Israel offers to extend moratorium on settlements if Palestinians recognize it as Jewish state

[Ulysses G.]

Most inquirers into the status of Jerusalem start with the historic nature of Jewish, Muslim and Christian links with the city. This is not a mere historical or religious curiosity. As Israel forges ahead on separate peace tracks with Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), this age-old issue is emerging on the international agenda, despite Israel's insistence that Jerusalem is not negotiable.

That Jerusalem is "holy to the three monotheistic religions" is a frequent assertion by those who wish to make the city's status the subject of negotiation. Only the Jews, however, regard Jerusalem as both their spiritual and temporal centre. It is a focal point of Jewish pilgrimage and the one city towards which Jews are enjoined to set their feet as a matter of religious piety, as in the Passover and Yom Kippur invocation, "Next year in Jerusalem."

For Muslims, even those who regard Jerusalem as theirs from Canaanite times, it is the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca that is the paramount shrine. Mecca, not Jerusalem, is the object of the biggest pilgrimage a Muslim must try to make at least once in a lifetime.

For Christians, Jerusalem contains some, but not all, of their holiest shrines. In Jerusalem are the reputed sites of the Last Supper and the Crucifixion, the Tomb of Jesus and the Place of the Ascension. But there are also Christian holy places elsewhere in Israel, among them the birthplace of Jesus (Bethlehem), the scenes of his childhood (Nazareth), the site of his baptism (by the Jordan River), and the locale of his main preaching and miracles (Galilee).

In contrast, all the main holy sites for Jews lie within the post-1967 municipal borders of Jerusalem. Foremost are the Temple Mount and the Wailing Wall, both of which came within Jordanian jurisdiction in 1949 and were inaccessible to Israeli Jews for nearly two decades. Since the Six Day War in 1967, on the other hand, Israel has allowed people of all three faiths unrestricted access to their holy places throughout the city.

Jews at prayers all over the world face towards the Temple Mount. Muslims, even those praying on the Mount, face away from it, towards Mecca. In the Old Testament, Jerusalem is mentioned on 656 occasions; the city's well-being is central to Jewish prayer. In the New Testament, the city is the scene of the climacteric events of the Christian faith. In the Koran, Jerusalem is not mentioned by name at all.

Even though the Jewish religious claim is persuasive, it is Jerusalem's status as a national capital that is at the centre of the current debate.

It became the capital of the first Jewish kingdom around 1000 BC. Driven into exile by Nebuchadrezzar II in 586 BC, the Jews returned 50 years later and rebuilt Jerusalem as their capital. The unity of the city achieved in 1967, then, was more than a quirk of military geography; it was the fulfillment of unbroken historical longings.

No other nation or empire held Jerusalem in such regard. During 13 centuries of Muslim control, no Arab ruler or conqueror made the city his capital. When Suleiman became ruler in 715, he took as his administrative centre not Jerusalem but Ramla, a town he had founded some years earlier for that very purpose.

Neither the Egyptian rulers from 1260 to 1517, nor the ottoman Turks, who ruled from 1517 to 1917, even contemplated making the city their capital. Although the British made Jerusalem the seat of the Palestine Mandate in 1922, authority remained in London.

Under British rule, from 1917 to 1948, freedom of worship was respected, and many new churches, mosques and synagogues were built. But between 1948 and 1967, the Jordanians denied Israeli Jews access even to the 58 synagogues in the occupied Jewish Quarter of the Old City.

The war of 1948 ended in the partition of Palestine between Arab territory and the new state of Israel. And in December 1949, Israel proclaimed Jerusalem its capital. Across the barbed wire that marked the dividing line, Jordanian East Jerusalem was not made the capital, even for its Palestinian residents. This remained in Amman.

For Jews in all centuries, Jerusalem was a place not only of distant longing but of actual settlement. By the time the city was declared the capital of Israel, it had long had a substantial Jewish majority.

In 1845, more than half a century before the first Zionist Congress set out the territorial aims of political Zionism, the Prussian consulate estimated that there were 7,120 Jews, 5,000 Muslims and 3,390 Christians in the city. From that moment, the Jews were to remain the largest single religious community.

Despite the Jewish majority, the British chose only Arab mayors after they conquered the city in 1917. The growing Jewish presence included the Jewish national and University Library, the Hadassah Hospital and the Hebrew University, where Winston Churchill planted a palm tree in 1921. Three Jewish garden cities were set up, pioneers of modern suburban planning. But three Arab uprisings within two decades led to the effective separation of Arab and Jewish neighbourhoods, including the creation of separate bus routes.

In 1937, when Britain raised the possibility of separate Jewish and Arab states in Palestine, the Jewish Agency proposed a partition of Jerusalem itself based on the two groups' main areas of urban settlement. The Arab states around Palestine refused to accept the idea of Jewish statehood and rejected this compromise. A violent decade followed, culminating in the battle for Jerusalem in 1948.

At that time 100,000 Jews and 65,000 Arabs inhabited the city. The Jewish Agency accepted a plan for a United Nations administration, calling it a "heavy sacrifice" that nevertheless would serve as "the Jewish contribution to the solution of a painful problem." The Arabs rejected this proposal too.

While Israel declared statehood, the Arab countries denied statehood to the Palestinian Arabs. Jordan annexed the land not occupied by Israel. And while Israel built Jerusalem up as a capital, with its parliament building, law courts and government ministries, the question never arose in 19 years of Jordanian rule of making East Jerusalem the Palestinian capital.

The population growth between 1949 and 1966 underlined this disparity of interest. While the Arab population increased to only 70,000, the Jewish population rose to 195,000. This number included many Jewish emigrants from Morocco, Iraq and other Arab lands where they had long been harassed and persecuted.

When on June 5, 1967, Jordanian troops joined in the Six Day War, the die was cast. The Israeli government had urged Jordan's King Hussein not to enter the war. His decision to do so was decisive for the future of Jerusalem and has determined its situation until today.

Within two days the Jordanian sector of the city was under Israeli control. The physical barriers were thrown down. "We earnestly stretch out our hands to our Arab brethren in peace," declared Moshe Dayan, the minister of defence, "but we have returned to Jerusalem never to part from her again." East Jerusalem, one fifth of the built-up area of the city, was incorporated by Israel, and the city was given new municipal boundaries. By the end of 1993, the Jewish population had risen to more than 400,000, the Arab population to 155,000.

http://christianacti.../whosecity.html

Edited October 17, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Tigs]

Another pointless Hamster wheel. Ulysees' ideas are as blinkered and as entrenched in this thread as Jingthing was in the doomed Argentinian thread. It is futile arguing with him or indeed spending a nanosecond of your time trying to persuade him to look at the truth, time that you will never get back and is much better used elsewhere.

Hamster wheel, going nowhere.

[Ulysses G.]

Yes, but the difference is that I am using specific data from history books to back up my beliefs, while you and your ilk are posting almost nothing but baseless accusations, justifications for the Holocaust and far out conspiracy theories.

The "truth"? How about some facts, Jack?

Edited October 17, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Tigs]

Yes, but the difference is that I am using specific data from history books to back up my beliefs, while you and your ilk are posting almost nothing but baseless accusations, justifications for the Holocaust and far out conspiracy theories.

The "truth"? How about some facts, Jack?

Well that depends who writes the books really. And don't start the 'you and your ilk' routine. I gave up posting on here days ago. I have not posted any baseless accusations, nor have I posted anything at all that could be remotely seen as Holocaust Justification, nor any conspiracy theories. Check YOUR facts Jack. Don't bother replying, I'm out of here!

[SergeiY]

Yes, but the difference is that I am using specific data from history books to back up my beliefs, while you and your ilk are posting almost nothing but baseless accusations, justifications for the Holocaust and far out conspiracy theories.

The "truth"? How about some facts, Jack?

<deleted>? Books? The Bible, the new and the old testament and some old myth. that is your "facts".

And please keep the Nazis out.

[Ulysses G.]

How about every reliable modern history book on the Mideast?

You will have to tell your fellow posters to stop posting hateful justifications for what the Nazis did in Germany if you do not want the subject brought up.

You do not seem to do read any posts but your own before commenting on the rest - in spite of having no idea of what they say.

Edited October 17, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Pakboong]

So you are admitting that the Israelis have little to do with controlling the media and that many Jews do not support Israel?

This is proof of nothing but interesting so I will attach it here:

"Murdoch's close relationship with Sharon and heavy investment in Israel led former Times Africa correspondent Sam Kiley to resign his position.

So your complain is really about one Jewish person - Rupert Mudoch - with his own news group and has nothing to do with Israel "controlling" history.

Actually no, but Murdock I beleive, based on such reports, uses his news empire to help Israel control news not favorable to Israel. He personally controls a lot of media. The example of Kiley is but one and a serious one. The business of proof is a tough one. There is no proof of anything and I am really not complaining just pointing out the discourse relative to this particular thread. You are welcome to call it whatever you like. I respect your right to have an opinion.

As you well know, anything can be argued; if I have a complaint it is that anything the Israelis do not agree with, being labeled anti-semetic. There are about 6,000 Israelis protesting the loyalty oath proposal right now. They are not being anti-semetic in so doing. It doesn't matter what percentage are Arabs. I am sure it is a mix. Perhaps those left wing liberals at it again.

In the squabble every October regarding the olive grove harvest it is not anti-semetic(IMO) to suggest the settlers have no right to interfere. When I refer to being able to edit history a good example would be omitting the anti-Israel stuff and publishing only that which is pro-Israel.

It is not anti-semetic (IMO) to report the quote by the late rabbi Mordechai Elyahu when he said:

"This land is the birthright of the people of Israel. If a gentile plants a tree on my land, the tree and its fruit are mine."

I would not expect any pro-Israel news to publish that quote. In order to find that quote, you will likely have to read alternative news which you like to call conspiracy nuts and I am quite sure there are conspiracy nuts and you have to be careful what you consider to be factual given that you will get an extreme slant in one direction only. The same can be said for Rupert Murdock's pro-Israel news and I read both. Murdock is just one high profile example. I could go on for days with other examples.

Rabbi Elyabu's opinion is basically the settler argument for the interference with the Palestinian farmers trying to harvest their olives. I don't know if those particular trees were planted before 1948 but I do believe they were planted and raised by the Palestinian farmers and in my view, only the Palestinian farmers have a right to the harvest. Only my view but it is not Anti-Semitic to share my opinion on this matter.

[Ulysses G.]

Actually no, but Murdock I beleive, based on such reports, uses his news empire to help Israel control news not favorable to Israel.

You seem to be forgetting the fact that most news organizations tend to lean to the left and there is plenty of sympathetic reporting on the Arab point of view.

As far as Murdock "help[ing] Israel control news not favorable to Israel". His companies pretty much report the same things that the liberal news organizations do. Now, if you want to say that the reporting is more sympathetic to Israel than the Palestinians, I would probably agree with you, but there are plenty of news organizations that have the exact opposite philosophy.

As far as what you call "alternative news", just examine this very thread and the links and the sources of that "news". Almost every web-site is full of stuff about UFO abductions and conspiracy theories about the "Illuminati" and the Jews. If you choose to believe such nonsense, that is up to you, but please do not expect other. more discerning, readers to do so.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Pakboong]

Actually no, but Murdock I beleive, based on such reports, uses his news empire to help Israel control news not favorable to Israel.

You seem to be forgetting the fact that most news organizations tend to lean to the left and there is plenty of sympathetic reporting on the Arab point of view.

As far as Murdock "help[ing] Israel control news not favorable to Israel". His companies pretty much report the same things that the liberal news organizations do. Now, if you want to say that the reporting is more sympathetic to Israel than the Palestinians, I would probably agree with you, but there are plenty of news organizations that have the exact opposite philosophy.

As far as what you call "alternative news", just examine this very thread and the links and the sources of that "news". Almost every web-site is full of stuff about UFO abductions and conspiracy theories about the "Illuminati" and the Jews. If you choose to believe such nonsense, that is up to you, but please do not expect other. more discerning, readers to do so.

I do try and avoid using these alternative news sites as sources for the reasons you describe. But it is often the case that some information relevant to serious world events need to be reported from a different angle. I have not bothered to open any of the sources used in this thread. I don't really need to. I make a conscious effort to post from my own memory and my own interpretation of what may have happened.

The quote attributed to rabbi Elyahu could be a fabrication. It could have been interpreted incorrectly. I don't know what language he made it in nor do I know if it was him or anyone for that matter. I do know however that the IDF is posting soldiers to help keep the squabble from turning uglier than it already is. I can think of no reason other than that attributed to Elyahu that would cause the settlers to be any where near the olive trees at harvest time.

Problems arise when such as the quote made by the whacky Iranian leader is interpreted incorrectly and used as a basis for starting World War 3. What he really wanted to say matters but that should not be assumed by the News. His actual intentions may be an editorial matter but the News is what he actually said. The mainstream news sources have quoted him incorrectly and that incorrect translation is being used as a basis to keep the world stirred to a frenzy.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Pakboong

[Ulysses G.]

Don't you think that the fact that Iran is obviously developing nuclear weapons along with other inflammatory statements he has made - that were translated correctly - are enough cause for concern?

Edited October 18, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

The quote attributed to rabbi Elyahu could be a fabrication. It could have been interpreted incorrectly.

All I can tell you - without a lot of research - is that other statements attributed to prominent Israeli's on this website have turned out to be totally off base or completely made up, but the people who posted them would deny it even when confronted with evidence.

[Pakboong]

Don't you think that the fact that Iran is obviously developing nuclear weapons along with other inflammatory statements he has made - that were translated correctly - are enough cause for concern?

I am very concerned. But my country does not need to be in the middle of it. My country, the USA, has a questionable track record in these matters. Iraq had no nuclear weapons but were reported to not only be developing them, but to actually have a stockpile. Neither proved to be true and there were many skeptics who reported as such prior to the invasion.

If Israel did not already have nuclear weapons it would be a non issue(IMO).

[geriatrickid]

Whoa Nellie. Gaza was rightfully Egyptian territory. It had no relationship to the Palestinians.

Why confuse the issue with actual facts? It is so much easier to just blame the Jews.

I don't think people blame the Jews for trying to live peacefully. Jews do make it tough when they demand the moral high ground without regard to their actions. The Irgun, Haganah, were not different in motive and method from Hamas. A Jew would never concede that possibility and thereby renders his argument moot in the eyes of most.

The bombing of the King David Hotel by the Irgun in 1946 was a terrorist act and many were killed to include British citizens. How is what the Irgun in 1946 different from what the Hamas would do today? It is purely an academic matter, not an emotional one. When the only arguement available is everyone who doesn't agree with you is an anti-semite, you can not win many friends.

A recently published book written by a retired Mossad agent who claims Israeli complicity in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 to gain sympathy for the Israelis against the Arabs is now out but unavailable. The Israelis are doing every thing they can to stop the release. The Israeli who wrote the book is in hiding. What are the Israelis worried about? The name of the book is "By Way of Deception". Should be an interesting read, even if it is not true. To insist that anyone wanting to read this book or believe its contents is an anti-semite is pretty silly but it will likely happen just that way.

You lost all credibility when you put up the last paragraph. I put that on the same level as the wackos that claim there were no arab hijackers on 9-11 and that the event was a Mossad/CIA British Intelligence operation. The allegation you raised has been dealt with at length previously. You state there was "complicity" in the bombing of the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, That's crap. There has been no claim of complicity. What is alleged by a former agent who was terminated due to incompetency is that the Israelis may have known about a truck being modified that could be used to carry explosives. In the absence of knowing the target and when the event was to occur, what would you expect to have happened? Are you aware that in hindsight, U.S. inteligence agencies had enough information to discover at least one of the 9-11 planned hijackings? Are you aware that it is alleged that Spanish authorities had knowledge beforehand of the Madrid train bombings? Unless someone is looking for specific information and is expecting that kind of attack, one is not going to pick up on it. Intelligence operations are goverened by humans and humans often make miscalculations and misjudgements. Instead of looking to shift blame to non implicated parties, why not hold Hezbollah and its Iranian backers responsible?

[Pakboong]

A recently published book written by a retired Mossad agent who claims Israeli complicity in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 to gain sympathy for the Israelis against the Arabs is now out but unavailable. The Israelis are doing every thing they can to stop the release. The Israeli who wrote the book is in hiding. What are the Israelis worried about? The name of the book is "By Way of Deception". Should be an interesting read, [b]even if it is not true.[/b] To insist that anyone wanting to read this book or believe its contents is an anti-semite is pretty silly but it will likely happen just that way.

You lost all credibility when you put up the last paragraph. I put that on the same level as the wackos that claim there were no arab hijackers on 9-11 and that the event was a Mossad/CIA British Intelligence operation. The allegation you raised has been dealt with at length previously. You state there was "complicity" in the bombing of the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, That's crap. There has been no claim of complicity. What is alleged by a former agent who was terminated due to incompetency is that the Israelis may have known about a truck being modified that could be used to carry explosives. In the absence of knowing the target and when the event was to occur, what would you expect to have happened? Are you aware that in hindsight, U.S. inteligence agencies had enough information to discover at least one of the 9-11 planned hijackings? Are you aware that it is alleged that Spanish authorities had knowledge beforehand of the Madrid train bombings? Unless someone is looking for specific information and is expecting that kind of attack, one is not going to pick up on it. Intelligence operations are goverened by humans and humans often make miscalculations and misjudgements. Instead of looking to shift blame to non implicated parties, why not hold Hezbollah and its Iranian backers responsible?

You didn't read my post very carefully and that is understandable and common. I stated that it would be an interesting read, even if not true. I never stated that it is factual. Just a represented as non fiction book written by a former Mossad agent who claims that it is true.

I have left the paragraph above for your review. I have even made it simple for you and underlined and made bold the reference to possible fiction.

I do appreciate your support for my last sentence in that paragraph.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Pakboong

[Ulysses G.]

Iraq had no nuclear weapons but were reported to not only be developing them, but to actually have a stockpile. Neither proved to be true and there were many skeptics who reported as such prior to the invasion.

This is exactly the kind of made up nonsense that I am talking about. This thread is full of such untruths and the Israel-bashers seem to offer little else.

No one ever said that Iraq had developed nuclear weapons - let alone a "stockpile". They were accused of having WMDs - which in this case meant chemical weapons - which they not only had at one time, but had used against their own people - and that they were trying to develop nuclear weapons.

They had tried to develop nuclear weapons in the past, but the sanctions were making it to difficult to do it after the first Gulf War, so they let the program lapse. There were no weapons under construction, but Saddam still had nuclear materials and would have tried again.

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction

During the Presidency of Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq used, possessed, and made efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built.

After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction.^[1] In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox

The total amount of proscribed items destroyed by UNMOVIC in Iraq

- 50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles

- Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles

large propellant casting chambers

-mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity

- Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol

- Some 122 mm chemical warheads

- Some chemical equipment

- 224.6 kg of expired growth media

http://en.wikipedia....ass_destruction

Edited October 18, 2010 by Ulysses G.

[Pakboong]

Iraq had no nuclear weapons but were reported to not only be developing them, but to actually have a stockpile. Neither proved to be true and there were many skeptics who reported as such prior to the invasion.

This is exactly the kind of made up nonsense that I am talking about. This thread is full of such untruths and the Israel-bashers seem to offer little else.

No one ever said that Iraq had developed nuclear weapons - let alone a "stockpile". They were accused of having WMDs - which in this case meant chemical weapons - which they not only had at one time, but had used against their own people - and that they were trying to develop nuclear weapons.

They had tried to develop nuclear weapons in the past, but the sanctions were making it to difficult to do it after the first Gulf War, so they let the program lapse. There were no weapons under construction, but Saddam still had nuclear materials and would have tried again.

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction

During the Presidency of Saddam Hussein, the nation of Iraq used, possessed, and made efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Hussein was internationally known for his use of chemical weapons in the 1980s against Kurdish civilians during and after the Iran–Iraq War. It is also known that in the 1980s he pursued an extensive biological weapons program and a nuclear weapons program, though no nuclear bomb was built.

After the 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War, the United Nations located and destroyed large quantities of Iraqi chemical weapons and related equipment and materials throughout the early 1990s, with varying degrees of Iraqi cooperation and obstruction.^[1] In response to diminishing Iraqi cooperation with UNSCOM, the United States called for withdrawal of all UN and IAEA inspectors in 1998, resulting in Operation Desert Fox

The total amount of proscribed items destroyed by UNMOVIC in Iraq

- 50 deployed Al-Samoud 2 missiles

- Various equipment, including vehicles, engines and warheads, related to the AS2 missiles

large propellant casting chambers

-mm shells filled with mustard gas, the mustard gas totaling approximately 49 litres and still at high purity

- Approximately 500 ml of thiodiglycol

- Some 122 mm chemical warheads

- Some chemical equipment

- 224.6 kg of expired growth media

http://en.wikipedia....ass_destruction

I don't really disagree. It was our president at the time who liked to throw around his term "Nooklier Bombs". Kind of a joke really.

I have always wondered why Sadaam buried the meat of his airforce beneath the sand. Given that attack by the US was inevitable and he was sure to get hung, why would he bury his modern fighters? It appears that he left a static display of older planes to be destroyed on the ground. What I find really odd, is that it does not get much mention in the media but clearly US soldiers are photographed digging them out.

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_247.shtml

There is also a reference to the planes being buried in Wiki. I am too lazy to dig it back up and I do try to avoid using Wiki as a hard reference.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Pakboong

[Pakboong]

Braking the silence.

Parliament member Daniel Cohn-Bendit, president of the European Greens-European Free Alliance and a leader of the 1968 student uprising in Paris, said Breaking the Silence was nominated because "the Greens/EFA group wants to recognize the bravery of all the individuals involved who work to shed light on the injustices of the Israeli occupation and ensure Israeli society does not simply turn a blind eye."

While "Israel is a democracy, it nonetheless takes enormous courage to speak out and break through the taboos and prejudices surrounding the Israeli occupation," he said.

http://www.haaretz.c...rticle_comments

The Israeli's don't treat their unwanted minorities like the Nazi's treated them? If it so offends you to consider that point of view, just hold your nose and examine the comparisons between modern Israel and Nazi Germany, not just actions of the state but of people in a community and I have no doubt the results of your honest sincere search will make you blink, maybe twice. And to think that some unimaginable supreme something chose them above all other races of mankind because they were the best people on earth, that little Semetic sub-tribe that wandered about, and "gave" them that land forever in reward. Doesn't it all sound like nonsense if you are willing to hold your nose for awhile?

Support for your point published in yesterday's Jerusalem Post. I am not sure if the Jerusalem Post meets the Israeli standard as a reputable source but it is interesting and relevant:

Rabbi Yosef: “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel,” he said in his weekly Saturday night sermon on the laws regarding the actions non-Jews are permitted to perform on Shabbat.

Rabbi Yosef is head of Shas' Council of Torah Sages.

http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?ID=191782&R=R1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Ulysses G.]

Well, you have proved that their are some insane Jews too - just like every other race, nationality and religion. Congratulations.

[Pakboong]

Well, you have proved that their are some insane Jews too - just like every other race, nationality and religion. Congratulations.

Actually, I wasn't trying to prove anything this is just current news. Of course there are insane of any group, he just happens to hold a position of influence on others. I suspect the guy is too old to be doing what he is doing. He is 90 years old and probably suffering dementia or some related age debilitation. If there is a point to be made, it is about sources and how valid they might be it can still be argued that he did not really say what is claimed.

Golda Meir made a comment which was filmed by BBC where she stated:

“If ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and even the whole world down with it.”

Even though caught on film, there were many who claimed she was taken out of context and maybe she was.

Point is, neither of these quotes came out of a conspiracy blog and if taken as seriously as they sound, they do fan the flames of the anti-Israel fires.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Pakboong

[Ulysses G.]

Do you know a country that no one says anything that no one else is offended by? How about if we turn the tables and point out everything that nutty Arab radicals have said? There would be page after page after page of nutty material.

[hobanse]

7,5 million Israelis need more land and water.

Israel, war and water…and the U.S.

The Israeli’s have always wanted the full landscape of Eretz Israel, purportedly for religious reasons, but geopolitically the scarce water resources have had significant influence on their actions towards limiting access to the Jordan, the annexation of the Golan Heights, and the occupation and attacks on Lebanon. Combining the geographic narrative with the Paskal presentation, Israel sits in a precarious yet powerful position.

With the strongest military in the region, one of the strongest in the world with many nuclear devices, with its need for control of water for a burgeoning population - the Palestinian population growth rate is higher - and its short lines of access to oil and gas resources for energy and industry, Israel is well situated to take advantage of any turmoil caused by the intersection of global environmental catastrophes and geopolitical catastrophes of its own or others making. Should the rest of the world devolve into chaos without taking Israel with it, the water is there for the taking, the oil is there for the taking, and the Palestinians are there for removal.

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_59358.shtml

[Pakboong]

Do you know a country that no one says anything that no one else is offended by? How about if we turn the tables and point out everything that nutty Arab radicals have said? There would be page after page after page of nutty material.

Completely agree. I could go on for days about some of the stuff that has come out of my government. It is the posturing and silly self righteousness on both sides that are bringing us all down.

[Ulysses G.]

7,5 million Israelis need more land and water.

Do you ever post factual articles instead of just some guys opinion?

[hobanse]

7,5 million Israelis need more land and water.

Do you ever post factual articles instead of just some guys opinion?

Settlers on stolen land!

Current olive harvest most violent in years, defense document reveals

Despite security preparations, numerous incidents over the last two weeks have ended with trees on both sides being cut down, poisoned or torched.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/current-olive-harvest-most-violent-in-years-defense-document-reveals-1.319892

[Ulysses G.]

If one reads the link, it is obvious that the blame lies on both sides. Why do you ignore that fact?