(TommyBoy) wrote:

Silly and dumb you are. You go into the bin with Jerk Sam Sloan and
Bigot Bibuld. I can see why so many have found your character lacking.


Have you a character at all, Tommy Boy? -
I am proud to be in a line with Sloan and Bibuld, they might be not always
right, but they have more life in their little toes than you in your pea-brain.
So you can't even be ashamed for what you've written.

Now get your baseball stick.

Rolf

On 11 Nov 2003 14:42:01 GMT, (Rolf Tueschen)
wrote:

You argued like this: Barak gave a lot but Arafat still refused. Tht was not to
blaim, you say, because what Barak gave was not sufficient. But what you would
have expected and with you the whole people of Israel: that Arafat should have
made a new proposal so that the Israeli side could perhaps have accepted.

What a nonsense!

And what a hypocrisy!

We all know what Israel is thinking about Arafat, the Noble Prize Winner for
Peace! Kill him, if not that, at least get him out of here. He's not the
President for the Palestinians whom the Jews could tolerate. etc etc.

Few people said this while Clinton was working with Barak and Arafat.
This came years later, after Arafat had once again demonstrated his
bad faith in negotiating.

"Lion" wrote in message
om...
Bob,
I accidentally sent that post before it was finished. Here it is:

Israel offered most of what Arafat requested, but not everything. As
you point out, several important elements of statehood were left out,
including a military and true sovereignty over borders.

I am not defending the offer as "fair" or claiming that Arafat's
refusal was incorrect. My claim was that Arafat did not make a
counter-offer, which suggested to the Israeli people and myself, that
he was not interested in peace. If Barak's offer had been
unsatisfactory, Arafat should have responded with specific concessions
that Israel could make to gain peace. Why did Arafat not make a
counter-offer?

snip

Ari,
Thanks for a thoughtful reply. Here is how it appears to me, and I would be
interested in hearing your response as an Israeli: The ability of each side
to negotiate a fair, reasonable settlement is hostage to the most extreme
element of its side. The West Bank/Gaza "settler" wing of Israeli politics
will never accept an agreement that gives a Palestinian state true
sovereignty over all the occupied territories, as that would mean
surrendering their dream of a Greater Israel (to say nothing of having to
abandon the settlements), and the Hamas wing of Palestinian politics will
never accept a permanent Israel with any sort of borders. Barak's Camp
David offer was as far as he could go given Israeli political reality, and
it was an offer that even a hypothetical "moderate" Palestinian leadership
could have accepted, and even if Barak could have made such a truly
"acceptable" offer, it would not be one that Hamas could live with.

Any way out?

Bob Musicant

"Rolf Tueschen" wrote in message
...
snip



You are really funny. Honestly I never heard such a twisted logic in my
life.

Are you really that dumb and dickheaded? I don't think so because you
wrote a
lot of thoughtful lines on the matter of Israel.

snip

Rolf, old chap, have you ever considered reading "Wie man Freunde gewinnt.
Die Kunst, beliebt und einflußreich zu werden," von Dale Carnegie (8.9
Euros at amazon.de). I know you are not too concerned about the "beliebt"
part, but you at least assert an interest in the "einflußreich" part.

Just a suggestion.

Kind regards,
Bob

PS Chapter 1 will provide you with some ideas for how to convey the message
to Mr. David that he is a lying Jewish ******* without your having to come
out and say so.

Ari,
Correcting my previous message, where I wrote, "even a hypothetical
"moderate" Palestinian leadership could have accepted," I of course meant
"could NOT have accepted."

Bob

(Rolf Tueschen) wrote in message ...
(TommyBoy) wrote:

Silly and dumb you are. You go into the bin with Jerk Sam Sloan and
Bigot Bibuld. I can see why so many have found your character lacking.


Have you a character at all, Tommy Boy? -
I am proud to be in a line with Sloan and Bibuld, they might be not always
right, but they have more life in their little toes than you in your pea-brain.
So you can't even be ashamed for what you've written.

Now get your baseball stick.

Rolf

ChainYanker 1 Dim Rolf 0

Now you can stop straining your brain cell.

P.S. Jumping into bed with Bibuld and S. Sloan is not something an
intelligent person possessed of any integrity would be advertising.
Sheesh!

"Rolf Tueschen" wrote in message
...

What do you, from the international community, think about the
expression?

I think it belongs in a differnet newsgroup.

Rolf,

First off, using profanity gives your audience an excuse not to
listen. If you believe that your arguments are sound, than don't give
your listeners reason to "throw the baby out with the bathwater." By
insulting me, I am tempted to ignore the content of your message. I
showed you respect with my response, and you return the courtesy with
profanity and insults. If you disagree with the content of what I'm
saying, point out your specific disagreement.

As to the content: Your argument that the Israelis have everything,
the Palestinians have "only their lives" and the stronger side should
give in, is flawed for practical reasons. Large segments of the
Palestian population do not want peace. They do not want a small
state that peacefully coexists with Israel. They do not want to share
the holy sites with Christians and Jews. These segments of the
Palestinian population simply do not want to negotiate. There is
nothing that Israel could give up, short of its existence, that would
satisfy these groups.

This is not the view of all Palestinians, however it is the view of
several large and powerful groups (e.g. Hamas). Some people argue
that Arafat cannot take any steps towards peace because he is at the
mercy of these militant groups. Other people argue that he genuinely
believes that the Palestinians should have all the land, and will
settle for nothing less.

Regardless, I ask you to look at it from the average Israeli's
perspective. Israel is a tiny state that has had its existence
threatened in 3 wars since it was born 50 years ago. It is surrounded
by hostile neighbors, and has terrorist groups within its borders.
Arafat receives direct support (in the form of votes when he was first
elected by a council, and money) from Hamas and other terrorist
groups. Would you allow a group that has recently bombed school
busses to have a full army mere blocks from your schools? Would you
allow individuals who openly state that their goal is to "push the
jews into the sea" to have tanks based minutes from your children's
playground?

Most Israelis, including myself, hope that in the future, the
Palestinians can coexist peacefully with the Jews. We hope that the
Palestinians will become wealthy and well educated, and will be great
trade partners and neighbors. However, it is difficult to take
concrete steps in this direction, when cafes and school busses are
being blown up. Before the terrorism began, Barak offered what he
thought would be a great start. He offered the Palestinians a chance
for partial sovereignty, and most of what they wanted. If Arafat had
accepted, and there had been peace under these terms for a few years,
than further concession could have been demanded and granted.

Bob,

You are well-informed about the political situation in Israel and
Palestine. It is very difficult. There is indeed a strong settler
contingent that will never give up the occupied territories. However,
these people were a small minority until the Intifidah began.

This is the only "way out" as I see it:

Israel must use as a combination of carrot and stick to curb the most
serious short-term difficulty - terrorism. A combination of shows of
goodwill (e.g. school and hospital building in the Gaza Strip and West
Bank) with the hard line tactics they are currently using, would
hopefully reduce full blown terrorism to mere riots. After a year of
this ceasefire, the Israeli people would tolerate a return to the
negotiating table, and a cessation of building new settlements. If a
new Palestinian leader (one who has taken concrete steps to fight
terrorism) rises to power, the serious negotiation can begin. Israel
would probably offer a watered down version of what Barak offered. If
the Palestinian leader accepted this, Israel and Palestine could work
together to improve the lives of Palestinians. This is obviously in
Israel's favor as it reduces their security risks and improves their
trade prospects and labor pool. Within a few years of this cautious
peace, The Palestinian leader could request further concessions in
sovereignty, as he proves that the Palestinians can use their new
power responsibly. Within a decade, Israel could offer full statehood
with the exception of a military. I don't see Israel allowing a
Palestinian military in the near future. However, the Palestinian
state would then have roughly the same autonomy as Japan.

Regards,
Ari

(Lion) wrote:

Rolf,

First off, using profanity gives your audience an excuse not to
listen.

You certainly know that this is impolite? Making such judgements about a
foreigner's English. Are you unaware of the fact that my knowledge of the
idioms of English is rather limited? I don't even feel it if I become a bit
harsh or vulgar. Poetry is not one of my business. I try to make sound
arguments. It's the logic that interests me. I have no time to think about
possible friendships I could build up with my messages.

On the other side I can well feel if some writer behaves arrogant - but not
because of his English vocabulary. It's only the reasoning that is the data I
work with.



If you believe that your arguments are sound, than don't give
your listeners reason to "throw the baby out with the bathwater."

No. With readers who can't look through the jungle of language misuse I won't
have any fun even if I toned down a bit. In short, I don't give a damn for
readers who I have bought with the angel-like voice, they must be real fools. I
have a satanic joy to talk with people who understand the _core_ of my messages
and not only the lack of glitter and some odd terms.



By
insulting me, I am tempted to ignore the content of your message.

Since my English must sound terrible I must rely on such readers who have a
solid self-confidence and a minimum of sophistication.



I
showed you respect with my response, and you return the courtesy with
profanity and insults. If you disagree with the content of what I'm
saying, point out your specific disagreement.

That was exactly what I did. But you missed and still miss with what I
disagreed most. Or - you have discovered it but you feel insulted by the entry
into your privacy. Yes, I detected a huge arrogance in your complete attitude
as an Israeli towards the Palestinians. Are you a racist? Who are you as a
human being that you want to have the say about what the life of Palestinians
should be? I admit, that I take offense when I read such a ****. From Israelis
who then, when a German topic is lurking around the corner, fall into a state
of hypocritical whiner stupor.

The original topic here was the question if its allowed to call an Israeli liar
a lying Jewish *******, IF he had just called an innocent German a 'Nazi
*******'!

But the whole topic about the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is of great
interest for a German. Excuse me. To me, as a German who was born days after
WWII, it is incredible why and _how_ thousands of Jews were taken out of their
normal environment as Germans or everywhere in Europe and sent on 'deportation'
with just a little briefcase fixed around their shoulders. In Germany each had
paid some 40 Euro for the "voyage".
What's that supposed to mean that the deportation of the Jews was set into
dependence of financial power? The richest could exile to the USA, France or
Switzerland and the poorest were sent on to "holidays" in Poland? Germans
rushed into the empty business places left by the Jews?

Could you explain to a German how he should interprete the illegal settlings
strategy of the Orthodox Jews? Is it really a political solution to shift the
Palestinians or to compress them into those alien particles in the middle of
Israel? Or is it just a misunderstood strategy of Clausewitz that led you to
such inhumanities? Divide and exert your power?



As to the content: Your argument that the Israelis have everything,
the Palestinians have "only their lives" and the stronger side should
give in, is flawed for practical reasons. Large segments of the
Palestian population do not want peace.
That is one of the sentences that hurts the mind of open-minded Europeans. But
don't bother to continue with such propaganda tricks. I mean, how far went your
education? Can't you understand that you are twisting around with such terms?
For you as the Israeli peace is important, so that you can continue with your
daily life settled on the misery of the Palestinian people. Know what I mean?
Why should Palestinians want _your_ peace?



They do not want a small
state that peacefully coexists with Israel. They do not want to share
the holy sites with Christians and Jews. These segments of the
Palestinian population simply do not want to negotiate. There is
nothing that Israel could give up, short of its existence, that would
satisfy these groups.

So these groups are relatives of those Orthodox rightist Jews who steal land
and settle illegally everywhere.



This is not the view of all Palestinians, however it is the view of
several large and powerful groups (e.g. Hamas). Some people argue
that Arafat cannot take any steps towards peace because he is at the
mercy of these militant groups. Other people argue that he genuinely
believes that the Palestinians should have all the land, and will
settle for nothing less.

Regardless, I ask you to look at it from the average Israeli's
perspective. Israel is a tiny state that has had its existence
threatened in 3 wars since it was born 50 years ago.

Look, you and me, we were "born", but Israel wasn't born. It was a creation out
of terrorism (Jewish terror groups!!) and Nation-wide confusion in the UN. But
I think it's a good place where Israel and the Palestinians could create
fantastic modern styled societies. For both people!



It is surrounded
by hostile neighbors, and has terrorist groups within its borders.
Arafat receives direct support (in the form of votes when he was first
elected by a council, and money) from Hamas and other terrorist
groups. Would you allow a group that has recently bombed school
busses to have a full army mere blocks from your schools? Would you
allow individuals who openly state that their goal is to "push the
jews into the sea" to have tanks based minutes from your children's
playground?

No, I wouldn't even shake hands with racistic Jews who defined me (the
Palestinian) "subhuman" terrorist.


There is a modern plague going round, brought up by the Jewish clique now in
support of the American administration, who created the bloodrush vision of a
fight of "civilization" against all kind of scum (now terrorism). From
Huntington to Wolfowitz.



Most Israelis, including myself, hope that in the future, the
Palestinians can coexist peacefully with the Jews.

Why don't you occupy yourself with Israeli policy? Why do you define what
Palestinians should believe, do and hope for?


We hope that the
Palestinians will become wealthy and well educated, and will be great
trade partners and neighbors. However, it is difficult to take
concrete steps in this direction, when cafes and school busses are
being blown up. Before the terrorism began, Barak offered what he
thought would be a great start. He offered the Palestinians a chance
for partial sovereignty, and most of what they wanted. If Arafat had
accepted, and there had been peace under these terms for a few years,
than further concession could have been demanded and granted.

Yes, viewed from an Israeli...

But I am looking forward to some messages where you elaborate what Israel will
do to create a new future with wealth for all in the Middle East.

And don't forget your German correspondent because

GENS UNA SUMUS

Rolf