~ Welcome to The Blog @ Trollstein.com ~
A discussion of world politics and identifying anti-Semitism therein
BLOG.TROLLSTEIN.COM
Huffington Post -- Should be called: "Censorship Central"
12-28-2011:
Due to a huge number of spam comments, the public comments option for this thread has been switched off.
09-15-2010:
If one reads the Huffington Post's "Moderation Guidelines" they seem like normal and functional rules:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/p/frequently-asked-question.html#moderation
" . . . . . we never censor comments for political or ideological reasons. We never delete an appropriate comment because we disagree with its viewpoint or ideology . . . "
Except for one small, technical problem. They have an entire background machine doing exactly that. If you have had similar experiences, having legitimate comments removed for no valid reason (except that it disagrees with the HP management), feel free to use this forum to elaborate.
That was an hour ago. Comments from 20 minutes ago are posted. My one-word remark may in fact be ultimately rejected.
Oh well, this type of thing is the price to be paid for confronting authority.
Due to a huge number of spam comments, the public comments option for this thread has been switched off.
09-15-2010:
If one reads the Huffington Post's "Moderation Guidelines" they seem like normal and functional rules:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/p/frequently-asked-question.html#moderation
" . . . . . we never censor comments for political or ideological reasons. We never delete an appropriate comment because we disagree with its viewpoint or ideology . . . "
Except for one small, technical problem. They have an entire background machine doing exactly that. If you have had similar experiences, having legitimate comments removed for no valid reason (except that it disagrees with the HP management), feel free to use this forum to elaborate.
Update: 12-02-2010:
The Huff Post ran a story entitled: Israel Fire Kills DOZENS Of Rescuers
Given their penchant for exaggeration when it comes to the Jewish nation, I was not sure if they meant gun fire or flames fire. It turned out to be a "forest" type fire. Partly out of sheer sarcasm, I posted the following comment:
"Murderous Israelis . . !"
"Murderous Israelis . . !"
I really wanted to see if the "moderation" would allow this comment. In fact they did.
Why wouldn't they, as they have allowed far worse. Far worse has been directed at me and allowed past "moderation".
Why wouldn't they, as they have allowed far worse. Far worse has been directed at me and allowed past "moderation".
Update: 12-03-2010:
The above comment was removed by HP. But not before I elaborated that it was sarcastic and with others agreeing with the "Murderous Israelis" statement (not sarcastically).
Update: 12-05-2010:
The head Troll has apparently be placed on a special list whereby most of my HP comments are delayed for hours. This is probably due to a special protocol whereby my comments must first be cleared by a supervisor. What this does is it removes the comment's moment because the conversations are usually started chronologically. Thus, my statements become old and too far down the list to be noticed, the moment they get published. I wrote a one word comment below Ms. Huffington's Sunday "roundup". "Good".That was an hour ago. Comments from 20 minutes ago are posted. My one-word remark may in fact be ultimately rejected.
Oh well, this type of thing is the price to be paid for confronting authority.
The Modern History of the Jewish Nation Explained in Under 1,000 Words
Sadly, most people have limited familiarity with the legal and practical origins of the Jewish Nation, which was formally named Israel in 1948. To further complicate matters, bias often creeps into the conversation so that even the limited information most people have is corrupted. Of course the religious Jews maintained a spiritual bond with the Jerusalem area for thousands of years. But that is ancient history. Today I will focus on modern history.
Background:
From about 1600 to 1920 the entire Mid East was part of the Turkish-Ottoman Empire. Turks are Muslims but are not Arabs, who were second class Turkish citizens and Turkish Jews were third class citizens. In 1905 the British converted their ships from coal to oil. In 1907, the annual worldwide sales of automobiles jumped from 5,000 (in 1906) to 75,000. By 1910, the British and French were conspiring to extract the oil by making deals with local Arab potentates. Thus started WW1 with the US officially neutral. (We had our own oil). Woodrow Wilson campaigned on a neutrality platform but within weeks after his inauguration, the US joined the UK, France, oil hungry Japan and Italy. How did that happen? Note that the Balfour Declaration is addressed to Lord Rothschild, NOT Weitzman, who was the head of the Zionist union. Between bankers Rothschild and Warburg, they controlled enough money to convince the USA to enter the war on the side of England.
In return, England promised to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine and Standard Oil of New Jersey (Wilson's home state) got to play in the ME. The Arab leaders (for their part) got what they wanted, namely national sovereignty. The Kurds were supposed to get independence but they (like the Jews) were ultimately cut out. At that time, the Jews of Europe were in no hurry to move to the Mid East. The population of Jerusalem was 40,000 Jews to 7,000 Muslims (including non-Arab Muslims). www.lib.utexas.edu/books/travel/593773/593773-c-033-800.html The Jerusalem Arabs of 1915 were fond of the Jews. But the Arab landlords (rightly) saw the Jews as a threat to their control and economic supremacy.
From a fairness perspective it is important to note that before all these events, the entire M.E., including about 800,000 Jews were all part of the same nation. While 3rd class citizens, they still had some minimal protection from absolute mob rule. So it was not unfair, under these circumstances, for the Jews to expect a small part of the territory which was being abrogated by Turkey. When the war against the Jews of the ME commenced in the 1920s, there were no European refugees and the refugees that later developed were (like the holocaust itself) a corollary to the 'Judenwar' which already was in progress in the M.E. More important, had the Arabs played ball with the Zionists, the end result would have been beneficial to everyone--except the few Arab war-lords at the top of the proverbial 'food-chain'. It should also be noted that 20 years after the USA, England and France liberated these war lords, every single Arab nation except Jordan sided with the Third Reich and their WW1 enemy, Germany.
The role of the League of Nations versus the United Nations:
While both tribunals are similar, there are two profound differences. 1. The League of Nations started with a small number of members, and; 2. Decisions of their "General Assembly" were binding on all members. Whereas, resolutions of the UN General Assembly are considered advisory in nature and are not legally binding. Thus, the UNGAR 181 commonly known as the 'Partition Plan' was exactly that, a plan. Israel's legal rights under international law derive from the Paris Peace Conference (1919),the San Remo and Sevres Treaties (1920) and the League of Nations Mandate on Palestine (1922). Treaty law has no expiration date and besides that, once the Jewish National Home was chartered, it could not be revoked. Lastly, even the UN Security Council has its legal limits. It is not a legislative body either. Its entire purpose and existence is based on interceding to protect against threats to world peace. Rather then legislation, what the UNSC produces is a form of "martial law' superimposed over normal and customary international law.
The legal controversy involving Israel/Palestine territorial sovereignty has never been adjudicated. Many people will reply . . "But what about all those UN Resolutions . .? " Except that the United Nations has no legislative authority. "How about the Security Council Resolutions?" All UN member nations agree to abide by decisions of the Security Council. But if any UNSC resolution is objectionable enough, an effected nation can resign their membership in the UN and thus be legally relieved of any such commitment. Besides, many acts of the UNSC are ambiguous, conflicted or, are progressively conflicted. By this I mean that successive resolutions on the same exact subject can direct the effected parties to do different things, depending on political tides or such events as revolving memberships. Each time France's government changes (which is about once per decade),its position on the Mid East morphs. This system may work reasonably well in averting conflicts between settled nations but it is completely useless (and often powerless) to settle disputes between tribes claiming the same or overlapping national borders.
People are basically sheep (on a good day). On a bad day we are brutal apes. The problem we all face is that our leaders (worldwide) tend to be from the latter category, as sheep have little ambition to rise to prominent positions. So our international treaty organization is being administered by brutal (if somewhat sophisticated) apes. I sure hope God has a sense of humor.
What is the deal with Wikileaks anyway?
At first this troll was beginning to buy into the media hype and leaning towards condemnation of Mr. Assange and Wikileaks. But something about it was unsettling and so I reserved final comment for a few days whilst I did the "Tevia" routine. ('On the one hand . . . . On the other hand . . . ').
I finally concluded that the risk posed by these leaks is smaller (perhaps much smaller) then the risk posed by the continued consolidation of unchecked power in the world. In the end, I decided that abuse-of-power is the greatest menace that we all face in the 21st century. So long as Mr. Assange's information is substantially correct and that he had made no effort to manipulate or falsify it, and so long as he was not party to the theft of the information to begin with, the troll says: Welcome to the 'age of information' -- free at last, free at last, thank God-all-mighty, its free at last.
There is no US law which can be applied to what Wikileaks did anyway. 'Espionage' can not be applied to the news media, unless it can be proven that the same news media was involved with the underlying theft of the data. See US Supra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartnicki_v._Vopper and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmark_Communications_v._Virginia
"Treason" would even be harder to apply because Mr. Assange was never a U.S. Citizen. All he is guilty of is "writing while telling the truth". Not yet a crime in the U.S., although at the rate we are headed . . .
Is the Al-Aqsa mosque referenced in the Qur'an? Right next to the reference of "Yasser Arafat"
The notion that Jerusalem was always the 3rd most holy place in Islam is one of the most prominent hoaxes ever perpetrated on the the human race, including (perhaps especially) on the Muslims themselves.
'Al-Aqsa' simply means 'most distant' in Arabic. It is chronologically impossible that this mosque was referenced in the Qur'an, because IT DID NOT EXIST until years after the death of the Islamic prophet Mohammed. Instead, the Roman-Catholic 'Church of St. Mary of Justinian', which was commissioned by Emperor Constantine's wife in about 333-CE was the only structure on that site, until Islamic armies captured Jerusalem--years after Mohammed's passing.
The actual Qur'anic passage ('The Night Journey') does not mention 'Jerusalem' at all and in fact, the word 'Jerusalem' is not mentioned even once in the entire text of the Qur'an. Nor was there even one Muslim mosque in the entire city during the iron-fisted 'Holy Roman' occupation. If Jerusalem is the 'third-holiest' place in Islam, one might expect it to be mentioned at least once in the Islamic scriptures. Mecca and Medina are referenced by name hundreds of times. It is far more likely that 'Al-Aqsa' was a mis-quote and that if anything, Mr. Mohammed may have said 'Al-Hasa', which is an oasis patch in the Arabian desert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hasa . Given that he was a camel driver, it is well possible that his knowledge of local geography exceeded that of the people transcribing his words. Not knowing where 'Al-Hasa' was, the scribner(s) may have simply mis-understood the word to mean 'most distant' ('Al-Aqsa'). Plus, Muslims had almost zero interest in this Jerusalem mosque (or Jerusalem, et al) while under Turkish rule. In reality, 'Al-Aqsa' is a mosque, no different then the tens of thousands around the world. It is certainly older then most, but NOT old enough to be referenced in the Qur'an, contrary to Yasser Arafat's claim: 'Its in the book, there is nothing we can do . . '
'Al-Aqsa' simply means 'most distant' in Arabic. It is chronologically impossible that this mosque was referenced in the Qur'an, because IT DID NOT EXIST until years after the death of the Islamic prophet Mohammed. Instead, the Roman-Catholic 'Church of St. Mary of Justinian', which was commissioned by Emperor Constantine's wife in about 333-CE was the only structure on that site, until Islamic armies captured Jerusalem--years after Mohammed's passing.
The actual Qur'anic passage ('The Night Journey') does not mention 'Jerusalem' at all and in fact, the word 'Jerusalem' is not mentioned even once in the entire text of the Qur'an. Nor was there even one Muslim mosque in the entire city during the iron-fisted 'Holy Roman' occupation. If Jerusalem is the 'third-holiest' place in Islam, one might expect it to be mentioned at least once in the Islamic scriptures. Mecca and Medina are referenced by name hundreds of times. It is far more likely that 'Al-Aqsa' was a mis-quote and that if anything, Mr. Mohammed may have said 'Al-Hasa', which is an oasis patch in the Arabian desert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hasa . Given that he was a camel driver, it is well possible that his knowledge of local geography exceeded that of the people transcribing his words. Not knowing where 'Al-Hasa' was, the scribner(s) may have simply mis-understood the word to mean 'most distant' ('Al-Aqsa'). Plus, Muslims had almost zero interest in this Jerusalem mosque (or Jerusalem, et al) while under Turkish rule. In reality, 'Al-Aqsa' is a mosque, no different then the tens of thousands around the world. It is certainly older then most, but NOT old enough to be referenced in the Qur'an, contrary to Yasser Arafat's claim: 'Its in the book, there is nothing we can do . . '
Reprint from AICE
The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is complex and yet its solution can be boiled down to one word - compromise. Throughout the history of negotiations, first Zionists and later Israelis have accepted this reality and repeatedly made and offered compromises, but the conflict has persisted because the Palestinians have never been willing to do the same. In fact, if you look at their negotiating position today, it is as recalcitrant as it was nearly a century ago.
Israeli Position
Since the early 20th century, it has been clear that the only way to satisfy the competing demands of Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine was to divide the land. For more than 70 years, since Britain's Lord Peel first proposed partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, the Jews have accepted a two-state solution to the conflict.
Palestinian Position
To this day, the Palestinians do not accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in what they consider Palestine.
Israeli Position
When the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, the Zionists accepted a compromise that left them with a national home in less than 20 percent of the area originally promised to them by the British.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians rejected the offer of an Arab state and joined with Israel's neighbors in a war to exterminate the Jews. They lost. One consequence of their decision was that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians became refugees.
Israeli Position
After 1948, Israel offered to allow as many as 100,000 Palestinians to return in exchange for a peace agreement with the Arab states.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians and Arab leaders rejected any offer that implied the recognition of Israel. Palestinian refugees were confined by their Arab brothers to refugee camps and prevented from becoming citizens (except in Jordan, which recently decided to strip them of their citizenship). Jordan and Egypt occupied territory now claimed by the Palestinians, but the Palestinians never demanded an end to the occupation or independence. Palestinians formed terror groups that have engaged in a violent campaign against Israelis and Jews around the world to the present day.
Israeli Position
After a series of provocations and an act of war (Egypt's blockade of Israeli shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba), Israel attacked Egypt, Syria and Jordan (after King Hussein ignored warnings to stay out of the fighting and shelled Jerusalem) and captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It immediately offered to return most of the territory in exchange for peace.
Palestinian Position
The Arabs responded to Israel's peace overture with three noes: "no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel."
Israeli Position
In 1979, Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt, dismantled settlements and other Israeli installations in the Sinai and returned the territory to the Egyptians. The Palestinians were offered autonomy, a formula for limited self-determination in the short-run that inevitably would have led to statehood.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians rejected the autonomy proposal and refused to participate in negotiations.
Israeli Position
In 1993 and 1995, Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo accords with the aim of creating a Palestinian state within five years. Israel agreed to gradually withdraw from most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in exchange for peace. Israel withdrew from approximately 80 percent of Gaza and 40 percent of the West Bank and turned over most civil authority to the Palestinian Authority.
Palestinian Position
Terrorism continued unabated and escalated by the mid-90s.
Israeli Position
Israel agreed in 1998 to withdraw from another 13 percent of the West Bank in return for a Palestinian promise to outlaw and combat terrorist organizations, prohibit illegal weapons, stop weapon smuggling, and prevent incitement of violence and terrorism.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians once again failed to fulfill their promise to end terror and sabotaged the plan for additional Israeli redeployments.
Israeli Position
In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 3 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount. The proposal also guaranteed Palestinian refugees the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.
Palestinian Position
Yasser Arafat rejected the proposal without even making a counter offer. Arafat, according to chief U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross, was not willing to end the conflict with Israel. The Palestinians subsequently instigated a five-year war of terror that claimed more than 1,000 Israeli lives.
Israeli Position
In 2005, Israel decided to evacuate every soldier and citizen from the Gaza Strip. This painful disengagement uprooted 9,000 Israelis from their homes. At the request of the Palestinians, Israel razed all the settlements to make room for what the Palestinians said would be high-rise apartments for refugees living in camps. American Jews bought greenhouses from the Israelis and gave them to the Palestinians so they would have a ready-made multimillion dollar export economy and businesses that could employ hundreds of Palestinian workers. By ending the "occupation" and removing the settlements, Israel was testing the oft-expressed view that these were the obstacles to peace. The expectation in Israel was that the Palestinians would take the opportunity to build the infrastructure of a state and, since they no longer had any justification for "resistance," they would have the chance to show they could coexist beside Israel and set the stage for future compromises on the West Bank.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians objected to the disengagement and refused to cooperate with the Israeli plan to withdraw. Since the evacuation, the Palestinians have not laid a single brick in the former settlements to build housing for refugees. The greenhouses were vandalized and the chance for taking over Israeli exports was lost. The few greenhouses that remained intact were converted to Hamas terrorist training camps. Instead of building the infrastructure for a state, the Palestinians had a civil war that led to the takeover of Gaza by Hamas. Instead of getting peace in exchange for territory, Israel was bombarded over the next three years with 10,000 rockets and mortars.
Israeli Position
Despite what virtually all Israelis viewed as the failure of the disengagement experiment, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert restarted negotiations with the Palestinians and offered to withdraw from approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with 4.5 percent of the remainder to be received in a swap for land now in Israel. Another 1.5 percent of the territory would be used for passages to a Mediterranean port and Gaza. Olmert reportedly proposed a form of international (Arab states plus Israel and Palestine) control of the Holy Basin (the Old City) and a joint committee to administer East Jerusalem until permanent arrangements were settled.
Palestinian Position
Abbas rejected the deal. Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said later, "First [the Israelis] said we would [only have the right to] run our own schools and hospitals. Then they consented to give us 66% [of the occupied territories]. At Camp David they offered 90% [actually 97%] and [recently] they offered 100%. So why should we hurry, after all the injustice we have suffered?" Echoing the three noes of 1967, Palestinians declared at the Fatah conference in Bethlehem in August 2009: no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and no end to the armed struggle against Israel.
Israeli Position
Israel has offered compromises on all the final status issues:
Borders - UN Security Council Resolution 242 called for Israel to withdraw from territory - not all territory - it captured in 1967 in exchange for secure and defensible borders and peace. Israel has already withdrawn from 94 percent of the territory it captured in 1967. It has given up 100 percent of the Gaza Strip and nearly half the West Bank. As noted above, as recently as 2008, Israel offered to withdraw from 94 percent of the remaining territory in the West Bank.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians insist that Israel withdraw to the 1967 border.
Israeli Position
Refugees - Israel has allowed roughly 200,000 Palestinians into Israel since Oslo and has agreed to take in an additional number on a humanitarian basis. Israel also supports the return of refugees to an eventual Palestinian state and the payment of compensation to the refugees from an international fund. Israel also expects that the Jews forced to flee from Arab countries be compensated.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians demand the right of all refugees to live in Palestine, including what is now the State of Israel. They do not acknowledge the claims of Jewish refugees.
Israeli Position
Settlements - Israel has already dismantled all the settlements it built in the Sinai and in Gaza. It has also dismantled four settlements in Samaria. Israel has in the past offered to dismantle most settlements in the West Bank and has, at various times, frozen settlement construction in the course of peace negotiations in the hope of reaching a final agreement. Prime Minister Netanyahu has also offered a temporary settlement freeze.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians demand that all settlements be dismantled from the West Bank and Jerusalem. While they maintain that Arabs have the right to live in Israel, they deny the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria.
Israeli Position
Jerusalem - Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its eternal capital and has resisted Palestinian demands that the city be divided. Still, Barak offered to allow the Palestinians to establish their capital in Eastern Jerusalem and offered a compromise over control of the Temple Mount. Olmert also offered to compromise on Jerusalem.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians have rejected all Israeli compromises on Jerusalem and insist that although there has never been an Arab capital in Jerusalem, they should be allowed to establish one there.
Conclusion
Israel has a long history of compromising and continues to offer concessions in the interest of peace. The Palestinian's have an equally long history of refusing to compromise. As President Obama seeks to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians it is clear where the emphasis must be placed if he hopes to succeed in ending the conflict.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/73_compromise.html
Israeli Position
Since the early 20th century, it has been clear that the only way to satisfy the competing demands of Jews and Arabs in Israel/Palestine was to divide the land. For more than 70 years, since Britain's Lord Peel first proposed partitioning Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state, the Jews have accepted a two-state solution to the conflict.
Palestinian Position
To this day, the Palestinians do not accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in what they consider Palestine.
Israeli Position
When the United Nations voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, the Zionists accepted a compromise that left them with a national home in less than 20 percent of the area originally promised to them by the British.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians rejected the offer of an Arab state and joined with Israel's neighbors in a war to exterminate the Jews. They lost. One consequence of their decision was that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians became refugees.
Israeli Position
After 1948, Israel offered to allow as many as 100,000 Palestinians to return in exchange for a peace agreement with the Arab states.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians and Arab leaders rejected any offer that implied the recognition of Israel. Palestinian refugees were confined by their Arab brothers to refugee camps and prevented from becoming citizens (except in Jordan, which recently decided to strip them of their citizenship). Jordan and Egypt occupied territory now claimed by the Palestinians, but the Palestinians never demanded an end to the occupation or independence. Palestinians formed terror groups that have engaged in a violent campaign against Israelis and Jews around the world to the present day.
Israeli Position
After a series of provocations and an act of war (Egypt's blockade of Israeli shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba), Israel attacked Egypt, Syria and Jordan (after King Hussein ignored warnings to stay out of the fighting and shelled Jerusalem) and captured the West Bank and Gaza Strip. It immediately offered to return most of the territory in exchange for peace.
Palestinian Position
The Arabs responded to Israel's peace overture with three noes: "no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel."
Israeli Position
In 1979, Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt, dismantled settlements and other Israeli installations in the Sinai and returned the territory to the Egyptians. The Palestinians were offered autonomy, a formula for limited self-determination in the short-run that inevitably would have led to statehood.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians rejected the autonomy proposal and refused to participate in negotiations.
Israeli Position
In 1993 and 1995, Israel and the PLO signed the Oslo accords with the aim of creating a Palestinian state within five years. Israel agreed to gradually withdraw from most of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in exchange for peace. Israel withdrew from approximately 80 percent of Gaza and 40 percent of the West Bank and turned over most civil authority to the Palestinian Authority.
Palestinian Position
Terrorism continued unabated and escalated by the mid-90s.
Israeli Position
Israel agreed in 1998 to withdraw from another 13 percent of the West Bank in return for a Palestinian promise to outlaw and combat terrorist organizations, prohibit illegal weapons, stop weapon smuggling, and prevent incitement of violence and terrorism.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians once again failed to fulfill their promise to end terror and sabotaged the plan for additional Israeli redeployments.
Israeli Position
In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 3 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount. The proposal also guaranteed Palestinian refugees the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.
Palestinian Position
Yasser Arafat rejected the proposal without even making a counter offer. Arafat, according to chief U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross, was not willing to end the conflict with Israel. The Palestinians subsequently instigated a five-year war of terror that claimed more than 1,000 Israeli lives.
Israeli Position
In 2005, Israel decided to evacuate every soldier and citizen from the Gaza Strip. This painful disengagement uprooted 9,000 Israelis from their homes. At the request of the Palestinians, Israel razed all the settlements to make room for what the Palestinians said would be high-rise apartments for refugees living in camps. American Jews bought greenhouses from the Israelis and gave them to the Palestinians so they would have a ready-made multimillion dollar export economy and businesses that could employ hundreds of Palestinian workers. By ending the "occupation" and removing the settlements, Israel was testing the oft-expressed view that these were the obstacles to peace. The expectation in Israel was that the Palestinians would take the opportunity to build the infrastructure of a state and, since they no longer had any justification for "resistance," they would have the chance to show they could coexist beside Israel and set the stage for future compromises on the West Bank.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians objected to the disengagement and refused to cooperate with the Israeli plan to withdraw. Since the evacuation, the Palestinians have not laid a single brick in the former settlements to build housing for refugees. The greenhouses were vandalized and the chance for taking over Israeli exports was lost. The few greenhouses that remained intact were converted to Hamas terrorist training camps. Instead of building the infrastructure for a state, the Palestinians had a civil war that led to the takeover of Gaza by Hamas. Instead of getting peace in exchange for territory, Israel was bombarded over the next three years with 10,000 rockets and mortars.
Israeli Position
Despite what virtually all Israelis viewed as the failure of the disengagement experiment, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert restarted negotiations with the Palestinians and offered to withdraw from approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with 4.5 percent of the remainder to be received in a swap for land now in Israel. Another 1.5 percent of the territory would be used for passages to a Mediterranean port and Gaza. Olmert reportedly proposed a form of international (Arab states plus Israel and Palestine) control of the Holy Basin (the Old City) and a joint committee to administer East Jerusalem until permanent arrangements were settled.
Palestinian Position
Abbas rejected the deal. Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said later, "First [the Israelis] said we would [only have the right to] run our own schools and hospitals. Then they consented to give us 66% [of the occupied territories]. At Camp David they offered 90% [actually 97%] and [recently] they offered 100%. So why should we hurry, after all the injustice we have suffered?" Echoing the three noes of 1967, Palestinians declared at the Fatah conference in Bethlehem in August 2009: no negotiations with Israel, no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and no end to the armed struggle against Israel.
Israeli Position
Israel has offered compromises on all the final status issues:
Borders - UN Security Council Resolution 242 called for Israel to withdraw from territory - not all territory - it captured in 1967 in exchange for secure and defensible borders and peace. Israel has already withdrawn from 94 percent of the territory it captured in 1967. It has given up 100 percent of the Gaza Strip and nearly half the West Bank. As noted above, as recently as 2008, Israel offered to withdraw from 94 percent of the remaining territory in the West Bank.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians insist that Israel withdraw to the 1967 border.
Israeli Position
Refugees - Israel has allowed roughly 200,000 Palestinians into Israel since Oslo and has agreed to take in an additional number on a humanitarian basis. Israel also supports the return of refugees to an eventual Palestinian state and the payment of compensation to the refugees from an international fund. Israel also expects that the Jews forced to flee from Arab countries be compensated.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians demand the right of all refugees to live in Palestine, including what is now the State of Israel. They do not acknowledge the claims of Jewish refugees.
Israeli Position
Settlements - Israel has already dismantled all the settlements it built in the Sinai and in Gaza. It has also dismantled four settlements in Samaria. Israel has in the past offered to dismantle most settlements in the West Bank and has, at various times, frozen settlement construction in the course of peace negotiations in the hope of reaching a final agreement. Prime Minister Netanyahu has also offered a temporary settlement freeze.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians demand that all settlements be dismantled from the West Bank and Jerusalem. While they maintain that Arabs have the right to live in Israel, they deny the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria.
Israeli Position
Jerusalem - Israel maintains that Jerusalem is its eternal capital and has resisted Palestinian demands that the city be divided. Still, Barak offered to allow the Palestinians to establish their capital in Eastern Jerusalem and offered a compromise over control of the Temple Mount. Olmert also offered to compromise on Jerusalem.
Palestinian Position
The Palestinians have rejected all Israeli compromises on Jerusalem and insist that although there has never been an Arab capital in Jerusalem, they should be allowed to establish one there.
Conclusion
Israel has a long history of compromising and continues to offer concessions in the interest of peace. The Palestinian's have an equally long history of refusing to compromise. As President Obama seeks to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians it is clear where the emphasis must be placed if he hopes to succeed in ending the conflict.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/73_compromise.html
Obama the diplomat
The Obama speech in
The Troll does not agree with everything Mr. Obama said in his speech on the 4th of May in
He brought the world’s Muslims precious little by way of tangible goods. No money. Only a thin face-saver regarding expansion of Israeli neighborhoods in the
Biblical character that Obama, (from the bible which has not yet been written). He employed the only two viable solutions available: The intellectual solution and the spiritual solution. Bravo.
Why are the Jews so often and universally hated?
A few days back, the Troll found a neo-Nazi you-tube channel wherein the narrator played clips of famous people who had disparaging things to say about Jews. His conclusion: “Total Separation”. Of course, this guy lives in a part of the
Their major complaint seems to revolve around the allegation that Jews control everything, from politics, to the media to the banks (they point to the one headliner Jew in charge of the Federal Reserve—as if he controls not only the entire banking regulation authority but the actual banks themselves). Also disregarded (conveniently overlooked) is the fact that virtually no Jews can be found in the fields of defense and oil.
Nearly every private enterprise Jew I know has been victimized over the past 8 years. At least those who operate independent businesses. Doctors and dentists retain some immunity because of the excessive practical difficulty involved in harming them financially. But one after another, the Jewish middle-class private business owners have been pummeled. Many ironically by bank (lender) misconduct. Even insurance brokers who made money for 35 years have been financially bombarded. I know one guy who lost his 30 year old business and after two further screw-jobs, finally established a viable career working for a wine wholesaler. But he works 12 hours a day, 6 days per week (at age 63) and is only being paid about 25% of the new profit he brings in--due to his stylized innovation. The cheep wine business BTW is booming in spite of the otherwise poor economy.
And this is always the beginning of the end. Countless times throughout history the Jewish community starts suffering before and more acutely then the rest of the population. How is this to be explained? It certainly defies ordinary reason and logic. But after decades of careful contemplation, the Troll herewith submits:
Jews are unique in human history in that education became a religious obligation thousands of years ago. Over eons of time, this altered the course of nature. Jews began to value intellect and were matched with spouses accordingly. The result is a larger percentage of high functioning Jews then in other groups. BTW: East Indians and Chinese also have some turbo-achievers and for similar reasons, reading and writing skills going back thousands of years.
One of the core purposes of logic and reasoning is not only to analyze the past and operate in the present but also to guide us into the future. Those who sold their stock portfolio in the summer of 2008 (for example) now have twice as much of their money remaining as those who did not. This ‘escape’ reflex is a long term avenue in which Jews have not only saved their money but more often their lives. The survivors of these successive genocides have thus developed a radar system to help them predict future events.
Now, here’s the important part: There is no practical difference between correctly predicting the future versus controlling it. If for example, a time traveler from the future entered our time with his knowledge, he would attempt to change events which had not yet occurred. He might even be successful. But he would also open a giant can of worms in that the consequences of his actions may well surpass his intent. Suppose that only his knowledge were to be passed backwards in time? So much simpler and without the litany of potentially negative consequences. No paradoxes to overcome. No laws of known physics to be displaced.
Thus, Jews have acquired a forward telescope which helps them not only predict the future but in direct turn, control it. This is what the Jew-haters perceive as absolute Jewish control. Maybe it is excessive control. But it is organized that way by nature and for a reason. It is the way God intended the world to function. Not that God favors Jews, per-se only that God naturally favors both the well-read and the most oppressed. Therefore, the attempt to punish Jews for this talent is inherently de-evolutionary and presents a great danger to the entire world. It’s the same as shooting the radar screen while sailing in dense fog.
Bin Laden's newest rant
In a 30 minute recorded message broadcast on certain Islamic media outlets last week, Bin Laden called on all Muslims to wage a holy war, not only on the West and not only on Israel, but on a litany of Arabs and Muslims--whom he sees as collaborators. He even condemned Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah (Lebanon), whom he apparently considers some sort of 'sissy-boy'.
Bin Laden is a crazy-man and anyone who looks at those eyes of his and does not see Charles Manson's worst nightmare, isn't paying attention:
Bin Laden is a crazy-man and anyone who looks at those eyes of his and does not see Charles Manson's worst nightmare, isn't paying attention:
Humanity has always had its share of lunatics. When they become popular and/or powerful is when the problems multiply. In Bin Laden's case, we don't actually know what is going on in his ticker. But he has chosen to take up a cause in which he believes that the Muslim world can not allow the status-quo to continue. He intends to be the character who pushes through his interpretation of Islamic prophecy. Namely, "Judgment Day". He has also acquired a following, most of whom are at least as crazy as himself, probably more so--since he never intended to actually risk his own life.
This brings me to my next point. Since it is abundantly clear that such people are motivated by a time-line which they believe to be pre-ordained, why is it so hard to conclude that they are functioning in tandem, according to a mutual script?
Most of the radical wing of the Islamic revolutionary movement works off the same page of music--and it is a funeral dirge.
When Yasser Arafat walked out of the final stages of the Oslo peace settlements--this (the Troll submits) was no accident. Israel and the West had offered to give up what totaled 97% of all territory it acquired in 1967. Bill Clinton brought a pledge of $30-billion to cement the deal. This infuriated Mr. Arafat, who promptly called a Jihad of his own. Approximately ten months later, the USA was attacked by Al Qaeda, in an action which had been in the planning and preparation for years. Now, who reading this blog entry could envision a scenario wherein Israel and the PLO actually had a peace agreement, and life was returning to normal in Israel/Palestine, then, a few months thereafter Bin Laden attacks New York and Washington DC?? No, it had to happen in the sequence it did. Why? Because "Judgment Day" does not just occur like a freak hurricane. It is a history-altering event, after which (it is prophesied) there will be no more infidels. That is their goal and their strategy is to usher in this age, through whatever measures are necessary. Whatever measures--without exception. The alternative (for them) is far too grave. Namely, without this global revolution, their interpretation of Quranic prophecy will have been unsuccessful. So they don't care how many people die or are injured, even fellow Muslims, who they often see as collaborators anyway.
Prof. Bernard Lewis writes extensively about the Arab death squads in the early 20th century. According to Lewis, 3,500 (Arab) community leaders, intellectuals, even clerics were summarily murdered, not by Israel, as there was no Israel yet, but by fellow Arabic enforcers--during the first 1/2 of the 20th century.. 3,500 seems like a lot but rest assured, it was a lot larger (relative) number back then.
"Bin Laden widened the charge of "religious duty" not only to heads of state, but to their "second circle" of support, including "evil scholars, intellectuals and media employees that they have hired."
{end-of-quote}
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237114854897&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
This is history repeating itself. Not that the Arab-on-Arab assassinations ever fully stopped. But now (like before) its official.
The recent fighting in Gaza is another clear example of a choreographed escalation, wherein innocent Arab civilians were thrown to the wolves by fellow Arabs--in return for the media buzz it was certain to create.
Different shit, same day.
In the past 100 years, literally dozens of nations have been born out of nothing, in secession from larger nations. In almost every example, the larger nation objects and in most every case, the core reason is the same. An ethnic and/or religious minority becomes a majority in the smaller (new) country. People from both ethnic groups inevitably cross the (new) borders--finding safety within their own numbers. There is nothing unique about the birth of Israel in this regard. A similar birth took place one year earlier (1947) when Pakistan seceded from India. Most recently, Kosovo arbitrarily seceded from Serbia, around ethnic and religious differences. As I said, literally dozens (maybe as many as 50) of other similar events have occurred since the turn of the 20th century.,
What makes Israel somewhat unique is:
a. This is the only such conflict which has gone on for 90 years (since the end of WW1 when proto-Israel was first legally chartered). All the other secessions eventually find their way to cooling down and (after a generation or rarely two--usually much sooner), everyone resumes their lives.
b. In this case, Israel had the backing of two international tribunals as well as numerous international treaties.
So the Troll's conclusion is that this is all window dressing. If the radical Muslim did not have Israel to spark-up a foment, they would have to invent (and implement) some other 'usurper' of Arab/Muslim rights. This is why, if Bin Laden's first broadcast is reviewed carefully, we can see that he barely even mentions Israel. He lists a few other alleged grievances, especially the presence of U.S. troops on Saudi soil, but saves the Palestine issue as a passing footnote, nearly forgotten until the end, wherein his only grievance seemed to be his claim that the Israelis mistreat the Arabs. Of course, now that some of Bin Laden's other grievances have been addressed, such as the total removal of all US fighting forces from The Saudi Kingdom, he has since reconfigured his complaints and demands accordingly.
This brings me to my next point. Since it is abundantly clear that such people are motivated by a time-line which they believe to be pre-ordained, why is it so hard to conclude that they are functioning in tandem, according to a mutual script?
Most of the radical wing of the Islamic revolutionary movement works off the same page of music--and it is a funeral dirge.
When Yasser Arafat walked out of the final stages of the Oslo peace settlements--this (the Troll submits) was no accident. Israel and the West had offered to give up what totaled 97% of all territory it acquired in 1967. Bill Clinton brought a pledge of $30-billion to cement the deal. This infuriated Mr. Arafat, who promptly called a Jihad of his own. Approximately ten months later, the USA was attacked by Al Qaeda, in an action which had been in the planning and preparation for years. Now, who reading this blog entry could envision a scenario wherein Israel and the PLO actually had a peace agreement, and life was returning to normal in Israel/Palestine, then, a few months thereafter Bin Laden attacks New York and Washington DC?? No, it had to happen in the sequence it did. Why? Because "Judgment Day" does not just occur like a freak hurricane. It is a history-altering event, after which (it is prophesied) there will be no more infidels. That is their goal and their strategy is to usher in this age, through whatever measures are necessary. Whatever measures--without exception. The alternative (for them) is far too grave. Namely, without this global revolution, their interpretation of Quranic prophecy will have been unsuccessful. So they don't care how many people die or are injured, even fellow Muslims, who they often see as collaborators anyway.
Prof. Bernard Lewis writes extensively about the Arab death squads in the early 20th century. According to Lewis, 3,500 (Arab) community leaders, intellectuals, even clerics were summarily murdered, not by Israel, as there was no Israel yet, but by fellow Arabic enforcers--during the first 1/2 of the 20th century.. 3,500 seems like a lot but rest assured, it was a lot larger (relative) number back then.
"Bin Laden widened the charge of "religious duty" not only to heads of state, but to their "second circle" of support, including "evil scholars, intellectuals and media employees that they have hired."
{end-of-quote}
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1237114854897&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
This is history repeating itself. Not that the Arab-on-Arab assassinations ever fully stopped. But now (like before) its official.
The recent fighting in Gaza is another clear example of a choreographed escalation, wherein innocent Arab civilians were thrown to the wolves by fellow Arabs--in return for the media buzz it was certain to create.
Different shit, same day.
In the past 100 years, literally dozens of nations have been born out of nothing, in secession from larger nations. In almost every example, the larger nation objects and in most every case, the core reason is the same. An ethnic and/or religious minority becomes a majority in the smaller (new) country. People from both ethnic groups inevitably cross the (new) borders--finding safety within their own numbers. There is nothing unique about the birth of Israel in this regard. A similar birth took place one year earlier (1947) when Pakistan seceded from India. Most recently, Kosovo arbitrarily seceded from Serbia, around ethnic and religious differences. As I said, literally dozens (maybe as many as 50) of other similar events have occurred since the turn of the 20th century.,
What makes Israel somewhat unique is:
a. This is the only such conflict which has gone on for 90 years (since the end of WW1 when proto-Israel was first legally chartered). All the other secessions eventually find their way to cooling down and (after a generation or rarely two--usually much sooner), everyone resumes their lives.
b. In this case, Israel had the backing of two international tribunals as well as numerous international treaties.
So the Troll's conclusion is that this is all window dressing. If the radical Muslim did not have Israel to spark-up a foment, they would have to invent (and implement) some other 'usurper' of Arab/Muslim rights. This is why, if Bin Laden's first broadcast is reviewed carefully, we can see that he barely even mentions Israel. He lists a few other alleged grievances, especially the presence of U.S. troops on Saudi soil, but saves the Palestine issue as a passing footnote, nearly forgotten until the end, wherein his only grievance seemed to be his claim that the Israelis mistreat the Arabs. Of course, now that some of Bin Laden's other grievances have been addressed, such as the total removal of all US fighting forces from The Saudi Kingdom, he has since reconfigured his complaints and demands accordingly.
Israel / Palestine ~ Its the Jewconomy, stupid.
Everyone is stuck (like a broken record) on the concept of resuming negotiations. What negotiations? To accomplish what? As if something more needed to be said between the parties. As if there is any facet, any nuance, any molecule of understanding which is lacking between the parties–that can be settled through further discussions. The entire premise is absurd. Thus explains our collective inability to solve the conflict. We have been using woodcarving tools on a bronze sculpture. Then we wonder why our tools constantly break.
We are stuck in a future which has not yet arrived. It is the conflicted future of two competing interests. The Muslims believe that “Judgment Day” is immanent and when it arrives, God will sort out the problem. The Jews believe that God will also sort out their problems but in the Jewish version, the end result is opposite. The only thing the two group’s disparate expectations have in common is that they both believe that a giant conflict will erupt first. So, how can they be denied? Not through negotiations.
This also explains why people perceptions of the same factual events are so different. It entirely depends on which outcome one hopes for (or fears) the most. Thank heaven there are trolls like me who have greater precision in our analysis. As I have said before, there is no military solution. Administering the military solution will only prime the pump and stoke the flames of the above referenced final clash. There are only intellectual solutions and spiritual solutions. That’s all there is. Sorry to report. Nothing else is able to derail this runaway train.
The intellectual solution involves owning up to the truth. The truth is that so long as there are 5-6 million people who believe themselves to be “refugees” and are awaiting the day when they can re-acquire human rights as Israeli citizens, the problem is beyond repair. Their anticipated future is incongruent to the Israeli’s anticipated future.
We are stuck in a future which has not yet arrived. It is the conflicted future of two competing interests. The Muslims believe that “Judgment Day” is immanent and when it arrives, God will sort out the problem. The Jews believe that God will also sort out their problems but in the Jewish version, the end result is opposite. The only thing the two group’s disparate expectations have in common is that they both believe that a giant conflict will erupt first. So, how can they be denied? Not through negotiations.
This also explains why people perceptions of the same factual events are so different. It entirely depends on which outcome one hopes for (or fears) the most. Thank heaven there are trolls like me who have greater precision in our analysis. As I have said before, there is no military solution. Administering the military solution will only prime the pump and stoke the flames of the above referenced final clash. There are only intellectual solutions and spiritual solutions. That’s all there is. Sorry to report. Nothing else is able to derail this runaway train.
The intellectual solution involves owning up to the truth. The truth is that so long as there are 5-6 million people who believe themselves to be “refugees” and are awaiting the day when they can re-acquire human rights as Israeli citizens, the problem is beyond repair. Their anticipated future is incongruent to the Israeli’s anticipated future.
BTW: Do not expect the world at large to solve this conflict through popularity contests disguised as “international law”. It was the same world that started this conflict with its lust for oil, its willingness to sell the Jews wholesale at slaughter (creating the Jewish refugee crisis) and who later granted the offspring’s of the displaced Arabs (from 1948) permanent “refugee” status from the same homeland as the Jews. Now the world says: We demand a resolution! But a resolution may be the last thing this world of ours actually wants. What the world likely wants, including many of its Christians, most of its Muslims and even some of its Jews–is to be rid of this incessant Jewconomy. Wherein Jews naturally find their way to successful positions of power, prestige and wealth. This is frankly too depressing for many people to tolerate. Its like seeing your wife’s ex-fiancé everywhere you look. He’s the cab driver, the waiter, the lifeguard, the banker and the mail man.
Israel, if left alone, would soon make Switzerland look like the slums of Bombay. And that is the inconvenient truth that the world can’t (and won’t) handle. The rest of this is window-dressing. Wall, no wall. Check-points, no check-points. Bibi-Shmeebe. Barak, not Barak. There is no other explanation why the world is completely unwilling to be marginally objective about this. Israel is fighting a 90-year old militancy, geared at its debilitation and ultimately at its complete removal.
The charter of the elected Hamas is a call to genocide against the Jewish population of the entire world. It reads–in pertinent part:
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).”
Hamas’ slogan reads (Article 8):
“Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”
It states–regarding the Peace process (Article 13):
“Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight.”
It continues re: Duty to fight (Article 15):
“It is necessary to instill the spirit of jihad (holy war) in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters. It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Muslim generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis.“
{End of quote}
How do walls or the demolition of a few dozen Arab owned shanties change anything? I know retarded monkeys with more common sense then to believe that peace (in this situation) can be obtained through the resumption of more negotiations. What is required is a quantum reality check. Nothing short of that will have any effect.
Israel, if left alone, would soon make Switzerland look like the slums of Bombay. And that is the inconvenient truth that the world can’t (and won’t) handle. The rest of this is window-dressing. Wall, no wall. Check-points, no check-points. Bibi-Shmeebe. Barak, not Barak. There is no other explanation why the world is completely unwilling to be marginally objective about this. Israel is fighting a 90-year old militancy, geared at its debilitation and ultimately at its complete removal.
The charter of the elected Hamas is a call to genocide against the Jewish population of the entire world. It reads–in pertinent part:
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it” (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).”
Hamas’ slogan reads (Article 8):
“Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”
It states–regarding the Peace process (Article 13):
“Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight.”
It continues re: Duty to fight (Article 15):
“It is necessary to instill the spirit of jihad (holy war) in the heart of the nation so that they would confront the enemies and join the ranks of the fighters. It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is necessary to instill in the minds of the Muslim generations that the Palestinian problem is a religious problem, and should be dealt with on this basis.“
{End of quote}
How do walls or the demolition of a few dozen Arab owned shanties change anything? I know retarded monkeys with more common sense then to believe that peace (in this situation) can be obtained through the resumption of more negotiations. What is required is a quantum reality check. Nothing short of that will have any effect.
The proper discussion should be about the human rights of the displaced Arabs in the places where 97% of them were born and where they now reside. That should be the next negotiation. If not, even if a deal would be reached between the Palestinian-Arab leadership and Israel, it would last about five minutes. The (90 year old) era of the Arab propaganda will either have to end or, if not, the conflict has no chance of ending. That is the practical choice the world has. Deal with the truth or deal with the conflict. Sadly, the Arabs would not be such prolific liars if they did not have such a large audience of people so eager to believe them. . .
Rules of Use
There are no limits to what you can post herein, except:
1- No threats, incitement to violence or other acts which are criminally unlawful.
2- Blatant (racial, religious or other) hate speech is not permitted. This is a delicate topic since there is no exact borderline which everyone agrees on.
3- No commercial ads or referrals, even if disguised as personal posts.
4- A good verbal karate match is allowed. Try to avoid unprovoked personal affronts. If you have to leave the actual topic to disrespect other poster(s), make sure it is funny. People who are repeatedly picking personal fights, in lieu of posting relevant facts or conclusions will have their posts deleted and ultimately will be blacklisted. And remember:
5- I am the head Troll in charge. Trollstein is the absolute ruler for life of the Troll Kingdom (and we trolls live a LONG time). Trollstein's decisions, et al, are final. Appeals are possible. During certain official Troll holidays, leniency will be granted. What are these holidays? Silly human . . . That's for King Trollstein to know (and change at my whim) and for you to guess wrongly about.
Rules may also be updated without notice. Check back frequently to note any changes.
Updated03-01-15342 (that is 2009 in the human parlance).
1- No threats, incitement to violence or other acts which are criminally unlawful.
2- Blatant (racial, religious or other) hate speech is not permitted. This is a delicate topic since there is no exact borderline which everyone agrees on.
3- No commercial ads or referrals, even if disguised as personal posts.
4- A good verbal karate match is allowed. Try to avoid unprovoked personal affronts. If you have to leave the actual topic to disrespect other poster(s), make sure it is funny. People who are repeatedly picking personal fights, in lieu of posting relevant facts or conclusions will have their posts deleted and ultimately will be blacklisted. And remember:
5- I am the head Troll in charge. Trollstein is the absolute ruler for life of the Troll Kingdom (and we trolls live a LONG time). Trollstein's decisions, et al, are final. Appeals are possible. During certain official Troll holidays, leniency will be granted. What are these holidays? Silly human . . . That's for King Trollstein to know (and change at my whim) and for you to guess wrongly about.
Rules may also be updated without notice. Check back frequently to note any changes.
Updated
