Static

I just found this article on BBC, and it melted me heart... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4376445.stm

Neither are any Palestinian extremists. Or perhaps you can name a few? And as budullewraagh pointed out, there is definitely a minority of religious extremists in the Israeli government. If there are any hardliners in the Palestinian authority, they represent a VERY small fraction of the leadership. The fact that most Palestinians voted Abbas in, as opposed to his main rival, Barghouti, says something for what the Palestinians really want. To me it says that they're sending out a message saying that the intifada is getting them no closer to peace and stability, and that violent means of any sort are only hurting them.

Honestly, I'm not going to get into the whole "who was there first" argument with you, because personally, I consider it highly irrelevant to modern times. I don't think either of us have the ability to travel back to the very beginnings of time to find out whose people occupied where first, nor do I believe that to be relevant at all. Fact of the matter: both the Jews and the Palestinians live on the land that is Israel now, and THAT'S what matters. Perhaps you have definitive proof that the Israeli's would never use their nukes? By expanding existing settlements, one would assume that they're expanding upon land they've already taken. Israel has a much smaller landmass than most states in the US, and land isn't in abundance over there (hence why the Palestinians and Jews are fighting over a strip of land smaller than the stae of New Jersey?). It's not like they can simply kick Palestinians out of their homes and take their land without major pr concerns. I assume they'll simply move many more settlers in, as that's how they generally "expand" the settlements. Excuse me. Most people only use a term like "historic" when they're talking about things that have been happening for at least hundreds of years (or hell, outside of the past couple centuries)? I definitely read and understood your post. I just thoroughly disagree with your assertions that more Israeli's = more security. I think the best way for the Israeli's AND Palestinian's to ensure their security is through the peace process. That means both sides must be willing to compromise/make concessions. First, the notion of any Middle Eastern nations acquiring nukes is so incredibly detatched from reality (Geez, we saw what happened the last time an Arab country was assumed to have WMD) that it's hardly worth entertaining the thought. Isn't this the stated objective of all nuclear powers? Conjectures are definitively your strong point, are they not? Perhaps you would like to direct me to somewhere where I've even implied that I think this could be the case?

By your standards, since over 3500 Palestinians have been killed since the start of the intifada, a ratio of 3 Palestinians to every Jew killed, then any Palestinian is justified in killing any Israeli because it's to "protect their own people?" http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html You're missing the point. He's arguing that the expansion of the settlements is an effort to secure Israel's existence. I'm pointing out the obvious absurdity of this argument.

You said - Now' date=' they aren't "taking" any land. If you had actually read the article, it clearly states - You really should read the initial articles before commenting on them, because it just makes you look stupid. /Aardvark The historic enemies of Israel? Revisionism may be a fun pastime, but perhaps you should try sticking to the actual facts before making such false assertions and expecting to be taken even remotely seriously. When have the Jews and the Palestinians been in conflict before? In fact, the term "Palestinian" never even came into use until a hundred years ago, my dear. And you've failed to address how expanding on existing settlements could possibly increase Israeli security. Anything that would add more fuel to the fire can hardly increase their security. "Securing the long term existence of Israel?" Keeping in mind that the sole nuclear power in the Middle East is Israel, this is an utter conjecture.

My understanding is that anytime you require a breathing machine to breathe, or a feeding tube to eat, you're on life support. As a sidenote, I think it's thoroughly barbaric that they would let her starve to death rather then euthanize her.

This whole thing being made a spectacle by politicians and Shiavo's family alike is utterly sick. The woman has virtually no chance for recovery, and who the hell would want to live in this condition, where you're utterly dependent on others for everything, and you cannot live without life support? I agree with the husband in this case. In light of the fact that he stands to gain some money and has sired children with another woman, I have read somewhere that he was also offered millions of dollars if he allowed her to live, so that would kind of take care of the whole "he's only doing it for the money" theory. The fact that she's being used by the ultra-religious as an example is absolutely repulsive. This story has definitely inspired me to get a living will.

I guess I didn't realize that this was such an important thing around here, especially when someone is obviously not trying to plagiarize. Also, with my first post, I did indeed include the authors name and the name of the book the excerpt was taken from.

I guess I will have to do more research into this, but from what I've found through a 2 minute google search, the fence has decreased suicide attacks. Let me remind everyone, including yourself, that this thread is not about moral justification for this security fence, which honestly I honestly have no opinion on as I don't know enough about the ramifications/benefits of it; this thread is about the proliferation of settlements in the occupied territories, which are most definitely detrimental for the security of the Israelis.

Where did you find this graph?

I didn't start this thread to discuss how best to ensure peace between the Palestinians and Jews, but I can assure you that building more settlements probably won't cut it. To save the lives of the peoples on both sides, they must keep working through the peace process. Abbas is doing everything possible to reign in scum that don't believe Israel has the right to exist, and Israel has refrained from incursions into the occupied territories. Both are legitimate steps toward a better future, but news like these plans to build even more settlements are extremely disheartening. How does the international communities concensus that the "fence" is doing nothing more than annexing even more Palestinian territory, and hurting chances at peace for both sides, endangering the lives of innocents?

Keep in mind that Israel drew up the route of the fence, which the Palestinians have repeatedly disputed as an attempt at annexing more land from their future state. The "fence" has been internationally condemned, and many others, the Palestinians aside, have poinnted out that the fence impedes on territory that does not belong to Israel.

I'm not sure this is the right forum, so if I placed it in the wrong one, let me know. Just curious on everyones thoughts about this. Things were starting to look up for the peace process, but now I fear that things will erupt once more. Edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4367787.stm