investigatins the `no partner' for talks concept.

[Olivier]

two threads of mine have been edited of late, apparently by a moderator




the titles that have been altered are

"the real cause of the death of Arafat"

as been changed to
"Politicizing the Yasser Arafat's cause of death; or, what we don't know can hurt you.
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=122881&postcount=70

I do not see what the added insinuation means... or what value added it brings





Bombing of French soldiers : Israelis involved

to

Bombing of French soldiers : Israelis involved, Satan unavailable for comment
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=122938&postcount=126
I had not into of putting any satanic reference in the discussion

Overall, the objective of this person is harassment.
Arbitrary harassment because he does not share my opinions. Why leave intact threads which are either pure provocation of plain false and modify titles respecting forum rule? Why choose to distord the name of the threads I started?

let's see one example on naming a thread :

France: we will use the UN-mandate to continue the occupation of the Ivory Coast => this is plain lie, no french declaration was made about "occupating ivory coast".

and guess what, the guy who created the thread has been promoted moderator ! Now he can toy with what I say in total impunity...

Now If you want to see delirant threads titles just browse the forum..



Now what should I do ?
- I have first protested to the forum owner (newsguy), who answered that moderators are fully allowed change thread titles. This practice is discretionary and completely arbitrary. Any moderator can change a thread name to what he wants. Just because he feels like it.

Ok, now what do I do ? I can either
=========================
solution #1 - accept that the thread I start have a title perverting what the idea I defend.

solution #2 - stop posting and conceide victory to the harasser. This will also overjoy all here that do not share my opinions.


Now although it is certainly not good to give in to harassment, I have choose solution #2. As I wrote to the forum owner "you might as well have the guts to ask me to leave politely and I certainly would not insist".
But the idea that someone can pull strings and make me say what I do not want to say, just because he finds it fun is completely disgusting to me.

I do not know for you, maybe some of you find it fantastic to read a forum like this, but for me this is more than just hindering freedom of expression, this is plain pervert.

So bye all !


Overall I hope I have contributed adding value to the forum and interest to the reader.
I tried to start threads worthy of real debate and to documents my posts as well as I could! I tried not to answer provocation by avoiding the most aggressive of hateful posters.

On the statistic side, I started no less than 113 threads and wrote 1250 posts, which means I easily dedicated two hundred hours to the forum.

these are some of the threads I am the most proud of , Bush is elected, what can we expect in the next years?
• Good news for the Saudis and the iranians: Crude prices hit 21 year high
• Fight against Global warming : Kyoto Protocol becomes international treaty.
• teaching democracy (it's a picture !)
• If America were Iraq, What Would It be Like?
• Another legend down the drain : Iraq's Disappearing Elections (this one is likely to make a comeback)
• a no-win war against 1.3 billion Muslims
• Israel Has Long Spied on U.S alleges Counterpunch (I think this thread title has been manipulated as well)
• Moore's anti-Bush film wins top Cannes award
• Arab-Israeli Retaliation Tragic, Unhelpful
• Europe must not define itself against America
• about the dangers of blurring the lines between humanitarians workers and armies
• French troops deployed on Sudan border
• Military Draft in the US?
• Reaction in France on Sharon calling french jews to "leave immediately
• Torture by US forces is Iraq is not just isolated incidents (that thread is probably the one with the longuest debate : 481 posts)
• How can the damage of the torture photos be repaired? (with now a variant with the shooting of an unarmed wounded insurged in a mosque)
• Are we de-Baathifying or re-Baathifying this week? (that one was not a success, by it was fun)
• Rebirth at Ground Zero (don’t start optimistics threads here : no success)
• Real politics starting inside iraq? (ditto)
• U.S. Drops Effort to Gain Immunity for Its Troops
• 9/11 panel says there was ‘‘no credible evidence’’ that Saddam had ties with al-Qaida
• Big demonstration in Paris today against anti-Semitism
• europe grows : Israelis rush on europeans passport
• hostilities ending in Falluja? (lucky I put an interrogation mark on that one.. that was started in june)
• France to expel Muslim cleric over abuse

And it makes me extremely sad to realize all these titles can be perverted anytime…



…. So I have decided, that I prefer to remove some of my posts than to have what I mean manipulated against my will, it’s a bit sad, but it seems reasonable to withdraw from a debate when the debate turns out to be a fake. And of course I do not approve of the hatred shown by the people who manipulate this forum to their ends.

[Mediocrates]

Yet the article offers zero in the way of evidence or a suggestion that there was someone to negotiate with, or with whom. For the most part the article is a criticism of the Israeli security services, which the person in question was largely in a position to effect for better or worse.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Once again, Ollie Boy brings us the news that died soon after it started (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=5950) - a week late.

Notice how Ollie and company are nowhere to be seen on the threads that reveal their own country's ineptitudes, corruption and crookedness? :rolleyes:

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Yet the article offers zero in the way of evidence The article is about a hot debate taking place in israel now about this question. I think it is not self-sufficient and should be debated/complemented.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Yet the article offers zero in the way of evidence The article is about a hot debate in israel now. It does not encompass the whole debate and should be debated/complemented.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Olivier
The article is about a hot debate in israel now.
See above and wake me up when Ollie finds a new and fresh issue to discuss.

Ollie's ignore list just keep making him look dumber and dumber. Maybe somebody with is (still) not on his ignore list would like to make him aware of the fact.

[David_in_NYC]

How the hell would Olivier of France know what the hot debate is in Israel? Especially when he religiously blinds himself to any information that is not French-socialist propoganda?

Come on, we're talking a guy that needs to take off his shoes to count to 11.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Come on, we're talking a guy that needs to take off his shoes to count to 11.
HE should be able to make it to 12 that way. :p

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Olivier
The article is about a hot debate in israel now. It does not encompass the whole debate and should be debated/complemented.

Well not really, in so far as there is no debate. A debate would mean there is some group in a representative democracy that thinks it has something to gain by negotiating as it were. But there isn't - No one contests that Arafat imagines himself the one true leader of all Palestinians everywhere. No one really contests that you agree with him. No the issue is, to what plausible gain? Entertaining Arafat's cynical paranoid delusional hypocricy just because Europe is too lazy to think of anything else - including bolstering Queria, the one person, they themselves supported to take some power away from Arafat - doesn't in any way indicate there is any 'there', there. No I think several decades of lying, murdering, double dealing from Arafat is enough.

The fact is that Arafat is no different from any other tinpot tyrant who's eroding power base eventually is little more than the man himself screaming his importance. And events and reality overtake them.

All over the world Cannibal Kings, Bemedalled Generalissimos, Supreme Leaders, Most Blessed Beneficent Presidentos and Maximum People's Poltiburo Secretary of the Revolucion overstep their relevance and their place in history and get deposed, exiled, killed and washed out with the rest of the trash. Negotiating with a useless appendage such as Arafat is not only a waste of time, it is counterproductive in light of the real power base in Hamas & co.

[Oh Jerusalem]

There is no debate because the original story in Ha'aretz was false, plain and simple. So admitted Amos Malka himself, live on Israel public radio the day after the article was published. This is a non-issue.

Ollie might catch on, if someone not on his ignore list would quote me in full. :D

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
There is no debate because the original story in Ha'aretz was false, plain and simple. So admitted Amos Malka himself, live on Israel public radio the day after the article was published. This is a non-issue.

Ollie might catch on, if someone not on his ignore list would quote me in full. :D

That makes him 2 for 2 in the past 24 hours... the "no Iraq/AQ ties" BS has been thoroughly repudiated by the 9/11 commissioners themselves. Funny, Olivier didn't post THAT report.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
the "no Iraq/AQ ties" BS has been thoroughly repudiated by the 9/11 commissioners themselves. Funny, Olivier didn't post THAT report.
That would require honesty, integrity and the ability to garner up to date news, which Ollie seems not to have access to.

Maybe his mouse has 2 LEFT buttons. :p

[Hierophant]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
...
Ollie might catch on, if someone not on his ignore list would quote me in full. :D

and destroy the humor? lol

[Oh Jerusalem]

Anyway, there is a partner. At least the Sharon aligned lackies thing so:

FM Shalom: We Must Negotiate with the PA (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=64378)
13:52 Jun 21, '04 / 2 Tammuz 5764

(IsraelNN.com) Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom was quoted by Ynet as saying there is no alternative but to negotiate with the PA regarding the Gaza separation plan.


Stupid Jews. :(

[KSO]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Anyway, there is a partner. At least the Sharon aligned lackies thing so:

FM Shalom: We Must Negotiate with the PA (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=64378)
13:52 Jun 21, '04 / 2 Tammuz 5764

(IsraelNN.com) Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom was quoted by Ynet as saying there is no alternative but to negotiate with the PA regarding the Gaza separation plan.


Stupid Jews. :(

Stupid Jews who finally make smart statements...

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Olivier
the `no partner' for talks concept, is central to the thinking of the israeli right and extreme-right.


Not exclusively the right/far right thinking. I'm not right wing on this scale I think, yet I do think there is no partner for talks at the moment.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by KSO
Stupid Jews who finally make smart statements...
Stupid goy!

[KSO]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
Stupid goy!

1\2 Jews for ever!

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by KSO
1\2 Jews for ever!
No such thing. Sorry. :o

[KSO]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
No such thing. Sorry. :o

Hitler thought otherwise...

[Ahava]

Originally posted by KSO
Hitler thought otherwise...

That alone would be enough to say 1/2 Jews do not exist. Halacha happens to agree.

[Mediocrates]

Which half?


"(Julia), you're only a rebel from the waist down."


--- Winston Smith '1984'

[KSO]

Originally posted by Ahava
That alone would be enough to say 1/2 Jews do not exist. Halacha happens to agree.

Ahhh who cares, armenian food is better anyway...

[KSO]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Which half?


"(Julia), you're only a rebel from the waist down."


--- Winston Smith '1984'

The Better Half...

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by KSO
Ahhh who cares, armenian food is better anyway...
Now you're cookin'! :p

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Well not really, in so far as there is no debate. A debate would mean there is some group in a representative democracy that thinks it has something to gain by negotiating as it were. But there isn't - No one contests that Arafat imagines himself the one true leader of all Palestinians everywhere. No one really contests that you agree with him. No the issue is, to what plausible gain? Entertaining Arafat's cynical paranoid delusional hypocricy just because Europe is too lazy to think of anything else - including bolstering Queria, the one person, they themselves supported to take some power away from Arafat - doesn't in any way indicate there is any 'there', there. No I think several decades of lying, murdering, double dealing from Arafat is enough.

The fact is that Arafat is no different from any other tinpot tyrant who's eroding power base eventually is little more than the man himself screaming his importance. And events and reality overtake them.

All over the world Cannibal Kings, Bemedalled Generalissimos, Supreme Leaders, Most Blessed Beneficent Presidentos and Maximum People's Poltiburo Secretary of the Revolucion overstep their relevance and their place in history and get deposed, exiled, killed and washed out with the rest of the trash. Negotiating with a useless appendage such as Arafat is not only a waste of time, it is counterproductive in light of the real power base in Hamas & co. A coté de la plaque mediocrates. Your usual diatribe is not bringing up any new information....

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Ahava
Not exclusively the right/far right thinking. I'm not right wing on this scale I think, yet I do think there is no partner for talks at the moment. Sure: isreal spends all her time destroying any possible partner, takes any occasion to blow off any representative palestinian. They convinced the US too

That's the famous `no partner' for talks concept.




Originally posted by Ahava
FM Shalom: We Must Negotiate with the PA
13:52 Jun 21, '04 / 2 Tammuz 5764

(IsraelNN.com) Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom was quoted by Ynet as saying there is no alternative but to negotiate with the PA regarding the Gaza separation plan. it's obvious withdrawing from gaza without drawing the profit from it is utterly stupid.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Olivier
Sure: isreal spends all her time destroying any possible partner, takes any occasion to blow off any representative palestinian. They convinced the US too

That's the famous `no partner' for talks concept.

How about Arafat blew up the Camp David talks and keeps sending out his people to murder Jews? yeah that's a hell of a "partner to peace".

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Olivier
A coté de la plaque mediocrates. Your usual diatribe is not bringing up any new information....



You bring nothing to the table.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Olivier
This time, the axiom says Arafat is not interested in anything other than bringing about the destruction of Israel through the right of return, which has no basis in any of the official assessments, and that axiom has been turned into dogma.

I think this paragraph sums up the sheer nonsense that this article really is.

"no basis in any of the official assessments," the article says. Let's see...

1) Arafat instructed his al Aqsa Brigade mass-murdering Muslims to bomb hundreds of innocent Israelis.

2) Arafat was caught with signed documents showing that he personally paid for suicide bombs, belts, and recruitment.

3) Arafat ordered and paid for the Karin 'A' boatload of heavy weaponry.

4) Arafat was recorded stating that all peace agreement with Jews are of the same fraudulent type of agreement that the Muslim prophet Muhammad made with the Jews before committing genocide against those naive Jews.

5) Arafat was recorded calling on a million suicide bombers to march on Jerusalem.

6) Arafat never changed the Palestinian charter that calls for Israel's destruction.

7) Arafat continues to order virulent anti-Semitic broadcasts and calls for suicide bombings over Palestinian radio and TV.

... and the list goes on and on...


This article from Olivier is the same old radical Leftist lunacy that is the cornerstone of the radical Leftist agenda, which is to assist Arafat in mass-murdering all Jews within his reach.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
I think this paragraph sums up the sheer nonsense that this article really is.

"no basis in any of the official assessments," the article says. Let's see...

1) Arafat instructed his al Aqsa Brigade mass-murdering Muslims to bomb hundreds of innocent Israelis.I'm sorry to point out Sharon is not an angel either... There probably have been debates on this already.

Anyway the the `no partner for talks' concept does not apply to arafat only.

It's a whole big strategy and if you look here you'll read many post recycling/developping the concept with "all palestinians are terrorists", "all arabs want to destroy israel" etc...

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Olivier
I'm sorry to point out Sharon is not an angel either... There probably have been debates on this already.

Anyway the the `no partner for talks' concept does not apply to arafat only.

It's a whole big strategy and if you look here you'll read many post recycling/developping the concept with "all palestinians are terrorists", "all arabs want to destroy israel" etc...

First, there is no parallel between Sharon and Arafat. It reminds me of the radical Leftists who compare between Bush and bin Ladin -- another transparent attempt to legitimize Muslim terrorists by comparing them to world leaders.

Second, no one said that "all Palestinians are terrorists," although of course the vast majority of them are terrorism supporters and apologists. But this is also not relevant to the topic of the thread.

You falsely claimed with your article that Arafat was a credible peace partner. This is completely and utterly false, as I pointed out with several examples in my previous post. Of course, I couldn't help but notice that as usual you are unable to respond to the facts that show you to be mistaken.

Third, Arafat's only goal was -- and still is -- to perpetrate a genocide against every Jew within his reach. Israel was exactly right to recognize that there was never a Palestinian "partner" for peace.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
First, there is no parallel between Sharon and Arafat. It reminds me of the radical Leftists who compare between Bush and bin Ladin -- another transparent attempt to legitimize Muslim terrorists by comparing them to world leaders.

Second, no one said that "all Palestinians are terrorists," although of course the vast majority of them are terrorism supporters and apologists. But this is also not relevant to the topic of the thread.

You falsely claimed with your article that Arafat was a credible peace partner. This is completely and utterly false, as I pointed out with several examples in my previous post. Of course, I couldn't help but notice that as usual you are unable to respond to the facts that show you to be mistaken.

Third, Arafat's only goal was -- and still is -- to perpetrate a genocide against every Jew within his reach. Israel was exactly right to recognize that there was never a Palestinian "partner" for peace.

Olivier is incapable of making substantive arguments. I have never seen him make a single one. Not one. Makes you wonder how deep his agenda goes or if he is just ... you know ... a little on the simple side.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Olivier
I'm sorry to point out Sharon is not an angel either... There probably have been debates on this already.

Anyway the the `no partner for talks' concept does not apply to arafat only.

It's a whole big strategy and if you look here you'll read many post recycling/developping the concept with "all palestinians are terrorists", "all arabs want to destroy israel" etc...

How over-simplistic. Furthermore I can do nothing but point at Newsguy's excellent response. Too hard to answer? Fine, but at least ADMIT you're wrong then, for G-d's sake!!!!!!!!!

[Mediocrates]

Clearly the Olivier position is nonsense. Was Ben Gurion a rightist? Meir? Rabin? Barak?

Fact is, in nearly 6 decades Israel has presented to the Arabs virtually every facet of their political spectrum from the far left to the far right. Who got results? Begin, Shamir, Sharon.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Fact is, in nearly 6 decades Israel has presented to the Arabs virtually every facet of their political spectrum from the far left to the far right. .. and has relentlessy colonized.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Olivier
.. and has relentlessy colonized.
More hogwash.

From the earliest alliyah until 1948, Jews purchased their land fair and square.

From 1948 through 1967, they established new communities on State of Israel property.

In 1967, every last one of the surrounding Arab nations were determined to destroy Israel in what they dreamed would be a final war. They lost. Too bad. The public lands that belonged to the Jordanian, Egyptian and Syrian governments were now managed by Israel.

After the Arabs united in their Khartoum Declaration to not negotiate nor recognize the existance of Israel, we took the justified liberty to reestablish Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza that had previously been destroyed by the Arabs and created new ones on government land.

This is not colonization. This is the right of Jews to return to their own land.

[Mediocrates]

He means colonized Tel Aviv, Jafo, the Negev, Netanya, Eilat....all those places Jews he would not suffer to live.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Olivier
.. and has relentlessy colonized.

Anti-Israel people (supporters of the 'Palestinian cause' :rolleyes: ) can't make a case. It's proven time and again. All they can do is produce one-liners. Such as this one. This makes me all the more certain that it really is Israel that is right.

Typical of these people is that they ignore the good points brought up by the opponent (in this case Newsguy) and brazenly start all over again like nothing has been said and rebutted, by throwing in another one-liner. Very frustrating, because this way it's impossible to have a debate with them. But that's exactly what they're aiming at, they can't defend their case with good arguments, nor do they want to be convinced. Narrow-mindedness in its most apparent form. Makes me sick.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Olivier
.. and has relentlessy colonized.


as I said. olivier is incapable of making substantive arguments. And even his foolish non-sequiters, ad hominems, straw men and red herrings are generally wrong, as is the one above, noting the time-line ot which he was responding and the fact that what he labels "colonization" began much later.

He has no business here.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Canajew
He has no business here.
Oh, please, can't we keep him just a little bit longer?

Please! Oh please! Oh please! Oh please!

[Canajew]

From Haaretz. And Olivier is a fool (just couldn't help myself, but he can't see this anyways). it would be nice if he saw this, though, just to see him make some crack about me, ignore it, and continue on like it doesn't exist.

Again, what exactly is he doing here?


The Kuperwasser assessment

By Yoel Esteron

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/442160.html


Kuperwasser thinks the argument over Amos Gilad's assessments is "already boring." Gilad was head of research in Military Intelligence on the eve of the current intifada. Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser replaced him three years ago. Since then, Israel's leaders have been attentive to his assessments.




Kuperwasser is straightforward. "The Palestinian vision is a state over all of Palestine. They try to hide that from the world. Certainly from the Israelis. Exposing that vision could be counter-productive. But the vision is clear. You won't see them fighting too seriously about the vision. The quarrels are only over personal issues."

Is that a "vision" or a "dream" like the anachronistic delusion about the Land of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates? Kuperwasser has no doubts. "It's the vision. There's an internal debate among them about what can be achieved. When and how. But that's the vision." In other words, the "stages doctrine" is still valid? "The stages doctrine is repressed, but still valid. The final goal is very clear."

Shortly after Faisal Husseini passed away, a small-distribution Egyptian weekly called El Araby ran an interview that it said was conducted just before his death. Husseini referred to the Oslo accord as a Trojan horse that brought PLO forces into the territories, and said the final goal is "liberating all of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea." After the article appeared, there were serious questions about its authenticity. It is difficult to check the facts with a dead person. But as far as Kuperwasser is concerned, Husseini's interview, as published, exposed the truth.

There are nuances, but from his perspective, they are insignificant. The old guard that experienced the Naqba and lives as refugees, starting with Yasser Arafat down, cannot give up the vision. "From their point of view, the right of return is a real element and not a pawn in the game." The middle generation, he says, "has more people who think that the goal of `all of Palestine' is unrealistic. There's a little more flexibility from them about the right of return. But a magnifying glass is needed to see it."

Mohammed Dahlan, of that middle generation, wrote in Haaretz on January 31, 2002, about a "just solution to the refugee problem, a solution that won't change the demographic character of the State of Israel." That doesn't sound so bad. But it doesn't convince Kuperwasser. In any case, he knows Arafat refused to use that phrase when he published an article under his name in The New York Times a few days later, on February 3. "We understand Israel's demographic concerns and understand that the right of return of Palestinian refugees, a right guaranteed under international law and United Nations Resolution 194, must be implemented in a way that takes into account such concerns," he wrote. Of course, one could write a "doctrine of the gaps" about the differences between the Dahlan text and the Arafat text. According to Kuperwasser, Arafat's tough line sticks out like a sore thumb.

Kuperwasser draws attention to Arafat's latest interview, in Haaretz on June 18, in which he avoids expressing support for the Geneva agreement and only says that he sent an emissary to the ceremony. The emissary was Manuel Hassassin. "A very senior envoy," Kuperwasser says, mockingly. Or maybe it was Arafat who was doing the mocking.

Yes, Kuperwasser agrees, there is definitely a debate among the Palestinians on what instruments will bring them closer to their goal. There are groups who believe in "only terror." And there is a small minority that believes in political negotiations. Between those two approaches there are shades of combinations of terror and political negotiations. "We know exactly where Arafat stands," says Kuperwasser. "Arafat believes in a combination of terror on both sides of the Green Line and political negotiations, with an emphasis on international help." In the debate over the nuances of terror, says Kuperwasser, there is no debate among the Palestinians about the morality of terror. Only about its efficacy.

Is Arafat himself involved in terror? Kuperwasser shows a visitor a videotape from January 31, a few days after the terror attack on a Jerusalem bus. Arafat enthuses the crowd with rhythmic chantes of "a million shaheeds marching to Jerusalem," and his people understand him very well. "What was it Zakariye Zabidi said?" quotes Kuperwasser, "when I see Arafat I know what to do." Zabidi is head of Tanzim in Jenin.

That, therefore, is Kuperwasser's assessment; the assessment of the head of research in Military Intelligence that right now is on the desks of the country's "decision makers" and maybe shapes their views. It is sharp as a razor, or maybe one-dimensional. It's all in the eyes of the beholder. Wouldn't it be better to debate about its validity than to pull old skeletons out of the closet?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Canajew
Shortly after Faisal Husseini passed away, a small-distribution Egyptian weekly called El Araby ran an interview that it said was conducted just before his death. Husseini referred to the Oslo accord as a Trojan horse that brought PLO forces into the territories, and said the final goal is "liberating all of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea." After the article appeared, there were serious questions about its authenticity. It is difficult to check the facts with a dead person. But as far as Kuperwasser is concerned, Husseini's interview, as published, exposed the truth.
A repeated public service announcement (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=2685). :o

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Ahava
Anti-Israel people (supporters of the 'Palestinian cause' :rolleyes: ) can't make a case. It's proven time and again. All they can do is produce one-liners. Such as this one.a one-liner very easy to produce and true as well... I'm afraid you can be sick about it for sure. I hope we'll see a change in israel's policy in the future, but it's likely only the US can make her do that.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Olivier
a one-liner very easy to produce and true as well... I'm afraid you can be sick about it for sure. I hope we'll see a change in israel's policy in the future, but it's likely only the US can make her do that.

I don't think it's any use to respond to your points as long as you refuse to answer to Newsguy's (and other's) excellent points.

[michael]

Newsguy made a point?! If it's true, it would make a novel change in direction.

The relevance of the news is the origin of the "no peace partner" cry. That Gilad was soon replaced matters little, as the cry was simply taken up by his successor.

The former advisor on Palestinian Affairs to the Chief of the Shabak was of the same view - that Gilad's assessments were his own personal/political views, serving the interest of his political masters, not views based on the intelligence assessments.

This is a rather unpopular opinion, as the 'conception' of "no partner" leads to the 'Disengagement Plan' and annexation of around half of the West Bank. Recognising Gilads' conception for what it was - a self-fulfilling prophecy, means accepting that Arafat did, and still does, agree to a Palestinian state in 97% of Gaza and the West Bank.

What does the Likud prefer, half or just a little of the WB? No prizes for guessing.

[Olivier]

Originally posted by Ahava
I don't think it's any use to respond to your points as long as you refuse to answer to Newsguy's (and other's) excellent points. what are Newsguy's excellent points?

just to take one :

Arafat's only goal was -- and still is -- to perpetrate a genocide against every Jew within his reach. Israel was exactly right to recognize that there was never a Palestinian "partner" for peace .

I just don't call that a 'point' it's only a repetition of the 'no partners to talk' dogma.

It's like french hatred: you do not make a point by repeating the same thing over and over.

want another of these fine Newsguy's excellent points?

Arafat was a credible peace partner. This is completely and utterly false
Same thing.


btw if you read Clinton's memoirs you'll see he has a different vision of arafat. The guy is not a saint, that's clear. He missed opportunities, that's clear.

But i'm afrait he is the only credible representative of the palestinian population : with their contradictions, their anti-isreal stance etc... and as you read it there no one want to talk to the "terrorists" palestinians.




Now, the only result of the "no partner to talks" is to boost Hamas (and any stance looking for a clash instead of talks).

Withdrawing from Gaza without taking this opportunity to credit moderate palestinians (and yes arafat rather than hamas) results in letting it be interpreted as a victory of Hamas. It's a direct consequence of the "no partner to talks".


This "no partner to talks" dogma is just disastrous and israel is locked in it now. Makes more harm than good.

[David_in_NYC]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in the master of ignore posting an article complaining that there's no one to talk to?

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Olivier
what are Newsguy's excellent points?

just to take one :

Arafat's only goal was -- and still is -- to perpetrate a genocide against every Jew within his reach. Israel was exactly right to recognize that there was never a Palestinian "partner" for peace .

I just don't call that a 'point' it's only a repetition of the 'no partners to talk' dogma.

It's like french hatred: you do not make a point by repeating the same thing over and over.

want another of these fine Newsguy's excellent points?

Arafat was a credible peace partner. This is completely and utterly false
Same thing.


btw if you read Clinton's memoirs you'll see he has a different vision of arafat. The guy is not a saint, that's clear. He missed opportunities, that's clear.

But i'm afrait he is the only credible representative of the palestinian population : with their contradictions, their anti-isreal stance etc... and as you read it there no one want to talk to the "terrorists" palestinians.


Here is your peace partner (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=5752).

[MGB8]

Arafat is on videotape in 1998 arguing the "plan of phases" and for the liberation of "all of Palestine".

Al-Husseini reported to the Egyptian Media that Arafat called Oslo a "trojan horse" and also brought up the plan of phases, which originated in 1974.

Palestinians have reported that when Arafat returned in 1993 he brought incitement.

There is a strong paper trail connecting Arafat to the funding of terrorism, especially the Al-aqsa brigade.

Arafat has said "I will disarm Al-aqsa, hamas and Jihad when Israel disarms the IDF," not to mention "terrorize your enemies" and "millions and millions to Jerusalem...."

We have the Karin A, we have Palestinian schoolbooks, we have the posters of the "shahid" murderers and we have tape after tape of incitment on the PA media and newspapers.


Anyone, ANYONE who pretends that Arafat is a partner for peace and whose goal is simply supporting his attempt to genocide the Jews of Israel.

That means YOU Olivier and YOU Michael - you are both accomplices to attempted genocide. Have a nice day.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by MGB8
That means YOU Olivier and YOU Michael - you are both accomplices to attempted genocide. Have a nice day.

It bears repeating. It is no less serious than this. Both are enablers for vicious, cruel, senseless bloodshed, and excuse makers for the most evil of men.

[MGB8]

Its the same thing as someone in the 1930's saying:

"Oh, the Nazi's don't REALLY want to take over Europe OR kill the Jews...its just talk to play to their base."

But, Olivier, being French, probably knows a thing or two about ignoring or enabling genocide.

Hmmm...how's the Sudan doing now a days?

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Olivier
what are Newsguy's excellent points?

just to take one :

Arafat's only goal was -- and still is -- to perpetrate a genocide against every Jew within his reach. Israel was exactly right to recognize that there was never a Palestinian "partner" for peace .

I just don't call that a 'point' it's only a repetition of the 'no partners to talk' dogma.
Using this logic, maybe we should have talked with Hitler instead of going to war against him.

Just to bolster the point we've already made a thousand times:

Arafat gets rehab (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1088231179041&p=1006953079865)
By EFRAIM INBAR

Haaretz has adopted an uncharacteristic dose of "religiosity" by becoming the vehicle for a pathetic attempt by the Israeli radical Left to politically resurrect Yasser Arafat.

The newspaper claims that Arafat was not the instigator of the September 2000 intifada but has consistently searched for a two-state solution in his quest for peaceful coexistence. Haaretz also published an interview with the Palestinian leader which refrained from posing difficult questions. Arafat was allowed to portray himself as a man of peace.

Israeli messianic doves have repeatedly saved Arafat from oblivion. Yossi Beilin and the crowd around him saved Arafat in 1993 at a time when the PLO was weak due to its strategic blunder of supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1991 Gulf War. The group, isolated in Tunis, was on the verge of bankruptcy.

But Beilin et al persuaded Yitzhak Rabin – against his better judgment – to enter into a deal with the PLO, which brought Arafat to the White House, allowed the PLO to regain its dwindling international status, and gave it a territorial foothold in the territories.

These same doves never stopped advocating – as if out of religious conviction – increasingly larger Israeli concessions and a policy of turning a blind eye to the Palestinian violations of the Oslo agreements. The failure of Arafat to honor his pledge to Rabin and desist from terrorist activities was invariably explained away.

The PLO chief's repeated calls for jihad were belittled as insignificant rhetoric. Early Israeli casualties resulting from Palestinian terrorism were seen as "sacrifices for peace."

But peace did not come. It took the majority of Israelis more than a decade and over 1,000 dead to realize the murderous nature of the Palestinian national movement. The swing in public opinion to a more realistic assessment of the conflict is the reason for the recent attempt by the radical Left to rewrite history.

The late-1990s evaluation by Israeli intelligence of Arafat's intentions on final status issues does not in fact matter very much. There was no dispute within the Israeli intelligence community that Arafat had no intention of keeping his promise to stop employing violence. Israeli intelligence supplied information months in advance about Palestinian preparations for armed conflict. Intelligence specialists thought hostilities could be anticipated around September 2000.

In this respect Israeli intelligence functioned well and provided the IDF with a strategic warning. The army consequently trained for the expected low-intensity conflict and took several measures to contain Palestinian violence.

Any attempt to rehabilitate Arafat's credibility runs against his record of behavior after September 2000. His speeches unequivocally laud the suicide-bombers and armed struggle; he was personally involved in funding terrorist cells; he consistently rejected numerous attempts to implement a cease-fire; and he has continuously opposed any reform in the security sector that might have reduced the violence.

In Arafat's recent interview with Haaretz he continued to demand the "right of return" and refused to accept any historical Jewish claim over the holiest place to Jews – the Temple Mount.

It requires an incredible amount of self-delusion, or hutzpa, to try today to sell the Israeli public the story that Arafat remains the right partner for peace.

The intellectual arrogance of messianic doves and their condescending attitude toward the rest of us assumes we all are limitlessly gullible.

Another reason for the timing of the campaign to revive Arafat is Sharon's success in marginalizing him. The common wisdom in Washington and other important capitals – including Arab ones – is that Arafat is an obstacle to peace, and ways need to be devised to neutralize his negative influence. Radical doves understand that only Israel can provide a "kosher certificate" to Arafat that might grant him persona-grata status in the international arena.

Similarly to the early 1990s, it is Israeli leftists obsessed with the Palestinian issue who are trying to bail Arafat out from a difficult predicament. It is clear that Arafat's war, a colossal miscalculation that brought the Palestinians in the territories a great deal of suffering, has ended in failure.

There is no Palestinian state in sight. Much of the infrastructure for such a state has been destroyed in the "armed struggle," leaving Palestinian society fragmented and run by thugs and local warlords. In addition, the international community increasingly views the Palestinians as unable to govern themselves.

In contrast, Israeli society has shown greater resilience than expected in the protracted conflict. The IDF has successfully overcome international constraints on its freedom of military action against targets in Palestinian-ruled territories, thus denying the enemy safe sanctuaries.

Only the Israeli radical Left is misguided enough to try to resuscitate Arafat. While it definitely deserves him, it is the rest of us who will pay dearly if this foolish exercise is even marginally successful.


The writer is a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and director of its Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Let's knock 'em down again and again and again:

Another Tack: The naked truth (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1088046780460&p=1006953079897)
By SARAH HONIG

In our absurd existence it's perfectly bon ton to gush over the splendid sartorial sophistication of the emperor's birthday suit, but it's a grievous faux pas to tell it like it is.

Thus Shimon Peres, the couturier who designed and stitched the fantastic Oslo finery, was never brought to account for his roguery. Yet the very same Peres now demands an exhaustive official inquiry into the audacious candor of former Military Intelligence Research Division chief Amos Gilad.

Back in the days when everyone in the establishment's inner sanctum sang the new fashion's obligatory praises, Gilad dared suggest that His Royal Highness "has nothing on at all." He anticipated Yasser Arafat's intifada and had the nerve to warn that there's no Palestinian partner for peace. For that he must now pay.

It wasn't the original deception that proved detrimental to the safety of ordinary Israelis and to the cause of genuine peace, but its exposure. And so Peres unhesitatingly brands Gilad's prognostications "stupid exaggerated theories" and claims they undermined further powwows with Arafat. After a four-year search, the Left has finally identified the culprit and knows whom to blame for its fiasco.

Gilad's belatedly revealed transgression was calling it as he saw it, thereby predisposing us to regard Arafat as a hindrance to peace. Arafat apparently possessed no free will to resist the role Gilad arbitrarily imposed on him. If Gilad pronounced him villainous, then Arafat had no choice but to prove Gilad right.

Gilad had the awesome power to determine how Arafat would conduct his affairs. In other words, we could have been luxuriating in blissful peace today if Gilad had only extolled Arafat as Mother Theresa's saintly twin.

But Arafat actually did get every break in the book. Though his hands were indelibly bloodstained, he was imported from Tunis and was trusted irrationally with our security, while we armed his henchmen, paved his way to the White House, and all but conferred the Nobel Peace Prize on this wily and unrepentant proponent of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Nevertheless, none of this motivated him to live up to Peres's peace dreams or give the lie to Gilad's evaluations.

IF ANYTHING, Gilad deserves plaudits for seeing through the sham. The fault isn't in his prescience. The fact that recidivist hoaxers escape censure, refuse to acknowledge reality (even after it was violently stripped of their adornments), persist in hawking illusion, and continue to dominate our political discourse is no less than mind-blowing.

One would expect agonizing remorse after the slaying of 1,000 Israelis in less than four years had laid bare Oslo's folly and deceit, after jihad's monstrous face was unmistakably unmasked, and after widespread sympathy for Islamic barbarism was sanctioned and expressed in Arafatland.

We know that the Saudi butchers - the ones who photographed pro-Arab American engineer Paul Johnson with his decapitated head deposited on the back of his corpse and a knife thrust through a lifeless eye - have numerous kindred cannibals next door to us.

They're the ones who danced when Saddam scudded us, when the Twin Towers collapsed, when they sadistically slaughtered and battered beyond recognition two unfortunate Israeli reservists who took a wrong turn, when they kicked around an Israeli soldier's severed head.

This savagery predates current events and even the pretext of Israeli occupation. The world preferred to turn a blind eye to it, and we preferred not to remember or remind the world. The IDF has for decades refused to release its hoard of 1947-48 photos of Arab atrocities.

Most of these were snapped proudly by the perpetrators themselves as pictorial evidence of their gruesome handiwork, as keepsakes to brag about.

The grisly album includes stills from Majdal (Ashkelon) showing the heads of five Nitzanim defenders, impaled on bayonets, as they're triumphantly paraded through town.

The torturers, mutilators, and their progeny later paraded as angry Gaza refugees and sought terrible vengeance for their defeat in the Holy War they launched.

Their bloodlust runs as deep as our delusion that reasonable fairness can impress, persuade, and reform those who are out to conquer, not compromise.

But the unscrupulous Oslo clothiers don't want us to realize this truth. It's bad for business.

Skepticism about Palestinian goodwill must be delegitimized and the PA rehabilitated and restored to its lost peace-partner status. That's the next item on the Left's agenda, now that Gush Katif's fate seems sealed. That's what the Gilad hullabaloo is all about. It's calculated to reedit our memories and cause us to doubt our perception.

The charlatans won't admit they conned the emperor to strut about in the altogether. Instead, they'll shut up the candid kid, discredit, mock, slander, impeach, implicate, and intimidate him. But none of this can cover up the ugly naked truth.

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Ahava
Here is your peace partner (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=5752).

Some additional info on your peaceful friend, brought to you by Jerusalem Post and Oh Jerusalem ;) :
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1088231179041&p=1006953079865
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1088046780460&p=1006953079897

(hope you can read it even if you're not a 'member' which I'm sure you're not at JPost)

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Ahava
Some additional info on your peaceful friend, brought to you by Jerusalem Post and Oh Jerusalem ;) :
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1088231179041&p=1006953079865
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1088046780460&p=1006953079897

(hope you can read it even if you're not a 'member' which I'm sure you're not at JPost)
Ollie Voil could read them here on the forum, if he wanted to. :rolleyes:

[michael]

The "no partner" conception is familiar and comfortable ground for Israel. Back in the 1980's Israel refused to engage in talks with the PLO. The preference has always been to deal with the Palestinians by negotiating with others, whether it was the Jordanians or the US. That was the basis for the Lebanon invasion, to destroy the diplomatic threat posed by the PLO.

For Sharon, the "no partner" mantra is a case of 'just like old times'. Bargaining from a poistion of strength, not as equals, is where he likes to be. He can make decisions about the Palestinians without involving them, let alone consulting. What more could one ask for, but to be in the position of the master deciding the fate of the slave, ensuring that only the interests of the master are served?

But if the conception of "no partner" is solely made on the basis of Arafats involvement in terrorism, what are we to make of Sharon? If the logic applies in all cases, there is no partner on either side and an international force should be sent in to help settle the conflict. If you don't like this, then both leaders have to be accepted as their respective representatives no matter how distateful they both may be.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by michael
The "no partner" conception is familiar and comfortable ground for Israel. Back in the 1980's Israel refused to engage in talks with the PLO. The preference has always been to deal with the Palestinians by negotiating with others, whether it was the Jordanians or the US. That was the basis for the Lebanon invasion, to destroy the diplomatic threat posed by the PLO.

So many lies in so little space.

Anyone looking up any major newspaper archives in the 80's will find that Israel attempted over and over again to enter into direct negotiations with the Arabs living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. It was Arafat's PLO, in Jordan/then/Lebanon/then Tunisia that threatened to kill anyone who tried to enter into peace talks with Israel.

And simulataneously, let's not forget what the PLO was doing around the world: blowing up jet liners, hijacking them, machine gunning down passengers at airports, killing school children, killing bus passengers and Olympic athletes.

When should the US start negotiating with Bin Laden?

And your comments on Lebanon are just a farce. Pal terrorists were constantly raiding Israel over the border and via the sea. Once again, anyone of you can pick up a newspaper from the time to see that this had nothing to do with diplomatic threats, which were non-existant. But anything goes in Michael's revision of history.

For Sharon, the "no partner" mantra is a case of 'just like old times'. Bargaining from a poistion of strength, not as equals, is where he likes to be.
Everybody does. And while Arafat thought he would bargain from a position of strength by waging war on Israel, he has lost. Unfortunately, we haven't pumped the one tank shell needed into his Muqata office to end his charming carreer as the world's leading terrorist thug.

Stupid Jews. :o

He can make decisions about the Palestinians without involving them, let alone consulting. What more could one ask for, but to be in the position of the master deciding the fate of the slave, ensuring that only the interests of the master are served?

Aw the boor balestinians! :( They lied through their teeth, they started a war and now it's not working out the way they planned. Boo-hoo.

But if the conception of "no partner" is solely made on the basis of Arafats involvement in terrorism, what are we to make of Sharon? If the logic applies in all cases, there is no partner on either side and an international force should be sent in to help settle the conflict. If you don't like this, then both leaders have to be accepted as their respective representatives no matter how distateful they both may be.
Sharon is not a terrorist, plain and simple. Let's start arguing or pull up an old thread where this nonsense has been hashed out already.

Here we go.............................................

[michael]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
So many lies in so little space.

Anyone looking up any major newspaper archives in the 80's will find that Israel attempted over and over again to enter into direct negotiations with the Arabs living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. It was Arafat's PLO, in Jordan/then/Lebanon/then Tunisia that threatened to kill anyone who tried to enter into peace talks with Israel.


Half-truths are much better as OJ shows.

Israel did indeed try over and over again to stimulate negotiations, particularly in the West Bank. What OJ leaves out is the kind of negotaitions it sought - those on it's terms.
There were democratically elected mayors in most major West Bank towns. They made it clear that the PLO was the Palestinian representative. First the mayors were victims of terrorist attacks, then proving to be insufficiently maleable to Israeli goals they were all summarily dismissed by the Civilian Administration and in their place Israel tried to implant the Village Leagues (more like Village Idiots) which proved immensely unpopular.
Negotiations eventually restated post-Intafada with locally respected leaders in the West Bak and Gaza. They weren't prepared to back dowm on the basic demands of Palestinians - so where did Israel turn? To Tunis and Yasir Arafat. How strange, given OJ's account of Arafats sins in the 1980's.

Finally someone whom Israel felt it could trust - to do what it wished in return for a handful of promises and revival for an increasingly irrelevant old terrorist.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by michael
Half-truths are much better as OJ shows.
Well, I thank you for admitting that your swill isn't even that but let's retort again to the same fiction.

Israel did indeed try over and over again to stimulate negotiations, particularly in the West Bank. What OJ leaves out is the kind of negotaitions it sought - those on it's terms.
They never even got to this point. You've conveniently forgotten that the PLO charter called (calls - it still does) for the entire elimination of Israel.

And yes, one is allowed to demand terms, when justified. That's life!

There were democratically elected mayors in most major West Bank towns.
A friendly reminder that this was under Israeli rule.

They made it clear that the PLO was the Palestinian representative.
Yes. Otherwise they would have been lynched.

First the mayors were victims of terrorist attacks, then proving to be insufficiently maleable to Israeli goals they were all summarily dismissed by the Civilian Administration and in their place Israel tried to implant the Village Leagues (more like Village Idiots) which proved immensely unpopular.
Yep. They refused to negotiate. Bye! They towed the terrorist line. We don't allow the Mayor of Jersualem, Haifa or Tel Aviv to be a bona fide member of a terrorist organization either. No favorites here.

Negotiations eventually restated post-Intafada with locally respected leaders in the West Bak and Gaza. They weren't prepared to back dowm on the basic demands of Palestinians
The annihilation of the State of Israel, by allowing the PLO in.

- so where did Israel turn? To Tunis and Yasir Arafat. How strange, given OJ's account of Arafats sins in the 1980's.
Indeed. Stupid Jews. All under world pressure. Oh, those great lovers of peace (like yourself, in fact)!

Finally someone whom Israel felt it could trust - to do what it wished in return for a handful of promises and revival for an increasingly irrelevant old terrorist.
And just look what happened.

So, thank you for proving our point. There really is no one to negotiate with - especially Arafat.

Thank you. :o

[Ahava]

Originally posted by Olivier

btw if you read Clinton's memoirs you'll see he has a different vision of arafat. The guy is not a saint, that's clear. He missed opportunities, that's clear.

But i'm afrait he is the only credible representative of the palestinian population : with their contradictions, their anti-isreal stance etc... and as you read it there no one want to talk to the "terrorists" palestinians.


More from your peace partner:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=6087

the palestinians, or so it is believed, have planted a bomb near an IDF outpost in gush katif in gaza, wounding about a dozen soldiers. all 3 palestinian terror groups, hamas, jihad islami, and arafat's al-aksa brigades claim responsibility. so far there are only reports of injuries. reports said that a structure collapsed, trapping some soldiers underneath.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[David_in_NYC]

Now we're supposed to take Bill Clinton at his word? How dumb does this clown think we are?

[MGB8]

Understand that Michael has at no point actually argued that Arafat does not want to destroy Israel/the Jewish state, nor has he argued that Arafat does not support these efforts.

Michael may do so, but even he must find that level of obvious dishonesty difficult to pronounce, considering that Arafat is on videotape in 1998 announcing the plan of phases (3 phases, the last being the destruction of Israel after a Pal Arab state in the WB has been created), and many palestinians have come forward about Oslo being a Trojan Horse and the incitement from the PA - the textbooks, the media, the mosques.

Michael is simply saying - so what that he wants to destroy you and won't honor any peace agreement...why isn't he still a peace partner? He parrots the thinking of Shimon Peres - he is the leader of your enemy, and since you make peace with an enemy, he must be a peace partner.

Thing is, Michael, people are not as dumb as you think they are. You really believe that people are stupid, especially Israelis and Jews, but they aren't. They see through Arafat, they understand the meaning of what is said via the PA media, through the Mosques, in the textbooks, in the speeches, in the maps, etc. And, Michael, we all see right through you, too.

[Oh Jerusalem]

MGB8, excellent analysis of Michael's moral and logical bankrupcy.

Evelyn Gordon's excellent op-ed piece this morning on our topic. What's most interesting is that Ms. Gordon appears unaware of Malka's subsequential denial of Ha'aretz's interview with him. I can't blame her. Which leftist Israel paper would want to ruin a good scandal against the right - no matter how foney the accusation. I also do not recall it being rebroadcast much on IBA radio news, except for the 2 or three hours after the Friday morning radio interview with Malka.

And I would just like to once again thank whats-his-french-face for starting off this topic. Nothing like airing the truth!

This is military intelligence? (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1088391895193&p=1006953079865)
By EVELYN GORDON

The war that erupted in Israel's intelligence services a few weeks ago already appears to have been forgotten. Its swift oblivion is largely thanks to Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Chairman Yuval Steinitz (Likud), who quashed opposition MKs' demands that the committee launch an inquiry into the affair.

But Steinitz was wrong. This affair does deserve an inquiry – because what it revealed about Israel's intelligence services is deeply worrying.

A brief recap: Amos Malka, who headed Military Intelligence when the intifada began in September 2000, claimed in Haaretz (June 11, 2004) that Amos Gilad, who headed MI's research department at the time and was Malka's direct subordinate, repeatedly lied to the government and Knesset in the ensuing months by asserting that in MI's view, Yasser Arafat was unwilling to make peace.

In fact, Malka said, both MI and the Shin Bet security service continued to believe the opposite: that Arafat was ready to make peace if Israel only offered the right terms.

Malka's claim was backed by two other former intelligence officers: Ephraim Lavie, then head of the research department's Palestinian division (and Gilad's direct subordinate), and Mati Steinberg, then a special adviser on Palestinian affairs to the Shin Bet.

But Gilad's assessment also has notable supporters, including current Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter, current MI chief Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash, and the current head of MI's research department, Yossi Kuperwasser.

The dispute raises several important questions.

First, if Gilad were really feeding false assessments to the cabinet and the Knesset Foreign Affairs Committee, how could Malka, who regularly briefed both bodies, have failed to inform them at the time? His explanation – that he did, but was ignored – defies belief.

Both the cabinet and the committee in 2000-2001 contained several vociferous advocates of continued talks with Arafat, including Shimon Peres, Ran Cohen, Naomi Chazan, Yael Dayan and Hashem Mahameed. Had Malka ever made such a claim, surely one of them would have shared it with the media. Moreover, since the story broke, no politician has publicly recalled hearing this accusation at the time.

Thus either Malka is lying about Gilad's "deception," or he was criminally negligent in failing to inform the government of it at the time. Either possibility is troubling.

Even more worrisome, however, is the question of how Malka, Lavie and Steinberg reached their contrary assessment of Arafat's intentions.

Lavie, for instance, told Haaretz (June 11) that during the Camp David talks in July 2000, "Arafat dug into his position that every refugee must be given the right to decide whether to return [to Israel] or to accept an alternative and compensation."

Yet he dismissed such statements as clues to Arafat's true intentions: In reality, he said, Arafat would have accepted a compromise involving "compensation and a small number of refugees returning to Israel."

Lavie also denied that actions – such as Arafat's repeated refusal to attempt to quell the violence – constitute valid evidence. As he explained in a subsequent interview (Haaretz, June 13): "The apparent match between the approach [i.e. the intelligence assessment] and reality does not point to the correctness of the approach, because from the moment the approach was adopted by Israel's military and political establishments it became an assessment that fulfilled itself, since Israel is the powerful side. That's why Arafat's behavior nowadays cannot be considered proof of the concept's correctness."

Yet Lavie acknowledged that MI cannot read Arafat's mind. So if he rejects both words and actions as potential indicators, on what did he base his assessments of Arafat's intentions?
Nor was this bizarre approach unique to Lavie. Steinberg, in a separate interview (Haaretz, June 16), began by declaring: "I totally agree with Amos Gilad that it's important to pay close attention to what the Palestinians say and do."

Yet later, he effectively rejected words and actions as valid clues, because "under conditions of an asymmetric conflict, one in which Israel is many times stronger than the Palestinians, we have decisive influence over the course of events. Hence a mistaken assessment by the stronger side creates reality: It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy."

Malka, too, evidently deems actions irrelevant: He told Haaretz that Arafat would sign a deal giving him 97 percent of the territories, including east Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, with a territorial swap for the rest and 20,000-30,000 refugees returning to Israel – serenely untroubled by the fact that Arafat had rejected this very offer at Taba in January 2001.

In short, there appears to have been a widespread culture of basing assessments on analysts' desires rather than on Palestinian words and deeds. That is extremely disturbing.

Moreover, Malka, Lavie and Steinberg all concluded that during the negotiating process, Arafat would not hesitate to use violence to achieve his aims; but once a treaty was signed, the violence would end.

Yet peace treaties cannot prevent future disputes. Even longtime allies often have spats: Just look at the US and France. A peace treaty is only supposed to guarantee that disputes will be resolved through talks rather than through suicide bombings.

Were Israel's intelligence experts so naive that they believed a treaty would preclude further disputes with the Palestinians? Or did they instead believe – despite Arafat's repeated violations of the five previous pledges to eschew violence that he gave Israel from 1993-2000, and despite their own assessment of his willingness to use violence in the future – that after signing a peace treaty he would suddenly turn over a new leaf and abandon violence as a tool?

Once again, either possibility indicates a disturbing tendency to ignore any facts that conflict with the analysts' desired outcome.

An apparently widespread intelligence culture that views reality – i.e. Palestinian words and actions – as a less reliable guide than the analysts' own convictions is truly frightening. It demands an immediate and thorough investigation.

The writer is a veteran journalist and commentator.