Peace scorecard: Israel: 2, Arabia: 0

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
"Maybe it's the consistent history of invasion"

Arab countries invading Israel:
1948 Arab countries send a rag tag bumch of volutneers to defend Palestinians who are understandablynot happy that following a few decades of British occupation their land is to be split in two and hafl of it given for foreigners to come and live there, turning those that stay a minority in their own lands; by the end of the conflict Israel has taken much of the UN designated Palestinian territory and the homes of 700,000 people).

1973: Egypt and Syria "invade" the occupied Sinai peninsula and Golan Heights, ie their own territories occupied by Israel.

Israel invades Arab countries:
1956: Israel, with France and the UK, invades Egypt and occupies the Sinai, eventually forced to give it back by the US.

1967: Israel invades Egypt and Jordan, on the basis that Egypt has violated a treaty that was forced on it in return for ending its previous occupation of the Sinai by closing access to the Gulf of Aqaba, and then Syria after a ceasefire has been called, and takes the Sinai, which it eventually returns, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights.

1978: Israel invades the Lebanon

1982: Israel invades the Lebanon again, imposes a murderous seige on Beirut that kills thousands of civilians, and occupies the South of the country for nearly 20 years.

2003: Israel acts as main cheerleader for invasion of Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post certainly has no bias at all. Grow up.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]

Your post certainly has no bias at all. Grow up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post typically has no content at all. Thank you.

[Gamblor]

[ QUOTE ]
Comparing the forced removal of a violent, belligerent terrorist population and its band of supporters to the outright murder of a non-violent benign ethnic group is the sickest bastardization of reason I have ever heard.


[/ QUOTE ]

belligerent terrorist population = terrorists themselves.

band of supporters = PLO, Joe Arab, families, etc. etc.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your post certainly has no bias at all. Grow up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post typically has no content at all. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This particular one does not. However, your post was slanted, biased, and ignored a lot of facts. But, thats the only way a delusional mind can rationalize things that make no sense.

[tolbiny]

"Maybe it's the consistent history of invasion (despite professions of peace), the history of terrorism, etc. that is making them unwilling to accept "peace" under terms it doesn't feel are in its best interest. Maybe its because THEY HAVE NO REASON TO BELIEVE THERE WILL REALLY BE PEACE!"

Your posts on the other hand cite all of the facts an dhold no bias whatsoever.

[tolbiny]

"You can't say those things. The truth must never come out. If it does the Democrats can't win the next election. Their traitorous media machine is trying its damnedest to lie to the American people, just like it did in Vietnam, but this time there are others who actually report the truth, not the "news"."

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your post certainly has no bias at all. Grow up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post typically has no content at all. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This particular one does not. However, your post was slanted, biased, and ignored a lot of facts. But, thats the only way a delusional mind can rationalize things that make no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to show us how why you think his post is slanted and biased?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your post certainly has no bias at all. Grow up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post typically has no content at all. Thank you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This particular one does not. However, your post was slanted, biased, and ignored a lot of facts. But, thats the only way a delusional mind can rationalize things that make no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Care to show us how why you think his post is slanted and biased?

[/ QUOTE ]

You serious? Read the post. See if there is any positive reason why the Israelis have done anything, then see if there is any NEGATIVE why the Arabs have done anything. Count the current score. (its zero positive for Israel and zero negative for the Arabs) Now, do the same count when looking at NEGATIVE reasons for Israel doing anything and the POSITIVE reasons why the Arabs did anything.

(score still zero positive for Israel, but now its multiple negatives)

(score still zero negative for the arabs, but a couple of positive points)

so, in his post, there is NO positive light on anything Israel has done, but plenty of negative. there is also no NEGATIVE light on what the Arabs have done, but a couple positive.

this is typical of network news, and liberals in general.

[nicky g]

What you say is true to an extent, and I wouldn't want to argue that my post is a sober academic history of the Arab-Israeli conflict; it wasn't meant to be. On the other hand it serves to somewhat balance your post, which mentioned Israel's history of invasion as an excuse for its lack of willingness to make peace, while completely ignoring the fact that Israel has invaded (and occupied) its neighbours more often than vice versa, meaning your post did essentially what mine did in fewer words. In the mean time I have offered some facts and context to back up my point, albeit arguably selective ones with the aim of balancing your assertion, while you continue to offer nothing but blanket assertions and contradiction.

Hallo weekend.

[ACPlayer]

Your lunacy knows no bounds.

He provided a historical timeline and not a discussion of the positives and negatives of the societies. No opinions were offered.

If you dispute the timeline -- provide facts. If you dont dispute the timeline -- BE QUIET.