1 of 2
1
Israel and the “occupied territories”
Posted: 13 January 2009 11:30 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21

Israel’s 1967 borders figure prominently in most contemporary peace settlement proposals.  I made the following statement in a tangentially related thread (a nod to moderator mckenziedvm for appropriately recommending a separate thread):


From what nation(s) were the supposed occupied territories taken?  If not the nation of Palestine, then those lands were already occupied by whatever nation had laid claim to them.

The history of the 1967 war has bearing on the current situation.  Hopefully this thread can produce an informative discussion of that history.  Israel has been portrayed by some as a consistent aggressor, but the facts of the 1967 war are difficult to reconcile with that view despite the fact that Israel conducted a preemptive attack as the fighting was initiated.  Egypt’s Nasser, for example, had a UN force in Sinai creating a buffer between Israel and Egypt.  Nasser called for the withdrawal of those forces.  Does that move make sense if Nasser is expecting Israel to attack?

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=443

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2009 12:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

The West Bank belonged to Jordan but in 1988 they turned it over to the PLO despite the fact that Israel continues to unlawfully occupy land it took by force in 1967.

Gaza was originally to be an Arab state but following the 1948 war and the Armistice agreement it belonged to Egypt (via “green line”) but in 1979 Egypt renounced its claim and nothing in the Israeli-Egypt Peace Treaty says Israel retains ownership of the land. In fact, the treaty references that 242 needs to be upheld. In other words, Israel has no lawful right to the land, that taking land by force is illegal. This was upheld by a World Court judgement in July 2004. The 1994 Oslo Accords says the area was placed on Palestinian control. But again, none of this nullifies Israel’s legal obligation to turn over ALL land it took by force, since doing so is illegal.

And in regards to your comment defending Israel from being called an “aggressor” I already suggested a book by a highly reputable Israeli historian who points out with tremendous detail and resources that ALL of Israel’s wars were were wars of choice, not necessity (eg aggression).

I have also pointed to a detailed book the birth of Israel and the calculated ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 via Plan D.

I have also pointed to the personal diary for Israel’s first Foreign Minister and second Prime Minister who admitted to much of these crimes (as of the mid-50s).

To say these facts are “difficult to reconcile” is a construct of your apologetic mind.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2009 02:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
truthaddict - 13 January 2009 12:18 PM

The West Bank belonged to Jordan but in 1988 they turned it over to the PLO despite the fact that Israel continues to unlawfully occupy land it took by force in 1967.

Didn’t Jordan attack Israel in 1967?  And how did Jordan originally acquire claim to the West Bank, that they could afterward cede it to the PLO despite not possessing the land?

Gaza was originally to be an Arab state but following the 1948 war and the Armistice agreement it belonged to Egypt (via “green line”) but in 1979 Egypt renounced its claim and nothing in the Israeli-Egypt Peace Treaty says Israel retains ownership of the land.

Argument from silence, eh?
The maps from prior the war, as you probably know, show Gaza as part of Israel.
Through 1979 (from 1948) Egypt was the illegal occupier of Gaza.  Correct?

In fact, the treaty references that 242 needs to be upheld.

Lord Caradon (one of the drafters of 242), on the meaning of the measure:
Therefore, what we did, I think, was right; what the resolution said was right and I would stand by it. It needs to be added to now, of course. ... We didn’t attempt to deal with [the questions of the Palestinians and of Jerusalem] then, but merely to state the general principles of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. We meant that the occupied territories could not be held merely because they were occupied, but we deliberately did not say that the old line, where the troops happened to be on that particular night many years ago, was an ideal demarcation line.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1267

In other words, Israel has no lawful right to the land, that taking land by force is illegal. This was upheld by a World Court judgement in July 2004.

According to Lord Caradon, it apparently does not follow that Israel has no lawful right to the land.

We both know that World Court decisions are binding only with the agreement of those involved, right?

The 1994 Oslo Accords says the area was placed on Palestinian control. But again, none of this nullifies Israel’s legal obligation to turn over ALL land it took by force, since doing so is illegal.

The Oslo accords provide for self-rule in Gaza, but that is not quite the same thing as relinquishing a lawful right to the land, and you have no foundation for the claim that Israel is bound to turn over all the land taken by force.

And in regards to your comment defending Israel from being called an “aggressor” I already suggested a book by a highly reputable Israeli historian who points out with tremendous detail and resources that ALL of Israel’s wars were were wars of choice, not necessity (eg aggression).

Unfortunately despite that wealth of detail you haven’t addressed Nasser’s role as described in this thread.  Shall we consider him swept under the rug?  Or perhaps you will address the issue based on your knowledge of the book to which you refer?

I have also pointed to a detailed book the birth of Israel and the calculated ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 via Plan D.

Thanks.  If that book provides any details that show that Israel was the not provoked by Nasser in the case of the 1967 war then feel free to provide details.

I have also pointed to the personal diary for Israel’s first Foreign Minister and second Prime Minister who admitted to much of these crimes (as of the mid-50s).

Ditto the above.

To say these facts are “difficult to reconcile” is a construct of your apologetic mind.

Show, don’t tell.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 January 2009 02:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

Bryan,

Whether Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 has no bearing on the legality of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Jordan got claim to the land in the creation of the state of Jordan, lawfully and not by force. In 1967, Israel seized it, unlawfully and by force.

And the Armistice Agreement of 1949 legally gave Egypt control though the relinquished it, as pointed out, in 1979. In 1967 Israel illegally took control and has not given back since, despite numerous legal requests for it to do so.

What part of “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” dont you understand? And whether the ICJ has jurisdiction over disputes is hardly the point. The point is that the leading international court upheld basic international law.

The Oslo Accords dont give the land to Israel either.

Sorry, but I am not going to waste my time pulling out a book and bring it to work just so I can cite the references for you. I did part of your homework by giving you some resources to use. Use it. You can cite my refusal to do your work for you to justify your continued ignorance but the fact is you have been made aware of credible sources to refute your statements and you are choosing not to look into them because you want me to do it for you.

Play apologia for Israeli crimes till your blue in the face.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2009 12:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
truthaddict - 13 January 2009 02:57 PM

Bryan,

Whether Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 has no bearing on the legality of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Jordan got claim to the land in the creation of the state of Jordan, lawfully and not by force.

Jordan was created as “Transjordan,” a lion’s share of the British Mandate to serve as a homeland to those who would not consider Israel their homeland.  The West Bank was never part of Transjordan or Jordan until Jordan simply claimed it following the 1948 war.  Like Gaza, it was intended as a part of a Palestinian homeland under the UN’s Israel proposal but the Arab nations would not agree to the plan.

In 1967, Israel seized it, unlawfully and by force.

Leaving out the fact that Jordan attacked Israel as part of an effort to wipe out Israel, and leaving out that the West Bank was not recognized by the UN as part of Jordan.  Rather, Jordan invaded the West Bank as part of the attack on the new state of Israel.  Jordan, then, illegally acquired Jordan by force (albeit the British approved Jordanian control of the West Bank).

And the Armistice Agreement of 1949 legally gave Egypt control though the relinquished it, as pointed out, in 1979.

The armistice agreement left Egyptian troops in practical control of Gaza; there is no ceding of territory to Egypt in the document from what I can see.  You’re still invited to specify the portion of the document that you think gives Gaza to Egypt.  It looks like Egypt occupied the area by force.

In 1967 Israel illegally took control and has not given back since, despite numerous legal requests for it to do so.

No doubt you base your claim on your faulty understanding of the treaty.  Will you not respond to Lord Caradon’s statements?

What part of “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” dont you understand?

The part contrary to your view as explained by Lord Caradon, who helped draft the document from which you draw the statement. Apparently he was in particular responsible for its inclusion, so it’s strange that you would refuse to deal with his comments.
http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=473

And whether the ICJ has jurisdiction over disputes is hardly the point. The point is that the leading international court upheld basic international law.

I’ve yet to locate the case to which you refer (Cornell’s custodianship of the ICJ opinions apparently doesn’t automatically lead to easy access).  My research indicates a case dealing with the Israeli defense wall from the time frame you cite.  Perhaps that’s the one you’re talking about, perhaps not.  For one who intimates an easy familiarity with the facts you’re not particularly forthcoming.

The Oslo Accords dont give the land to Israel either.

Right.  That document doesn’t settle the issue one way or another.  It is fallacious to conclude that its failure to grant the territory to Israel means that Israel has no claim on it, however.  If that were the case then we might conclude that no nation has a claim on the land.

Sorry, but I am not going to waste my time pulling out a book and bring it to work just so I can cite the references for you.

It’s enough that you implicitly concede that you can’t answer the questions without referring to the book.  That helps dispel the impression that you have internalized the POV you advocate.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2009 07:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  252
Joined  2007-07-12
Bryan - 13 January 2009 11:30 AM

Israel’s 1967 borders figure prominently in most contemporary peace settlement proposals.  I made the following statement in a tangentially related thread (a nod to moderator mckenziedvm for appropriately recommending a separate thread):


From what nation(s) were the supposed occupied territories taken?  If not the nation of Palestine, then those lands were already occupied by whatever nation had laid claim to them.

The history of the 1967 war has bearing on the current situation.  Hopefully this thread can produce an informative discussion of that history.  Israel has been portrayed by some as a consistent aggressor, but the facts of the 1967 war are difficult to reconcile with that view despite the fact that Israel conducted a preemptive attack as the fighting was initiated.  Egypt’s Nasser, for example, had a UN force in Sinai creating a buffer between Israel and Egypt.  Nasser called for the withdrawal of those forces.  Does that move make sense if Nasser is expecting Israel to attack?

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=443

Even if what you say is true, it does not give Israel a moral right to continue the occupation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2009 09:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
wandering - 14 January 2009 07:32 AM

Even if what you say is true, it does not give Israel a moral right to continue the occupation.

It might not justify Israel possessing sovereignty over Gaza or the West Bank, but it directly undermines a premise of your statement (“occupation”).

My point is not that Israel ought to annex Gaza and the West Bank or anything like that.  I’m simply looking to fill in some of the historical details that have been left out in the discussions here, such as Jordan’s uber-weak claim on the West Bank in the past and Transjordan’s original purpose (according to the Europeans, anyway) as a homeland for Arabs in the region.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2009 12:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

It’s enough that you implicitly concede that you can’t answer the questions without referring to the book.  That helps dispel the impression that you have internalized the POV you advocate.

Bryan, if you need to spin it that way so it will be more palatable for you, then by all means go ahead. To me, what you are doing is demonstrating how ignorance can be bliss. But I admit I cant recite (i.e. have “internalized”) all the sources and quotes for each conflict by memory, but how does that have anything to do with the validity of the sources in the book? Listen, regardless of whether I got the details “internalized” is moot. You made a claim and I pointed you in the direction of having it refuted. Take it or leave it. I don’t care which. But so long as you leave it and continue to make the claims then it only displays your ignorance as being intentional. And again, if you have to turn the focus on whether I have it internalized or not to make your intentional ignorance more palatable, then, seriously, that is alright with me.

It might not justify Israel possessing sovereignty over Gaza or the West Bank, but it directly undermines a premise of your statement (“occupation”).

My point is not that Israel ought to annex Gaza and the West Bank or anything like that.  I’m simply looking to fill in some of the historical details that have been left out in the discussions here, such as Jordan’s uber-weak claim on the West Bank in the past and Transjordan’s original purpose (according to the Europeans, anyway) as a homeland for Arabs in the region.

Militarily dominating land that does not belong to a country and that was acquired by force is an “occupation.” What do you think we should call it, a sleep over amongst friends? Regardless of whether Jordan or Egypts claims were weak or if European colonialists had “purposes” it in no way justifies Israel’s actions or nullifies the simple fact that they occupy the land unlawfully and that the indigenous inhabitants want their own state and to have international law upheld. This silly display of apologia for Israel’s crimes is, in my opinion, only making you look like a fool.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2009 02:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
truthaddict - 14 January 2009 12:32 PM

It’s enough that you implicitly concede that you can’t answer the questions without referring to the book.  That helps dispel the impression that you have internalized the POV you advocate.

Bryan, if you need to spin it that way so it will be more palatable for you, then by all means go ahead. To me, what you are doing is demonstrating how ignorance can be bliss. But I admit I cant recite (i.e. have “internalized”) all the sources and quotes for each conflict by memory, but how does that have anything to do with the validity of the sources in the book?

Nobody asked you to recite all the sources and quotations from the book.  You were simply asked to address the issue of Nasser.  Admittedly you’d need a pretty impressive quotation to address that issue—but in fact I’m looking for reasoning based in historical events rather than quotations.

Listen, regardless of whether I got the details “internalized” is moot. You made a claim and I pointed you in the direction of having it refuted. Take it or leave it. I don’t care which.

OK, great.  We’re left wondering whether the source you offer is legit or not since you can’t see to express the basic reasoning in your own words.  Given that, why should I waste my time?  What makes your recommendation worth anything?

But so long as you leave it and continue to make the claims then it only displays your ignorance as being intentional.

Does it?  I’m the one providing (easily) verifiable support for my claims.  You should try it sometime.

And again, if you have to turn the focus on whether I have it internalized or not to make your intentional ignorance more palatable, then, seriously, that is alright with me.

And if you’re fine leaving yourself with insufficient cred to recommend a good source that’s fine with me, too.

Militarily dominating land that does not belong to a country and that was acquired by force is an “occupation.”

Indeed.  So where’s the military domination, apart from reasonable policing action designed to protect Israel in terms that are historically accepted throughout the world (a right to self defense)?

What do you think we should call it, a sleep over amongst friends?

You’re aware that the PA has its own security forces, right?  Israel typically employs the IDF to secure safety for its own citizens.  It may be news to you, but the Palestinians have some terrorists among them.

http://www.imemc.org/article/51855
http://www.daylife.com/photo/05Lf4BAbEb9de

Perhaps you can refer us to a book somewhere that demonstrates that the photos are faked and that Palestinian security forces do not really exist.

Regardless of whether Jordan or Egypts claims were weak or if European colonialists had “purposes” it in no way justifies Israel’s actions or nullifies the simple fact that they occupy the land unlawfully and that the indigenous inhabitants want their own state and to have international law upheld. This silly display of apologia for Israel’s crimes is, in my opinion, only making you look like a fool.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but it’s reasonable to think that your opinion on the matter is worth frog’s whiskers until you address Lord Caradon’s statements regarding 242.  You won’t do that, so frog’s whiskers it is.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2009 03:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16
Bryan - 14 January 2009 02:01 PM

I’m looking for reasoning based in historical events rather than quotations.

Sweet. Lucky for you, you know where to luck. Happy trails!

Defending the Holy Land : a critical analysis of Israel’s security and foreign policy by Zeev Maoz.

Part I. Foundations
Chapter 1. The Israeli Security Puzzle: Conceptions, Approaches, Paradoxes
Part II. The Use of Force
Chapter 2. The Sinai War: The Making of the Second Round
Chapter 3. The Six Day War: Playing with Fire [this is the chapter you are “looking for.”
Chapter 4. The War of Attrition: The First Payment for Arrogance
Chapter 5. The Yom Kippur War: The War That Shouldn’t Have Been
Chapter 6. The Lebanese Swamp, 1981—-2000
Chapter 7. The Unlimited Use of the Limited Use of Force: Israel and Low-Intensity Warfare
Part III. Israel’s Nuclear Policy
Chapter 8. The Mixed Blessing of Israel’s Nuclear Policy
Part IV. Foreign Policy: Shadow and Open Diplomacy
Chapter 9. Israeli Intervention in Intra-Arab Affairs
Chapter 10. Never Missing an Opportunity to Miss an Opportunity: The Israeli Nonpolicy of
Peace in the Middle East
Part V. Causes and Implications of the Mismanagement of National Security and Foreign Policy
Chapter 11. The Structure and Process of National Security and Foreign Policy in Israel
Chapter 12. Principal Findings and Lessons
Chapter 13. If So Bad, Why So Good? Explaining the Paradox of the Israeli Success Story
Chapter 14. Paths to the Future: Scenarios and Prescriptions
Notes
Glossary
References [and this is where you can confirm what you found!]
Index

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2009 12:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
truthaddict - 14 January 2009 03:40 PM
Bryan - 14 January 2009 02:01 PM

I’m looking for reasoning based in historical events rather than quotations.

Chapter 3. The Six Day War: Playing with Fire [this is the chapter you are “looking for.”

I found a searchable text online.  It doesn’t look like Maoz helps you much in explaining away Nasser’s aggression (p. 86, 87).

Maoz recounts the public Arab pressure to stand up to Israel and Nasser’s caving to it by moving troops into the Sinai.  When he gets mocked in the Arab press for hiding behind UN peacekeepers, he petitions them to leave (as was his privilege since they were stationed in Egypt).

Arab pressure then pushed him to close the straits of Tiran, and “From there on, the crisis assumed a course of its own.

Page 93 offers more support of my position (”It is clear that Nasser’s recklessness increased as the crisis unfolded”).

So why didn’t you just admit that I was right?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 January 2009 02:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16
Bryan - 15 January 2009 12:26 AM
truthaddict - 14 January 2009 03:40 PM
Bryan - 14 January 2009 02:01 PM

I’m looking for reasoning based in historical events rather than quotations.

Chapter 3. The Six Day War: Playing with Fire [this is the chapter you are “looking for.”

I found a searchable text online.  It doesn’t look like Maoz helps you much in explaining away Nasser’s aggression (p. 86, 87).

Maoz recounts the public Arab pressure to stand up to Israel and Nasser’s caving to it by moving troops into the Sinai.  When he gets mocked in the Arab press for hiding behind UN peacekeepers, he petitions them to leave (as was his privilege since they were stationed in Egypt).

Arab pressure then pushed him to close the straits of Tiran, and “From there on, the crisis assumed a course of its own.

Page 93 offers more support of my position (”It is clear that Nasser’s recklessness increased as the crisis unfolded”).

So why didn’t you just admit that I was right?

good, you found an electronic version. Now start with the conclusion on page 110 and go from there.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2009 01:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
truthaddict - 29 January 2009 02:25 PM

good, you found an electronic version. Now start with the conclusion on page 110 and go from there.

The text never shakes off Nasser’s role in provocation from what I can tell.  If you think otherwise, I’ve provided the means for you to contradict me by referring to the appropriate page or even by quoting the text in accordance with fair use guidelines.

B:
Hopefully this thread can produce an informative discussion of that history.  Israel has been portrayed by some as a consistent aggressor, but the facts of the 1967 war are difficult to reconcile with that view despite the fact that Israel conducted a preemptive attack as the fighting was initiated.  Egypt’s Nasser, for example, had a UN force in Sinai creating a buffer between Israel and Egypt.  Nasser called for the withdrawal of those forces.  Does that move make sense if Nasser is expecting Israel to attack?

TA:
To say these facts are “difficult to reconcile” is a construct of your apologetic mind.

There has been no real attempt by TA to address my question regarding Nasser, from what I can tell.

[ Edited: 30 January 2009 02:03 PM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2009 02:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

Bryan,

I made numerous attempts for you to read the book. You found an electronic copy with most of the referenced chapter available to you. Judging from your comments now that you found an electronic copy it appears you are selectively reading it and intentionally ignoring what answers your question and undermines your argument. I am not going to waste my time transcribing what you can read. I already told you what section and what page. Keep on pleaing to others. If you can fool them, good for you. It wouldn’t change the facts that you intentionally ignore.

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 January 2009 10:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
truthaddict - 30 January 2009 02:25 PM

Bryan,

I made numerous attempts for you to read the book. You found an electronic copy with most of the referenced chapter available to you. Judging from your comments now that you found an electronic copy it appears you are selectively reading it and intentionally ignoring what answers your question and undermines your argument.

Like what?  At least I went through the trouble of identifying the portions of the text that specifically supported my argument.  You apparently can’t be at all bothered to back up your claims.

I am not going to waste my time transcribing what you can read.

Case in point.  It would be exceptionally easy for you to reference page numbers or paragraphs using the online text.  You can’t be bothered.  I think your argument was a fraud from the start.

I already told you what section and what page.

Ah, yes—“read from there” I think you said.  I told you I’m not seeing what you apparently think should make me see support for your argument.  And you can’t be bothered.

Keep on pleaing to others. If you can fool them, good for you. It wouldn’t change the facts that you intentionally ignore.

Yes, it is my diabolical plan to fool others by making available to them the source you referenced in order to try to prove your point (something you never got around to doing). 

Muwhahahahaha.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 January 2009 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

I wonder if this little conflict here in this forum is a direct spill-over from the actual Middle-East,kind of like a little mini-Arab-Israeli conflict.Just the mention of this far-away,and completely Human/Life Draining,now-mundane,squabble;has the power to get people arguing about it right here.Just like the TV talk shows.What a waste!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1
 
‹‹ Tit for tat      Adieu, George Bush (Merged) ››