These really are my 2 direct questions that you have no desire to answer.

.Is your football analogy going back to the days that Australia and Israel played soccer ?

I want to understand you better, so, - can I ask you a direct question -  are you active or passive ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what is your answer Mr Troll_Merton ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's really nice matt....maybe he thinks that questions put this way are best left unanswered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you're on the ignore list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...and then there are those who are ignored, regardless, like TM.

While we are discussing history here the political structure in Israel has been turned on its head.

Sharon has withdrew from the Likud today, and started a new party with politicians from the Right and the Left joining him. Elections in Israel are expected in March.

Tired of constant media coverage asking "Is Osama still alive?" Bin Ladin decided to send George Bush a letter in his own handwriting to let him know he was still in the game.

Bush opened the letter and it appeared to contain a single line of coded

message:

370HSSV-0773H

Bush was baffled, so he e-mailed it to Condi Rice. Condi and her aides had no clue either, so they sent it to the FBI. No one at the FBI could solve it so it went to the CIA, then to the NSA. They were equally puzzled as to its meaning so eventually asked Britain's MI6 for help.

Within a minute MI6 cabled the White House with this reply: "Tell the President he's holding the message upside down"

In light of the OP there is the following joke from Netanyahu's time as leader of Israel: It seems that God called Clinton, Boris Yeltsin and Netanyahu to heaven and proclaimed " I have called you here because I have some bad news. Because of runaway sin and corruption I am going to destry earth. As leaders of your countries I want you to go back and warn your people"

Clinton returned to earth and immediately went on national tv saying "I have some good news and some bad news. First the good news; there is a God, he exists. I have met him and talked with him. The bad news is that because of our sins he is going to destroy our world"

Ok so Yetlsin also appeared on national tv in Russia saying "i have some bad news and some worse news. First the bad news. Eventhough most of us are atheists I have met and talked with God. So there is a God. The worse news is that because of our sins he's going to end life on earth"

Netanyahu appeared on Israeli TV and announced that he had some good news and some better news. First there is a God. I have met him and talked with him.

The better news is that there will never be an independent Palestinian state"

It is the same crazy argument about land. Palestinians and four other countries attack Israel simultaneously. They loose the Wars and some land. Now they want the land back. Ever heard of the Fortunes of War?[/color]

Didn't the jews also loose a war and some land long time ago when they were exiled to Iraq (babylon)?

..and Abraham is the father of the Jews and the Arabs.

How far back do you want to go?

I didn't want to go back at all but was a bit surprised by your comment which I interpreted as you saying that the winner of a war would be entitled to everything. So basically you would accept the chance of loosing Israel to the Palestinians in a future war. Earlier you asked my opinion for a better and more final solution so if my interpretation of your responses is correct you have provided the answer already and don't really care much about other opinions. Which is perfectly allright I suppose.

My comments in blue:

I didn't want to go back at all   but was a bit surprised by your comment which I interpreted as you saying that the winner of a war would be entitled to everything.

I think you are more confused than surprised - but who is to judge?

What I am saying is if the aggressors in a war, whose sole aim is the destruction of the State of Israel and the pushing of all Jews into the sea, lose that war, then they (the aggressors and now defeated) are hardly entitled to prizes all round.

Rather similar to Japan attacking the US at Pearl Harbour - did the US after they had H-bombed them twice, then offer the losers half of California for their troubles?

So basically you would accept the chance of loosing Israel to the Palestinians in a future war.

Israel can only lose one war. That is why there is a relatively high defence budget and every citizen (with a few minor exceptions) is compelled to serve National Service in the Israeli Defence Forces.

Israel has a population of 6,276,883. Its sworn enemies from the area have together 142,785,095 who would happily destroy the State of Israel (figures are from the CIA - and I am being very generous to the enemies of Israel).

Earlier you asked my opinion for a better and more final solution so if my interpretation of your responses is correct you have provided the answer already and don't really care much about other opinions.

I am interested in hearing anyone's opinions, based upon the facts.

The problems often is, there is far too many who are opinionated and yet have no knowledge of the subject, or are simply prejudiced beyond belief.

Which is perfectly allright I suppose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While we are discussing history here the political structure in Israel has been turned on its head.

Sharon has withdrew from the Likud today, and started a new party with politicians from the Right and the Left joining him. Elections in Israel are expected in March.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a watershed moment in Israeli political history. The political map is being redrawn by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon so he can plunge ahead with his plans to be counted with David Ben Gurion as Israel's great leader. B-G established the state in 1947. Sharon wants to set finally the borders with the Palestinians and possibly the Syrians and Lebanese - but first he had to smash his two great political enterprises: the settlements, which he built as an obstacle to a Palestinian state, and the Likud when it proved it preferred its heartfelt ideologies over the pragmatism Sharon discovered in the Prime Minister's Office.

http://www.ariga.com/2005-11-21.shtml

These really are my 2 direct questions that you have no desire to answer.

.Is your football analogy going back to the days that Australia and Israel played soccer ?

I want to understand you better, so, - can I ask you a direct question -  are you active or passive ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what is your answer Mr Troll_Merton ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's really nice matt....maybe he thinks that questions put this way are best left unanswered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you're on the ignore list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...and then there are those who are ignored, regardless, like TM.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have been reading eveything that you have posted. I wanted to learn more about this problem, so I have following what people are saying in this thread. I do wonder why you stopped talking to matt though.

Great jokes BTW.

This is a watershed moment in Israeli political history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Finally ... a call to moderation and centrism in a region long plagued by extremism!

Good luck and here's to hoping that the start of change for decades and centuries of hate is upon the region.

Here's to hoping that Abbas gets a chance to respond positively and join the movement, without gettin greased by Hamas.

Here's to hoping the rest of the region will take note if they both survive and succeed.

This is a watershed moment in Israeli political history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Finally ... a call to moderation and centrism in a region long plagued by extremism!

Good luck and here's to hoping that the start of change for decades and centuries of hate is upon the region.

Here's to hoping that Abbas gets a chance to respond positively and join the movement, without gettin greased by Hamas.

Here's to hoping the rest of the region will take note if they both survive and succeed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't want to spoil the optimism, but this is just not enough. One of the main principles of Sharon is to keep as many as possible west bank settlements under Israeli control, withdrawing only from minor, isolated ones. Furthermore, he never agreed to include Jerusalem in any negotiations. Generally Sharon is good in dictating, not in negotiating.

On the other side, PA did not yet show strong action against terrorsim.

These points need to be resolved before significant progress can be made.

They built the only liberal

democracy in the Middle East.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not going to get into this infected argument, but...

Claiming Israel is at all liberal is just plain ignorance. A state that is so closely tied to their religion can never be.

(And that goes for any country.)

They built the only liberal

democracy in the Middle East.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not going to get into this infected argument, but...

Claiming Israel is at all liberal is just plain ignorance. A state that is so closely tied to their religion can never be.

(And that goes for any country.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is just poppycock.

In every liberal (look up the true definition of liberal – not the one defined by US politics) democratic state there are influences, be they religious or e.g trade union (The Histradut – Israeli Trade Union Council – has had considerable influence on the liberalisation of Israel’s democracy). It is how these influences are represented that makes a state a democracy.

In Israel, as compared to its neighbours, these influences do not use coercion, violence, intimidation, nepotism, murder, kidnapping, bribery and tribal (family) influences to achieve their power. Rather the ballot box. Should any influence stray from the democratic path, the perpetrators are pursued through the State of Israel’s legal system.

This is achieved because Israel maintains the central core of all liberal democracies: a separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.

No Arab country can boast of such a separation.

I don't want to spoil the optimism, but this is just not enough. One of the main principles of Sharon is to keep as many as possible west bank settlements under Israeli control, withdrawing only from minor, isolated ones. Furthermore, he never agreed to include Jerusalem in any negotiations. Generally Sharon is good in dictating, not in negotiating.

On the other side, PA did not yet show strong action against terrorsim.

These points need to be resolved before significant progress can be made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have to keep your eyes firmly fixed on the 3 points:

1. Recognition of the State

2. Recognised borders

3. Security for the citizens of the State of Israel.

That is what Sharon does, whether you like him personally or not. That is what makes Sharon a brilliant General, an astute politician and the Statesman Israel needs.

I don't want to spoil the optimism, but this is just not enough. One of the main principles of Sharon is to keep as many as possible west bank settlements under Israeli control, withdrawing only from minor, isolated ones. Furthermore, he never agreed to include Jerusalem in any negotiations. Generally Sharon is good in dictating, not in negotiating.

On the other side, PA did not yet show strong action against terrorsim.

These points need to be resolved before significant progress can be made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have to keep your eyes firmly fixed on the 3 points:

1. Recognition of the State

2. Recognised borders

3. Security for the citizens of the State of Israel.

That is what Sharon does, whether you like him personally or not. That is what makes Sharon a brilliant General, an astute politician and the Statesman Israel needs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

TM, my personal liking or disliking of Saron is irrelevent. He specializes in one-sided moves. With these kind of moves he can never achieve your mentioned (1) and (2) objectives, and cannot even ensure (3) for the long term.

They built the only liberal

democracy in the Middle East.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not going to get into this infected argument, but...

Claiming Israel is at all liberal is just plain ignorance. A state that is so closely tied to their religion can never be.

(And that goes for any country.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is just poppycock.

In every liberal (look up the true definition of liberal – not the one defined by US politics) democratic state there are influences, be they religious or e.g trade union (The Histradut – Israeli Trade Union Council – has had considerable influence on the liberalisation of Israel’s democracy). It is how these influences are represented that makes a state a democracy.

In Israel, as compared to its neighbours, these influences do not use coercion, violence, intimidation, nepotism, murder, kidnapping, bribery and tribal (family) influences to achieve their power. Rather the ballot box. Should any influence stray from the democratic path, the perpetrators are pursued through the State of Israel’s legal system.

This is achieved because Israel maintains the central core of all liberal democracies: a separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.

No Arab country can boast of such a separation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice way of avoiding the subject.

It doesn't matter how much worse the surrounding countries are, Israel is still no liberal country. Two wrongs doesn't make a right.

Here is a tip: Look up what an israeli woman that wants to have a divorce has to go through.

In a truly liberal country everybody are equal and the church has no say when it comes to legislation or courts.

(Btw, if you want to educate anyone on the true meaning of the word liberal, try directing your replies to some of the neocon-fans you have. Two of them are american as you might recall. And use the term as a slander.)

Edit: As to avoid another un-enlightened post from TM, here is some reference to everybody to read:

Domestic relations matters in Israel are in the jurisdiction of two separate court systems: the civil courts and the religious courts.

Religious courts have been established for each of the major religions in Israel. There are Jewish rabbinic courts; Sharai Islamic courts; Christian religious courts; and Druse courts. The jurisdiction of the religious courts is exclusive in some areas of domestic relations, and concurrent with the civilian courts in others. The jurisdictional rules applying to mixed marriages, and members of no recognized religion are unique and will not be discussed here.

This essay will focus on the legal system in Israel as it affects Jews.

Jewish rabbinic courts have exclusive jurisdiction in connection with marriage and divorce of Jews in Israel. If a party initiating a divorce action explicitly includes a related claim, such as a claim for maintenance or child support, and no other claim on that same related matter was previously submitted to the civil courts, the rabbinic courts obtain exclusive jurisdiction in connection with the related claim as well. One matter that is always considered to be included in the divorce action, whether mentioned explicitly or not, is the issue of child custody. Unless a claim on the issue of child custody was submitted to the civil courts prior to the filing of the divorce action, the rabbinic courts will automatically have exclusive jurisdiction on that issue when the divorce action is filed. For this reason, litigating spouses often race to file first in the system that they believe favors their interests, and a party suing for divorce must be careful to open a child custody file in the civil courts before initiating the divorce action if he feels that the civil courts will benefit his interests.

Besides divorce actions Jewish rabbinic courts have jurisdiction concurrent with that of the civil courts in matters of spousal maintenance, child support, guardianship, inheritance and adoption, among others. For most of these actions the agreement of all parties is required in order for the rabbinic court to obtain jurisdiction.

http://www.international-divorce.com/d-israel.htm

Although the fundamental right to marriage and a family is a right that is strongly protected in Israel under law, current policy actually forbids certain sectors of the Israeli population to marry.

The foundation of this contradiction lies in the fact that the right to marry and divorce in Israel is governed almost exclusively by religious law. Couples of any particular faith (i.e., Jewish, Christian, Moslem) are required to marry according to that religion`s tenets, and then only according to the specific custom recognized by the State to be legally binding. This has varied implications. First, couples can only be married by the "recognized" faith. For Jews, this means that only Orthodox ceremonies can be conducted - those governed by the principles, liturgy and/or clergy of the progressive movements are not recognized by the State. Additionally, it means that couples of mixed faith have no avenue to marry in Israel. Third, it means that anyone seeking a non-religious marriage ceremony cannot be married in Israel. Finally, it means major obstacles for new immigrants with no proof of their religion.

In the case of divorce, the problem is even more acute. Under Jewish law, for example, women are only free of the confines of marriage after their husband gives them a written legal annulment of the marriage, called a get. Without a get, women cannot be remarried under Jewish law and any children born to them are considered illegitimate. Such women (called "agunot") are left in legal limbo, without legal status, unable to move forward in their personal lives, "chained" to their former husbands.

http://www.acri.org.il/english-acri/engine/story.asp?id=3

It is correct that religion has excessive power in the legal system of Israel. However this power gradually weakens, bills for reforms gain more and more support.

With or without that excessive power, the difference between the democracy in Israel and the regimes in neighbouring arab countries is undeniable.

<snip>Maybe you're on the ignore list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wish I could do that myself.

But the rants of self-obsessed atention seekers - A.K.A. Troll, dodging and weaving avound the questions asked of them.... I have got very bored of this thread, thus I decided to no longer reply.

But as the response draggs the tread off - topic, and this is Bedlam, why not

It is correct that religion has excessive power in the legal system of Israel. However this power gradually weakens, bills for reforms gain more and more support.

With or without that excessive power, the difference between the democracy in Israel and the regimes in neighbouring arab countries is undeniable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Absolutly, Israel is far better then many of it's neighbours, but that wasn't the issue. Bad neighbours doesn't make one better on a global scale, only better then the neighbours in comparison to them.

Hence my objection that Israel would be any Liberal state. =)

They built the only liberal

democracy in the Middle East.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not going to get into this infected argument, but...

Claiming Israel is at all liberal is just plain ignorance. A state that is so closely tied to their religion can never be.

(And that goes for any country.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is just poppycock.

In every liberal (look up the true definition of liberal – not the one defined by US politics) democratic state

OKay, this bugs me. People are far to loose with the word democracy. This creates confusion as to how and why Israel or any country for that matter makes decisions. Is Israel a democracy? Do they vote majority rules? There is a big difference here and to someone like me who does not know what form of government they have it leads me to believe that maybe Israel's leaders aren't to blame for alot of things but the people of Israel.

there are influences, be they religious or e.g trade union (The Histradut – Israeli Trade Union Council – has had considerable influence on the liberalisation of Israel’s democracy). It is how these influences are represented that makes a state a democracy.

In Israel, as compared to its neighbours, these influences do not use coercion, violence, intimidation, nepotism, murder, kidnapping, bribery and tribal (family) influences to achieve their power. Rather the ballot box. Should any influence stray from the democratic path, the perpetrators are pursued through the State of Israel’s legal system.

This is achieved because Israel maintains the central core of all liberal democracies: a separation of powers between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.

No Arab country can boast of such a separation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<snip>Maybe you're on the ignore list.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wish I could do that myself.

But the rants of self-obsessed atention seekers - A.K.A. Troll, dodging and weaving avound the questions asked of them.... I have got very bored of this thread, thus I decided to no longer reply.

But as the response draggs the tread off - topic, and this is Bedlam, why not

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess yet another reason not to be a mod, eh?

<snip>I guess yet another reason not to be a mod, eh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't say that exactly, rather just a minor disadvantage.

I will say it was again great to wake up and have a slight chill in the air. Nice to have a "Fresh" morning in BKK. I would guess it was about 20 this morning.

This

Now you are mixing apples and oranges.

An immigration problem with AQ terrorism ? you got to be kidding 

You have a major logic and comprehension problem ~G~, I suggest you check your brain. Bird Flu Fever ? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Different symptoms of the same problem: ignorance. European as well as American - exactly the point you denied. Do you think those racist Europeans distinguish between Palestinian uprising and Al Qaeda terrorists? They can't even accept that their own country's citizens should have the same rights as

them..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes this is correct but this is where you got it wrong. Anti-muslims sentiment is not as strong in Europe as it is in the US. Actually pre-911, it was stronger, but ever since 911, they gained a new respect in Europe, strangely. Probably because everyone could see that racist America was going to use this as a pretense for more discrimination.

The ignorant racist in Europe are a minority. We are all socialist over here, remember ?

In the US they are everywhere. So you can't avoid them and you have to compose with them. Politicians in Europe tend to ignore the "racist" minority, while the right wing politicians in the US "play" with them. A very dangerous game.

Furthermore, they know that after a sequence of major terrorist attacks Israel is bound to initiate its counterstrike. And these counterstrikes usually hurt PA as well as the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad. It undermines their power and does them no good.

Correct. But that doesn't explain who is wrong or right in these attacks. Whether or not these attacks are necessary to force the other party to take you seriously.

BTW, you were describing the events since Rabin's assasination, you forgot to mention a few important facts: The major terrorist attacks that occured in Israel during Rabin's term, and during Peres campaign contributred to the lack of trust Israelies feel towards the Palestinian authority, and did not help Peres to be reelected. Igal Amir could not stop the peace process on his own. Terrorism made a very good job helping him with that, this is a classic example of extremists in both sides sharing the same objective.

Correct. Absolutely. This is exactly why Sharon won. It's no secret that "some" Palestinians didn't want to see peace. Again another minority made the life of everyone miserable. But again, that didn't stop Rabin and Arafat (who had nothing to gain from terrorist attack during that period) to move forward. Instead with Sharon, the whole process keeps going in circle. An eye for an eye (very anti-Christian, old Judaism principle), well you see what I mean. Peres was weak because he was desperate to see peace and would "accept" anything to achieve this. The real guilty are the Israeli public. They chose "war" against "peace". They get what they deserve.

Is Condi Mad?

Is Condi mad because she had to go to Germany as a supplicant ... the Germany of 12,000,000 murdered Catholics, Gypsies, Poles, Russians, and Jews? ... to convince them that the United States is not a nation that tortures her prisoners?

Rice to Zeropeans

Shut your pie holes. Plus ingrats que ces salopes de zéropéens, tu meurs

Rice to Zeropeans

Shut your pie holes.  Plus ingrats que ces salopes de zéropéens, tu meurs  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

can you speak French Boon Mee ? what does that make you ? a coward or a traitor ?

Convenu. Ils sont de tels salopes.

Convenu.  Ils sont de tels salopes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No swearing please, this is against board rules

Hey, this is actually cool. We can use swearing words in French that the board software can't detect.

Bordel de merde d'encule de sa race

Western Civilization : forever guilty

Newspaper: positive role of colonization -- Uncle Sam: I wrote an article on the positive aspects of torture!

Western Civilization : forever guilty

Newspaper: positive role of colonization -- Uncle Sam: I wrote an article on the positive aspects of torture!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Cute.

Actually Americans and the French are sharing the same arrogance when it comes to culture and lifestyle. So at the end you ressemble them more than you think. Like I said before, are you a coward or a collaborator ?