Inquiry into Israel's Use

[Texsox]

He didn't says ALWAYS.  He said: 

"3. Check out how many times Australia has voted "pro-Israel" re. the UN! (Not too many.) "

After the first four all came up pro Israel, I stopped. Now in defense of 4E's comment, they may just be doing that because of pressure from the US and if given free will, may have voted against. We may never know who sides with Israel just because we intimidate or buy their vote.

[Texsox]

SL&P needs a new subforum called Jews vs. Muslims.  It should be moderated  by I4E and Apu and nobody else should be allowed to post in there.

Oh come on, let me post to

[southsider2k5]

SL&P needs a new subforum called Jews vs. Muslims.  It should be moderated  by I4E and Apu and nobody else should be allowed to post in there.

Hey according to custom I'm Jewish, I should get to post there too...

[israel4ever]

It is comic writing Alan Moore whose is quoted in the sig.

 

As for I4E, he doesn't dispute the claim that is goes on but as long as the kid isn't struggling to get free it's alright?  What the f*** sort of logic is that?  And could he not be struggling because there are a bunch of thugs with M16s around him ready to kick his ass...maybe that's the reason.

 

"According to Amnesty International, more than 50 children under the age of 12 have been killed by Israeli army fire, during the first seven months of 2002 alone. You have not sentenced even one of the perpetrators of these crimes. But you're sentencing me...just because I refuse to take part in such activities."

 

That quote was from Jonathan Ben Artzi, a reservist refusing to serve in the occupied territories, addressing the IDF.  He is also known as the nephew of Israeli Foreign Minister and former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.  But I guess that's just another anti-Semitic HAMAS lover, huh.

 

And a quote from Amnesty International from Sept. 30, 2002: "In 2002 the majority were those children killed when the IDF randomly opened fire, or shelled or bombarded residential neighborhoods in Palestinian towns and villages. Most of these children were killed when there was no exchange of fire and in circumstances in which the lives of the soldiers were not at risk."

 

Or how about a quote from an Israeli father (Rami Elhanan) who lost his child to a suicide bomber in 1997: "Our daughter was killed because of the terror of the Israeli occupation. Every innocent victim from both sides is a victim of the occupation. The occupation is the cancer feeding Palestinian terror." (from the June 29, 2002 newspaper "The Mirror")

Once again, Apu miises the point. The fact that the kid in the picture is not struggling shows that the picture has most probably been doctored. (The "palis" would never doctor a picture and/or use anti-Israel propaganda, would they!?)

 

Again, Apu, look at your "sources"...Amnesty International (an ultra-ultra liberal organization) has never not taken an opportunity to bash Israel (just like you, hmmmm!).

 

The Source...what the f**k is that?

 

BTW...All anyone needs to do, if they have any doubt as to where Apu's loyalties lie need only check out his website. (I have no doubt that he grew up in an affluent suburb, never worked a day in his life, and became "SuperLiberal" in "rebellion"!)

 

But you "Apu-lovers"...keep on accepting his word as the Gospel.

[israel4ever]

ha ha ha  So the only sources that are accurate are the ones that agree with you. Why am I not surprised. 

 

4E,

 

Is there any crime in Israel? Does any Israeli citizen steal, speed, burgler, extort, murder, domestic violence? Or are the only crimes committed in Israel by palis against Israel?

 

You loyalty is wonderful. American Soldiers has committed crimes and been punished by US military law (My Lai fir example). Why don't Israeli soldiers commit any crimes? Why can't the US get great soldiers like Israel?

I never said that Tex...but read both sides of the argument. For every minute I watch Fox News I also watch CNN. I try to get every side. I read all of the local newspapers, I go to "liberal" as well as "conservative" websites. I listen to NPR and "conservative" radio.

 

But, people like you, Apu, FlaSox, etc., only seem to go to the liberal sites, (and you ALL treat Apu's opinions like they came down from the Lord himself).

 

Obviously, the IDF is not perfect; I never said they were. But, it is important to remember the following points:

 

1) The "palis" started the latest "intafada", and declared war on Israel, not the other way around.

 

2) The "palis" always have been, and continue to be the aggressors, leaving Israel NO CHOICE but to defend herself.

 

3) Israel has tried to negotiate peace agreements with the "palis" on NUMEROUS occasions, but the PA does not want peace with Israel, they want to annihilate Israel.

 

THESE ARE INDISPUTABLE FACTS!!!

[israel4ever]

SL&P needs a new subforum called Jews vs. Muslims.  It should be moderated  by I4E and Apu and nobody else should be allowed to post in there.

VERY FUNNY!

 

Actually, I'd rather be put in a boxing ring with that anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semite weasel.

 

Then I could beat him physically as well as intellectually!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Once again, Apu miises the point. The fact that the kid in the picture is not struggling shows that the picture has most probably been doctored. (The "palis" would never doctor a picture and/or use anti-Israel propaganda, would they!?)

 

Again, Apu, look at your "sources"...Amnesty International (an ultra-ultra liberal organization) has never not taken an opportunity to bash Israel (just like you, hmmmm!).

 

The Source...what the f**k is that?

 

BTW...All anyone needs to do, if they have any doubt as to where Apu's loyalties lie need only check out his website. (I have no doubt that he grew up in an affluent suburb, never worked a day in his life, and became "SuperLiberal" in "rebellion"!)

 

But you "Apu-lovers"...keep on accepting his word as the Gospel.

I actually have worked a lot. Yes, and when the picture is taken by a UK newspaper (remember, it was the UK who created the Balfour Declaration) and not by Palestinians at all, I'm sure the Palestinians doctored the photo.

 

Actually, AI has taken stances against Palestinian suicide bombers and just because they go after Israel in the wrong does not make them an anti-Israel organization as you would like to assume.

 

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to talk to a person who has extensively been in Israel. He went all over as part of a Mid East Children's coalition. In his experience, the first night there he discussed how the illegal settlers came out with submachine guns chanting in Hebrew how they were not going anywhere despite the declarations of international law. Oh yeah, they were marching and firing uzis in their march...and got high 5'ed by the IDF.

 

Palestinians cannot use roads. The West Bank and Gaza are being split into 3 parts and it is damn near impossible to get through the checkpoints for anyone. (Even he and his human rights delegation were forced to wait for hours for no reason)

 

The wall being built in Israel is 4 times the length of the Berlin Wall. It annexes 56% of the West Bank into Israel so it's not even being built on the Green Line. This wall annexation takes a lot of the agricultural land and most of the aquifers from the Palestinians. In many cities, they are surrounded by the wall with only 1 checkpoint as an exit. Talk about creating ghettos.

 

Farmers are kept from their fields because Israel gives them passes as to when they can do agricultural work. So their crops consistently die and they get no food from their crops. Even the Balfour Declaration, reading the historical context of it, its easy to see that it is an anti-Semitic document. The Brits didn't want Jews in their country so they gave them what they gave them in the Balfour Declaration.

 

Before the UN created the 55%-45% land distribution in favor of Israel, Jews and Palestinians lived in Palestine quite peacefully cuz the Jews got the security they wanted (and it was a better trip than going to Uganda like they were talking about) In 1948, they took 78% of the land and uprooted almost all the rest in 1967.

 

Gaza's settlements are the most densely populated areas in the entire world. With Israel's wall implementation, Israel gains more land in Gaza and the W. Bank, even if they give back Gaza to the Palestinians. It's a net land gain for the Israelis. If the wall with the checkpoints and everything goes through, it will mean 88% of the land for Israelis and 12% for Palestinians. Displacing peoples' homes to make room for the wall and destroying an entire community's olive groves for the actions of one member of the town...gee, I wonder why people would be angry at the Israelis.

 

And according to the UN, who created Israel...when there is an occupying force in a nation, the inhabitants are well within their legal rights to fight back against the occupying force.

 

I'm sure you've heard the stories about the illegal settlers sniping Palestinian kids at playgrounds...because I've met quite a few people who have lived and extensively been to Palestine and seen it with their own eyes.

 

Prove me wrong, I4E. Show me that it's not the occupation and the illegal land grab of the Wall and the 1967 occupation that is the cause of the violence. You can't prove anything I wrote wrong so you go towards your knee jerk "It's anti-Semitic" instead of debating the actual facts. You can't stand it that the nephew of Netanyahu is against the occupation. You can't stand it that the thuggery of the IDF against children and innocent Palestinians that are collateral damage just might be the root cause as to why people throw rocks and blow themselves up to get back at Israelis. You can't stand it that the Sayaret Metkal is against the occupation and refuses to serve.

 

Oh and by the way, I'm not from an affluent suburb. I'm from a rural farming town and I've had to work quite a lot. But not that I have to justify myself to you. And by the way, my background doesn't change the facts that are being posted that you refuse to refute.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I never said that Tex...but read both sides of the argument. For every minute I watch Fox News I also watch CNN. I try to get every side. I read all of the local newspapers, I go to "liberal" as well as "conservative" websites. I listen to NPR and "conservative" radio.

 

But, people like you, Apu, FlaSox, etc., only seem to go to the liberal sites, (and you ALL treat Apu's opinions like they came down from the Lord himself).

 

Obviously, the IDF is not perfect; I never said they were. But, it is important to remember the following points:

 

1) The "palis" started the latest "intafada", and declared war on Israel, not the other way around.

 

2) The "palis" always have been, and continue to be the aggressors, leaving Israel NO CHOICE but to defend herself.

 

3) Israel has tried to negotiate peace agreements with the "palis" on NUMEROUS occasions, but the PA does not want peace with Israel, they want to annihilate Israel.

 

THESE ARE INDISPUTABLE FACTS!!!

Palestinians started the 2nd intifada...but you can't blame them when you've got an occupying force that took their land. Palestinians were given 45% of the land and are now down to 22% due to land grabs. So gee, I wonder why people would be angry.

 

As for aggressors...gee, you know...taking land in 1948 with 90,000 troops...taking land in 1967...taking land with the wall. Who are the aggressors again? And hey, how is tear gassing kids and shooting kids on playgrounds self defense?

 

As for the Oslo accords, if you read the historical record, it was actually Israel that backed out...not Palestine. But who needs facts when you've got reactionism and the ability to call anybody who is against you an anti-Semite because they see grave human rights abuses being perpetrated by the Israeli "Defense" Force.

[israel4ever]

Palestinians started the 2nd intifada...but you can't blame them when you've got an occupying force that took their land.  Palestinians were given 45% of the land and are now down to 22% due to land grabs.  So gee, I wonder why people would be angry.

 

As for aggressors...gee, you know...taking land in 1948 with 90,000 troops...taking land in 1967...taking land with the wall.  Who are the aggressors again?  And hey, how is tear gassing kids and shooting kids on playgrounds self defense?

 

As for the Oslo accords, if you read the historical record, it was actually Israel that backed out...not Palestine.  But who needs facts when you've got reactionism and the ability to call anybody who is against you an anti-Semite because they see grave human rights abuses being perpetrated by the Israeli "Defense" Force.

In 1948 and in 1967, ISRAEL WAS ATTACKED!!! How are you an aggressor if you are the one being attacked.

 

If I saw you on the street and you attacked me and I proceeded to kick your Jew-hating ass, could you then cry self defense???

 

Arafat turned down Israel's offer of 98% of Arafat's demands. Arafat walked away and declared jihad against Israel. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

[israel4ever]

I actually have worked a lot.  Yes, and when the picture is taken by a UK newspaper (remember, it was the UK who created the Balfour Declaration) and not by Palestinians at all, I'm sure the Palestinians doctored the photo.

 

Actually, AI has taken stances against Palestinian suicide bombers and just because they go after Israel in the wrong does not make them an anti-Israel organization as you would like to assume.

 

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to talk to a person who has extensively been in Israel.  He went all over as part of a Mid East Children's coalition.  In his experience, the first night there he discussed how the illegal settlers came out with submachine guns chanting in Hebrew how they were not going anywhere despite the declarations of international law.  Oh yeah, they were marching and firing uzis in their march...and got high 5'ed by the IDF. 

 

Palestinians cannot use roads.  The West Bank and Gaza are being split into 3 parts and it is damn near impossible to get through the checkpoints for anyone.  (Even he and his human rights delegation were forced to wait for hours for no reason)

 

The wall being built in Israel is 4 times the length of the Berlin Wall.  It annexes 56% of the West Bank into Israel so it's not even being built on the Green Line.  This wall annexation takes a lot of the agricultural land and most of the aquifers from the Palestinians.  In many cities, they are surrounded by the wall with only 1 checkpoint as an exit.  Talk about creating ghettos.

 

Farmers are kept from their fields because Israel gives them passes as to when they can do agricultural work.  So their crops consistently die and they get no food from their crops.  Even the Balfour Declaration, reading the historical context of it, its easy to see that it is an anti-Semitic document.  The Brits didn't want Jews in their country so they gave them what they gave them in the Balfour Declaration. 

 

Before the UN created the 55%-45% land distribution in favor of Israel, Jews and Palestinians lived in Palestine quite peacefully cuz the Jews got the security they wanted (and it was a better trip than going to Uganda like they were talking about)  In 1948, they took 78% of the land and uprooted almost all the rest in 1967.

 

Gaza's settlements are the most densely populated areas in the entire world.  With Israel's wall implementation, Israel gains more land in Gaza and the W. Bank, even if they give back Gaza to the Palestinians.  It's a net land gain for the Israelis.  If the wall with the checkpoints and everything goes through, it will mean 88% of the land for Israelis and 12% for Palestinians.  Displacing peoples' homes to make room for the wall and destroying an entire community's olive groves for the actions of one member of the town...gee, I wonder why people would be angry at the Israelis.

 

And according to the UN, who created Israel...when there is an occupying force in a nation, the inhabitants are well within their legal rights to fight back against the occupying force.

 

I'm sure you've heard the stories about the illegal settlers sniping Palestinian kids at playgrounds...because I've met quite a few people who have lived and extensively been to Palestine and seen it with their own eyes.

 

Prove me wrong, I4E.  Show me that it's not the occupation and the illegal land grab of the Wall and the 1967 occupation that is the cause of the violence.  You can't prove anything I wrote wrong so you go towards your knee jerk "It's anti-Semitic" instead of debating the actual facts.  You can't stand it that the nephew of Netanyahu is against the occupation.  You can't stand it that the thuggery of the IDF against children and innocent Palestinians that are collateral damage just might be the root cause as to why people throw rocks and blow themselves up to get back at Israelis.  You can't stand it that the Sayaret Metkal is against the occupation and refuses to serve.

 

Oh and by the way, I'm not from an affluent suburb.  I'm from a rural farming town and I've had to work quite a lot.  But not that I have to justify myself to you.  And by the way, my background doesn't change the facts that are being posted that you refuse to refute.

It's too bad that the "palis" can't use roads, and that the "disputed territories" are being annexed, and that the Security Wall doesn't follow the "green line"; but, in life, "YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW!".

 

The "palis" asked for this...they declared war against Israel, they continue terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, they don't want peace, they are the ones that are "genocidal".

 

Screw them!

[israel4ever]

FOR THE LAST TIME (I'LL TYPE REAL SLOW, AND NOT USE BIG WORDS SO MAYBE APU CAN UNDERSTAND IT), THE DISPUTED (NOT "OCCUPIED") TERRITORIES NEVER (REPEAT NEVER) BELONGED TO THR "PALESTINIANS".

 

One cannot by definition steal what is already theirs, so, Israel cannot steal (Israeli) land from themselves!!!

[Texsox]

I never said that Tex...but read both sides of the argument. For every minute I watch Fox News I also watch CNN. I try to get every side. I read all of the local newspapers, I go to "liberal" as well as "conservative" websites. I listen to NPR and "conservative" radio.

 

But, people like you, Apu, FlaSox, etc., only seem to go to the liberal sites, (and you ALL treat Apu's opinions like they came down from the Lord himself).

 

Obviously, the IDF is not perfect; I never said they were. But, it is important to remember the following points:

 

1) The "palis" started the latest "intafada", and declared war on Israel, not the other way around.

 

2) The "palis" always have been, and continue to be the aggressors, leaving Israel NO CHOICE but to defend herself.

 

3) Israel has tried to negotiate peace agreements with the "palis" on NUMEROUS occasions, but the PA does not want peace with Israel, they want to annihilate Israel.

 

THESE ARE INDISPUTABLE FACTS!!!

It will be impossible for Peace unless both sides understand their rolls. Both positive and negative. Common sense tells us that if humans have been under attack for 40 years they are going to do some things that are wrong. To argue otherwise is silly.

 

To try and guess what comes before and after a single still photo is crazy. Of course it could be a doctored photo, or the kid could have finally tired of resisting and decided the M-16 or AK47 pointed at his head was enough. Remember, both sides grow up to hate the other.

 

I have no doubt in my mind that, to preserve their own skin, that some Israeli soldiers would let the other side know they have a prisoner with them. In fact, since they are responsible for the prisoner's safety it could be argued that to not let the other side know would place the prisoner in even more danger.

 

Despite your arguments to the contrary, Israelis commit crimes. They commit crimes against each other and it would be silly to believe they do not commit crimes against the Palistinians. What majority hasn't committed crimes against the minority?

 

Israel does not have a monopoly on ethics and goodness. The citizens there, and they all are not Jews, are humans. When you speak of Israel remember 1 in 5 citizen is not Jewish. What is Israel's responsibility to them?

 

What hurts your argument is your continued denial that Israel can do whatever they want in defense without anyone judging them wrong. Anytime it is even hinted that the Palis have done something right, you dismiss it and anytime Israel is accused of a wrong, you dismiss it.

 

And finally how are you defining ownership of land? Do only Jews have claim to the land in Israel?

[israel4ever]

It will be impossible for Peace unless both sides understand their rolls. Both positive and negative. Common sense tells us that if humans have been under attack for 40 years they are going to do some things that are wrong. To argue otherwise is silly.

 

To try and guess what comes before and after a single still photo is crazy. Of course it could be a doctored photo, or the kid could have finally tired of resisting and decided the M-16 or AK47 pointed at his head was enough. Remember, both sides grow up to hate the other.

 

I have no doubt in my mind that, to preserve their own skin, that some Israeli soldiers would let the other side know they have a prisoner with them. In fact, since they are responsible for the prisoner's safety it could be argued that to not let the other side know would place the prisoner in even more danger.

 

Despite your arguments to the contrary, Israelis commit crimes. They commit crimes against each other and it would be silly to believe they do not commit crimes against the Palistinians. What majority hasn't committed crimes against the minority?

 

Israel does not have a monopoly on ethics and goodness. The citizens there, and they all are not Jews, are humans. When you speak of Israel remember 1 in 5 citizen is not Jewish. What is Israel's responsibility to them?

 

What hurts your argument is your continued denial that Israel can do whatever they want in defense without anyone judging them wrong. Anytime it is even hinted that the Palis have done something right, you dismiss it and anytime Israel is accused of a wrong, you dismiss it.

 

And finally how are you defining ownership of land? Do only Jews have claim to the land in Israel?

You make some very valid points, Tex. Like I said before, I never said that Israel was perfect.

 

Here are the flaws in your thinking, IMO.

 

If the "Palis" had decided to fight a "conventional war", I am sure that Israel could have done a lot more to keep civilian casualties at a minimum...it is the "palestinians'" insistance on fighting a terrorist, guerilla war that makes civilian casualties inevitable (collateral damage).

 

I admitted that I don't think Israel is perfect, and have done some bad things; but, when you say the "Palis" have done some good things, I am stumped. I iplore you to name any good things that "Palis" have accomplished.

 

Finally, the Jews have the longest, and most uninterrupted presence in Israel. Additionally, they also have the only legitimate claims biblically, historically and politically.

[israel4ever]

I actually have worked a lot.  Yes, and when the picture is taken by a UK newspaper (remember, it was the UK who created the Balfour Declaration) and not by Palestinians at all, I'm sure the Palestinians doctored the photo.

 

Actually, AI has taken stances against Palestinian suicide bombers and just because they go after Israel in the wrong does not make them an anti-Israel organization as you would like to assume.

 

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to talk to a person who has extensively been in Israel.  He went all over as part of a Mid East Children's coalition.  In his experience, the first night there he discussed how the illegal settlers came out with submachine guns chanting in Hebrew how they were not going anywhere despite the declarations of international law.  Oh yeah, they were marching and firing uzis in their march...and got high 5'ed by the IDF. 

 

Palestinians cannot use roads.  The West Bank and Gaza are being split into 3 parts and it is damn near impossible to get through the checkpoints for anyone.  (Even he and his human rights delegation were forced to wait for hours for no reason)

 

The wall being built in Israel is 4 times the length of the Berlin Wall.  It annexes 56% of the West Bank into Israel so it's not even being built on the Green Line.  This wall annexation takes a lot of the agricultural land and most of the aquifers from the Palestinians.  In many cities, they are surrounded by the wall with only 1 checkpoint as an exit.  Talk about creating ghettos.

 

Farmers are kept from their fields because Israel gives them passes as to when they can do agricultural work.  So their crops consistently die and they get no food from their crops.  Even the Balfour Declaration, reading the historical context of it, its easy to see that it is an anti-Semitic document.  The Brits didn't want Jews in their country so they gave them what they gave them in the Balfour Declaration. 

 

Before the UN created the 55%-45% land distribution in favor of Israel, Jews and Palestinians lived in Palestine quite peacefully cuz the Jews got the security they wanted (and it was a better trip than going to Uganda like they were talking about)  In 1948, they took 78% of the land and uprooted almost all the rest in 1967.

 

Gaza's settlements are the most densely populated areas in the entire world.  With Israel's wall implementation, Israel gains more land in Gaza and the W. Bank, even if they give back Gaza to the Palestinians.  It's a net land gain for the Israelis.  If the wall with the checkpoints and everything goes through, it will mean 88% of the land for Israelis and 12% for Palestinians.  Displacing peoples' homes to make room for the wall and destroying an entire community's olive groves for the actions of one member of the town...gee, I wonder why people would be angry at the Israelis.

 

And according to the UN, who created Israel...when there is an occupying force in a nation, the inhabitants are well within their legal rights to fight back against the occupying force.

 

I'm sure you've heard the stories about the illegal settlers sniping Palestinian kids at playgrounds...because I've met quite a few people who have lived and extensively been to Palestine and seen it with their own eyes.

 

Prove me wrong, I4E.  Show me that it's not the occupation and the illegal land grab of the Wall and the 1967 occupation that is the cause of the violence.  You can't prove anything I wrote wrong so you go towards your knee jerk "It's anti-Semitic" instead of debating the actual facts.  You can't stand it that the nephew of Netanyahu is against the occupation.  You can't stand it that the thuggery of the IDF against children and innocent Palestinians that are collateral damage just might be the root cause as to why people throw rocks and blow themselves up to get back at Israelis.  You can't stand it that the Sayaret Metkal is against the occupation and refuses to serve.

 

Oh and by the way, I'm not from an affluent suburb.  I'm from a rural farming town and I've had to work quite a lot.  But not that I have to justify myself to you.  And by the way, my background doesn't change the facts that are being posted that you refuse to refute.

BTW Apu...you know NOBODY that has been to "Palestine", just like you know no one that has been to "Atlantis", "Lilliput", "Oz", etc. There is no such place as "Palestine" and never will be. (Expect for a town called "Palestine" in Texas)!

[sox4lifeinPA]

(Expect for a town called "Palestine" in Texas)!

 

I've been there...and you don't want to go there twice.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

In 1948 and in 1967, ISRAEL WAS ATTACKED!!! How are you an aggressor if you are the one being attacked.

 

If I saw you on the street and you attacked me and I proceeded to kick your Jew-hating ass, could you then cry self defense???

 

Arafat turned down Israel's offer of 98% of Arafat's demands. Arafat walked away and declared jihad against Israel. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!

If attacked, you have a right to self defense, not going and taking more lands. That's like me attacking you, winning and then setting up camp taking over your backyard. It's imperialism.

 

As for the peace accords:

 

One of the most powerful myths propagated in the US media today is that at the Camp David summit in July 2000, then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak made an amazingly generous offer to the Palestinians that Yasir Arafat wantonly spurned, broke off negotiations and then launched a violent uprising against Israel. No element of this, the most cherished of media myths is true. In fact, Barak's offer was anything but generous. It was Israel that broke off the negotiations, and the committee headed by former US Senator George Mitchell found no evidence to back the Israeli claim that the Palestinian Authority had planned or launched the Intifada.

 

This myth was given life in large part by President Clinton who immediately after the Camp David summit broke his promise to Arafat that no side would be blamed for failure, and went on Israeli television declaring that while Barak made bold compromises for peace, Arafat has missed yet another opportunity. Let's go through the evidence bit by bit.

 

 

Barak's "generous" offer

 

What Barak offered at Camp David was a formula for continued Israeli military occupation under the name of a "state."

 

The proposal would have meant:

 

no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state,

no control of its external borders, limited control of its own water resources, and no full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory as required by international law.

 

 

 

In addition, the Barak plan would have:

 

included continued Israeli military control over large segments of the West Bank, including almost all of the Jordan Valley; codified the right of Israeli forces to be deployed in the Palestinian state at short notice; meant the continued presence of fortified Israeli settlements and Jewish-only roads in the heart of the Palestinian state; and required nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees to relinquish their fundamental human rights in exchange for compensation to be paid not by Israel but by the "international community."

 

At best, Palestinians could expect a kind of super-autonomy within a "Greater Israel", rather than independence, and the devolution of some municipal functions in the parts of Jerusalem inhabited by Palestinians, under continued overall Israeli control.

 

See maps showing what the Israeli proposals would have looked like in reality at www.electronicIntifada.net/coveragetrends/generous.html.

 

John Mearsheimer, professor in the department of political science at the University of Chicago, recognized the limitations of what Palestinians were being asked to accept as a final settlement, concluding that: "it is hard to imagine the Palestinians accepting such a state. Certainly no other nation in the world has such curtailed sovereignty."

[source: "The Impossible Partition," New York Times, January 11, 2001]

 

The reality was far from the wild claims routinely made on the editorial pages of American papers that Barak had offered the Palestinians, 95, 97 or even 100% of the occupied West Bank. Barak himself wrote in a New York Times Op-ed on 24 May 2001 that his vision was for

 

"a gradual process of establishing secure, defensible borders, demarcated so as to encompass more than 80 percent of the Jewish settlers in several settlement blocs over about 15 percent of Judea and Samaria, and to ensure a wide security zone in the Jordan Valley."

[source: "Building a Wall Against Terror," New York Times, 24 May 2001].

 

In other words, if Barak intended to keep 15 percent of "Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank), he could not have offered the Palestinians more than 85 percent.

 

No one can seriously talk about Israel being willing to end its settlement policy if 80 percent of its settlers would have remained in place.

 

Robert Malley who was Clinton's special assistant for Arab-Israeli affairs, participated in the Camp David negotiations. In an important article entitled "Fictions About the Failure At Camp David " published in the New York Times on July 8, 2001, Malley added his own, insider's challenge to the Camp David myth. Not only did he agree that Barak's offer was far from ideal, but made the additional point that Arafat had made far more concessions than anyone gave him credit for. Malley wrote:

 

"Many have come to believe that the Palestinians' rejection of the Camp David ideas exposed an underlying rejection of Israel's right to exist. But consider the facts: The Palestinians were arguing for the creation of a Palestinian state based on the June 4, 1967, borders, living alongside Israel. They accepted the notion of Israeli annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocs. They accepted the principle of Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem -- neighborhoods that were not part of Israel before the Six Day War in 1967. And, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees. No other Arab party that has negotiated with Israel -- not Anwar el-Sadat's Egypt, not King Hussein's Jordan, let alone Hafez al-Assad's Syria -- ever came close to even considering such compromises."

 

Malley rightly concluded that, "If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality."

 

The negotiations continued.

 

While it is true that the July 2000 Camp David summit ended without agreement, the negotiations did not end. They restarted and continued until Barak broke them off in January 2001. Since then Israel has refused to enter political negotiations with the Palestinians.

 

On 19 December 2000, six months after Camp David, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators returned to Washington and continued with negotiations. These negotiations were based on a set of proposals by President Clinton which went beyond Barak's offer of July 2000, but still fell short of minimum Palestinian expecations. Nevertheless, the Palestinians went on with the talks.

 

By some accounts these were proving fruitful. The Los Angeles Times reported on 22 December 2000, that: "Amid signs that the two sides appear to be edging toward some sort of compromise on the emotional issue of Jerusalem, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators worked through the start of the Jewish Hanukkah holiday Thursday expressing a rare shared optimism."

 

[source: Los Angeles Times, December 22, 2000. "Hopeful mood fuels talks on Mideast peace; Negotiations: Israelis, Palestinians work through Jewish holiday as signs surface of a compromise."]

 

In January 2001, the talks moved to Taba, Egypt, where they reportedly continued to make progress. They broke off at the end of January, and were due to resume but Barak canceled a planned meeting with Arafat. Shortly thereafter, Barak lost the election to Ariel Sharon, and the talks have never resumed.

 

The New York Times reported on January 28, 2001:

"Senior Israeli and Palestinian officials concluded nearly a week of stop-and-start negotiations in Taba, Egypt, tonight by saying jointly that they have "never been closer to reaching" a final peace accord but lacked sufficient time to conclude one before the Israeli elections on Feb. 6..... At a joint news conference in Taba, Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami of Israel called the two-way talks, from which the Americans were conspicuously absent, "the most fruitful, constructive, profound negotiations in this phase of the peace process." He said the two sides hoped to pick up where they left off after the elections -- although his boss, Mr. Barak, is expected to lose."

Source: New York Times, January 28, 2001, "Mideast Talks End With Gain But No Accord."

 

So how is it then that all these commentators and Israeli officials continue to deny that talks which the Israeli foreign minister at the time called "the most fruitful, constructive, profound negotiations," never took place? How is it that so many continue to claim that it was the Palestinians who walked away from the bargaining table when it was Israel that stopped the talks and refuses to resume them?

 

And they are occupied territories. Having over 600+ checkpoints in Gaza alone, having constant tanks and military presence there stopping people from going to work, going to their farms, getting hospital care...that's an occupation. Building a wall around cities to make it so there is only one exit and then denying people the opportunity to exit the town.

 

I4E, I'll show you a map before 1948 and the Jewish imperialism and there is a Palestine. Show me an Israel on a non-ancient map pre 1948. Yeah that's what I thought. And hey, I4E, Native Americans had the longest uninterrupted presence here in America...are you fighting for them to gain 100% control of all US land? After all, historically they have the most historic presence in the territories.

 

and

If the "Palis" had decided to fight a "conventional war", I am sure that Israel could have done a lot more to keep civilian casualties at a minimum...it is the "palestinians'" insistance on fighting a terrorist, guerilla war that makes civilian casualties inevitable (collateral damage).

 

Yeah, its difficult to fight a conventional war when one side gets $15 million a day and state of the art military equipment from the US to keep their apartheid supremacist regime in place while the other side can barely get enough food to survive when the IDF won't let farmers go to a field. Desperate times call for desperate measures, just like the sonderkommando did to the SS at the death camps when they revolted. They didn't fight conventionally but it was their only option other than death or being kept in prison camps (which Gaza and the W. Bank are turning into with the wall being built around towns creating prison ghettos) And can you explain to me how 85 Palestinian kids died before the first Israeli kid during the 2nd intifada because reading the causes of death (mostly sniper rifle shots by IDF troops) it seems like Israel just might be targeting kids.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

It's too bad that the "palis" can't use roads, and that the "disputed territories" are being annexed, and that the Security Wall doesn't follow the "green line"; but, in life, "YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW!".

 

The "palis" asked for this...they declared war against Israel, they continue terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, they don't want peace, they are the ones that are "genocidal".

 

Screw them!

So, essentially you're saying that it's too bad that Israelis are having an apartheid Zionist regime?

 

Gee, denying people access to travel, illegal settlements according to international law and taking more land in the W. Bank with the wall...and you have to wonder why people accessorize with dynamite on buses?

 

Deny people rights, their land and kill their kids...they tend to just get a tad bit angry, I4E but as you've said before, the Palestinians are lesser humans so what happens to them doesn't matter...just as long as your little thugs get more land. It's funny that before 1948 when Jews were living in Palestine, they worked side by side fine with the Jews when it was Palestine. Jews lived there in peace with Palestinians. It wasn't until the UN took away over 35% of Palestinian land to create Israel (mainly for the anti-Semitic reason that the US/UK/France didn't want the Jews in their country...check out the history on it) that Palestinians got up in arms saying that it wasn't fair to arbitrarily take their land. So they got angry and tried to fight...so Israel takes more land in self defense? Sorry, that's not self defense. That's imperialism. You have a right to defend yourself...not take another 20% or so of the land.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

VERY FUNNY!

 

Actually, I'd rather be put in a boxing ring with that anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semite weasel.

 

Then I could beat him physically as well as intellectually!

Ah personal attacks...the last bastion of a person who has no argument to make whatsoever. It's quite fun knowing I've already won the debate because you can't dispute any of my points.

[israel4ever]

Ah personal attacks...the last bastion of a person who has no argument to make whatsoever.  It's quite fun knowing I've already won the debate because you can't dispute any of my points.

Make a VALID point and I'll dispute it.

 

Your whole argument is premised on the myth that Israel stole land from the "Palestinians".

 

Like I said, by definition one cannot steal from one's self...so there was NO 'Land grab", NO ILLEGAL OCCUPATION...NO PALESTINE!!!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Make a VALID point and I'll dispute it.

 

Your whole argument is premised on the myth that Israel stole land from the "Palestinians".

 

Like I said, by definition one cannot steal from one's self...so there was NO 'Land grab", NO ILLEGAL OCCUPATION...NO PALESTINE!!!

Gee...methinks, um....THE REST OF THE WORLD OUTSIDE OF ISRAEL would dispute that claim. But I guess that's just one huge anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.

 

Even the US recognizes that Palestine has claims to the land that are legit and hence want Israel out of the W. Bank and Gaza even though we never pressure them as much as we could.

 

By the way, I4E, what is your stance on Mordechai Vanunu?

[israel4ever]

So, essentially you're saying that it's too bad that Israelis are having an apartheid Zionist regime?

 

Gee, denying people access to travel, illegal settlements according to international law and taking more land in the W. Bank with the wall...and you have to wonder why people accessorize with dynamite on buses? 

 

Deny people rights, their land and kill their kids...they tend to just get a tad bit angry, I4E but as you've said before, the Palestinians are lesser humans so what happens to them doesn't matter...just as long as your little thugs get more land.  It's funny that before 1948 when Jews were living in Palestine, they worked side by side fine with the Jews when it was Palestine.  Jews lived there in peace with Palestinians.  It wasn't until the UN took away over 35% of Palestinian land to create Israel (mainly for the anti-Semitic reason that the US/UK/France didn't want the Jews in their country...check out the history on it) that Palestinians got up in arms saying that it wasn't fair to arbitrarily take their land.  So they got angry and tried to fight...so Israel takes more land in self defense?  Sorry, that's not self defense.  That's imperialism.  You have a right to defend yourself...not take another 20% or so of the land.

That's not imperialism...that's war!

 

THE "PALIS" ARE REAPING WHAT THEY'VE SOWN!!!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

That's not imperialism...that's war!

 

THE "PALIS" ARE REAPING WHAT THEY'VE SOWN!!!

There is a difference between self defense and taking over more and more territory.

 

And maybe, just maybe, with this arrogance and imperialism...the Israelis are reaping what they've sown.

[israel4ever]

Gee...methinks, um....THE REST OF THE WORLD OUTSIDE OF ISRAEL would dispute that claim.  But I guess that's just one huge anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.

 

Even the US recognizes that Palestine has claims to the land that are legit and hence want Israel out of the W. Bank and Gaza even though we never pressure them as much as we could.

 

By the way, I4E, what is your stance on Mordechai Vanunu?

Re. Vununu...he is a f***ing traitor, (every country has them!), and should have been tried and executed as a traitor. As I said, you reap what you sow...his day will come!

 

BTW...the (ONLY) reason that Israel "took" land after the wars in 48 and 67 was to create more "protectable" borders, to protect it's citizenry from future (inevitable) attacks!

[israel4ever]

There is a difference between self defense and taking over more and more territory.

 

And maybe, just maybe, with this arrogance and imperialism...the Israelis are reaping what they've sown.

What has Israel sown, they are NOT the aggressors. Never have been!

 

What will they reap...total victory!

[Texsox]

Finally, the Jews have the longest, and most uninterrupted presence in Israel. Additionally, they also have the only legitimate claims biblically, historically and politically.

Are you saying that only Jews belong in Israel?!

 

You do know that Israel is not just for Jews? While 80% of the population is Jewish, that means a lot are not. In many ways this is a civil war. Israel contains lands that are at the epicenter of all the world's major religions. It would be poor policy for Israel to shut the door on non-Jews.

 

Imagine if somehow today the world gave America back to the native americans. You just lost your home and were moved to a settlement in Rockford and a fence was put up along 53. No more going to work without a long wait, no more visiting friends on the other side of the wall. If you dared to protest, you were shot. Along comes a group that claims they can get you back your home. What would you do?