[Skunk]

Originally posted by Black Baron: 500 murdered in jenin? only 50 killed. there is difference. more than 30 were armed. If we wanted every one dead-we could have used artillery. it would not lead to 23 soldiers dead.

"the IDF began utilising anti-aircraft weapons that fire 3,000 20-millimetre rounds a minute to destroy houses in which Palestinian fighters were said to be sheltering. In order to conceal its military operations from any prying journalists, the army produced a cordon of smoke to screen off the areas of fighting....

...A senior Palestinian spokesman, Nabil Shaath, has accused Israel of carrying out between 60 and 70 summary executions and removing corpses in refrigerated trucks: “The Israeli army took six days to complete its massacre in Jenin and six days to clean it up...

The United Nations envoy to the Middle East, Terje Roed-Larsen, described Jenin as, “shocking and horrifying beyond belief.” Roed-Larsen said 300 buildings were destroyed and 2,000 people were left homeless: “I’ve just been witnessing two brothers digging out of the rubble their father and five other family members. I witnessed a family digging out their about 12-year-old son from beneath the rubble. There’s a stench of decaying corpses all over the place here, the scene is absolutely unbelievable ... No military operation could justify the suffering we are seeing here...

The Mirror’s David Pilditch...Jumana Hassan, 24, who told him that soldiers had gathered bodies together and blew them up to hide the evidence. Jumana said: “There were six men whose bodies were lying in the street. They were left for days. They threw them into a pile. There was an explosion and there was nothing left of their bodies.”
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/ap...isra-a20.shtml

I'm afraid that Israel has to live with the same argument that it supported over Iraq. Where are the 450 unaccounted for civilians? We know that they were there before, we knew that they could not get out - so where are they now?

Originally posted by Black Baron: They however (now i am talking about the arab countries), must compensate us. why? because when we went from their states (syria, iraq etc) we were not allowed to take our property. if they will return our property, i will consider it fair (and possible) to return to them 100 percent of the territories.

Originally posted by Black Baron:
You are sitting in an entire country's worth of compensation. Israel was given a vast land expanse with which to found a nation - land worth trillions of dollars. That's compensation enough.
But this land has nothing to do with the Syrian government or Iraq etc. - it belonged to the people who lived there - who had never taken anything away from Jews. So demanding that other countries 'repay' Israel yet further in return for the Palestinians freedom/land is like hostage taking in return for cash. Not exactly a morally correct thing to do.

Originally posted by Black Baron: If arafat wanted peace, he could have long ago disarm evry one there, that needs disarming. Compare by the way how palestinians lived before and after arafat. before was better. So i think it is 2 way street.

The palestinians were infinitely better off before Arafat - but then that was before the 1967 war.

Originally posted by Black Baron: By the way why america does not return her own "teritories"? and russia too?

We've had the englightenment and two world wars in which so many died. The world changed since those lands were seized.

The United States was founded on land that belonged to the Native Americans but it has yet to invade and formally seize and annex more territory for itself this side of the C19th century. There are no new American colonies either.
Russia? The breakup of the Soviet Union and the return of the nation states that belonged to it back to their own people could not have slipped by you considering your roots. One of those former USSR states, Latvia, has just agreed to join the EU.

Originally posted by Black Baron: egypt closed the tiran passage to our ships. Besides the violation of international law

It was not a violation of international law. The Suez Canal was a part of Egytian territory and therefore it had a right to say which shipping could enter its territorial waters. Egypt and Saudia Arabia also had territorial rights to the waters surrounding the islands Tiran and Sanafir and again, according to the dictates of international law which are still valid today had every right to control any shipping which passed within 4 miles of those islands.

Originally posted by Black Baron: in 29 of may the egyptian soldiers took place of the un slodiers in gaza strip and opened fire on our civilians. In 28 of may iraqi soldiers went to jordan. in 17.5 nacer kicked the un troops away from sinai, and took their place.

Which does skip a few events. Even the 'politically correct' Wikipedia Encyclopedia states:
Throughout 1956, conflict increased between Israel and Egypt, with Israel launching frequent incursions into Egyptian territory and Egypt increasingly defending itself. Egypt, under the leadership of President Gamal Abdul Nasser, blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba and closed the Suez canal to Israeli shipping. At the same time, Egypt nationalized the canal, a vital trade route to the east, in which British banks and business held a 44% stake.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Suez_War

Egypt's actions did not occur out of the blue - there was a great deal of provocation and due fear of a full Israeli incursion into either their own territory or one of the other neighbouring Arabic states.

Originally posted by Black Baron: Syria said that she will continue to support the terrorristic organization fath, in israel.

As long as it remains a political party which has given up armed struggle, I can see no problem in that. Neither can your own government - who is only targeting Hamas rather than any other group since they are the only ones who are refusing a non-military path to self-determination.

As for whether they are currently a terrorist organisation, that is a matter of opinion. But if you subscribe to the view that Fath is terrorist, then by the same token, you must also subscribe to the view that Mossad is a terrorist organisation - anything less would be hypocritical, since both groups have been responsible for exactly the same sort of actions.

Originally posted by Black Baron: The war in 1982 was because that the lebanon government did nothing to prevent terrorrist inflitration to our state.

Well, we are talking about the PLO again - who would not exist if Israel withdrew to the pre-1967 borders, since they were fighting to reclaim their home-land. And what ever actions that the PLO were responsible for, nothing that they did compares with:
"Over 1982 to 1983 alone, there were an estimated 14,000 deaths in Beirut, most of them civilian victims of Israel's hi-tech arsenal which included phosphorous bombs and implosion devices that can fell an entire residential skyscraper."
http://www.megastories.com/mideast/wars/1982.htm

And of course, the invasion of Lebanon gave birth to Hezbollah too...

Originally posted by Black Baron: Remember that in 1967 there was no cause for them to attack us.

No there wasn't - and so they didn't.

-------------------------------

Now something from me. When the Nazi's stole from the Jews, taking their land and property - the Jews never forgot it. After the war, when the banks denied them their own money and those monies belonging to the survivors of the holocaust, the Jews never forgot it.

It took fifty years of heavy determination by Jewish groups to finally get settlements against governments and businesses - because the Jewish groups never gave up on and refused to allow the guilty parties walk away from their responsibilities in the THEFT of their property.

GOOD FOR THEM!!! The bulk of them finally achieved their justice.
But not all of the victims have been compensated - and their still fighting their way throught the courts to get that which belonged to them to be returned to them and to get compensation for past wrongs. Fortunately, they have that legal route open to them.

Now, why shouldn't the Palestinians get *their* property back? What makes anyone think that they will fight any less hard to get the same kind of justice? What makes anyone think that, if the the Jewish groups fight for fifty years to achieve justice, that the Palestinians won't do the same?

And if there is no court willing to listen to Palestinian demands to return their property - what other option is there for them but to engage in a physical fight?