestinian casualties is a result of several
factors - including the ability of the Israeli military to prevent numerous
Palestinian bombers from carrying out their attacks. This fact has been well
documented in many newspaper reports.
In fact, more than a few Palestinian bombers have (a) blown themselves up prior
to encountering Israeli targets, and (b) killed Palestinians as well as
Israelis during their many attacks at restaurants and elsewhere.

(4) Ask yourself who has initiated several wars in the Middle East since
Israel's creation in 1948. Hint - it wasn't Israel.

(5) As George Middius pointed out, the destruction of Israel and occupation of
all - not some - of its land has been the goal of most Palestinians since 1948.

(6) You might also want to consider that prior to 1948, Palestinians had a
homeland. It was called Jordan (or Trans-Jordan). Perhaps you can explain for
me why Jordan does not want to help solve this problem by offering the
Palestinians the "right of return" ::)



Bruce J. Richman

[Joseph Oberlander]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

> Perhaps you would be less bewildered if you considered the following:
>
> (1) When a war against terrorists is being fought, it is not unusual or
> unreasonable to expect collateral damage.
>
> (2) Number of casualties does not justify arguments over who is right and who
> is wrong - especially in this case, or for that matter, in many other wars of
> self-defense.
>
> (3) Less Israeli casualties then Palestinian casualties is a result of several
> factors - including the ability of the Israeli military to prevent numerous
> Palestinian bombers from carrying out their attacks. This fact has been well
> documented in many newspaper reports.
> In fact, more than a few Palestinian bombers have (a) blown themselves up prior
> to encountering Israeli targets, and (b) killed Palestinians as well as
> Israelis during their many attacks at restaurants and elsewhere.

Two more points:

1:Many are killed before they even get a chance to blow anything
up.

2: Israel has better mideicla and emergency services. If you
get a leg blown off in Israel, you'll likely survive. In
the Palestinean areas...

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

> Lionel wrote:
>
>
>
>>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>
>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mikermckelvy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>How about that? We agree on something.
>>>>
>>>>Hey Bruce did I miss something ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>We agree that it is unfair and illogical to equate Hamas' targeted suicide
>>>bombings of civilians (e.g. women, ;children, school buses, restaurants,
>>
>>etc.)
>>
>>>with Israel's targeted killings of known Hamas military leaders and
>>
>>terrorists.
>>
>>Sorry to insist but you don't help me to understand. For example you
>>don't explain why since the begining of the second intifada there's
>>nearly 2 times more Paslestinian killed compared to Israelian...
>>This sordid arithmetic let me bewildered.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Perhaps you would be less bewildered if you considered the following:
>
> (1) When a war against terrorists is being fought, it is not unusual or
> unreasonable to expect collateral damage.
>
> (2) Number of casualties does not justify arguments over who is right and who
> is wrong - especially in this case, or for that matter, in many other wars of
> self-defense.
>
> (3) Less Israeli casualties then Palestinian casualties is a result of several
> factors - including the ability of the Israeli military to prevent numerous
> Palestinian bombers from carrying out their attacks. This fact has been well
> documented in many newspaper reports.
> In fact, more than a few Palestinian bombers have (a) blown themselves up prior
> to encountering Israeli targets, and (b) killed Palestinians as well as
> Israelis during their many attacks at restaurants and elsewhere.

(c) cibled assassinations aren't well cibled most of the time.

The following is out of subject because I never comment about
Palestinian cause, I never wrote that Palestinian are right and
Israelian wrong.
Are you supposing that I am pro-palestinian only because I think that
U.N must condemn Yassin assassination ? I'm afraid that, concerning this
problem, your vision of the world is too much manicheist, Bruce. Be
careful, passion is the enemy of the lucidity.

> (4) Ask yourself who has initiated several wars in the Middle East since
> Israel's creation in 1948. Hint - it wasn't Israel.
>
> (5) As George Middius pointed out, the destruction of Israel and occupation of
> all - not some - of its land has been the goal of most Palestinians since 1948.
>
> (6) You might also want to consider that prior to 1948, Palestinians had a
> homeland. It was called Jordan (or Trans-Jordan). Perhaps you can explain for
> me why Jordan does not want to help solve this problem by offering the
> Palestinians the "right of return" ::)
>
>
>
> Bruce J. Richman
>
>
>

[Lionel]

ScottW wrote:

> I think you watched too much Star Trek, time for
> you to report to your annihilation chamber.

I prefer rugby.

[Sander deWaal]

George M. Middius > said:

>I'd call Hamas's attacks indiscriminate rather than targeted. (If they
>tried to assassinate Sharon or another figure of authority in Israel,
>that would be targeted.) And that's the big difference: Israel defends
>its land and its people, and the militant Arabs just want to destroy
>everything they see. If there weren't an "enemy" for them to hate
>right next door, they'd be killing each other in greater numbers. Or
>maybe they'd be terrorizing Jordan.

>The militant Arabs in Palestine showed their agenda 40 years ago, and
>nothing has changed since then. There has never been a leader in
>Palestine who truly desired a peaceful coexistence. When there is,
>Israel may find another way to establish security, and the current
>conditions may change.

Well said, George.
One wonders what Arab countries would be like when all the energy that
is put into hatred was put to build up their countries, their economy
and their personal lives.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

[Lionel]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> George M. Middius > said:
>
>
>>I'd call Hamas's attacks indiscriminate rather than targeted. (If they
>>tried to assassinate Sharon or another figure of authority in Israel,
>>that would be targeted.) And that's the big difference: Israel defends
>>its land and its people, and the militant Arabs just want to destroy
>>everything they see. If there weren't an "enemy" for them to hate
>>right next door, they'd be killing each other in greater numbers. Or
>>maybe they'd be terrorizing Jordan.
>
>
>>The militant Arabs in Palestine showed their agenda 40 years ago, and
>>nothing has changed since then. There has never been a leader in
>>Palestine who truly desired a peaceful coexistence. When there is,
>>Israel may find another way to establish security, and the current
>>conditions may change.
>
>
> Well said, George.
> One wonders what Arab countries would be like when all the energy that
> is put into hatred was put to build up their countries, their economy
> and their personal lives.
>

I must agree with the above concerning the Palestinian leaders and for
the use that some Arabs leaders have of the Palestinian conflict.

We should also acknowledge honestly that when the Israelian
interlocutors wasn't as cynic, comptemptuous and scornful than Mr.
Sharon the peace discussions had done some progress.
We shouldn't forget the past efforts because in this conflict the only
alternative to annihilation is optimist negotiation.

[Bruce J. Richman]

George M. Middius wrote:


>La Salope muttered:
>
>> We should also acknowledge honestly that when the Israelian
>> interlocutors wasn't as cynic, comptemptuous and scornful than Mr.
>> Sharon the peace discussions had done some progress.
>
>Why is your command of English still only Krooger-level?
>
>We'll get to your empty-headed political yammering later on.....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

While Sharon's political party (Likud) is definitely not as *generous* when it
comes to making concessions as the prior Labor party and its prime minister,
Sharon's personality characteristics have nothing at all to do with the failure
to resolve the MidEast conflict. Your perhaps don't recall that one of
Israel's prior prime ministers, Menachem Begin, was also quite "hard-line"
relative to other Israeli le4aders, and he nevertheless managed to reach a
peace agreement with Egypt. Of course, in that case, there was an Arab leader
willing to negotiate in good faith and reach an accomodation. None of that
exists today. Arafat has no interest in peace under any rational set of
conditions, as proven by his refusal of an extremely generous offer from the
prior Israeli government, and his consequent refusal to make any counteroffer
and subsequent encouragement and support of terrorism.

Even the crown prince of Saudi Arabia has advanced an idea, which, while
probably not acceptable to the vast majority of Israelis in its present format,
at least represents an effort to make a proposal which might conceivably serve
as a stimulus for negotiations. And, while I think its politically motivated
in part for both domestic and international (read American) consumption, it
might be worth further exploration. The alternative is more of the same cycle
of violence, it would appear.

There are times when personality characteristics do indeed interferee with and
override the ability for rational thought.
I don't think that obsevation applies to Sharon. As pointed out above, it is,
in a sense, paradoxically easier, for a hard-liner to make peace at times than
a more dovish leader.


Bruce J. Richman

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> George M. Middius > said:
>
> >I'd call Hamas's attacks indiscriminate rather than targeted. (If they
> >tried to assassinate Sharon or another figure of authority in Israel,
> >that would be targeted.) And that's the big difference: Israel defends
> >its land and its people, and the militant Arabs just want to destroy
> >everything they see. If there weren't an "enemy" for them to hate
> >right next door, they'd be killing each other in greater numbers. Or
> >maybe they'd be terrorizing Jordan.
>
> >The militant Arabs in Palestine showed their agenda 40 years ago, and
> >nothing has changed since then. There has never been a leader in
> >Palestine who truly desired a peaceful coexistence. When there is,
> >Israel may find another way to establish security, and the current
> >conditions may change.
>
> Well said, George.
> One wonders what Arab countries would be like when all the energy that
> is put into hatred was put to build up their countries, their economy
> and their personal lives.
>

Don't you realize that they DON"T WANT to join the
modern world? They are stuck in a seventh century groove.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Bruce J. Richman]

Art wrote:


>"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
>> George M. Middius > said:
>>
>> >I'd call Hamas's attacks indiscriminate rather than targeted. (If they
>> >tried to assassinate Sharon or another figure of authority in Israel,
>> >that would be targeted.) And that's the big difference: Israel defends
>> >its land and its people, and the militant Arabs just want to destroy
>> >everything they see. If there weren't an "enemy" for them to hate
>> >right next door, they'd be killing each other in greater numbers. Or
>> >maybe they'd be terrorizing Jordan.
>>
>> >The militant Arabs in Palestine showed their agenda 40 years ago, and
>> >nothing has changed since then. There has never been a leader in
>> >Palestine who truly desired a peaceful coexistence. When there is,
>> >Israel may find another way to establish security, and the current
>> >conditions may change.
>>
>> Well said, George.
>> One wonders what Arab countries would be like when all the energy that
>> is put into hatred was put to build up their countries, their economy
>> and their personal lives.
>>
>
>Don't you realize that they DON"T WANT to join the
>modern world? They are stuck in a seventh century groove.
>
>
>
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
>News==----
>http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
>Newsgroups
>---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
>=---
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I prefer 33 1/3 and 45 rpm grooves.

Currently spinning;

WEAVERS - At Carnegie Hall, Vol. 2

Next up:

COPELAND - El Salon Mexico (conducted by Copeland)

NITTY GRITTY DIRT BAND - Will the Circle Be Unbroken




Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

> While Sharon's political party (Likud) is definitely not as *generous* when it
> comes to making concessions as the prior Labor party and its prime minister,
> Sharon's personality characteristics have nothing at all to do with the failure
> to resolve the MidEast conflict. Your perhaps don't recall that one of
> Israel's prior prime ministers, Menachem Begin, was also quite "hard-line"
> relative to other Israeli le4aders, and he nevertheless managed to reach a
> peace agreement with Egypt. Of course, in that case, there was an Arab leader
> willing to negotiate in good faith and reach an accomodation. None of that
> exists today. Arafat has no interest in peace under any rational set of
> conditions, as proven by his refusal of an extremely generous offer from the
> prior Israeli government, and his consequent refusal to make any counteroffer
> and subsequent encouragement and support of terrorism.
>
> Even the crown prince of Saudi Arabia has advanced an idea, which, while
> probably not acceptable to the vast majority of Israelis in its present format,
> at least represents an effort to make a proposal which might conceivably serve
> as a stimulus for negotiations. And, while I think its politically motivated
> in part for both domestic and international (read American) consumption, it
> might be worth further exploration. The alternative is more of the same cycle
> of violence, it would appear.
>
> There are times when personality characteristics do indeed interferee with and
> override the ability for rational thought.
> I don't think that obsevation applies to Sharon. As pointed out above, it is,
> in a sense, paradoxically easier, for a hard-liner to make peace at times than
> a more dovish leader.

Do you know any conflicts in which one side support 100% of the
responsability ?
Keep on reasoning this way and you will get more congratulation messages
from McKelvy... :-(

[Schizoid Man]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
>
> Schizoid Man wrote:
> >>Your humor is wierd.

> > So is your spelling. Weird, that is.
>
> Waa! I run out of things to say and have to attack spelling
> mistakes! What a putz.


Obie,

Maybe you try to tone down the belligerent rhetoric. I wrote McKelvy one
line consisting of six words. I would hardly think that will constitute an
an 'attack'. I just happen to disagree with him.

Since you are such an ignoramus, let me educate you. Hamas to my mind is
amongst the most reprehensible organizations in the world. But even so, they
have repeatedly asked women and children to not participate in the suicide
(you might prefer homicide) bombings.

So unless you have something that is not malevolent to say, I suggest you
shut that black hole you call a mouth.

Schiz

[Joseph Oberlander]

Schizoid Man wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
>
>>Schizoid Man wrote:
>>
>>>>Your humor is wierd.
>
>
>>>So is your spelling. Weird, that is.
>>
>>Waa! I run out of things to say and have to attack spelling
>>mistakes! What a putz.
>
>
>
> Obie,
>
> Maybe you try to tone down the belligerent rhetoric. I wrote McKelvy one
> line consisting of six words. I would hardly think that will constitute an
> an 'attack'. I just happen to disagree with him.

I thought it was fitting considering the ****ing contest of multiple
posts sniping at each other. Youboth sound like kids squabbling on
the playground.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:


>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>
>> While Sharon's political party (Likud) is definitely not as *generous* when
>it
>> comes to making concessions as the prior Labor party and its prime
>minister,
>> Sharon's personality characteristics have nothing at all to do with the
>failure
>> to resolve the MidEast conflict. Your perhaps don't recall that one of
>> Israel's prior prime ministers, Menachem Begin, was also quite "hard-line"
>> relative to other Israeli le4aders, and he nevertheless managed to reach a
>> peace agreement with Egypt. Of course, in that case, there was an Arab
>leader
>> willing to negotiate in good faith and reach an accomodation. None of that
>> exists today. Arafat has no interest in peace under any rational set of
>> conditions, as proven by his refusal of an extremely generous offer from
>the
>> prior Israeli government, and his consequent refusal to make any
>counteroffer
>> and subsequent encouragement and support of terrorism.
>>
>> Even the crown prince of Saudi Arabia has advanced an idea, which, while
>> probably not acceptable to the vast majority of Israelis in its present
>format,
>> at least represents an effort to make a proposal which might conceivably
>serve
>> as a stimulus for negotiations. And, while I think its politically
>motivated
>> in part for both domestic and international (read American) consumption, it
>> might be worth further exploration. The alternative is more of the same
>cycle
>> of violence, it would appear.
>>
>> There are times when personality characteristics do indeed interferee with
>and
>> override the ability for rational thought.
>> I don't think that obsevation applies to Sharon. As pointed out above, it
>is,
>> in a sense, paradoxically easier, for a hard-liner to make peace at times
>than
>> a more dovish leader.
>
>Do you know any conflicts in which one side support 100% of the
>responsability ?
>Keep on reasoning this way and you will get more congratulation messages
>from McKelvy... :-(
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

There is nothing in my comments above to suggest that one side deserves 100% of
the responsibility. So where is your condemnation of Hamas suicide bombings?
(You support the U.N. condemnation of Yassin's assassination but not the
assassination of hundreds of Israeli civilians in buses, restaurants, etc.?)



Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

> There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you have about
> my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.

1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.

manicheist
\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:


>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>
>> There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you have
>about
>> my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.
>
>1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.
>
>manicheist
>\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.
>
>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>

I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no definition given
for the word, so it's meaning is not known. Therefore, it's use is sort of
pointless.

It's always a good day for me.


Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Lionel wrote:
>
>
>
>>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you have
>>
>>about
>>
>>>my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.
>>
>>1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.
>>
>>manicheist
>>\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.
>>
>>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no definition given
> for the word, so it's meaning is not known. Therefore, it's use is sort of
> pointless.

You say that because you aren't curious. Lazy ?

> It's always a good day for me.

I'm not really surprised.

[Arny Krueger]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> Lionel wrote:
>
>
>> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>
>>> There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you
>>> have about my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.
>>
>> 1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.
>>
>> manicheist
>> \Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.
>>
>> Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
>> Inc.

> I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no
> definition given for the word, so it's meaning is not known.

Perhaps to you.

> Therefore, it's use is sort of pointless.

Manicheanism is a dualistic religion that is loosely related to Buddhism.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

> You can understand whatever false assumptions you choose to make, especially
> the one that Yassin's assassination was political. Just as I am free to
> understand that you choose to isgnore the fact that Yassin's assassination was
> NOT POLITICAL.

This is what the press and many people forget.

Terrorists are not political leaders. They are criminals in the same
way the the ex-Nazi leaders were. You hunt them down and kill or
capture them whenever and wherever you can.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Lionel wrote:

> I don't see above any comdemnation of the Jewish religious extremist and
> their influence on Israelian government. Those extremists are made in
> the same wood than wahhabists but the occidental "politically correct"
> forbids to make such comparison.

I don't see very many Hassidic Jews strapping on bombs and blowing
up groups of Palestineans. That's the difference.

It's terribly simple. There are people who want Israel to be a smoking
crater and would gladly nuke it to serve their goals - if they had the
ability. They are armed and use bombs to blow up civilians using
terror tactics.

Where does it make sense to do anything other than put a bullet in
their head? These are bad people that made their choice to die
by taking out people with bombs strapped to thier bodies. I see
no problem in killing them before they get to their intended target.

> I only read above that you confirm to be agree with the death sentence
> that Israel applied to a Palestinian leader.

Except...

Yassin was NOT a political leader. He was a terrorist leader just
like BinLaden is.

[Lionel]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

>
>
> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>
>> You can understand whatever false assumptions you choose to make,
>> especially
>> the one that Yassin's assassination was political. Just as I am free to
>> understand that you choose to isgnore the fact that Yassin's
>> assassination was
>> NOT POLITICAL.
>
>
> This is what the press and many people forget.
>
> Terrorists are not political leaders.

Not agree. Most of them are the avatars of the influent nations
duplicity and underground policy (France, USA...)

> They are criminals in the same
> way the the ex-Nazi leaders were.

Agree

> You hunt them down and kill or
> capture them whenever and wherever you can.

If you kill them you create martyrs and by the way you keep up the conflict.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger wrote:


>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you
>>>> have about my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.
>>>
>>> 1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.
>>>
>>> manicheist
>>> \Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.
>>>
>>> Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
>>> Inc.
>
>> I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no
>> definition given for the word, so it's meaning is not known.
>
>Perhaps to you.
>
>> Therefore, it's use is sort of pointless.
>
>Manicheanism is a dualistic religion that is loosely related to Buddhism.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Whatever. Its' irrelevant to this thread.


Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Lionel wrote:


>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you have
>>>
>>>about
>>>
>>>>my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.
>>>
>>>1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.
>>>
>>>manicheist
>>>\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.
>>>
>>>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no definition
>given
>> for the word, so it's meaning is not known. Therefore, it's use is sort of
>> pointless.
>
>You say that because you aren't curious. Lazy ?
>
>> It's always a good day for me.
>
>I'm not really surprised.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Nor am I surprised that you make assumptions about what I've said that are
probably incorrect.


Bruce J. Richman

[Lionel]

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

>
>
> Lionel wrote:
>
>> I don't see above any comdemnation of the Jewish religious extremist
>> and their influence on Israelian government. Those extremists are made
>> in the same wood than wahhabists but the occidental "politically
>> correct" forbids to make such comparison.
>
>
> I don't see very many Hassidic Jews strapping on bombs and blowing
> up groups of Palestineans. That's the difference.

http://www.rabin.org/site/en/rabin.asp?pi=7

> It's terribly simple. There are people who want Israel to be a smoking
> crater and would gladly nuke it to serve their goals - if they had the
> ability. They are armed and use bombs to blow up civilians using
> terror tactics.
>
> Where does it make sense to do anything other than put a bullet in
> their head? These are bad people that made their choice to die
> by taking out people with bombs strapped to thier bodies. I see
> no problem in killing them before they get to their intended target.
>
>> I only read above that you confirm to be agree with the death sentence
>> that Israel applied to a Palestinian leader.
>
>
> Except...
>
> Yassin was NOT a political leader. He was a terrorist leader just
> like BinLaden is.

I'm not agree, Bin Laden, Yassin... are political leaders as well as
Hitler was a political leader.
If we dont want to deal with such political leaders we should take care
that our government, industrial leaders... don't create them.

[Lionel]

Bruce J. Richman wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>
>>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>
>>>Lionel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>There is no such English word as manicheist so the assumptions you
>>>>>have about my view of the conflict are unknown, but probably wrong.
>>>>
>>>>1 entry found for manicheist. It's a good day for you.
>>>>
>>>>manicheist
>>>>\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.
>>>>
>>>>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
>>>>Inc.
>>
>>>I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no
>>>definition given for the word, so it's meaning is not known.
>>
>>Perhaps to you.
>>
>>
>>>Therefore, it's use is sort of pointless.
>>
>>Manicheanism is a dualistic religion that is loosely related to Buddhism.

>
> Whatever. Its' irrelevant to this thread.

This above remember me some of the funny and caricatural exchanges you
have had recently with Sander deWaal. :-)

"The most striking principle of Manichee theology is its dualism. The
universe is a battlefield for control between an evil material god and a
good spiritual god. Christians recognized the evil god in Satan but, of
course, could not accept the idea that Satan had as much power as
Jehovah, and held that Satan, unlike God, is a created being. The term
Manichaeistic is often used to describe any religion with a similar
concept of struggle between good and evil."

[Farrell8882]

>From: (Bruce J. Richman)

>>manicheist
>>\Man"i*che*ist\, n. [Cf. F. manich['e]iste.] Manich[ae]an.

>I was aware of that entry. However, note that there was no definition given
>for the word, so it's meaning is not known.

Doesn't it mean someone from Manchester?

[Joseph Oberlander]

Lionel wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Lionel wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see above any comdemnation of the Jewish religious extremist
>>> and their influence on Israelian government. Those extremists are
>>> made in the same wood than wahhabists but the occidental "politically
>>> correct" forbids to make such comparison.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't see very many Hassidic Jews strapping on bombs and blowing
>> up groups of Palestineans. That's the difference.
>
> http://www.rabin.org/site/en/rabin.asp?pi=7

Isolated incidents are different than suicide bombers and you
know it. There's an entire level of violence that virtually
every Jewish extremist won't cross. There are exceptions, but
they are exactly that.

OTOH, Palestinean terrorists are blowing themselves up every few days.

>> Yassin was NOT a political leader. He was a terrorist leader just
>> like BinLaden is.
>
> I'm not agree, Bin Laden, Yassin... are political leaders as well as
> Hitler was a political leader.

He wasn't elected. He was a crazy madman who planned and instructed
others in how to use terrorism against others.

[Chapuis Lionel]

Joseph Oberlander a écrit :
> Lionel wrote:
>
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Lionel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see above any comdemnation of the Jewish religious extremist
>>>> and their influence on Israelian government. Those extremists are
>>>> made in the same wood than wahhabists but the occidental
>>>> "politically correct" forbids to make such comparison.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see very many Hassidic Jews strapping on bombs and blowing
>>> up groups of Palestineans. That's the difference.
>>
>>
>> http://www.rabin.org/site/en/rabin.asp?pi=7
>
>
> Isolated incidents are different than suicide bombers and you
> know it. There's an entire level of violence that virtually
> every Jewish extremist won't cross. There are exceptions, but
> they are exactly that.

This is your opinion I understand it. I not really as confident I think
it's just a question of circumstances.

>
> OTOH, Palestinean terrorists are blowing themselves up every few days.
>
>>> Yassin was NOT a political leader. He was a terrorist leader just
>>> like BinLaden is.
>>
>>
>> I'm not agree, Bin Laden, Yassin... are political leaders as well as
>> Hitler was a political leader.
>
>
> He wasn't elected. He was a crazy madman who planned and instructed
> others in how to use terrorism against others.

I agree because we just have a minor terminology problem : before being
elected a "political leader" is already a "political leader".

[Joseph Oberlander]

Chapuis Lionel wrote:

>> Isolated incidents are different than suicide bombers and you
>> know it. There's an entire level of violence that virtually
>> every Jewish extremist won't cross. There are exceptions, but
>> they are exactly that.
>
>
> This is your opinion I understand it. I not really as confident I think
> it's just a question of circumstances.

Ah. According to NON CHRISTIAN ethics, there is no such thing as
thought equaling sin. Only your actions determine if you sin
or not.

This applies to Islam as well as Judaism - they can think and vent
and yell all they want - but it's meaningless until they DO cross
that line.(not a good thing to yell and such, but certainly no
crime)

Understanding where they are coming from helps a lot to understand.

[Sander deWaal]

Joseph Oberlander > said:

>> I'm not agree, Bin Laden, Yassin... are political leaders as well as
>> Hitler was a political leader.

>He wasn't elected. He was a crazy madman who planned and instructed
>others in how to use terrorism against others.

Oh, but Hitler *was* elected. Read up on your history!

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

[Joseph Oberlander]

Sander deWaal wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander > said:
>
>
>>>I'm not agree, Bin Laden, Yassin... are political leaders as well as
>>>Hitler was a political leader.
>
>
>>He wasn't elected. He was a crazy madman who planned and instructed
>>others in how to use terrorism against others.
>
>
> Oh, but Hitler *was* elected. Read up on your history!

I was talking about Yassin, since that was the original problem.
He can't possibly be a "political leader" since he wasn't
in a position of ANY political power.

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: Sander deWaal

>Well said, George.
>One wonders what Arab countries would be like when all the energy that
>is put into hatred was put to build up their countries, their economy
>and their personal lives.

First they would have to set up democratic governments and a capitalistic
system.

Freedom and capitalism tend to breed peace.

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: Lionel

>I'm not agree, Bin Laden, Yassin... are political leaders as well as
>Hitler was a political leader.

Hitler was elected in Germany. Yassin and Bin Laden have not been elected to
anything. Theya re self appointed executioners targeting innocents.

>If we dont want to deal with such political leaders we should take care
>that our government, industrial leaders... don't create them.
>

We don't create them, they choose to disregard human life in order to advance
their own private, insane view of the world.

[Mikermckelvy]

>From: Lionel

>Sorry to insist but you don't help me to understand. For example you
>don't explain why since the begining of the second intifada there's
>nearly 2 times more Paslestinian killed compared to Israelian...
>This sordid arithmetic let me bewildered.

Because the Israeli's are better shots.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Bruce J. Richman wrote:
>
> > Lionel wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Bruce J. Richman wrote:
> >>
> >>>Lionel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Mikermckelvy wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>How about that? We agree on something.
> >>>>
> >>>>Hey Bruce did I miss something ?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>We agree that it is unfair and illogical to equate Hamas' targeted
suicide
> >>>bombings of civilians (e.g. women, ;children, school buses,
restaurants,
> >>
> >>etc.)
> >>
> >>>with Israel's targeted killings of known Hamas military leaders and
> >>
> >>terrorists.
> >>
> >>Sorry to insist but you don't help me to understand. For example you
> >>don't explain why since the begining of the second intifada there's
> >>nearly 2 times more Paslestinian killed compared to Israelian...
> >>This sordid arithmetic let me bewildered.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Perhaps you would be less bewildered if you considered the following:
> >
> > (1) When a war against terrorists is being fought, it is not unusual or
> > unreasonable to expect collateral damage.
> >
> > (2) Number of casualties does not justify arguments over who is right
and who
> > is wrong - especially in this case, or for that matter, in many other
wars of
> > self-defense.
> >
> > (3) Less Israeli casualties then Palestinian casualties is a result of
several
> > factors - including the ability of the Israeli military to prevent
numerous
> > Palestinian bombers from carrying out their attacks. This fact has been
well
> > documented in many newspaper reports.
> > In fact, more than a few Palestinian bombers have (a) blown themselves
up prior
> > to encountering Israeli targets, and (b) killed Palestinians as well as
> > Israelis during their many attacks at restaurants and elsewhere.
>
> (c) cibled assassinations aren't well cibled most of the time.
>
> The following is out of subject because I never comment about
> Palestinian cause, I never wrote that Palestinian are right and
> Israelian wrong.

You seem to imply it.

> Are you supposing that I am pro-palestinian only because I think that
> U.N must condemn Yassin assassination ?

No, no, that simply makes you stupid.

I'm afraid that, concerning this
> problem, your vision of the world is too much manicheist, Bruce. Be
> careful, passion is the enemy of the lucidity.
>
So is Communism.

> > (4) Ask yourself who has initiated several wars in the Middle East since
> > Israel's creation in 1948. Hint - it wasn't Israel.
> >
> > (5) As George Middius pointed out, the destruction of Israel and
occupation of
> > all - not some - of its land has been the goal of most Palestinians
since 1948.
> >
> > (6) You might also want to consider that prior to 1948, Palestinians had
a
> > homeland. It was called Jordan (or Trans-Jordan). Perhaps you can
explain for
> > me why Jordan does not want to help solve this problem by offering the
> > Palestinians the "right of return" ::)
> >
> >
> >
> > Bruce J. Richman
> >
> >
> >