Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (12642)	4/12/2003 1:44:41 PM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21614

<< Funny. I recall reports of those Jewish settlers on the West Bank killing Arabs who just happened to be around when they felt like shooting. >> Your original statement was very misleading. You said: "Israel is subject to the same conditions: it must not allow Israelis to carry out terrorist activities against other countries in the agreement.", as if Israel had a state policy to carry out terrorist activities. Your statement was misleading and dishonest. There are isolated attacks by Israelis on the Palestinians, and when it happens Jews are prosecuted and punished if guilty. You knew this, but you still posted misleading statements. It was probably to show that your were even-handed. You wanted to seem unbiased. You are never going to prove that you are unbiased by posting false statements. << Yeah, I know Israel was attacked by its neighbors 3 times. But it, in combination with France and the UK, attacked them once too (the '56 war). >> Israel didn't start the 1956 war. Egypt initiated hostilities against Israel starting in 1949 with closing the Suez canal to Israel. Imagine what would happen to Panama, if Panama closed off the Panama canal to America. Then Egypt annoucned on August 31, 1955, after building up Egypt's military with arms from Russia for war against Israel: "Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death." On October 14, 1956, Nasser made clear his intent: "I am not solely fighting against Israel itself. My task is to deliver the Arab world from destruction through Israel's intrigue, which has its roots abroad. Our hatred is very strong. There is no sense in talking about peace with Israel. There is not even the smallest place for negotiations." Less than two weeks later, on October 25, Egypt signed a tripartite agreement with Syria and Jordan placing Nasser in command of all three armies. If any nation on this planet was faced with such hostilities and threats, that nation would have no choice but to defend itself by a pre-emptive strike. This is similar to what America did to Iraq, but with MUCH less of a direct threat. Israel, with the backing of France and Britain, attacked Egypt on October 29, 1956. Source: us-israel.org Once again, you post a very misleading statement that implied that Israel was the perpetrator of the 1956 war. Why are you resorting to misleading posts all of a sudden? Up to now I thought that you were fair and balanced.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (12642)	4/12/2003 3:05:39 PM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

<< So maybe next the US gets around to enforcing UN resolutions .... >> That would be great. Enforcement of the Security Council resolutions would be very much welcomed. Unfortunately the UN is more bark than bite. << If you are such a fool that you spit in the face of peace, you deserve the consequences. >> That was what Hitler said to Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain agreed to give up land for peace. He gave up half of Czechoslovakia, in exchange for a "promise of peace". In other words, he gave up land in exchange for nothing, and thus showed Hitler that the free world was timid, scared, and weak. Hitler took half of Czechoslovakia, and then went on to take almost all of Europe. You are asking Israel to depend upon the newly created and unknown "coalition" to guarantee Israel's peace. You say that because I don't want to accept accept a land-for-peace deal similar to what Neville Chamberlain agreed to, I am spitting in the face of peace? If anything I am "spitting" in the face of a deal that would probably lead to Israel's destruction. If Israel would pull back to indefensible borders they would be subjected to constant, savage terrorist attacks, and the coalition would sit back and watch. Before Israel gives up any land, the coalition should show that they are effective by moving into the West Bank and Gaza and destroying all of the terrorist groups there. Once ALL terrorist groups are gone from the West Bank and Gaza, then Israel could move to new, negotiated borders with the Palestinians, as outlined in UN security council resolution 1397, which states: "Affirming a vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders, "