sganot

Your expressed views, just like Ted, show are not for peace in the Middle East.

Here's a question for your conscience.

Are you a warmonger and why do you condone and attempt to justify land stealing?

Next couple of days Iain.

keith

I cannot see any where that sganot condoned land stealing or promoted war.

It seems to me that if you have no good evidence you just make it up. Perhaps you are just acting as Devil's Advocate, but jump off the broken record of land stealing and consider for a moment the different treatment of religious minorities in Muslim countries and Israel and the stealing from Christians and Jews in Arab lands,

When Muslims acknowledge their own faults we can make progress towards peace.

Keith,

Of course I am for peace in the Middle East. This is my home and the home of many friends and loved ones, including my wife, children, and hopefully some day lots of grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. How could I not want to enjoy the benefits of peace?

Likewise, nothing that Ken wrote makes me think that he wants war.

Am I a warmonger? No. Why do I condone and attempt to justify land stealing? I don't. And for the record, I don’t favor poisoning wells or drinking the blood of Christian children, either. Oh, and I also don’t have horns.

I am a bit curious about why you think I don't want peace, am a warmonger, and condone land theft. I'm tempted to ask in response whether you have stopped beating your wife, and why you favor taking kids’ lunch money, torturing animals, and raping disabled orphans. But the truth is, I didn't come here to waste my 350 words x 2 posts a day on that kind of a discussion.

If you do wish to have a serious, in depth discussion, I invite you to contact me offline at "sganot at gmail.com", or better yet, to join the "Jewish Palestinian Encounter" (http://www.salam-shalom.net/salam-shalom/salamforum1.html ), an online forum of Palestinians, Jews, Arabs, Israelis, and others who wish to discuss issues of common concern. It was offline for many months, and was recently revived. The discussion there tends to be fairly high level and respectful; participants tend to be quite knowledgeable and to bring interesting perspectives (whether I agree with them or not); the moderators don't have a lot of patience for people on any side who are abusive or promote violence; and there's no word or message limit.

sganot,

Nowhere have I seen by you acceptance of the basic Palestinian desires. They are the establishment of the Palestinian state and a return to the ’67 borders. Peace cannot reign until those two very legitimate and justifiable aims are fulfilled. If they are not fulfilled then war must eventuate … again.

I suspect I could show where you have defended the occupation and the establishment and/or retention of the settlements. I will not accept your usual generalised and racist ‘yeah but look at the faults of the Arabs’ protestations. We are talking about you and your attitudes to securing peace.

Who is Ken? I think you meant Ted? Ted has defended the occupation, once on the basis of examples of past actions of dictatorial leftist regimes. Ted dismissed establishment of new settlements as the building of a few houses. Ted never accepts the settlements’ sovereignty need be Palestinian.

For peace to reign both sides must accept the others legitimate conditions and desires for peace.

I think Israel’s demand is for a secure state. ie. acceptance of its right to exist and for all physical attacks and verbal demands to cease. That’s reasonable. Most Palestinians show an acceptance of these demands as do, most other Arabs.

I think you and Israel need to accept not all Arabs and one or two other Arab states are not going to fully accept Israel’s conditions; just as the Arabs and the Palestinians will have to accept some Israelis, particularly the extremist and fundamentalist Jewish organisations and groups within Israel will never accept a truncated Israeli state.

Do you realise the justification you use for rejecting the Arab League peace proposal is silly. Because a bunch of your friends say it was an empty gesture is no justification.
I’m told the demand for return of refugees to Israel was the sticking point, and Israel preferred George Bush’s Road Map allowing for negotiated borders.

sganot, if you cannot accept the Palestinian’s two basic conditions, you’re not for peace.

ps How’d you feel if I was a widower and parent to an abused daughter? Thoughtless sganot.

Ted Larpkin

Res. 242 has nothing whatsoever to do with the so-called "Palestinians." It was merely a set of negotiating parameters to guide the states party to the 1967 War. Israel, Jordan, and Egypt have signed peace treaties. The only outstanding issue is between Syria and Israel, which is to be negotiated bilaterally per 338, which superseded 242 in 1973.

I do wish the terrorist-luvvies in the West would drop this tedious and irrelevant 242 nonsense.