Interesting Israeli/Palestinian Graphic

[Nie Trink Wasser]

http://www.iownjoo.com/imghost/Priceless_fixed.gif

[Mel]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
http://www.iownjoo.com/imghost/Priceless_fixed.gif

Great pic!

I mentioned in another thread that Arafat doesn't seem willing to make any real moves towards securing a homeland for his pawns.... ooops, I mean..... the Palestinians.

On the other hand, Bush went out of his way to completely distance himself from ANYTHING Clinton was involved in. I think Bush's complete hands off 'policy' was a real set back (not to mention, a major cop out) and it set the table for escalated aggression.

I just hope Blair does not let Bush off the hook and shames him into FINALLY dealing with the Israel/Palestinian mess.

[Richard G]

Your polluting a perfectly good "kill all the jews" agenda with facts. Are you trying to paint the terroris...er...I mean palestinians in a bad light?

[Baker]

Originally posted by Richard G
Your polluting a perfectly good "kill all the jews" agenda with facts. Are you trying to paint the terroris...er...I mean palestinians in a bad light?

True we wouldn’t want to give the impression that the suicide-bombing hero’s are bad people.

[GrapeJ713]

OK, Israel has done bad things, 3 wars in 25 years can dehumanize some people. Both sides have done nasty stuff to each other ever since Israel was founded. The palestineans are in occupied territory conquered in war. If they don't like thier conditions, couldn't they just move to one of the several islamic countries surrounding Israel? All of the arabs claim they hate the Jews and the Americans because of the way we treat Palestineans. All of thes arab countries have a lot of money, they could pay for all of the palestineans to move and build a new house somewhere else. Of course that would be too easy and that would solve everything, but I think they would just prefer killing jews, americans, and the occasional brit. Isn't religion a wonderful thing, brings peace to so many people throughout the world and just might start World War 3.

[crackmonkey]

Housing Arafat and his followers didn't work out so well for Lebanon. I think the rest if the Arab world took notice, and decided against inviting a Palestinian takeover of their state.

[a_unique_person]

Sorry, can someone point out the intersting part of this graphic. I can find all the simplistic, boring propaganda I want on the web as it is. What is interesting about one more piece?

[Troll]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Sorry, can someone point out the intersting part of this graphic. I can find all the simplistic, boring propaganda I want on the web as it is. What is interesting about one more piece?

And post it in 99.0% of your "evil zionists" posts as well. Well here's one that counters yours. You either accept it or call Tim Robbins for a joint whine-fest.

The fact is that they get offer after offer and never accecpt any. They don't want steps towards relations. They want to stomp once and hard on the Israelis. Been saying this over and over. When are ya gonna read and think?;)

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I can find all the simplistic, boring propaganda I want on the web as it is.


You should know you have already posted most of to back your arguments.
However, the image is based on facts.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/07/25/mideast.summit.01/

[Earthborn]

Just so the argument is a bit balanced, let's look at it from the viewpoint of the other side:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/gushshalom1.html

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Just so the argument is a bit balanced, let's look at it from the viewpoint of the other side:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/gushshalom1.html

Earthborn, don't you know there are Jews in that organisation! Apart from that, I wish we could get some final figure on what was offered to Palestine. Was it 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 105%, 200% or what. Every time I see the percentage, it seems to have increased.

[Skeptic]

Sorry, can someone point out the intersting part of this graphic. I can find all the simplistic, boring propaganda I want on the web as it is. What is interesting about one more piece?

That it's true.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Just so the argument is a bit balanced, let's look at it from the viewpoint of the other side:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/gushshalom1.html

Is there any other evidence besides this article to prove the information is currect?

[Earthborn]

Is there any other evidence besides this article to prove the information is currect?Only as much as the statement in 'the interesting graphic'... And it isn't just a cheap slogan, and actually makes a few points.

It's a bit unfair to ask for evidence only when you hear a view that challenges your own. What is your evidence for the '97%'? I saw just as much evidence presented for that view.

Also in a conflict as this, it is less relevant what the truth is than what both sides think the truth is...

[Earthborn]

You can't get much more objective than a Wiki:
Wikipedia on Camp David Summit 2000 (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_2000_Summit_between_Palestinians_and_Is rael)

(If anyone of you feel that the information on that site is wrong, then edit it!

More details (http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart/books_ME/Camp_David_Negotiations.html)

How about an exclusively Jewish perspective (http://nahalatshalom.org/2002-08/The_Big_Myth.html)?

At the very least, I think I successfully showed that the 'interesting graphic' is far to simplistic to be taken seriously. It may be the truth, but is certainly not the whole truth...

[Baker]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Only as much as the statement in 'the interesting graphic'... And it isn't just a cheap slogan, and actually makes a few points.

It's a bit unfair to ask for evidence only when you hear a view that challenges your own. What is your evidence for the '97%'? I saw just as much evidence presented for that view.

Also in a conflict as this, it is less relevant what the truth is than what both sides think the truth is...

Ok so you are saying who cares what the facts are if one side doesn’t agree with it?

[Earthborn]

No, Baker. What I'm saying is that in a conflict as this, there are no facts. There's only the opinions of both sides. It would be wrong to consider the views of one side as 'fact' and the views of the other side as 'a lie'.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Earthborn
No, Baker. What I'm saying is that in a conflict as this, there are no facts. There's only the opinions of both sides. It would be wrong to consider the views of one side as 'fact' and the views of the other side as 'a lie'.

Hi have to disagree...

In this conflict, there are plenty of facts. Its just that hysteria and emotion tends to win out over the 'facts'. And, I believe it is the palestinian side which has done the most to promote hysteria.

People point to the American supporter of the Palestinians who got run over by a buldozer, and everyone shouts "innocent person killed defending a home". Fact: the house that was being knocked down was used in smuggling weapons into the occupied territories.

People point to 'massacre' of Jenin, where the Palistinians (and a good chunk of the UN) claimed "thousands died". The fact: The number was close to 50, the number origianally given by the Israelis.

People point to the dozens of UN resolutions that Israel has ignored, and say that Israel is violating UN rules. Fact: The resolutions that Israel has violated are chapter 6 resolutions, which require action by other parties (such as the Palestinians and Syrians) before they can be implemented. Israel is under no obligation to implement them unilaterally (and in fact in many cases they could not).

These are just examples where emotion has been whipped up; if people engaged a little critical thinking, and did a little work, they would find 'facts', which often run contradictory to what emotion tells you.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


Hi have to disagree...

In this conflict, there are plenty of facts. Its just that hysteria and emotion tends to win out over the 'facts'. And, I believe it is the palestinian side which has done the most to promote hysteria.

People point to the American supporter of the Palestinians who got run over by a buldozer, and everyone shouts "innocent person killed defending a home". Fact: the house that was being knocked down was used in smuggling weapons into the occupied territories.



Well you see, that house was one of many that was being knocked down for being suspected of being used to smuggle weapons.

So, your facts are not so concrete.



"This is a regrettable accident," said Capt. Jacob Dallal, an army spokesman. "We are dealing with a group of protesters who were acting very irresponsibly, putting everyone in danger."

The army said soldiers were looking for explosives and tunnels used to smuggle weapons.



looking for, not a known fact.

http://www.examiner.com/headlines/default.jsp?story=n.israel.0317w



Destroying Houses and Lives

An Interview with Salim Shawamreh and Jeff Halper

April 5, 2000

Salim Shawamreh is a Palestinian living with his family just outside occupied Jerusalem, or not really living, he protests, because "you are always in fear" of the Israeli soldiers marching to "your house hauling your belongings out the street and bulldozing your house." As terrifying and humiliating as it is to suffer this experience once in a lifetime, Salim and his growing family have seen their house bulldozed on two different occasions. The Shawamrehs are among the 16,700 West Bank and East Jerusalem Palestinians whose homes have been demolished since 1987 -- in all 2650. Home demolition is not a cruelty of the far past, but is alive and well today in Israel, a country that American and Western officials describe as the only democracy in the Middle East. In 1999, partly on Prime Minister Barak's watch, Amnesty International reported that "at least 39 Palestinian homes, of which over 20 were in Jerusalem" were demolished leaving more than "140 Palestinians, including 70 children, homeless." Salim, a Palestinian Authority driver and others, have called this an arm of Israel's policy of "ethnic cleansing." B'Tselem, the Israeli Human Rights group, reports that "while Palestinians are responsible for less than 20 percent of the illegal construction in [Jerusalem], nearly two-thirds of the demolitions are carried out on Palestinian houses." Palestinians and their houses are targeted, Amnesty states, "simply because they are Palestinians," and the policy is geared to secure Israel's grip on Palestinian land. Amnesty's press release (December, 1999) reports that "currently, more than one-third of the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem [about 65,000] lives under the threat of having its houses demolished."

Ghassan Bishara, Media Director, interviewed Jeff Halper, Coordinator of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) and an anthropology professor at Ben Gurion University and Salim Shawamreh during their recent US speaking tour about Israel's home demolition policy and occupation policy in general. Our thanks to Anja Zueckmantel for transcribing the interview.

Q- Can you describe the mechanics of demolishing a house? How is it actually carried out?

Salim: You are basically sitting in your home with your family, not really living because you're always in fear of the Israeli soldiers surrounding your house and giving you 15 minutes to carry whatever possible of your belongings out to the street before they begin to bulldoze your home. Any resistance is met with beating, kicking, shooting, and arrest. A 16 year-old boy who came to help lost his left kidney to a rubber bullet, which also damaged part of his stomach.



Again with the 'rubber' bullets.

To deride this as whipped up hysteria and emotions is morally repugnant.

Facts, eh.

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
OK, Israel has done bad things, 3 wars in 25 years can dehumanize some people. Both sides have done nasty stuff to each other ever since Israel was founded. The palestineans are in occupied territory conquered in war. If they don't like thier conditions, couldn't they just move to one of the several islamic countries surrounding Israel? All of the arabs claim they hate the Jews and the Americans because of the way we treat Palestineans. All of thes arab countries have a lot of money, they could pay for all of the palestineans to move and build a new house somewhere else. Of course that would be too easy and that would solve everything, but I think they would just prefer killing jews, americans, and the occasional brit. Isn't religion a wonderful thing, brings peace to so many people throughout the world and just might start World War 3.

Great idea. Except that it's illegal to sell land to a Jew in Palestine:

http://world.std.com/~camera/docs/backg/land-pa.html

-Ben

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by a_unique_person




http://www.examiner.com/headlines/default.jsp?story=n.israel.0317w



Again with the 'rubber' bullets.

To deride this as whipped up hysteria and emotions is morally repugnant.

Facts, eh.

Yeah, facts. Oh wait! No, I forgot.

Lies, slander, and propaganda is all we will get from you. Here are the real facts on that "American Protester killed by Israelis." and the lies about her death.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0303/corrie.asp

Read this, AUP, and understand how manipulated you are into lying for the cause of terrorists who would KILL YOU if they had the chance. Because you aren't Muslim, and even if you were, you would die like the Kurds who aren't Arab, groups like Islamic Jihad would have you executed. Islamic Jihad is apparently not so far apart from Racheal Corrie's group as you'd like to believe:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0n8c0

Suck it up, AUP, you have nothing but lies to post here, easily debunked.

-Ben

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Earthborn, don't you know there are Jews in that organisation! Apart from that, I wish we could get some final figure on what was offered to Palestine. Was it 85%, 90%, 95%, 99%, 105%, 200% or what. Every time I see the percentage, it seems to have increased. The refusal to even offer a counter proposal is what is truly priceless. How can one negotiate in good faith when one refuses to even negotiate?

An argument has been made that the Palestinians are not interested in peace. That they are only interested in the destruction of Israel. I don't know if that is true or not. I do know that when the Israelis bucked the trend and voted for someone who's stated goal was to negotiate peace and expressed a willingness to sacrifice for peace the Palestinians said no and walked away without even offering a counter proposal.

Sometimes silence speaks volumes.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

People point to the American supporter of the Palestinians who got run over by a buldozer, and everyone shouts "innocent person killed defending a home". Fact: the house that was being knocked down was used in smuggling weapons into the occupied territories.

Oh, so then her deliberate murder was justified?

I'm really sick of the moral blindspot some people have when it comes to Israel.

Israel has been assassinating journalists and human rights workers in an attempt to shut the world's eyes to its atrocities. "Oh, sorry. It was an accident." "Oh, sorry. He was aiming at some rock thrower (!) that no one else could see."

I'm also sick of the terrorism that is used to silence criticism of Israel: the all-too-readily used slur of anti-Semitism. It is nothing less than thoroughly dishonest to equate criticism of Israel with hatred for Jews.

In 1967 Israel attacked its neighbors and still occupies land captured at that time. Israel has weapons of mass destruction (estimated 200 nuclear warheads) that dwarf anything Iraq ever had. Yet Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and possession of chemical weapons could not stand, while Israel's actions must not only be tolerated, but defended. What hypocrisy!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
The refusal to even offer a counter proposal is what is truly priceless. How can one negotiate in good faith when one refuses to even negotiate?

An argument has been made that the Palestinians are not interested in peace. That they are only interested in the destruction of Israel. I don't know if that is true or not. I do know that when the Israelis bucked the trend and voted for someone who's stated goal was to negotiate peace and expressed a willingness to sacrifice for peace the Palestinians said no and walked away without even offering a counter proposal.

Sometimes silence speaks volumes.

The counter proposal was no settlements. This was not acceptable to Israel. What is a settlement? It is a piece of land that is Israeli, stuck right in the middle of Palestine, complete with military and restricted roads. What state would accept such a deal?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


Yeah, facts. Oh wait! No, I forgot.

Lies, slander, and propaganda is all we will get from you. Here are the real facts on that "American Protester killed by Israelis." and the lies about her death.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0303/corrie.asp


Facts or lies, slander and propaganda?

Some Jews (with consciences)
think otherwise: (http://www.jppi.org/corrie_press_release.html) JEWISH GROUPS CALL ON CONGRESS TO PASS RACHEL CORRIE BILL

Washington, DC (April 2)—Several grassroots Jewish peace organizations today urged Members of Congress to support the Rachel Corrie Resolution (H.Con.Res. 111)._ Rachel Corrie was a 23 year-old American peace activist who was killed by an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) bulldozer while attempting to protect a Palestinian home from demolition through an act of nonviolent civil disobedience in the Gaza Strip on March 16.

The Rachel Corrie Resolution was introduced in the House of Representatives on March 25 by Brian Baird (WA-3) and currently has 10 cosponsors._ The resolution expresses sympathy to the Corrie family for their loss, calls for a U.S. investigation into her death, and urges the United States and Israel to work together to ensure that this never happens again.

(snip)

Mitchell Plitnick, Co-Director of A Jewish Voice for Peace adds, "Rachel Corrie was an American civilian killed during a foreign military operation. Eyewitnesses have expressed doubt that the incident was accidental. Under such circumstances, the need for an impartial investigation to establish the truth of the matter is undeniable."

"The IDF is treating this death as an accident, in spite of eyewitness reports and photographs that directly contradict the military account. Given the historic brutality of the IDF's actions in the Occupied Territories, a more objective investigation must be carried out if justice is to be served. " said Sam Miller/Eisenstein, a member of Jews Against the Occupation.

(snip)

Participating organizations include Jewish Mobilization for a Just Peace and Bubbes and Zaydes for Middle East Peace (Philadelphia), A Jewish Voice for Peace (San Francisco), Jewish Voices Against the Occupation (Seattle), Jews Against the Occupation (New York), Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (Washington, DC), Not in My Name (Chicago), the Tikkun Community, and Visions of Peace with Justice in Israel/Palestine and Jewish Women for Justice in Israel/Palestine (Boston).

EIDTED TO ADD: Rather than relying on the biased descriptions of the Jewish World Review, have a look at the photographs (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1248.shtml) yourself, captioned with details on the time the photographs were taken.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


Yeah, facts. Oh wait! No, I forgot.

Lies, slander, and propaganda is all we will get from you. Here are the real facts on that "American Protester killed by Israelis." and the lies about her death.



Ben, just look at that statement. It is patently absurd and ridiculous. I am also sarcastic when it comes to replying to posts by you. Please drop the 'all we will get from you' accusations right now.



http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0303/corrie.asp

Read this, AUP, and understand how manipulated you are into lying for the cause of terrorists who would KILL YOU if they had the chance. Because you aren't Muslim, and even if you were, you would die like the Kurds who aren't Arab, groups like Islamic Jihad would have you executed. Islamic Jihad is apparently not so far apart from Racheal Corrie's group as you'd like to believe:



Once again, another issue. And another allegation that does not hold water. I have no doubt that there are extremists involved in this struggle, from both sides, who would kill me if they thought it required that action.



http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0n8c0

Suck it up, AUP, you have nothing but lies to post here, easily debunked.

-Ben

That article about Rachael, has already been discussed.

Take the heading, 'Gotcha'. Implying the reporting of the story was instantly biased against Israel. As far as I knew, it was always reported she had been run over, with details that seemed to implicate Israel in her death. As it was not provable from the evidence that this was deliberate, it was not written up as "Israel Deliberately Kills Protester'. Similarly with the men shot recently, it was presented as 'Men Shot'. These are the facts. Face up to it. I claimed it must have been deliberate, based on the evidence provided.

We then get the attack on her, with the famouse photo of her protesting and yelling.

The "peace activist," shown above burning a mock U.S. flag during a rally in the southern Gaza Strip on Feb. 15, 2003". As I pointed out in response to this,

So, why is she not a peace activist. She was yelling, and burning a flag. These are not violent acts against people, or military acts. They are in accordance with non-violent protest. However, the picture is used to 'justify' her death.

And then what, the rest of the article points out that, because the photos were taken some time apart, that the whole issue was debunked. End of story.

She deserved it, and a photo of her protesting earlier may have been misinterpreted as being just before her death.

But hang on, we also get another piece of evidence, if you look closely, she is dying in the next photo after being run over by a bulldozer. Now, debunk that.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.palsolidarity.org/rachel_Joedetails.htm

"suck on" this ben.



The bulldozer continued driving forward headed straight for Rachel. When it got so close that it was moving the earth beneath her, she climbed onto the pile of rubble being pushed by the bulldozer. She got so high onto it that she was at eye-level with the cab of the bulldozer. Her head and upper torso were above the bulldozer's blade, and the bulldozer driver and co-operator could clearly see her. Despite this, he continued forward, which pulled her legs into the pile of rubble, and pulled her down out of view of the driver. If he'd stopped at this point, he may have only broken her legs, but he continued forward, which pulled her underneath the bulldozer.

We ran towards him, and waved our arms and shouted, one activist with the megaphone. But the bulldozer driver continued forward, until Rachel was underneath the cab of the bulldozer. At this point, it was more than clear that she was nowhere but underneath the bulldozer, there was simply nowhere else she could have been, as she had not appeared on either side of the bulldozer, and could not have stayed in front of it that long without being crushed.


Picture taken at 4:45PM on 16 March 2003, Rafah, Occupied Gaza. Other peace activists tend to Rachel after she was fatally injured by the driver of the Israeli bulldozer (in background). This photo was taken seconds after the bulldozer driver dragged his blade over her for the second time while reversing back over her body. He lifted the blade as seen in the photo only after he had dragged it back over Rachel's body. This image clearly shows that had he lifted his blade at any time he may have avoided killing her, as the bottom section of the bulldozer is raised off the ground. Photo by Richard Purssell. (ISM Handout)
Despite the obviousness of her position, the bulldozer began to reverse, without lifting its blade, and dragged the blade over her body again. He continued to reverse until he was on the border strip, about 100 meters away, and left her crushed body in the sand.

Three activists ran to her and began administering first-response medical treatment. Her body was in a mangled position, her face was very bloody, and her skin was turning blue. She said, "My back is broken!," but nothing else. The three activists took care to keep her neck straight, and turned her to her side in case of vomit or blood from the mouth.


Picture taken at 4:47PM on 16 March 2003, Rafah, Occupied Gaza. Rachel Corrie lies on the ground fatally injured by the Israeli bulldozer driver. Rachel's fellow activists have dug her a little out of the sand and are trying to keep her neck straight due to spinal injury. Photo by Joseph Smith. (ISM Handout)
She was showing signs of brain hemmoraging (I found out later from the British medical activist), so they elevated her head in order to allow it to drain blood, as this injury was more serious than simply a spinal injury. They continued to talk to her in attempts to keep her conscious.

The other bulldozer, which had been working about 30 meters to the west, abandoned work and withdrew to the border strip, and parked about 10 meters to the west of the murderous bulldozer. The tank came over to see what had happened, and I shouted that they had run over our friend, and that she may die. The soldiers in the tank never spoke to us, nor did they ask us any questions or offer us any help. They simply talked on their radio and then withdrew to the border strip and parked between the two bulldozers.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Oh, so then her deliberate murder was justified? Wayne,

I can find no justification for any murder.

I'm really sick of the moral blindspot some people have when it comes to Israel. Question, where are the Arab activists demanding the end of suicide bombers? Perhaps there are enough blindspots to go around.

Questions from another thread.

Why do Arabs refuse to acknowledge Israel as a state?

Why do Arab states openly call for the destruction of Israel?

Why do many Arab states give money to support Hesbolah and suicide bombers?

Why do Arabs engage in such fiery rhetoric and evoke Jihad?

Change did not occur in Northern Ireland until enough people on both sides of the conflict spoke out against violence.

Can you site any Arab leaders, clerics or citizens condemning the violence?

Can you site a political Arab group that is based on the idea of peace with Israel?

It should be noted that there are Jewish activists, citizens and religious leaders in Israel and abroad who campaign for peace and condemn the violence on BOTH sides. There are also Jewish political groups and parties that are based upon the idea of peace with the Palestinians. There was a significant offer made by Ehud Barak to Arafat. It was countered with silence. If Arabs want peace then why are they unwilling to compromise in good faith?

If Arabs want peace then where are the Arab activists who condemn the violence on both sides?

Where is the Arab plan that recognizes Israel's right to exist and live in peace?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The counter proposal was no settlements. This was not acceptable to Israel. What is a settlement? It is a piece of land that is Israeli, stuck right in the middle of Palestine, complete with military and restricted roads. What state would accept such a deal? Well I have been wrong before. Can you document this counter proposal?

If so we can then discuss "settlements".

[RandFan]

Participating organizations include Jewish Mobilization for a Just Peace and Bubbes and Zaydes for Middle East Peace (Philadelphia), A Jewish Voice for Peace (San Francisco), Jewish Voices Against the Occupation (Seattle), Jews Against the Occupation (New York), Jews for Peace in Palestine and Israel (Washington, DC), Not in My Name (Chicago), the Tikkun Community, and Visions of Peace with Justice in Israel/Palestine and Jewish Women for Justice in Israel/Palestine (Boston). Such a list demands a question. What are the names of the Arab groups speaking out against Arab violence? Where is the outrage when a Palestinian straps on explosives and blows the limbs off of infants and children? Why are there no Arab groups saying "not in our name?"

[Elektrix]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713
OK, Israel has done bad things, 3 wars in 25 years can dehumanize some people. Both sides have done nasty stuff to each other ever since Israel was founded. The palestineans are in occupied territory conquered in war. If they don't like thier conditions, couldn't they just move to one of the several islamic countries surrounding Israel? All of the arabs claim they hate the Jews and the Americans because of the way we treat Palestineans. All of thes arab countries have a lot of money, they could pay for all of the palestineans to move and build a new house somewhere else. Of course that would be too easy and that would solve everything, but I think they would just prefer killing jews, americans, and the occasional brit. Isn't religion a wonderful thing, brings peace to so many people throughout the world and just might start World War 3.

Grape, the problem with this is that none of the Arab nations that feel such "solidarity" with the Palestinians want to go so far as to offer citizenship to them, as they seem to much prefer them to be permanent refugees.

-Elektrix

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Question, where are the Arab activists demanding the end of suicide bombers? Perhaps there are enough blindspots to go around.

Oh, wait! I forgot! Two wrongs make a right! However, since Israel was the first to use terrorism, that would then excuse the Palestinian use of suicide bombers. The ongoing brutality and murder commited by Israel would justify the suicide bombings as well, wouldn't it?

You say that you can find no justification for murder, but it appears you can find no condemnation for it either--unless it is commited by Palestinians.

I point out moral blindspots and you excuse such behavior with a comment about "enough moral blindspots to go around." We wouldn't want anyone to feel guilty about their dual standards, would we?

Organization of the Islamic Conference calls for halt to suicide bombings. (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020402/world.htm#1) Earlier, Malaysia’s Prime Minister and summit host, Mahathir Mohamad, branded both Palestinian suicide bombers and Israeli soldiers as terrorists and accused the USA of failing to exert restraint over Israel.

Mahathir praised the USA for rallying the world to fight terrorism in the wake of the September 11 suicide hijackings there. “I think the whole world supports (this), but unfortunately the USA has supported the action by the Israeli government which amounts to terrorism,’’ he said.

Arafat calls for halt to suicide bombings. (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/12/16/mideast/)

Palestinian public figures call for halt to suicide bombings. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/20/1023864469813.html)
Prominent Palestinians condemn suicide bombings
June 20 2002
AP

More than 50 Palestinians took out a full-page newspaper ad today condemning suicide bombings, sparking debate at a time when most Palestinians support the attacks as an effective way to hit Israel.

The ad in Al Quds, a leading Palestinian daily, appeared this morning - a day after a suicide bombing killed 19 people on a Jerusalem bus, and hours before another suicide attack killed seven more people at a bus stop in the evening.

In the ad, the Palestinians urged the militant groups behind deadly assaults on Israeli civilians to "stop sending our young people to carry out such attacks".

"We see no results in such attacks, but a deepening of the hatred between both peoples and a deepening of the gap between us," the ad said.

The signatories included Hanan Ashrawi, a leading Palestinian spokeswoman and a legislator, and the Palestinians' senior Jerusalem official, Sari Nusseibeh, along with other prominent figures regarded as moderates. The ad urged other Palestinians to join them in their opposition to the bombings.

I think it is deeply hypocritical to condemn Palestinian terrorism while at the same time inventing excuses for the Israeli atrocities that motivate the suicide bombings.

Israel is an apartheid ethnocracy that has one set of laws for Jews and another for everyone else. If it was wrong for the United States and South Africa to practice apartheid, why is it so justified for Israel to do the same?

Why do bulldozers topple Palestinian homes daily? Is it because those homes are used to transfer arms to terrorists? No! It is because the homes are either in the way of the latest plans for another Jewish settlement on the West Bank or because they were built on Palestinian land without permission from Israel--permission that is virtually impossible to get.

But let's just keep kissing Israel's ass, even after it gave the USSR a treasure trove of US intelligence stolen by Jonathan Pollard in order to get the Soviets to allow more Russian Jews to immigrate to Israel. (What a good "ally!") We wouldn't want anyone to accuse us of being anti-Semitic, would we?

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

But let's just keep kissing Israel's ass, even after it gave the USSR a treasure trove of US intelligence stolen by Jonathan Pollard in order to get the Soviets to allow more Russian Jews to immigrate to Israel. (What a good "ally!") We wouldn't want anyone to accuse us of being anti-Semitic, would we?

Justify this otherwise silly accusation, or there may be no hope for you.

Why should you care whether the Soviet Union won or lost anyway? It was the USSR who financed and armed the Arab side of the 1967 and 1973 wars of aggression to wipe out Israel. America had to save its ally for its own sake. And Americans have been continuing to spy on Israel forever, and continue to do so, even to spend money to influence an Israeli election to get Barak elected.

-Ben

[renata]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Israel has been assassinating journalists and human rights workers in an attempt to shut the world's eyes to its atrocities. "Oh, sorry. It was an accident." "Oh, sorry. He was aiming at some rock thrower (!) that no one else could see."



Can you provide links to the multiple assassinations of journalists and human rights workers by Israel? I recall this was brought up in another thread- death of a journalist, and Skeptic posted a very interesting analysis of that death. http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=377909

I also recall reading at the time of her death, that Corrie's death was the first death of a foreign activist in the last 29 months of fighting. I can not locate a link to this story at this time.


Israel is an apartheid ethnocracy that has one set of laws for Jews and another for everyone else. If it was wrong for the United States and South Africa to practice apartheid, why is it so justified for Israel to do the same?

My understanding is that the only legal distinction between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs is that Israeli Arabs are not required to serve in the military. Veterans do have advantages in getting jobs, but Arabs can volunteer to join the military. Israeli Arabs serve in the Knesset, and I think an Israeli Arab is on Israel's Supreme Court. Do you have information that Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews have different sets of laws applied to them?


But let's just keep kissing Israel's ass, even after it gave the USSR a treasure trove of US intelligence stolen by Jonathan Pollard in order to get the Soviets to allow more Russian Jews to immigrate to Israel. (What a good "ally!") We wouldn't want anyone to accuse us of being anti-Semitic, would we?

I was not aware that Pollard's information went to USSR. I have seen these accusations before, but not any substantiation for them. I find it unlikely that Israel would choose to jeopardize US agents and info and give that information to Soviet Union, quite clearly Israel's enemy. There are allegations that Pollard's info resulted in executions of American spies in the Soviet Union. However, the report that is freuqnelty cited that attributes deaths of US operatives to Pollard was written by Aldrich Ames. That is correct, THAT Ames. Aldrich Ames, a former CIA Chief of Counter-Intelligence in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, who spied directly for the USSR for 9 years, earning millions of dollars, and causing deaths of 10 agents, arrest of at least 30, and compromising at least a 100 covert operations.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Israel is an apartheid ethnocracy that has one set of laws for Jews and another for everyone else. If it was wrong for the United States and South Africa to practice apartheid, why is it so justified for Israel to do the same?

Everyone else?

What about Israeli citizens who are non-Jewish? How are the laws different for them?

MattJ

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Oh, wait! I forgot! Two wrongs make a right! However, since Israel was the first to use terrorism, that would then excuse the Palestinian use of suicide bombers. The ongoing brutality and murder committed by Israel would justify the suicide bombings as well, wouldn't it? I have never argued that two wrongs make a right. I condemn the atrocities on BOTH sides. Please see the thread that I started

Israel gained independence via terrorism. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17711)

You say that you can find no justification for murder, but it appears you can find no condemnation for it either--unless it is committed by Palestinians. Open your eyes.

I point out moral blindspots and you excuse such behavior with a comment about "enough moral blindspots to go around." We wouldn't want anyone to feel guilty about their dual standards, would we? Can you show how this translates into "excuse". I note that there is little if any outrage in the Arab community against the violence committed by the Palestinians. I condemn violence and murder on the part of Israel.

You are wrong to accuse me of a double standard. I would not have started the thread about Israeli terrorism if I had a double standard in regards to this issue.

Arafat calls for halt to suicide bombings. (http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/12/16/mideast/) You have got to be kidding. You don't know that Arafat says one thing to the west and another to the Palestinians? You don't know that he funnels funds to the families of suicide bombers?

Organization of the Islamic Conference calls for halt to suicide bombings. (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020402/world.htm#1) Malaysia's prime minister? Ok...

Palestinian public figures call for halt to suicide bombings. (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/06/20/1023864469813.html) I actually knew of some examples of Palestinians who have sought peace. They are so few and the examples so infrequent that they are hardly worth mentioning. I'll pretend you don't know that Arafat is a two faced liar who says one thing to western media and another to Palestinians.

I think it is deeply hypocritical to condemn Palestinian terrorism while at the same time inventing excuses for the Israeli atrocities that motivate the suicide bombings. Could you reference these inventions of mine? I don't remember inventing excuses for Israel.

Why do bulldozers topple Palestinian homes daily? Is it because those homes are used to transfer arms to terrorists? I have never attempted to excuse such behavior.

We wouldn't want anyone to accuse us of being anti-Semitic, would we? Can you show me an example of where I accuses someone of being anti-Semitic?

Also, could you answer the following.

Why do Arabs refuse to acknowledge Israel as a state?

Why do Arab states openly call for the destruction of Israel?

Why do many Arab states give money to support Hesbolah and suicide bombers?

Why do Arabs engage in such fiery rhetoric and evoke Jihad?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan

Could you reference these inventions of mine? I don't remember inventing excuses for Israel.
I was referring to the excuses put forth by others and your seeming defense of them.

Originally posted by RandFan
Can you show me an example of where I accuses someone of being anti-Semitic?

No, and that was not my point. The threat of being accused of anti-Semitism is one that everyone is fully aware. It exists in our society and on this board. I've seen it thrown at AUP. One idiot on this board even hurled at me. Why? Because in a discussion of terrorism I stated that Palestinians had legitimate grievances, even though their terrorism was not excusable. I also stated that European Jews had legitimate grievances against anti-Semitism, but that their use of terrorism (while trying to create a Jewish state) wasn't justified either. So some prick called me anti-Semitic.

I stated earlier that I wouldn't have time for this board and that is true. The only reason I returned yesterday is that someone posted to an old thread of mine.

I want to say something on behalf of AUP. In what I've read from him, he is consistent in his objections to the abuse of power. To AUP, might does not make right. I believe that if AUP had been a non-Jewish German in the 1930's, he'd have been opposed to the Nazis. And others on this board (and I am not directing this at you, RandFan) who would have been in the same position would have been deriding AUP's patriotism and calling him names, just as now (on other threads) some have had the audacity to call him anti-Semitic.

Lo and behold! Here is an opinion piece that came out today that discusses these same issues. Rachel Corrie deserves justice. (http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20030421/index.php) Rachel Corrie was a 23-year-old American girl who was murdered by the Israelis. She was standing on a large mound of earth trying to stop an Israeli bulldozer from smashing the house of a Palestinian doctor in the Gaza Strip.

The Israeli bulldozer plowed right over her and then backed up, further crushing her frail, young body. Of course, the Israelis claim it was an accident. But there are photographs, taken by her companions as it was happening, that clearly show she was perfectly visible to the bulldozer driver. You can see them on the Internet.

The question for us is, are we going to seek justice for this idealistic American girl, or are we going to allow the spineless, corrupt government in Washington to accept, without investigation, the Israeli excuse, as it always does? It just so happens that Israel has apparently decided to drive out international observers. The Israelis killed Rachel; they shot another international observer in the face and a third one in the head — all within the past few weeks. These are not "militants." They are idealistic young people trying in a nonviolent way to protect Palestinians from Israeli violence.

(snip)

I've begun to think, however, that there is no cure for stupidity and cowardice. Palestinian children will stand in front of a tank and bounce a stone off the turret, but Americans, living in the land of freedom, will say, "Well, I agree with you, but I'm afraid to say anything." Afraid of what? Being slandered? Getting death threats? Take it from me, they don't hurt one bit.

Freedom isn't worth a damn if you're afraid to use it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I want to say something on behalf of AUP. In what I've read from him, he is consistent in his objections to the abuse of power. To AUP, might does not make right. I believe that if AUP had been a non-Jewish German in the 1930's, he'd have been opposed to the Nazis. And others on this board (and I am not directing this at you, RandFan) who would have been in the same position would have been deriding AUP's patriotism and calling him names, just as now (on other threads) some have had the audacity to call him anti-Semitic. I have not read all that AUP has written on the subject. I have never read anything where he decries the violence of the Palestinians. He seems to spend a lot of time defending it. If I am wrong I am certain that someone will point out where he has done just that.

The Israelis killed Rachel; they shot another international observer in the face and a third one in the head — all within the past few weeks. These are not "militants." They are idealistic young people trying in a nonviolent way to protect Palestinians from Israeli violence. I would be heartened if idealistic your people would also try in a nonviolent way to protect Israelis from Palestinian suicide bombers. It seems there isn't the will for such efforts.

[Wayne Grabert]

Here is something you may not be used to seeing. The other side (http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$81) of the story. The introduction below is from Adam Gutride, editor of Jewish Peace News.
[Here is the address that Hanan Ashrawi gave to the UN Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa this weekend. Ms. Ashrawi was a legislator in the Palestinian Authority, until she resigned to protest corruption in Arafat's regime. Recently, she became spokesperson for the Arab League. In this address, Ms. Ashrawi discusses Zionist ideology and the creation of Israel from the perspective of the oppressed and exiled Palestinians. For those who are interested in why so many countries (obviously excluding the U.S.) are tempted to revive the UN resolution equating Zionism with racism, her speech provides a good summary.--AG]
From the speech:

As a Palestinian, as a woman, and on behalf of my people, I stand before you today to lay claim to my/to our humanity. From the non-existent Palestinians ("there is not such thing as Palestinians; they never existed" (Golda Meir, 1969) we have undergone a metamorphosis willfully inflicted upon us byIsraeli-imposed diction and policies that have variously depicted us as "two-legged vermin," "cockroaches," "beasts walking on two legs," a people that have to be exterminated unless they are "resigned to live as slaves," "grasshoppers to be crushed," "crocodiles," and "vipers." [A comprehensive list with representative samples is available]

Such a systematic and racist dehumanization was also accompanied by policies of violent expulsion. "There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries, not one village, not one tribe should be left" (Joseph Weitz, 1940).

"There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews in Eretz Yisrael. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs" (Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1939).

"Zionist colonization must either be terminated or carried out against the wishes of the native population.. It is important to speak Hebrew, but it is even more important to be able to shoot - or else I am through at playing with colonizing" (Vladimir Jabotinsky, 1939).

"We must do everything to insure they never return. The old will die and the young will forget." However, for those that remained in spite of all of Israel's military coercion and attempts at forced expulsion, other (and equally sinister) plans were in the making: "We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters." (David Ben Gurion).

To the rest of the world, we were reduced to the Aristotelian dualism of pity and fear - the pitiful refugees, of the fearful "terrorists." But never were we perceived or addressed in the fullness of our humanity.

The Palestinians today continue to be subject to multiple forms and expressions of racism, exclusion, oppression, colonialism, apartheid, and national denial. Our right to self-determination, hence sovereignty and statehood, has been withheld by force and made subject to the approval of our oppressor. The refugee populations, mostly "stateless people," are bereft of the rudimentary civil, human, political, and national rights, left at the mercy of host countries that view them either as a demographic threat, or as unwelcome guests. While Israel has legislated a "law of return" to bring in Jews from all over the world into historical Palestine, it persists in rejecting the Palestinian refugees' "Right of Return" and in refusing to abide by UN res. 194, a legal commitment which the international community was supposed to guarantee and implement.

The Palestinians who remained in what has become Israel are experiencing in their historical homeland the worst system of apartheid, exclusion, and racial discrimination--their towns and cities either taken over entirely, or turned into ghettos and enclaves as the "non-Jewish" population of Israel. Many continue to be "displaced persons" in their own land, witnesses to the destruction of their villages. Over 500 villages were razed in the original ethnic cleansing campaign that accompanied the creation of the state of Israel. Those of us who came under Israeli occupation in 1967 have languished in the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip under a unique combination of military occupation, settler colonization, and systematic oppression.

Rarely has the human mind devised such varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution. Since 1967, Palestinian land has been expropriated at an increasing pace, while whole Jewish populations have been brought in, in a calculated scheme of settler colonization. Throughout the land, an artificial and colonial grid of infrastructure was superimposed on our authentic reality to create a spurious settler superstructure as a means of Israeli demographic, geographic, and extraterritorial incursions into Palestine.

So-called "bypass roads" for the exclusive use of the illegal Jewish settler population, tear through the heart of Palestinian land, to bypass Palestinian realities and create a unique form of racism. In the meantime, settler vigilantes habitually unleash the full force of their extremism and violence, carrying out campaigns of terror against defenseless Palestinian families and villages. Israel's state terrorism is implemented by both military and settler perpetrators with political duplicity and legal impunity.

Another unique manifestation of Israeli racism is the blatant and sinister policy of "demographic engineering." To maintain the "Jewish character," or the "purity" of the state of Israel, the Palestinians have been depicted and dealt with as a "demographic threat." Proposed "remedies" included calls forforced birth control and "population management," to "transfer" and expulsion of whole communities, to the racist and punitive unilateral "separation" scheme currently being advocated.

In Jerusalem, land expropriation, ID confiscations, home demolitions, withholding of building permits, and the importation of settler colonies within and around the city have become constant elements of Israel's demographic engineering through ethnic cleansing.

(snip)

Sisters and brothers, Never before has an occupation army imposed such a total and suffocating siege on a captive civilian population, then proceeded to shell their homes, bomb their infrastructure, assassinate their activists and leaders, destroy their crops and trees, murder their civilians at will, steal their lands, and then demand that they acquiesce like lambs to the slaughter. Never before have the victims been denied the right to articulate, and gain recognition for, the horrendous atrocities being committed against them as a matter of policy, but were rather blamed and punished for the fact of their victimization.

The oft-repeated dictum that "Israel will not negotiate under fire" applies only to Palestinian "fire" or attempts at self-defense. While Israel must be left unhampered in its fire-shell-assassinate at will policy, the Palestinians must maintain "zero violence" leading to a "cooling off period" that would prepare the way for "confidence-building measures" and ultimately award the Palestinians the coveted "prize" of resuming negotiations with their occupiers.
I hope that RandFan has paid particular attention to that last paragraph.

[Jedi Knight]

If I was Israel I would make a bunch of nuclear weapons and point them at all major cities in Europe. I would call it "Sampson". That way I would make sure that Jews wouldn't wind up in gas chambers ever again.

JK

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I hope that RandFan has paid particular attention to that last paragraph. You see in me something that I am not.

From the non-existent Palestinians ("there is not such thing as Palestinians; they never existed" (Golda Meir, 1969) we have undergone a metamorphosis willfully inflicted upon us byIsraeli-imposed diction and policies that have variously depicted us as "two-legged vermin," "cockroaches," "beasts walking on two legs," a people that have to be exterminated unless they are "resigned to live as slaves," "grasshoppers to be crushed," "crocodiles," and "vipers." And there is no such thing as "Israel" through out the Mid East. It is simply known as the "Zionist Entity."

The oft-repeated dictum that "Israel will not negotiate under fire" applies only to Palestinian "fire" or attempts at self-defense. While Israel must be left unhampered in its fire-shell-assassinate at will policy, the Palestinians must maintain "zero violence" leading to a "cooling off period" that would prepare the way for "confidence-building measures" and ultimately award the Palestinians the coveted "prize" of resuming negotiations with their occupiers. I would be enticed to listen to such Rhetoric if the Palestinians would recognize Israelis right to exist. If they did not have an open call for the destruction of Israel.

Israelis voted for Barak because they wanted peace and were willing to make compromise. I have never seen any such action on the part of the Palestinians that would mirror that of the Israelis. Perhaps such an action is not possible because the Palestinians are not a democracy. I don't know I just have seen little to overcome the incessant cry of Jihad.

If I am wrong I am sure you will show me.

[Jedi Knight]

If I was Israel I would make a bunch of nuclear weapons and point them at all major cities in Europe. I would call it "Sampson". That way I would make sure that Jews wouldn't wind up in gas chambers ever again.

JK

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I hope that RandFan has paid particular attention to that last paragraph. You see in me something that I am not.

From the non-existent Palestinians ("there is not such thing as Palestinians; they never existed" (Golda Meir, 1969) we have undergone a metamorphosis willfully inflicted upon us byIsraeli-imposed diction and policies that have variously depicted us as "two-legged vermin," "cockroaches," "beasts walking on two legs," a people that have to be exterminated unless they are "resigned to live as slaves," "grasshoppers to be crushed," "crocodiles," and "vipers." And there is no such thing as "Israel" through out the Mid East. It is simply known as the "Zionist Entity."

The oft-repeated dictum that "Israel will not negotiate under fire" applies only to Palestinian "fire" or attempts at self-defense. While Israel must be left unhampered in its fire-shell-assassinate at will policy, the Palestinians must maintain "zero violence" leading to a "cooling off period" that would prepare the way for "confidence-building measures" and ultimately award the Palestinians the coveted "prize" of resuming negotiations with their occupiers. I would be enticed to listen to such Rhetoric if the Palestinians would recognize Israelis right to exist. If they did not have an open call for the destruction of Israel.

Israelis voted for Barak because they wanted peace and were willing to make compromise. I have never seen any such action on the part of the Palestinians that would mirror that of the Israelis. Perhaps such an action is not possible because the Palestinians are not a democracy. I don't know I just have seen little to overcome the incessant cry of Jihad.

If I am wrong I am sure you will show me.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Here is something you may not be used to seeing. The other side (http://sftimes.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$81) of the story. The introduction below is from Adam Gutride, editor of Jewish Peace News.

From the speech:


I hope that RandFan has paid particular attention to that last paragraph.

Racist quotes from during the Holocaust?

By the way, the quote attributed to Ben Gurion has been attributed to him, Sharon, Rabin, and most often, and perhaps correctly, Uri Lubrani.

The article gives a compelling description of how Israelis inhumanely treat the non-citizens living in areas they have occupied. However, since those areas are outside the nation of Israel, and those people are not Israeli citizens, it doesn't show that Israel is an apartheid theocracy that has one set of laws for Jews and another for everyone else. Do you have such evidence?

MattJ

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by aerocontrols

The article gives a compelling description of how Israelis inhumanely treat the non-citizens living in areas they have occupied. However, since those areas are outside the nation of Israel, and those people are not Israeli citizens, it doesn't show that Israel is an apartheid theocracy that has one set of laws for Jews and another for everyone else. Do you have such evidence?

MattJ
Apartheid ethnocracy. How about the obvious one? All Jews throughout the world have a "right to return" to Israel, even if they have never before set foot there, but Palestinians who were driven from their homes have no such right.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
I would be heartened if idealistic your people would also try in a nonviolent way to protect Israelis from Palestinian suicide bombers. It seems there isn't the will for such efforts.
They are, RandFan. They are trying to stop the injustice that motivates the suicide bombers. Besides, it's not Israelis who are having their homes bulldozed. It's not Palestinians who have any power in the equation.

For every Israeli who dies from terrorism, at least three Palestinians are killed by Israel. But they don't count, do they? It's not important to ask that Israel end its policy of ethnic cleansing ("transfer") and occupation. No, we must allow the continued collective punishment against Palestinians until the suicide bombings quit for some unspecified time. All the demands must be placed on one side only--the weak side.

So if during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, Kuwaitis went into Baghdad and commited suicide bombings, your position would be what? We'll think about getting Iraq out of Kuwait once the suicide bombings stop?

Your statement about seeing both sides of the story is becoming increasingly absurd. However, I believe that you will try harder.

Okay, this board sucks. I don't have time to reply any longer and I certainly don't have time to hit the [Submit Reply] button and have to wait a few minutes for something to happen.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

They are, RandFan. They are trying to stop the injustice that motivates the suicide bombers. Besides, it's not Israelis who are having their homes bulldozed. It's not Palestinians who have any power in the equation.

If Palestinian violence and terrorism were to end, Israel would have no reason to take defensive countermeasures.
in the many years that have passed since the 1993 Oslo Accords, the PA has done nothing to fulfill its obligation to end the terrorism. On the contrary, the Palestinian leadership has actively encouraged and supported terrorist activities. Clearly, the continued violence is not a function of the Palestinian Authority's ability to prevent terrorism, but rather its desire to do so.


For every Israeli who dies from terrorism, at least three Palestinians are killed by Israel. But they don't count, do they? It's not important to ask that Israel end its policy of ethnic cleansing ("transfer") and occupation. No, we must allow the continued collective punishment against Palestinians until the suicide bombings quit for some unspecified time. All the demands must be placed on one side only--the weak side.

Many of the Palestinian casualties occurred during the first three months of the violence, which were characterized by large-scale confrontations. Far from being peaceful demonstrations, most Palestinian protests can best be described as violent riots with hundreds of Palestinians, some of them armed with lethal weapons, attacking isolated groups of Israeli soldiers. After much of the lethal rioting ended in January 2001, Palestinian casualty figures dropped dramatically.

In addition, Palestinian casualty figures have been manipulated to distort the true picture. Their statistics include a substantial number of Palestinians who died by their own hand (suicide bombers and bomb-makers blown up while preparing explosives) as well as those killed by their fellow Palestinians (suspected "collaborators", victims of internecine violence and neighbors of bomb-makers killed in accidental detonations)

So far, Wayne you have proved to be no different then the other Anti-Israel posters using emotion instead of the facts and manipulating what facts you do use.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Why do bulldozers topple Palestinian homes daily? Is it because those homes are used to transfer arms to terrorists? No! It is because the homes are either in the way of the latest plans for another Jewish settlement on the West Bank or because they were built on Palestinian land without permission from Israel--permission that is virtually impossible to get.


You have made a very far-reaching statement. You have basically implied that all homes destroyed by the Israel are because of Jewish settlements, or lack of permission from Israel for building.

That is simpley wrong.

While I admit that some homes are destroyed for the reasons you suggest, it does not properly describe the situation. You may stick your head in the sand over this, but there are other reasons that homes have been described.

- As I posted, many homes are used in smuggling weapons and prostitutes across the border. (There are tunnels underneath.) This was the situation in the home where the protestor got run over by a buldozer

- Some houses get destroyed because they have been used by snipers (or have been in the past)

- Many homes belong to the relatives of bombers and other terrorists. The destruction of these homes is done to discourage terrorist activity. (The desire to kill Jews may be reduced if you realize your family will be left homeless as a result; similarly, a family will be less likely to encourage their children to become bombers if they know that they will risk their family's accomodation.)

Implying that it is all because of Jewish settlements or building permits is both incorrect, and weakens your position.

[Elektrix]

Also Segnosaur, my understanding is that one of the other reasons for destroying the homes of the families of suicide bombers is to try and offset the financial benefit that some use as a reason to become suicide bombers.... some do it because of the financial reward, but the hope would be that if they see that their familie's homes will be destroyed if they commit a suicide bomb attack, the financial payment they might get from their supporters wouldn't be worth it.

For what it's worth, it does seem like the number of suicide attacks has subsided, and they seem to be doing a better job of stopping suicide attacks before they happen (either getting them while they are planning the attack, or stopping suicide bombers before they are able to get into a crowded area).

-Elektrix

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
For every Israeli who dies from terrorism, at least three Palestinians are killed by Israel. But they don't count, do they? It's not important to ask that Israel end its policy of ethnic cleansing ("transfer") and occupation. No, we must allow the continued collective punishment against Palestinians until the suicide bombings quit for some unspecified time. All the demands must be placed on one side only--the weak side. What demands are you making on the part of the Palestinians?

So if during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, Kuwaitis went into Baghdad and commited suicide bombings, your position would be what? I would condemn the intentional targeting and killing of innocent people, I would be outraged that the Kuwaitis targeted children. I would speak up and ask them to stop. I would also seek to remove Saddam.

Where do you stand when it comes to targeting innocent women and children?

Your statement about seeing both sides of the story is becoming increasingly absurd. However, I believe that you will try harder. I have openly condemned the violence of both sides.

Do you condemn the violence on the part of the Palestinians?

Okay, this board sucks. I don't have time to reply any longer and I certainly don't have time to hit the [Submit Reply] button and have to wait a few minutes for something to happen. I guess that I shouldn’t expect a response then?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
What demands are you making on the part of the Palestinians?

(snip)

Where do you stand when it comes to targeting innocent women and children?

(snip)

Do you condemn the violence on the part of the Palestinians?

I have already mentioned in this thread how I have in prior threads condemned terrorism. I condemn all forms of collective punishment--and moral blindspots.

What demands are you making on Israel?

EDITED TO ADD: Here is what I wrote earlier in this thread: "Because in a discussion of terrorism I stated that Palestinians had legitimate grievances, even though their terrorism was not excusable. I also stated that European Jews had legitimate grievances against anti-Semitism, but that their use of terrorism (while trying to create a Jewish state) wasn't justified either."

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
What demands are you making on Israel? That they stop the violence. That they stop building setlements that they act in a fair and measured way towards the Palestinians.

"Because in a discussion of terrorism I stated that Palestinians had legitimate grievances, even though their terrorism was not excusable. I also stated that European Jews had legitimate grievances against anti-Semitism, but that their use of terrorism (while trying to create a Jewish state) wasn't justified either." Fair enough, now if we could get AUP to agree. If he already has then I apologize. I have never seen such a statement by him even though I have asked.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Elektrix


Grape, the problem with this is that none of the Arab nations that feel such "solidarity" with the Palestinians want to go so far as to offer citizenship to them, as they seem to much prefer them to be permanent refugees.

-Elektrix

Why do the other Arabs have a responsibility to the Palestinians? They are separate 'nations' of racially similar people. Like asking why the Swedish aren't more involved in Irish politics.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
I have not read all that AUP has written on the subject. I have never read anything where he decries the violence of the Palestinians. He seems to spend a lot of time defending it. If I am wrong I am certain that someone will point out where he has done just that.

I would be heartened if idealistic your people would also try in a nonviolent way to protect Israelis from Palestinian suicide bombers. It seems there isn't the will for such efforts.

I think there is a big difference between defending the violence and advocating it and trying to understand just what is happening and why. I would like to think I am following the last path.

I also try to point out that the violence is not only one way, and that Israel is trying to avoid 'headline' events while following a policy that is effectively destroying a culture and people.

As has been shown, non-violent resistance has been shown to be totally ineffective.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
If I was Israel I would make a bunch of nuclear weapons and point them at all major cities in Europe. I would call it "Sampson". That way I would make sure that Jews wouldn't wind up in gas chambers ever again.

JK

Whenever I am feeling down, JK knows how to brighten up my day.

Have you ever thought, JK, that many Jews do not want this patronising b**t? That maybe they are a little more enlightened than you would not want to live in a world where nukes are pointing all over the place again?

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Why do the other Arabs have a responsibility to the Palestinians? They are separate 'nations' of racially similar people. Like asking why the Swedish aren't more involved in Irish politics.


"America" was built on the backs of the Irish.
And the Irish [for the most part] aren't Jews or "Arabs".
Some day you'll get it.
NINA. Saw it when I was a kid.
[It's all a race thing to you. Go fu*k yourself]

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I think there is a big difference between defending the violence and advocating it and trying to understand just what is happening and why. I would like to think I am following the last path.

I also try to point out that the violence is not only one way, and that Israel is trying to avoid 'headline' events while following a policy that is effectively destroying a culture and people.

As has been shown, non-violent resistance has been shown to be totally ineffective. I'm sorry but I still don't know where you stand. Do you condemn the intentional targeting of innocent humans?

[a_unique_person]

I really do wonder how much of the attitudes shown by the likes of JK and Supercharts "I am a Jew", are just patronising claptrap.

I am not Jewish, or Palestinian. I try to see the participants in the current drama as people, with hopes and feelings, and, ultimately, a moral view of the world.

The European Jews suffered terribley in WWII. Jews in the US, however, also suffered discrimination for many years, as did Jews in other countries.

The Pro Israeli attitude reminds me of the 'Pro Black' attitude that has been parodied in many films. One of trying to help someone while understanding nothing about them or showing any real interest in them as individuals.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

As has been shown, non-violent resistance has been shown to be totally ineffective.
Like with Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Like with Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King?

In the Palestinian case. Non violent resistance is met with mostly non lethal force. This force is carefully controlled to ensure that there is no huge backlash. Think of the numerous checkpoints, bulldozers, passes, settlements, beauracratic controls, curfews,
'rubber bullets', etc. You rarely see headlines about mass killings, but the process of control and confinement continues regardless.

As I have posted before, the next stage is the fence which is being constructed to create a huge prison, encircling the West Bank, not just separating the West Bank and Israel. Many of the houses currently being destroyed to search for tunnels are being destroyed to make way for the fence, which spans about 100 meters.



Besides confiscation of the several 100 metres in width for the 300–400 kilometre length of that section of the fence, there is a question about the land that lies on the Israeli side of the fence. The fence bulges into Palestine sometimes as much as five kilometres, twisting away from the current border, and enclosing fertile agricultural lands and aquifers crucial to the land’s productivity. Farmers and shepherds expect that they’ll lose those lands and water resources, permanently.



At present, armed private guards, as well as police and members of the occupying army, deny farmers access to their orchards, fields and greenhouses across the sites where the fence is under construction. When they attempt to go across the construction sites, they’re likely to be met by violence, and must either retreat or face being beaten before they’re driven away. Farmers and shepherds are also picked up by soldiers and detained.



The conflict over the fence construction adds a further insult to the economy of the region, which is being stifled by the army clamp-down on people’s movements and closure of the cities, roads and borders. Farmers and agricultural traders are losing hope of continuing to make a living in this once-profitable industry of citrus fruit, olive, and vegetable cultivation.



What I saw among the people of this region was an accumulation of anger and despair. The construction of the security fence was both a scourge and a symbol of growing animosity between peoples. Being close to this situation reminds me that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is, at its core, about land. And until a just restitution and division of land takes place, there will be no security and no peace.



http://communications.uvic.ca/ring/03feb20/viewpoint/

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
As I have posted before, the next stage is the fence which is being constructed to create a huge prison, encircling the West Bank, not just separating the West Bank and Israel. Many of the houses currently being destroyed to search for tunnels are being destroyed to make way for the fence, which spans about 100 meters. The fence is in response to a feeling of hoplesness on the part of Isralies that they have no security.

Why will you not admit that there is an Israeli side to this story?

Why do you only see things from the Palestinian persepective?

I think there is a big difference between defending the violence and advocating it and trying to understand just what is happening and why. I would like to think I am following the last path.

It is difficult to believe that statement when you never express outrage at the Palestinians but are more than willing to paint the issue in stark terms in favor of the Palestinians.

How about trying to understand the Israelis?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
The fence is in response to a feeling of hoplesness on the part of Isralies that they have no security.

Why will you not admit that there is an Israeli side to this story?

Why do you only see things from the Palestinian persepective?



It is difficult to by that statemen when you never express outrage at the Palestinians but are more than willing to paint the issue in stark terms in favor of the Palestinians.

Because if you read that link, the fence is not about security. It is about imprisonment.

At first I thought the fence would be a good thing, then I read about it, and how it is to be used to encircle the Palestinians, not just separate them. It is also being used to steal more land.

Why is to be used to encircle them on the border with Jordan and Egypt? Only because then Israel will be able to not just co-exist with Palestine, but control it's existence.

[RandFan]

The Israelis have sought many ways to find peace. They have elected numerous leaders in an effort to change the status quo.

We know the Israelis want peace because the have made many attempts at securing peace.

The Palestinians have only sought to kill Israelis. The Palestinians openly call for the destruction of Israel. How can the Israelis be blamed when their only choice for peace is to withdraw to pre war boundries when they know that the Arab nations call for their destruction and they will be vulnerable?

I don't understand, I have been asking the same questions over and over and I am only ignored. Why?

The settlements are wrong. The violence and death are wrong. Why will you AUP not condemn the violence and refusal of the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Because if you read that link, the fence is not about security. It is about imprisonment.

At first I thought the fence would be a good thing, then I read about it, and how it is to be used to encircle the Palestinians, not just separate them. It is also being used to steal more land.

Why is to be used to encircle them on the border with Jordan and Egypt? Only because then Israel will be able to not just co-exist with Palestine, but control it's existence. It doesn't answer the question. I get the picture AUP. It's a one sided deal for you. The Palestinians killing children are justified and the Israelis are evil. It doesn't wash but believe what you will.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
The Israelis have sought many ways to find peace. They have elected numerous leaders in an effort to change the status quo.

We know the Israelis want peace because the have made many attempts at securing peace.

The Palestinians have only sought to kill Israelis. The Palestinians openly call for the destruction of Israel. How can the Israelis be blamed when their only choice for peace is to withdraw to pre war boundries when they know that the Arab nations call for their destruction and they will be vulnerable?

I don't understand, I have been asking the same questions over and over and I am only ignored. Why?

The settlements are wrong. The violence and death are wrong. Why will you AUP not condemn the violence and refusal of the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith?

It helps if good faith is shown on both sides. Even as peace negotiations were being made, Sharon was planning more settlements.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2353851.stm



The accepted international solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appears to be very clear - two states side by side. But the Palestinians are now questioning this.

They say that continued Israeli settlement expansion and road building inside the West Bank may kill off the possibility of a viable Palestinian state.

The danger here is that the Israelis have become so successful in changing the demographics and the geography on the ground that anything left to the Palestinians won't be viable

They accuse Israel of trying to join the dots between settlements, of trying to encircle and cut off Palestinian towns.

Palestinian Liberation Organisation legal advisor Michael Tarazi believes that new Israeli outposts, settlements and roads in the West Bank may have a fatal effect on the possibility of a two state solution.



http://www.pengon.org/wall/politicrep1.html



Following the 1967 Occupation, Israel immediately began an intense campaign to colonize vacant Palestinian lands and to segregate Palestinian built-up areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This was part of a long-term vision of incorporating as much Palestinian land as possible into Israel. During the period 1967 to 1986 Israel implemented a series of plans, such as the Alon and Gush Emunim Plans (named after Israel’s Labor Minister at the time and the ultra-nationalist/fascist settler movement founded in 1974 respectively) with the aim of constructing colonies and segregating the West Bank and Gaza Strip from Egypt and Jordan, whereby it annexed and confiscated over 50% of the West Bank. During this same period, Minister of Agriculture Ariel Sharon (present-day Prime Minister of Israel) spearheaded the colonial philosophy called “Fighting Terrorism,” meant to suppress any form of Palestinian resistance to occupation. Not surprisingly, Sharon’s strategy to “fight terrorism” came hand-in-hand with an intensification of colonial construction by Israel along the Green Line in order to erase the borders between the West Bank and Israel, paving the way for the annexation of all of historic Palestine. Therefore, Sharon’s plan also indicated that there should be corridors of colonies and a network of bypass roads spread all across the West Bank, connecting the Green Line with the Jordan Valley, in the eastern part of the West Bank. The remaining Palestinian lands, which would not be annexed and posed a demographic “concern,” would be unilaterally placed under Israel’s administration. Today’s map of the West Bank, therefore, comes as no surprise (Map 7).

The Oslo ‘Peace’ Process
In 1993, the Declaration of Principles (DoP), as a guide for peace negotiations based on the principles of “Land for Peace and United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338”, was signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). During the 1990s, a series of peace negotiations and interim agreements took place without reaching a final status agreement to end the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Occupied Territories. On the contrary, this period was marked by the classification of the West Bank into six parts (Areas A, B, C, H1, H2 and nature reserves) (Map 7) that formed countless disconnected enclaves encircled by settlements and bypass roads. In fact, before the suspension of negotiations, the most recent offer to Palestinians by Israel was 18.2% of area A (full Palestinian controlled enclave) and 21.8% of area B (Palestinian civil control, Israeli security control). Since the DoP, the gap between peaceful negotiations in rhetoric and what was taking place on the ground was immense. In fact, since 1993, the number of settlers and settlements (new and expanded) have more than doubled, enjoying their largest growth and expansion under the Labor governments. The colonial policies that began in 1967 were seeing some of their greatest achievements during the peace process.




Yes both are wrong, but both need to stop. And one is not going to stop without the other.



Yet there is scant evidence that Israel's massive advantage in firepower is nudging the Palestinians toward compromise, despite Palestinian grumbling about Arafat and the futility of violence. To the contrary, there are signs that Sharon's tactics have further embittered a new generation of Palestinians. Security officials on both sides warn of a growing and inexhaustible supply of Palestinians, including suicide bombers, willing to die to evict Israel from Gaza and West Bank land captured in 1967.

"He feels that if you put enough pressure and weaken [the Palestinians], then eventually they will simply bow to the pressure," said Sari Nusseibeh, a prominent Palestinian scholar and Arafat's top representative in Jerusalem. "But my sense is that he will finally come up against a political mirage."

Sharon bitterly opposed the 1993 Oslo peace accords and refused to shake Arafat's hand on the one occasion they met three years ago. He has never made a secret of his skepticism about the chances of any broad resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. He is determined that Jews must retain as much land in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as possible, even if it means fighting for it.

In an opinion poll published last week in the newspaper Maariv, Israelis by a ratio of 2 to 1 said they think Sharon has no plan to end the violence. That has deepened the despair among many of them, who sense that Sharon can neither protect them from suicide bombers nor lead them to a durable negotiated agreement.

"It's a blood feud and it's not future-oriented but always backward-oriented," said Margalit, the scholar and commentator. To Sharon, "you always settle scores from what happened yesterday, so it's mostly tactics -- whom to hit and when and how."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35821-2002Feb6?language=printer

So, Sharon turns up the pressure, and waits for them to crack. Only he has forgotten that maybe he is just winding them up.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
The Israelis have sought many ways to find peace.
They should try ending the occupation. That would work.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by RandFan
It doesn't answer the question. I get the picture AUP. It's a one sided deal for you. The Palestinians killing children are justified and the Israelis are evil. It doesn't wash but believe what you will.

I didn't say it was justified, but Palestinian children are dying also, due to disease, poor health care, nutrition and water.

Children throwing rocks at tanks are shot.

As I have said many times before, the tactics of resistence are not what I would use, but then, what can you use?

Peaceful protest by Palestinians has been shown to be a waste of time. When a settlement is to be built, it is built. When a house is to be bulldozed, it is knocked down.

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer216/216_halper.html

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer216/graphics/halper-land-confiscation.jpg http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/images/Palestinianlandconfis.JPG

Now, you tell me. The army turns up, heavily armed, with tanks etc, and takes land. The Palestinians are supposed to have no weapons at all. If they attempt to get them, they are criticised publicly.

What are they to do? you tell me.

What is done is terrorist strikes against civilians. Why? What else can they attack? They have no tanks or aircraft. If they did, I am sure they would attack the army. As it is, it is all they can manage to get one bomber through into Israel, and even then, many are caught.

One bomber, every now and then. What is one man to achieve. What he appears to do is bring the terror to Israel that Palestinians are supposed to accept as a part of their everyday life.

http://www.sabeel.org/reports/bypass/



With a reserved look and long sigh, Estephan recounts the day, when upon reading the Arabic daily newspaper Al-Quds, he learned that his family was losing its land. The Administrative General for Internal Affairs on behalf of the Israeli Civil Administration of the Area of Judea and Samaria announced a "general purposes project" the last week in March. Concealed in arbitrary road numbers and legal jargon, the article vaguely describes the construction plans and the land to be used in the road's completion. But for the Salameh Family and other Palestinian residents of Jifna, al-Bireh, Dura al-Qare, Silwad, and Ein Yabroud, whose land will be stolen, the article is anything but sterile. In approximately two months, six and a half dunums of Estephan's land, which has been in his father's family for generations, will be expropriated for the construction of this "bypass" road, which allows Israeli settlers to bypass Palestinian villages en route to their respective settlements. Road 4491, one of the twelve, connects the settlements of Beit El and Ofra, involving the total confiscation of 6,000 dunums (1500 acres) of Palestinian residential, farming and commercial land.

As if to rub salt over the wound, Stephan's family also learned that his mother's land will be rendered useless by the coming bypass road. It unfortunately lies within the "buffer zone," an area (150 m. on each side of the road) in which Palestinians are prohibited from living, building, or planting. Israel maintains that these roads are necessary to insure the "security" of settlers traveling back and forth between their respective colonies. For whose security? This legislation seems bitterly ironic, as over 130 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli settlers during the past decade, including the unprovoked massacre of 29 Muslim worshippers in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron in 1994 by Dr. Baruch Goldstein, an American-born settler.

[a_unique_person]

Israelis dub Jenin probe 'anti-Semitic' - Describing Israel's frenzied efforts to impede investigation into what happened during military incursions in Jenin, after being cautioned by a legal advisor that a UN investigation could lay the foundation for war crimes charges.

UN agrees to Jenin probe - Describing the unanimous Security Council vote to send a fact-finding mission to Jenin, following diplomatic pressure from Israel and the United States to prevent the grant of investigative powers.

Israel refuses to co-operate with UN human rights mission - Describing a decision by the United Nations to call off a human rights mission to the Palestinian territories to look into rights abuses after Israeli authorities refused to co-operate.

Israel tells UN it will welcome Jenin fact-finding mission - Describing a reversal of Israel's initial refusal, and its announcement that it will permit a fact-finding mission to look into its recent military actions against the Palestinians, and U.S. support for the investigation.

There should be a UN inquiry into the deaths at Jenin - Asserting that it is in the best interests of all parties to have the UN fully investigate allegations of misconduct by Israeli troops during the military incursion.

UN in crisis meeting as Israel snubs mission - Describing Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations fact-finding mission into what happened during its military incursion into Jenin, and Israel's objection to the mission being able to select its own witnesses.

UN struggles to save face over Jenin - Describing the threat to Kofi Annan's credibility in the face of Israel's refusal to allow a U.N. fact-finding mission, and British dipolomatic pressure that if Israel has nothing to hide they should allow the mission to proceed.

UN will disband Jenin team rather than yield to Israel - Describing that Kofi Annan prefers to end efforts to send a fact-finding mission to Jenin, rather than concede to Israel's demands to change its composition and mission, and suggesting a secret deal by the United States not to pressure Israel on the issue.

Last-ditch UN talks to save Jenin inquiry - Describing efforts by the Security Council to achieve its objective to send a fact-finding mission to Jenin, despite Israel's refusal to cooperate, and a human rights report suggesting that Israel committed war crimes.

Jenin: A missed opportunity - Describing as unfortunate Kofi Annan's decision to cancel the fact-finding mission in the face of Israel's intransigence, and noting the irony of initial statements from Israel that they would welcome investigation and had nothing to hide.



http://www.searchuk.com/TOP/Society/Issues/Warfare_and_Conflict/Specific_Conflicts/Middle_East/Israel-Palestine/Background_and_History/Field_of_Thorns/Defensive_Shield/Jenin/United_Nations_Fact-Finding_Mission/

Says it all. Israel does nothing wrong, there are no headlines of killing by Israel, but no one is allowed to check. If you believe that Israel is not involved in the deaths of children too, you are being very naieve.

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


It helps if good faith is shown on both sides. Even as peace negotiations were being made, Sharon was planning more settlements.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2353851.stm



http://www.pengon.org/wall/politicrep1.html




Yes both are wrong, but both need to stop. And one is not going to stop without the other.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35821-2002Feb6?language=printer

So, Sharon turns up the pressure, and waits for them to crack. Only he has forgotten that maybe he is just winding them up.


Well let’s look more into this question of settlements.

WE HAVE recently witnessed an attempt to focus atten- tion on a side issue which is not central to the real problems in the Middle East and irrelevant for any future peace agreement. Jewish settlements in the administered areas, which havce not wrongfully dispossessed a single Arab, which have not cost a single life, and which were never an issue in the Middle East conflict, have now become the focal point for worldwide alarm and condemnation

First, it should be recalled that seven Arab armies, including the Transjordanian Legion, invaded Palestine on May 15, 1948, with the avowed purpose of destroying the State of Israel at its birth. As was stated by a Soviet delegate in the Security Council at the time:

". .. . an armed struggle is taking place in Palestine as a result of the unlawful invasion by a number of states of the territory of Palestine, which does not form part of the territory of any of the states whose armed forces have invaded it.


In 1967 Israel was again the victim of aggression as Arab leaders openly vowed to annihilate Israel. Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran and moved its armies into Sinai while Jordan ignored Israel's advice to keep out of the war and launched a military attack on Israel, shelling towns and villages, including the Holy City of Jerusalem.

There is, however, still a further aspect to the question of the settlements which has been totally overlooked. For centuries Jews have owned land in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and have of course lived there. They lived on these lands during the period of the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate. They were driven out by Jordanian and Egyptian aggression, which was not recognized by the Arab international community, let alone by the general international community.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7142

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Baker

Well let’s look more into this question of settlements.


You're a crackpot. Like all other knee-jerk, blind apologists for Israel, you rely on propaganda, distortions, lies and emotion rather than facts and logic.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker



Well let’s look more into this question of settlements.



And as I have said before, the creation of the state of Israel was a mistake. To salve the consciences of Europeans who were responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, they made the Arabs pay the price!

Do you think the Arabs are not going to react to what was an invasion of their land?

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


I didn't say it was justified, but Palestinian children are dying also, due to disease, poor health care, nutrition and water.

Children throwing rocks at tanks are shot.

As I have said many times before, the tactics of resistence are not what I would use, but then, what can you use?

Peaceful protest by Palestinians has been shown to be a waste of time. When a settlement is to be built, it is built. When a house is to be bulldozed, it is knocked down.

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer216/216_halper.html



Now, you tell me. The army turns up, heavily armed, with tanks etc, and takes land. The Palestinians are supposed to have no weapons at all. If they attempt to get them, they are criticised publicly.

What are they to do? you tell me.

What is done is terrorist strikes against civilians. Why? What else can they attack? They have no tanks or aircraft. If they did, I am sure they would attack the army. As it is, it is all they can manage to get one bomber through into Israel, and even then, many are caught.

One bomber, every now and then. What is one man to achieve. What he appears to do is bring the terror to Israel that Palestinians are supposed to accept as a part of their everyday life.

http://www.sabeel.org/reports/bypass/



Once again lets just forget the facts and go for an emotion plea.
Your little campaign of lies and propaganda are not going to work AUP I have studied every aspect of this conflict and I plan to call you on all your claims.
All add more to this later.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Do you think the Arabs are not going to react to what was an invasion of their land?
Not to overlook that by the time the seven Arab armies attacked, Israel, which has never declared its borders, was already involved in expanding beyond the UN partition and driving Palestinians from their homes. They were engaging in atrocities like that at Deir Yassin. (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2082/2_63/72435149/print.jhtml) So were the Arab armies aggressors or defenders?
Between 9 and 11 April 1948, over 100 Arab townspeople were massacred by Jewish paramilitaries in Deir Yassin near Jerusalem in the British Mandate of Palestine. The incident was pivotal in modern Middle East history, becoming in one Israeli historian's words, "a landmark in the chronicles of the Israel-Arab conflict and a symbol of the horrors of war."(1) It greatly stimulated Palestinian Arab refugee flight and appears to have been critical in the final decision of the Arab states to intervene directly in Palestine in 1948 to thwart the creation of the state of Israel. The Deir Yassin incident, therefore, is intimately connected to the two main issues that have defined the Arab-Israeli conflict: the armed hostility to Israel by the Arab states and the enduring Palestinian refugee issue.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
They should try ending the occupation. That would work. Do you mean return to the pre-war boundaries?

As I have said the Israelis launched a counter attack and seized land because the Arabs were threatening to "drive Israel into the sea".

With the exception of Egypt that is still the stated goal. Since the destruction of Israel is the stated goal then what does Israel have to gain to go back to pre-war boundaries?

The Palestinians are not even willing to state that they will recognize Israel's right to existence under any circumstance so how is your suggestion helpful?

Or are you suggesting that Israel should cease to exist?

It should be noted that Israel has offered to relinquish land for peace (see graphic at beginning of thread).

[renata]

Wayne,
This thread is jumping around. I count multiple inflammatory, and in my understanding unsupported statements from you, all related via only one characteristic- Israel is bad. Yesterday I chose three of your claims
-Israel assassinated journalists and foreign protestors
-Israel has different sets of laws for Jewish citizens and for citizens that are not Jewish
-Israeli spy Pollard have Israel information that they passed on the the USSR, causing grave damage to American interests there.

and I asked you to provide evidence for them. You must have missed my post, as I did not see you address those issues
Can you please read my earlier post and respond to it? It is not conducive to debate if an instance someone is challenged on a particular accusation, instead of supporting the original accusation, a new one is made.
Thanks

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
One bomber, every now and then. What is one man to achieve. What he appears to do is bring the terror to Israel that Palestinians are supposed to accept as a part of their everyday life. Assuming your characterization of events are accurate and I don't necessarily. Such tactics have had zero effect. You decry non-violent efforts as fruitless but what is gained by blowing up children. Nothing, in fact it only makes thing worse.

More homes are bulldozed more people are killed. In fact there is a direct correlation between the actions of the Israelis and the suicide bombings. The more suicide bombings the more pressure from Israel. What honestly do the Palestinians expect to gain? Do they want them to negotiate? They (the Israelis) have negotiated and have made an offer. What will more suicide bombing bring? A better offer? I'm dumbfounded, non-violence doesn't work but then neither does violence but let's keep doing the violence. ???

When a suicide bomber successfully kills civilians, it doesn't slow down the violence on the part of the Israelis, it only accelerates it. So how is it useful? How is it better than non-violent methods?

I would really like to know this one. Why would the Palestinians continue in an effort that only brings them death and loss and no gains whatsoever? Now it is going to bring them a fence that they don't want. I'm at a loss AUP, why?

I think at this point in history that if the Palestinians used non-violent means then Israel would be forced to change. There would be an outcry from every corner of the world. America could no longer sit by and do nothing. America would be forced to intercede. As it is the United States can point to the violence on the part of the Palestinians as justification for inaction.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Do you mean return to the pre-war boundaries?
Yes.

Originally posted by RandFan
As I have said the Israelis launched a counter attack and seized land because the Arabs were threatening to "drive Israel into the sea".

With the exception of Egypt that is still the stated goal. Since the destruction of Israel is the stated goal then what does Israel have to gain to go back to pre-war boundaries?

The Palestinians are not even willing to state that they will recognize Israel's right to existence under any circumstance so how is your suggestion helpful?

Or are you suggesting that Israel should cease to exist?

It should be noted that Israel has offered to relinquish land for peace (see graphic at beginning of thread).
What kind of ******** propaganda have you been reading, RandFan? This "drive Israel into the sea" is as old as it is nutty. The Palestinians, through the Oslo Accords, have recognized Israel's right to exist. The Arab League has offered to recognize Israeli sovereignty and to have normal diplomatic relations. A brief summary of Israeli history: (http://www.time.com/time/europe/me/daily/0,13716,220610,00.html)

1993: After secret talks, Israel and the P.L.O. sign the Oslo Accords, in which Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist and accept an overall peace process that implements U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338. In return, Israel agrees to negotiate Palestinian self-determination and a military withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
1996: An Arab League summit in Cairo declares that peace is a "strategic option" for Arab states.
2002: Eighteen months after the start of a new Palestinian uprising, an Arab League summit meeting in Beirut considers a peace initiative proposed by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. It calls on Israel to withdraw from the remaining territories occupied in the 1967 war in exchange for "normal relations" with all Arab states.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by renata
Wayne,
This thread is jumping around. I count multiple inflammatory, and in my understanding unsupported statements from you, all related via only one characteristic- Israel is bad. Yesterday I chose three of your claims
-Israel assassinated journalists and foreign protestors
-Israel has different sets of laws for Jewish citizens and for citizens that are not Jewish
-Israeli spy Pollard have Israel information that they passed on the the USSR, causing grave damage to American interests there.

and I asked you to provide evidence for them. You must have missed my post, as I did not see you address those issues
Can you please read my earlier post and respond to it? It is not conducive to debate if an instance someone is challenged on a particular accusation, instead of supporting the original accusation, a new one is made.
Thanks
If you were to keep up with the news or read my posts more carefully, then you'd have seen that I addressed the first two of your points. The opinion piece I quoted mentions the shooting of three protesters and I put that part in bold. He wasn't making that up. I was aware of the stories before then. To be fair, they probably were not given much coverage in the US media.

I mentioned the rights of return issue.

You can research the Pollard case yourself. Here is something (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/1098/9810021.html) I found quickly.
Holding an opposite view was Caspar Weinberger, secretary of defense in 1985 and 1986 when Pollard was arrested and sentenced to life in prison. Weinberger said Pollard should be shot. The secretary of defense also wrote a closely held 40-page memorandum to the judge hearing the case against Pollard, detailing just how badly his espionage had hurt the United States.

Measured by volume alone, Pollard‹s thefts were unprecedented. The U.S. General Accounting Office, in an article on domestic espionage, concluded that Pollard stole 800,000 pages of intelligence. The Washington Report has concluded, based on figures carried in the newspapers and on conversations with prosecutors familiar with the case, that the volume of highly classified material stolen by Pollard would fill 75 regular-size office file cabinets.

(snip)

The Weinberger memorandum is still closely held, but some of its points have úleaked.î None of these put Pollard in a better light.

Some of Pollard‹s thefts reached Soviet hands. Several of our intelligence agents (not the CIA case officers who handle the agents) were killed, apparently because the KGB could figure out, based on material stolen by Pollard, who they were. The location of U.S. defense installations and units also reached the U.S.S.R., according to some earlier news items.

How had the contents of documents Pollard stole reached the Soviets? Had he stolen intelligence that they wanted? Was this on orders from his Israeli handlers? The úanswerî in the American press, reprinted from the Israeli press, acknowledged, in effect, that American intelligence had reached the Soviet Union from Israeli sources. The úexplanationî originating from Israeli government sources was that Israeli intelligence had been penetrated by a Soviet úmoleî who stole the documents for Moscow.

The mole story explains úhowî American secret documents might have reached Moscow but does not explain what Israel was doing with these documents in the first place. Was the Israeli story that Pollard stole only information about the Arabs false?

From Seymour Hersh: (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/576453/posts) The President's willingness to consider clemency for Pollard so upset the intelligence community that its leaders took an unusual step: they began to go public. In early December, four retired admirals who had served as director of Naval Intelligence circulated an article, eventually published in the Washington Post, in which they argued that Pollard's release would be "irresponsible" and a victory for what they depicted as a "clever public relations campaign." Since then, sensitive details about the secrets Pollard gave away have been made public by CBS and NBC.

(snip)

Officials are loath to talk publicly about it, but spying on allies is a fact of life: the United States invests billions annually to monitor the communications of its friends. Many American embassies around the world contain a clandestine intercept facility that targets diplomatic communications. The goal is not only to know the military and diplomatic plans of our friends but also to learn what intelligence they may be receiving and with whom they share information. "If a friendly state has friends that we don't see as friends," one senior official explained, sensitive intelligence that it should not possess -- such as that supplied by Pollard -- "can spread to others." Many officials said they were convinced that information Pollard sold to the Israelis had ultimately wound up in the hands of the Soviet Union.

(snip)

Pollard was paid well by the Israelis: he received a salary that eventually reached twenty-five hundred dollars a month, and tens of thousands of dollars in cash disbursements for hotels, meals, and even jewelry. In his pre-sentencing statement to Judge Robinson, Pollard depicted the money as a benefit that was forced on him. "I did accept money for my services," he acknowledged, but only "as a reflection of how well I was doing my job." He went on to assert that he had later told his controller, Rafi Eitan, a longtime spy who at the time headed a scientific-intelligence unit in Israel, that "I not only intended to repay all the money I'd received but, also, was going to establish a chair at the Israeli General Staff's Intelligence Training Center outside Tel Aviv."

(snip)

There was no such public specificity, however, when it came to the top-secret materials that Pollard had passed on to Israel. In mid-1986, he elected to plea-bargain rather than face a trial. The government agreed with alacrity: no state secrets would have to be revealed, especially about the extent of Israeli espionage. After the plea bargain, the Justice Department supplied the court with a classified sworn declaration signed by Caspar W. Weinberger, the Secretary of Defense, which detailed, by categories, some of the intelligence systems that had been compromised. Judge Robinson, for his part, said nothing in public about the scope of the materials involved in the case, and merely noted at the end of a lengthy sentencing hearing, in March, 1987, that he had "read all of the material once, twice, thrice, if you will." He then sentenced Pollard to life in prison.

(snip)

ESTHER POLLARD and her husband s other supporters are mistaken in believing that Jonathan Pollard caused no significant damage to American national security. Furthermore, according to senior members of the American intelligence community, Pollard's argument that he acted solely from idealistic motives and provided Israel only with those documents which were needed for its defense was a sham designed to mask the fact that he was driven to spy by his chronic need for money.

(snip)

The documents that Pollard turned over to Israel were not focussed exclusively on the product of American intelligence -- its analytical reports and estimates. They also revealed how America was able to learn what it did -- a most sensitive area of intelligence defined as "sources and methods." Pollard gave the Israelis vast amounts of data dealing with specific American intelligence systems and how they worked. For example, he betrayed details of an exotic capability that American satellites have of taking off-axis photographs from high in space. While orbiting the earth in one direction, the satellites could photograph areas that were seemingly far out of range. Israeli nuclear-missile sites and the like, which would normally be shielded from American satellites, would thus be left exposed, and could be photographed. "We monitor the Israelis," one intelligence expert told me, "and there's no doubt the Israelis want to prevent us from being able to surveil their country." The data passed along by Pollard included detailed information on the various platforms -- in the air, on land, and at sea -- used by military components of the National Security Agency to intercept Israeli military, commercial, and diplomatic communications.

At the time of Pollard's spying, select groups of American sailors and soldiers trained in Hebrew were stationed at an N.S.A. listening post near Harrogate, England, and at a specially constructed facility inside the American Embassy in Tel Aviv, where they intercepted and translated Israeli signals. Other interceptions came from an unmanned N.S.A. listening post in Cyprus. Pollard's handing over of the data had a clear impact, the expert told me, for "we could see the whole process" -- of intelligence collection -- "slowing down." It also hindered the United States' ability to recruit foreign agents. Another senior official commented, with bitterness, "The level of penetration would convince any self-respecting human source to look for other kinds of work."

A number of officials strongly suspect that the Israelis repackaged much of Pollard's material and provided it to the Soviet Union in exchange for continued Soviet permission for Jews to emigrate to Israel. Other officials go further, and say there was reason to believe that secret information was exchanged for Jews working in highly sensitive positions in the Soviet Union. A significant percentage of Pollard's documents, including some that described the techniques the American Navy used to track Soviet submarines around the world, was of practical importance only to the Soviet Union. One longtime C.I.A. officer who worked as a station chief in the Middle East said he understood that "certain elements in the Israeli military had used it" -- Pollard's material -- "to trade for people they wanted to get out," including Jewish scientists working in missile technology and on nuclear issues. Pollard's spying came at a time when the Israeli government was publicly committed to the free flow of Jewish emigres from the Soviet Union. The officials stressed the fact that they had no hard evidence -- no "smoking gun," in the form of a document from an Israeli or a Soviet archive -- to demonstrate the link between Pollard, Israel, and the Soviet Union, but they also said that the documents that Pollard had been directed by his Israeli handlers to betray led them to no other conclusion.

High-level suspicions about Israeli-Soviet collusion were expressed as early as December, 1985, a month after Pollard's arrest, when William J. Casey, the late C.I.A. director, who was known for his close ties to the Israeli leadership, stunned one of his station chiefs by suddenly complaining about the Israelis breaking the "ground rules." The issue arose when Casey urged increased monitoring of the Israelis during an otherwise routine visit, I was told by the station chief, who is now retired. "He asked if I knew anything about the Pollard case," the station chief recalled, and he said that Casey had added, "For your information, the Israelis used Pollard to obtain our attack plan against the U.S.S.R. all of it. The coordinates, the firing locations, the sequences. And for guess who? The Soviets." Casey had then explained that the Israelis had traded the Pollard data for Soviet emigres. "How's that for cheating?" he had asked.

In subsequent interviews, former C.I.A. colleagues of Casey's were unable to advance his categorical assertion significantly. Duane Clarridge, then in charge of clandestine operations in Europe, recalled that the C.I.A. director had told him that the Pollard material "goes beyond just the receipt in Israel of this stuff." But Casey, who had many close ties to the Israeli intelligence community, hadn't told Clarridge how he knew what he knew. Robert Gates, who became deputy C.I.A. director in April, 1986, told me that Casey had never indicated to him that he had specific information about the Pollard material arriving in Moscow. "The notion that the Russians may have gotten some of the stuff has always been a viewpoint," Gates said, but not through the bartering of emigres. "The only view I heard expressed was that it was through intelligence operations" -- the K.G.B.

In any event, there was enough evidence, officials told me, to include a statement about the possible flow of intelligence to the Soviet Union in Defense Secretary Weinberger's top-secret declaration that was presented to the court before Pollard's sentencing. There was little doubt, I learned from an official who was directly involved, that Soviet intelligence had access to the most secret information in Israel. "The question," the official said, "was whether we could prove it was Pollard's material that went over the aqueduct. We couldn't get there, so we suggested" in the Weinberger affidavit that the possibility existed. Caution was necessary, the official added, for "fear that the other side would say that 'these people are seeing spies under the bed.' "

(snip)

A retired Navy admiral who was directly involved in the Pollard investigation told me, "There is no question that the Russians got a lot of the Pollard stuff. The only question is how did it get there?"

This is not the original report on the murdered journalist (http://www.yourmailinglistprovider.com/pubarchive.php?iapinfo+1073) that I read, but it nonetheless reports the facts. However, in the original story that I read (perhaps in yahoo.news) the wotnesses (other journalists) reported that they saw the soldier aim directly at the cameraman.

Here is more on the discriminatory laws (http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0198/9801088.html) in Israel from Israel Shahak. Dr. Shahak died a couple years ago. He was an Israeli citizen, Holocaust survivor, and an internationally known human rights worker.

Naturally, when Israel was ruled by the true believers in the Zionist faith, its laws and regulations were shaped accordingly, but also with due regard to the needs of Israeli propaganda. The key law is "Israeli Land Law," which set up a government-appointed body called the "Israel Land Authority" (ILA), controlled by a board partly appointed by the government and partly by the World Zionist Organization through its subsidiary branch, the "Jewish National Fund" (JNF), to control all the land owned by the state. A key paragraph in the law states that ILA will administer its land according to the regulations of JNF. The regulations of the latter strictly prohibit all non-Jews from benefiting in any way from JNF land and by this simple trick the Israeli state lands (92 percent of the area of Israel) were removed from the use of non-Jews.

In the old days of Zionist purity, until about 1980, this apartheid system was strictly observed and enforced, but—as also happened in South Africa—it was then found that apartheid, especially if strictly enforced, interferes with money-making. As Israel became richer, especially since about 1987, and as Israeli Arabs also benefited from this enrichment to a limited extent (currently the average income of an Arab family in Israel is 70 percent of the average income of a Jewish family), it became increasingly difficult to prevent Arabs from purchasing flats in the neighborhoods formerly strictly reserved for Jews. Most Jews, at least in the towns, have come to accept the new situation.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
This "drive Israel into the sea" is as old as it is nutty.

THE PLO´S PHASED PLAN (http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/PLOPHASED_PLAN_1974/plophased_plan_1974.asp)

In the October 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Arab states launched a surprise attack against Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. Once again they tried to eliminate Israel, further motivated this time by the desire to redeem their honor after their major defeat in the 1967 Six-Day War. Though Israel was initially caught off guard, it then regrouped and repelled the Arab attack, but not before incurring heavy casualties.

The war convinced the Arabs that they would not be able to destroy Israel militarily within its post-1967 boundaries. Thus they embarked upon a new three-stage strategy for Israel's destruction, embodied in the PLO's 1974 decision commonly known as the Phased Plan. Yeah, just nutty paranoia on the part of Israel. The fact that the Arab states were preparing to launch an attack in '67 and did launch an attack in '74 are incidental I'm sure. Israel has nothing to fear, right?

We will have to agree to disagree Wayne, Arafat and the interim Palestinian government broke many of the Oslo agreements. Why should Israel assume that the Arabs have really given up on their desire to destroy Israel?

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yeah, just nutty paranoia on the part of Israel. The fact that the Arab states were preparing to launch an attack in '67 and did launch an attack in '74 are incidental I'm sure. Israel has nothing to fear, right?
Ah, so you've been relying on UnitedJerusalem.com and 30-year-old history. And it is nutty paranoia--and convenient propaganda for not dealing honestly with the situation. Israel has by far the most powerful military in the region, has a nuclear arsenal, and the full support of the United States. So what do they have to fear, RandFan? Get real.

Originally posted by RandFan
We will have to agree to disagree Wayne, Arafat and the interim Palestinian government broke many of the Oslo agreements. Why should Israel assume that the Arabs have really given up on their desire to destroy Israel?
So Israel has been steadfast in sticking to the Oslo agreements and the Palestinian Authority has broken them. Care to document this, please? (And please rely on a somewhat objective source.)

[Wayne Grabert]

RandFan, here is some information (http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0105/article/010512b.html) on the Oslo Agreements from a Jewish organization that maintains fairness. Since you are learning aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian issue at this time, I suggest you read the entire article.

The first meaningful agreement between Israel and the PLO was the Oslo Accords of 1993, the terms of which were the mutual recognition of Israel and the PLO, and a five-year transitional period under which Israel would gradually withdraw its troops and administrative structure from the major Palestinian population centers. At the end of the transitional period, there would be a permanent settlement. In turn, Arafat promised to end anti-Israeli violence in the territories and to suppress all forms of terrorism, even agreeing to direct cooperation with Israeli security forces.

Although the Oslo accords did not quite specify that a permanent settlement must include the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, there was no doubt that this was the universal expectation of the Palestinians, the United States, the international community, and indeed of the Israeli government and public opinion. The more serious flaw of Oslo was that it postponed until the final status negotiations all the other difficult issues: the borders of the Palestinian state, the Jerusalem issue, the disposition of the Israeli settlements, and the refugee issue.

Arafat was severely criticized by many Palestinians for these gaping loopholes in the Oslo agreements, and in retrospect the critics were right. What perhaps could not have been foreseen was the extent to which the Rabin, Peres, and—of course—Netanyahu governments remained committed to a hard-line position that, in effect, would have prevented any truly viable independent Palestinian state from being created.

In the next few years, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres violated both the spirit and the letter of the Oslo agreements. When in October 1995 Rabin announced before the Knesset his detailed plans for a permanent settlement, it was clear his conception differed dramatically from the international consensus on the meaning of Oslo. Rabin stated the following: there would be no return to the pre-1967 borders; a united Jerusalem, including settlements in East Jerusalem and its suburbs, would remain under exclusive Israeli sovereignty; most of the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza would stay in place under Israeli sovereignty; a wide-ranging series of Israeli-only new roads would be built throughout the territories to ensure free access to and military control over the settlements; Israel would retain settlements and military bases in the Jordan River Valley, deep inside Palestinian territory; and the Palestinians would receive an "entity" that would be the "home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.… We would like this to be less than a state."

Over the next five years, Israel implemented Rabin's conception of peace with the Palestinians. Even if Israel had finally agreed to a Palestinian "state" on these terms, the Palestinians would have ended up with a series of isolated enclaves on less than 50 percent of the West Bank and Gaza, cut off from each other and surrounded by Israeli settlers and military bases, and with little or no control of their water resources.

Even the letter of the Oslo accords has often been disregarded by all Israeli governments since 1993: the scheduled series of Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank was repeatedly delayed and has still not been completed; many Palestinian prisoners that Israel had committed to release remain in jail; the promised Palestinian air field in Gaza was delayed; detailed provisions requiring free Palestinian passageway between Gaza and the West Bank, as well as free access of people, vehicles, and goods within the territories, have often been interrupted by Israeli closures that cause great personal and economic hardship; Palestinians living outside Jerusalem are often prevented from attending services at the Muslim mosques on the Temple Mount; and tax collections and money from the sale of Palestinian goods that was to have been transferred by Israel to the Palestinian authority has been frequently held up.

Yet, until the Al-Aqsa Intifada in late 2000, with the exceptions of brief periods following the Goldstein massacre in Hebron and the 1996 Peres-authorized Israeli assassination of a Palestinian activist accused of terrorism, the Palestinians complied with their obligation to end violence and terrorism, and the Palestinian security forces under Arafat worked hand in hand with Israeli security forces, often in joint patrols, to identify and jail extremists and suspected terrorists, some of them from lists drawn up by the Israelis.

[Wayne Grabert]

From that same article I've cited above, I'll quote the following passage because it discusses something that AUP and I traded views on:

In any case, when the Palestinians finally exploded with rage last fall, Arafat had few options. Perhaps in theory he could have chosen the course of nonviolent resistance, following the examples of Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela. But even if he had been so inclined personally, he could not have imposed such a demanding strategy on his own people, whose sufferings and frustration had only increased since Oslo. Moreover, there is plenty of reason to doubt that nonviolent resistance would have moved the Israelis to make the kinds of concessions necessary to produce a genuine peace with the Palestinians: a return of Israel to the pre-June 4, 1967 lines (with some minor and equitable territorial trades that would allow the incorporation of some Israeli settlements into Israel); the complete Israeli military withdrawal from all the occupied territories; the dismantling of the remaining settlements, including the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem; the turning over of most or all of the West Bank water aquifers to the Palestinians; Palestinian sovereignty over their mosques on the Temple Mount; a fair and equitable partition of Jerusalem; and some kind of fair solution to the refugee problem.

In short, in light of an impasse that was unlikely to be broken for years to come, if ever, an Arafat willingness to continue to prolong the agreements or settle for "interim agreements" would have allowed Barak—and now Sharon—to continue the traditional Israeli policy of "creating facts on the ground," making it increasingly unlikely that a fair settlement would ever be reached.

Still, the use of violence—even in a just cause—is bound to be highly problematic, both for the obvious moral reasons and also on practical grounds. That is the case for the present Palestinian revolution, not least because it has produced Ariel Sharon. Yet, it is an issue over which reasonable people can and do disagree, and there is no gainsaying the dilemma: after all, if it had not been for the first Palestinian uprising, the Intifada of the late 1980s, Israel would have refused even to meet with the Palestinians, let alone make any concessions to them.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Ah, so you've been relying on UnitedJerusalem.com and 30-year-old history. And it is nutty paranoia--and convenient propaganda for not dealing honestly with the situation. Israel has by far the most powerful military in the region, has a nuclear arsenal, and the full support of the United States. So what do they have to fear, RandFan? Get real.

So Israel has been steadfast in sticking to the Oslo agreements and the Palestinian Authority has broken them. Care to document this, please? (And please rely on a somewhat objective source.) A little poison in the well Wayne? I can only use sources that you aprove of?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=433121#post433121

Of course ,,, Israel has no right to exist , and soon I’ll give u evidences from the Jews holy book (I do not know its name in English in Arabic we call it Twrat) that jews do not have the right to make a state. To be fair he also said,

At this time Israel not endanger to be attacked from any Arab country...
Hesbollah attacks are just a reaction of Israeli’s, and Syria will not attack Israel because we in Syria know that we’ll lose a war against Israel because the US will attack Syria if Syria attacked Israel. Though I really don't think that the second (it was actually his first) statement nulifies the first.

Wayne
Get real It's hard to continue a discussion if you are going to be patronizing.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
To be fair he also said,


Whom are you quoting? Why is it relevant?

I expect you to use sources that are reliable.

[RandFan]

In any case, when the Palestinians finally exploded with rage last fall, Arafat had few options. Perhaps in theory he could have chosen the course of nonviolent resistance, following the examples of Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela. But even if he had been so inclined personally, he could not have imposed such a demanding strategy on his own people, whose sufferings and frustration had only increased since Oslo. Oh yes, I love this. The events viewed with, what was it? Oh yeah, fairness. One sided and "in a vacuum" analysis. It is the Israelis who are at fault. The Palestinians share no responsibilty.

And you said to me "get real".

Moreover, there is plenty of reason to doubt that nonviolent resistance would have moved the Israelis to make the kinds of concessions necessary to produce a genuine peace with the Palestinians: a return of Israel to the pre-June 4, 1967 lines And the terrorism HAS moved the Israelis to make such consessions?

Again, I'm supposed to "get real"?

...the complete Israeli military withdrawal from all the occupied territories; the dismantling of the remaining settlements, including the Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem; the turning over of most or all of the West Bank water aquifers to the Palestinians; Palestinian sovereignty over their mosques on the Temple Mount; a fair and equitable partition of Jerusalem; and some kind of fair solution to the refugee problem. Yes, fair and equitable. That is what the Palestinans are after. Fair and equitable. They are the literal symbol of "fair and equitable". The Palastenians have not broken their promisies. Only the Israelis are decietful. The cache of documents discovered by Israel and that the Palestinians demand returned don't really show the lying and deciept by Arafat and the PLO.

Sorry Wayne, if I can only use this type of source then I'm afraid that you have hamstrung me beyond my ability to respond. Of course that is the whole idea behind poisioning the well isn't it?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Whom are you quoting? Why is it relevant? Maybe you could follow the link.

I expect you to use sources that are reliable. Don't you mean sources that you aprove of?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
RandFan, here is some information (http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0105/article/010512b.html) on the Oslo Agreements from a Jewish organization that maintains fairness. Since you are learning aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian issue at this time, I suggest you read the entire article. Patronizing and self serving. How do I know that it "maintains" fairness? Must I take your word on that or can I judge from the quality of the arguments?

[Wayne Grabert]

I don't want to debate this subject endlessly, but comments by RandFan and Renata suggest a skewed version of history.

One such version, and RandFan and Renata can concede or disavow that they believe it or been influenced by it, is that Arabs from the start have objected to Israel's existence because of anti-Jewish bigotry. (Since Arabs are Semites, I have not called it anti-Semitism.) This ignores the fact that for centuries Muslims and Jews lived in the Middle East harmoniously. The experience of the Oriental Jews was very different from the Jews in Europe. Muslims respected Jews as "people of the book" and admired their religioius devotion. (Oriental Jews tended to be more religious than European Jews.)

Take the experience of the Jews in Spain, for example. Under the Moors, the Jews had a good life and prospered. When the Christians regained control of Spain, the Jews were victimized by the Spanish Inquisition.

From the source I quoted earlier on Israel, Anti-Semitism and the Palestinian Problem: (http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0105/article/010512b.html)
The demythologized history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict challenges the standard version in a number of ways. To be sure, it must be acknowledged that some classic Islamic texts contain anti-Semitic references—though it is also true there are anti-Muslim references in some of the most revered Jewish thinkers of the past 1300 years. More particularly, both because early Zionism became aligned with British colonialism in the Mideast and because some Jews who lived in Arab lands sought to ally themselves with European imperialism, Arab anticolonialism in the early twentieth century included an element of anti-Semitism.

Even so, in Palestine itself the Jewish and Arab communities lived in relatively peaceful coexistence until fears of a huge onslaught of European Jewish immigration led many Palestinians to believe that Western colonialism was going to solve Europe's "Jewish problem" at the expense of the Palestinians. It was this Palestinian fear of losing their political rights, land, and society to a European Jewish influx that led to the conflict between the Yishuv and the Arab peoples of Palestine.

These fears were justified, because Ben-Gurion and other leading Zionists had no real intention of compromising with the Palestinians. On the contrary, the historical evidence is incontrovertible that Ben-Gurion agreed to the 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine only as a necessary tactical step that would later be reversed: "when we become a strong power after the establishment of the state." Later, Ben-Gurion told the Zionist Congress, "we will abolish partition and spread throughout all of Palestine" (quoted in Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, p. 24).

And that is exactly what happened. Israel under Ben-Gurion, Begin, Dayan, and others sought to expand to the limits of biblical Palestine, which in their conception included all of Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza strip, substantial parts of Jordan, southern Lebanon, the Golan Heights, and Egypt's Sinai peninsula. Typically, Ben-Gurion made no bones about it: "Before the founding of the state our main interest was self-defense. But now the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders—it's an open-ended matter" (from the 1949 Israeli archives, quoted by Tom Segev, 1949: The First Israelis, p. 6).

As for the attitude of the Palestinians toward the Israelis, it would be helpful to keep in mind some incontrovertible historical facts. To begin with, the Arabs of Palestine were the overwhelming majority during recent centuries and had been promised by the British that they would gain political sovereignty over it after World War I. To be sure, the Jews had a claim on Palestine as well, a claim that certainly became more powerful after the Holocaust irrefutably demonstrated the need for a Jewish state, for which, by the 1930s, there was no alternative to Palestine. Even so, it is not hard to understand Palestinian anger at the loss of their political rights.

Secondly, even before the Arab invasion in the spring of 1948, and continuing well after Israel won the war, some 600,000–700,000 Palestinians were deliberately driven out of their country, their homes, and their villages, in what prominent Israeli and American Jewish historians (e.g., Meron Benvenisti and Ian Lustick) are beginning to acknowledge was nothing less than "ethnic cleansing." Emotionally loaded as that term is, it accurately describes the Israeli psychological warfare, economic pressures, artillery bombardments, political assassinations, terrorist attacks, and even massacres that forced the Palestinians to flee.

One problem that pro-Israeli propagandists have is that there are Israelis and American Jews who are honest and conscientious and are willing to refute the lies and distortions that portray Israelis as the perpetual victims and Arabs as the perpetual, ruthless villains.

I've made the point on this board before: when it comes to morality, Jews are no different from any other ethnic group. Most are decent, well-meaning, ordinary people, some are paragons of virtue and others are vicious bigots. The same is true of the Arabs.

The article I cited earlier on Deir Yassin details how some early Israelis were indeed vicious bigots. That article is scholarly, fair and well documented. It does contain stomach-turning details.
Many attackers' violence and rage had expanded beyond simple execution of captives. Villagers have affirmed that while in Deir Yassin, prisoners were terrorized, robbed, and brutalized. Women were stripped of their traditional modest attire and their jewelry torn from their bodies. One woman's son was reported stabbed to death in her arms.(70) The captives were told that "they were going to slaughter us, and make `kifta' [meat kebab] out of us."(71) Old women apparently were assaulted as well. A British policeman recorded seeing a surviving elderly woman's head evidence battering by rifle butts. Some captives were taken to the Sheikh Bader neighborhood Lehi base where, Haganah intelligence recorded, a baby was killed and then its mother as she fainted.(72) Lehi member Baruch Nadel has corroborated that in Deir Yassin "there were people killed in the most brutal way."(73)
Like it or not, Israel has an ugly history. The search for peace is not helped by whitewashing it.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Patronizing and self serving. How do I know that it "maintains" fairness? Must I take your word on that or can I judge from the quality of the arguments?
Read the articles with an open mind and judge them fairly. They do present an honest account and are qualified with considerations from both sides.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
I've made the point on this board before: when it comes to morality, Jews are no different from any other ethnic group. Most are decent, well-meaning, ordinary people, some are paragons of virtue and others are vicious bigots. The same is true of the Arabs. Yet your arguments clearly denote an anti-Israeli bias. While you will (when pushed) condemn the violence on both sides you rarely if ever criticize Arafat, the PLO or the Palestinians. The articles you cite often have a decidedly "blame the Israelis but understand the Palestinians" bent. You don't discuss how Arafat has profited from this conflict or how he has a clear motive to continue the status quo. Nor do you discuss the lack of democracy on the part of the Palestinians and how they have made few efforts to sincerely stop the violence.

You are also more than willing to poison the well and dismiss discourse from Jewish sources that you don't like.

Finally you don't discuss why the Palestinians continue to engage in violence when it has only hurt the peace process and has not helped them in any measurable way.

I will concede that Israel has also continued to engage in behavior that is counterproductive and has used violence to achieve an end. I don't think Israel is innocent but I don't think the Palestinians are innocent either.

At least the Israelis have made attempts at peace by voting in Rabbin and Barak. The Palestinians only know one solution, terrorism.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
And the terrorism HAS moved the Israelis to make such consessions?

My view has always been that terrorism has been counter-productive. However, the article explains the limits on what Arafat could have done at the time. Emotions had boiled over to explosive rage.

I'm no fan of Arafat, but I also think that he is used as a scapegoat for Israel's provocations. It's always trotted out that Arafat is not doing enough to contain the violence. The real problem is that Israel is provoking it.

You have tried to denigrate my sources, but I have relied upon scholarly articles. Who is the source of the article you are trying to dismiss?
Jerome Slater is a University Research Professor at SUNY Buffalo.

The article is published by tikkun.org, (http://www.tikkun.org/) a pro-Israeli, American Jewish organization. However, it is also pro-peace and pro-honesty.

You rely on some post to the forum by an anonymous Syrian who has difficulty with English. Call it "poisoning the well," but I'm not impressed.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yet your arguments clearly denote an anti-Israeli bias. While you will (when pushed) condemn the violence on both sides you rarely if ever criticize Arafat, the PLO or the Palestinians. The articles you cite often have a decidedly "blame the Israelis but understand the Palestinians" bent. You don't discuss how Arafat has profited from this conflict or how he has a clear motive to continue the status quo. Nor do you discuss the lack of democracy on the part of the Palestinians and how they have made few efforts to sincerely stop the violence.
Now you're pissing me off. I have often criticized Palestinian terrorism, but I don't feel the need to always automatically make such qualifications like a good lap dog when responding to ********, racist, anti-Arab propaganda like that at the beginning of this thread.

There is much that you, like most Americans, don't know about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The bias in the media in this country is undeniable and strong, though it has been gradually allowing more of the story to get out. I note that you only recently became aware of Israel's terrorist past. I suggest you learn more about how the Palestinians have made efforts at peace, how there were periods of relative quiet, and each time it looked like there was hope, Israel's right-wing did something to upset it, and Sharon was usually right in the middle of it: invading Lebanon in 1982, provoking the intifada in September 2000 by visiting the Temple Mount with legions of soldiers, bombing an apartment building on the West Bank (and killing 11 children) right when the news was circulating that Palestinian terrorist groups were trying to agree amongst themselves to a cease fire.

Originally posted by RandFan
At least the Israelis have made attempts at peace by voting in Rabbin and Barak. The Palestinians only know one solution, terrorism.
That is both wrong and racist. Why not call them cockroaches?

[RandFan]

The article by Jerome Slater details the History as seen by Slater. It glosses over significantly the role that the PLO played in derailing the peace process. Further it does little to portray Arafat in the light that he deserves, as a man who has profited from this conflict and is best served by ensuring that the status quo continues.

Thus, while it is true that Barak went further than any previous Israeli leader, he didn't go nearly far enough. In the end, there would have been a non-viable, impoverished Palestinian state; Israel would retain control of most of Jerusalem and its suburbs, including Palestinian access to the Muslim religious sites on the Temple Mount; Gaza would be separated from the West Bank and the West Bank itself would be divided into at least three different enclaves separated from each other by Israeli-controlled settlements, military bases, and roads; the Israeli army would continue to occupy the Jordan River Valley for a number of years to come—perhaps indefinitely; and Israel would refuse even to acknowledge that it bore any responsibility for the refugee problem, let alone allowing more than a token number of refugees to return to Israel.

The standard moderate criticism of Arafat's refusal to accept such terms—for example, as repeatedly argued in a series of influential columns by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times—is that while, yes, Barak's offers did not go far enough to meet legitimate Palestinian demands, Arafat should have accepted them as the basis for continued negotiations, making counterproposals rather than ending diplomacy.

This criticism, however, blithely ignores the clear-cut historical record since 1967, and especially since Oslo: the longer "the peace process" is stretched out, the more Israel takes advantage of its unconstrained power to preempt the outcome of negotiations by creating facts on the ground. Even as Barak was negotiating at Camp David, he was expanding the pace of land confiscation, settlement construction, and military road building in the West Bank and even Gaza at the greatest rate since 1992—exceeding even that of the Netanyahu government. (Ha'aretz, February 27, 2001) Please note that Slater subtly undermines the most significant problem of the Barak offer, Arafat's refusal to make an offer in compromise. He simply refused it. He walked away. Why?

Let's look closer at Slater's text.

Arafat should have accepted them as the basis for continued negotiations, making counterproposals rather than ending diplomacy... NO! Arafat should have continued negotiations. He should have made a counter proposal. Look, when you have the opposition at the table you negotiate. You don't walk away. Slater himself says that time is on Israel's side. Every month more settlements and more Palestinian deaths, why not seize the opportunity?

But such a notion seems to serve neither Slater nor Arafat.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Yet your arguments clearly denote an anti-Israeli bias. While you will (when pushed) condemn the violence on both sides you rarely if ever criticize Arafat, the PLO or the Palestinians.

Here is what I said on March 8 (look for the red, highlighted text): (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15307&highlight=Arafat+Gandhi)
I've long said that the Palestinians would have their state by now if they were led by a Gandhi or a King rather than Arafat. I hate the Palestinian terrorists. They play right into the hands of malevolent Israelis like Sharon. (Please note that I am not calling all Israelis malevolent. I am calling Sharon and others like him (many of them former terrorists themselves, as is Sharon) malevolent.)
From October 2002: (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8777&highlight=Arafat+Gandhi)
And as far as that issue goes, the Palestinians would have been much better served if their leader were a Mohandas Gandhi or a Martin Luther King, Jr., rather than Arafat, but don't forget that it was the Zionists, not the Palestinians, who introduced the region to terrorism. A form of terrorism is still practiced by Israel against the Palestinians. It takes the form of oppression, humiliation and brutality that drives some young people to become suicide bombers. The Israeli strategy is to make life so unbearable for the Palestinians that they will leave. The name for this policy is "transference."
Just two examples.

Your uncompromising, anti-Palestinian bias is duly noted.

I've had enough of this crap.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

You're a crackpot. Like all other knee-jerk, blind apologists for Israel, you rely on propaganda, distortions, lies and emotion rather than facts and logic.

Strange I recall telling you that not to long ago that’s why we are here to discus the facts.
If I see that you are wrong, I will call you on it.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Now you're pissing me off. That is not my goal but I certainly understand how you feel. You piss me off also. I guess we piss each other off.

I have often criticized Palestinian terrorism, but I don't feel the need to always automatically make such qualifications like a good lap dog when responding to ********, racist, anti-Arab propaganda like that at the beginning of this thread. That is your opinion. It states the facts. If you find those facts to be propaganda then so be it. I can see how it could be argued that it omits certain details and therefore qualifies as propaganda but it is no guiltier of it than some of the articles you have submitted.

There is much that you, like most Americans, don't know about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The bias in the media in this country is undeniable and strong, though it has been gradually allowing more of the story to get out. There is much that many people don't know on BOTH sides.

I note that you only recently became aware of Israel's terrorist past. It is true that I am not an expert. I am honest enough to admit when I don't know something. You know that about me from the past. That does not mean that I am ignorant as to this conflict. If you assume such then you assume wrongly.

I suggest you learn more about how the Palestinians have made efforts at peace, how there were periods of relative quiet, and each time it looked like there was hope, Israel's right-wing did something to upset it, and Sharon was usually right in the middle of it: invading Lebanon in 1982, provoking the intifada in September 2000 by visiting the Temple Mount with legions of soldiers, bombing an apartment building on the West Bank (and killing 11 children) right when the news was circulating that Palestinian terrorist groups were trying to agree amongst themselves to a cease fire. If you honestly believe that only Israel is to blame for upsetting the hope for peace then there is little that I can say to change your mind.

Originally posted by RandFan
At least the Israelis have made attempts at peace by voting in Rabbin and Barak. The Palestinians only know one solution, terrorism.

That is both wrong and racist. Why not call them cockroaches? Because I don't believe that they are. The Palestinians are trapped by their culture and circumstance. They are born into a political system that does not serve their best interests. Even though Arafat has robed them blind and not served them well they would continue to keep him in power.

My complaint is not toward the Palestinians but that they are not a democracy and have no real self determination. If it serves their leaders to keep them in poor and in harms way then there is little if anything that they can do about it. Except of course to strap on explosives, walk into a crowd of Israelis and kill themselves and innocent women and children.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Your uncompromising, anti-Palestinian bias is duly noted.

I've had enough of this crap. The following was given without any prompting.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=432067#post432067

While I am a firm supporter of Israel I condemn all of the violence on both sides. I want the Palestinians to have their own state.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=432567#post432567
The settlements are wrong. The violence and death are wrong.

[Baker]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

My view has always been that terrorism has been counter-productive. However, the article explains the limits on what Arafat could have done at the time. Emotions had boiled over to explosive rage.

I'm no fan of Arafat, but I also think that he is used as a scapegoat for Israel's provocations. It's always trotted out that Arafat is not doing enough to contain the violence. The real problem is that Israel is provoking it.


You ignore a lot of the history on the matter The PLO was created in 1964 by the Arabs who tried destroying Israel in two failed invasions since then should be convincing enough that there only goal is the destruction of Israel despite all of the death to Israel chants coming out of most Arab nations.
And trying to say Israel is provoking the violence is an out right lie.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
If you honestly believe that only Israel is to blame for upsetting the hope for peace then there is little that I can say to change your mind.
That's not my position as should be easily inferred from what I've said about terrorism.

Originally posted by RandFan
My complaint is not toward the Palestinians but that they are not a democracy and have no real self determination.
My complaint is that the Palestinians are not allowed any real self-determination. As for democracy, they hold elections. However, how is that relevant to the issue of how they have been victimized?

Israel has its own state. It has expanded its borders. It has a powerful military and a proseperous economy. It receives billions of dollars in aid from the US each year.

The Palestinians, once well educated, cosmopolitan and relatively prosperous, have been driven from their homes, driven into poverty, have no military, no state and suffer daily humiliations, brutality and oppression at the hands of their occupiers.

On balance, who are the bigger victims?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
That's not my position as should be easily inferred from what I've said about terrorism.


My complaint is that the Palestinians are not allowed any real self-determination. As for democracy, they hold elections. However, how is that relevant to the issue of how they have been victimized?

Israel has its own state. It has expanded its borders. It has a powerful military and a proseperous economy. It receives billions of dollars in aid from the US each year.

The Palestinians, once well educated, cosmopolitan and relatively prosperous, have been driven from their homes, driven into poverty, have no military, no state and suffer daily humiliations, brutality and oppression at the hands of their occupiers.

On balance, who are the bigger victims? Wayne,

Will you accept that my views toward Israel and Palestine are moderated more than most and that I am willing to acknowledge a) that there is blood on the hands of both Israelis as well as Palesinians and b) that the history of these two nations is not what many Americans think that it is and c) that Israel will have to make concessions to end the violence including stopping the settlements and accepting a Palestinian state.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


You ignore a lot of the history on the matter The PLO was created in 1964 by the Arabs who tried destroying Israel in two failed invasions since then should be convincing enough that there only goal is the destruction of Israel despite all of the death to Israel chants coming out of most Arab nations.
And trying to say Israel is provoking the violence is an out right lie.

You don't call 30 years of military occupation an outright provocation?

When Israel was 'created', what did you expect the Arabs to do? If Israel had been 'created' in the USA in California, I know what the reaction would have been.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by RandFan
Wayne,

Will you accept that my views toward Israel and Palestine are moderated more than most and that I am willing to acknowledge a) that there is blood on the hands of both Israelis as well as Palesinians and b) that the history of these two nations is not what many Americans think that it is and c) that Israel will have to make concessions to end the violence including stopping the settlements and accepting a Palestinian state.
Accepted, and I trust that you will continue to learn and consider with an open mind and I pledge to do the same.

[Tmy]

I was under the impression that the Palistine agreement fell though because of the conflict over control of Jerusalem. Since the city isnt on the West Bank, that would not be reflected in the graphic at the start of this thread. Right? I'd be the fisrt to admit that I am not an expert on mideast conflicts (lousy catholic school education)

[Baker]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You don't call 30 years of military occupation an outright provocation?

When Israel was 'created', what did you expect the Arabs to do? If Israel had been 'created' in the USA in California, I know what the reaction would have been.

So you finely admit true purpose PLO also the British controlled the area before Israel and the Turks before them its just having Jews in a Islamic dominating area that they have a problem with.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert

Accepted, and I trust that you will continue to learn and consider with an open mind and I pledge to do the same.

Ditto me.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Baker


So you finely admit true purpose PLO also the British controlled the area before Israel and the Turks before them its just having Jews in a Islamic dominating area that they have a problem with.

No, the Arabs were promised independence if they helped the British fight the Turks. That promise was not quite kept either.