Inquiry into Israel's Use

[israel4ever]

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?

Again many good points, but you're missing THE point. If the land was never that of the "Palestinians", how could it have been stolen from them?

 

Obviously, Israel is not 100% for Jews, nor is it 100% Jewish. In fact, Arabs are treated better and have more rights in Israel than they do in ANY Arab country.

 

That being said, I don't see how you, Apu or anyone else can fathom rewarding "Pali" terrorists by giving them part (or all) of Israel. They deserve nothing.

 

If/when the get Gaza, they will have to be self-sufficient...they will perish on their own because they are technologically, politically, and economically retarded!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

You and APU at it again? Damn, you two are like a couple of schoolkids brawling after school every day.

[sox4lifeinPA]

I'm not going to lie to you...these threads pretty much don't do crap for this website

 

let's start another "sing a lyric from a song" thread

 

[israel4ever]

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

 

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.

Apu, why are you so scared of facts?

 

Just look at the "sources" cited in this thread! I know you never would read anything considered "conservative", but, how about something "moderate"?

 

You cite the NY Times, LA Times and various (left wing) pro-"Pali" books. All of these "sources" OBVIOUSLY have a (far) left wing liberal agenda...thus will ALWAYS be anti-Israel.

 

 

BTW...Pre 1948 Israel was "Palestine" in name only, it was a Jewish State even then!

[israel4ever]

I'm not going to lie to you...these threads pretty much don't do crap for this website

 

let's start another "sing a lyric from a song" thread

 

I agree...I'm with you!

 

I will not respond to anymore of Apu's (asinine, devoid of facts) postings. He is obviously afraid of real facts (like those in history books!), and is not intelligent enough to look at any "sources of information" unless they are (far) left wing liberal b.s.

 

I urge the MODS to close this thread, and to not allow anymore threads on this volatile topic!

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Vile left wing BS yet we're supposed to believe Horowitz and Pipes and Frontpage Magazine. That's pretty laughable there, I4E. Ah but instead of debating the facts introduced you just claim it's left wing and therefore bad instead of disproving their claims.

[israel4ever]

As I said, ALL of the "sources" Apu cites have a far left wing agenda. I know, I read a lot of them on a regular basis (I am a pro-choice, tree-hugger!) I also read Front Page, World News Daily, etc., I like to get ALL sides of an issue, then make an EDUCATED decision.

 

Apu obviously ONLY reads from his left wing "sources", thus only see his side of the issues. Bad policy, Apu, especially, when you try to come off as educated/intelligent!

[Texsox]

Again many good points, but you're missing THE point. If the land was never that of the "Palestinians", how could it have been stolen from them?

 

Obviously, Israel is not 100% for Jews, nor is it 100% Jewish. In fact, Arabs are treated better and have more rights in Israel than they do in ANY Arab country.

Please define ownership? If someone buys the land, do they own it. Or are you speaking of an ancient right to lands? If an Arab buys a home in Israel does he have a right to it and is it his? Or can Israel claim it always?

 

Are you stating that Arabs in Israel are treated better and have more rights than Arabs in the US, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, etc.?

 

What is interesting is you are a liberal in US politics and an extreme hardliner and conservative in Israel.

[israel4ever]

You and APU at it again?  Damn, you two are like a couple of schoolkids brawling after school every day.

Except that he's "unarmed"! That's why I'm kicking his ass...he keeps coming at me with made-up "information"!

[whitesoxfan99]

[sox4lifeinPA]

OMG!!!!

 

 

hahahahah

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I4E, I'd rather read people who aren't apt to lying as Horowitz has been known to do. Hence reading historical documents, reading people like Ran HaCohen who actually is in Tel Aviv and other such people are a lot more accurate than a lying asshat like Horowitz (you should do a nice google search for Horowitz lies and you can come up with a ton)

 

I actually don't read a lot of the mainstream news. Mostly it's Haaretz, Guardian Unlimited and links from a wide variety of non-Zionist sites because Zionism betrayed the Jews during World War II. (read Lenni Brenner's "51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis")

 

Made up information? You're the one claiming photos are doctored for no other reason than the fact that tying a kid to a Hummer is a completely indefensible position. You can't fight back against the Truth and thusly you go towards personal insults and saying stuff is bulls*** yet you give no reason why.

[israel4ever]

Please define ownership? If someone buys the land, do they own it. Or are you speaking of an ancient right to lands? If an Arab buys a home in Israel does he have a right to it and is it his? Or can Israel claim it always?

 

Are you stating that Arabs in Israel are treated better and have more rights than Arabs in the US, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, etc.?

 

What is interesting is you are a liberal in US politics and an extreme hardliner and conservative in Israel.

G-d gave the Israel to the Jews (Abraham). It's in the Old Testament, I don't know where exactly.

 

Arabs can own homes and property in Israel, and have the same rights as Jewish homeowners. (BTW...there are no Arab countries in which a Jew can own property.)

 

Arabs in Israel can run for, and are elected to public office. There are currently several Arabs in Knesset. The typical Arab could never run for office in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or any other Arab country.

 

The reason that I am a "liberal" on some issues and a "conservative" on others is BECAUSE I LOOK AT EACH ISSUE INDIVIDUALLY, RESEARCH THEM, AND FORM MY OWN OPINION THEREFROM. For a person to label themselves a "liberal" or a "conservative" is stupid...each issue is independant from one another.

[israel4ever]

OMG!!!!

 

 

hahahahah

Too funny!!!!

[Texsox]

Arabs in Israel can run for, and are elected to public office. There are currently several Arabs in Knesset. The typical Arab could never run for office in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or any other Arab country.

Who is elected to office in Arab countries? Only non Arabs? I am losing you here.

[whitesoxfan99]

G-d gave the Israel to the Jews (Abraham). It's in the Old Testament, I don't know where exactly.

I'm not going to get into the rest of this argument because I don't care to but nothing from any religious text should be used in political debate. The reason is that the old testament is God's word according to man. Take everything in any religious text with a grain of salt because it is man's view of what God wants them to do. And if you believe that story verbatim then you also have to believe that there really was an Adam and Eve, a Noah's ark, etc.. You can't just pick bits and pieces out of the old testatment to fit your argument.

[israel4ever]

It's funny when Apu alleges that Zionists conspired with Nazis, when the "Palestinians" are EXACTLY LIKE NAZIS!!!

 

The "palis" entire existance is based on killing (ALL) Jews and destroying Israel. Sounds like Naziism to me!

[israel4ever]

Who is elected to office in Arab countries? Only non Arabs? I am losing you here.

Arab countries are mostly dictatorships and/or monarchies. There are No real Arab democracies.

[Texsox]

The "palis" entire existance is based on killing (ALL) Jews and destroying Israel. Sounds like Naziism to me!

Do you believe that has been their "entire existance " from the dawn of time? Or when did that start?

 

What do you mean by entire existance? Are you claiming that all Palistinians are the same with the same goals and desires? Do Israelis have the same single purpose, the same unified goals, or do some thing independently?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Do you believe that has been their "entire existance " from the dawn of time? Or when did that start?

 

What do you mean by entire existance? Are you claiming that all Palistinians are the same with the same goals and desires? Do Israelis have the same single purpose, the same unified goals, or do some thing independently?

There weren't any suicide bombers killing Israelis pre-1948 imperialism. For years since the late 19th Century when Jews purchased land there and lived there working...things were peaceful. Only after the UN came in and gave 55% of the land to Israel and then Israel took another 23% of it with 90,000 troops in 1948 is why the Palestinians accessorize with dynamite. If they got millions in aid every day, they could use helicopter gunships too.

 

And obviously some do things independently. Check out the "s***" List (s*** = Self Hating and/or Israel Threatening" Jews) online. And hey, can't forget the hero Mordechai Vanunu and the members of the Sayaret Metkal that refuse to serve in the occupied territories.

[israel4ever]

I'm not going to get into the rest of this argument because I don't care to but nothing from any religious text should be used in political debate.  The reason is that the old testament is God's word according to man.  Take everything in any religious text with a grain of salt because it is man's view of what God wants them to do.  And if you believe that story verbatim then you also have to believe that there really was an Adam and Eve, a Noah's ark, etc..  You can't just pick bits and pieces out of the old testatment to fit your argument.

I agree.

 

If you want to talk solely from an historical or geopolitical point of view, for every "source" that disputes Israel as the Jewish homeland, I can produce 100 that proves the opposite.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

It's funny when Apu alleges that Zionists conspired with Nazis, when the "Palestinians" are EXACTLY LIKE NAZIS!!!

 

The "palis" entire existance is based on killing (ALL) Jews and destroying Israel. Sounds like Naziism to me!

I guess rounding people up in ghettos, having military checkpoints forcing people around, beating people for no reason, random gassings of towns. Taking over 88% of the land (when the wall is finished) and compressing millions into an already incredibly dense area where they cannot leave. Gee, that's not Nazi-like at all.

 

The irony of what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians is so striking. You'd figure a group of people who were so badly affected by a police state would not commit the same actions against another group of people...but damn, the Likudniks are some really greedy people.

[israel4ever]

Do you believe that has been their "entire existance " from the dawn of time? Or when did that start?

 

What do you mean by entire existance? Are you claiming that all Palistinians are the same with the same goals and desires? Do Israelis have the same single purpose, the same unified goals, or do some thing independently?

Arabs only started calling themselves "Palestinians" since 1948. As of that date, their sole purpose has been to eliminate the Israel.

 

The Palestinian Charter calls for the "destruction of the Jewish state".

[israel4ever]

I guess rounding people up in ghettos, having military checkpoints forcing people around, beating people for no reason, random gassings of towns.  Taking over 88% of the land (when the wall is finished) and compressing millions into an already incredibly dense area where they cannot leave.  Gee, that's not Nazi-like at all.

 

The irony of what the Jews are doing to the Palestinians is so striking.  You'd figure a group of people who were so badly affected by a police state would not commit the same actions against another group of people...but damn, the Likudniks are some really greedy people.

You really are ignorant, Apu.

 

If the "palis" don't like it, they can always go back to their REAL (historical) homeland...Jordan. Ooops, that's right, no one wants them there either. History's mutts!

 

Keep on wasting your parents' tuition money...you're getting some education.

[sox4lifeinPA]

You really are ignorant, Apu.

 

If the "palis" don't like it, they can always go back to their REAL (historical) homeland...Jordan. Ooops, that's right, no one wants them there either. History's mutts!

 

Keep on wasting your parents' tuition money...you're getting some education.

what happened to not responding to Apu's posts?

 

this is ridiculous