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 : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (25035)	7/1/2003 2:02:13 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Hawkmoon, I've been following along and have a question about your words here: Of course, in YOUR WORLD, we know you will reject any facts that contradict your biased, Jew-despising, racist thought process.. Just admit it Thomas.. You hate Jews... I'm just wondering what your take is on the U.S.S. Liberty incident? I realize we don't live in a world of black & white, as George Bush does in his world of make-believe. There are those who say that Israel engaged in a naked act of aggression against an asset of the U.S. government, and that that same government fell on its sword that day in 1967, and during the intervening years of cover-up keeping the story from the American public who would, correctly, become angered at the treachery of the Israelis. I feel confident you see things differently. I wonder how differently? Shouldn't the Liberty incident give a real American patriot pause about what the U.S. government's foreign policy is all about? It doesn't seem directed toward the best interests of the nation somehow.... To paraphrase you.... "Just admit it Hawkmoon, you're a Zionist apologist and not really an American patriot at all." <g> Cheerio!

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (25035)	7/1/2003 11:54:41 AM
From: Thomas M.	Respond to of 25898

First, when did Begin (Likud) become Prime Minister of Israel?? I didn't say he was. But he was a member of the leadership during the debates. He could easily have made a public or private statement that he wished to make peace with Egypt. He didn't. The Israeli leadership agreed that Egypt's peace offer was genuine, and that Israel could hold out for a better deal because of their military superiority. Secondly, I suggest you review the 1970 Jarring Mission from the UN. I will. Again, every time you open the door to another topic, you only dig yourself a deeper hole . . . Tom

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (25035)	7/1/2003 12:17:51 PM
From: Elmer Flugum	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

Is all criticism against Isra'El Jew hatred? You seem to accuse so many of such.... len

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (25035)	7/1/2003 12:52:58 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25898

I suggest you review the 1970 Jarring Mission from the UN. Okay, let's do that. Gunnar Jarring sought "from each side the parallel and simultaneous commitments which seem to be inevitable prerequisites of an eventual peace settlement between them." This meant from Egypt: "a commitment to enter a peace agreement with Israel." From Israel, he requested "commitment to withdraw forces from occupied Egyptian territory to the former international boundary between Egypt and the British Mandate of Palestine." In short, Israel had to return the conquered land, and both countries had to sign a peace treaty. Egypt agreed to their end of the bargain formally on Feb 15. This was recognized by the Israeli UN ambassador Gideon Raphael as a genuine offer. At the end of February, Israel replied to Jarring: "Israel will not withdraw to the pre-June 1967 lines." Thus, as I said before, Israel rejected Egypt's peace offer in 1971. Israel later accepted the same deal in 1977. Why? Because the 1973 war demonstrated that Egypt was a tough military opponent. In conclusion, Israel only listened to the language of force. Tom