Recipe for Peace: Transfer Palestinians [Archive]

NewsGuy

06-19-2002, 12:26 PM

After examining the history of the Middle East and reviewing the different alternatives attempted without success over the past several decades, I now have come to believe that the key to saving innocent lives and reaching a final peace resolution is the separation between the Palestinian mass murderers and their Israeli victims.

Surely a population transfer is anathema to the ideals of our Western society but, then again, so is the ongoing daily slaughter of Israelis at the hands of the Palestinian terrorists whose aim is to ethnically cleanse the Middle East of its Jewish population. And so, we have come to a point at which we must consider an more extreme solution -- not to mete out punishment, but rather to save lives.

The following is a quote from Alan Dershowitz, a prominent U.S. constitutional rights attorney, civil rights activist, and Harvard Law School Professor speaking of Palestinian "refugees," which is pertinent to this discussion:

"As a civil libertarian and human rights activist, I was never much moved by the claims of these refugees. Political solutions often require the movement of people, and such movement is not always voluntary. Making Arab families move - intact - from one Arab village or town to another may constitute a human rights violation. But in the whole spectrum of human rights issues - especially taking into account the events in Europe during the 1940's - it is a fifth-rate issue analogous in many respects to some massive urban renewal or other projects that require large-scale movement of people. For example, the building of the Aswan High Dam in Egypt necessitated the relocation of 100,000 Arabs and the destruction of numerous Arab villages. There were certainly numerous precedents following both world wars, as well as other dislocating events of history - including the establishment of new states. There were so many refugee groups throughout the postwar world, and in so much worse condition, that it is difficult to understand why this particular dislocation assumed such international proportions.

"For example, following the end of World War II, approximately fifteen million ethnic Germans were forcibly expelled from their homes in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and other Central and Eastern European areas where their families had lived for centuries. Two million died during this forced expulsion. Czechoslovakia alone expelled nearly three million Sudeten Germans, turning them into displaced persons. The United States, Britain, and the international community in general approved these expulsions, as necessary to secure a more lasting peace. [...] President Franklin Roosevelt's assistant Harry Hopkins memorialized his boss's view that although transfer of ethnic Germans "is a hard procedure, it is the only way to maintain peace." [...]

[Dershowitz describes other population transfers in the Middle East, primarily hundreds of thousands of Sephardic Jews who left their ancient communities in Arab lands for Israel.]

* * *

What do you think? Has it come to this as a last resort solution to the Palestinian terrorism problem?

Vic

06-19-2002, 01:01 PM

A simple practical question: where are the Palestinians to be transferred to?

NewsGuy

06-19-2002, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Vic
A simple practical question: where are the Palestinians to be transferred to?

Possibilities:

1. A Palestinian "zone" carved out by Israel with defensible international borders, which would include something like "Gaza Plus" and would serve as the basis for a future Palestinian demilitartized state.

2. Jordan.

3. Any Arab state of the Palestinians' choosing that would grant them the freedom and independence they desire.

cerulean

06-19-2002, 01:12 PM

Any Arab country would have to agree, presumably, to take the Palestinians if option #3 was used.

The second question I would have: how would this transfer be effected and who would do it?

Vic

06-19-2002, 01:29 PM

An older thread http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=6205&highlight=lyberia#post6205 contains some useful ideas regarding all 3 options.

Vic

06-20-2002, 01:46 AM

Re-reading this thread, and, pardon this immodesty, my own post http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=6136#post6136, - is an option #4 possible, with a viable, sovereign etc. Palestinian state on someone else's territory?

fair

06-20-2002, 03:22 AM

Do you think that other countries will solve yr problems
Aren,t you know that all land including israel was palestinian land
do y want to bring yr foriegners outres immigrants instead of the real owners of the land
Is it not enough that they left their land to establish your country israel and over all they recognised you
Do u think that u can desmith palestinians to establish big Israel on whole palestine land and on palestinian,s account
If so u must be dreamer and imaginable and u will suffer all times
Be fair to satisfy ur conscious and ur God and save life of ur people

Mediocrates

06-20-2002, 05:08 AM

Thanks but no, let's give the Palistanians Picardy. Just a bunch of dumb Belgian pig farmers there anyway.

andrei

06-20-2002, 05:36 AM

Most of Palestians (at least many) do have Jordan passport and theoretically they can live there, if they stop destributing violence there too - you know the Jordan kicked them out some years ago just because of this reason.

In addition to this discussion, that has many similar threads in Israel forums, I can say that Israel is able (and willing if this help) to pay up to 40.000$ for each arab leaving the country provided firm guarantees he won't return.

It's not a speculation, there are real numbers and people willing to invest (most of them are really not rich). Given with this money one can settle in arab countries and become "upper-class" man. Also governments of these countries would love the money coming to the country with them.

However, the problem is not in economics. Well, instead of repetition I can say that I 100% agree with the 'letter to palestinians'. "The Peace will stand in the Middle East when arabs would love their children more then they hate jews", Golda Meir.

MGB8

06-20-2002, 12:36 PM

MGB8

06-20-2002, 12:41 PM

While I agree with Dershowitz, I don't believe that a unilaterally imposed transfer would be practical, considering the international fallout, and likely war.

HOWEVER, I do believe that we should begin deporting all Palestinian criminals.

If a Palestinian is caught attempting murder - deportation. Supplying weapons or anything else in a conspiracy to commit murder, deportation. Not Jails, that means we have to cloth and feed them. Just get out.

For children throwing stones - give them maybe 3 strikes, after all it is felony assualt in the US, and Battery if the rock connects.

Carrying un registered weapons should get a similar, maybe 2 strikes rule.

I am not kidding, not at all. This would be very legitimate, and while there would still be international condemnation and fallout, it would be much more limited. While it doesn't protect Israel by having these men locked up, it does send a very powerful message to INDIVIDUAL Palestinian arabs.

NewsGuy

06-20-2002, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by cerulean
The second question I would have: how would this transfer be effected and who would do it?
It is not very complicated really.

Israeli tanks enter the Palestinian-occupied town and announce on loudspeakers that all residents have 24 hours to pack their stuff and leave town. They are made aware that they are on their way to reunite with their brothers in a Palestinian-ruled zone, where they will have all the freedom and independence to do as they please. They no longer will have to live among Israelis and will get to realize all their national aspirations. All their dreams can come true in their new Arab wonderland.

Mediocrates

06-20-2002, 12:50 PM

They forget so easily that the Turkish era of Geographical Palestine was also a home to Armenians, Circassians, Turks, Azerbijanis, Bedouins, Cypriots and other groups. 'Palestinian' is really only a generic name like going to the dealership and pointing at all the 'cars'. You have to know something about it to distinguish one from another. If you were to ask those people they would say they are Turk, Armenian and so on. But in the mythology of Palistan they've managed to aggregate all of those real groups together under one imaginary synthetic name and sell it to the world. As if you went on a boat blindfolded sailed to somewhere in the western hemisphere, jumped out of the boat and called everyone 'American'. It's gibberish. It's meaningless and only makes sense in a Disney cartoon world where all the people are young, handsome, under age 30 and speak English: White, red, brown, indian, european, animal, human, whatever, it makes no difference. That's the modern Palistinian.

Mediocrates

06-20-2002, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by MGB8
While I agree with Dershowitz, I don't believe that a unilaterally imposed transfer would be practical, considering the international fallout, and likely war.

HOWEVER, I do believe that we should begin deporting all Palestinian criminals.

I am not kidding, not at all. This would be very legitimate, and while there would still be international condemnation and fallout, it would be much more limited. While it doesn't protect Israel by having these men locked up, it does send a very powerful message to INDIVIDUAL Palestinian arabs.

I don't doubt you're serious. Problem is where, where their host nation won't send them on the next plane back. Holy Moly it took 3 weeks to negotiate the 'release' of convicted killers to 'exile'. First to a luxury hotel on Cypress then to the 4 corners of every bistro in Europe where they scatter like bugs and are probably either back in Bethlehem or banging some Eurochicks to get more recruits and money to the cause.

Sure I'd like to deport them. My vote is some hellhole in the jungles outside Kinshasha or Borneo or maybe Vostok Antarctica.

elke

06-20-2002, 03:22 PM

Vic

06-20-2002, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I don't doubt you're serious. Problem is where, where their host nation won't send them on the next plane back. Holy Moly it took 3 weeks to negotiate the 'release' of convicted killers to 'exile'. First to a luxury hotel on Cypress then to the 4 corners of every bistro in Europe where they scatter like bugs and are probably either back in Bethlehem or banging some Eurochicks to get more recruits and money to the cause. Care to pay them a visit, Mediocrates?

Europeans not very happy as hosts of the Bethlehem exiles
By Yossi Melman
Ha'aretz
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=173916&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
Soria, in the northern Spanish province of Castilla-Leon, is a small, sleepy town with ancient buildings and a historic past. Normally, it does not make headlines, but last week, the fury of the local residents against the Spanish government was the subject of discussion in the national media. The reason for the fuss was that three of the 13 Palestinians exiled after the standoff at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem have been sent to the village of Lobia, which is on the outskirts of Soria.

According to the popular Madrid daily, ABC, the three have been put up at the official guest house where former Spanish prime minister Felipe Gonzales used to stay. "I didn't know," the mayor of the town was quoted as saying.

"Why here?" asked residents, who fear that the presence of the three with their bodyguards, policemen and private detectives will disturb the peace and alter the quality of life in their town
...
Firstly, the residents are concerned that Israel and the Palestinians will stir up their supporters in these countries and that such actions will lead to demonstrations. The Belgian Foreign Ministry, in informal contacts, asked both the Israeli and the Palestinian diplomatic representations to refrain from activating the Jewish and Arab communities and to influence them to maintain low profiles. The Israeli Embassy clarified that it was not in the habit of stirring up the Jewish community, but passed on the message to its head.

But over and above this is the fear that Israel's secret services will try to assassinate the exiles. Europe has not forgotten the antiterrorist actions on its soil, on the part of the Mossad, in the aftermath of the murder of the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. In light of such, and before agreeing to help put an end to the Bethlehem impasse, the seven host nations received tacit assurances from Israel that their sovereignty will not be infringed.

Vic

06-21-2002, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by MGB8
For children throwing stones - give them maybe 3 strikes, after all it is felony assualt in the US, and Battery if the rock connects.

Carrying un registered weapons should get a similar, maybe 2 strikes rule. What do you mean by "strikes"? Bombing attacks, physical punishment of the culprit...?

elke

06-21-2002, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Vic
What do you mean by "strikes"? Bombing attacks, physical punishment of the culprit...?

Not to put words into someone else's mouth, but I think MGB8 means 3 warnings, before jail or teargas, or whatever punishment. Rock throwing, as well as illegal gun possession are crimes in the US.

The expression comes from baseball: you get to try to hit the ball 3 times. If by the 3rd time you don't hit a "base run", you are out until next time. :)

Abraham

06-23-2002, 02:48 AM

Although the Forefathers of the Jewish people (Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob) were promised by G-d to inherit the land of Israel, it was later inhabited by the 7 nations of Canaan. The leader of the Hebrews, Joshua, was commanded by G-d to conquer these nations and take possession of the land. So that this land should be transformed into the Holy Land.
These nations were offered to live in peace with the Hebrews, or leave to another country or fight.

By the way, the name Palestine was given by a Roman leader to the Land of Israel after they conquered it so that the Jews should forget about their aspirations of return and rebuilding Jerusalem as its capital.

I promise you that anyone who assists in the destruction of Jewish lives in or outside of Israel, will not have a portion in the world to come, except possibly one of continuous pain and torment. The war you seek is with he G-d of Israel. Killing innocent Americans attempting to advance your political agenda will get you nowhere. Your only chance is to submit to a peace that recognizes the Jews as the rightful owners of the Land of Israel, who are willing to live in peace with you.

Since "Palestinian" children are indoctrinated with hatred and taught the glory of dying in order to kill Israelis, I believe that the men, women, and children should be subject to the same reprisal. Allowing these people of destruction to live by relocating them to another land is a kindness and shouldn't be rewarded with a monetary bribe or reward. If they want peace they should be allowed to stay and live in peace. The truth is that they can have a better life in Israel than with their fellow Arab nations. (Who by the way, don't want them in their lands and enjoy exploiting them as needy people being crushed by the Israelis.) This is not so. Too bad the reporters from the major news stations have had their lives threatened and those of their families, when portraying Israelis in a positive way.

It's time for the Jewish leadership to speak the truth of the Torah. Many people throughout the world regognize the biblical account and agree that the Land of Israel was given by G-d to the Jews. But if the Jews ignor this, why shouldn't others?
________
ABRAHAM

sharonbn

06-23-2002, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by NewsGuy

It is not very complicated really.

Israeli tanks enter the Palestinian-occupied town and announce on loudspeakers that all residents have 24 hours to pack their stuff and leave town. They are made aware that they are on their way to reunite with their brothers in a Palestinian-ruled zone, where they will have all the freedom and independence to do as they please. They no longer will have to live among Israelis and will get to realize all their national aspirations. All their dreams can come true in their new Arab wonderland.

Oh so simple...
Imagine a (hypothetical) Palestinian family: father, 44, construction worker (currently unemployed) mother, 40, and their 8 children, having lunch at home. They support the Palestinian struggle against the IDF and Jewish settlers but oppose terror attacks inside green-line Israel. Furthermore, they hate the fact that the Hamas and Jihad are operating from the civillian towns but have no power to stop this situation.
They themselves have no connection with suicide bombers. They live in Jenin for the last 4 generations. This is their home.

All of the sudden, they hear the roar of the Tanks' engines and the loudspeakers. What are they to do? quietly pack their little belonging, leave their house and .... what? go live in a tent? live in the streets? vanish into thin air? Who will build them the house that they owned? How do you think that the eldest son - 16 y.o boy - would feel in such a case? Which organization is he likely to join - Israeli-Palestinian friendship, or Hamas?

beside the fact that this solution is not FEASABLE, its also MORALLY WRONG. I will repeat myself: Just because the other side is engaing in brutal, in-human war against civillians does not give an excuse to Israel to behave in the same way. This will make Israel a terror state with terror means like Iran. The fact that "they started it" makes really poor difference. Defending the lives of Israeli civillians should NOT be made "at all cost".

The common mistake you're making, NewsGuy, is that all Palestinians support suicide bombing and they all "deserve" to be displaced from their homes to somewhere else. They all suppose to "understand" this action as an Israeli defensive action, pack their stuff and start from scratch in a new place.
The real picture is different. Most Palestinian civillians have no affiliation to terror group. They are simply afraid to speak aloud because the of reign of terror these groups are practicing.

andrei

06-23-2002, 04:04 AM

takeo

06-23-2002, 04:44 AM

"serbian tanks enter the bosniak town of srebrenica and announce on loudspeakers that all residents have 24 hours to pack their stuff and leave town. They are made aware that they are on their way to reunite with their brothers in a bosnian-ruled zone, where they will have all the freedom and independence to do as they please. "

no comment, let's see if The hague tribunal will like your idea...

Morpheus

06-23-2002, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Just a bunch of dumb Belgian pig farmers there anyway.

:confused: :confused:

NewsGuy

06-23-2002, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by sharonbn
What are they to do? quietly pack their little belonging, leave their house and .... what? go live in a tent? live in the streets? vanish into thin air? Who will build them the house that they owned?

Again, I am sorry for the inconvenience, but the are still in a much better situation that the Israeli families who have had their loved ones massacred by Palestinian terrorists.

Let me ask you something, where will the Israeli families go now that their mother/father is murdered and there is no one to provide them with the house they deserve or the income to have what other children their age have in normal Western countries? Who will provide for the unemployed Israelis whose businesses were devastated by Arab terrorism? You know very well that the government has no choice but to cut social benefits to the whole country, which already is living in much worse conditions than ever before. So where does the money come from for the Israelis?

On the other hand, so long as the Palestinians are mass murdering Israelis, there seems to be no lack of money. Saddam Hussein comes up with a crisp $25,000 cash, and Saudi Arabia comes up with another $15,000 per Palestinian mass murderer family. When it came to rebuild Jenin-grad, the Saudi telethom raised, what? something like $100 million?

Anyway, historically, European people needed to be displaced and they were expected to be re-absorbed into their new societies. This is not a picnic, and it's not an invitation to live in the Hilton -- this is an unfortunate price to be paid for the Palestinian terrorism. And the ultimate goal is to save lives and to be able to make peace one day.

This will make Israel a terror state with terror means like Iran. The fact that "they started it" makes really poor difference. Defending the lives of Israeli civillians should NOT be made "at all cost".

Come on, Sharon,did Iran ever need to face daily massacres of its citizens? How can you make such a weak comparison?

And I'm not sure where in the world you came up with this thing about "they started it."

It's simply a matter of finding a new solution for survival. Israel tried peace, tried offering land, tried offering even our Jewish capital to the control of those who personally massacred Israeli women and children. Nothing has worked so far. So now, it;s time to try another way that is less pleasant and is a last resort effort to save lives.

As for being not feasible, you are of course mistaken. It is already starting as soon as it gets legal clearance. The families of the terrorists first, then if there is still no progress, you will see that the rest of the Palestinian squatters in Israel and the West Bank will need to go back to reunite with their Arab brothers elsewhere in the Middle East.

Most Palestinian civillians have no affiliation to terror group. They are simply afraid to speak aloud because the of reign of terror these groups are practicing.

With all due respect, this is the naive dream of many Leftists. The facts as reported by Palestinian polls and the facts on the ground show you are wrong. I have seen polls range from 60% to 80% of Palestinains supporting suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.

If most Palestinians, as you claim, want to coexist peacefully with Israel, then they would have rejected Arafat, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Palestinian Hizbullah a long time ago, and peace would have been possible without all of these thousands of senseless deaths.

How about you test your thoery about how much the Palestinians love you and respect your right to live even within the green line, by paying a visit to Gaza? Or even any Arab village inside the Green Line? Actually, please don't -- you're a nice guy and I would not want to read about you as a statistic in the Ynet newsflash window.

Mediocrates

06-23-2002, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Morpheus

:confused: :confused:

It's how my French relatives feel about Picardy and the Belgians in general. We have Rednecks, you have the Belgians.

Mediocrates

06-23-2002, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by takeo
"serbian tanks enter the bosniak town of srebrenica and announce on loudspeakers that all residents have 24 hours to pack their stuff and leave town. They are made aware that they are on their way to reunite with their brothers in a bosnian-ruled zone, where they will have all the freedom and independence to do as they please. "

no comment, let's see if The hague tribunal will like your idea...

Change the name of the Jenin refugee camp to Omarska and let's see who salutes that.

sharonbn

06-24-2002, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Again, I am sorry for the inconvenience, but the are still in a much better situation that the Israeli families who have had their loved ones massacred by Palestinian terrorists.

NewsGuy, You don't right a wrong by doing wrong to someone else. The fact that Israeli families suffer from Palestinian terror attacks DOES NOT make it right to punish Palestinians who are not terrorists themselves. Besides the fact that this is morally wrong, this strategy may also backfire at you as you aggrevate more and more Paletinians and push them to the arms of Hamas and Jihad.

Originally posted by NewsGuy
On the other hand, so long as the Palestinians are mass murdering Israelis, there seems to be no lack of money. Saddam Hussein comes up with a crisp $25,000 cash, and Saudi Arabia comes up with another $15,000 per Palestinian mass murderer family. When it came to rebuild Jenin-grad, the Saudi telethom raised, what? something like $100 million?

These numbers may or may not be true. There are also reports of high unemployment, starving Palestinian children and families, despair and fear.

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Anyway, historically, European people needed to be displaced and they were expected to be re-absorbed into their new societies.

This is nonsense. What do you suggest, that ME returns to medieval Europe? to WWII Europe? We are living in the 21st century. Things that were common and tolerated in the past, like slavery, ethnic cleansing and population transfer are no longer acceptable. You can't say, in Israel, becasue of the extreme situation, population transfer is a valid solution. Population transfer is no longer a solution to anything. It is plain cruel and brutal and will backfire.

Originally posted by NewsGuy
It's simply a matter of finding a new solution for survival. Israel tried peace, tried offering land, tried offering even our Jewish capital to the control of those who personally massacred Israeli women and children. Nothing has worked so far. So now, it;s time to try another way that is less pleasant and is a last resort effort to save lives.
Saving lives should not be done "at all cost". If the cost is harming other innocent people and bcoming a terrorist yourself - its not worth the life your saving. that is my opinion.

Originally posted by NewsGuy
As for being not feasible, you are of course mistaken. It is already starting as soon as it gets legal clearance. The families of the terrorists first, then if there is still no progress, you will see that the rest of the Palestinian squatters in Israel and the West Bank will need to go back to reunite with their Arab brothers elsewhere in the Middle East.
You can rest assured this will never happen.

Originally posted by NewsGuy
With all due respect, this is the naive dream of many Leftists. The facts as reported by Palestinian polls and the facts on the ground show you are wrong. I have seen polls range from 60% to 80% of Palestinains supporting suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.
If most Palestinians, as you claim, want to coexist peacefully with Israel, then they would have rejected Arafat, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Palestinian Hizbullah a long time ago, and peace would have been possible without all of these thousands of senseless deaths.

I say most Palestinians do want to establish peace with Israel. They are led by a minority of extreme fundementalists who force a reign of terror over the rest of the population. I also see the winds of change blowing on the Palestinian people, as the opposition to Arafat strengthens.

cerulean

06-24-2002, 01:50 AM

Former vice-presidential candidate Sen. Lieberman is proposing that at least some Palestinians immigrate to the United States to escape the culture of suicide bombing.
...
"It's important that the president get back on the field here," he said. "The problem here is that this is going nowhere." Lieberman proposed substantial U.S. economic aid to Palestinians and said he would allow more into America as part of an effort to improve ties and separate young Palestinians from the culture of suicide bombing.
...

The obvious question is what if they import the culture of suicide bombing into the United States? If the same people can't live beside Israel, can they really live in the US?

If immigration of Palestinians to the United States is an acceptable solution, so should immigration of Palestinians to some other country, including countries where they will have a greater cultural affiliation.

Link at http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20020623_740.html
(more info about Bush's supposedly imminent Mideast speech also)

Vic

06-24-2002, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by cerulean
"It's important that the president get back on the field here," he said. "The problem here is that this is going nowhere." Lieberman proposed substantial U.S. economic aid to Palestinians and said he would allow more into America as part of an effort to improve ties and separate young Palestinians from the culture of suicide bombing.A very bad idea. For one, residence permits for the West are yearned for and difficult to acquire, therefore this measure would be percieved as a reward for terrorism. Better award more scholarships to Israeli students and offer treatment and rehabilitation opportunities to terror victims. For another, the masses of Palestinians in my part of the world are not exactly a stabilizing social and political factor.

An alternative proposal: send them to work for aid organisations in some of the rougher parts of Africa. Maybe they'll realize that they have no right to consider themselves the world's foremost underdogs.

Mediocrates

06-24-2002, 04:17 AM

Well at least the security services could finally recruit people who actually speak Arabic instead of letting all the sigint pile up for months.... :o

NewsGuy

06-24-2002, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by cerulean
Former vice-presidential candidate Sen. Lieberman is proposing that at least some Palestinians immigrate to the United States to escape the culture of suicide bombing.
Lieberman is sadly mistaken. It would be disasterous for the U.S. to actively recruit more potential Palestinian enemies into this country.

If the U.S. wants to invest in the Palestinians (which is also a terrible idea), then let the investment be in resettling Palestinians in Jordan. That way, we'd at least have a chance to achieve peace.

Mediocrates

06-24-2002, 08:56 AM

The obvious question is what if they import the culture of suicide bombing into the United States? If the same people can't live beside Israel, can they really live in the US?

More importantly:

1) All of them?
2) What about the 2/3rds of all Palistinians living in Arab countries?
3) Why would they agree? Do they want to be Americans?

cerulean

06-24-2002, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates

More importantly:

1) All of them?
2) What about the 2/3rds of all Palistinians living in Arab countries?
3) Why would they agree? Do they want to be Americans?

1) I think I read somewhere that Lieberman's idea was to import one million to the US, but I can't find the reference.
2) I need more info! I wonder if Lieberman has a position paper on the subject or something.
3) Good point. If they are willing to immigrate to the United States, it's not about getting a homeland next to and on top of Israel.

Glenn

06-24-2002, 05:54 PM

I have been looking at he history of Israel since Biblical times. What I notice is that it did not include what is now the south of Israel. However, the west bank area was always the heart of Israel. Perhaps a large Palestinian state could be constructed in the south, with territory also from Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. All Palestinian arabs both from the refugee camps and from Israel could go there and build a new nation with massive world support.

elke

06-24-2002, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Glenn
I have been looking at he history of Israel since Biblical times. What I notice is that it did not include what is now the south of Israel. However, the west bank area was always the heart of Israel. Perhaps a large Palestinian state could be constructed in the south, with territory also from Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. All Palestinian arabs both from the refugee camps and from Israel could go there and build a new nation with massive world support.

IMHO, this is a constructive idea, but there are 2 major problems that I can see:

1. It would require massive relocation of the Palestinians
2. Negev is a desert, its climate is not very good for life. Israelis have been able to make some headway there with agriculture, but it's really very difficult. Very little water among other things.

Glenn

06-24-2002, 06:14 PM

It certainly would involve massive relocation of the Palestinian people, but from what I have seen, they don't seem to be very happy where they are now.
This southern state would also force the Arab nations to put something where their mouths are and do something constructive instead of just yelling at Israel and slipping money and bombs to terrorists. The rest of the world, especially the United States, would be willing to spend billions to set up a clean new Palestinian state.

elke

06-24-2002, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Glenn
It certainly would involve massive relocation of the Palestinian people, but from what I have seen, they don't seem to be very happy where they are now.
This southern state would also force the Arab nations to put something where their mouths are and do something constructive instead of just yelling at Israel and slipping money and bombs to terrorists. The rest of the world, especially the United States, would be willing to spend billions to set up a clean new Palestinian state.

Well said, Glenn :)

takeo

06-24-2002, 07:00 PM

What i notice is that many people oppose this nazist idea because of realism and fear for the internationa reaction... but only a few because massive etnic cleansing is unethical... that's really frightening, especially since the most posters here are educated people with a western education, not some bunch of marginalised extremists or people who live in undemocratic societies...
you blame the palestinians because they support suicide-bombing, yet your proposed methods are equally despisable...

elke

06-24-2002, 07:28 PM

Well, not "equally": after all, this does not require killing women and children with poisoned bolts and nails.

However, you are right in that the relocation is not a warm and fuzzy solution to contemplate.

Glenn

06-24-2002, 10:19 PM

It is not a warm and fuzzy solution, but it just might work. The real problem for Israel is the explosive birth rate of the Israeli Arab population. It will outnumber the Israelis Jewish population in a generation. Also, I can't realistically see Israel giving up Samaria and Judea.

takeo

06-24-2002, 11:42 PM

"It is not a warm and fuzzy solution, but it just might work. The real problem for Israel is the explosive birth rate of the Israeli Arab population. It will outnumber the Israelis Jewish population in a generation. Also, I can't realistically see Israel giving up Samaria and Judea."

the final solution for the Palestinian problem... :mad:
massive etnic cleansing... :o

what can i ad more? Glen is the representation of everything that I detest in the israeli right-wing, the representation of fascism and inhuman racial cruelty, people like you should be deported, not millions of innocent people to serve your racist utopian Eretz Israel free of Arab "squatters"...

sharonbn

06-25-2002, 03:01 AM

I have to say, as much as I disagree with takeo on lots of things, I agree with him on his last post.

I don't understand how from Palestinians living in WB, GS we came to Arab Israeli citizens living in their rightful traditional homes inside Israel. Both population, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians deserve the same right as Jews - to live securely at their home.

IMO, there is a big difference between evicting people from their home, causing historical injustice and accepting imigration (I'm talking about Palestinian right of return) in an attempt to correct past injustice. I feel no obligation to accept Palestinian immigration that resulted in past wars and conflicts simply becasue I do not believe in Israel's responsibility for this situation becasue the majority of Palestinians were not evicted but fled their homes. This is not the same as Israel initiating mass transfer.

I would like to point out that my opinions are not of small minority in Israel, as some might think. Although the strength of the left wing was diminished in the last two years, we still account some 35-40% of the Jewish Israeli population and that's not a number to be easily discarded.

I say that mass transfer of civilian population is first of all morally wrong. No innocent person should be forcefully removed from his/her home for no reason. Besides the moral issue, this solution is also not feasible, because of the outcry outside as well as inside Israel. If such an action is attempted at large scale, I'm anticipating great unrest in Israel, to the point of the collapse of order and maybe even civil war. The Israeli left wing, which is around 45% of the Israeli populace, will not allow such an action to perform. We will go and stop the bulldozers with our bodies.

and please, spare me the "democratic elected government" cr*p. Remember what happened in US during the Vietnam war - this was also an elected government, but massive crowds took to the streets and violently clashed with the police. it was their actions that eventually put a stop to the war. Similar events took place in France in the 50s when Algeria fought for its independence.

cerulean

06-25-2002, 03:13 AM

I'm not going to say that transfer is the right solution, because I don't know. I see massive practical difficulties, at the very least.

But I don't think that anyone here is suggesting a Trail-of-Tears-style forced march like the Cherokee were subjected to in the US in the 1800s.

From time to time, every government does transfers, large-scale or small-scale. If a particular government decides it wants to build a dam, numerous communities may be completely evacuated and the residents relocated elsewhere. If the government decides it wants my house because it wants to widen the road, I don't really have much choice in the matter. If a landlord decides he wants to sell the home in which an exemplary tenant has been living for thirty years, again she will have no choice in the matter.

If Israel determines it cannot survive continued, random, repeated attacks from hostile residents, what then?

sharonbn

06-25-2002, 03:45 AM

Originally posted by cerulean
If Israel determines it cannot survive continued, random, repeated attacks from hostile residents, what then?

Palestinian terror attacks do not threaten the existence of Israel.

never in history, did guerilla warfare threatens the existence of a sovereign state defended by an established army. Guerilla warfare was successful in driving away an invading army (like Hizbuallah did in Lebanon, Afghans did to the Russians, etc.).
This is not the same. The best the Palestinians can hope to achieve is that Israel will slowly start to fold from WB and GS.
As much as they will continue to pound Israel with terror attacks, there is no chance Israelis will leave green-line Israel.

The only existential threat Israel faced was from invading Arab armies in 1948 and 1973. With the establishment of peace with Egypt - the largest Arab nation, as well as Jordan - who shares with Israel the longest borderline, this threat was diminished to the point where Israel can now assume it will not be overran by military force.

IMO, The biggest threat Israel is facing now is the weakening effect of internal division stemming from morally questionable initiatives like the war in Lebanon and the prolonging of the occupation of Palestinian land.

ibrodsky

06-25-2002, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by sharonbn

IMO, The biggest threat Israel is facing now is the weakening effect of internal division stemming from morally questionable initiatives like the war in Lebanon and the prolonging of the occupation of Palestinian land.

The biggest threat Israel faces is indeed from internal division. Jews who think their own government is the guilty party, who refuse to recognize the depth of Arab hatred and racism, and who fail to understand that Israel's enemies only understand force... these people put Israel at greatest risk.

The enemy is militant Islam. It is a greater threat than Nazism, because it could potentially infect 1.2 billion people -- or more. Lebanon was turned into a staging ground for terrorist attacks long before Israel invaded. The "Palestinians," who are a nation contrived merely to keep Israel's War of Independence going, live on captured land, and the "occupation" is solely Israel's Arab enemies fault. When they demonstrate they are willing and able to live in peace with Israel as a neighbor, the occupation willl end.

takeo

06-25-2002, 05:04 AM

i agree with sharon except that i think, according to the geneva-conventions, that refugees who fled the war should have the right to return. in this particular case massive return could destabilise israel so a just compromise has to be elaborated.
I think initiatives as the occupation of libanon didn't contribute to israeli safety but caused a lot of israeli and palestinian death. And the right-wing in israel is not continuing to keep the occupied territories for safety-reasons (completely ignoring the potential of peace with the entire region that retreat could achieve, not to mention an end to israel's isolated position in the world) but because they see it as a part of Eretz-Israel. Besides israel will never win the war against terrorism without negociations, because you can't win against a guerilla-movement supported by the population of the area you occupy, as the government- sharon has demonstrated.
Let me add at last that such extremist israeli actions would not only provoke internal reactions (i know many israeli who are already ashamed for their government) but would it make more easy for europe and the rest of the world to take united serious economic or even military sanctions against israel and forcing it to change its policy. also those millions of new palestinians refugees will draw israel in a regional war, in which the other side will enjoy world-wide support or even assistance.
finally your example of people being evicted because of dams is different, because that is not on etnical basis, those people will be relocated in other parts of the same country, will get compensation, and this doesn't happen in occupied territory, which is bound by the Geneva-conventions.

Mediocrates

06-25-2002, 05:25 AM

(i know many israeli who are already ashamed for their government) but would it make more easy for europe and the rest of the world to take united serious economic or even military sanctions against israel

1 Oddly all Arab states are shameless. Shame on you.
2 More threats except now that the US agrees with Israel publically you threaten military force as well. That's not a wise move to make.

takeo

06-25-2002, 10:14 AM

in case of a massive etnic cleansing the US would certainly NOT support Israel, because the public opinion would not accept it and besides the destabilisation of the entire middle east as the result would be very much contraproductive for American interests (even today the White House demands israeli retreat from the autonomous areas). I think such actions will and should fireback against Israel, and in such cases the international resistance against israel will go from words to real action.
Some people on this board are shameless too, proposing the deportation of millions of innocent people.
massive etnic cleansing doesn't happen without consequences for the perpetrator in the 21th century, even if that perpetrator is called israel.

Mediocrates

06-25-2002, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by takeo
in case of a massive etnic cleansing the US would certainly NOT support Israel, because the public opinion would not accept it and besides the destabilisation of the entire middle east as the result would be very much contraproductive for American interests (even today the White House demands israeli retreat from the autonomous areas). I think such actions will and should fireback against Israel, and in such cases the international resistance against israel will go from words to real action.
Some people on this board are shameless too, proposing the deportation of millions of innocent people.
massive etnic cleansing doesn't happen without consequences for the perpetrator in the 21th century, even if that perpetrator is called israel.

I understand YOU think this is true if you repeat it to yourself long enough but it is neither true nor is it proposed nor is it supported nor is it advocated by the US. I understand fully that if you say something imflammatory long enough then it takes on the appearance of fact and truth but that is simply not the case. I understand fully your urge to see in a hundred years a Palistinian schoolbook with a chapter called "The Greatest Ethnic Cleansing Ever Comitted". But that too will simply be another myth another fairy tale. BTW you could have included another 'ethnic cleansing' in the second sentence and the fourth sentence as well.

And I like the 'massive' it really lends weight to the lie.

takeo

06-25-2002, 10:48 AM

ok, so how do you call the forced deportation of millions of people from one etnic group to another country, as proposed by people on this board, if it isn't etnic cleansing?
Do you think th US would make no objections?

Mediocrates

06-25-2002, 10:59 AM

I don't know what to make about what other people write here. It is neither policy nor plan nor anything other than people writing. It's very important to distinguish that.

Yes I do believe the US would intervene. One of the purposes of that speech was to establish the US's own 'red lines' and clearly while they did not accord your dream of a Jew Free Samaria he did say that NEW development should stop. To me that means what it means and not something else. The US is saying that new development eg. additional infrastructure to support significantly more Jews than now will not be supported. Of course this does not mean that the population of suburbanites can't grow within the areas it already covers but clearly that has proctical limits. Our President, or any other policy organ has never said anything of the sort that it would sit idly by and let that happen let alone help it. Why do you think this 1800 word speech took so long to finish and deliver? The US will support Israel to the extent that it makes sense to support Israel in the pursuit of its own goals.

takeo

06-25-2002, 11:32 AM

OK, well i was referring to that proposal, because that's what this tread is about.
the US policy concerning israel is indeed very delicate, that's exactly why such a proposal would harm the relations between the US and Israel.
whatever Bush said, the US DID recognise the un-resolutions condamning all settlements, and does recognise israel within its pre-1967 borders, because of political difficulties within his administration he had to make a speech that would both satisfie Israel and the Palestinians.
but anyway the middle-east policy of Bush is one big catastrophy, he didn't achieve nothing and even abandoned the peace-talks that clinton promoted untill his last day in office. and Europe has its own middle-eastern policy, independant of the US', since bush took power serious differences appeared between the us and Europe.

NewsGuy

06-25-2002, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by sharonbn
I would like to point out that my opinions are not of small minority in Israel, as some might think. Although the strength of the left wing was diminished in the last two years, we still account some 35-40% of the Jewish Israeli population and that's not a number to be easily discarded.

Sharon,

What is your source for that inflated statistic?

Elsewhere you stated that you support Leftist extremists like Yossi Beilin and Yossi Sarid. You know very well that 35-40% of Israeli do not support those guys. Rather, it is a tiny fringe element that they represent.

The Israeli left wing, which is around 45% of the Israeli populace, will not allow such an action to perform. We will go and stop the bulldozers with our bodies.

ok, I see now that they grew to 45% within a few minutes... <Looking at watch> Do I hear 50%? 55%? ;)

As for stopping the bulldozers with your bodies, would you please send Uri Avneri first and then Yossi Sarid second?

and please, spare me the "democratic elected government" cr*p.

There we go... Now, we're getting to the true heart of the matter.

Many Leftists have no regard for democracy if it doesn't go their way. Many of those who pretend to care about "human rights" and "freedom" a.k.a. Yefei Hanefesh in Hebrew never really accept these notions when applied to the democratically expressed wishes of others. They act to block the human rights and the freedom of anyone who disagrees with them. Is this what I'm hearing from you, Sharon?

James

06-25-2002, 12:08 PM

What do you think? Has it come to this as a last resort solution to the Palestinian terrorism problem? [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, expell, (or if transfer is a better term) all Arabs, Palestinians, Moslems into territories surrendered to Israel by their enemies! If
these people resist living peacefully in Israel, expulsion is the only humane answer. If Israel continues trying to keep a peace among proven enemies, more deaths will come! We must remember, Israel (and any country supporting her) is the enemy of all Arabs(Moslems). If any think not, they are being deceived!

Mediocrates

06-25-2002, 12:10 PM

and does recognise israel within its pre-1967 borders

Removal of forces to the September 2000 limits. Limits on FURTHER expansion of Jewish suburbs in YESHA but no limit on headcount habitation.

I don't think Bush made much attempt or was concerned much about making Arafat or the Palstinians happy. Why would he - the terrorist he can find and punish is preferable to the great Iraqi boogeyman he can't find and punish.

and Europe has its own middle-eastern policy, independant of the US', since bush took power serious differences appeared between the us and Europe.

Europe has always pursued its own ME policy that is nothing new. Do you remember the bizarre flight patterns that US jets had to fly to bomb Libya from the UK because they were banned from flying over this country and that one? You were maybe 7 years old but you could look it up.

NewsGuy

06-25-2002, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by takeo
... Besides israel will never win the war against terrorism without negociations, because you can't win against a guerilla-movement supported by the population of the area you occupy, as the government- sharon has demonstrated.

That may or may not be true ultimately, but the facts so far have shown that negotiations and all kinds of nice intentions have not only failed to stop Palestinian terrorism, but have actually accelerated it.

takeo

06-25-2002, 12:14 PM

"Many Leftists have no regard for democracy if it doesn't go their way"

etnic cleansing is not a democratic decision, because the palestinians have no right to decide about their own faith, and it is contrary to the principles upon which every western democracy was established. Sharon is the elected leader of israel, not of Palestine.
Being elected is no garantee of being democratic and governing according to the rule of law, not to mention a very famous personality...
where is your respect for democracy if you refuse the palestinians to choose their own leaders? where is your respect for the elected president of France? and where was the respect for democracy of the right-wing when they opposed Oslo with all possible means (not to mention the extreme rightwing who went as fas as killing the head of state).

Mediocrates

06-25-2002, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by takeo
"Many Leftists have no regard for democracy if it doesn't go their way"

etnic cleansing is not a democratic decision, because the palestinians have no right to decide about their own faith. Sharon is the elected leader of israel, not of Palestine.
Being elected is no garantee of being democratic and governing according to the rule of law, not to mention a very famous personality...
where is your respect for democracy if you refuse the palestinians to choose their own leaders? and where was the respect for democracy of the right-wing when they opposed Oslo with all possible means (not to mention the extreme rightwing who went as fas as killing the head of state).

My God is that sloppy. Do you think free speech means you can yell FIRE in a theater too? The first sentence doesn't mean anything at all. The second sentence is filler. The third is gibberish. The fourth is hypocrisy. The fifth is a jumble of agitprop and pseudofactoids.

NewsGuy

06-25-2002, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by takeo
etnic cleansing is not a democratic decision, because the palestinians have no right to decide about their own faith.

Self-defense by removing one's enemies is consistent with democracy.

As for the Palestinians' right to decide their own fate, they certainly have that right. So far, they have overwhelmingly supported the massacre of Jews, attempted genocide and ethnic cleansing of Israel's Jewish residents.

The Palestinians have had plenty of opportunity to reject terrorism and they have not. So, we need to show real respect to the Palestinian people by listening to their voice. They have chosen Arafat and they have chosen to wage a war of terrorism against Israel. And they know very well that when in war, their opponent will act as if at war. (it actually sounds better in French).

The Palestinians have no one to blame for the outcome but themselves.

* * *

This also seems like a good opportunity to resond to something else you said about international pressure and loss of U.S. support. Well, if Israel would expel Palestinians from towns where terrorism originated, then Israel would be much less dependent on foreign support. With the Palestinian threat of terrorism broken and a solution found, the world will applaud Israel. Just like in the Iraqi nuclear plant bombing. Same thing here.

takeo

06-25-2002, 12:34 PM

"Yes, expell, (or if transfer is a better term) all Kosovars into territories surrendered to serbia by their enemies! If
these people resist living peacefully in serbia, expulsion is the only humane answer. If serbia continues trying to keep a peace among proven enemies, more deaths will come! We must remember, serbia (and any country supporting her) is the enemy of all Albanians. If any think not, they are being deceived"

"That may or may not be true ultimately, but the facts so far have shown that negotiations and all kinds of nice intentions have not only failed to stop Palestinian terrorism, but have actually accelerated it. "

that's not true, the oslo-agreements stopped the first intifadeh, not all the violence stopped, but most. Only since the negociations failed in 2000 and both parties were using violent methods and israel was renouncing further negociations terrorism accelerated as never before. Since the "no-nonsense" approach of Sharon the terrorism accelerated even further.

"Removal of forces to the September 2000 limits. Limits on FURTHER expansion of Jewish suburbs in YESHA but no limit on headcount habitation. "

actually according to the oslo-agreements israel was no longer allowed to build new settlements...
but, except some on the border that can be traded for israeli land inhabited by mostly israeli palestinians, all settlements should be abandoned if you want to achieve peace. in a future palestinian state the settlements in the middle of palestinian land will be impossible to maintain as part of israel, land for peace, got it? unless of course the settlers agree to become palestinian citizens...

"I don't think Bush made much attempt or was concerned much about making Arafat or the Palstinians happy. Why would he - the terrorist he can find and punish is preferable to the great Iraqi boogeyman he can't find and punish. "

no, but he was concerned making his saoudi, pakistani and Egyptian friends happy... without them he can forget about iraq and about pretty much anything in the middle east.

"Europe has always pursued its own ME policy that is nothing new. Do you remember the bizarre flight patterns that US jets had to fly to bomb Libya from the UK because they were banned from flying over this country and that one? You were maybe 7 years old but you could look it up. "

of course, we Europeans don't like illegal terrorist actions against independant countries, and will certainly not cooperate with such actions.

takeo

06-25-2002, 12:50 PM

"Self-defense by removing one's enemies is consistent with democracy. "

not if it is conducted against innocent civilians and in violation of international laws of war.

"As for the Palestinians' right to decide their own fate, they certainly have that right. So far, they have overwhelmingly supported the massacre of Jews, attempted genocide and ethnic cleansing of Israel's Jewish residents. "

While israeli have overwelmingly supported the massacre of palestinians, attempted genocide (if you can use it i can too, more palestinians died than israeli) and oppression of the palestinian people for many decades.

"The Palestinians have had plenty of opportunity to reject terrorism and they have not. So, we need to show real respect to the Palestinian people by listening to their voice. They have chosen Arafat and they have chosen to wage a war of terrorism against Israel. And they know very well that when in war, their opponent will act as if at war. (it actually sounds better in French). "

having an opinion, whatever that is, is not a legitimate reason for etnic cleansing or even punishing someone, if not the suicide bombs would b legal because the majority of israeli support the policy of sharon.

"The Palestinians have no one to blame for the outcome but themselves. "

yes, they can blaim the israeli oppression since 1967, the etnic cleansing in 1948, their own leaders for launching the 1948-war, the US for supporting an oppressive state, the israeli policy of expropriation, racism, limiting free movement in the occupied territories.

"This also seems like a good opportunity to resond to something else you said about international pressure and loss of U.S. support. Well, if Israel would expel Palestinians from towns where terrorism originated, then Israel would be much less dependent on foreign support. With the Palestinian threat of terrorism broken and a solution found, the world will applaud Israel. Just like in the Iraqi nuclear plant bombing. Same thing here."

there is some difference between bombing a nuclear facility and expulsing millions of innocent people...
israel would need foreign support more than ever, because those millions of palestinians won't be very happy, nor will the arab neighbours, which will probably result in a massive regional war against israel including countries as pakistan and iran, which israel can't win without us-support.
And i don't think a un-embargo or European embargo would benefit the israeli economy and society in general... not to mention the deep rift such a decision would cause among israeli.
israel would more than ever be associated with violence, oppression and racism, which on its turn would contribute to anti-semitism because many people still wrongly associate israel with jewry...
I met today someone (a peruvian): "look at those jews, they complain about being persecuted in wWII but once you give them the chance they are doing exactly the same to other people..." i tried to convince him that not all jews or israeli support Sharon, but there are many more like him.

But of course i guess everyone opposing to etnic cleansing is an anti-semite... :rolleyes:

one thing more: what if those palestinians resist to their deportation, which is quite likely?
shoot them all? gaz them? drug them? (you can't surprise me anymore...)

sharonbn

06-26-2002, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by NewsGuy
What is your source for that inflated statistic?
Elsewhere you stated that you support Leftist extremists like Yossi Beilin and Yossi Sarid. You know very well that 35-40% of Israeli do not support those guys. Rather, it is a tiny fringe element that they represent.

The figures I've given account for all left wing in Israel, including most of the voters of the Labour party (largest party on the Knesset), all of Meretz party and some of Shinui and Merkaz parties as well. Remember that even in the last presidential election of Feb 2001, on which Sharon won decisively, still some 35% voted for Barak.
I estimate that around 15-20% of Jewish Israelis support Peres, Beilin and Sarrid, given Meretz voters and a minority of Labour voters.

You have to understand that the Intifadah has uased both sides of the politicalmap to go to extreme: lefties as well as righties.

Originally posted by NewsGuy
As for stopping the bulldozers with your bodies, would you please send Uri Avneri first and then Yossi Sarid second?
I'll tel you who I won't send: my children (like some of the settlers who gamble with the life of their children by refusing to take any precautions for their defense)

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Many Leftists have no regard for democracy if it doesn't go their way. Many of those who pretend to care about "human rights" and "freedom" a.k.a. Yefei Hanefesh in Hebrew never really accept these notions when applied to the democratically expressed wishes of others. They act to block the human rights and the freedom of anyone who disagrees with them. Is this what I'm hearing from you, Sharon?
This is opposed to... whom? the right wingers? you think they regard democratic values? I think we all know what I'm talking about. Right wing extremist have shown that they have TOTAL disregard not only for democratic values, but even for human life. They are willing to kill and murder for their political cause.

I guess everyone has "red lines" that if crossed, he/she will no longer play the democratic game. That's fine. Even a democratic elected government can't do what it pleases without facing consequences.
I guess the only difference between us lefties, and righties is that I am willing to put MY life at risk, defending my beliefs, while the righties are willing to put OTHER lives at risk for their beliefs.

christian

06-26-2002, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by takeo .
I met today someone (a peruvian): "look at those jews, they complain about being persecuted in wWII but once you give them the chance they are doing exactly the same to other people..." i tried to convince him that not all jews or israeli support Sharon, but there are many more like him.
[/B]

I hope not.

Mediocrates

06-26-2002, 07:12 AM

Peru, a shining example of stability, normalcy, freedom. Alberto Fujimori? Montesinos? Tupac Amaru? Lori Berenson?

Get real.

Vic

06-26-2002, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by takeo
I met today someone (a peruvian): "look at those jews, they complain about being persecuted in wWII but once you give them the chance they are doing exactly the same to other people..." i tried to convince him that not all jews or israeli support Sharon, but there are many more like him. When I hear this, I usually suggest that the person should find him/herself a nice psychiatrist. Try something like this for a change, it works wonders with some people.

NewsGuy

06-26-2002, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by sharonbn
The figures I've given account for all left wing in Israel, including most of the voters of the Labour party (largest party on the Knesset), all of Meretz party and some of Shinui and Merkaz parties as well. Remember that even in the last presidential election of Feb 2001, on which Sharon won decisively, still some 35% voted for Barak.
I estimate that around 15-20% of Jewish Israelis support Peres, Beilin and Sarrid, given Meretz voters and a minority of Labour voters.
Sharon, maybe you would like to include the entire Labour party as Left wing, but this would come as a surprise to the Labour party, which considers itself Centrist. The proof is Beilin's own flight from the party because his extreme Left wing agenda has been rejected by the Labour's leaders.

I think that the supporters of the radical Meretz party might amount to 1 or 2% of the Israeli population, although they tend to get a lot of press due to their collaboration with the Arab parties in repeated attempts to collapse the Israeli government.

Right wing extremist have shown that they have TOTAL disregard not only for democratic values, but even for human life. They are willing to kill and murder for their political cause.

Who's "they?" Are you saying that a handful of criminals represent the Right wing?

I think it is difficult for Leftists to accept their overwhelming rejection by society and therefore this issue of some lunatic criminals keeps on coming up.

But as a reality check, the violence that has destroyed the Leftist cause is launched by the Palestinians. Every suicide bombing and murder of Israeli motorists further weakens the already unpopular Leftist cause. This is what is pushing the entire center of Israeli society further to the Right -- the desire for survival.

I guess the only difference between us lefties, and righties is that I am willing to put MY life at risk, defending my beliefs, while the righties are willing to put OTHER lives at risk for their beliefs.

What are you talking about? You want to put your life at risk to make a misguided political statement.

On the other hand, even Israeli high-school students are volunteering in droves -- for the first time in history -- to risk their lives over the summer vacation to go out to the West Bank and to Gaza to protect Jewish towns from Arab infiltrators. And there are more volunteers than ever to join fighting units in the territories to wage war on Palestinian terrorism. That, to me, shows real values and patriotism -- not giving one's life to harm Israel's democracy as Leftists would do.

takeo

06-26-2002, 01:33 PM

"Peru, a shining example of stability, normalcy, freedom. Alberto Fujimori? Montesinos? Tupac Amaru? Lori Berenson? "

that's right, Peru is not in the position to give lessons to anyone, yet it shows how much israeli policy is helping anti-semitism to spread.

"I think that the supporters of the radical Meretz party might amount to 1 or 2% of the Israeli population"

much more if the elections might be an indication...

"On the other hand, even Israeli high-school students are volunteering in droves -- for the first time in history -- to risk their lives over the summer vacation to go out to the West Bank and to Gaza to protect Jewish towns from Arab infiltrators. And there are more volunteers than ever to join fighting units in the territories to wage war on Palestinian terrorism. That, to me, shows real values and patriotism -- not giving one's life to harm Israel's democracy as Leftists would do."

more and more israeli are refusing to serve in the occupied territories, ...
and you'll see in the next election, the left will win, because sharon and likud failed miserable in achieving peace.

sharonbn

06-27-2002, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by NewsGuy
I think that the supporters of the radical Meretz party might amount to 1 or 2% of the Israeli population, although they tend to get a lot of press due to their collaboration with the Arab parties in repeated attempts to collapse the Israeli government.

and your numbers are based on .... ?
In fact, I remember you yourself stating in this (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=7443#post7443) post, some 6 weeks ago that Israeli left wing is 30% strong.
The numbers I gave in previous posts are based on this info:

1. Meretz party got 10 seats in the knesset in 1999 election. that's 7.6% (according to knesset web site). Its woth mentioning that they got the same number of seats in 1996 election, on which Netanyahu became PM, so its safe to say that they have a hard base of around that percentage.

2. The labour party is center if generally speaking. However, like the Likud, the Labout party accomodates for a range of opinions and extremes. Shimon Peres is still a strong leader in the party. Also, the fact the Beilin choose to run independantly, does not mean he leaves the Labour party with no support and no followers. They got 26 seats (~20%) in 1999. I estimate around a third are hardcore followers of Peres and Beilin (like myself btw).

3. Some lefties also account for the voters of Merkaz party and Shinui party (6 seats/5% each) I say another 2-2.5%.

4. Hadash party is a mixed Jewish-Arab party. They got 3 seats/2.5% in 1999. This is the real extreme left, they probably increased their strength since 1999 (like I said, conflict causes the rise of extreme on both sides) so the Jews here amount to 2%.

4. Other parties, like the emigrates parties (Yisrael Baalia), the union party (Am Ehad), etc, probably acount for another 2-3%.

So we come to around 20%. These are Jews ONLY. The Israeli Arab parties have further 6%. I say the total of lefties is close to 30%, accounting for those who did not vote at all.

Last, but not least, lets not forget that in the last PM election, that took place while the Intifadah was well underway, Barak got 37.2%.

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Who's "they?" Are you saying that a handful of criminals represent the Right wing?
I think it is difficult for Leftists to accept their overwhelming rejection by society and therefore this issue of some lunatic criminals keeps on coming up.

but NewsGuy, You took me, one person, and made me the sole representative of all left wing...
I base my generalization on the fact that ALL extreme militant groups in the history of modern Israel, came exclusively from the right-wing.
These groups include:
- "Brit Habiryonim" ("allience of thugs" in Hebrew) founded by Jabotinsky, father of the revisionists.
- Haetzel and Halechi underground organizations.
- The two Jewish terrorists movements that rose in the two Intifadahs,
- as well as individuals like Yona Avrushmi, Baruch Goldstain (who got a beatiful memorial park and an anual memorial service) and of course, Yigal Amir.
The only political party to be outlawed in Israeli history was the extreme right Kach movement.
In stark contrast, left opposition over the years is charecterised by non violent actions. Instead, movements and individuals commit actions that jeopardies themselves (like "Women in black" and "4 mothers" movements, and thesoldiers who refuse to serve in the occupied territories)
I think we can establish a pattern here.

Originally posted by NewsGuy
But as a reality check, the violence that has destroyed the Leftist cause is launched by the Palestinians. Every suicide bombing and murder of Israeli motorists further weakens the already unpopular Leftist cause. This is what is pushing the entire center of Israeli society further to the Right -- the desire for survival.

this is partially true. I believe that the right dream of big Israel and the aggresiveness on which righties attempted to realize that dream is one of the cuases of the prolonging of the conflict. The settling of Jews on Arab owned land and the aggressive and often violent conduct of these settlers is the number 1 factor for the hatred and mistrust of the Palestinians in all Jews.

Originally posted by NewsGuy
What are you talking about? You want to put your life at risk to make a misguided political statement.

In extreme cases, I will risk a lot, including my freedom and life, to fight for what I believein. I will never resort to violent action, like the righties so often do.

Originally posted by NewsGuy
On the other hand, even Israeli high-school students are volunteering in droves -- for the first time in history -- to risk their lives over the summer vacation to go out to the West Bank and to Gaza to protect Jewish towns from Arab infiltrators. And there are more volunteers than ever to join fighting units in the territories to wage war on Palestinian terrorism. That, to me, shows real values and patriotism -- not giving one's life to harm Israel's democracy as Leftists would do.

On the other hand, 450 officers and soldiers are refusing to serve in the occupied territories, and they gain increasing support in the Israeli public, as the support demonstrations show.

takeo

06-27-2002, 11:27 AM

"The settling of Jews on Arab owned land and the aggressive and often violent conduct of these settlers is the number 1 factor for the hatred and mistrust of the Palestinians in all Jews. "

that's absolutely true, especially the continuing violent expropriation of Palestinian property and lands for new settlements is a reason for hate and, according to Le Monde, was the main reason for some suicide-murderers to be convinced.

Mediocrates

06-27-2002, 11:48 AM

Quick call Figaro - a posting w/o 'ethnic cleansing' in it.

sharonbn

06-27-2002, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by takeo
that's absolutely true, especially the continuing violent expropriation of Palestinian property and lands for new settlements is a reason for hate and, according to Le Monde, was the main reason for some suicide-murderers to be convinced.

I want to make myself absolutely clear: Although I understand that the anger of the Palestinians is rooted in the Israeli imperialism of the settlements, this does not give ANY right whatysoever to the Palestinians to bomb nd kill innocent civillian Israelis. These brutal vicious terror attacks only tarnish the justification of the Palestinian fight for independance. maybe beyond repair.
I support the IDF operations in Palestinian territory. They are in accordance to the current policy of the government of seeking and capturing terrorists and destroying the infrastructure that enables the terror attacks. If civillian Palestinians are incidently killed and hurt during these operations - this is unfortunate and Israel should appologize in such cases.

This is the difference between terrorism and military operations - who is the target.

If Israel adopts a plan of action where civillian population is the target - like in a case of transfer - these actions cannot be justified in self defense. They constitue a continuation of Imperialism over Palestinian land.

MGB8

06-27-2002, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by sharonbn

Palestinian terror attacks do not threaten the existence of Israel.

never in history, did guerilla warfare threatens the existence of a sovereign state defended by an established army. Guerilla warfare was successful in driving away an invading army (like Hizbuallah did in Lebanon, Afghans did to the Russians, etc.).
This is not the same. The best the Palestinians can hope to achieve is that Israel will slowly start to fold from WB and GS.
As much as they will continue to pound Israel with terror attacks, there is no chance Israelis will leave green-line Israel.

The only existential threat Israel faced was from invading Arab armies in 1948 and 1973. With the establishment of peace with Egypt - the largest Arab nation, as well as Jordan - who shares with Israel the longest borderline, this threat was diminished to the point where Israel can now assume it will not be overran by military force.

That's just not true. The attacks weaken Israel, making it more suceptible to a mass arab attack. And if you think that the peaces of paper that we have with Jordan and Egypt will stop a war...well, think again. Nor would Europe do anything.

Possibly the US, if they could get there in time...

It would only take a day or two to overrun Israel. Less if its pre 67 Israel, because Israel could be divided in two, creating efectively 6 fronts (2 north, 2 south, two east.) Add amphibious assualt and you have EIGHT fronts.

Not to mention that its not just the "existence of the state" ITS PEOPLES LIVES!

What do you think the parent of a child who was murdered on a bus would say to you? What would you say to them?

That's what I hate about the left - the arrogant belief in Israeli infalibility and security.

Guess what? People are dying! Israel is not secure! The majority of Arabs STILL want Israel pushed into the sea! A large group will STILL attack no matter what they are given!

Transfer is a horrible option. It is. But it is not killing.

People would have to be compensated for their land, and arangements for housing and citizenship in realistic locations made beforehand.

And its still would be an awful choice. It still would be "ethnic cleansing." BUT, it would be Ethnic Cleansing as a last resort...because Israel decides that it needs the West Bank for survival issues, and realizes that they cannot hold on to it reasonably in any other way.

It sucks...a violation of the "right to property" if that exists, but it may be the least of many evils.

takeo

06-27-2002, 12:53 PM

"" I want to make myself absolutely clear: Although I understand that the anger of the Palestinians is rooted in the Israeli imperialism of the settlements, this does not give ANY right whatysoever to the Palestinians to bomb nd kill innocent civillian Israelis. These brutal vicious terror attacks only tarnish the justification of the Palestinian fight for independance. maybe beyond repair. "

I agree, on the other hand the attacks against the occupation-force is legitimate according to me, one has the right to resist to occupation and oppression, but not by targetting civilians.

"I support the IDF operations in Palestinian territory. They are in accordance to the current policy of the government of seeking and capturing terrorists and destroying the infrastructure that enables the terror attacks. If civillian Palestinians are incidently killed and hurt during these operations - this is unfortunate and Israel should appologize in such cases. "

i don't support them, because they never exploited all peacefull alternatives, such as negociations proposed by the palestinians, and the operations are aimed at the wrong targets, instead Hamas the PA and the moderate part of the Palestinian society seems to be the target, according to me a deliberate policy of the right-wing to make every negociation and final settlement impossible. What's more is that the operations seems to be aimed at damaging the palestinians in general, attacks on utility facilities, reoccupation of whole cities, prisons, etc.
Finally those operations will not reach their goal and are contreproductive, they will enhance terrorism and support for terrorism instead of stopping it.

The best option would be negociation combined with military operation against groups that continue assaults on israeli civilians after the peace-talks started.

"If Israel adopts a plan of action where civillian population is the target - like in a case of transfer - these actions cannot be justified in self defense. They constitue a continuation of Imperialism over Palestinian land."

of course

takeo

06-27-2002, 01:35 PM

MGB, the westbank nor gaza will make much difference in terms of Israel's security, while peace with the Palestinians and the Arab neighbours will make a tremendous difference.
Besides, egypt nor jordan constitute a danger for israel, it may be pieces of paper, but pieces that have protected israel since more than 20 years from any attacks, the only left problem is Syria, the Palestinians and Libanon, and all can be solved by implementing the un-resolutions and seeking peace.
Yes, people are diing, but palestinians are diing too, and deporting them means destroying the life of millions of innocent people and everything they have. at least for me all life is equal, wether it is israeli or palestinian life. it would also include the risk of a full-blown war with not only its arab neighbours but with other countries as well, economic sanctions (and be sure that in such a case this will be the consequence from at least Europe) which would damage or endanger the life of millions of israeli.
yes, deportation doesn't necessarily means killing them, but the palestinians will be deported easily, they will resist with all means, and many would prefere to die than to be deported.
at least someone who recognises that massive deportation is etnic cleansing...

There are no advantages at all for anyone, except for the ultra's who want to see an Arab-free Eretz-Israel, or for the Arab ultra's, who would have a new opportunity and new allies to rase israel from the map.

gev

06-27-2002, 01:43 PM

Because of despair from the current situation, the Transfer Option has started to have a room in the discussions of Solutions talked about in Israel.
But, I think that this Idea only flurish in situations like these, and the majority of Israelies are basically moral and couldn't accept such a solution.
We have'nt tried everything yet!!! let me remind you that there is no border between Israel and the WestBank.
I think that when there is a border, a strong border, the faith in the army (which will have much more successes) will rise, and the Transfer option will return to it's classic place - out of the agenda.

About Left and Right, I think the majority of Israel is center-left (I base it upon recent polls about a palestinian state - 60% for it)
looking at the historic "struggle" between right and left - the left has prevailed, i.e. the division of Israel between us and the Arabs.
seems to be the acceptable ideology for the vast majority of Israelies.

What I am proud of in the Israeli society is that even at times of war, the majority of the public thinks of the day after, stays morral and realistic.

gev

06-27-2002, 01:45 PM

takeo,
the decision for this fight against the PA as well as with the other terror groups, is based on comprehensive intelligence reports that flowing from the field about the cooperation of the PA with these terror groups, as well as conducting terror activities of their own.

You talk about Sharon and his lust for war or conquest, but let me remind you that there are people that sit together with Sharon in the government that you would'nt suspect them for wanting to conquer the terretories like Shimon Peres, who support the current military operations as well.

Bush administration wants to replace Arafat, do you think that The US is so biased towards israel that they would, for no specific reason, support this kind of extreme opnion? which contradicts, btw, it's interest for immediate calm in the ME.

To understand this, you must put yourself in their position:
What if, hypotethicaly, you are now the PM of Israel and you are getting reports about Arafat and the PA involvement of Terror activities, building a packt with Iran and Iraq (who wants the destruction of Israel), conducting arms deals, building bombs etc. what would you do? would you still consider Arafat moderate?

Mediocrates

06-27-2002, 02:31 PM

There are no advantages at all for anyone, except for the ultra's who want to see an Arab-free Eretz-Israel, or for the Arab ultra's, who would have a new opportunity and new
allies to (e)rase israel from the map.

Go ahead.... finish the sentence...'and create a Jew Free Judea and Samaria'.

takeo

06-27-2002, 03:35 PM

"takeo,
the decision for this fight against the PA as well as with the other terror groups, is based on comprehensive intelligence reports that flowing from the field about the cooperation of the PA with these terror groups, as well as conducting terror activities of their own. "

the problem is that those intelligent reports accusing Arafat are somewhat biased and not convincing (at least the ones published in public).
Arafat is certainly not having any kind of deal with hamas, which always harmed his interests, or even the pflp.
Fatah on the contrary does attacks against israeli targets, but no suicide-missions inside israel aimed at civilians. their actions can be seen as legitimate answers to the israeli violence against the pa, the palestinian autonomous territory and the palestinian people in general. (both sides to not longer observe the oslo-agreements).
it is prooven that Arafat has lost controll over some segments of the Fatah and over the palestinian in general, but by bombing and condamning the only palestinian leaders that want peace with israel and call for an end to the violence is making the moderate palestinians weaker (the same way the suicide-bombings inside israel are making the moderate sraeli forces weaker).
It is an incredibly stupid policy to isolate Arafat and the pa because there is really noone to replace them except the radicals. And they will not give in to israeli pressure and change their leader, on the contrary this is making Arafat more popular. So by refusing to deal with arafat israel is imposing another difficulty in reaching a solution with the moderate part of the palestinian side. The chance that arafat will be reelected in the upcoming elections is around 90%.
about the us-policy, the us always considered Arafat as a partner, this change in policy came after intense israeli pressure and lobbying in the congress, and doesn't make the us-policy, which has been a disaster since Bush became president, any more consistent or effective, especially since the rest of the world and the palestinians themselves still recognise Arafat, which means they will have to deal with himor one of the pa, if they want a solution to the problem.

"You talk about Sharon and his lust for war or conquest, but let me remind you that there are people that sit together with Sharon in the government that you would'nt suspect them for wanting to conquer the terretories like Shimon Peres, who support the current military operations as well. "

a part of the left participated as well, and shimon Peres, with his constant treats to leave the coalition without actually doing it, hasn't improoved its credibility.

"To understand this, you must put yourself in their position:
What if, hypotethicaly, you are now the PM of Israel and you are getting reports about Arafat and the PA involvement of Terror activities, building a packt with Iran and Iraq (who wants the destruction of Israel), conducting arms deals, building bombs etc. what would you do? would you still consider Arafat moderate?"

i would first try to know if those reports are accurate (which is very doubtfull in this case), and than i would try secret contacts to find out what are the plans of the pa. if there would be any chance that they might negociate about real peace and an end to terror, than i would start official negociations combined with a cease-fire between the groups linked to Arafat and israel, if not, i would indeed continue the current operations or even crush totally the pa-leadership.
during this negociations, with international assistance, the palestinians would get everything they demanded, including a settlement for jerusalem and the refugees, on the condition that they make unconditionally an end to the terror-groups refusing to accept the cease-fire. if Arafat should not be able to do so than he should accept israeli and international military assistance, untill the terroris groups that refuse to accept the cease-fire are completely eradicated. once that is happened the israeli army should leave all the occupied territories and abandon all the settlements, with some compromise on jerusalem and the refugees.

elke

06-27-2002, 05:22 PM

What makes you doubt the veracity of the reports, showing connection between Arafat, Iran, Iraq, and terrorist groups? This information has been accepted as authentic by all the intelligence agencies provided with it.

takeo

06-27-2002, 06:15 PM

except some documents where Arafat signed papers for financial support to fatah (which is not very special because fatah is his own organisation) there is really nothing that indicates Arafat supported terrorism. there is no connection whatsoever between arafat and hamas.
what is Arafat's connection to Iraq?
about the "iranian ship" still many doubts prevail, and certainly there were no documents linking Arafat or the PA-leadership. i don't know about any other connections to Iran. (besides the us had connections with iran too, remember the iran-contragate scandall?)

anyway, even if all this is true, it doesn't mean israel can't negociate with Arafat, south africa also has excellent relations with iran and libia for example... does it make mbeki a terrorist?

Mediocrates

06-27-2002, 06:28 PM

yeah. kind of. it does.

elke

06-27-2002, 06:47 PM

South Africans do not import illegal arms into their territory from Iran. South Africans do not go around killing women and children with human bombs, whose families receive generous payments from Saddam for their "sacrifice".

What questions are remaining regarding Karin-A? Everyone knows by now that these arms were bought by the PA. Since Arafat is the only person authorized to sign over checks, it's clear that he had everything to do with it.

Arafat signed papers not to Fatah proper, but to Al Aksa Brigade members. The authenticity of these papers has been confirmed.

James

06-27-2002, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by takeo
except some documents where Arafat signed papers for financial support to fatah (which is not very special because fatah is his own organisation) there is really nothing that indicates Arafat supported terrorism. there is no connection whatsoever between arafat and hamas.
what is Arafat's connection to Iraq?
about the "iranian ship" still many doubts prevail, and certainly there were no documents linking Arafat or the PA-leadership. i don't know about any other connections to Iran. (besides the us had connections with iran too, remember the iran-contragate scandall?)

anyway, even if all this is true, it doesn't mean israel can't negociate with Arafat, south africa also has excellent relations with iran and libia for example... does it make mbeki a terrorist?

Arafat is a known killer and terrorist. Of course he ordered the ship full of weapons. Nothing happens without his approval. Why would Israel trust the word of Arafat. His many lies betray him.

mulp

06-27-2002, 07:49 PM

Wouldn't make more sense to "transfer" the Jews?

Its my understanding that many already have citizenship and family in the US, so setup a program to bring all Jews to the US. In fact, I seen reports that many have left Israel recently because of the poor economic conditions there.

The US economy would certainly benefit from the education and industry they would bring.

For those who want to labor in desert, there is always Texas, with major sections of the state in need of good business leaders. And there is California, another country, errr state in need of an economic boost.

elke

06-28-2002, 02:23 AM

No, it wouldn't make more sense to transfer Jews. Jews are not the ones blowing up people in the cafes. SOME have American citizenship, but not very many - the last I heard, about 20% are from FSU, 40+ percent were born in Israel, and most of the others are from other countries they would rather not see again, for various reasons.

Vic

06-28-2002, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by mulp
Wouldn't make more sense to "transfer" the Jews?

...

The US economy would certainly benefit from the education and industry they would bring.

For those who want to labor in desert, there is always Texas, with major sections of the state in need of good business leaders. And there is California, another country, errr state in need of an economic boost. What about the poor, the elderly, the handicapped, the uneducated (like immigrants from Ethiopia for example)?

takeo

06-28-2002, 04:06 AM

of course i don't agree with mulp either, but if this kind of idea would become popular, remember that it can be used against Jews as well...

Israel DOES blow up people in the Westbank and Gaza, i destroys buildings, terrorise the palestinians and killed 1000's of them, violates un-resolutions, etc. . But still it isn't a reason to take revenge on innocent israeli people;(the same applies for the palestinians)

Right, Mbeki a terrorist... i'm sure the southafrican regime tought the same in the 80's...

if saddam pays families of suicide bombers, what's the connection with arafat???

"What questions are remaining regarding Karin-A? Everyone knows by now that these arms were bought by the PA. Since Arafat is the only person authorized to sign over checks, it's clear that he had everything to do with it. "

ever seen any paper or document? it may be taken for granted in the pro-israeli press that arafat is involved in this, but there is no proove whatsoever. israel didn't accept any international independant research over the matter, as in jenin, one might wonder WHY.

"Arafat signed papers not to Fatah proper, but to Al Aksa Brigade members. The authenticity of these papers has been confirmed"

really???
i've read those documents, the only thing one can conclude is that he made payments to fatah-members, none of them any prooven connection to al-aqsa. The European commission has studied those documents and came to the conclusion that the israeli claim is nonsense.

But anyway, let's make things clear, when referring to terrorism i mean attacks against innocent civilians, after the israeli incursions in palestinian territory and the attacks against pa-facilities and people by the idf, the pa and fatah have every right to fight back against the IDF, that's not terrorism but legitimate self-defense.
Israel can never claim to be acting in self-defense as long as it is occupying the Westbank and Gaza.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,739466,00.html

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,678329,00.html

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,678202,00.html

"CNN chief accuses Israel of terror "

"BBC news chief condemns Israeli actions"

of course now he's the greatest anti-semit in world history blabla spare me the comments please, i've read them already...

Mediocrates

06-28-2002, 04:35 AM

Well for one it' simply silly to point to propaganda and use it to say that no other point of view even exists.

Israel DOES blow up people in the Westbank and Gaza, i destroys buildings, terrorise the palestinians and killed 1000's of them, violates un-resolutions, etc

The last time you made a statement like this is was MILLIONS

Right, Mbeki a terrorist... i'm sure the southafrican regime tought the same in the 80's...

Yeah why not - if terrorists or drug lords buy into legitimate companies in order to launder money then the consumer, knowingly or not is supporting them. If you buy coffee at the local Caribou, whether you know it or not you are supporting the management of a radical islamic bank that has made seriously anti american statements, has claimed (unasked) that they support armed struggle against the US and Israel and other unequivocal statements. That some world leader choses to turn a blind eye to it is really unimportant.

You are such a hypocrite really - you make grandiose claims about how Israel and other countries secretly scheme and cooperate to keep the muslim world oppressed yet cooperation among those same countries that engineered the Durban conference is somehow innocent. You realize that you have zero credibility as a result.

i've read those documents, the only thing one can conclude is that he made payments to fatah-members, none of them any prooven connection to al-aqsa. The European commission has studied those documents and came to the conclusion that the israeli claim is nonsense.

You read Arabic? And where prey tell did the EC determine it was nonsense. You remind me of one of those people who gets hit with a flying piano and tells me it's not the piano, it's the wood that the piano is made from.

takeo

06-28-2002, 05:18 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,711064,00.html

"The European Parliamentâ€™s block on the transfer of some 18.7 million euro to the Middle East Process budget was lifted on Wednesday. After a forceful address by external relations Commissioner, Chris Patten, both the parliamentâ€™s foreign affairs and budgetary committees unanimously voted to release the money. "

http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid=6708

"Yeah why not - if terrorists or drug lords buy into legitimate companies in order to launder money then the consumer, knowingly or not is supporting them. If you buy coffee at the local Caribou, whether you know it or not you are supporting the management of a radical islamic bank that has made seriously anti american statements, has claimed (unasked) that they support armed struggle against the US and Israel and other unequivocal statements. That some world leader choses to turn a blind eye to it is really unimportant. "

what exactly is your claim against South Africa?
they can trade with whoever they like, they are an independant country, and making statements is actually not the same as terrorism...
of course SA is not really sympathic to israel, considering the years of Israeli support for the Apartheidsregime, but it doesn't finance terrorism against israel.

"You are such a hypocrite really - you make grandiose claims about how Israel and other countries secretly scheme and cooperate to keep the muslim world oppressed yet cooperation among those same countries that engineered the Durban conference is somehow innocent. You realize that you have zero credibility as a result. "

what's wrong with the Durban conference? states have the right to cooperate and have their own views and policy concerning the Middle east, while other countries support Israel, that's world policy you know. There was nothing secret about the Durban conference.

what are my grandiose claims that israel and other countries secretly scheme to keep the muslim world oppressed?

you are one of those hypocrits that sees terrorism or anti-semitism as everything "directed against he us, israel's or its allies' interests", while us- or israel sponsered use of terror, is considered legitimate.
if palestinians react to israel occupation, than it's per definition terrorism, if the same happens in Kosovo or iraqi kurdistan, than it's not...

Mediocrates

06-28-2002, 05:34 AM

You are beyond hope and beyond salvage.

MGB8

06-28-2002, 11:13 AM

Takeo,

You are missinformed on many things, and worse, you ignore major distinctions to distort the world to the view that you want it to be in.

Does Israel kill Judean Arabs...yes. Are most of them combatants? Well over 90% are.

How does Israel "terrorize" the Judean Arabs? Checkpoints? That is equivalent to "terror?" a word mainly associated with bombing non-combatents, trying to kill as many as possible, randomly?

Demolishing houses? The majority of which are cover for gunmen attacking Israel, or a re boodytrapped in the case of Jenin, or have been built in violation of Israeli law in the case of Jerusalem. That is equivalent to killing innocents?

You are wrong about the Arafat files, too. This is a man who was audio taped ordering the death an American diplomat, who lies about his birth (in Cairo, not Jerusalen), his academics (never got into an American University), his intentions....but so many for some reason want to stand up for him.

You are sad, takeo.

MGB8

06-28-2002, 11:28 AM

Gaza won't. The west bank has, does, and will. Has in 1973.

"Peace" with our neighbors is nice, but is not a "permanent thing." No matter what papers are drawn up, there can be no guarantee. This is particularly true in instable regimes with desperate people like those that characterize our neighbors.

Deportantion is not "destroying lives" ...its awful, and chances are that it won't happen...we are not to that point yet, and hopefully never will be...but it is not comparable to killing.

The great majority of Palestinians who are dying are combatants (over 90%)...the great majority of Israelis who are dying are non-combatents (possibly soldiers, but not in combat duties - ie. at military locations or patrol at the time).

THAT is the great difference.

Originally posted by takeo
MGB, the westbank nor gaza will make much difference in terms of Israel's security, while peace with the Palestinians and the Arab neighbours will make a tremendous difference.
Besides, egypt nor jordan constitute a danger for israel, it may be pieces of paper, but pieces that have protected israel since more than 20 years from any attacks, the only left problem is Syria, the Palestinians and Libanon, and all can be solved by implementing the un-resolutions and seeking peace.
Yes, people are diing, but palestinians are diing too, and deporting them means destroying the life of millions of innocent people and everything they have. at least for me all life is equal, wether it is israeli or palestinian life. it would also include the risk of a full-blown war with not only its arab neighbours but with other countries as well, economic sanctions (and be sure that in such a case this will be the consequence from at least Europe) which would damage or endanger the life of millions of israeli.
yes, deportation doesn't necessarily means killing them, but the palestinians will be deported easily, they will resist with all means, and many would prefere to die than to be deported.
at least someone who recognises that massive deportation is etnic cleansing...

There are no advantages at all for anyone, except for the ultra's who want to see an Arab-free Eretz-Israel, or for the Arab ultra's, who would have a new opportunity and new allies to rase israel from the map.

takeo

06-28-2002, 12:37 PM

"Gaza won't. The west bank has, does, and will. Has in 1973. "

it's not sure that the westbank protected israel in 1973, it was in the first place the occupation of the WB and Gaza that caused the 1973 war, and both jordan and egypt have direct access to israel's most vulnerable regions, without passing the WB or gaza.

"Peace" with our neighbors is nice, but is not a "permanent thing." No matter what papers are drawn up, there can be no guarantee. This is particularly true in instable regimes with desperate people like those that characterize our neighbors. "

nothing is permanent and there are no garantees in life, yet should all countries who don't really like their neighbours take a part of them to feel more secure?
in that case the reoccupation of the baltics by Russia should be legitimate.
as long as the occupation go on however, the support for attacks against israel will not stop, and nobody will take real measures to stop it, because in the opinion of most part of the world, Israel can only blame itself, because they had more than 30 years time to find a solution for this problems, instead it did nothing, untill 1993, and even this agreement was not respected by israel. (more settlements, delay of the time-table, israeli refusal to accept palestinian independance in 1999 as foreseen by oslo, etc.).

"Deportantion is not "destroying lives" ...its awful, and chances are that it won't happen...we are not to that point yet, and hopefully never will be...but it is not comparable to killing. "

Do you think that deportation will be bloodless? All Palestinians will resist to their deportation, which is their right.

"The great majority of Palestinians who are dying are combatants (over 90%)...the great majority of Israelis who are dying are non-combatents (possibly soldiers, but not in combat duties - ie. at military locations or patrol at the time). "

i wouldn't think so, do you consider children throwing stones at the occupation force combattants? that's how this whole intifadeh excalated. I saw on television a woman, an israeli journalist who was married to a palestinian , who told that every time israel retaliates innocent civilians get victimised. Israeli responses such as rockets, bombings, shelling, car-bombs, etc. always make a lot of innocent victims. Some policies however are deliberately targetting civilians, such as destroying houses or fields that are build too close to a new israeli settlement, very regular curfews, ...
not to mention the destructions and murders against the legitimate palestinian autority, while hamas-members are left alone.
occupation forces are always a legitimate target, the us did attack taliban forces wether they were fighting or not...

How does Israel "terrorize" the Judean Arabs? Checkpoints? That is equivalent to "terror?" a word mainly associated with bombing non-combatents, trying to kill as many as possible, randomly? "

checkpoints just to leave their own city, demolishing 10000's of houses (sometimes according to the law in jerusalem, but a law that is clearly racist and discriminating the palestinian population in Jerusalem) mostly for building new jewish settlements, curfews, murdering Palestinian politicians, torture, randomly persecution and months or even years in jail without a trial (check the amnesty international-website if you want the complete list). Not only is the israeli occupation of palestine illegal, but israel seems to be determined to humiliate the palestinians and make their life as miserable as possible, during more than 35 years already. All this while the jewish newcomers in the region can build settlements anywhere they like, get double water-supplies compared to the palestinians, tax cuts, free movement, etc.
of course you have to be inhuman to ignore that this policy is the reason of strong hate and anger, that exploded in the first and second intifadeh. It doesn't legitimate the killing of civilians however(nor does the killing of civilians legitimise the israeli occupation!!!) .

"You are wrong about the Arafat files, too. This is a man who was audio taped ordering the death an American diplomat, who lies about his birth (in Cairo, not Jerusalen), his academics (never got into an American University), his intentions....but so many for some reason want to stand up for him. "

any proofs or links, or is this unnecessary???

What about your leader, alleged multiple war-criminal !!!

"You are sad, takeo."

and you can't deal with people with different opinions than your own.

Mediocrates

06-28-2002, 02:02 PM

Do YOU have your own opinions?

elke

06-28-2002, 02:45 PM

The "occupation" had nothing to do with 1973 war. This was nothing more than yet another attempt at destroying Israel. The Arab Summit in 1968, I believe, the way the attack was perpetrated, the buildup, all make this fact abundantly clear to anyone willing to see.

As a matter of fact, children throwing stones would be considered "vandals", at the very least, here in the US. Since there is obviously intent to harm in their rockthrowing, this would be a crime, "assault". If the rocks actually hurt somebody it would become a "battery" as well.

Saying that Israel has "only itself" to blame for the terrorism is absurd! Many attempts have been made by the Israelis over the 50+ years to resolve the problems, all for naught. Oslo did not work not because Israelis did not try hard enough, but because they were dealing with people who were not willing to try at all. The garbage taught in the Palestinian schools is all the proof you need to see that it is so.

gev

06-28-2002, 02:59 PM

takeo,
You ask for proof, and you are right about it. but understand that most of the intelligence gotten by Israel, is not published and probably never will. because publishing it can uncover the methods Israel is using to get the information and the people it is using.

as much as Israel failing in PR all over the world, Israel prefer to loose the support from the general public in the EU and not jeperdise it's own security. it maybe win the PR war but collapse the intelligence network.

What you can see is that Israel is winning in convincing world leaders. Arafat is not trusted throughout the world, also in the Arab world.

we are in the middle of a process in which all world leaders are coming to conclusion that Arafat has to go. Bush is already convinced about it.

Don't think that everybody here in Israeli intelligence community and Israeli government and the US are stupid, or jumping to conclusions, we been through the same process...
Our intelligence community and the US intelligence community has reached to the conclusion that the PA is infected by terrorism and should be replaced. and it took some time to reach the conclusion and it has nothing to do with who is the PM of Israel right now.

take the national Security advisor to the US president Conduleeza Rice, what interest would she have to say that Arafat must go, and the PA is too infected with terrorism?

Even the extreme left party members ("Meretz") who hear the Intelligence reports in closed doors, speak differently about Arafat. they talk about a solution like seperation for right now, and in due time when there will be someone to talk to on the other side, than start the negociations. can you beleive it? the extreme left doesn't beleive in acheivable peace right now? something must have affected them...

You don't beleive it can be true, Arafat would never deal with Hamas and Iran and Iraq, it is against his interest. HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? How do you know what are his real goals?
Shimon Peres and Rabin beleived in the same thing you do, thats why they brought him from Tunisia, thats why they armed his organization, support him financially... but look where Shimon Peres is now, he doesn't beleive in him anymore, he doesn't trust Arafat, WHY DO YOU?

it is prooven that Arafat has lost controll over some segments of the Fatah and over the palestinian in general

Where is it prooven?

i would first try to know if those reports are accurate (which is very doubtfull in this case), and than i would try secret contacts to find out what are the plans of the pa. if there would be any chance that they might negociate about real peace and an end to terror, than i would start official negociations combined with a cease-fire between the groups linked to Arafat and israel, if not, i would indeed continue the current operations or even crush totally the pa-leadership.

Israel is actually doing that, Israel and the US is trying to clean the PA from the terror elements, the problem is that the ones in power are these elements, including Arafat himself!!! Israel and the US cannot replace the leadership with force, because it will only get extremists to power... so Israel is waiting, striking terror infrastructure, fortify the border and hope for a better, peaceful Palestinian leadership, that can be trusted.

takeo

06-28-2002, 03:06 PM

"As a matter of fact, children throwing stones would be considered "vandals", at the very least, here in the US. Since there is obviously intent to harm in their rockthrowing, this would be a crime, "assault". If the rocks actually hurt somebody it would become a "battery" as well. "

but killing a rocktrowing child is a crime as well.

"Saying that Israel has "only itself" to blame for the terrorism is absurd! Many attempts have been made by the Israelis over the 50+ years to resolve the problems, all for naught. Oslo did not work not because Israelis did not try hard enough, but because they were dealing with people who were not willing to try at all. The garbage taught in the Palestinian schools is all the proof you need to see that it is so."

really? what attempts in the 1967-1993 period?
do you think that the settlements were a positive attempt to solve the question?
israel didn't observe its own commitments to the oslo-agreement, and it was never ready to negociate about the implementation of the un-resolutions.
so yes, israel didn't try hard enough, to say at least.
three things israel has to do: stop the occupation, 100%, find a compromise with the palestinians over the refugee-question and jerusalem, and withdraw the settlements.
The palestinians on their turn have to recognise israel and assure its safety.

the Palestinian leadership agree to this, they are willing to garantee israel's safety, as they did in the 90's (not completely, because some extremist groups weren't fully under controll yet, for this problem a solution should be worked upon in the final agreement), but israel is not willing to take its share of responsability during all those years, and doesn't even want a final settlement (they say they do, but they don't want to talk, how can you reach a settlement without talking?)

All this talk about terrorism is really BS if you are not prepared to fase the rootcause of this violence, which is very obvious in this case. israel and its defenders are really trying to dehumanise its adversaries (of course helped by the suicide-bombers) to continue its oppression and to avoid having to do any concessions.
I'm 100% sure that if all violence suddenly stopped for a long time Sharon and his gang would STILL not do any concession to the palestinians, would sTILL not accept a palestinian state, withdrawel of the illegal settlements and a compromise about the refugees and jerusalem ("the undivided capital of israel"), that was the position in the 80's of the israeli rightwing, and that's still their position, but now they can take the suicide-bombers as new handy excuse.

But it won't work, the world can not be deceived, everyone knows that the causes for violence are israel's total disrespect for the un-resolutions and the rights of the palestinians as a people (which this tread is only another indication of it), many decades already israel was urged to stop occupation, solve the refugee-problem etc. even before one ever heard of suicide-bombers.
Nothing happened.

the current young generation palestinians, the "suicide-generation", has seen nothing else in their life than israeli oppression, settlements, etc. and saw that during the mÃ¹any years of oslo israeli occupation, curfews, didn't stop nor did the expansion of settlements. they are the product of 35 years of israeli aggression against their people (in fact 50 years...)

to use the words of pushtak: SICK SICK SICK

Mediocrates

06-28-2002, 03:39 PM

Since so many of you are self professed international law scholars, here's an interpretation that challenges your view of the legality of Jews living in YESHA.

http://www.arutzsheva.com/news.php3?id=25946

The source article in Commentary Magazine is I'm afraid not free. Here is the abstract:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/commentary/index.html?ts=1025310853

takeo

06-28-2002, 03:41 PM

as you should know false security reports are a very effective propaganda tool used all over the world in history to delegitimate ones adversary... i hope you can understand my suspicion, or sure you are not going to believe any palestinian claims either...

Arafat is still trusted by the UN, the EU and the Arab leaders, and most of all by his own people (even if they have some criticism as well) that's pretty impressive.

"Our intelligence community and the US intelligence community has reached to the conclusion that the PA is infected by terrorism and should be replaced. and it took some time to reach the conclusion and it has nothing to do with who is the PM of Israel right now. "

really?
so why is it that talks continued untill the last day Barak was in power, immidiately stopped when Sharon came to power? why is it that Perez still refuses to exclude any peace-talks with Arafat untill this day?

"take the national Security advisor to the US president Conduleeza Rice, what interest would she have to say that Arafat must go, and the PA is too infected with terrorism? "

the interests of the zionist lobby for example, with Cheney as a powerfull promotor in the Bush-administration (as opposed to the more moderate Powell ), only some weeks ago the administration said exactly the inverse.

the "extreme" left (i would call them the anti-oppressive resistance in israel) in israel DOES believe in immidiate peacetalks right away, look at the websites of Gush Shalom and Meretz.

i believe in Arafat because i believe Arafat wants peace with israel on some conditions(un-resolutions, legitimate demands) and was not involved in ordering the killing of innocent civilians, even if he didn't do enough to stop them.
arafat is the best bed for peace, and by destroying his autority israel achieved nothing but more violence...

"Where is it prooven? "

some parts of fatah do not recognise arafat any longer, they openly challange his autority and his calls for an end to suicide bombing. But currently the palestinians will unite against the aggressor, that's why you don't see any internal struggle, because of the israeli assaults.

"Israel is actually doing that, Israel and the US is trying to clean the PA from the terror elements, the problem is that the ones in power are these elements, including Arafat himself!!! Israel and the US cannot replace the leadership with force, because it will only get extremists to power... so Israel is waiting, striking terror infrastructure, fortify the border and hope for a better, peaceful Palestinian leadership, that can be trusted."

this is the worst possible policy and doesn't have any results as we all can notice.
arafat and the PA are no terror elements, they are willing to negociate with israel and stop the struggle against the occupation force and colonies on the condition that israel is ready to negociate about a final settlement. israel is not striking terror infrastructure but PA-infrastructure, while leaving hamas most unharmed. by striking against the pa israel is relinquishing its only chance for peace.

no talks with terrorists is so stupid, the palestinians can say as well "no talks with occupiers" but such a hard stance won't solve the issue but lead to more violence.

gev

06-28-2002, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by takeo
"the Palestinian leadership agree to this, they are willing to garantee israel's safety,

how can you be so sure?

Originally posted by takeo
I'm 100% sure that if all violence suddenly stopped for a long time Sharon and his gang would STILL not do any concession to the palestinians, would sTILL not accept a palestinian state, withdrawel of the illegal settlements and a compromise about the refugees and jerusalem ("the undivided capital of israel"), that was the position in the 80's of the israeli rightwing, and that's still their position, but now they can take the suicide-bombers as new handy excuse.

How can you be 100% sure??? Sharon talked about concessions, and about a palestinian state.
and even if Sharon wouldn't agree on this, he will be swiftly replaced with someone who will!
When terror stops for good, the Israeli center-Left which is the majority of Israel will close the historic conflict with the Arabs once and for all. and palestinians will live in their own state and the middle East will flurish. Terror is the only thing getting in the way to this dream.

Mediocrates

06-28-2002, 03:48 PM

but killing a rocktrowing child is a crime as well.

When you were 16 if you charged a cop with a rock in your hand he told you to stop and you didn't and flung it at his head what do you think the reaction would be, at least some of the time? Of course you want to say "shoot over my head", "tear gas" "rubber bullets" knowing full well that in the first several months of the Oslo War that's exactly what happened 99% of the time...

elke

06-28-2002, 03:48 PM

You are wrong: these kids are a product of vicious, racist, dishonest, and corrupt educational system; which is part and parcel of that "Palestinian leadership" that is supposedly "willing to assure Israel's safety". THAT's the root cause of the terrorism.

Killing your assaulter is not a crime, usually. It's called "self-defence". But even if it wasn't, these kids were not targeted. They were used as shields by the Palestinian gunmen, who were the ones actually targeted.

Read some more history, Takeo, and you will see what attempts have been made. You will see that because it was expected that negotiations with Jordan would commence shortly, settlement building did not begin until after the Arab Summit - which decided on the "three no's": "NO recognition, NO diplomatic relations, and NO negotiations. Morocco was a go-between in many of these forays. There were no direct negotiations, but attempts at contact were made incessantly.

takeo

06-28-2002, 04:02 PM

I don't think so, because during many years without terror in israel or the occupied territories, the right, and sharon in particular, didn't agree to a palestinian state, so why would they change their mind now?

The center-left was more willing to compromise, but not on some essential palestinian rights such as compromise over the refugees, and own borders for the new palestinian state. also the center did not stop the building of settlements either, which was in contradiction to their own statements that the settlements were a burden for peace. (if you don't believe me look at the site of Gush shalom)

"When you were 16 if you charged a cop with a rock in your hand he told you to stop and you didn't and flung it at his head what do you think the reaction would be, at least some of the time? Of course you want to say "shoot over my head", "tear gas" "rubber bullets" knowing full well that in the first several months of the Oslo War that's exactly what happened 99% of the time..."

yes, that's why in the first years we didn't see such an escalation as in 2000...
a cop shooting a rock-trowing child would be persecuted in France.

"You are wrong: these kids are a product of vicious, racist, dishonest, and corrupt educational system; which is part and parcel of that "Palestinian leadership" that is supposedly "willing to assure Israel's safety". THAT's the root cause of the terrorism. "

no, YOU are wrong Elke, really, i visited the occupied territories, and i started to hate israel as well... they act as colonial oppressors, and palestinians are treated as animals. (which was DURING the 90's). palestinians hated israel as well during the first intifadeh, they didn't needed any propaganda for this, their daily situation and humiliation was more than enough reason.

"Killing your assaulter is not a crime, usually. It's called "self-defence". But even if it wasn't, these kids were not targeted. They were used as shields by the Palestinian gunmen, who were the ones actually targeted. "

that's not entirely true, in many cases none of the demonstrators had guns, certainly in the first stage of the intifadeh.
but you're right that killing your armed assaulter is not a crime, that's why palestinians have the right to shoot at the idf.

"Read some more history, Takeo, and you will see what attempts have been made. You will see that because it was expected that negotiations with Jordan would commence shortly, settlement building did not begin until after the Arab Summit - which decided on the "three no's": "NO recognition, NO diplomatic relations, and NO negotiations. Morocco was a go-between in many of these forays. There were no direct negotiations, but attempts at contact were made incessantly."

maybe so, but israel certainly made things worse by starting those settlements, and israel itself did never any serious attempt to solve the question or call for negociation. nor the labour-party nor the likud were ready to give the occupied territories back.
ps: egypt recognised israel, Carter tried to include the other occupied territories in those negociations, Begin refused blundly.

Mediocrates

06-28-2002, 04:06 PM

yes, that's why in the first years we didn't see such an escalation as in 2000... a cop shooting a rock-trowing child would be persecuted in France.

comparing legal systems is irrelevant.

takeo

06-28-2002, 04:30 PM

mediocrates, according to the link you gave, " â€œthe occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territories it occupies.â€
INTO the territories, which means from the "motherland" to the occupied territories, which is exactly the case here!!!

the settlements, even expanding existing ones, is in violation of the mitchell-agreements, much quoted by israel-supporters...

"The GOI should freeze all settlement activity, including the "natural growth" of existing settlements." (p. 28)

"Beyond the obvious confidence-building qualities of a settlement freeze, we note that many of the confrontations during this conflict have occurred at points where Palestinians, settlers, and security forces protecting the settlers, meet. Keeping both the peace and these friction points will be very difficult." (p.17)

"A cessation of Palestinian Israeli violence will be particularly hard to sustain unless GOI freezes all settlement construction activity." (p.15)

"Settlement activities must not be allowed to undermine the restoration of calm and the resumption of negotiations." (p. 15)

"A government which seeks to argue that its goal is to reach a solution to the conflict with the Palestinians through peaceful means, and is trying at this stage to bring an end to the violence and terrorism, must announce an end to construction in the settlements." (p. 17)

"The [Government of Israel] should give careful consideration as to whether settlements which are focal points for substantial friction are valuable bargaining chips for future negotiations or provocations likely to preclude the onset of productive talks." (p. 15)

"The kind of security cooperation desired by [the Government of Israel] cannot for long co-exist with settlement activity described very recently by the European Union as causing 'great concern' and by the US as 'provocative'." (p. 29)

"We acknowledge the reluctance of the [Palestinian Authority] to be seen as facilitating the work of Israeli security services absent an explicit political context (i.e. meaningful negotiations) and under the threat of Israeli settlement expansion." (p. 13)

"Further settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs that a final outcome can be freely and fairly negotiated." (p 16, quotation taken from US President Reagan's statement on settlements)

"The circumstances in the region are much changed from those which existed nearly 20 years ago. Yet President Reagan's words remain relevant: 'The immediate option of a settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create the confidence neededâ€¦.' " (p. 17)

"Every time I have gone to Israel in connection with the peace process, on each of my four trips, I have been met with the announcement of new settlement activity. This does violate United States policy. It's the first thing that Arabs-Arab governments, the first thing that the Palestinians in the territories-whose situation is really quite desperate-the first thing they raise when we talk to them. I don't think there is any bigger obstacle to peace than the settlement activity that continues not only unabated but at an enhanced pace." (p. 16, quotation from Secretary of State, James Baker III, stated on May 22, 1991)

"This policy described by Secretary Baker, on behalf of the Administration of the President George H. Bush, has been, in essence the policy of every American administration over the past quarter century." (p. 16)

"Most other countries, including Turkey, Norway, and those of the European Union, have also been critical of Israeli settlement activity, in accordance with their views that such settlements are illegal under international law and not in compliance with previous agreements." (p. 16.)

elke

06-28-2002, 06:10 PM

When you "visit", remember that you are a "visitor". My staunchly Presbyterian landlord and friend also visited the West Bank about 5 years ago. He came away with an entirely different opinion than yours.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, because it allows one to assume that one knows all there is to know. This conflict is very complicated, among other things, because it's between radically different cultures.

takeo

06-28-2002, 06:20 PM

Not really so radically different, more Palestinians than you might suspect know Hebrew and watch israeli television and many israeli are themselves immigrants from Arab countries.
of course you are right that a visit is not the same as living there, but i talked with quite some palestinians who learned me their view and their lifes. That's why i was not surprised at all by the outbreak of violence since 2000. I can tell you that it has much less to do with anti-semitism or religion than with the daily insults, curfews, destructions and seizures(which continued during the 90's), military checkpoints, economic misery, and most of all settlements and the feeling that they live under oppression in their own country, which is really a very lively feeling in those territories, you can't almost ignore the israeli presence nowhere in the westbank or Gaza. many palestinians who originate in israel propper also still resent that they never had the right to return, while on the contrary israel came to them, as if they hadn't suffered enough!

Vic

06-29-2002, 12:02 AM

Yes, the Palestinians possess unparalled skills in teaching their views by promising a healing - to the tender-minded European of his/her guilt complex, to the even more tender-minded Jew of his/her victim (and the underlying inferiority) mentality...

takeo

06-29-2002, 04:59 AM

"Yes, the Palestinians possess unparalled skills in teaching their views by promising a healing - to the tender-minded European of his/her guilt complex, to the even more tender-minded Jew of his/her victim (and the underlying inferiority) mentality..."

come on!
don't block yourself completely from the suffering of these people, even if you support the other side.
by the way i think the israeli propaganda try to work more on the guilt complex of the tender-minded European, by referring constantly to the Holocaust, even if this a totally different matter and to terrorism, without ever mentioning what caused this terrorism.
i don't have an inferiority-complex but neither a superiority-complex or a victim-complex as many other Jews...

elke

06-29-2002, 06:00 AM

Pray-tell, how do you know that your opinion is not different from my landlord's? Don't you think I would be in a better position to know whether or not it's true, considering you've never spoken to the man?

Nobody is closing their eyes to the Palestinian suffering. It's clear that their lot is no bed of roses. The disagreement is regarding what caused his suffering and how to ameliorate it.

I don't think that the references to the Holocaust by the pro-Israeli side are meant to create guilt. They are made in response to inappropriate use of terminology by the other side, nothing more.

gev

06-29-2002, 06:30 AM

takeo,

speaking of Arafat and the PA,
More world leaders are waking up and speak openly against Arafat and the PA:

Secretery of State Colin Powell, the most moderate in the Bush Administration Says he supports the Bush Plan and he expects the support of Europe too: "There is a price for not fighting Terrorism" says Powell. he adds that he came to the conclusion that Arafat should be replaced after an information came to him about Arafat funding the Al-Aqsa brigades who conducts suicide attacks inside Israel (you can trust him for double checking the authencity of the information...)

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/Full&cid=1023716567553

And Jack Straw - UK's foreign Minister says he has been 'Let Down' by Arafat. he also adds that not only him but EVERY FOREIGN MINISTER HE HAD EVER SPOKEN TO FEEL THAT WAY.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_2072000/2072676.stm

But you beleive in Arafat, so he has nothing to worry about...
it's good that you chosen such a noble man to beleive in!

sharonbn

06-29-2002, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by MGB8
That's just not true. The attacks weaken Israel, making it more suceptible to a mass arab attack. And if you think that the peaces of paper that we have with Jordan and Egypt will stop a war...well, think again. Nor would Europe do anything.

I disagree with you. Egypt and Jordan have shown no sign that should cause concern in Israel. In fact, the recent voices coming from Arab nations only show that they too have realized that Arafat is the cause for the instability in the region.

Originally posted by MGB8
It would only take a day or two to overrun Israel. Less if its pre 67 Israel, because Israel could be divided in two, creating efectively 6 fronts (2 north, 2 south, two east.) Add amphibious assualt and you have EIGHT fronts.

In Yom Kippur 1973, Israel was taken by surprise with a joined attack from Egypt and Syria. Still, with aid from the US, Israel managed not only to drive the invading armies away, but even to conquer new land that was used to negotiate a truce.
Now, due to the severe economical depression in Syria, the Syrian army is in bad shape with no spare parts for its airplanes, tanks and artilery. Syria is also led by a new ruler that has proven himself weak and indecisive. Jordanian army has always been small with a meager 66 jetfighters and a couple hundred tanks. Egypt army remains the largest and best equiped army. However, by its own, it is no match for the sophistication and sheer size of the Israeli airforce and ground forces.
So you see, Israel has maintained its military supriority over the years. History shows that in large scale, short period military conflicts it can overrun armies that are superior "on paper". its in low-intensity, long conflicts ,like in Lebanon, that the IDF has poorly performed. but such conflicts cannot threaten the existence of Israel or the lives of the majority of its population.

Originally posted by MGB8
Not to mention that its not just the "existence of the state" ITS PEOPLES LIVES!
What do you think the parent of a child who was murdered on a bus would say to you? What would you say to them?
That's what I hate about the left - the arrogant belief in Israeli infalibility and security.

You don't have to tell me people are dying in Israel. Maybe you have not noticed, but, unlike you, I live in Israel.
"That's what I hate about" outsiders that lecture US, ISRAELIS, what should WE do to solve OUR problems. What I say and do, comes from deep concern and true love for the country I was born in, grew up in, live in and raise family in. I believe NO ONE in this forum, let alone someone from Chicago, has the right to criticize my patriotism and motives.

Please, don't play this "parent of murdered child" manipulation on me. I want to stop terror attacks MORE THAN YOU DO, since I am a target of such an attacks myself, NOT YOU.
If we want to have a serious rational discussion about solution to the problem, then by all means, lets have such a discussion, and leave such manipulations aside.

Originally posted by MGB8
Transfer is a horrible option. It is. But it is not killing.
I believe that a true and long lasting solution to the Israeli Arab conflict can only be a diplomatic one, not a military one. If Israel attempts mass transfer of Palestinians, they will all rebel against such action - and rightfully so. They will not go quietly into the night and the army will have to kill them. Yes, IDF will have to kill Palestinian men women and children. This is something that is known by ALL Israelis of both sides of the political map and that's why no Israeli PM will *EVER* give such a horific order to the army.

takeo

06-29-2002, 11:16 AM

Elke, i never said anything about your landlord, did i?
he can have a different impression than i had, depending on whom he spoke to, what did he visit, what were his preconceptions of the problem before he came there?

"I don't think that the references to the Holocaust by the pro-Israeli side are meant to create guilt. They are made in response to inappropriate use of terminology by the other side, nothing more."

Did you read the tread about France?

"Secretery of State Colin Powell, the most moderate in the Bush Administration Says he supports the Bush Plan and he expects the support of Europe too: "There is a price for not fighting Terrorism" says Powell. he adds that he came to the conclusion that Arafat should be replaced after an information came to him about Arafat funding the Al-Aqsa brigades who conducts suicide attacks inside Israel (you can trust him for double checking the authencity of the information...) "

Well, the Europeans don't feel that way, according to them he is not a terrorist and the palestinians have the right to choose their own leaders in the upcoming elections, that's what democracy is about... not some foreign power who dictates the palestinians who they can elect or who not.
Did we ever forbid israel to elect a war-criminal as its prime minister? Besides the general feeling among European politicians is that by refusing to talk with the palestinian leaders there is one more obstacle for negociations to start. by this latest change in policy the US even further compromised their already very weak and ineffective middle-eastern policy.
Also the un will continue to recognise Arafat, so do the arab leaders, and besides Colin powell made indications that the policy could change again in the near future according to the devellopments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_2066000/2066621.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,744782,00.html

"I believe that a true and long lasting solution to the Israeli Arab conflict can only be a diplomatic one, not a military one. If Israel attempts mass transfer of Palestinians, they will all rebel against such action - and rightfully so. They will not go quietly into the night and the army will have to kill them. Yes, IDF will have to kill Palestinian men women and children. This is something that is known by ALL Israelis of both sides of the political map and that's why no Israeli PM will *EVER* give such a horific order to the army. "

that's right, but i'm not so sure that no israeli pm will ever give such a horrific order... why otherwise did Likud exclude a palestinian state, ever???

gev

06-29-2002, 01:46 PM

takeo,

No one Prooved Sharon as being a war criminal, and if he did found guilty he wouldn't have been elected. the commity who judged him held him administrially resposible, but never did say he knew about it and didn't stop it.
After the holocaust, the need for international supervision is neccessary. sometimes when there are prooves for crimes and criminals are not judged by their own people, instead these crimes are encouraged, somebody has to take action.

As Colin Powell said, it was prooven that Arafat support financially the Al-Aqsa Brigades - a Known Terror Group. isn't that a crime? do you think this man should be forced on Israel by the international community? by the palestinian?
You look at it as a one side problem. The palestinians can choose their leaders, but don't expect the US and Israel to do business with every body the palestinians choose. if they choose a prooven terrorist to lead them, Israel will negotiate with him, he will just lead them to dooms day.

The atmosphere Arafat has created assures his winning in every election, that's why Arafat must go in his own free will, or pressured to go.

btw, Prime minister of Italy joins the club:

http://www.sunspot.net/bal-te.summit28jun28.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

"Among the president's supporters, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Arafat should consider stepping down. "Many people are convinced that Arafat, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, should make a generous gesture and move aside," Berlusconi said.
"

don't be mistaken, I think that whole World leaders fill that way of Arafat, but they are divided in what steps should be done about him.
You should ask yourself how did he got to be so disliked?

I think what the world leaders should do is say openly what they think of Arafat, and in that way pressure Arafat and the palestinian people to replace the terrorist.

Vic

06-29-2002, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by gev
btw, Prime minister of Italy joins the club:

http://www.sunspot.net/bal-te.summit28jun28.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

"Among the president's supporters, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Arafat should consider stepping down. "Many people are convinced that Arafat, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, should make a generous gesture and move aside," Berlusconi said. I wish it would be someone else. Berlusconi is a dubious, seriously compromised figure, cold-shouldered by other European leaders. He is probably keen for any ally he can get, trying to be the teacher's (the US Presindent's) pet too, in Cerulean's brilliant metapher.

L@mplighterM

06-29-2002, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by sharonbn

I disagree with you. Egypt and Jordan have shown no sign that should cause concern in Israel. In fact, the recent voices coming from Arab nations only show that they too have realized that Arafat is the cause for the instability in the region.

It seems to me that if the leader of a nation (Egypt) declares that he would start a war with Israel if other Islamic nations forked over 100 Billion is cause for concern. Of course you could always pass it off as a joke.

Vic

06-29-2002, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by takeo
"Yes, the Palestinians possess unparalled skills in teaching their views by promising a healing - to the tender-minded European of his/her guilt complex, to the even more tender-minded Jew of his/her victim (and the underlying inferiority) mentality..."

come on!
don't block yourself completely from the suffering of these people, even if you support the other side. I don't. I believe that the causes of the suffering are obfuscated due to massive propaganda that, as propaganda always does, appeals to twisted, perverse emotion rather than to reason.

In case someone else here is interested in more detail:
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=979 (a fellow poster got me wrong here, but never mind)
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?threadid=971

by the way i think the israeli propaganda try to work more on the guilt complex of the tender-minded European, by referring constantly to the Holocaust, even if this a totally different matter and to terrorism, without ever mentioning what caused this terrorism.Looking closely, the Europeans themselves carry on much more about the Holocaust than the Israelis do. Basically I do believe that it would be a good idea to keep the Holocaust out of large parts of the debate: it is not always conductive to the promotion of Israeli issues.
i don't have an inferiority-complex but neither a superiority-complex or a victim-complex as many other Jews... Oh yes, you do. Where did you last post a tragic story about a man from Peru(?) who was so teribly upset about what Israel is doing, although "the Jews have suffered so much", and how you had to explain to him that there are good Jews as well?

takeo

06-29-2002, 04:23 PM

"No one Prooved Sharon as being a war criminal, and if he did found guilty he wouldn't have been elected. the commity who judged him held him administrially resposible, but never did say he knew about it and didn't stop it. "

it was an israeli court... "sometimes when there are prooves for crimes and criminals are not judged by their own people"
the former head of the war-crimes tribunal, Goldberg, said in a very controversial BBC-documentory (only controversial in Israel however) that if Sharon would ever stand trial in the war-crimes tribunal he would be convicted for sure (only for the events in Libanon, there might be other cases as well in his long carreer).

"As Colin Powell said, it was prooven that Arafat support financially the Al-Aqsa Brigades - a Known Terror Group. isn't that a crime? do you think this man should be forced on Israel by the international community? by the palestinian? "

there is no proove whatsoever that he has connections to the al-aqsa brigades, Bush and his administration knew this papers a long time and were not convinced by them, but probably recently more by the zionist lobby, which is very strong in his administration, and by the ongoing violence in Palestine.
but even if those papers would be true, than Arafat should be convicted by a war-crimes tribunal, a tribunal that should be established for all crimes perpetrated in palestine, on both sides, israel always refused such war-crimes tribunal.

"You look at it as a one side problem. The palestinians can choose their leaders, but don't expect the US and Israel to do business with every body the palestinians choose. if they choose a prooven terrorist to lead them, Israel will negotiate with him, he will just lead them to dooms day. "

it is not a PROOVEN terrorist, it is a suspected terrorist by israel, a country that is already violating un-resolutions for decades, has a prime minister suspected of war-crimes by a lot of people in the world, is heavily involved in the conflict, and is in no position to judge the palestinian leaders, both morally nor legal (as well as the palestinians have no right to judge Sharon personally, because they have no jurisdiction in israel). This right to judge can only come from international bodies, or from the palestinians themselves.
It is certainly not an internal matter of israel, nor is it upon israel (or the us) to decide whom it shall deal with, because the palestinian territories are no part of israel.

"The atmosphere Arafat has created assures his winning in every election, that's why Arafat must go in his own free will, or pressured to go. "

i would say the atmosphere israel has created, every assault against Arafat makes him more popular. there will be lots of international observers to assure the elections are free and fair, that's all that matters. how would you react if Europe would boycott israel if likud or sharon gets elected in the government next elections? would you find it a democratic measure? Europe did it in the case of Austria or Yougoslavia, which was tremendously undemocratic.
besides, all this really doesn't matter, because if the palestinians will elect Arafat israel will have to deal with arafat, if it wants peace. (and i'm sure the us will, they change their policy every 5 minutes)
It is really a childish game, this histeria against Arafat, especially since Arafat is one of the few palestinians willing to negociate with israel over the end of the intifadeh on some conditions (a more and more large part of the palestinians don't want any peace with israel, ever, this is a dramatic consequence of israel's destruction of the palestinian moderates, which encourages radicalism). barak and clinton talked with Arafat untill the last day in office, and a solution was in sight, Sharon did stop all negociations with all kinds of excuses(first: "no talks under fire", later "no talks with terrorists now "no talks with Arafat") and Bush did nothing, with the result we can face on television every day...

"Among the president's supporters, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Arafat should consider stepping down. "Many people are convinced that Arafat, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, should make a generous gesture and move aside," Berlusconi said.
"
as vic indicated, berlusconi, who is in an alliance with fascist parties who still admire Mussolini, abuse his power to change laws not to be persecuted personally, and owns the entire italian press (both public and private) (which he abuses to sack all critical journalists), is not the best-suited person to make comments about the middle-east. yet he said that Arafat should step down to ease the tentions with israel, not because he thinks arafat is a terrorist.

takeo

06-29-2002, 04:34 PM

"I don't. I believe that the causes of the suffering are obfuscated due to massive propaganda that, as propaganda always does, appeals to twisted, perverse emotion rather than to reason. "

that's right, every time we are discussing a constructive solution for the problem, people start about the cruelty of the suicide-bombers, that you can't do any deals with such animals, etc. wich are all pure emotional arguments.
However the situation the palestinians are faced with for 30 years is no propaganda, it is a cruel but undeniable fact, the settlements, the military occupation, the unlegitimate detentions, the checkpoints at every town, the racist policy advantaging jewish colonisers, etc.
we can all argue about the reasons of those israeli policies, but nobody can doubt that the palestinians were the victims of this israeli policies during more than 30 years, a policy condamned by much of the world, and that major unjustice have been done to millions of innocent people. (unarmed civilians are per definition innocent, as well as unarmed israeli civilians). this is not emotional but factual.

"Oh yes, you do. Where did you last post a tragic story about a man from Peru(?) who was so teribly upset about what Israel is doing, although "the Jews have suffered so much", and how you had to explain to him that there "

well, that was not because of inferiority, but because i tought the image of the Jewish people was harmed by some people who claim to act in the name and interest of all Jews.
nevertheless, the remarks of this man were anti-semitic, whatever the reason of his anti-semitism.

I am really interested in the position of sharon (i mean the Sharon of this forum of course), at the one hand, he seems reasonable, moderate and not racist as other posters, and wants a solution for the problem acceptable to both peoples, on the other hands he defends a policy that is further destroying the confidence and hopes for any peace in the near future. He also refuses to accept some unavoidable consequences of peace with the palestinians (such as taking in at least some of the refugees). this seems to me the same lack of consistency that made barak and perez fail in their search for peace in the region and still hoants the israeli centre-left. Had they taken a consequent policy to make the oslo-agreements work, abandon all settlements, and had been a bit, only a tiny bit, more flexible in the camp david, and never let their policy be influenced by right-wing parties or rightwing undemocratic pressure, than the future might have looked a lot brighter for both israeli and the palestinians, and sharon would have been on his way to retirement or to The hague....
Hamas would be the big looser (loose of support, as in the early 90's), as well as all radicals on the Arab side and israeli side.

elke

06-29-2002, 04:44 PM

Oh, no! I agree that Palestinians have a right to determine who will lead them, just like anyone else; but the Israelis - and others - do have a right to decide whether or not they wish to deal with the person chosen.

nevertheless, the remarks of this man were anti-semitic, whatever the reason of his anti-semitism.

Bingo, Takeo! That's a very good insight! :)

(BTW, I said that my landlord came back from Israel with a different view than yours, and you said "not too different". I understood that you were referring to that particular comment, if not, which comment were you referring to?

He went, among other things, to a refugee camp in the West Bank. This was a trip through his church. Neither he nor his wife really had an opinion on the subject before their trip. His wife came out of it with views more along the line with yours, but he himself did not. He is actually one of the absolutely nicest people I know: very kind, bright, well educated. His wife seems to be more...selfish, is the word, I guess. Go figure! :D )

takeo

06-29-2002, 04:50 PM

"Oh, no! I agree that Palestinians have a right to determine who will lead them, just like anyone else; but the Israelis - and others - do have a right to decide whether or not they wish to deal with the person chosen."

if israel and palestine would be two separate states, than israel would have all rights to freeze its relations with palestine and close the borders, but currently, as long as the occupation, international conflict and the violations of the un-resolutions are going on, israel is obliged to deal with anyone representing the palestinians.

NewsGuy

06-29-2002, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by sharonbn
and your numbers are based on .... ?
In this case, personal opinion. You say 7.6% for Meretz based on the seats, but I believe that if the elections were held today, Meretz would wind up with no more than 2 seats -- again, personal opinion.

In fact, I remember you yourself stating in this (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=7443#post7443) post, some 6 weeks ago that Israeli left wing is 30% strong.

Yes, although it is only a tiny percentage of those who identify themselves with the radical Leftist ideas of Yossi Beilin and Sarid, not to mention Uri Avneri. And that number is dropping every day.

I estimate around a third are hardcore followers of Peres and Beilin (like myself btw).

Big difference between Beilin and Peres. Peres is not soft on security as Beilin is.

but NewsGuy, You took me, one person, and made me the sole representative of all left wing...
I base my generalization on the fact that ALL extreme militant groups in the history of modern Israel, came exclusively from the right-wing...In stark contrast, left opposition over the years is charecterised by non violent actions.

First of all, Jabotinsky is not an extremist and Haetzel and Lechi are also not extremists. They had their time in history and military self-defense is not extremism. They are responsible for some of the finest building blocks of the early IDF equally with the Hagana. When it comes to extremism, the Israeli Left still leads, IMO.

As for committing crimes, whoever does so should simply be punished under the law. They are not representative of the Rightist movement. They are criminals plain and simple, same as the Leftist who are guilty of being traitors, including meeting with the enemy leaders, supporting known terrorists, interfering with the IDF's operations, distributing the orders of the enemy at rallies, supporting mutiny and sabotage in the IDF, and the list goes on.

Your listing Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir is like my bringing up the Arabs who are guilty of transporting the suicide bombers into Israel. You can be sure that they are not members of Moledet.

The settling of Jews on Arab owned land and the aggressive and often violent conduct of these settlers is the number 1 factor for the hatred and mistrust of the Palestinians in all Jews.
This is another fantasy of the Left wing and a case of amnesia about Arab terrorism way before there were Israeli suburbs built in the West bank and Gaza.

Of course, it's more convenient to blame the ones whose behavior you think can be forced to change. But the reality is that the cause of the conflict is the existence of Jews who dare to live independently in the Jewish homeland.

That's why the Palestinian map of their Islamic dream state contains the entirety of Israel. The "settlements" that anger the Arabs the most are the likes of Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, and Jerusalem. Did you not ever watch Palestinian TV newscasts and see the map of ALL of Israel over the shoulder of the announcer? I'll give you a hint, look here (http://www.pecdar.org/) toward the bottom-right of the page, where there is an icon labeled "Maps."

On the other hand, 450 officers and soldiers are refusing to serve in the occupied territories, and they gain increasing support in the Israeli public, as the support demonstrations show.

No, actually, public support for the traitors has dropped. The real trend is for more volunteers to be fighters in the territories and the movement of high-school students volunteering to spend their summer vacation to guard Israeli towns.

The traitors you mentioned are just more examples of extreme Leftists who are sitting in jail for their crimes against the State of Israel.

NewsGuy

06-29-2002, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by takeo
Well, the Europeans don't feel that way, according to them he is not a terrorist and the palestinians have the right to choose their own leaders...
Again, Stalinist-style disinformation from Takeo.

European leaders are not all in agreement. Italy, for example, sees things differently from the Arab colony of France.

Although it is true that for most Europeans, the mass murder of Jews is not considered terrorism, but rather conduct in the finest tradition of Europe itself.

we can all argue about the reasons of those israeli policies, but nobody can doubt that the palestinians were the victims of this israeli policies during more than 30 years

Yes, the Palestinians have been affected by Israel's demand for an end to terrorism. During 50 years of Arab mass murder of Jews, the Palestinians have been guilty of the most heinous crimes against humanity.

The extreme Arab abuses of the human rights of Israelis are at the core of the ongoing problem. Until the Palestinians come to realize that Jews are human beings just like them, who are entitled to live in security and with dignity, of course there will be no peace in the Middle East.

rhodescholar

06-29-2002, 07:06 PM

"If israel and palestine would be two separate states, than israel would have all rights to freeze its relations with palestine and close the borders, but currently, as long as the occupation, international conflict and the violations of the un-resolutions are going on, israel is obliged to deal with anyone representing the palestinians."

#1- palestine is NOT a state, nor has it EVER been one.

#2-the only occupation I know of in the ME is the Syrian of Lebanon. If u r referring to Samaria, Gaza, and the WB, Israel took control oF these territories in a DEFENSIVE war. Regardless of UN resolutions, centuries of international province and law have betowed claims of rights and ownership to properties obtained in defensive wars to the aggrieved party in said battle(s). Since it is generally understood and accepted that israel was the aggrieved party in 1967, this renders all UN resolutions on the issue vacant. The Arab dont like that fact, and use their 57-strong voting bloc in the UN to try to bypass it, but it still stands.

#3- for sake of argument, even if u claim ignorance to the legal foundations of point #2 above, u must say for the lands to be occupied, they must pass 2 legal tests:

A-do the people have self-govt? The answer is "yes", since they have voted for their own leadership, which maintains civil self-governance in accordance with the 1993 Declaration of Principles.

B-who "owned" or had title to the lands prior to 1967? Since jordan and egypt illegally (according to UN resolutions) occupied the territories in 1948, they did not have ownership of the property. This means that since the lands were not "owned" or claimed by a legal state or nation, they could not be occupied by another. If a legally-recognized party were to lay claims to the lands, they would have to prove they were not supportive of the arab attack in 1967. Since Israel can easily claim "aggrieved party status" in that conflict, it would render their claim moot. Further, until various treaties are undone that were written long before the UN came into existence, noone can claim that the UN has jursdiction over the disputed territories.

Please refer to legal precedent before succumbing to various media-driven fallacies such as "israel occupies the territories," because by any and all legal definitions, they do not.

rhodescholar

06-29-2002, 07:17 PM

"come on!
don't block yourself completely from the suffering of these people, even if you support the other side. by the way i think the israeli propaganda try to work more on the guilt complex of the tender-minded European, by referring constantly to the Holocaust, even if this a totally different matter and to terrorism, without ever mentioning what caused this terrorism.
i don't have an inferiority-complex but neither a superiority-complex or a victim-complex as many other Jews"

If the pals were truly suffering, that would make them the first people (assuming they are even a "people," which i deny but wont pursue here) that has ever NOT LEFT.

Meaning, if their standard of living was so dreadful, they WOULD LEAVE THE TERRITORIES. BUT THEY DONT. And the simple reason is that they know, just as they did in 1970 when they fleed the advancing Jordanian troops, that life is better accepting jobs in israel and having their homes wired with electricity and plumbing by israel than living in real misery in a refugee camp in an arab nation.

They are actually quite fortunate, becuase israel is the first country in their vicinity who has not responded to their insurgencies by expulsion or murder. I dont recall reading your protests when they were slaughtered by King Hussein in 1970 (after he offered them practically the whole country), by Assad in 1982, or expelled by the Yemenites and Kuwaitis (over 1/2 million). There is a long history in the middle east of their malfeasance, and of nations responding to it. Dont try to lay this at israel's doorstep, as they have been BY FAR the most tolerant of all.

Second, u must not watch the news too much, becuase the most ferocious of assaults on israel in the media were directed from your very own french media, with ample British support.

rhodescholar

06-29-2002, 07:37 PM

"it's not sure that the westbank protected israel in 1973, it was in the first place the occupation of the WB and Gaza that caused the 1973 war"

What? Do u have even the slightest clue what u r talking about? What occupation was there in 1967?

"because in the opinion of most part of the world, Israel can only blame itself, because they had more than 30 years time to find a solution for this problems, instead it did nothing, untill 1993, and even this agreement was not respected by israel. (more settlements, delay of the time-table, israeli refusal to accept palestinian independance in 1999 as foreseen by oslo, etc.)"

#1-What "world?" Umean the Un that is almost 40% muslim, voting together as a single bloc?

#2-Please be more informed when posting here. I will state this once, and only ONCE: THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE SETTLEMENTS IN THE 1993 OSLO ACCORD. NONE. If u disagree, i suggest reading it.

"Do you think that deportation will be bloodless? All Palestinians will resist to their deportation, which is their right."

They forfeited any "rights" when they cheered saddam's scud missile assault in 1991, and began a War against israel in 2000.

"i wouldn't think so, do you consider children throwing stones at the occupation force combattants?"

My favourite arab propagandist line. Even Hussein Ibbish and Abdel Rahman dont spout this one anymore. The Merkava tanks were blown up by children with rocks? The Karine A was filled with large boulders to be broken into rocks for the children to throw? The suicide bombers user rocks to blow up pizza parlours? If u seek crediblity here, u r not finding it.

"that's how this whole intifadeh excalated...such as destroying houses or fields that are build too close to a new israeli settlement"

It started when Arafat declared it with support from hezbollah seeing weakness in israel lebanon retreat. Homes used by snipers firing on israeli civilians are justifiably bulldozed, except for that israel warns the residents, something i would never do.

"not to mention the destructions and murders against the legitimate palestinian autority, while hamas-members are left alone."

U seem hoplessly uninformed. The PA steals more from the people than can be described here. Hamas is left laone, for your info, because they hide behind civilians, whom israel is loathe to kill. As a matter of FACT, the PA is obligated to stop Hamas, but THEY ARE INVIOLATION OF THIS TREATY BY NOT stopping them. FACT.

"but a law that is clearly racist and discriminating the palestinian population in Jerusalem) mostly for building new jewish settlements"

Too funny, and too clueless. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN a jewish settlement built on land already lived on by pals.

"randomly persecution and months or even years in jail without a trial"

LOL, like the suspected pal collaborators Arafat's men kill and hang in the streets?

"Not only is the israeli occupation of palestine illegal"

Wrong, and u sound like a mouthpiece. Read my other post.

"of course you have to be inhuman to ignore that this policy is the reason of strong hate and anger, that exploded in the first and second intifadeh."

So how do u explain the Arab world hostility BEFORE 1967?

"You are wrong about the Arafat files, too. This is a man who was audio taped ordering the death an American diplomat, who lies about his birth (in Cairo, not Jerusalen), his academics (never got into an American University), his intentions....but so many for some reason want to stand up for him. "

Let me tell u something, Arafat should have been executed for War Crimes for the execution of thousands of Lebanese Maronite Christians in the 1970s, LONG BEFORE he came to power as head of the PA. He is one of the greatest murderers of his own people, and has actually killed more pals than all the other nations COMBINED.

And his CURRENT ethnic cleansing of arab christians from Beit Jalla, which for some reason the Vatican and Europe are silent on, is ebough to get him tried at the Hague.

People in the know, who have studied the ME for decades, unlike the fly-by-nights like yourself who watch CNN and read Le Monde and think u r "informed," will tell u Arafat is one of the greatest mass murders along with pol Pot and Idi Amin of the last 40 years.

takeo

06-29-2002, 08:33 PM

"First of all, Jabotinsky is not an extremist and Haetzel and Lechi are also not extremists. They had their time in history and military self-defense is not extremism. "

They would be considered terrorists according to your very own definitions of terrorism. (any military action against an occupying power is terrorism)

"same as the Leftist who are guilty of being traitors, including meeting with the enemy leaders, supporting known terrorists, interfering with the IDF's operations, distributing the orders of the enemy at rallies, supporting mutiny and sabotage in the IDF, and the list goes on. "

so you mean that people who voice their opinion different of the government should be persecuted...

not going into that discussion again... it is clear that the PLO, al fatah, arafat etc. even the pflp recognise israel and do not claim Tel Aviv etc. to become "Judenfrei".

"The traitors you mentioned are just more examples of extreme Leftists who are sitting in jail for their crimes against the State of Israel."

you mean for voicing their opinion and for refusing to serve in occupied territory...

"Again, Stalinist-style disinformation from Takeo.
European leaders are not all in agreement. Italy, for example, sees things differently from the Arab colony of France.
Although it is true that for most Europeans, the mass murder of Jews is not considered terrorism, but rather conduct in the finest tradition of Europe itself. "

the stalinist desinformation had just mentioned Berlusconi above, if the representative of the free world had taken the effort to read it...
and above you can read as well that everyone, both supporters and critics of israel, agreed that the Holocaust should not be an argument used in this conflict by any of the worriing sides...

"Yes, the Palestinians have been affected by Israel's demand for an end to terrorism. During 50 years of Arab mass murder of Jews, the Palestinians have been guilty of the most heinous crimes against humanity. "

of course the blame is 100% one-sided and israel only had the best intentions for the palestinians and gave them all opportunities to live in peace and equality with israel...
only israeli have been victims, the palestinians never suffered...
israel has never been guilty of any crime, let alone crimes against humanity... anyone not agreeing with this TRUTH is a self-hating Jew, traitor or anti-semite and should be deported or eliminated...

"The extreme Arab abuses of the human rights of Israelis are at the core of the ongoing problem. Until the Palestinians come to realize that Jews are human beings just like them, who are entitled to live in security and with dignity, of course there will be no peace in the Middle East."

arab abuses of human rights are a consequence of israeli abuses of human rights (such as the right not to to live in the land where their families were born or not to be occupied by foreign troops). Until Israel comes to realize that palestinians are human beings just like them, who are entitled to live in security and with dignity in their own land, just as the israeli, of course there will no peace in the middle East...

"A-do the people have self-govt? The answer is "yes", since they have voted for their own leadership, which maintains civil self-governance in accordance with the 1993 Declaration of Principles. "

a limited self-government is not independance, foreign occupation continues as long as a foreign military power controll part of your land without approval of the autorities.

"B-who "owned" or had title to the lands prior to 1967? Since jordan and egypt illegally (according to UN resolutions) occupied the territories in 1948, they did not have ownership of the property. This means that since the lands were not "owned" or claimed by a legal state or nation, they could not be occupied by another. If a legally-recognized party were to lay claims to the lands, they would have to prove they were not supportive of the arab attack in 1967. Since Israel can easily claim "aggrieved party status" in that conflict, it would render their claim moot. Further, until various treaties are undone that were written long before the UN came into existence, noone can claim that the UN has jursdiction over the disputed territories. "

the un jurisdiction is superior to all former treaties (if not israel would have no right to exist). the un recognised jordan's sovereinty over the wB and egypt's sovereignty over the Gaza at the same time israeli sovereignty over other parts of palestine was recognised.
even lands that are not owned by anyone or disputed can't be claimed by a foreign power without autorization from the un, not even after a war (and certainly not by the power who started the war as israel did in 1967).i've never heard in any diplomatic language or international law of "aggrieved party status" which would give any country the right to occupy without time-limits.

please read the various links and quotes on this forum that show israel violated several un-resolutions, the un-charter, the geneva-conventions. if you could find any un-resolution or part of the geneva-convention that would autorize the occupation, be my guest to quote it...

"Meaning, if their standard of living was so dreadful, they WOULD LEAVE THE TERRITORIES. BUT THEY DONT. And the simple reason is that they know, just as they did in 1970 when they fleed the advancing Jordanian troops, that life is better accepting jobs in israel and having their homes wired with electricity and plumbing by israel than living in real misery in a refugee camp in an arab nation. "

most palestinians in the occupied territories live worse than in Jordan. people don't leave because they know they will never be able to return due to the israeli policy of etnci cleansing.

"They are actually quite fortunate, becuase israel is the first country in their vicinity who has not responded to their insurgencies by expulsion or murder. I dont recall reading your protests when they were slaughtered by King Hussein in 1970 (after he offered them practically the whole country), by Assad in 1982, or expelled by the Yemenites and Kuwaitis (over 1/2 million). There is a long history in the middle east of their malfeasance, and of nations responding to it. Dont try to lay this at israel's doorstep, as they have been BY FAR the most tolerant of all. "

palestinians are refugees in those countries, immigrants, their real home is Israel or the occupied territories. what happened in 1982 was not against palestinians but against the islamic brotherhood.
tolerant?
ok, let's say we French would occupy a part of israel, millions of israeli flee to the us, we wouldn't let them go back, the israeli fight us with bombs in paris and in the french part of israel, next we occupy the other part of israel as well, refuse to give any civil rights to the jews living there, only to French immigrants, jewish cities get destroyed to bud french settlements, while killing anyone that resists. Would you consider it to be a tolerant policy? i wouldn't, and i'm sure you would call it the worst anti-semitism since Hitler. And you know what? you would be right!

"Second, u must not watch the news too much, becuase the most ferocious of assaults on israel in the media were directed from your very own french media, with ample British support."

sure, the only TRUTH was on israeli television, right?

takeo

06-29-2002, 08:54 PM

"They forfeited any "rights" when they cheered saddam's scud missile assault in 1991, and began a War against israel in 2000. "

most are civilians and a people that are recognised by the un (wich israel is a member-nation), their rights can never be "forfeited"

children trowing stones that get killed is how the intifadeh began, that was before anyone got blown in the air

"except for that israel warns the residents, something i would never do. "

yep i know you would enjoy to kill them as well, i can quite easily imagine what kind of person you are...

"U seem hoplessly uninformed. The PA steals more from the people than can be described here. Hamas is left laone, for your info, because they hide behind civilians, whom israel is loathe to kill. As a matter of FACT, the PA is obligated to stop Hamas, but THEY ARE INVIOLATION OF THIS TREATY BY NOT stopping them. FACT. "

hamas is left alone because the actions of hamas actually give a good reason for sharon to destroy the peace-process and any moderate palestinian willing to negociate with israel.

"LOL, like the suspected pal collaborators Arafat's men kill and hang in the streets? "

first, they get a trial, even not according to world-standards, secondly, a state that pretents to be a western democracy can not be compared to some temporary autority which jails had been bombed and with no real legal system...

"So how do u explain the Arab world hostility BEFORE 1967? "

Because of the millions of palestinian refugees.

"Let me tell u something, Arafat should have been executed for War Crimes for the execution of thousands of Lebanese Maronite Christians in the 1970s, LONG BEFORE he came to power as head of the PA. He is one of the greatest murderers of his own people, and has actually killed more pals than all the other nations COMBINED. "

:rolleyes:

"And his CURRENT ethnic cleansing of arab christians from Beit Jalla, which for some reason the Vatican and Europe are silent on, is ebough to get him tried at the Hague. "

we had tis discussion before, i gave links to christian websites where the immigration of christians was mostly linked to the israeli occupation and the war, all were voluntarily however.
But i know someone else who is ready for the Hague, for ordering falangist allies to exterminate some palestinian refugee camps... too bad that israeli soldiers

"People in the know, who have studied the ME for decades, unlike the fly-by-nights like yourself who watch CNN and read Le Monde and think u r "informed," will tell u Arafat is one of the greatest mass murders along with pol Pot and Idi Amin of the last 40 years"

:rolleyes: sure, you're absolutely the specialist of the ME, you've most probably only read "informative" sources such as the jerusalem Post and Daniel Pipes... while i only read leftist lies, right?
tell me, mr. specialist, when did arafat kill all those millions of israeli? and if those territories belong to israel, why is it that the big majority of its inhabitants are no citizens of israel, huh?

Abraham

06-30-2002, 06:25 AM

It is not so that most Palestinian civilians have no affiliation to terror groups and that they are simply afraid to speak aloud because the of reign of terror these groups are practicing."
This is WISHFUL THINKING. The children have been so indoctrinated within their schools and society with the promise of a wonderful heaven, to die a glorious death and blow themselves up so long as they kill Israelis. (there is plenty of evidence to support this including videos) This is not a unique belief, for it is very prominent as we have seen by the Saudis and Egyptians who blew themselves up on American planes.

In either case, as the Jewish people continue to take possession of the Land of Israel as their rightful inheritance, given by G-d, (Let the Torah / Bible act as the authentic deed of ownership), the offer of peace will go out to everyone in the Land who except Jewish rule. And the Jewish people in Israel are willing to live with peaceful people. Otherwise they need to be deported, jailed or killed depending on the degree of opposition. This is not religious fanaticism, but rather the Bible's solution and the only solution.
________
ABRAHAM

rhodescholar

06-30-2002, 10:43 AM

"a limited self-government is not independance, foreign occupation continues as long as a foreign military power controll part of your land without approval of the autorities. "

The PA AGREED to how the governance of their areas A,B, and C would be handled in 1993. They violated the Declaration of Principles by not stopping terrorism, the first suicide attack occuring withing 90 days of the signing. There has been consistent terorism from 1993-2000, where it SIGNIFICANTLY increased. The PA made little or no attempt to stop it, and further broke the agreement by printing textbboks (with your european tax dollars paying for it) that called jews animals that should and must be killed.

"the un jurisdiction is superior to all former treaties (if not israel would have no right to exist)."

No it doesnt, the UN resolutions neither supersede the Genva Convention nor Martime Law, nor the Articles of War. Sorry.

"the un recognised jordan's sovereinty over the wB and egypt's sovereignty over the Gaza"

Nope, nice try, but the world never accepted jordan's claim on the WB, nor did jordan ever offer the pals a state of their own.

"even lands that are not owned by anyone or disputed can't be claimed by a foreign power without autorization from the un, not even after a war (and certainly not by the power who started the war as israel did in 1967).i've never heard in any diplomatic language or international law of "aggrieved party status" which would give any country the right to occupy without time-limits."

Then u need to do a bit more research.

"please read the various links and quotes on this forum that show israel violated several un-resolutions, the un-charter, the geneva-conventions."

No need to, since israel hasnt LOL.

"most palestinians in the occupied territories live worse than in Jordan. people don't leave because they know they will never be able to return due to the israeli policy of etnci cleansing."

Now u r lying. Please provide ONE instance where israel has EVER ethnically cleansed the WB.

"palestinians are refugees in those countries, immigrants, their real home is Israel or the occupied territories. what happened in 1982 was not against palestinians but against the islamic brotherhood."

Huh? I said 1991, first off, second 1982 was the lebanon war against Hezbollah, third these ppl were KEPT byt he arab powers as refugees for political reasons.

And btw, if u claim that the UN has final overarching say, whcih it doesnt, u cant claim israel is violating UN resolutions without addressing how the arabs violated the first one, where israel was created in 1947. Since the arabs attacked and lost, they lose the land. Every Article of War and Maritime Treaty, none of which are superseded by UN Resolution, permit the aggressor to retain lost property.

"ok, let's say we French would occupy a part of israel, millions of israeli flee to the us, we wouldn't let them go back, the israeli fight us with bombs in paris and in the french part of israel, next we occupy the other part of israel as well, [snip]"

Your points make no sense, but i will ask you how you continue to sidestep 5 wars of aggression by the arabs in discussing israel's actions. You cant discuss one without the other, and until France, which has an inexplicable love for arabs noone else does, learns this, French credibility on the ME will maintain its level of nonexistence.

And speaking of tolerance, mon ami, how are the muslim immigrants enjoying life in the lovely parisian suburbs called biennevues? The French REALLY know how to treat their new immigrants well there, dont u think LOL?

"Sure, the only TRUTH was on israeli television, right?"

#1- dont watch israeli TV
#2-it certainly wont be found in Le Monde
#3- i remember French actions in 1967, when they refused to ship Mirage jet fighters Israel had ALREADY paid for, which not only nealry cost israel its existance, but began the downward trend of french credibility with respect to israel.

rhodescholar

06-30-2002, 11:05 AM

"most are civilians and a people that are recognised by the un (wich israel is a member-nation), their rights can never be "forfeited"

Israel is a "member nation"? You mean u arent aware it is the only country in the UN who by charter CANNOT serve on the Security Council? HMmmmmmmmmm.....

"children trowing stones that get killed is how the intifadeh began, that was before anyone got blown in the air"

LOL. U refer to the one in 1987, when Arafat was fostering with Islamic Jihad help, who were providing M16s to pals firing behind the pal kids? And btw, let me throw large rocks at your head, and we'll see if it hurts. U clearly have no combat experience, so dont judge others who are supposed to hold their fire while facing lethal projectiles.

"yep i know you would enjoy to kill them as well, i can quite easily imagine what kind of person you are..."

Someone who understands what everyone else does, which is u fight violence with violence.

"hamas is left alone because the actions of hamas actually give a good reason for sharon to destroy the peace-process and any moderate palestinian willing to negociate with israel."

Too funny. U sidestep my points, and try to blame the victim for the violence. To attack Hamas, on emust lay waste to Damascus, Teheran, and Riyafh, which i hope will occur soon.

"first, they get a trial, even not according to world-standards, secondly, a state that pretents to be a western democracy can not be compared to some temporary autority which jails had been bombed and with no real legal system"

LOL. Do u NOT read the newspapers? There have been HUNDREDS of pals killed by the PA and militia groups summarily for suspected collaboration. You are living in a dream world.

"Because of the millions of palestinian refugees."

Facts are really important, so please stick to them for a change. Less than 600,000 pals left israel in 1948, most of whom left becuase of their arab brothers, who asked them to so their armies could roll in. Copies of posters put up in pal towns in 1948 are all over the web, assuming u read arabic LOL.

"Let me tell u something, Arafat should have been executed for War Crimes for the execution of thousands of Lebanese Maronite Christians in the 1970s, LONG BEFORE he came to power as head of the PA. He is one of the greatest murderers of his own people, and has actually killed more pals than all the other nations COMBINED. "

:rolleyes: - What is the problem, the facts are a little uncomfortable for you, so thats the best response u can offer? Or u never heard of the Lebanese Civil War?

"we had tis discussion before, i gave links to christian websites where the immigration of christians was mostly linked to the israeli occupation and the war, all were voluntarily however. "

Now u r really lying.

#1-I am partnering with several major lebanese christian groups i nthe US representing hundreds of thousands of people, who after reading that **** you just wrote, would do very unpleasant things to you if u said it in person. These are people who were slaughtered by arab muslims, losing their families homes and property.

#2 - go here for facts, since u seem to have few of them:

www.freelebanon.org
www.worldnetdaily.com
www.gotc.org

The european lies and drivel u have been fed is simply that, and has no relation to what these people have experienced in both lebanon, due to the pals - headed by arafat when he was there - or in beit jalla and other WB towns.

And go read said aburish's biography on Arafat for the facts. This is the most well respected biography of arafat in the muslim world. Many of the crimes and murders arafat has perpetrated is there.

"rolleyes: sure, you're absolutely the specialist of the ME, you've most probably only read "informative" sources such as the jerusalem Post and Daniel Pipes... while i only read leftist lies, right?"

I would give u more facts, like how I currently have a Master's in Middle East studies, on my way to a doctorate (ant. 2005). And I also have a law degree in International Diplomatic Relations from a major North American Law School. But since u dont like facts, i will just state that i am very well read, and leave it at that.

"and if those territories belong to israel, why is it that the big majority of its inhabitants are not citizens of israel, huh?"

Ohhh i see, since a majority of people living in Dade and Broward counties in Florida are Cuban, it MUST belong to Cuba, right? And since most of the people in the parisian biennevues are North African, it must belong to Algeria? LOL. u are totally clueless.

A Boy

06-30-2002, 11:26 AM

nobody wants the palestinians and it's a fact.
jordan didn't want the west bank back and egypt didn't want gaza strip back.

takeo

06-30-2002, 11:31 AM

"The PA AGREED to how the governance of their areas A,B, and C would be handled in 1993. They violated the Declaration of Principles by not stopping terrorism, the first suicide attack occuring withing 90 days of the signing. There has been consistent terorism from 1993-2000, where it SIGNIFICANTLY increased. The PA made little or no attempt to stop it, and further broke the agreement by printing textbboks (with your european tax dollars paying for it) that called jews animals that should and must be killed. "

oslo was a framework to end the illegal occupation, it was not an end to that occupation. Besides, according to Oslo an independant Palestinian state should have been declared in 1999.
the EU has toroughly examined the israeli charge that the eu-money would be used to pay for hate-mongering or terrorism, those charges were prooven incorrect recently.

"No it doesnt, the UN resolutions neither supersede the Genva Convention nor Martime Law, nor the Articles of War. Sorry. "

that's right, but according to all these international conventions israeli occupation is illegal, just search the links provided in other treads on this forum.

"Nope, nice try, but the world never accepted jordan's claim on the WB, nor did jordan ever offer the pals a state of their own."

the world recognised jordan's sovereignty over the WB at the same time it recognised israel.

"Then u need to do a bit more research. "

can you give me some proove of your theory?

"No need to, since israel hasnt LOL. "

if you say so...

"Now u r lying. Please provide ONE instance where israel has EVER ethnically cleansed the WB. "

in 1948 and 1949 100's of 1000's of refugees couldn't return to their homes they fled during the war, that's etnic cleansing too.

"Huh? I said 1991, first off, second 1982 was the lebanon war against Hezbollah, third these ppl were KEPT byt he arab powers as refugees for political reasons. "

hezbollah is not a pure palestinian organisation, besides the refugees don't want to be in those countries, they are palestinians, their families are born in israel or the occupied territories, and that's where they want to return.

"And btw, if u claim that the UN has final overarching say, whcih it doesnt, u cant claim israel is violating UN resolutions without addressing how the arabs violated the first one, where israel was created in 1947. Since the arabs attacked and lost, they lose the land. Every Article of War and Maritime Treaty, none of which are superseded by UN Resolution, permit the aggressor to retain lost property. "

not a single convention, not a single internationally accepted law of war that is accepted after WWII, accepts that lands of the conquered nations can be incorporated in the winning country. on the contrary the geneva-conventions specifically prohibid this. Besides, israel formally started the 1967 war with "pre-emptive strikes" against egypt, so israel is the aggressor.

"Your points make no sense, but i will ask you how you continue to sidestep 5 wars of aggression by the arabs in discussing israel's actions. You cant discuss one without the other, and until France, which has an inexplicable love for arabs noone else does, learns this, French credibility on the ME will maintain its level of nonexistence. "

the us credibility in the mideast is less than zero, because it always was on israel's side.
israel started the war in 1955 and 1967, the Arabs in 1948 and 1973.

"And speaking of tolerance, mon ami, how are the muslim immigrants enjoying life in the lovely parisian suburbs called biennevues? The French REALLY know how to treat their new immigrants well there, dont u think LOL? "

for sure the arabs here enjoy live in France more than in their countries of origin OR in the occupied territories.
No suicide-bombers in France...

"#3- i remember French actions in 1967, when they refused to ship Mirage jet fighters Israel had ALREADY paid for, which not only nealry cost israel its existance, but began the downward trend of french credibility with respect to israel."

israel can not be respected because it is not respecting un-resolutions and is oppressing millions of people.
France was right not to sell these mirages as they were going to be used in the aggression-war israel launched against Egypt and other neighbouring states with the aim of more "Lebensraum" to create "Eretz-israel".
strangely that in the whole world you see people burning american and israeli flags but no French ones? guess why? we don't oppress other peoples (anymore).

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Mediocrates

06-30-2002, 12:49 PM

Heh heh that last paragraph's a keeper. I picture a hook nose Jew with blood dripping off his fangs. Shhh better be quiet the Trilateralists and Illuminati may be listening.

rhodescholar

06-30-2002, 05:29 PM

"oslo was a framework to end the illegal occupation, it was not an end to that occupation."

Lets stick to your point, which was that the settlements were illegal. They are NOT illegal, thru ANY legal definition. They do NOT violate the 4th Geneva Convention, as there were NO israeli citizens compelled to move there, nor were ANY arab citizens in the WB forced to leave.

"Besides, according to Oslo an independant Palestinian state should have been declared in 1999."

Yes, IF the PA stuck to its side of the agreement, which it CLEARLY DID NOT:

-there was constant arab terrorism from 1993 thru 2000
-the textbooks distributed by the PA for the schools were inciteful of jewish hatred

Both of these were in clear violation of the Declaration of Principles.

"the EU has thoroughly examined the israeli charge that the eu-money would be used to pay for hate-mongering or terrorism, those charges were prooven incorrect recently. "

Again, you simply do NOT know the facts. Last week 2 German members of the EU Parliament strongly urged Chris Patten, who oversees the aid to the PA to more carefully review the PA's accounting, but he declined, for obvious political cover. The firestorm brewing in Germany, now that it is generally known German tax dollars paid for these textbooks and for terrorists, is point enough. For further reading, go here

http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/arafatbombs.html

for an article which superbly sums up the pathetic attempts to cover up the misuse of european money by the PA, and by the Euros who were supposed to be providing oversight. Must have been some former Anderson accountants working there.

"that's right, but according to all these international conventions israeli occupation is illegal, just search the links provided in other treads on this forum."

Dont need to, since Israel's occupation is completely LEGAL, and all the UN resolutions put together dont change it. And frankly, an organization of 189 members, 57 of whom vote as a bloc together, and always against israel, certainly arent about to bolster their credibility when dealing with said nation.

"can you give me some proove of your theory?"

Been doing that for my last few posts here, read them and u might learn something.

"in 1948 and 1949 100's of 1000's of refugees couldn't return to their homes they fled during the war, that's etnic cleansing too."

What are you talking about? Did u read about WHY the arabs left israel?

Lets see now, the arabs attack israel, and the arabs living in israel that waved in those armies, and then cleared out for them - because the armies ORDERED THEM TO - then cant return to their homes --- AND THAT IS ISRAEL'S FAULT? What planet are you on? I'd guess you will soon be saying its israel's fault the 5 arab armies attacked in the first place.

And how about addressing my points about arafat's activities in Lebanon from 1975 to 1985? A little light on the ground with the facts there?

"not a single convention, not a single internationally accepted law of war that is accepted after WWII, accepts that lands of the conquered nations can be incorporated in the winning country. on the contrary the geneva-conventions specifically prohibid this."

You simply dont know what u r talking about. the Fourth Geneva convention mentions NOTHING about captured lands - only about the treatment of people captured in those territories. dont try to discuss law u dont know.

"Besides, israel formally started the 1967 war with "pre-emptive strikes" against egypt, so israel is the aggressor. "

Bald-face lies wont help your cause. Egypt was supposed to launch their attack June 1st, but discovered that US intelligence learned about their attack and was afraid they might have warned israel. Their second scheduled assault was to be 6 hours AFTER israel's pre-emptive strike.

Go read a little about the arab leaders' proclamations at the time, such as Nasser's. If for a change you did actually know what u were talking about, and were alive at the time like i was, the mood in israel was very somber. From the 1965 Eshkol speech offering peace to the arabs thru negotiation , which was soundly rejected, to the spring of 67, the Arabs had been declaring how the Mideast would be "drenched in jewish blood." Then came the 3 Khartoum "noes" after the 67 war (WHEN ISRAEL TRIED TO GIVE THECAPTURED LANDS BACK) and the 73 War, with lots of arab terrorism in between.

Go read Michael Oren's new book about the 67 war, and you wont sound so ignorant.

"for sure the arabs here enjoy live in France more than in their countries of origin OR in the occupied territories. No suicide-bombers in France..."

ROTFLMFAO. Like the EIGHT bombings in Gay Paris in 1995? Or were those done by Miss Piggy and Kermit with aid from the Mossad? Too funny u r. You really, REALLY need to get up on the facts and history, of your own country, let alone the Middle east. The arabs have been terrorizing france for DECADES. Did u just move there today?

"France was right not to sell these mirages as they were going to be used in the aggression-war israel launched against Egypt and other neighbouring"

LOL. They were ALREADY SOLD, the french dogs just refused (at first) to ship them. And by the way, it was the French with the British who started the 56 war. And again, read what the arabs planned to do in the 67 war.

"strangely that in the whole world you see people burning american and israeli flags but no French ones? guess why? we don't oppress other peoples (anymore)."

LOL, not this week? How about the Vietnamese you tortured, or the Algerians who you massacred?

How about the 6 million miserable, impoverished muslims living in the parisian biennevues today? And i am sure the Iraqi people, once liberated from Saddam, will certainly remember the French who rather than stick up for democracy, would rather support their oil company contracts and block US security council resolutions condemning him.

MGB8

06-30-2002, 06:04 PM

First, using the fact that I am not currently living in Israel as an attack is low.

As for your military assumptions...that's exactly what I mean by Israeli arrogance (and I AM ISRAELI, btw) this idea that Israel would automatically win in a war. There was a lot of luck in our winning all 3 wars. Now, people make their own luck to a great extent...but we well could have lost.

Now these regimes get world financial aid and american, not russian, weaponry. The regimes are by their very nature instable.

You cannot contest that the majority of arab people want the destruction of Israel...we see it in the newspapers, in the TV (and you should check out MEMRI.org if you are not sure of this)

Eventually, you are right that their needs to be a diplomatic solution. Whether that is even possible when the majority of our enemy still wants us dead, and is continuing to pass on that desire...I doubt it.

Moreover, this is a war AGAINST TERRORISM more than against Arafat. It is a war to show that terrorist tactics WILL NOT WORK. Once that is proven...THEN, and only then, can we begin to talk about a diplomatic solution.

Oslo was an interim state...a trial run to see if the Palestinian Arabs were willing to abandon terror if they would get a state in return.

They proved that they weren't. Their support for Arafat shows they STILL are not ready. But eventaully, we will have an OSLO III.

BUt not yet..

Originally posted by sharonbn

I disagree with you. Egypt and Jordan have shown no sign that should cause concern in Israel. In fact, the recent voices coming from Arab nations only show that they too have realized that Arafat is the cause for the instability in the region.

In Yom Kippur 1973, Israel was taken by surprise with a joined attack from Egypt and Syria. Still, with aid from the US, Israel managed not only to drive the invading armies away, but even to conquer new land that was used to negotiate a truce.
Now, due to the severe economical depression in Syria, the Syrian army is in bad shape with no spare parts for its airplanes, tanks and artilery. Syria is also led by a new ruler that has proven himself weak and indecisive. Jordanian army has always been small with a meager 66 jetfighters and a couple hundred tanks. Egypt army remains the largest and best equiped army. However, by its own, it is no match for the sophistication and sheer size of the Israeli airforce and ground forces.
So you see, Israel has maintained its military supriority over the years. History shows that in large scale, short period military conflicts it can overrun armies that are superior "on paper". its in low-intensity, long conflicts ,like in Lebanon, that the IDF has poorly performed. but such conflicts cannot threaten the existence of Israel or the lives of the majority of its population.

You don't have to tell me people are dying in Israel. Maybe you have not noticed, but, unlike you, I live in Israel.
"That's what I hate about" outsiders that lecture US, ISRAELIS, what should WE do to solve OUR problems. What I say and do, comes from deep concern and true love for the country I was born in, grew up in, live in and raise family in. I believe NO ONE in this forum, let alone someone from Chicago, has the right to criticize my patriotism and motives.

Please, don't play this "parent of murdered child" manipulation on me. I want to stop terror attacks MORE THAN YOU DO, since I am a target of such an attacks myself, NOT YOU.
If we want to have a serious rational discussion about solution to the problem, then by all means, lets have such a discussion, and leave such manipulations aside.

I believe that a true and long lasting solution to the Israeli Arab conflict can only be a diplomatic one, not a military one. If Israel attempts mass transfer of Palestinians, they will all rebel against such action - and rightfully so. They will not go quietly into the night and the army will have to kill them. Yes, IDF will have to kill Palestinian men women and children. This is something that is known by ALL Israelis of both sides of the political map and that's why no Israeli PM will *EVER* give such a horific order to the army.

MGB8

06-30-2002, 06:09 PM

Arafat trusted by Arab leaders???? LOL

The late king hussein of Jordan refered to Arafat as "a man who never met a bridge he couldn't double cross."

Are you KIDDING ME? The guy is a PROVEN murderer and Liar. Beyond a shadow of a doubt. 100% certain. Absolute.

MGB8

06-30-2002, 06:19 PM

I'd also like to add that I'm now about 90% sure that takeo is making things up...his arguments about "visiting the territories" sounds just too much like a propaganda speech I've heard from others...

Treated like Animals?

First, there is no doubt that some Israeli soldiers misbehaved...BUT, the majority of checkpoints and roadblocks came AFTER the start of THIS Intifadah, and as a RESULT of Terrorrism, NOT A CAUSE.

You've mixed up cause and effect here.

Checkpoints were the best and least lethal way in which Israel could combat terrorism (which you seem to condone.)

Moreover, Israel GAVE PALESTINIANS ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY!

Heck, half the complaints now are the closed borders...well guess what, when a part of your people are blowing up non-combatants, the borders are going to be closed to every one.

Please...did Israel misappropriate Arafats funds in the 90's, or did he funnel them to himself, his cronies and weapons on his own.

Stop placing all the blame on Israel's shoulders.

That is the biggest problem with current arab culture in general (and Arab writers have said this, not just me)...its always "someone elses" fault.

Israel has not been an angel. Of course we know that. Israel is full of humans, who make mistakes. But, by comparison, the PA has been the Devil.

anna

06-30-2002, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by NewsGuy
After examining the history of the Middle East and reviewing the different alternatives attempted without success over the past several decades, I now have come to believe that the key to saving innocent lives and reaching a final peace resolution is the separation between the Palestinian mass murderers and their Israeli victims.

Surely a population transfer is anathema to the ideals of our Western society but, then again, so is the ongoing daily slaughter of Israelis at the hands of the Palestinian terrorists whose aim is to ethnically cleanse the Middle East of its Jewish population. And so, we have come to a point at which we must consider an more extreme solution -- not to mete out punishment, but rather to save lives.

The following is a quote from Alan Dershowitz, a prominent U.S. constitutional rights attorney, civil rights activist, and Harvard Law School Professor speaking of Palestinian "refugees," which is pertinent to this discussion:

"As a civil libertarian and human rights activist, I was never much moved by the claims of these refugees. Political solutions often require the movement of people, and such movement is not always voluntary. Making Arab families move - intact - from one Arab village or town to another may constitute a human rights violation. But in the whole spectrum of human rights issues - especially taking into account the events in Europe during the 1940's - it is a fifth-rate issue analogous in many respects to some massive urban renewal or other projects that require large-scale movement of people. For example, the building of the Aswan High Dam in Egypt necessitated the relocation of 100,000 Arabs and the destruction of numerous Arab villages. There were certainly numerous precedents following both world wars, as well as other dislocating events of history - including the establishment of new states. There were so many refugee groups throughout the postwar world, and in so much worse condition, that it is difficult to understand why this particular dislocation assumed such international proportions.

"For example, following the end of World War II, approximately fifteen million ethnic Germans were forcibly expelled from their homes in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, and other Central and Eastern European areas where their families had lived for centuries. Two million died during this forced expulsion. Czechoslovakia alone expelled nearly three million Sudeten Germans, turning them into displaced persons. The United States, Britain, and the international community in general approved these expulsions, as necessary to secure a more lasting peace. [...] President Franklin Roosevelt's assistant Harry Hopkins memorialized his boss's view that although transfer of ethnic Germans "is a hard procedure, it is the only way to maintain peace." [...]

[Dershowitz describes other population transfers in the Middle East, primarily hundreds of thousands of Sephardic Jews who left their ancient communities in Arab lands for Israel.]

* * *

What do you think? Has it come to this as a last resort solution to the Palestinian terrorism problem?

Transfering the people is not a solution of the problem and no one has right to move milions of the people to the oter places.
In the 19=th century Russia started to transfer the north caucas population to Turkey and from there they were moved to the middle east. thousands of them [chechens, cherkess] were dead in this process and what do we see today? Islam with his most agressive form returned to Chechenia and the grandsons of the transfered chechens after they have passed their studies in Afghanistan returned to there and really make too much problems to Russia. If we make the borders with Palestinian side and don't let them to enter to Israel it would be the better solution then to trunsfer the milions of the people.

takeo

07-01-2002, 01:50 AM

"Someone who understands what everyone else does, which is u fight violence with violence. "

that's exactly what the Palestinians are doing too...

"Too funny. U sidestep my points, and try to blame the victim for the violence. To attack Hamas, on emust lay waste to Damascus, Teheran, and Riyafh, which i hope will occur soon. "

sure bomb the whole Middle-East, the whole world, the universal us-made solution for every problem...

"Facts are really important, so please stick to them for a change. Less than 600,000 pals left israel in 1948, most of whom left becuase of their arab brothers, who asked them to so their armies could roll in. Copies of posters put up in pal towns in 1948 are all over the web, assuming u read arabic LOL. "

whatever the reason they fled the war, and they should be allowed to return according to the un-resolutions and the geneva-conventions. it may have been 600000 in the 40's but they had children and family you know... just as israel's population has expanded too.

"#1-I am partnering with several major lebanese christian groups i nthe US representing hundreds of thousands of people, who after reading that **** you just wrote, would do very unpleasant things to you if u said it in person. These are people who were slaughtered by arab muslims, losing their families homes and property. "

first: we were talking about Christians in palestine, which are treated equally bad as the Muslims by Israel (israel also considers the orthodox church complice to the palestinian resistance, and the leader of the PFLP was a christian), not about Libanese.
second: the first site you provided are sites of extremist libanese falangists, who were responsible for some of the worst crimes in libanon, they also collaborated with Syria, Iraq and israel (different factions) and fought against eachother as well. Most christians today live in peace in libanon and work towards reconciliation, most libanese supported Hesbollah in its struggle for the liberation of Southern libanon, including most christians. only the extremists who refused to make peace fled to the foreign. (some to france, some to israel, some to the us)

sharonbn

07-01-2002, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by MGB8
First, using the fact that I am not currently living in Israel as an attack is low.
fine, I won't use this argument, and you won't use terror victims as an argument.

Originally posted by MGB8
As for your military assumptions...that's exactly what I mean by Israeli arrogance (and I AM ISRAELI, btw) this idea that Israel would automatically win in a war. There was a lot of luck in our winning all 3 wars. Now, people make their own luck to a great extent...but we well could have lost.

I didn't say Israel will automatically win in a war. I said two things:

1. Guerilla warfare, like the one the Palestinians are waging against Israel should be viewed for what it is: a mean of achieving political gains through terror. While it is true that Israeli lives are in danger and that Israel should take military steps to defend it citizens (as it does), there is absolutely no need to inflate the hazard to the point of existential threat. If you can correclty assess the danger, you can apply the correct measures to eliminate it.

2. Israel current military force, combined with the assessment of Arab nations' military forces, shows that Israel is better prepared for a large scale military conflict. This does not mean Israel will "automaticvally" win the war, but there is no need to go to the opposite extreme and build Gargantuan scenarios of 6 or 8 or 12 fronts and an "automatic" lose either.

Originally posted by MGB8
Now these regimes get world financial aid and american, not russian, weaponry. The regimes are by their very nature instable.
I happen to disagree with your assessment of the Arab regimes.
Take Egypt, the largest and strongest Arab nation. Under your assessment, one would assume that after the assasination of Sadat by muslim extremists the country will fall into disarray and possibly become a fundementalist state like Iran. However, stability was maintained, presidential replacement was found, and governmental system remained unchanged. Now, it is true that "anything can happen" (under this POV, Israeli democracy may also colapse), but you need to be realistic. realisitc assessment shows that the current president, Husnei Mubaraq has proven himself over the last 20 years strong and enduring, despite militant oppostion. He has also proven himself moderate and with good political common sense. I see little realistic chance of him being overthrown or suddenly becoming war mongol.

and if you are concerned with the stability of the regimes of the surrounding Arab nations, imagine what a mass transfer of Palestinian population will do to them.

Originally posted by MGB8
You cannot contest that the majority of arab people want the destruction of Israel...we see it in the newspapers, in the TV (and you should check out MEMRI.org if you are not sure of this)
I don't think Arab media is a reliable source for assessing the mental state of the common Arab man. In any case, I don't expect for the Palestinians and Arabs to start loving Israelis and come and hug and kiss me. I do believe that the common Arab person doesn't wish for the death of all Jews and destruction of Israel. What he/she wants is to live in security, to be able to support their family and better the life of their children. This is something I believe to be common for all people on earth. I don't know if its true or not and maybe I delude myself here, but I will not abandon this belief.
I do have expectations from the LEADERSHIP of the Palestinian people. I expect them to understand the futility of the armed struggle and the need for compromise and negotiation.
I expect them to have the vision and courage to go through the negotiations to the end and not to abandon it when things go tough. and I expect them to hold up to their agreements.
I believe the current Palestinian leadership lacks the vision and courage that is expected of them. I expect the Palestinian people to see this and replace their leadership.

Until such a thing happens, I expect I will have to live with on my sword and with constant threat of terrorism. But I believe that only if the TWO sides are content and will feel that justice has been served and will feel secure and safe - that long lasting peace will be achieved.

Originally posted by MGB8
Moreover, this is a war AGAINST TERRORISM more than against Arafat. It is a war to show that terrorist tactics WILL NOT WORK. Once that is proven...THEN, and only then, can we begin to talk about a diplomatic solution.

I agree, I believe Israel should not negotiate or perform unilateral actions while terror attacks continue. such actions will only show the Palestinians that terror is a successfull means of achieving political gains. I believe Israel should not begin dismantling the settlements before the terror attacks cease. However, mass transfer is anothr unilateral action that is aimed at setting the situation for a permanent status. How much chance do you give to peace negotiations after a mass transfer?

Originally posted by MGB8
Oslo was an interim state...a trial run to see if the Palestinian Arabs were willing to abandon terror if they would get a state in return.
They proved that they weren't. Their support for Arafat shows they STILL are not ready. But eventaully, we will have an OSLO III.
I believe Oslo was a good solution to the situation of 1993. The only problem with this aggreement was that right after signing it, BOTH sides did almost everything they could not to honor their obligations. Future agreements shuold include measures of enforcing the obligations and controling the employment of the agreement.

Vic

07-01-2002, 06:53 AM

Originally posted by sharonbn
Guerilla warfare, like the one the Palestinians are waging against Israel should be viewed for what it is: a mean of achieving political gains through terror. Is it not common to distinguish between terrorism and guerrilla warfare in Israel?

christian

07-01-2002, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Vic
Is it not common to distinguish between terrorism and guerrilla warfare in Israel?

Guerrilla warfare is a prolonged warfare. It is an civilian against the army. Usually, guerrialla warfare is a long warfare. The main purpose of guerrialla tactics is to tire the entire army in a long continuous non-stop warfare. It never targets the civilian as way to achieve its means.

In the SUN Tzu"Art of war", no matter how good your army is. If your army is dragged into a long war. It will wear out your army and country's economy. The purpose of N. Vietnam is to tire the entire army of US. So, they are no longer willing to fight. Eventually, the entire US army is afraid to fight.

Terrorism is a method against civilian in another country civilian. The purpose of Terrorism is to achieve political gain. It is without a civilian army like N. Vietnam. It is a group of political wing, to achieve their purpose by terror method. It is not a long continuous non-stop warfare. It only creates fear in the civilian like IRA. It targets the country's civilian, not the army.

Mediocrates

07-01-2002, 07:25 AM

Guerilla warfare you get to wear cool scarves and berets and hang Che and Ho Chih Minh posters on your wall. Terrorism is, well, that's something else and it doesn't at all look good on your resume.

MGB8

07-01-2002, 08:36 AM

I DO think that terrorism poses an existential threat!

Tourism to Israel has stopped. There are guards searching bags at shopping malls. People are afraid. While most do live their "normal" lives, its...its just horrible and has to be made to stop.

Fortunately the newest generation of Israeli's is stepping up and honoring the history of their ancestors in their dedication to their country...and the most recent generations, also.

I also don't share your confidence in a war situation....or, maybe a better answer is that while I THINK that Israel would win a war of survival, I am cautious by nature and would rather by close to certain, rather than "of the opinion."

I also don't share your faith in the Arab regimes. All it would take would be Mubaraks death and a new leader who wanted to make his credentials on anti-Israeli policy to return Egypt to full fleged enemy status. Is that really so unlikely? Even now anti-jew and anti-Israeli incitement in the Egyptian media is tremendous.

The same can be said for Jordan, too.

I'd rather be safe, than sorry.

I know that transfer is not the answer...BUT, Israel needs to not allow enemy possession of the West Bank for at least another generation, possibly 2 or 3. If this can be done with American troups and new Intelligence capabilities and a demiliterized and closley watched Palestinian state...fine. But until Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad etc. are defeated, I'm not sure that its possible.

rhodescholar

07-01-2002, 06:42 PM

"I know that transfer is not the answer...BUT, Israel needs to not allow enemy possession of the West Bank for at least another generation, possibly 2 or 3. If this can be done with American troups and new Intelligence capabilities and a demiliterized and closley watched Palestinian state...fine. But until Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad etc. are defeated, I'm not sure that its possible."

Dont be so sure. As long as the Pals keep teaching their children that jews are monkeys and pigs to be slaughtered, in textbooks and television programs paid for by european morons, there will NEVER be a political solution. How do u make peace with people sworn to kill you? The transfer plan is the perfect, and best, solution, expecially since israel won the land IN A DEFENSIVE WAR, a fact that despite the fantasies of arab liars and ignorants here in this thread, SUPERSEDES any UN resolutions.

James

07-01-2002, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by A Boy
nobody wants the palestinians and it's a fact.
jordan didn't want the west bank back and egypt didn't want gaza strip back.

Very true! Arab countries don't want Arafat or the Arabs back.
The Arab countries would rather use them as pawns to achieve
what they couldn't in war. Arafat is falling all over himself to regain acceptance by Bush, but it's too late. He had his chance but blew it.

takeo

07-02-2002, 02:50 AM

"Lets stick to your point, which was that the settlements were illegal. They are NOT illegal, thru ANY legal definition. They do NOT violate the 4th Geneva Convention, as there were NO israeli citizens compelled to move there, nor were ANY arab citizens in the WB forced to leave. "

yes, as the 4th article of the geneva-conventions mentions that a occupation-nation can not transfer its own population INTO the occupied territories, there is no mention of "compelled" however...

"-there was constant arab terrorism from 1993 thru 2000"

Oslo did not require a total end to all terrorist activities, it only mentioned that the PA should fight against terror, which it did (even reports of AI to condamn the palestinian persecution of hamas in the 90's).

-"the textbooks distributed by the PA for the schools were inciteful of jewish hatred "

i don't think Oslo made any mention of the content of schoolbooks...

"Again, you simply do NOT know the facts. Last week 2 German members of the EU Parliament strongly urged Chris Patten, who oversees the aid to the PA to more carefully review the PA's accounting, but he declined, for obvious political cover. The firestorm brewing in Germany, now that it is generally known German tax dollars paid for these textbooks and for terrorists, is point enough. For further reading, go here "

YOU do not know the fact, the overwelming majority of the European parliament and all of the European commission, after toroughfull examination of the israeli charges, voted in favor of the suspention of the ban imposed on aid to the PA, as proposed by chris patten.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,745417,00.html

"Dont need to, since Israel's occupation is completely LEGAL, and all the UN resolutions put together dont change it. And frankly, an organization of 189 members, 57 of whom vote as a bloc together, and always against israel, certainly arent about to bolster their credibility when dealing with said nation. "

Israel is a member of the un, and should comply to its decisions or leave the UN alltogether. arab or Islamic states don't have any garanteed sit in the security council or veto-right, the US, best ally of Israel, does have such powers.

"What are you talking about? Did u read about WHY the arabs left israel? "

yes, for the reason all people flee a war-zone in every war, because they had fear. Some however were forced to leave, which even the pro-israeli propaganda-site Jewish virtual library aknowledges. (see their chapter "palestinian refugees")

"AND THAT IS ISRAEL'S FAULT? What planet are you on? I'd guess you will soon be saying its israel's fault the 5 arab armies attacked in the first place. "

it isn't but it IS israel's fault not to accept those civilians back in their own land.

"Bald-face lies wont help your cause. Egypt was supposed to launch their attack June 1st, but discovered that US intelligence learned about their attack and was afraid they might have warned israel. Their second scheduled assault was to be 6 hours AFTER israel's pre-emptive strike. "
"

Well, any definition of starting a war is that a nation launches an organised and deliberate military assault carried out by the national army on the territory of the other state.
It was israel who attacked first, whatever the other might have done to provoke a war are just presumptions and not important for the question "who legally started the war". IF the other states were planning an assault on israel, which is not sure, than israel might have prepared for war, but by attacking first it was the aggressor.

"1967 May: Forces on both Arab and Israeli sides of the borders are mobilized.
June 5: Israel attacks Egypt, Syria and Jordan. Israel achieved great victories immediately, especially on the Egyptian front, where Egyptian air crafts are wiped out after effective bombing of air strips.
June 7: The strategically important Egyptian Sharm el Sheikh is captured.
â€” Jordan surrenders to Israel, after having lost East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
June 8: The entire Sinai comes under Israeli control. Later that evening, Israeli fights on the Egyptian front cease.
June 10: Syria surrenders, after seeing Golan Heights come under Israeli control.
1973 October: The Yom Kippur comes as a reaction to the territorial losses and the humiliation of the Six-Day War.
1979 March 26: Camp David Agreement signed between Egypt and Israel. Israeli withdrawal from Sinai starts, and goes on for the next 3 years. The second part of the agreement, which dealt with autonomy for the Palestinians on Gaza Strip and the West Bank, is never observed from Israeli side. "

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/sixdaywr.htm

Carter, during camp david, tried to include the occupied territories in the negociations, Israel bluntly refused to talk about the withdrawel from "Eretz Israel".

"Go read Michael Oren's new book about the 67 war, and you wont sound so ignorant. "

i read enough biased works about the matter on both sides. every work written about this subject is always written from the point of view to "proove" that israel or the arabs were right or wrong, there is no objectivity, on neither side. i don't like to read propaganda, it's a waste of time. I read Daniel Pipes as well as E. Said and others, both use the same intelligent arguments to proove exactly the contrary.

"ROTFLMFAO. Like the EIGHT bombings in Gay Paris in 1995? Or were those done by Miss Piggy and Kermit with aid from the Mossad? Too funny u r. You really, REALLY need to get up on the facts and history, of your own country, let alone the Middle east. The arabs have been terrorizing france for DECADES. Did u just move there today? "

you need some facts very urgently, and should stop reading one-sided propaganda. France was only terrorised when it deserved to be terrorised, during the Algerian war, and some explosions without much importance in the 90's, which stopped when the perpetrators were arrested.

"LOL. They were ALREADY SOLD, the french dogs just refused (at first) to ship them. And by the way, it was the French with the British who started the 56 war. And again, read what the arabs planned to do in the 67 war. "

yep, that was during French colonialist past, of course israel was only too happy to defend the colonialist interests of both GB and france. We resigned colonialism, israel never did so.

"LOL, not this week? How about the Vietnamese you tortured, or the Algerians who you massacred? "

again, that was during the French colonial past, which my party and millions of other French strongly resented. Millions of people protested against this policy, which isn't always the case in the US...
about Vietnam... I think as an american you don't have the right to blame anyone... nobody killed more vietnamese in world history than your own army...

"How about the 6 million miserable, impoverished muslims living in the parisian biennevues today? And i am sure the Iraqi people, once liberated from Saddam, will certainly remember the French who rather than stick up for democracy, would rather support their oil company contracts and block US security council resolutions condemning him."

The Iraqi people are very happy with france because France is resisting to the us-policy of starvation and aggression against the iraqi people and a souvereign nation that never attacked the US, a policy wich makes Saddam more popular and stronger but hurts the iraqi people tremendously.

some interesting NON-Arab links that might give you some insight in wHY people don't agree with the israeli policy in the occupied territories(other than anti-semitism or religion as often stated on this board), among which quite some israeli or jewish-based sites...

http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/news/press/01/43pu.html

http://www.icrc.org/icrceng.nsf/bdbc6ea35567c6634125673900241f2e/420e0fd553ff26bec1256b190030fce7?OpenDocument

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2000/nea/882.htm

http://www.btselem.org/

http://nigelparry.com/

http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org/home.html

http://www.msnbc.com/news/774245.asp

http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/

ps: latest news: the EU and Russia both explicitly and publicly stated that they consider Arafat a partner and will recognise anyone who wins the palestinian democratic elections, in defiance of the recently changed us-policy.

takeo

07-02-2002, 03:33 AM

anyway i wouldn't mind if Arafat would be replaced by his most likely and popular successors, Dahlan or barghouti. I think anyway he's too old to lead another 4 or 6 years, and what the palestinians need now is a dynamic young leader who has urned his credibility in the first intifadeh against israeli occupation. Both are very capable and popular men, who have always opposed the israeli occupation, corruption inside the PA as well as terrorism against innocent civilians. Dahlan would be a better choice internationally, while Barghouti is more popular inside Palestine.
But on the other hand the palestinians should not give in to any us- or israel-pressure, it would give the wrong signal that interfearance in the democratic rights and internal matters of the palestinians is ok, so the best would be to elect Arafat, give him some kind of symbolic function as head of state, which would still be a humiliation for Israel, while giving the real leadership to Dahlan (or barghouti, but as he is currently taken hostage by the israeli army he will only be released after the peace-process starts, his liberation will be one of the main palestinian conditions for any peace-deal or cessation of violence).

"Moreover, this is a war AGAINST TERRORISM more than against Arafat. It is a war to show that terrorist tactics WILL NOT WORK. Once that is proven...THEN, and only then, can we begin to talk about a diplomatic solution. "

violence against a guerilla supported by the majority of the population will not work, it has been prooven by the russians in afghanistan, by the us in Vietnam, by the Brittish in Ireland, etc.
Only negociations or unilateral withdrawel will make an end to the violence.

"They proved that they weren't. Their support for Arafat shows they STILL are not ready. But eventaully, we will have an OSLO III. "

their support for Arafat and not for hamas shows that they are willing to deal with israel and recognise israel if their basic rights are recognised by israel as well.

"First, there is no doubt that some Israeli soldiers misbehaved...BUT, the majority of checkpoints and roadblocks came AFTER the start of THIS Intifadah, and as a RESULT of Terrorrism, NOT A CAUSE. "

the checkpoints and roadblocks did never cease to exist during the 90's

Israel can build a fortified border which noone can pass without torough search. BUT only at its own borders, not inside palestinian territory, restricting the movement of palestinians in their own country.

"Stop placing all the blame on Israel's shoulders. "

stop placing all the blame on Arafat's sholders

"That is the biggest problem with current arab culture in general (and Arab writers have said this, not just me)...its always "someone elses" fault. "

that's right, it shows again that israeli and Arab culture aren't really as different as one would think, because that's exactly a typical israeli caracteristic as well.

"Is it not common to distinguish between terrorism and guerrilla warfare in Israel?"

I think terrorism is directed against civilians, while guerilla against armed and government targets.

"Guerilla warfare you get to wear cool scarves and berets and hang Che and Ho Chih Minh posters on your wall. Terrorism is, well, that's something else and it doesn't at all look good on your resume."

"Tourism to Israel has stopped. There are guards searching bags at shopping malls. People are afraid. While most do live their "normal" lives, its...its just horrible and has to be made to stop. "

that's not an existential treat, and the negative consequences of the israeli occupation palestinians is much worse than that.

"I'd rather be safe, than sorry. "

any radical solution would make you sorry quite rapidly...

"I know that transfer is not the answer...BUT, Israel needs to not allow enemy possession of the West Bank for at least another generation, possibly 2 or 3. If this can be done with American troups and new Intelligence capabilities and a demiliterized and closley watched Palestinian state...fine. But until Arafat, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad etc. are defeated, I'm not sure that its possible."

untill israel aknowledges that palestinians are a people with the same rights as the israeli, there will not be peace neither safety.

Mediocrates

07-02-2002, 03:36 AM

Arafat will never relinquish absolute power or control. You have to kill a tyrant. Anything else is civil war.

takeo

07-02-2002, 04:05 AM

BS, Arafat will readily transfere his power to Dahlan or Bargouthi, which share his vision for peace and on many issues, or anyone winning the palestinian elections.

Mediocrates

07-02-2002, 04:35 AM

And hand over the bank accounts? Oh he'll hand over power, just like Castro.

takeo

07-02-2002, 05:00 AM

any proofs for those accusations?

Mediocrates

07-02-2002, 05:22 AM

He has held on to autocratic power since the inception of the PLO. He sits at the center of an organization and micromanages virtually ever decision. He (and his wife) have sole control over the finances of his entire 'state'. He shuffles his subordinates at will w/o warning or rationale. He is answerable to no one. He refuses to go out among his people since that first fiasco after being released from his compound by the IDF and he was nearly torn apart by a jeering crowd who felt betrayed that he had sold them out for his own freedom. He neither communicates nor explains his intentions to his own people or to other Arab states or leaders. He has no succession plan and his purported next-in-lines turn up dead with amazing frequency. He divides and sets against one another his own subordinates in order to destabilize them. He has little to no contact, first hand with almost all of his organization or the people in it. His is the only view seen by his people or the west or any media. Any mouthpieces anywhere in the world are parroting the Arafat spiel word by word. He is obsessesed with 'honor', 'respect' and obsequity and will typically storm out of an interview or a meeting if he has the slightest sense he isn't being being treated with the proper due, real or imagined.

Know the man if you want to know the behavior.

MGB8

07-02-2002, 05:00 PM

Look at the justifications he has started to put out:

"Oslo didn't require an end to all terrorism...." He's right, but it required GOOD FAITH actions against it, which were NEVER undertaken. Some small, PR related gestures, sure. Meanwhile, Arafat quickly violated all the provisions of Oslo on weapons and his own forces, and funded the acquisition of even more weaponry.

"I don't think Oslo mentioned schoolbooks..."

It DID. Specifically new books and preparing and educating the population for peace.

Finally, you put out the assertion that Arafat would "gladly give up power." No he wouldn't. He has made ZERO indication that he's willing to transfer ANY power.

Why do you think he's running again. For Arafat this about Arafat, and his role in history. This is an well known control freak who has all PA money in his own control, and has never given his elected Parliament any power.

What we are seeing is now the undercurrents of Israel-hating, and possibly Jew-hating underneath.

Surprise surprise.

rhodescholar

07-02-2002, 07:22 PM

"yes, as the 4th article of the geneva-conventions mentions that a occupation-nation can not transfer its own population INTO the occupied territories, there is no mention of "compelled" however..."

Lies, and more lies. when will they stop? Who knows?

#1- no article of any geneva convention mentions who gets to control land, all of the conventions discuss treatment of PEOPLE. Do u understand? And the compulsory transfer of one's own citizens into illegally annexed land IS a violation of the 4th convention, whichu would know had u ever read it.

"Oslo did not require a total end to all terrorist activities, it only mentioned that the PA should fight against terror, which it did (even reports of AI to condamn the palestinian persecution of hamas in the 90's). "

Too funny. Arafat, and his aides all admit they have paid for al-aksa, fatah and tanzin terrorist activities. The documents PROVING this were found in the Orient house. Unless u plan to lie more, start accepting it or sound further marginalized...

"i don't think Oslo made any mention of the content of schoolbooks..."

U can think? U mean u r capable? How about reading it, and you would find out the Declaration of Principles DID. And it also said "there would be an end to incitement of hatred." That means no officially-sanctioned broadcasts on TV, radio, newspapers, or textbooks that call jews pigs and monkeys, calling for their murder. Also included in the agreement was the recognition of israel's right to exist, which by printing maps in all books that show no jewish state is ALSO a violation. But u would KNOW all this IF U READ THE DOCUMENTS.

"YOU do not know the fact, the overwelming majority of the European parliament and all of the European commission, after toroughfull examination of the israeli charges, voted in favor of the suspention of the ban imposed on aid to the PA, as proposed by chris patten."

Even more hysterical. Where did the $50 million dollars come from to buy the weapons found on the Karine A? Mars? You cant claim the economy is in shambles but still somehow manage to find that kind of revenue to buy that many weapons.

And what were the idiot euros to do, publicly admit they paid for the murders of israeli women and children, and face multi-billion dollar lawsuits, let alone the wrath and fury of their fellow euros? No, chris patten and javier solana are not going to commit political suicide just yet, unfortunately.

"Israel is a member of the un"

As i said several times, THEY ARE NOT A FULL MEMBER - THEY CANNOT SERVE ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL.

"yes, for the reason all people flee a war-zone in every war, because they had fear."

And WHO started this war?

"it isn't but it IS israel's fault not to accept those civilians back in their own land."

Wrong. Once they backed up the war against israel, they lost their rights. When u aid the enemy in wartime, as in every other nation on earth, u dont ain rights, you LOSE THEM.

"Well, any definition of starting a war is that a nation launches an organised and deliberate military assault [snip]"

You are lying again. The Egyptians were shelling the israeli airports before israel mobilized. can u stop lying for one minute of your life? Can you?

"i read enough biased works about the matter on both sides."

Oh i see, everyone whose opinion you dont agree with is "biased." You must either have few friends, or few opinions.

"France was only terrorised when it deserved to be terrorised, during the Algerian war, and some explosions without much importance in the 90's, which stopped when the perpetrators were arrested. "

I am sure the victims must feel they "deserved it" too. You are a disgusting, appalling and uncivlized condoner of violence and murder.

"yep, that was during French colonialist past"

So it doesnt suit Frenchy's purpose this week, so because they decide against something, the whole world should run to their doorstep for advice on what they presume to be "civilized' behaviour? Get real.

"The Iraqi people are very happy with france because France is resisting to the us-policy of starvation and aggression against the iraqi people and a souvereign nation that never attacked the US, a policy wich makes Saddam more popular and stronger but hurts the iraqi people tremendously."

Your true arab-apolgist colors shine thru. Iraquis are starving because Saddam steals money from them and builds palaces and bio-weapons. If he wanted to feed them and help the economy, he would. He now has an estimated 100 palaces costing hundreds of billions of dollars - many built in the last 5 years.

"ps: latest news: the EU and Russia both explicitly and publicly stated that they consider Arafat a partner and will recognise anyone who wins the palestinian democratic elections, in defiance of the recently changed us-policy."

You never responded to my post stating how arafat murdered thousands of lebanese christians, is ethnically cleansing beit jalla (which he has been condemned by the UN for), ordered the murder of american ambassador cleo noel and a belgian attache in 1973 in khartoum, and has killed hundreds of suspected "collaborators" without trial. Why not?

James

07-02-2002, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by takeo
BS, Arafat will readily transfere his power to Dahlan or Bargouthi, which share his vision for peace and on many issues, or anyone winning the palestinian elections.

Do You support Dahlan succeeding Arafat? I'm sure the (Arabs)
Palestinians would agree with You! Dahlan is the mastermind of numerous Palestinian suicide bombings. If Arabs are keeping score, he would be next leader of (Arabs) Terrorists. By the way, i
apologize for my remarks about France! France supported the U.S. in our fight for Independence! You struck a nerve with Your remark about our President. Granted, we have problems here in
America, but which Country is without same?

A Boy

07-03-2002, 03:37 AM

Originally posted by fair
Do you think that other countries will solve yr problems
Aren,t you know that all land including israel was palestinian land
do y want to bring yr foriegners outres immigrants instead of the real owners of the land
Is it not enough that they left their land to establish your country israel and over all they recognised you
Do u think that u can desmith palestinians to establish big Israel on whole palestine land and on palestinian,s account
If so u must be dreamer and imaginable and u will suffer all times
Be fair to satisfy ur conscious and ur God and save life of ur people

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian Arab nation . . . Palestine is a name the Romans gave to Eretz Yisrael with the express purpose of infuriating the Jews . . . . Why should we use the spiteful name meant to humiliate us?

The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity." Golda Meir

"Palestine has never existed . . . as an autonomous entity. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.

Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today . . . No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough. â€” from "Myths of the Middle East",
Joseph Farah, Arab-American editor and journalist, WorldNetDaily, 11 October 2000

"From the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of British rule, the area now designated by the name Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries . . . . " Professor Bernard Lewis, Commentary Magazine, January 1975

takeo

07-03-2002, 05:43 AM

"It DID. Specifically new books and preparing and educating the population for peace. "

about the schoolbooks, can you give me some reference to where exactly in the oslo-agreements this is mentioned?
I admit i didn't read all of it, just some parts.
Anyway, i don't believe that palestinian schoolbooks teach that "Jews are pigs" or anything like it. If you think different, some links to where this is stated please.
Of course i wouldn't be surprised at all that the schoolbooks call israel the agressor and occupier of palestinian lands, this isn't hate-speech but just propaganda, as well as the israeli children will learn that "Arabs started the war in 1967" etc.

"Finally, you put out the assertion that Arafat would "gladly give up power." No he wouldn't. He has made ZERO indication that he's willing to transfer ANY power. "

I read once an interview with Arafat some years ago in le Figaro in which he indicated that he would step aside the moment this would be demanded by the palestinian population or the moment he would no longer be able to think clear because of his age.

"#1- no article of any geneva convention mentions who gets to control land, all of the conventions discuss treatment of PEOPLE. Do u understand? And the compulsory transfer of one's own citizens into illegally annexed land IS a violation of the 4th convention, whichu would know had u ever read it. "

yep, that's right, and the settlements IS about people. however i completely agree with your last sentence...

"Too funny. Arafat, and his aides all admit they have paid for al-aksa, fatah and tanzin terrorist activities. The documents PROVING this were found in the Orient house. Unless u plan to lie more, start accepting it or sound further marginalized... "

the documents israel has released only proove that Arafat payed his own Fatah, which was not responsible for attacks against innocent civilians. by the way since 2000 neither side is committed to the oslo-agreements (before only the palestinians, even a staunch defender of the israeli current policy as sharonbn on this forum agreed that israel did not commit itself to the oslo-agreements in the 90's, certainly not under netanyahu)

"And what were the idiot euros to do, publicly admit they paid for the murders of israeli women and children, and face multi-billion dollar lawsuits, let alone the wrath and fury of their fellow euros? No, chris patten and javier solana are not going to commit political suicide just yet, unfortunately. "

The Europeans, as you could read in one of the links i gave on this tread, studied the israeli claim and came to the conclusion that european money was used for education, utilities, etc. but NOT for military purposes.

"As i said several times, THEY ARE NOT A FULL MEMBER - THEY CANNOT SERVE ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL. "

which un-resolution or un-rule mentions that israel can't be member of the security council?
if too many countries oppose this, well, that's perfectly legal, i guess iraq doesn't make much chance either of being elected in the security council.

"And WHO started this war? "

this doesn't matter for the treatment of civilians, who can never be punished for the decisions of their leaders, and that iS established in the geneva-conventions.

"Wrong. Once they backed up the war against israel, they lost their rights. When u aid the enemy in wartime, as in every other nation on earth, u dont ain rights, you LOSE THEM. "

tell me where in the geneva-conventions or other international law or convention recognised after 1945 this is mentioned (some links too)?
i'm pretty sure you won't find any...

"You are lying again. The Egyptians were shelling the israeli airports before israel mobilized. can u stop lying for one minute of your life? Can you? "

really, when did the egyptians shell the israeli airport? the hour before the israeli invasion?
by the way shelling an airport is not the same as a full military invasion or air-bombarment of the country. Hitler also invaded Poland with the excuse that some polish soldiers shelled the fronteer...

"Oh i see, everyone whose opinion you dont agree with is "biased." You must either have few friends, or few opinions. "

No, i agree with most what E. Said writes, still his works are biased, because he writes because he want to proove the palestinian point of view.
every opinion you don't agree with is a "lie"

"I am sure the victims must feel they "deserved it" too. You are a disgusting, appalling and uncivlized condoner of violence and murder. "

the civilian victims never deserve anything, neither in israel, palestine, France or algeria, whatever their leaders did or decided.
But france as a country deserved to be attacked because it was occupying and oppressing the algerian people, to which many if not most french people opposed.

"So it doesnt suit Frenchy's purpose this week, so because they decide against something, the whole world should run to their doorstep for advice on what they presume to be "civilized' behaviour? Get real. "

France stopped its colonisation-policy in the early 60's.

"Your true arab-apolgist colors shine thru. Iraquis are starving because Saddam steals money from them and builds palaces and bio-weapons. If he wanted to feed them and help the economy, he would. He now has an estimated 100 palaces costing hundreds of billions of dollars - many built in the last 5 years. "

NO, Iraquis are starving because of the embargo. Two UN-food for oil-directors resigned because they came to the conclusion that iraqi's were going to suffer as long as the embargo on most goods that are vital for the economy continued. They specifically blamed the us and GB.

"You never responded to my post stating how arafat murdered thousands of lebanese christians, is ethnically cleansing beit jalla (which he has been condemned by the UN for), ordered the murder of american ambassador cleo noel and a belgian attache in 1973 in khartoum, and has killed hundreds of suspected "collaborators" without trial. Why not?"

because i haven't read enough about this subject to be able to have a fair discussion. the plo committed some terrorist acts, but the action in 1973 was not claimed by the plo.
in the libanese war all parties killed eachother, the falangists killed 1000's of palestinians as well, and even christians and muslims among eachother were slaughtering. Also Israel, the US and Syria were involved in this dirty war.

"Do You support Dahlan succeeding Arafat?"

not only me but the Bush-administration as well...

" I'm sure the (Arabs)
Palestinians would agree with You! Dahlan is the mastermind of numerous Palestinian suicide bombings. If Arabs are keeping score, he would be next leader of (Arabs) Terrorists. By the way, i
apologize for my remarks about France! France supported the U.S. in our fight for Independence! You struck a nerve with Your remark about our President. Granted, we have problems here in
America, but which Country is without same?"

no country is without shame, but we should all be able to criticise shamefull acts of our own or other governments, shouldn't we?
where did you read Dahlan is the mastermind behind suicide-actions?

Palestine is NOT a name given by the Brittish, it was already used by the byzantines in the middle-ages and later by the Turks, and even Herzl called his solution for zionism the "Palestinian solution". Also the original population of palestine called themselves "palestinians" which is indeed a kind of arabs, but nevertheless i don't think "arabs" are one people, they share the same language but diferent costums and culture. a marrocan is not the same as a syrian or a jemenite...

so because Arabs live in other countries too it means they have no rights to live in palestine?
anglophone people live in australia, GB, the US, Canada, Ireland, etc.
should this be a good reason for the QuÃ©bequois or eskimo's to claim all of canada and send the anglophones "back" to the us or GB.... ?

Mediocrates

07-03-2002, 05:54 AM

which un-resolution or un-rule mentions that israel can't be member of the security council?
if too many countries oppose this, well, that's perfectly legal, i guess iraq doesn't make much chance either of being elected in the security council

Not a resolution though I can see how you think the whole mechanism exists to support those. It's part of the bylaws of the UN. In order to be elected to the SC one must be a member of a BLOC. Israel is not part of the western BLOC or the European BLOC or the African BLOC or the 'nonaligned' BLOC. It has been barred entry or election into all of them. Ergo it is permanently blocked from being nominated to the SC.

this doesn't matter for the treatment of civilians, who can never be punished for the decisions of their leaders, and that iS established in the geneva-conventions

It seems to when you say it does though. Odd your somewhat fluid point of view.

because i haven't read enough about this subject to be able to have a fair discussion. the plo committed some terrorist acts, but the action in 1973 was not claimed by the plo.
in the libanese war all parties killed eachother, the falangists killed 1000's of palestinians as well, and even christians and muslims among eachother were slaughtering. Also Israel, the US and Syria were involved in this dirty war

Odd gap in your knowledge for a self professed expert. How was US involved in this dirty war - what acts of ethnic cleansing are you planning to accuse us of.

I especially chuckle about "France deserved to be attacked" comment. Coming from a self professed rule-of-law person, it's quite funny to hear there really aren't any laws but the law of the jungle.

takeo

07-03-2002, 06:02 AM

In February 1937, Ben Gurion was on the brink of a far reaching conclusion, that the Arabs of Palestine were a separate people, distinct from other Arabs and deserving of self-determination. He stated:

"The right which the Arabs in Palestine have is one due to the inhabitants of any country . . . because they live here, and not because they are Arabs . . . The Arab inhabitants of Palestine should enjoy all the rights of citizens and all political rights, not only as individuals, but as a national community, just like the Jews." (Shabtai Teveth, p. 170)

In 19 36 (soon after the outbreak of the Intifada I), Ben-Gurion wrote in his diary:
"The Arabs fear of our power is intensifying, [Arabs] see exactly the opposite of what we see. It doesn't matter whether or not their view is correct.... They see [Jewish] immigration on a giant scale .... they see the Jews fortify themselves economically .. They see the best lands passing our hands. They see England identify with Zionism. ..... [Arabs are] fighting dispossession ... The fear is not of losing land, but of losing homeland of the Arab people, which others want to turn it into the homeland of the Jewish people. There is a fundamental conflict. We and they want the same thing: We both want Palestine ..... By our very presence and progress here, [we] have matured the [Arab] movement." (Righteous Victims, p.136)

In 1938, Ben-Gurion also stated against the backdrop of Intifada I:
"When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves ---- that is ONLY half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves. . . . But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict, which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves." (Righteous Victims, p. 652)

In 1936, Moshe Sharett spoke in similar vein:
"Fear is the main factor in [Palestinian] Arab politics. . . . There is no Arab who is not harmed by Jews' entry into Palestine." (Righteous Victims, p.136)

takeo

07-03-2002, 06:12 AM

"Not a resolution though I can see how you think the whole mechanism exists to support those. It's part of the bylaws of the UN. In order to be elected to the SC one must be a member of a BLOC. Israel is not part of the western BLOC or the European BLOC or the African BLOC or the 'nonaligned' BLOC. It has been barred entry or election into all of them. Ergo it is permanently blocked from being nominated to the SC. "

guess israel's policies are not very popular among most nations...
but this is not official discrimination of israel in the un, if it should have made more friends in the world instead of conducting a unilateral policy which was very much criticised by almost the rest of the world... it might have been different;

"It seems to when you say it does though. Odd your somewhat fluid point of view. "

civilians can't be deliberately punished for the decisions of their leaders, i hope you agree with this, if not it would legitimise the suicide-attacks on israeli civilians. I'm sure it is mentioned in the geneva-conventions as well.

"Odd gap in your knowledge for a self professed expert. How was US involved in this dirty war - what acts of ethnic cleansing are you planning to accuse us of. "

i never declared myself an "expert".
the us didn't plan any etnic cleansing in libanon, but it was involved in the libanese war, us-military bases were present in libanon during the civil war. the cia was also very much interested in the civil war, i hope you won't argue this.

"I especially chuckle about "France deserved to be attacked" comment. Coming from a self professed rule-of-law person, it's quite funny to hear there really aren't any laws but the law of the jungle."

there are laws, but there aren't any international laws that legalise occupation or colonisation, or prohibit the use of violence against an occupying power.
in France many people supported the Algerian resistance, and certainly not only Arabs.

anna

07-03-2002, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
He has held on to autocratic power since the inception of the PLO. He sits at the center of an organization and micromanages virtually ever decision. He (and his wife) have sole control over the finances of his entire 'state'. He shuffles his subordinates at will w/o warning or rationale. He is answerable to no one. He refuses to go out among his people since that first fiasco after being released from his compound by the IDF and he was nearly torn apart by a jeering crowd who felt betrayed that he had sold them out for his own freedom. He neither communicates nor explains his intentions to his own people or to other Arab states or leaders. He has no succession plan and his purported next-in-lines turn up dead with amazing frequency. He divides and sets against one another his own subordinates in order to destabilize them. He has little to no contact, first hand with almost all of his organization or the people in it. His is the only view seen by his people or the west or any media. Any mouthpieces anywhere in the world are parroting the Arafat spiel word by word. He is obsessesed with 'honor', 'respect' and obsequity and will typically storm out of an interview or a meeting if he has the slightest sense he isn't being being treated with the proper due, real or imagined.

Know the man if you want to know the behavior.

I'm agree with you. since Arafat was married we see him alone. His wife is in France and spendind a lot of money and i'm sure that this money is not her salary for her hard work. The autonomy of Palestine got much money from other arab countries and if somebody wants to know how much they got can see in the documents of latest arab summits.

takeo

07-03-2002, 06:19 AM

palestine got much money, but has no economy to speak of, (because of the occupation, the palestinian cities were closed from eachother, etc;) some other countries too receive a lot of money but because their economy isn't working for some reasons (war, military occupation, bad policy, corruption, etc.) this money doesn't stimulate much improovement.

Mediocrates

07-03-2002, 06:24 AM

guess israel's policies are not very popular among most nations...
but this is not official discrimination of israel in the un, if it should have made more friends in the world it might have been different;

In France I suppose this has something to do with the groupthink of the Napoleanic code. Guilty until proven innocent. Or maybe it has to do with your overall perspective that the only way to be right is to be liked. To hell with difference of opinion. It actually is official discrimination just as if someone handed you a Chinese newspaper and told you you had to read it aloud in order to qualify to vote. But hey, maybe you'd prefer that.

civilians can't be deliberately punished for the decisions of their leaders, i hope you agree with this, if not it would legitimise the suicide-attacks on israeli civilians. I'm sure it is mentioned in the geneva-conventions as well.

You yourself has said that Jewish civilians living in Judea and Samaria were 'legitimate targets' so don't be coy.

very much interested in the civil war,

How is this involved? You made the claim, what did you mean by it?

or prohibit the use of violence against an occupying power.

So you support the Tunisian bus bombing. It involved a "Jewish" building and at least a few Jews. That most of the dead were Germans or that it happened in another country altogether is irrelevant. So if Algerians blew up French tourists in Montreal - - ok by you? Still a legitimate resistance? So if Algerians shot down a chartered Czech airliner over the Mediterranean filled with French children - still ok? I'm just trying to draw some boundaries around your monstrosity if that's possible.

Mediocrates

07-03-2002, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by takeo
palestine got much money, but has no economy to speak of, (because of the occupation, the palestinian cities were closed from eachother, etc;) some other countries too receive a lot of money but because their economy isn't working for some reasons (war, military occupation, bad policy, corruption, etc.) this money doesn't stimulate much improovement.

Arafat, Inc. is sitting on billions. I'm sure the Palistinians would be comforted to know that Uncle Arafat has decreed it can be put to no useful purpose.

Vic

07-03-2002, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by christian (post #143 http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=14554#post14554)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Vic
Is it not common to distinguish between terrorism and guerrilla warfare in Israel?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
endquote

Guerrilla warfare is a prolonged warfare. It is an civilian against the army. Usually, guerrialla warfare is a long warfare. The main purpose of guerrialla tactics is to tire the entire army in a long continuous non-stop warfare. It never targets the civilian as way to achieve its means.

In the SUN Tzu"Art of war", no matter how good your army is. If your army is dragged into a long war. It will wear out your army and country's economy. The purpose of N. Vietnam is to tire the entire army of US. So, they are no longer willing to fight. Eventually, the entire US army is afraid to fight.

Terrorism is a method against civilian in another country civilian. The purpose of Terrorism is to achieve political gain. It is without a civilian army like N. Vietnam. It is a group of political wing, to achieve their purpose by terror method. It is not a long continuous non-stop warfare. It only creates fear in the civilian like IRA. It targets the country's civilian, not the army. Thanks for mentioning Sun Tsu, Christian. (In case anyone else is interested, here is a link to a version with interesting comments: http://www.kimsoft.com/polwar.htm - a fine souce for signatures too ;) )

Taking the argumentation further: how would you evaluate the Palestinian tactics? Is the strategy behind it really to terrorize Israel into accepting a Palestinian state? Or destroying Israel and nothing else? What designs do they have in respect to their own society? I have my doubts on this, but then my own perception may well be too Europe- (Russian- and German-)centric.

Mediocrates

07-03-2002, 07:35 AM

Chapter 3, Straetgem, is interesting. It talks about the practical value of waging war with a minimum of aggression. The supposition is that no rational leader would commit his army to suicide.

And all of the other points there. I conclude Palistinians are not waging war but random brutality, mayhem and anarchy.

takeo

07-03-2002, 08:16 AM

"In France I suppose this has something to do with the groupthink of the Napoleanic code. Guilty until proven innocent. Or maybe it has to do with your overall perspective that the only way to be right is to be liked. To hell with difference of opinion. It actually is official discrimination just as if someone handed you a Chinese newspaper and told you you had to read it aloud in order to qualify to vote. But hey, maybe you'd prefer that. "

Every country has the right to choose or not to choose for Israel in the security council. israel doesn't have to be liked, yet if you make yourself hated by conducting a hated policy and refusing to obide to the rules of the un (applying un-resolutions) you shouldn't be surprised to have few friends who would vote you in the security council. Iraq is faced with a similar problem.
"guilty untill prooven innocent", that seems to be the israeli approach too concerning Arafat and the Palestinians... didn't know israel had the napoleanic code...

"You yourself has said that Jewish civilians living in Judea and Samaria were 'legitimate targets' so don't be coy. "

I'm pretty sure i wrote "armed civilians only".

"How is this involved? You made the claim, what did you mean by it? "

well, i guess any country that has military bases in a country torn apart by a civil war is involved in one way or another, won't you think so?
As i said i don't know every detail of the civil war in libanon, but i guess the us did have some influence on the civil war...

"So you support the Tunisian bus bombing. It involved a "Jewish" building and at least a few Jews. That most of the dead were Germans or that it happened in another country altogether is irrelevant. So if Algerians blew up French tourists in Montreal - - ok by you? Still a legitimate resistance? So if Algerians shot down a chartered Czech airliner over the Mediterranean filled with French children - still ok? I'm just trying to draw some boundaries around your monstrosity if that's possible."

1)No, of course not, nobody is occupying Tunisia and a synagogue is not an "occupying power", moreover it's a civil target...
2) of course not, because French tourists are civilians, unless they were members of the secret service or military force. if you are referring to the 50's, of course today such an attack would be a crime whoever they were.
3)...

takeo

07-03-2002, 08:26 AM

"Arafat, Inc. is sitting on billions"

i will repeat my question, any proofs, or guilty untill prooven innocent?

"Taking the argumentation further: how would you evaluate the Palestinian tactics? Is the strategy behind it really to terrorize Israel into accepting a Palestinian state? Or destroying Israel and nothing else? What designs do they have in respect to their own society? I have my doubts on this, but then my own perception may well be too Europe- (Russian- and German-)centric."

Well, maybe we can rely on the goals the palestinians themselves responsible for terror give for their actions, which is definately the first option (except, on some occations, Hamas and Islamic Jihad)

"Chapter 3, Straetgem, is interesting. It talks about the practical value of waging war with a minimum of aggression. The supposition is that no rational leader would commit his army to suicide.
And all of the other points there. I conclude Palistinians are not waging war but random brutality, mayhem and anarchy."

suicide-missions has been used by the Japanese on large scale and by others as well ( including the us, if the movy "Pearl Harbour" is somewhat historically correct...)
a minimum of aggression? so how would you call the US military efforts in Vietnam? the destruction of Dresden, etc?

Mediocrates

07-03-2002, 08:46 AM

Kind sir - Where do YOU think all the billions are?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=arafat%27s+billions

All lies? All of it, all 4300 hits?

http://web1.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2002/587/op3.htm

Or these 2910?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=PLO+finances

Discount 90% of them are the other 720 lies too?

Even the Guardian thinks he's a thief

Mediocrates

07-03-2002, 08:53 AM

suicide-missions has been used by the Japanese on large scale and by others as well ( including the us, if the movy "Pearl Harbour" is somewhat historically correct...)
a minimum of aggression? so how would you call the US military efforts in Vietnam? the destruction of Dresden, etc?

That wasn't the question, you're answering one you asked yourself.

I'm a little cloudy though on how a preplanned aerial invasion of the Navy was a 'suicide attack' I think 6 Japanese planes were shot down. Oh - do you mean the Doolittle raid? Risky yes, a planned suicide mission, uh uh.

I dunno what would you call the US military in VN? what would you call the NVA, VC? Or ARVN? (this is a topic for another discussion - there is not one person who has the right to spit on any US grunt who was sent over there. Not a single one - they got the rawest deal you can get and we should be ashamed of how they were treated).

What about Dresden?, or Berlin or Hamburg or Cologne or Tokyo how do you think global wars are prosecuted? With sanctions?

takeo

07-03-2002, 10:34 AM

I know war isn't honey and moonshine, but only accusing the other side of excessive violence is really hypocrite if your own side is not without this kind of blame either...
well, a mission were the chances of survival are really slim is also a kind of suicide-mission.
The US-military in Vietnam was like the soviet-campaign in afghanistan, only on a bigger scale with more victims as a consequence, both were invited by a very unpopular government to keep their regime in power against the will of the overwelming majority of the population and at a very high human cost (but much more for the population than for the army).
I think the us-military were normal kids who were placed in a very ugly and rather unhealthy situation. They are not to blame, their commanders and the politicans who sent them are the real criminals.

about Arafat, let's look at the origin of your "proof"... wouldn't stand in court! "Likud nederland", "www;danielpipes.org" (!!!), "palestinefact.org" (a pro-israeli website), "www.freeman.org", etc.
no serious unbiased newsgroups however...

of course it's no news what the egyptian newspaper al-ahram is reporting about intitutionalised corruption among some members of the PA. But between declaring this and saying that Arafat stole billions is quite some difference...

Vic

07-03-2002, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by takeo
"Taking the argumentation further: how would you evaluate the Palestinian tactics? Is the strategy behind it really to terrorize Israel into accepting a Palestinian state? Or destroying Israel and nothing else? What designs do they have in respect to their own society? I have my doubts on this, but then my own perception may well be too Europe- (Russian- and German-)centric."

Well, maybe we can rely on the goals the palestinians themselves responsible for terror give for their actions, which is definately the first option (except, on some occations, Hamas and Islamic Jihad)Just for a test, no, not of your own views, but of these of the Palestianian terrorists, try to set up a rationale. It never seems to function - like no one has found out so far what Hitler and his top brass really hoped for when they invaded the whole continent, Russia included, almost simultaneously, well knowing they couldn't keep it occupied forever. All I see is an amazing irrationality, no political goals to speak of that would correspond to the actions.
Originally posted by Mediocrates
Chapter 3, Straetgem, is interesting. It talks about the practical value of waging war with a minimum of aggression. The supposition is that no rational leader would commit his army to suicide.
And all of the other points there. I conclude Palistinians are not waging war but random brutality, mayhem and anarchy. Are you sure it is random, not that there is a different rationale behind this than the presumably political one that meets the eye?

cerulean

07-05-2002, 12:18 AM

Since Art of War was mentioned, I might as well mention the more contemporary 48 Laws of Power book, which claims to distill Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Clausewitz, and numerous other strategists.
http://www.iwan.com/elffers/low/start/index2.html (lists the 48 laws)

I'm not interested in using these myself, because I don't see myself as a manipulator. But it might be useful to look at these ideas to see how these ideas are being used against oneself.

elke

07-06-2002, 05:34 AM

Yuk! :eek: What an ugly way to lead a life! I'd kill myself if the only way I could succeed was to "get others to do the work, and take the credit", although I have certainly seen believers in this ideology in action in the "corporate world".

garvis williams

07-06-2002, 02:37 PM

Mediocrates

07-06-2002, 03:00 PM

In "Crowds and Power" Elias Canetti talks about this ritual that takes place during the Haj both inside Saudi Arabia and outside.

garvis williams

07-06-2002, 03:16 PM

Hi, I am a american male disabled and know the bible prophetic scriptures very well. As I stated in my previous message, I have a news film that I recorded back in the early 1980s, about 22 years ago. It reveals a lot of very important information concerning the problems the Israelies are having with the palestenians. It shows a secret celebration called: THE ASHURA. The shiite gather together every october in various towns in the middle east and perform a reinactment of the death of the man who was a decendant of MUHAMMED, CALLED; ALI HOUSAIN JR. The shiite create an image of Ali Housain Jr. and put a live man on a concrete stage and do the reinactment of his death back in 580 AD. After finishing the reinactment, they begin to hack, or cut all the men, boys, baby boys, all males forehead about 1/2 inch beyond the forward part of the hairline createing a mark after healing. I know without any doubt that this is the mark of the beast that John was trying to tell us about in ch. 13 in the book of revelation. The women, and girls, baby girls, all females, had their Right hand cut, causeing a mark in the right hand exactly as John had told us in the book of revelation. Please read ch. 13 and if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to email me at: garviswilliams@aol.com

garvis williams

07-06-2002, 03:28 PM

hi, mediocrates, I am not aware of anyone describing this event as you stated. Did he explain what the shiite do during the celebration, even cutting the foreheads of male babies and old men and old women in detail?

garvis williams

07-06-2002, 03:37 PM

hi mediocrates, As I stated in my message, This is not a celebration called the haj but it is a secret celebration held every october (not feburary in Saudi Arabia or at medina.) This celebration was held in Ishbear near berut lebanon where thousands had their foreheads and right hands cut to create a mark where the people could go out to buy and sell their goods and go to the market. I have never seen so much blood ever streaming down the heads while the shiite hit their forehead, shouting Ali Housain, Ali Housain, etc. etc.

garvis williams

07-06-2002, 04:07 PM

and he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.
may I inject a misunderstanding of the word; CONFIRM. If all you people would do a little research and find out what this word really means, you would have to come to the conclusion that; there will not be another peace signing by Yasser Arafat or any other member of the P.L.O. The word confirm means: TO STRENGTHEN. In other words, they will continue to strengthen the covenant made during the oslo agreement. I hear many preachers come on the air on tv telling about a peace agreement to be signed by;(THE ANTICHRIST); as Daniel told us in ch. 9 v. 27. May I ask, do you know the three commands that Jesus gave to John when Jesus appeared to John in the spirit; three seperate times??? Always remember when Jesus has to give you the same command 3 different and seperate times; then wake up; IT IS IMPORTANT. Please read ch. 1 of the book of revelation. This is where you will find the 3 commands. Jesus did not ask John to go get an old history book and find out what happened 600 years before both were born. This is very important to understand if you ever expect to understand what Jesus wanted John to write about. Please email me and I will expound on this statement. God bless you all.

michael

07-09-2002, 04:38 AM

Batman

07-09-2002, 08:19 AM

Hi, perhaps your film should be shown on national tv?

Also, have you looked at http://islamexposed.com/Pictures/face-of-Islam.htm ?

they have some pretty gory pictures - I am not an expert of which sects of the Muslims do this... I wonder it these photos are the same group or another group of Muslims?

It'd be interesting to know how wide spread this barbarism is in the Muslim world...

thank you!

NewsGuy

07-09-2002, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by michael
Since you've reviewed all the attempts at a peaceful solution perhaps you can inform us all in some detail of the recent meeting that occurred in England in June. The meeting was between 2 Palestinian ministers and the speaker and deputy speaker of the Knesset.

Please Newsguy, give us the news.

ok Michael, here's a newsflash for you: Any meetings between Israeli opposition leaders or any MKs who are not specifically part of an government diplomatic effort, are meaningless. I don't know specifically what meeting you are referring to, but until yesterday when Peres met with some Palestinian ministers, there has been no official diplomatic contact -- and rightfully so.

As for your other remarks, you might want to pretend that the basic issues in the Mideast conflict are incredibly convoluted and nebulous, so that you can justify your evasion of taking a moral stand. In your world, apparently, there are so many shades of grey and so much moral ambiguity that is no more right and wrong -- just a meaningless body count of innocent Jewish children lining the streets of Israel and Islamic Jihad marches in the streets of Jenin.

There is always a ready excuse to explain the Palestinians' massacres of Jews. Some pseudo-intellectual circumvention of the realities of the Mideast conflict will always be found.

But for me, and for most of my fellow Americans, the root causes of the Palestinian war against the Jewish people of Israel is a simple one: The Arabs have tried continuously, since the establishment of Israel, to mass murder all Jews who dare to live in the Jewish homeland. Oddly enough, Michael, the Jews just won't go along with that Arab goal. Imagine that...

So, if there's another newsflash for you, then it would be that excusing terrorism is just as bad as the terrorism itslef. It is true in Israel, in America, in Europe and even in Australia. The issues are not ambiguous, and the root cause has no shades of grey. There is a right and there is a wrong when a Palestinian terrorist enters the bedroom of a 5 year old Israeli girl and machine-guns here to death in her bed after murdering her mother.

Maybe you should dust off your moral compass and take it out for a spin to see if it still works.

Mediocrates

07-11-2002, 03:11 PM

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=185480&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Interesting in that it poses many of the same arguments that the Israelis have against a policy like this.

""Jordan cannot deal with all the refugees in the world," says a Jordanian journalist, "and if the Palestinians are angry about the Jordanian limits they have to understand the government's resoures are limited." That's a more sincere answer than the formal explanation given by Jordanian government officials, that, "The limits are to prevent Israel from implementing its transfer program."

Behind both answers, however, is a bitter struggle, which has been taking place for years at various degrees of intensity between pressure groups inside Jordan. Sometimes, the struggle appears in the open, like at football games where one team is totally identified as Palestinian, like the team from the Wahdat refugee camp, and other team is "pure" Jordanian. Games between teams like that witness not only the usual cheers for the teams but catcalls against the government authorities. Another expression of the tension is between the pro-Palestinian and Islamic groups that want to demonstrate in the street in support of the Palestinians in the territories, and the anger about "unrest in the streets" by Jordanians who complain that the demonstrations disrupt life in the country."

garvis williams

07-12-2002, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Batman
Hi, perhaps your film should be shown on national tv?

Also, have you looked at http://islamexposed.com/Pictures/face-of-Islam.htm ?

they have some pretty gory pictures - I am not an expert of which sects of the Muslims do this... I wonder it these photos are the same group or another group of Muslims?

It'd be interesting to know how wide spread this barbarism is in the Muslim world...

thank you! HI BATMAN, IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE GROUP OF MUSLIMS IN THE MIDDLE EAST WHO IS THE MOST VIOLENT. ALWAYS REMEMBER THERE ARE TWO GROUPS OF MUSLIMS THAT CAME UP AFTER THE DEATH OF MUHAMMED. THEY WERE: THE SHIITE AND THE SUNNI. I WOULD RECOMMEND COPYING THIS INFORMATION. THE SHIITE WORSHIP A MAN BY THE NAME OF ALI HOUSAIN JR. THE SUNNI WORSHIP A WOMAN BY THE NAME OF FATIMA. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE THE DEATH OF MOHAMMED. IT IS THE SAME TODAY AS IT WAS DURING THE TIME OF MOHAMMED. ALL THE SHIITE MUSLIMS ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE BEEN CUTTING FOREHEADS AND THE WOMENS RIGHT HANDS. THIS CREATES A MARK AFTER HEALING UP AND THEN THEY CAN GO OUT AFTER RECEIVEING THIS CUT AND BUY OR SELL. PLEASE READ REV. CH. 13, LAST FEW VERSES. THE PICTURES ON THE WEB SITE (ISLAM EXPOSED) IS NOT THE PICTURES I HAVE BEEN SHAREING WITH PEOPLE FOR THE PAST 22 YEARS. PLEASE CORRESPOND WITH ME AT: GARVISWILLIAMS@AOL.COM AND I CAN ANSWER A LOT OF IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. I AM DISABLED, AGE 64 AND STAY HOME MOST OF THE TIME. GOD BLESS YOU

garvis williams

07-12-2002, 04:09 PM

BATMAN, THE COMPANY THAT HAS A COPY OF THE NEWS FILM THAT WOULD BE VERY EDUCATIONAL CONCERNING THE ACTIVITY OF THE SHIITE AND SUNNI MUSLIMS CAN BE FOUND AT: INT.GRANADAMEDIA.COM. THIS ORGANIZATION IS LOCATED IN BRITTAIN. THEY HAVE A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL FILM CALLED; THE SWORD OF ISLAM THE COPY OF THE NEWS FILM THAT I HAVE IS A COPY THAT WAS SHOWN BACK IN THE EARLY 1980s. I RECORDED IT ON A 2 TRACK VCR AND THE FILM WASN'T VERY GOOD. IT IS IN TWO TAPES AS I HAD RUN OUT OF TAPE. IT IS PLAIN ENOUGH TO SEE ON MY NEW VCR AND NEW 35 INCH TV. THERE ARE A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT WAS TRANSLATED FROM ARABAC TO ENGLISH AND A LOT OF THINGS REFERRED TO EVENTS IN THE BIBLE. THIS IS A MUST SEE FILM. IT REVEALS THE TRUE MARK OF THE BEAST, AND REVEALS THE MUSLIMS CREATEING THE IMAGE TO THE BEAST(ALI HOUSAIN JR.). IT SHOWS THE MUSLIMS PUTTING A MAN ON A CONCRETE STAGE, THEN THEY CAUSE THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST (ALI HOUSAIN JR) TO BOTH SPEAK AND CAUSE THAT AS MANY AS WOULD NOT WORSHIP THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST THAT THEY SHOULD BE KILLED. PLEASE READ CH. 13 OF REVELATION. AFTER CREATEING THE IMAGE THEN THEY BEGIN TO CUT FOREHEADS AND RIGHT HANDS BY THE WOMEN. THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF THESE MUSLIMS PARTICIPATING IN THE CELEBRATION THAT IS HELD EVERY OCTOBER CALLED THE ASHURA. ONLY A FEW MONTHS UNTIL THOUSANDS MORE WILL BE RECEIVING THE MARK IN THE FOREHEAD AND IN THE RIGHT HAND AS YOUR BIBLE TELLS US. PLEASE EMAIL ME FOR QUESTIONS AT: GARVISWILLIAMS@AOL.COM

garvis williams

07-12-2002, 04:25 PM

HI BATMAN, IN ANSWER TO YOUR STATEMENT THAT I SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF THE NEWS FILM "THE SWORD OF ISLAM", SHOWN ON TV. I HAVE SENT A COPY OF THIS INFORMATION TO HAL LINDSEY, SENATOR RICHARD SHELBY, ARIAL SHARON. BENJAMIN NETHANYAHU, AND MANY OTHERS OVER THE PAST 22 YEARS. I HAVE SENT INFORMATION TO J.R. CHURCH, EVEN THE COPY OF MY ONLY TAPE AND HE NEVER LOOKED AT THE TAPE. AFTER ABOUT 3 MONTHS I BEGAN TO WORRY ABOUT MY FILM SO I CALLED HIM AND ASKED HIM TO PLEASE RETURN THE NEWS FILM AS IT IS THE ONLY ONE I HAD. HE FINALLY SENT IT BACK TO ME AND NEVER LOOKED AT IT. SOME PEOPLE ARE SO STUPID. IT WOULD HAVE OPENED HIS EYES TO MANY EVENTS MENTIONED IN HIS BIBLE. HAVE A NICE DAY. GOD BLESS YOU AND THANKS FOR ANSWERING MY FORUM MESSAGE. GARVIS WILLIAMS
GARVISWILLIAMS@AOL.COM

Vic

07-12-2002, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Batman
Hi, perhaps your film should be shown on national tv?

Also, have you looked at http://islamexposed.com/Pictures/face-of-Islam.htm ? Doesn't the site seem absolutely wacky to you? Cf. http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=12603

michael

07-12-2002, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by NewsGuy

ok Michael, here's a newsflash for you: Any meetings between Israeli opposition leaders or any MKs who are not specifically part of an government diplomatic effort, are meaningless. I don't know specifically what meeting you are referring to, but until yesterday when Peres met with some Palestinian ministers, there has been no official diplomatic contact -- and rightfully so.

As for your other remarks, you might want to pretend that the basic issues in the Mideast conflict are incredibly convoluted and nebulous, so that you can justify your evasion of taking a moral stand. In your world, apparently, there are so many shades of grey and so much moral ambiguity that is no more right and wrong -- just a meaningless body count of innocent Jewish children lining the streets of Israel and Islamic Jihad marches in the streets of Jenin.
compass

Meetings between individuals or representatives of the 2 sides to discuss a way towards peace are meaningless. Well yes that is a newsflash.

And what was the meeting about you ask? Just trying to learn lessons from history - specifically how not to allow peace to held to ransom by the actions of the extemists on either side.

And yes your absloutley right of course. The murder of an Israeli citizen justifies any response by the IDF - who cares about the rule of law. Thnakyou for setting my moral compass right.

Palestinian excuses - yes 35 years of illegal occupation is a rather frivolous excuse for being angry over checkpoints, assassinations, house demolitions, arrest and detention without trial or charge. Those Palestinians just need to get over it don't they? Those human rights abuses catalogued by Amnesty International - all an international conspiracy to be sure.

ibrodsky

07-12-2002, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by michael

Palestinian excuses - yes 35 years of illegal occupation is a rather frivolous excuse for being angry over checkpoints, assassinations, house demolitions, arrest and detention without trial or charge. Those Palestinians just need to get over it don't they? Those human rights abuses catalogued by Amnesty International - all an international conspiracy to be sure.

Michael,

You will never have an accurate moral compass if you merely regurgitate Arab propaganda.

Palestinians have been committing terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians for more than 70 years. Perhaps checkpoints and house demolitions are the worst possible crimes in your universe, but in 1929 Palestinians mass murdered the entire Jewish population of Hebron (>100 people). There are numerous letters by British diplomats in the 1930s referring to Palestinian terrorists. These are quoted extensively in Joan Peters' book, From Time Immemorial.

35 years of "illegal occupation"? Better talk to Egypt and Jordan about that one. These were the countries that had possession of the West Bank and Gaza prior to 1967. Both have made peace deals with Israel. If it's "illegal occupation" why did the countries from who those areas were captured settle?

Arrest and detention without trial or charge? Better talk to Marwan Barghouti about that one. His complaint is that he is being charged and will be tried in public. It seems the last thing he wants is to have specific charges against him, and evidence of the same, brought to public trial for all to see.

Human rights abuses catalogued by Amnesty International? This group has just issued a report saying that the Palestinians are guilty of Crimes Against Humanity and possibly War Crimes.

Better double-check that moral compass: if it says "abuses" are worse than Crimes Against Humanity then it is in desperate need of repair.

Philip

07-13-2002, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Palestinians have been committing terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians for more than 70 years. Perhaps checkpoints and house demolitions are the worst possible crimes in your universe, but in 1929 Palestinians mass murdered the entire Jewish population of Hebron (>100 people). There are numerous letters by British diplomats in the 1930s referring to Palestinian terrorists. These are quoted extensively in Joan Peters' book, From Time Immemorial.

Ibrodsky is lying. About 60 Jewish residents of Hebron were killed in the 1929 riots out of the population of about 600 Jews in the city. This is inexcusable, but it is not the murder of the entire Jewish population. Also, Benny Morris notes of the incident, "Hundreds of Jews were saved by Arab neighbors." (Righteous Victims)

ibrodsky

07-13-2002, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Philip

Ibrodsky is lying. About 60 Jewish residents of Hebron were killed in the 1929 riots out of the population of about 600 Jews in the city. This is inexcusable, but it is not the murder of the entire Jewish population. Also, Benny Morris notes of the incident, "Hundreds of Jews were saved by Arab neighbors." (Righteous Victims)

I checked credible sources and you are partly right about the details. During three days of riots, the Arabs massacred 133 Jews, but not all were in Hebron. In Hebron, 60 Jews were killed and 50 were wounded, for a total of 110 casualties. (They did, however, succeed in making Hebron Jew-free.)

My point to Michael, however, was that Palestinians have been mass murdering Jews for much longer than just the past 35 years. They started doing it when Jews were a minority with no legal authority or enforcement capabilities over Arabs.

Philip

07-13-2002, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
My point to Michael, however, was that Palestinians have been mass murdering Jews for much longer than just the past 35 years. They started doing it when Jews were a minority with no legal authority or enforcement capabilities over Arabs.

Your point is taken. However, perhaps as a minority with no legal authority or enforcement capabilities over Arabs, it was not such a bright idea when "some 6,000 Jews marched in Tel Aviv, chanting, 'The Wall is ours'" (Morris, Righteous Victims ); nor for hundreds of them to demonstrate the following day at the Western Wall, in events that precipitated the aforementioned riots.

I don't think that a violent response to verbal taunt is ever justified, but there are instances where it should come as no surprise that violence is the response to a verbal taunt.

ibrodsky

07-13-2002, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Philip

Your point is taken. However, perhaps as a minority with no legal authority or enforcement capabilities over Arabs, it was not such a bright idea when "some 6,000 Jews marched in Tel Aviv, chanting, 'The Wall is ours'" (Morris, Righteous Victims ); nor for hundreds of them to demonstrate the following day at the Western Wall, in events that precipitated the aforementioned riots.

I don't think that a violent response to verbal taunt is ever justified, but there are instances where it should come as no surprise that violence is the response to a verbal taunt.

So to you it's a provocation for Jews to demand the right to pray next to a stone wall. Remember, Muslims built a mosque on top of the ruins of the Jewish Temple. (Even after Israel liberated East Jerusalem, Muslims were allowed to maintain sovereignty over the Mosque and its immediate environs.) But it was a "verbal taunt" for Jews to demand in 1929 the right to basically stand outside the site and pray at the wall?

Assuming you really believe that massacring Jews in response to their demanding the right to pray in front of a stone wall was not justified, then what is your point?

It sounds like you are saying they brought the massacre on themselves... as if the perpetrators are not responsible for their mass murders.

Philip

07-14-2002, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by ibrodsky
So to you it's a provocation for Jews to demand the right to pray next to a stone wall. Remember, Muslims built a mosque on top of the ruins of the Jewish Temple. (Even after Israel liberated East Jerusalem, Muslims were allowed to maintain sovereignty over the Mosque and its immediate environs.) But it was a "verbal taunt" for Jews to demand in 1929 the right to basically stand outside the site and pray at the wall?

Assuming you really believe that massacring Jews in response to their demanding the right to pray in front of a stone wall was not justified, then what is your point?

It sounds like you are saying they brought the massacre on themselves... as if the perpetrators are not responsible for their mass murders.

"The Wall is ours" is not exactly just a demand for the right to pray next to a stone wall, is it?

And, yes, my point is that to some extent the massacre was caused not necessarily by the victims, but by those Jews who decided to engage in what they surely knew was provacative behavior. If you went into a black ghetto in America and called everyone "Nigger," would you not to some extent have brought whatever unpleasant response results onto yourself?

Regardless of the verbal provocation, however, the perpetrators were still responsible for the murders.

Mediocrates

07-14-2002, 04:45 AM

as long as you're being so ****ing PC how about a black man walking into an all white neighborhood and getting clubbed on the head by a mob. still partially the victim's fault? how does that sit with your view of oppression? should have known better? guilty of walking while black?

that's either childish or paranoid, or both.

elke

07-14-2002, 05:33 AM

"Kill the Jews" is not really a non-committal statement, is it, Philip? Or do you see it as a "legitimate reaction" to "The Wall is ours?" :rolleyes:

Philip

07-14-2002, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
as long as you're being so ****ing PC how about a black man walking into an all white neighborhood and getting clubbed on the head by a mob. still partially the victim's fault? how does that sit with your view of oppression? should have known better? guilty of walking while black?

that's either childish or paranoid, or both.

If you recognize that something you have written is either childish or paranoid or both, who am I to argue with you?

Philip

07-14-2002, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by elke
"Kill the Jews" is not really a non-committal statement, is it, Philip? Or do you see it as a "legitimate reaction" to "The Wall is ours?" :rolleyes:

I think that if you read what I wrote again, Elke, this time for comprehension, you will find that my answers to your questions are pretty clear.

elke

07-14-2002, 05:56 AM

Nothing you write is clear, Philip, among other things, you need lessons in writing as well.

Philip

07-14-2002, 06:07 AM

So you have gotten yourself into a hissy fit over something that isn't even clear to you? How sad.

ibrodsky

07-14-2002, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by Philip

And, yes, my point is that to some extent the massacre was caused not necessarily by the victims, but by those Jews who decided to engage in what they surely knew was provacative behavior. If you went into a black ghetto in America and called everyone "Nigger," would you not to some extent have brought whatever unpleasant response results onto yourself?

Regardless of the verbal provocation, however, the perpetrators were still responsible for the murders.

You are nothing but an apologist for mass murder and terrorism.

Your analogy about going into a black neighborhood and shouting racist epithets has nothing to do with this case. Jews have as much right (or more) to the ruins of the ancient temple as Muslims have right to the mosque built on top of it.

Of course, the fact that muslims feel the need to build their mosques right on top of Jewish sites -- sometimes destroyed by the Muslims to make way for their mosques -- is not a "provocation."

elke

07-27-2002, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by Philip
So you have gotten yourself into a hissy fit over something that isn't even clear to you? How sad.

I know one when I see one.

ibrodsky

07-27-2002, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by trainspotter18

that is your opinion. Don't confuse opinion with fact.

As far as the "the wall is ours" chant by 6000 Jewish extremists, anyone who stands back and looks at that situation objectively will see that it was blatant provocation.

I said Jews have "as much right (or more) to the ruins of the ancient temple as Muslims have right to the mosque built on top of it." I didn't say Muslims have no right to the mosque that was purposely built on top of those ruins -- despite the obvious pattern of Moslems erecting mosques as trophies atop the ruins of synagogues.

Now, who is being unreasonable and disrespectful? I say both groups have rights to their holy sites. Palestinian supporters insist that while Muslims must have sovereignty over their ill-placed mosque, Jews should be denied access to the ruins of their ancient temple.

Notice that the state of Israel gave Moslems sovereignty over their mosque even after liberating East Jerusalem. We know what Palestinians would do if they ruled the entire old city: they would deny Jews access to the temple mount as part of their Islamic aparthied system that proclaims public spaces near a mosque off-limits to non-Muslims. (Which is exactly what they did from 1948 - 1967.)

Just as they created and maintain racist, apartheid cities such as Mecca and Medinah....

Ibrodsky, you should be ashamed of yourself for using such scare tactics as calling someone "an apologist for mass murder and terrorism" just because they have a different opinion than you do.

I said that because he has made more than one argument justifying terrorism.

Note that the "respectful" Philip was (temporarily) suspended from this forum for personal attacks.

The fact that you use such disgustingly immature rebuttals to respectful, well-reasoned, posts shows that you have nothing but empty rhetoric with which to respond to reason.

You call the idea that Muslims must have sovereignty over their mosque while Jews must be denied access to one lone wall of the ruins of their ancient temple "respectful, well-reasoned." Then when I point out how patently unfair this is you refer to my remarks as "disgustingly immature."

I trust anyone who accepts the idea that Jews also have rights to their holy places can see who is reasonable and who is intolerant.

michael

07-27-2002, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Philip

Ibrodsky is lying. About 60 Jewish residents of Hebron were killed in the 1929 riots out of the population of about 600 Jews in the city. This is inexcusable, but it is not the murder of the entire Jewish population. Also, Benny Morris notes of the incident, "Hundreds of Jews were saved by Arab neighbors." (Righteous Victims)

My original reply to Newsguy was highlighting the fact that there is always some small hopes in such conflicts and that perhaps we should recognize them and nuture them. Ibrodskys' reply to the above post by Phillip shows that there can be some common ground and recognition of shared history between the extreme positions. There are Palestinians who hate what is going on and realise that their own lives are being slowy destroyed by the actions of Palestinian terrorists.

I know how gratifying it is to put forward your own position and defend it and play the tit-for-tat massacre quoting game but it does little to improve understanding.

This is meant to be the Peace Think Tank, could we have a little more thinking and less polemic. Anyone interested?

raven

12-07-2002, 03:59 PM

Fair..wants us to give the land of Israel..continuoulsy populated with Jews for 5K years, with provable evidence of that continuous population in the ground, in writing, and in DNA to people that were "Never There". (Joan Peters, "From Time Immorial") There ARE NO Palistinians as a separate, distinct, population. These people NEVER established a civilization larger than settlements or tiny townships..they never had a separate language, no distinct Palistinian artifacts, NO Palistinian King, no NOTHING...different from the surrounding Arab Poluation that came and went from the Area. Israel was only a pass thru for the Arabs that lived in their Arab Countries NEXT TO Israel ...they had no and have no claim on that land. They didnt work the land, they didnt develop the land, their religion looks to Saudi Arabia , not Israel. They only claim Israel--cause Jews are there.

Incidently, looks like Islamists want every other country that they live in now. Thats the dynamic. They want India, Phillipines,Africa,England (hoping to change England into an Islamic State) Spain (they are talking abnout taking back Spain)Russia, Yugoslavia, and on and on and on ...never ending. Now is that FAIR???? I dont think so...

reason

12-10-2002, 11:41 AM

ibrodsky

12-10-2002, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by reason
There was nothing there when the Muslims built the haram al sharif. The temple was long destroyed, by the romans. Or do you need me to go into details?

Having been there, I don't see how this is possible. The Mosque sits atop an ancient structure. Jews claim that one of the walls of that structure is part of the ruins from the Temple. I believe there is proof of this, but even if not I don't see any good cause to deny Jews access to the wall or even the Temple Mount.

When Jews visit the Temple Mount they are merely visiting an outdoor, public area that Muslims have designated as a "No Jews Allowed" zone.

Really, I respect the right of Muslims to exclude Jews and others from entering mosques. But this practice of expropriating public areas as "Muslims Only" zones serves only to create an apartheid atmosphere.

jcsd

12-10-2002, 05:46 PM

I think a compromise in the situation of the temple mount is not impossible as Muslims do generally allow non-Muslims inside Mosques (I have been to several Mosques occupying former Byzantine Basilicas).

Mediocrates

12-10-2002, 06:47 PM

How did the Byzantines feel about that?

Seriously there is zero possibility that a site which has recently been designated the 3rd most holy site in all of Islam would allow Jews in. Less than zero.

jcsd

12-10-2002, 07:37 PM

I think it's possible (but only with a conciliatory approach), but that's dpendant on a fair solution to the wider issue (so probably not any time soon).

Mediocrates

12-11-2002, 06:09 AM

Religious matters are never quid pro quo. We're simply not dealing with a rational perspective. If someone told me I'd have to allow part of the Western Wall to become a mosque I would pull out one brick and hand it to them and tell them to get lost.

prfix

12-25-2002, 04:58 PM

Ultimately nations do what nations are required to do to survive.

I think it is safe to assume that Israel will do whatever it rationally needs to do if the Palestinian Arabs go so far as to threaten Israel's survival - a stage some would argue has already arrived.

The concept of transfer can be viewed in historical perspective more as an exchange of populations given that the Jewish population of Arab countries was expelled in the '50s.

But it not an easy thing to do.

There is also a Torah concept to consider here. Abraham's first son Ishmael, the father of the Arab nation, was expelled after Sarah perceived him to be a threat to Isaac. It distressed Abraham greatly though he did it when G-D commanded him to heed Sarah's voice. (Genesis 21:9-14). In addition Abraham's later children from his marriage to Keturah were also sent away from Isaac eastwards - in the direction of Jordan - with gifts. (Genesis 25:5-6)

Baruch Hashem. If we trust in Hashem all will be worked out for the best whether peace and co-existence, transfer, exchange, expulsion, dispatch with gifts or whatever.

Being in the US, myself, I view our primary concern here to be with the anti-Israel media and let the Israelis take care of "over there". Join the Boycott (http://www.geocities.com/truthmasters/jointheboycott.htm)

prfix

12-25-2002, 05:06 PM

Johann

01-15-2003, 07:20 PM

Transfer is a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. The world endured a decade of ethnic cleansing in the Balkan's before finally Milosevic and his captains were brought to trial. With that tragedy still fresh in peopleâ€™s minds, I doubt the world would tolerate Israel repeating the same crimes. Forcible transfer of an ethnic group is ethnic cleansing whatever you choose to call it, and is a crime against humanity. Internationally, Israel would be regarded as a fascist state along the lines of Milosevic's Yugoslavia.

The chauvinism of Israeli far-right hardliners who dream of such madness, represent a bigger threat to Israel's existence than Palestinian terrorists, because not only are such crimes repugnant to the Jewish faith and the majority of the world's Jewry, it defies basic principles of human rights and threatens to throw Israel into the pariah dustbin.

What happens when the Palestinians refuse to leave? Is Israel going to round up weeping women and children, and force them on to busses under the threat of violence, and ship them into to the desert, while images reminiscent of the war in Bosnia are beamed across the world?

Mediocrates

01-16-2003, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by Johann
The chauvinism of Israeli far-right hardliners who dream of such madness, represent a bigger threat to Israel's existence than Palestinian terrorists, because not only are such crimes repugnant to the Jewish faith and the majority of the world's Jewry, it defies basic principles of human rights and threatens to throw Israel into the pariah dustbin.

Hyperbolic nonsense. It's a position not a tactic. How in the hell can apolgists waste so much ink defending Arafat and co. under the mindless rubric of "Well that's not what they really mean, they're just appealing to the 'street' yet in the same breath claim that any position mouthed by Israelis heretofore unknown is some kind of tactic being literally ennacted as we speak.

For in plain simple terms, what you (possibly you) demand is nothing short of the 'ethnic cleansing' (your words) of the 9 or 10% of Judea Samaria who happen to be Jews.

I understand fully that through some process, we'll call MAGIC, you can wave your wand and they just fly up and out.

What happens when the Palestinians refuse to leave?

What happens if they don't? What happens when that nascent Palestinian middle class that has been left with nothing under Arafat's criminal rule finally gets fed up enough and either leaves or rises up? See it is purely simplistic to think that 'occupation' is a panacea for them. It's not.

Disraeli

01-16-2003, 08:48 AM

The notion of transfering Palestinians is ludicrous.

Deportation of an ethnic group makes the perpitrators into tyrants, desposts and people devoid of moral fortitude.

Ultimately though, history teaches us that one cannot simply suppress people in perpetuity and expect no retaliation.

What do you expect will happen if you 'transfer' the Palestinians, what gives Israel the right to treat people as untermenchen?

Self exclusive logic perhaps?

minusthejihad

01-16-2003, 08:49 AM

Gee, I don't know about all those ambiguous questions that could include any country in the world.

But I know that the tiny country of Israel, that has been able to defend itself from raving fanatics and woop collective ass on more than 3 occasions, was able to get their first astronaut into space today. Now that is an achievement!

However it seems that the farther from the earth the Arab states send someone, they always blow up.

Hooray for Israel today. Its OK Disraeli, I guess I'd be pretty upset to wake up and see good new about the people you demonize and realize that they are sooo much more ahead of you in every way.

Moderators: Disraeli should be forced to change his handle. It's a mockery of what the man stood for.

Disraeli

01-16-2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by minusthejihad
But I know that the tiny country of Israel, that has been able to defend itself from raving fanatics and woop collective ass on more than 3 occasions

For your information. Might is not right. Military power does not mean you can rule in perpetuity, no empire and no people 'have' in the history of humanity been able to do so, but perhaps Israel is an exception, I don't tell the tarrot, but perhaps one of the 'raving fanatics' (whoever you mean by that) do.

However it seems that the farther from the earth the Arab states send someone, they always blow up.

Strange that I seem to remember seeing lost of Arabs and Muslims walking around the streets of Dublin (where I live) without any spontaneous combustion taking place.

Moderators: Disraeli should be forced to change his handle. It's a mockery of what the man stood for.

Assuming you are in fact American or more accurately assuming you don't come from the British Isles, I think you need to retract that statement. See Disraeli was the Prime Minister of the UK, and by inference was Prime Minister to Ireland too. I live in Ireland, therefore, I'm thinking I have more claim to him then you, but I still don't see how it's in the least bit relevant.

Perhaps my socio-political views are (a) too intelligent for you or (b) you simply lack the debating prowess to engage with me. In either case attacking me personally is bad form old boy.

Bad form.

Mediocrates

01-16-2003, 09:07 AM

First off, let me guess, you have nothing against Jewsâ€¦.right? Ok thanks.

Question 1
Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?

Israel does, which countries have chemical and biological weapons: Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran

Q2:
Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections?

Israel. How many others? 4: Pakistan, India, Cuba, North Korea. Which middle eastern country has signed the CTBT (test ban treaty) Israel. Which country has signed both the CWC and BWC (Chem/bio weapons) treaties and openly flaunts them with the help of French pharmaceutical companies? Syria does. Which middle eastern countries have demonstrated use of chem/bio weapons? Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Iran.

Q3:
Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?

Syria in Lebanon, Egypt in Yemen

Q4:
Which country in the Middle East routinely violates the international borders of another sovereign state with warplanes and artillery and naval gunfire?

None of them do. Since the Iran/Iraq war. And the Iraq 1990-1 war. Which country routinely shells northern Israel? Syria does.

Q5:
What American ally in the Middle East has for years sent assassins into other countries to kill its political enemies (a practice sometimes called exporting terrorism)?

Iraq (when they were an ally), Iran (when they were an ally). Which middle eastern countries routinely disappear religious and political dissidents? Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan.

Q6:
In which country in the Middle East have high-ranking military officers admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed?

Iraq, Syria

Q7:
What country in the Middle East refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?

Iraq, Syria

Q8:
What country in the Middle East created 762,000 refugees and refuses to allow them to return to their homes, farms and businesses?
Iraq â€“ 1947-54

Q9: What country in the Middle East refuses to pay compensation to people whose land, bank accounts and businesses it confiscated?

Jordan, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Iran for 900,000 Jews kicked out of their countries at gunpoint.

Q10: In what country in the Middle East was a high-ranking United Nations diplomat assassinated?

Jordan, an American diplomat. Sudan, two American diplomats on Arafatâ€™s personal order.

Q11: In what country in the Middle East did the man who ordered the assassination of a high-ranking U.N. diplomat become prime minister?

Iraq, Syria â€“ except theyâ€™re just mass murderers

Q12: What country in the Middle East blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship, the USS Liberty, in international waters, killing 34 and wounding 171 American sailors?

Israel â€“ in a war zone in a time of war.

Q13: What country in the Middle East employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents and then gave some of them to the Soviet Union?

Not employed by Israel, though he freely passed classified documents to them.

Q14: What country at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him a citizen and has continuously demanded that the American president grant Pollard a full pardon?

Israel has, heâ€™s held near my home, in Butner â€“ as far as I know heâ€™s still behind bars for life, do you know different?

Q15. What Middle East country allows American Jewish murderers to flee to its country to escape punishment in the United States and refuses to extradite them once in their custody?

Do you have any sort of demonstration of that.

Q16. What Middle East country preaches against hate yet builds a shrine and a memorial for a murderer who killed 29 Palestinians while they prayed in their Mosque.

You confuse countries and people, do you know the difference?

Q17: What country on Planet Earth has the second most powerful lobby in the United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders?

That would be the US itself. AIPAC is ranked somewhere 25-50th down the list in size and influence by the very lobbies it competes with such as oil, automotive, electronics, home building, finance, insurance and so on.

Q18. Which country in the Middle East deliberately targeted a U.N. Refugee Camp in Qana, Lebanon and killed 103 innocent men, women, and especially children?

Syria and Lebanon â€“ which country keeps Palestinian refugees as virtual slaves in their own country? Jordan where 2/3rds of all Palestinians in the world actually live.

Q19: Which country in the Middle East is in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council resolutions and has been protected from 29 more by U.S. vetoes?

Hmmmm lemme guessâ€¦.Which International Body has directed more than a third of its total effort since it was founded against one country while ignoring the murderous barbarity of the arab states? The UN has.

Q20. Which country in the Middle East receives more than one-third of all U.S. aid yet is the 16th richest country in the world?

Which country receives 3.3 billon a year in military aid? Egypt. Which middle eastern country receives nearly 19 billion in defense equipment at no/low terms? KSA does.

Q21. Which country in the Middle East receives U.S. weapons for free and then sells the technology to the Republic of China even at the objections of the U.S.?

Which country has technology transfer back to the US in the billions of dollars range? (I donâ€™t actually expect you to answer this one since clearly you didnâ€™t write this screed yourself â€“ just post it back to your masters and tell them to shove it for me) Israel. Which country has first dibs on military equipment more advanced than that available to the US itself, from 1995-8? KSA thatâ€™s who.

Q22. Which country in the Middle East routinely insults the American people by having its Prime Minister address the United States Congress and lecturing them like children on why they have no right to reduce foreign aid?

That would be the PLO who dirties the streets of NYC with their mere presence and who waived a gun over his head the first time he addresses that body.

Q23. Which country in the Middle East had its Prime Minister announce to his staff not to worry about what the United States says because "We control America?"

That is a lie, simply put, but nice try.

Q24. What country in the Middle East was cited by Amnesty International for demolishing more than 4000 innocent Palestinian homes as a means of ethnic cleansing.
Hmm letâ€™s seeâ€¦..Easter Island? As a means of controlling terrorism. Sorry but you fail that one too.

Q25. Which country in the Middle East has just recently used a weapon of mass destruction, a one-ton smart bomb, dropping it in the center of a highly populated area killing 15 civilians including 9 children?

A regular bomb. Which country such as it is wraps its young people in Semtex and machine screws and blows them up? PA thatâ€™s who.

Q26. Which country in the Middle East routinely kills young Palestinian children for no reason other than throwing stones at armored vehicles, bulldozers, or tanks?

The PA, silly boy, donâ€™t you read the papers?

Q27. Which country in the Middle East signed the Oslo Accords promising to halt any new Jewish Settlement construction, but instead, has built more than 270 new settlements since the signing?

Israel â€“ itâ€™s their land unlike the ethnically cleansed lands of the arab world.

Q28. Which country in the Middle East has assassinated more than 100 political officials of its opponent in the last 2 years while killing hundreds of civilians in the process, including dozens of children?

The PLO. PA, Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, DLP, Hezbollah, al Aqsa, Force 17 and Tanzim

Q29.
Which country in the Middle East regularly violates the Geneva Convention by imposing collective punishment on entire towns, villages, and camps, for the acts of a few, and even goes as far as demolishing entire villages while people are still in their homes?

No one

Q30: What country in the Middle East is the United States threatening to attack because of fear that it may be a threat to us and to our allies?

Iraq

Disraeli

01-16-2003, 10:23 AM

First off, let me guess, you have nothing against Jewsâ€¦.right? Ok thanks.

Specifically people of the Jewish faith?

As an athiest I have very little time for religion one way or the other, let alone interest in disjunction based on the same. I don't believe in god, everything else is shade of grey on the theological front.

The policy of occupation, annexation and colonisation of land Palestinian people live on [1] by the State known as Israel, is for me an anthema to every single principal of humanity I happen to hold. Perhaps it would be nice and convienent to label that statement (above) as a tert random European (even though I'm Irish) irrelevancy, but that hardly seems like a rational thing to do for a participant of a discussion board now does it?

[1] Perhaps it is better not to assign ownership of the land to any particular ethnic group, since, Israel reserves the right to 'colonise' the territory Israel claims to occpy for 'security reasons'

Mediocrates

01-16-2003, 10:40 AM

No they have a right to respond to terrorism and to demand a deescalation and a process that establishes security as well as a meaningful plan for Palestinian self determination that does not necessarily include a descent into anarchy. See the PLO has never discussed anything remotely resembling statecraft and people all over the world support that soft bigotry with a simple "what do you expect? they can't really do anything". But we need to seriously examine a world view that views rejection of all negotiation as a legitimate bargaining technique. We need to seriously examine a country leader who has managed to convince the world that terrorism against Jews is a legitimate expression of foreign policy. We have to seriously wonder how a free Palestine will deal with the day to day drudgery of statecraft and its own international relations with Israel. Boom?

That's what this is about. For if you look at Sharon he has always said the Palestinians will get their own state and there is no likelihood that they will ever get along. That is the simple reality of that.

Moreover, as posted here elsewhere if the PLO is looking to Mitzna as their savior they are mistaken since even his open ended plan offers less to them than Barak's rejected offer. And there is no indication that any subsequent offers in the pipeline are any better. All their jihaditfada has accomplished is bringing the Israeli people and the Israeli government to the same low level of non concessions that Arafat has always had.

Jako

01-17-2003, 01:08 PM

Great post, Mediocrates, I was laughing so hard I almost cried.

"Question 1
Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?

Israel does, which countries have chemical and biological weapons: Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran"

Answer: Israel (they have chemical and biological too, fyi)

"Q3:
Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?

Syria in Lebanon, Egypt in Yemen"

Um, you forgot one. Israel. Often. Look it up.

"Q5:
What American ally in the Middle East has for years sent assassins into other countries to kill its political enemies (a practice sometimes called exporting terrorism)?

Iraq (when they were an ally), Iran (when they were an ally). Which middle eastern countries routinely disappear religious and political dissidents? Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan."

Hehe, forgot one again. Guess.

"Q6:
In which country in the Middle East have high-ranking military officers admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed?

Iaq, Syria"

Hmm, one more,

"Q7:
What country in the Middle East refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?

Iraq, Syria "

Um, correct. Add Israel.

"Q8:
What country in the Middle East created 762,000 refugees and refuses to allow them to return to their homes, farms and businesses?
Iraq â€“ 1947-54 "

And.... (drumroll) yup.

"Q9: What country in the Middle East refuses to pay compensation to people whose land, bank accounts and businesses it confiscated?

Jordan, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Iran for 900,000 Jews kicked out of their countries at gunpoint."

Add Israel. Hey I see a pattern.

"Q10: In what country in the Middle East was a high-ranking United Nations diplomat assassinated?

Jordan, an American diplomat. Sudan, two American diplomats on Arafatâ€™s personal order."

Israel too. Add Ian Hook, from the U.N. in charge of food dispensation to Palestinians.

"Q11: In what country in the Middle East did the man who ordered the assassination of a high-ranking U.N. diplomat become prime minister?

Iraq, Syria â€“ except theyâ€™re just mass murderers"

And Israel. And how about the fact that Sharon was personally involved in the massacres at Sabra and Chatila? He will be prosecuted as a war criminal once he is no longer head-of-state, watch for it. I'm sure most Palestinians overlook this though, and still figure he is a "man of peace".

"Q12: What country in the Middle East blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship, the USS Liberty, in international waters, killing 34 and wounding 171 American sailors?

Israel â€“ in a war zone in a time of war."

On an ally. Justification enough I suppose. I mean, who is supposed to see a flag on a big ole warship anyway? Americans are so averse to flying their flag, it was probably an honest mistake.

"Q13: What country in the Middle East employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents and then gave some of them to the Soviet Union?

Not employed by Israel, though he freely passed classified documents to them."

LOL. They patted him on the bum and said thanks, and that was it. Absolutely no collusion, he was just being helpful.

Q14: What country at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him a citizen and has continuously demanded that the American president grant Pollard a full pardon?

Israel has, heâ€™s held near my home, in Butner â€“ as far as I know heâ€™s still behind bars for life, do you know different?"

Okay, agreed.

"Q15. What Middle East country allows American Jewish murderers to flee to its country to escape punishment in the United States and refuses to extradite them once in their custody?"

Do you have any sort of demonstration of that. "

Um, yeah. Jonathan Pollard. Question 14. Right above.

"Q17: What country on Planet Earth has the second most powerful lobby in the United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders?

That would be the US itself. AIPAC is ranked somewhere 25-50th down the list in size and influence by the very lobbies it competes with such as oil, automotive, electronics, home building, finance, insurance and so on."

Add "what FOREIGN country" instead of what country. Israel.

"Q19: Which country in the Middle East is in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council resolutions and has been protected from 29 more by U.S. vetoes?

Hmmmm lemme guessâ€¦.Which International Body has directed more than a third of its total effort since it was founded against one country while ignoring the murderous barbarity of the arab states? The UN has."

Not really an answer, more of a misguided justification. Answer: Israel.

But I'm sure it can be explained like this : "It's not us, it's the REST OF THE WORLD that doesn't understand". Sounds perfectly sane, and not paranoid at all.

"Q24. What country in the Middle East was cited by Amnesty International for demolishing more than 4000 innocent Palestinian homes as a means of ethnic cleansing.
Hmm letâ€™s seeâ€¦..Easter Island? As a means of controlling terrorism. Sorry but you fail that one too."

There's the solution! I am certain that once a terrorist finds out that his house or his family's house has been BULLDOZED, he says to himself "Hmmm, may as well stop this foolishness, look what they did to my den! Time to straighten up and fly right!"

It adds to the anger, no other result.

"Q25. Which country in the Middle East has just recently used a weapon of mass destruction, a one-ton smart bomb, dropping it in the center of a highly populated area killing 15 civilians including 9 children?

A regular bomb. Which country such as it is wraps its young people in Semtex and machine screws and blows them up? PA thatâ€™s who."

Oh, okay, a regular bomb. That's practically just a loaf of bread.

"Q26. Which country in the Middle East routinely kills young Palestinian children for no reason other than throwing stones at armored vehicles, bulldozers, or tanks?

The PA, silly boy, donâ€™t you read the papers?"

Israel too, and I read the papers.

"Q27. Which country in the Middle East signed the Oslo Accords promising to halt any new Jewish Settlement construction, but instead, has built more than 270 new settlements since the signing?

Israel â€“ itâ€™s their land unlike the ethnically cleansed lands of the arab world."

Ah. So it's okay.

Basically, you're saying that Yes, many of these things can be attributed to Israel, but they can also be attributed to many extreme Arab states. Gotcha. You are in no way absolving Israel, you're saying yes we are guilty but so are the Arabs.

Hey, sounds like common ground.

Mediocrates

01-17-2003, 01:18 PM

No not all man-o-peace (that's what you paint yourself as, yes?) The point is that force is a response to terrorism engendered from a culture that is deeply rooted in Bronze Age ethics. The arab countries are their own worst enemies and any time they can't extract any political capital out of attacking or threatening to attack Israel they simply go after one another. If Israel did not exist, which I guess is more or less your goal, your arab states would need to invent it if only to temporarily deflect the screaming mobs at their own palace doors.

Face it. Let's say in your perfect world all the Jews are gone and there is no Israel. With 17 known 'security forces' the Palestinians in control would simply proceed to butcher each other. I wonder how the human rights contingent would respond to that?

minusthejihad

01-17-2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
No not all man-o-peace (that's what you paint yourself as, yes?) The point is that force is a response to terrorism engendered from a culture that is deeply rooted in Bronze Age ethics. The arab countries are their own worst enemies and any time they can't extract any political capital out of attacking or threatening to attack Israel they simply go after one another. If Israel did not exist, which I guess is more or less your goal, your arab states would need to invent it if only to temporarily deflect the screaming mobs at their own palace doors.

Face it. Let's say in your perfect world all the Jews are gone and there is no Israel. With 17 known 'security forces' the Palestinians in control would simply proceed to butcher each other. I wonder how the human rights contingent would respond to that?

Probably like they did in Lebanon, or in Kuwait recently when they threw out the Palestinians, or on the border with Jordan where they won't let them in, ignore it!

searrard

01-18-2003, 04:11 AM

Face it. Let's say in your perfect world all the Jews are gone and there is no Israel.

he never said or implied that imho

With 17 known 'security forces' the Palestinians in control would simply proceed to butcher each other. I wonder how the human rights contingent would respond to that?

righty, so if you leave the Palistinians to themselves they'll create civil war so you occupy and police/brutalize them to prevent this.....as for the human rights thingy, a new state will be closely monitored/helped by the UN if you asked the Human rights contingent!

Disraeli

01-18-2003, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by searrard
righty, so if you leave the Palistinians to themselves they'll create civil war so you occupy and police/brutalize them to prevent

Serrard is right in my opinion.

What a typically colonial attitude that if it were not for the Israelis the Palestinians would decend into civil war. For your information, it is not the place of the State of Israel to ensure Palestine does not tear itself apart, in the same way as it was not the place of the UK to police the United States.

So the Palestinians may have a civil war without Israeli occupation, really in the final analysis, that is no concern of Israel and is, truth be told an infirm reason to occupy Palestine in perpetuity.

Mediocrates

01-18-2003, 05:40 AM

Those things are not the same thing - One is a goal and the other is a faint wish. Upon what do assume that a 'country' that has managed specifically to atttract world attention by refusing to accomplish anything would magically, with the same people in place become economically, politically and culturally self sufficient?

Disraeli

01-18-2003, 05:50 AM

Self sufficientcy is a non-issue.

Israel as far as I am aware does not provide some blanket of etheral economic protection to the occupied territories and even if it did, the majority of the people in those territories do not wish to have such an extension of Israel, therefore, persuant to the principals of self-determination, those people must be allowed to have their own soverign, self determinate State.

The Palestinian question (to borrow a Euphamism that my namesake was heavily involved with "The Irish question"), is a misnomer I think.

Clearly any grouping of humans who wish to have self determinate self-governnance are worthy of the same and it is not the place of any group of people or nation to pontificate about the suitability of those people to govern or determine the outcome of their own lives.

Hence so long as the people of Israel wish it, there must be an Israeli State and for so long as the people of Palestine wish it, there must come to be a soverign Palestinian State.

Mediocrates

01-18-2003, 10:27 AM

I doubt most people would if they examined it debate that. Again those are goals not policies, wishes not objectives. We have been so long innured to the 'inevitability' of terrorism that we accept at face value the very people who perpetrate it. We say "they deserve a state" and sort of trail off mumbling "even if that means letting murderous thugs do it". And that is nearly always the rest of the sentence.

Now I don't generally entertain analogies but maybe this is a good time.

Cambodia for Cambodians even if it means Pol Pot.
Mao - Not so bad and far away! Anyway they can always make more people!
Uganda - Except for the cannibalism, Idi Amin was ok, I guess.
Robert Taylor - Well it sounds English and where the hell is Liberia anyway?
Stalin - At least he beat the Huns.

See what I mean? And frankly that really hasn't done the Palestinian cause much good. Because the PA isn't interested in or capable of running a state. They are there to preserve their own power and they do that with murder, terrorism, fear and corruption. Arafat is no better than Ceacescu with good camera angles.

So we can all just shrug and ignore it but tyrants don't reliquish power on their own. They don't improve with age. They don't build countries. And 10 years from now if Arfat through some miracle is still alive we will have this same discussion. The first step to PA independence is to get rid of the PA itself and start with modern rational people who have an interest and a skill in accomplishing something besides BOOOOOM.

It might be a disadvantage of Israeli politics to be so dynamic. One day it's Sharon, the next day it's someone else. Everyone's fighting each other. But one thing is clear. Year after year Israel has shown the world the entire spectrum of politics it has to offer from Left to Right. They have offered what they could and they have set themselves back in the effort. And the response is always the same - kill more Jews. So either PA-istan goes or they sit in the rubble for as long as they cling to power. It's really that simple, everyone else has pretty much run out of ideas and options.

NewsGuy

01-18-2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Disraeli
Self sufficientcy is a non-issue.

Israel as far as I am aware does not provide some blanket of etheral economic protection to the occupied territories and even if it did, the majority of the people in those territories do not wish to have such an extension of Israel, therefore, persuant to the principals of self-determination, those people must be allowed to have their own soverign, self determinate State.
Unfortunately, the Palestinian economy's chief products are terrorism and hatred of the West, which doesn't really pay the bills.

So, under normal circumstances, it is up to Israel to provide hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with jobs inside Israel, as well as to provide basic utilities like electricity, etc.

When the Palestinians figure out how to make a living, and not just make bombs, they might be on the road to self-sufficiency.

But the bigger question is whether Israel should be involved in the Palestinians' affairs at all, other to ensure that they keep their terrorism to themselves. The answer, I think, is no.

MGB8

01-29-2003, 02:33 PM

You're proving that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

First, energy and water to the WB and Gaza were and STILL ARE provided almost entirely by Israel.

Second, one of the biggest complaints against Israel by the Pal Arabs has been the closure of borders so that Pal Arabs couldn't go work in Israel! Israel HAS been supporting that economy...at least in terms of the more common people, much more than Europe whose money goes straight into the pockets of arms dealers or Arafat and his thugs (and their swiss bank accounts or their mansions)

Originally posted by Disraeli
Self sufficientcy is a non-issue.

Israel as far as I am aware does not provide some blanket of etheral economic protection to the occupied territories and even if it did, the majority of the people in those territories do not wish to have such an extension of Israel, therefore, persuant to the principals of self-determination, those people must be allowed to have their own soverign, self determinate State.

The Palestinian question (to borrow a Euphamism that my namesake was heavily involved with "The Irish question"), is a misnomer I think.

Clearly any grouping of humans who wish to have self determinate self-governnance are worthy of the same and it is not the place of any group of people or nation to pontificate about the suitability of those people to govern or determine the outcome of their own lives.

Hence so long as the people of Israel wish it, there must be an Israeli State and for so long as the people of Palestine wish it, there must come to be a soverign Palestinian State.

MGB8

01-29-2003, 02:37 PM

So Disraeli, if, say, a group of Protestants in england wanted their own state, and had a concentration in some area...they would be entitled to it?

How about the Basque seperatists?

Turks in France and Germany?

The US South?

The French Canadians?

Catelans in Spain?

Kurds in Iraq, Turkey and Syria?

Christians in Lebanon?

Shi-ites in Iraq and Fundamentalists in Egypt?

How about wako's in Waco?

How many splinter states were you contemplating?

Please tell me that your answer to all of these is yes.

Frans_1

01-29-2003, 07:31 PM

Clearly any grouping of humans who wish to have self determinate self-governnance are worthy of the same and it is not the place of any group of people or nation to pontificate about the suitability of those people to govern or determine the outcome of their own lives.

Yes to the "Principality of Hutt River Province" !

....then there is the issue of Australian sovereignty....

Disraeli

01-29-2003, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by NewsGuy
Unfortunately, the Palestinian economy's chief products are terrorism and hatred of the West, which doesn't really pay the bills.

That statement is just blinkered racism, I just thought I'd point that out.

So, under normal circumstances, it is up to Israel to provide hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with jobs inside Israel, as well as to provide basic utilities like electricity, etc.

You have a very colonial attitude I think. Oh wait, that's because the Israelis are 'colonising' land that doesn't belong to Israel, whilst bringing 'civilisation to the savages', you sound almost exactly like the likes of the Cecil Rhodes and all those other nut-jobs who attempted to rationalise European Imperialism in Africa, by claiming it was a 'mission' to bring civilisation to the 'savage'.

When the Palestinians figure out how to make a living, and not just make bombs, they might be on the road to self-sufficiency.

What are you trying to infer, that being a Palestinian means all you can do is make bombs? Sounds pretty racist, is that what you are a 'racist', because that's what you sound like.

But the bigger question is whether Israel should be involved in the Palestinians' affairs at all

What you mean, should Israel, kill a child that throws a stone at a tank, or should Israel 'settle' land that doesn't belong to Israel, both are 'obvious' ways in which Israel is 'involved' in Palestine and both are a big factor in all 'affairs' to use the vernacular of the Palestinian people's governance.

other to ensure that they keep their terrorism to themselves. The answer, I think, is no.

Terrorism to themselves? Lets examine that proposition shall we?
Israel as a State reserves the right to murder people Israel defines as being 'terrorists' and labels itself on a crusade to rid the world of terrorism, but, if for example, the Palestinians were to murder Israeli Soldiers who shoot and kill small children for the 'crime' of throwing stones at a tank (or was that crime simply being Palestinian, I can't tell), the Palestinians in question (remember there is no Palestinian State to be held to account), said people are labled terrorist.

Such disjunctions on ascription of esteem, are in fact racist. Isn't it a little ironic, that after centuries of persecution, all people of the Jewish faith in Israel have learned is how to persecute in kind?

Disraeli

01-29-2003, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by MGB8
You're proving that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.[quote]

First off you saying it, doesn't make it ture, but here I'll prove you wrong just for fun.

[quote]First, energy and water to the WB and Gaza were and STILL ARE provided almost entirely by Israel.

Do you know what a self fulfilling prophecy is?
Since Israel was not prepaired to give Palestinians access to water, during the Camp David 'peace' negotiations, it is a little self serving to claim Israel 'provides' water. The fact is Israel expects the Settlers in the occupied territories to have as much access to water as the two million some Palestinians.

The maths of which implies that each and every Jew (simply by virute of their religion, has 'six times' (roughly) as much right to water as a Palestinian.

There is a word for that. It's called self exclusive racism.
Israeli exponents label the world and it's mother anti-semitic racists, while at the same time Israel operates the world's only modern day apartheid system.

Disraeli

01-29-2003, 11:55 PM

Originally posted by MGB8
So Disraeli, if, say, a group of Protestants in england wanted their own state, and had a concentration in some area...they would be entitled to it?

If a group of people is prepaired to fight for their freedom, I think those people need to be given creedence, or perhaps you think it is only Israelis who have that right.

Careful, careful, that sounds a bit racist.

elke

01-30-2003, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by Disraeli
If a group of people is prepaired to fight for their freedom, I think those people need to be given creedence, or perhaps you think it is only Israelis who have that right.

Careful, careful, that sounds a bit racist.

In that case, what's your stance on the Basque Separatists?

Regardless of whether or not the Palestinians have a right to self-determination, they certainly do not have a right to terrorism. No one does! "Giving credence" to that would invite more of the same, no matter who or why does that.

keren7

01-30-2003, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by Vic
A simple practical question: where are the Palestinians to be transferred to?

Very simple answer. For one, they are already in the WB and Gaza therefore, they can all live there, and second option Jordan, a very nice Palestinian state and last but not least, they can go to any Arab state, they all arabs after all isn't it?

If jews had few countries like the arabs do, I don't think we will turn away any jew to live wherever he pleases. But then again, not everybody is like us.

Disraeli

01-30-2003, 02:14 AM

Regardless of whether or not the Palestinians have a right to self-determination

From the country the has the audacity to lecture Iraq on Democracy, we get "Do Palestinians have the right to self determinant, democratic governance". If that isn't a racially biased self-servile double standard, then what is?

elke

01-30-2003, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Disraeli
Regardless of whether or not the Palestinians have a right to self-determination

From the country the has the audacity to lecture Iraq on Democracy, we get "Do Palestinians have the right to self determinant, democratic governance". If that isn't a racially biased self-servile double standard, then what is?

You are skewing what is said. The Palestinians are also being lectured on Democracy. They do not currently have it, in case you haven't noticed.

Self-determination cannot be "given", it has to be earned and built by those wishing to "self-determine". So far, the Palestinians as a group have not built any institutions that can remotely resemble not only Democracy, but any sort of functional government. As far as they are concerned, the buildup of institutions and services should be the first priority - which cannot be done with one hand, while the other hand is murdering citizens of other countries. The thugs who perform terrorism must be controlled by any Palestinian Authority worthy of its name as Authority.

MGB8

01-30-2003, 06:55 AM

You arguments are laughable, and barely responsive. You avoided the point of both my posts. First, you didn't respond to the fact that Israel does indeed provide water, from its own sources (the Kineret - not anywhere near anything the PA could call its own) and energy, and money, and they did provide jobs. Of course, then the Pal Arabs decided to war on Israel.

Second, you didn't really answer the second set of questions. One by one, answer - the Basque, the French Canadians, the American South (at the time of the Civil War), Catholic and Protestant Irish (since both are living there, why don't we just carve up the country into protestant Ireland and Catholic Ireland), the Catelans, the Wako Waco people and splinter groups like in Montana, the Shining Path in Peru, the Kurds in Turkey, Iraq, and Syria, the Turks in Germany and France. The Africans in France....they all get their own nations if they are willing to shoot others for it, is that right.

Also, I'm offended that you take the handle you do....you certainly have nothing in common with him.

Originally posted by Disraeli
If a group of people is prepaired to fight for their freedom, I think those people need to be given creedence, or perhaps you think it is only Israelis who have that right.

Careful, careful, that sounds a bit racist.

NewsGuy

01-30-2003, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Disraeli
[b]From the country the has the audacity to lecture Iraq on Democracy, we get "Do Palestinians have the right to self determinant, democratic governance". If that isn't a racially biased self-servile double standard, then what is?

Actually, Typedef, coming from a country like yours in which the Papists are still mass-murdering the Protestants and vice versa, you have a lot of never to even utter any accusation of racism towards anyone. Clean up your own problems before coming to give advice to others.

The standard is always the same, both for the Papists of Ireland and for the Islamic mass-murderers of Arafatistan - No rights whatsoever while terrorism is going on.

McSceptic

01-30-2003, 08:35 AM

POI "Papist" is a derogatory term and will get you a free trip to the hospital if you utter it in the wrong company.

Those in favour of transfer seem to be overlooking a major stumbling block: transfer = sanctions = collapse of Israel.

Remember Serbia? They're still metaphorically picking up their teeth with a broken arm, and they had neighbours who were willing to smuggle oil across their borders to the Serbs.

Transfer would be economic suicide for Israel.

NewsGuy

01-30-2003, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Disraeli
That statement is just blinkered racism, I just thought I'd point that out.
Let's hold it right there, Typedef (Disraeli's screen name on the Irish forum he moderates).

The racist comments have been coming from you exclusively.

You whine on and on about the Palestinian economy, but the fact is -- like it or not -- the Palestinians live in a primitive and violent society whose chief domestic products are terrorism and hatred of the West.

I do reiterate that only when the Palestinians learn to make a living and not just make bombs, then they will begin to increase their standard of living.

And, of course, once their corrupt and brutal dictatorship is replaced (if ever), then the billions of dollars in foreign aid intended for the Palestinian people, may actually reach their intended recipients, rather than be deposited into Arafat's personal Swiss bank accounts.

But to show the extent of your racism and total disregard for Palestinian welfare, you have been hiding the fact that the Palestinians have been robbed by their own leadership. Why is that, Typedef? Did you have Arab apologist amnesia, or are you attempting a deliberate racist smear of Israel?

Until Arab apologists and terrorism supporters like yourself begin to face up to the facts, the Palestinians will never be able to advance themselves.

Maybe it's time for people like you, as well as honest Europeans, to begin to demand that the billions of Euros gifted to the Palestinians are used to build their infrastructure, and that the money be conditioned on the Palestinians' rejection of terrorism.

... if for example, the Palestinians were to murder Israeli Soldiers who shoot and kill small children for the 'crime' of throwing stones at a tank (or was that crime simply being Palestinian, I can't tell),

This is a typical dishonest Arab apologist fantasy. But I'm sure, of course, that in the rest of the world, mobs who attack tanks with hand-grenades, fire bombs and anti-tank missiles receive hugs and kisses in return... :D

But, hey, the for terrorism supporters and other racists like yourself, Typedef, it is always more convenient to pretend that this is a contest between stone-throwing children and big bad tanks. The fact is that the Palestinians are heavily armed with weapons from Iran, and funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars by Saudi Arabia, all used to supply weapons, recruitment and training for an army of Palestinian Jihadists.

Apparently, in the terrorism supporters' fantasy world of make-believe, there are no hand-grenades, no missiles, no missile factories, no terrorism networks, no incitement, no military training, no suicide bombers, no snipers, and for that matter, no dead Israeli civilians.

Come to think of it, there is no such thing as terrorism at all, because it is accepted by the likes of Typedef, that any Arab with a political grudge, is more than entitled to reject peaceful negotiations, and instead, embark on a campaign of "justified" mass murder against Israeli and American women, children, elderly, etc.

Well, if this isn't racism, I don't know what is. Oh, wait... here's racism and anti-Semitism at its finest, as we can see in "Disraeli/Typedef's" remark:

... Isn't it a little ironic, that after centuries of persecution, all people of the Jewish faith in Israel have learned is how to persecute in kind?

There you have it, folks. Sooner or later, the hatred of Jews is exposed, and we get a better understanding of who we're dealing with.

Next time, Typedef, that I see you post a racist remark in violation of our Rules of the Road, I will delete your post and ban you from this forum. Around here, you're not a Moderator, nor do you have any other special privileges. You're nothing but a racist terrorism supporter who's slipping into true form.