"Or do they think that the destruction of Israel is the key to solving all other problems that the Muslims have faced for the past half-century? "
"Don't we in the Muslim world have other pressing problems that merit emergency summits? Hunger, poverty, illiteracy, the absence of law and order, corruption, lack of basic human rights and freedoms and the prospect of spiraling terror? "
" Meaningless resolutions may make the Al-Jazeera audience happy for a few days. But they are a betrayal of the Palestinian people, who have been sacrificed at the altar of Arab and other Muslim vanities for two generations.E-mail: "
Rjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 744 times:
Copied from the other thread:
Vanessa, we could continue it here....I'm still waiting for Horus to say whether he supports Israel's right to exist.
Actually, I do like all other Arabs ( and other members of this forum) agree with the existence of Israel
Some members on this forum, and a huge percentage of Arabs don't agree with you.
but I do never support the actions that they are taking against the innocent Palestinian people
I don't support inncoent Palesinians being killed, nor does any member of this forum.
I don't consider Hammas which is also a terrorist group found as a reaction to the Israeli miss-behavior there
What do you mean? Are you saying you don't consider Hamas a terrorist group? I can't tell from that sentence.
Israel as a state which lives in peace together with its neighbors, and does recognize the right of others to live in peace is what all Arabs are seeking for.
Israel has wanted to live in peace for decades. But I'm not crazy about your statement "recognize the right of others to live in peace." For most Arabs, this means an Israel with an Arab majority, which will never happen.
It will be very interesting to see what happens once Isreal pulls out of Gaza, and eventually pulls out of the West Bank. Then the Arab countries won't be able to keep calling upon Israel "to withdraw to the 1967 lines if they want peace". Because I practically guarantee you that once Israel withdraws, the Arab world won't be ready for peace with Israel.
Rjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 733 times:
Vanessa, I don't think Horus would agree with that article. He would blame it all on Israel.
1. Evil exists in both sides.
2. Sharon and Arafat are symbol of pain and hate to both sides.
3. Peace is the only solution.
I agree with all of them...There is one difference though. ANY Israeli leader would be a symbol of pain and hate to Palestinians.
As for my "plan" for peace. Israel pulls out of Gaza and most of the West Bank. Palestinians will have to gain control of their land and start building a normal country (of course with foreign aid coming in). If they use their new freedom to attack back at Israel, we will know who to blame. If they start building a society for themselves and their children, Israel will eventually give them more and more freedom until there is peace.
I got these quotes from a play I saw about Golda Meir's life and it holds true today:
"The only way there will be peace in the Middle East is when the Arabs love their children more than they hate the Jews"
"It's because Egypt and Syria and the other Arab countries refuse to acquiesce to our existence. Therefore there can be no compromise. They say we must be dead. And we say we want to be alive. Between life and death, I don't know of a compromise. And that's why we have no choice." --Golda Meir, 60 Minutes, CBS-TV. September, 1973.
Rjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 717 times:
Well I said "most" just because the actual line isn't totally clear and I wouldn't have any objections if Israel held on to one or two settlements, if it meant that the Palestinians would be on their own. Of course then the Palestinians could use the excuse for years that Israel holding on to those two settlements is causing their problems, just as all the other Arab countries in the region blame Israel for their problems. That is why I found the above posted article reassuring.
As for Horus, once conclusive arguments are made against him or his "points" he stops posting. While the topics might be controversial, for the most part the discussions are level and I see no reason why Horus can't respond to people who ask him questions or criticise his arguments.
Horus is a nice guy, you just were pushing him a lot, and you mistreated him.
How did I once mistreat him? Since when is being critical of his posts, pointing out his lies and exaggerations considered mistreatment?
He also constantly talks about IDF murder, torture, rape, and more attoricites without backing up his facts. And the few times he does post an article by some whacked out source, it is ONE case. Hardly enough to label a whole military as something. I'm curious if he thinks the whole American Army in Iraq abuses and tortures prisoners after what happened this week.
David, what do you think of that article posted above? And I responded to you in the Saudi Arabia thread, reply 63.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 684 times:
That requires the Palestinian leadership to offer its own "peace plan." This has never happened because Yasser Arafat, taking himself for a master of Machiavellian politics, has always played Janus, with one face smiling at Israel while the other promises death.
That, to me, is the most damning statement made in the article. For all the talk of peace that some of our Arab friends pay lip service to, and even to mention that the Palestinians HAVE offered a peace plan (which is a lie), this is what the truth is: an Arab world that has never, as a unit, tried for peace.
It's a damning article to the fact that the Arab world-it's leaders in this case-have stayed dumb and dumber when confronting issues that affect their peoples.
Horus From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 5230 posts, RR: 62 Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 652 times:
Barak had a strange idea of how peace was to be achieved. In one of his earliest speeches he outlined his master plan with four "NOs!":
1. No concessions on the West Bank and Gaza [Israel will continue the illegal occupation].
2. Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel [Palestinians were to give up all claims to Al-Aqsa and Jerusalem].
3. No dismantling of the illegal jewish settlements
4. No army West of the River Jordan (so even if there is a Palestinian state, Israel would tell it whether it can have an army or not).
Just one or two points about the 'generous' Camp David:
The timeline of the 1999 Sharm El Sheikh Memorandum called for final statues negotiations to be completed by September 13, 2000. This led President Clinton's invitation to Barak and Arafat for a summit at Camp David to be convened on July 11th 2000.
The West Bank and Gaza are only 22% of pre-1948 Palestine.
When the Palestinian Authority signed Oslo (a whole different matter) they accepted only 22% and recognised Israel with the green line borders conceding to 78% of historic Palestine.
Barak, felt this was not enough and demanded:
1. 69 illegal settlements to be included in this area, where 85% of the illegal settlers live. These settlements disrupt Palestinian life in the West Bank and Gaza.
2. Territories will be under 'temporary Israeli control'. This meant that Palestinian land remains under Israeli military and civil control for an indefinite time.
3. Palestinians to accept Israeli supervision of border crossings and other restriction in the air and sea.
This was Israel's most 'generous' offer. Camp David offered the Palestiaians 46% of 22% of historical Palestine
Furthermore, this proposal required Palestinians to give up any claim to occupy Jerusalem and would have forced recognition of Israel's annexation of all east Jerusalem which includes Al-Aqsa.
p.s. The Israeli government support the illegal jewish settlements, with 28% of the Ministry of Trade and Industry's budget to house the illegal occupiers.
We ALL want peace, but it has to be fair and just one. You always have to read the 'small print'.
p.s. Rjpieces, I ask you again to stop making unfounded accusations against me based on your percieved views. And do not say I don't provide you with evidence. I do and so do other members and you simply dismiss it as lies or arab propaganda. And I had another read of post #80 and my reply to it #82 and it just goes to prove my point. Look you have your own take on things and so do I, why do you think you are more right? Look like I said we can agree to disagree, but I hope you show me some respect like I show you respect (i.e. no more insults, attacks or accusations). Who knows maybe once that happens we both can discuss the matter in a civilised way, but only when that happens.
Jutes85 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 640 times:
We ALL want peace, but it has to be fair and just one. You always have to read the 'small print'.
Not ALL of us want peace. Hamas sure doesn't, Arafat wants the Israeli state to disappear. You say you want peace, yet you don't condem attacks against innocent Israeli's. You never say that Hamas is a terrorist organization, yet every country in the world says it is. Not one country, besides that in the Arab world, says that Israel and the IDF are know terrorists, yet you do.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 15721 posts, RR: 48 Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 635 times:
"Tell me what do you think about the Arab league summit 2002 declaration:"
It's standard Muslim/Arab hot air...they could A) actually look at their own problems and begin to fix them or B) just blame Israel for something and call for a resolution (read: Israel needs to exist less than it does so currently). They always opt for B and surprise, surprise, they are stuck in their antiquated ways. This is precisely what happened at the lastest summit in Tunis, which ended up not happening.
"NOTHING better illustrates the distress of the Arab world than the muddle, buck-passing and recrimination that attended this week's last-minute postponement of the Arab League's annual summit in Tunis. For sure, such meetings have in the past all too often distinguished themselves by the sanctimonious irrelevance of their declarations and a readiness to blame others, especially the United States and Israel, for the region's home-grown failings"