Israel and Palestine - Whose land is it?

[fewwillfindit]

I received an email today, posted below, and thought it would make a good topic for debate. I cannot vouch for the facts posted therein and it provided no source for the contents. This was one of those emails that people forward to everyone in their address book (which I hate), most of which are urban legend and pure bunk. What do you think?

NETANYAHU AT HIS BEST


Even those who arent particularly sympathetic to Israel s Benjamin Netanyahu, could get a good measure of satisfaction from this interview with British Television during the retaliation against Hamas shelling of Israel .

The interviewer asked him: How come so many more Palestinians have been killed in this conflict than Israelis?

Netanyahu: Are you sure that you want to start asking in that direction?

Interviewer: Why not?

Netanyahu: Because in World War II more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyones mind that the war was caused by Germany s aggression. And in response to the German blitz on London , the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden , burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen , some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish childrens hospital, killing 83 little children. Perhaps you have another question?

Apparently, Benjamin Netanyahu gave another interview and was asked about Israel s occupation of Arab lands. His response was, Its our land. The reporter was stunned " read below Its our land Its important information since we dont get fair and accurate reporting from the media and facts tend to get lost in the jumble of daily events.

Crash Course on the Arab-Israeli Conflict.

Here are overlooked facts in the current & past Middle East situation:


BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY


1. Nationhood and Jerusalem : Israel became a nation in 1312 BC, two thousand (2000) years before the rise of Islam.

2 Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.

3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BC, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand (1000) years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.

4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 lasted no more than 22 years.

5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem , they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.

6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Quran.

7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem . Mohammed never came to Jerusalem .

8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem .

9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews . Sixty-eight percent left (many in fear of retaliation by their own brethren, the Arabs), without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The ones who stayed were afforded the same peace, civility, and citizenship rights as everyone else.

10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.

11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.

12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel , a country no larger than the state of New Jersey

13. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.

14. The PLOs Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them.

15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.

16. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel .

17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel .

18. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.

19. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives .

20. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.

Questions for debate:

1) Is this revisionist history or merely anti-Arab propaganda?

2) Do Palestinians have a right to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, or does it rightfully belong to Israel?

[bobroonie]

"Oh, lots of historical precedence...Attila the Hun, etc. But now we have the UN, preceded by the league of Nations, which makes Conquest a crime. This was in recognition of the (I need to mention it in reference to the UN) Nazi invasions, and the ruin it inflicted on the world. Israel and the US have shown the damage it causes to violate this anti-conquest treaty by the wrecks they have made of the countries they occupy."

Every nation today and all of it's borders were created though conquest.

Just because the U.N says Conquest is a crime, it does not make conquest a crime. Just like every other law that conflicts with other laws. It's just a law made by the U.N. Laws differ from nation to nation and even state to state though out the world. If the U.N made these laws and backed them up with a massive military force that stopped EVERY con-questing army throughout the world then it would hold weight because and only because they would be stepping in to stop the so called crime with a more powerful military force.

I'm pretty sure the laws of the American Indians did not allow them to be slaughtered and run off there land but since nobody stopped it, it happened. Now it's American land, owned rightfully by Americans.

Whats to stop any nation from taking land that does not currently belong to them? War and the ability to stop the enemy. THAT'S IT

If you cannot stop the enemy from taking your land, it then belongs to the enemy because they control it.

The laws of the people your conquering and the laws of others not willing to fight for the cause mean nothing.

Time is the factor, you can take a country over, but if you can't control it, you lose it and it will rightfully belong to someone else.

[cnorman18]

I am not yelling for help, but I do have time constraints which limit my ability to fact check the blizzard of unsubstantiated claims thrown up by every pro-Zionist disinfo viral e-mail out there.

"Blizzard"? "Unsubstantiated claims?" "Disinfo viral e-mail"? Fat chance you'll back up any of THOSE "unsubstantiated claims."

Funny, I have time to check YOURS, even though you never post the actual sources for your shocking quotes -- which invariably seem to come from fanatically anti-Israel hate sites. As I said, it would save you some trouble if you occasionally checked your OWN sources.

I save time by referring to the UN, which is the best source of reports involving violations of its own human rights laws. Just an observation: "letting" the Palestinians carry arms is no more a concession to Palestine than "letting" them have their own state.

Excuse me, but Israel not only let the PLO carry arms, they provided those arms under an agreement which the PLO then egregiously reneged upon. No comment on that FACT, of course -- as usual; you might have to acknowledge the existence of actual terrorism, which you continue to pretend doesnt exist.

A lie by omission is still a lie. No answer to that, either, I see. Ever.

Israel is like a broken record in using "legitimate right to self defense" as their only excuse for human rights violations everywhere, including the piratical, Mafia-style murder of unarmed human rights passengers of a relief flotilla recently. Doesn't Palestine have the same rights when they are invaded?

"'Legitimate right to self-defense'" as a "broken record" -- as if --

Oh, I forgot. In your world, Israel has nothing to defend itself AGAINST. There is no terrorism, so there is no NEED for any self-defense. I guess that does make it all very simple and clear for you.

Apparently youve never read any of the reports that those unarmed passengers were armed, or that the entire project was intended to be a provocation and a PR victory from the get-go since it could have been done with Israeli cooperation if they had followed established policy for humanitarian shipments as others have instead of deliberately and unnecessarily violating them, or

Oh, never mind. When have you ever shown the least interest, or even ACKNOWLEDGED, that the Israeli point of view even exists?

When have you ever even ACKNOWLEDGED that the Palestinians primary weapon is the mass murder of innocents by suicide bomb?

You asked what I thought the solution is: same as the UN, which would put the Israelis within the Green Zone and give Palestinians free access to all parts of their State and the right of return to disinfranchised refugees.

Total surrender and dropping their pants and bending over for the terrorists as the terror campaign is still going on, in other words -- even leaving out the huge issue of "repatriation." Thats not a formula for peace, its a formula for national suicide -- and you know, but will never admit, that that wouldnt bring about peace, anyway; the stated objective of the terrorists is the total eradication of Israel proper, Green Line be damned. They have consistently refused to back down from that explicitly stated goal, and till that happens, why should the Israelis give their suicide bombers free access to anything? What would the Palestinians give in response for this insane proposition? An end to the suicide bombings, maybe?

Oh, I forgot -- in your world, there are no suicide bombers and never have been. Gee, great idea, then.

Perhaps this is why the IDF has repeatedly shelled the UN observation post, and murdering its occupants every time they go on a killing spree in Lebanon?

More one-sided and unsourced claims...

As you said, there are lots of quotes out there, including quotes about not recognizing Israel, but many others that do.

Really? Ever posted one? When? Where? Got any from Hamas, or from Islamic Jihad, or from the Al-Aqsa Brigade, or from Hizbollah, or...

As to accuracy of claims, I again refer to the UN investigation

Imagine my surprise. No response to the FACTS I posted about the UN, only ignoring those facts and continuing to appeal to their nonexistent neutrality.

Everyone watch carefully as DeBunkem inadvertently proves my case for me:

Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.

Does that sound unbiased and neutral to anybody out there? Apparently the UN doesnt acknowledge the existence of a terror campaign either. The word "targeted" is 100% appropriate.

Thanks for so effectively PROVING that the UN is totally in the tank for the terrorists and gives tacit approval to anything and everything that they do -- no matter how brutal or egregious, no matter how many unarmed civilians they murder, or how many times, or how proudly they boast of those cruel and cowardly actions as brave and courageous and noble. I appreciate your publicly posting that conclusive proof of UN bias very much.

Lets go on:

Quote:

MIFTAH (www.miftah.org)

Of the memorable quotes featured on MIFTAHs Web site (some of which have already been debunked in Part I), the following is attributed to one Chairman Heilbrun:

We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves.

Source given: Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983

Investigation: The quote is found on numerous anti-Israel sites, in addition to MIFTAHs, but the facts do not check out. While Shlomo Lahat was indeed re-elected as mayor of Tel Aviv in 1983, no record was found of any Chairman Heilbrun. The quote was traced to a 1988 book, The Hidden History of Zionism, by radical Marxist Ralph Schoenman (dismissed by mainstream historians as a crazed conspiracy theorist), and is one of many bogus quotes in the book attributed to Israeli leaders. According to Schoenmans footnote, the quote by Heilbrun was hearsay relayed to him in private conversations:

Cited by Fouzi El-Asmar and Salih Baransi during discussions with the author, October 1983

Needless to say, Schoenmans scholarship, upon which many anti-Israel Web sites depend, leaves much wanting. CAMERA contacted former Mayor Lahat who attested that he has never employed, known or heard of any such person as Chairman Heilbrun, and that the reported incident never took place. Lahat also emphasized that he would never allow any of his employees to make such statements, as it completely contradicts his own sentiments about Palestinians.

Summary: Fabricated quote, fabricated source

How patently obvious that CAMERA (the unstated source here), would come to this conclusion. The Miftah reference is unreadable. They support any IDF depredation, such as the piratical boarding and Mafia-style executions of Human Rights workers on the high seas. Please desist from wasting my time with AIPAC disinformation operations. this is exactly what I am referring to. My reference to the UN report is my last word on this subject. If you do not accept the UN (which also condemns Hamas violations) but keep falling back to AIPAC front groups, then your posts are hopelessly slanted.

"Unstated source"? I have highlighted the reference in the text of your own post, and I note that I also provided a link to that source, which I repeat here. Your slanderous and false implication of deception is absolutely unjustified and speaks for itself.

You're apparently continuing the claim that this fake and fabricated quote is genuine. Do you have any OTHER source for it?

Do you have ANYTHING else to say about ANYTHING in ANY of my posts on this thread?

Any acknowledgment of the terror campaign?

Anything other than continually trying to smear and denigrate and condemn the Israelis as totally evil while consistently and totally ignoring ANY misdeeds or provocation from the other side?

I acknowledge the very valid complaints and concerns of the Palestinians and denounce the "settlements," the extreme positions of some Israelis, and embrace the Israeli and Jewish voices calling for peace and an end to the occupation; I am in favor of a "two-state solution" and call for the establishment of a peaceful and independent Palestinian state where both sides can live in peace.

You, on the other hand, refuse to even acknowledge that Israel has any legitimate interests or concerns at all; that innocent Israelis have been regularly murdered; or that the Arab terrorist organizations explicitly and proudly proclaim their intent to "ethnically cleanse" the Mideast and openly advocate the murder of Jews. You never -- NEVER -- post anything other than anti-Israel propaganda, including horrifying quotes which have been repeatedly proven to be fabricated and false -- which FACTS you then deny, without providing further documentation or revealing your own sources, as I ALWAYS do. You smear and slander, then stand by your smears and slander even when they are exposed.

And now you have the incredible chutzpah to characterize MY posts as "hopelessly slanted."

It wouldn't surprise me if this is indeed "your last word" on this thread, as on so many others on this subject.

'Bye now. Have a lovely day.

[Murad]

I believe in a "two-state solution," with an independent and peaceful Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza; but the single biggest obstacle to that is Arab intransigence and determination to destroy and erase Israel while expelling or exterminating every Jew in the Middle East.

You cant really blame them?
Dont get me wrong; i dont support any terrorism in any way; as its against the authentic teachings of Islam; but, illegal occupation; testing of weapons(white phosphorus); mass jailing civilians; isn't really helping.

You must also understand; the middle easterners arn't too happy with the Americans aswell; and when they supply military funds(In the tens of Billions); while doing absolutely nothing(beside putting a good media show) about the illegal occupation & blockade; its not really a surprise is it?

Also what about the Israeli Prime Ministers that are terrorists?
Menachim Begin
Yitzhak Shamir(former member of LEHI)
Ariel Sharon

So tell me; why doesn't America prosecute them? Do they have any right to evade international law?
Now look at it from a palestinians point of view; America acts like a complete hypocrite when it comes down to hamas.

Those are not matters for debate; they are spelled out explicitly in the charter of every terror organization in the region. If the Arabs, collectively, ever set aside the vicious Nazi-style antisemitism that is deliberately promoted and promulgated by Arab and Muslim leaders and governments, and stop the unending campaign of war, terrorism, hatred and mass murder, peace will come -- inevitably and rather quickly. If they don't, peace will never come at all.

Here is the loop; where we will go around in circles;
Palestine wants all its land back.
Israel wants to exist & wants to expand.


I personally; do not believe in any so called "peace"; as too much has been done; & sadly the once good relationship between the Muslims & Jews can never be the same again.

But i still hope for a miracle; as our history books show peaceful & flourishing co-existence of all abrahamic religions; which we as a humanity could only hope to happen again.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 22:

You cant really blame them?
Dont get me wrong; i dont support any terrorism in any way; as its against the authentic teachings of Islam; but, illegal occupation; testing of weapons(white phosphorus); mass jailing civilians; isn't really helping.

Illegal occupation is relative to a nation's desire to defend itself.

White phosphorus is a legal weapon when applied to military targets. That so many hide civilians among military targets is not the responsibility of the one using WP for attacks against military targets.

Mass jailing of folks is tricky, but I do note if one seeks to limit the ability of the enemy to wage war, locking up legimate enemy combatants is legal.

I do agree that such methods are "not helping" when one's enemy uses such as an excuse for further attacks.

You must also understand; the middle easterners arn't too happy with the Americans aswell...

Who are they happy with?

...and when they supply military funds(In the tens of Billions)

Yet Iran supplying Hamas with weapons is fine?

while doing absolutely nothing(beside putting a good media show) about the illegal occupation & blockade; its not really a surprise is it?

I can think of few better military tactics than taking the land of those who bomb my citizens from that land, and blocking any and all militarily useful items from entering. I note that Israel has procedures in place to supply its enemies with the minimal needs of life.

Also what about the Israeli Prime Ministers that are terrorists?
Menachim Begin
Yitzhak Shamir(former member of LEHI)
Ariel Sharon

Please present pertinent data for examination.

So tell me; why doesn't America prosecute them? Do they have any right to evade international law?

International law, in the form of UN resolutions says Israel has a right to exist. They then have a responsibility to defend their citizens from attack.

Now look at it from a palestinians point of view; America acts like a complete hypocrite when it comes down to hamas.

A known terror orginization whose aims are to remove the internationally recognized Israel from the globe.

Here is the loop; where we will go around in circles;
Palestine wants all its land back.
Israel wants to exist & wants to expand.

I think this is a fair argument, except when considered in the light of international law as you do above.

Further, Israel has repeatedly offered land for peace, only to be rebuffed.

I personally; do not believe in any so called "peace"; as too much has been done; & sadly the once good relationship between the Muslims & Jews can never be the same again.

Agreed. I think this is about the worst part of it all.

But i still hope for a miracle; as our history books show peaceful & flourishing co-existence of all abrahamic religions; which we as a humanity could only hope to happen again.

Yet the "flourishing of", and inability to get along of one of those religions has brought upon such horrors as we see today, within and without their own lands.

[cnorman18]

I believe in a "two-state solution," with an independent and peaceful Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza; but the single biggest obstacle to that is Arab intransigence and determination to destroy and erase Israel while expelling or exterminating every Jew in the Middle East.

You cant really blame them?

That is, right out front, excusing and justifying the mass murder of innocents. Lets get that clear. In spite of the disclaimers to follow, thats what it absolutely is.

Dont get me wrong; i dont support any terrorism in any way; as its against the authentic teachings of Islam; but, illegal occupation; testing of weapons(white phosphorus); mass jailing civilians; isn't really helping.

And the hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of suicide-bomb attacks against Israeli civilians are? And the fact that the Palestinian terrorists hide their fighting men, bombs, and weapons in schools, hospitals and mosques, and use ambulances and men disguised as pregnant women in labor to help them in their campaign of mass murder -- all of which are WAR CRIMES under the Geneva convention -- are not worthy of notice? Joeys remarks here are precisely on point, and Id add that the Palestinian terrorists have no warrant for complaining about criminal attacks and brutality against civilians that occurs as a side effect of the battle against murderers till they stop their own deliberate targeting of unarmed civilian noncombatants.

You must also understand; the middle easterners arn't too happy with the Americans aswell; and when they supply military funds(In the tens of Billions); while doing absolutely nothing(beside putting a good media show) about the illegal occupation & blockade; its not really a surprise is it?

Well, first, the illegal occupation came about because of a war of aggression against Israel in 1967, and though the West Bank was offered back to Jordan in return for a peace treaty, that offer was rejected out of hand; thats proven fact, because the SAME offer was made to Egypt for the return of the Sinai, which also came under control of Israel in that war, and Egypt and Israel are at peace today because THAT offer was accepted. The Israelis dont WANT the West Bank, and they keep trying to give it to the Arabs; but as long as the price is stop murdering Israelis, it seems to be too high.

Second, the US also gives billions to Egypt, Iraq before the war, Jordan, Syria, the Gulf states, and on and on. Israel gets more, yes; but Israel is the only free and democratic state in the Mideast, a close economic and cultural ally as well as a military one, and its not like the Arabs arent standing in line with their hands out too -- and getting their own billions in aid.

Third, the blockade is entirely legal and legitimate. There are channels for bringing humanitarian aid into Gaza, as long as its inspected by the Israelis to make sure that that humanitarian aid doesnt include bombs, weapons, and materials for building more and more tunnels and smuggling more bombs and weapons. I can think of no reason why actual humanitarian aid would require running the blockade -- except, of course, to provoke a confrontation for PR and propaganda purposes, which of course in fact happened.

Also what about the Israeli Prime Ministers that are terrorists?
Menachim Begin
Yitzhak Shamir(former member of LEHI)
Ariel Sharon

So tell me; why doesn't America prosecute them? Do they have any right to evade international law?

Well, first, there is that little matter of jurisdiction.

Second, crimes that occurred in wartime more than 60 years ago still being waved as fresh bloody shirts seems more than a little out of place to me in the present debate. Its also interesting to note that one doesnt see any tales of Israeli terrorists SINCE 1948 (and see the note on Sharon below).

As I keep saying to DeBunkem, there have been a very great many events since 1967, and God knows since 1948, that seem to get no attention whatever from the Palestinian side -- not to mention crimes from that side from that time, too, and even predating it. Mass murderers of civilians being currently celebrated as heroes and martyrs, for starters. You wont see Israelis, other than a few extremists (like those who applaud the execrable murderer Baruch Goldstein), celebrating or commemorating the extreme acts of the men youve named above from 60 years ago; whereas acknowledged present-day terrorists who murder unarmed families at Passover seders and Bar Mitzvahs, at bus stops and discotheques and pizzerias, are hailed as brave freedom fighters and their families rewarded with cash and celebrity status. Lets not have any criticism of so-called Israeli terrorists from the Palestinians till the mass murder of unarmed civilians by suicide bombers no longer sees support from a majority of Palestinians in every survey that anyone takes. Thats called hypocrisy.

Specifically on the subject of Ariel Sharons war criminal status, which is generally primarily attributed to his conduct regarding the Sabra and Shatila massacres, I have a small problem. Here it is:

From Wikipedia:

The Sabra and Shatila massacre took place in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, Lebanon between September 16 and September 18, 1982, during the Lebanese civil war. Palestinian and Lebanese civilians were massacred in the camps by Christian Lebanese Phalangists while the camp was surrounded by Israeli forces. The Phalangists stood under the direct command of Elie Hobeika, who later became a long-serving Member of Parliament and, in the 1990s, a cabinet minister.Robert Maroun Hatem, Elie Hobeika's bodyguard, stated in his book From Israel to Damascus that Hobeika ordered the massacre of civilians in defiance of Israeli instructions to behave like a "dignified" army. Pierre Rehov, a documentary filmmaker who worked on the case with former Lebanese soldiers, while making his film Holy Land: Christians in Peril, came to the conclusion that Hobeika was definitely responsible for the massacre, despite the orders he had received from Ariel Sharon to behave humanely

Heres my problem; while Sharon was pilloried as allowing the massacre at Sabra and Shatila, the man who inarguably actually carried it out, Elie Hobeika (aka Elias Khobeika), was subsequently hailed as a hero and a patriot by the Lebanese people! He became the commander of the Lebanese Forces, a member of Parliament, a Government minister! Heres the guy with the actual blood on his hands and who bragged about it -- but was there ever any interest whatever in prosecuting HIM? That word hypocrisy keeps coming to mind.

I quite understand the criticism of Ariel Sharon; he was, as the Israelis themselves found, at least indirectly responsible for the massacre. But what about the man who was directly responsible? His name seems to have vanished from the debate, while Sharons is still trumpeted to the skies.

Now look at it from a palestinians point of view; America acts like a complete hypocrite when it comes down to hamas.

Those are not matters for debate; they are spelled out explicitly in the charter of every terror organization in the region. If the Arabs, collectively, ever set aside the vicious Nazi-style antisemitism that is deliberately promoted and promulgated by Arab and Muslim leaders and governments, and stop the unending campaign of war, terrorism, hatred and mass murder, peace will come -- inevitably and rather quickly. If they don't, peace will never come at all.

Here is the loop; where we will go around in circles;
Palestine wants all its land back.

Lets stop there for just a moment.

Are you OK with that goal? If so, we can stop here, because we have nothing to talk about. Till that demand is dropped, completely, there can never be peace, and there is nothing whatever that Israel can do to remedy that. Its nice to see someone on the Palestinian side actually ADMIT it, but -- since you did bring it up -- how on Earth can the Israelis be expected to respond to that? What can be done, on the Israeli side, about that demand? Pack up and go back to Europe, when by now the majority of Israelis were born in Israel? How can there ever be peace until that demand is dropped? Why, after 60+ years, is it even a demand that anyone should take seriously?

How do you negotiate with people who say, right out front, We want you all dead or exiled? Who is the obstacle to peace where THIS issue is concerned, and why is that not the key issue here?

Israel wants to exist & wants to expand.

Do they really? Some extremists want all of the West Bank, but some wanted Gaza too, and they were all evacuated and their settlements emptied. The overwhelming majority of Israelis just want Israel, and to be left alone in peace. Thats Israeli government policy too. Thats proven, and conclusively, by the unanswered offer at Camp David of 97% of the land that the Palestinians demanded in the West Bank and Gaza, and Israeli land to compensate for the rest. Even if that offer was not sufficient for some reason -- none was ever given -- it was a serious offer, and no counteroffer or effort to actually negotiate ever followed it. Who is willing to negotiate and make concrete offers here, and who is intransigent and bent on the scorched-earth total defeat and destruction of their perceived enemies?

There is also the small matter that if the Arabs had accepted partition in 1948, that would have resulted in a two-state solution THEN, and avoided the following 60 years of war and untold deaths and destruction on both sides. Why is everyone pretending that that solution will even bring peace, when, as you say yourself, the Arabs goal is no Israel?

Once again; How do you make peace with people whose only goal, openly and explicitly stated, is We want to kill you all or drive you into the sea?

I personally; do not believe in any so called "peace"; as too much has been done; & sadly the once good relationship between the Muslims & Jews can never be the same again.

But i still hope for a miracle; as our history books show peaceful & flourishing co-existence of all abrahamic religions; which we as a humanity could only hope to happen again.

I agree that its unlikely; but I place the blame at the feet of the Palestinians. Here are some questions for YOU, all from the same site. You will see some of the issues mentioned above gone into here, and many more. Complain about the bias of the site all you like, but they are pertinent, on-point, and factually-based questions that no one -- repeat, NO ONE -- on the Palestinian side wants to even acknowledge, let alone see become a part of this debate. If youre going to bring up the terrorist past of Menachem Begin, fine; how about these? These are pertinent, on-point, and important issues, and I for one am growing more than a little tired of the echoing silence about them, not only from the Palestinians, but from the supposedly evenhanded and unbiased "world press" as well.

Will they be ignored and dismissed again? Or actually dealt with here? I know where I'm placing MY bet.

The Middle East: Back to Basics

David Harris, Executive Director, AJC

In the flood of daily news reports coming from the Middle East, too many questions about the broader nature and context of the Arab-Israeli conflict are unasked. Absent the larger picture, however, it is difficult if not impossible to understand what is really going on and how we reached this point. Here are a few of the pertinent questions:

Why did the Arab world categorically reject the UN's 1947 Partition Plan, which would have created both a Jewish and a Palestinian state in what was then British-ruled Palestine, and could have avoided over 50 years of subsequent conflict?

Did those Arab countries -- Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria -- that spurned Israel's outstretched hand of peace and launched a war of destruction on the very first day of Israel's establishment believe they could do so without being held accountable for helping create a refugee problem for local Arabs? What war in history has not produced refugees either as a goal or a by-product?

Has there been any comparable situation in the world where refugees -- as in this case, Palestinians -- have not been resettled, but deliberately kept in camps for as long as three generations, so as to incubate hatred and garner world sympathy? Are Palestinians the world's first -- or only -- refugees? Why do we hear so little about the nearly 25 million other refugees in the world today? Are they any less deserving of sympathy and support?

Why is it that none of the 22 Arab countries -- with the single exception of Jordan -- who share ethnic, religious, and linguistic ties with the Palestinians, has offered Palestinians citizenship and a new start?

Why has the world completely ignored the other refugee population created by the Arab-Israeli conflict -- the 750,000 Jews from Arab countries (more or less equaling the number of Palestinian refugees at the time), many of them with roots in these countries predating by centuries the arrival of Islam, forced to leave their ancestral homes because of second-class status and pogroms? Is it because these refugees were quickly resettled in Israel rather than placed in camps and manipulated as the Palestinians were?

And why did the world conveniently overlook persistent Jordanian violations of the armistice agreement for nearly 19 years (1948-1967), when Amman did not allow Jews any access whatsoever to Judaism's holiest site -- the Western Wall -- and desecrated dozens of synagogues in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem as well as Jewish cemeteries on the Mount of Olives?

Did Israel come into possession of the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, and eastern Jerusalem -- the lands it is now accused of illegally occupying -- totally out of the blue?

Is the historical record not absolutely clear that Egypt and Syria threatened Israel with annihilation in the months leading up to the 1967 Six-Day War and closed off the shipping lane to the Israeli Red Sea port of Eilat, itself an act of war under international law?

And that Israel urged Jordan, via UN intermediaries, to stay out of the unfolding conflict, which would have meant continued Jordanian control of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem?

Speaking of these territories, if the Arab world cared so deeply about the Palestinian condition, why were absolutely no steps taken to create a Palestinian state between 1948 and 1967, when the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem were in Jordanian hands and the Gaza Strip was ruled by Egypt?

Has the world forgotten that the PLO was created in 1964, when the only "occupied" land was Israel itself, the target of the PLO's unprecedented campaign of terror that eventually spanned the globe and counted among its many victims not only Israelis but Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to the Sudan, and Europeans as well?

Are we to forget the Arab world's response to the serious Israeli peace overtures after the 1967 Six-Day War, which came most memorably in the "three noes" of the Khartoum Declaration (August 1967) -- "no peace, no recognition, and no negotiation?" In the face of such a reply, is history simply supposed to stand still until one side finally gets it right?

Are we to overlook the PLO's record in Jordan, where Arafat agreed to 22 cease-fires with Jordan's King Hussein until he was banished from the country in 1970 after the violence of Black September resulted in the deaths of thousands?

Or subsequently in Lebanon, where the PLO created a state-within-a-state and Arafat helped launch a prolonged and bloody civil war that erupted in 1975 -- seven years before Israeli troops entered Lebanon -- and during which he violated more than 70 cease-fires?

Why didn't the Palestinian leadership, if truly serious about peace, take its cue from Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Jordan's King Hussein, who concluded landmark peace agreements with Israel -- involving significant territorial compromises on Israel's part -- by persuading Israelis that Cairo and Amman were irrevocably committed to peace?

Even after Arafat allegedly recognized Israel in 1988, why was he always so duplicitous about his real intentions toward Israel, saying one thing in English and precisely the opposite in Arabic?

Does the world suffer from amnesia about the implications of Arafat's unbridled support for Saddam Hussein, the American-led coalition's enemy, during the 1991 Gulf War?

And for those who purport to identify with the plight of the Palestinians, where were they when Kuwait summarily expelled 300,000 Palestinians overnight, accusing them of being a fifth column for Saddam Hussein?

Once the 1993 Oslo Accords were signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, were we to ignore Arafat's persistent violations of just about every provision, including limitations on the size of a police force, acquisition of weapons, use of violence and terror to achieve political aims, and the teaching of incitement against Israel?

Where is the evidence that, after 1993, Arafat prepared his people for peace with Israel, based on the principle of painful but necessary compromises by both sides, rather than continued armed struggle?

Is it not true, Palestinian claims to the contrary, that the Oslo Accords made no reference to Israeli settlements and that the subsequent Mitchell Plan spoke of curtailing settlement activity only after Palestinian violence came to a halt -- which, of course, has not yet happened -- and a cooling-off period ensued?

Are we simply to ignore, as if it never happened, the determined efforts of President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak as recently as January 2001 to achieve an historic breakthrough with Arafat, including painful compromises on such contentious issues as Jerusalem, refugees, and settlements?

Or to wonder why Arafat, rather than seize this extraordinary moment to establish the very first Palestinian state in history, sabotaged the talks -- and thereby once again betrayed the interests of his own people -- by bizarrely dismissing any Jewish historical or religious link to Jerusalem and calling for the so-called Palestinian "right of return," which would, as he knew so well, lead to the destruction of the State of Israel?

Are we to conveniently overlook the ominous implications of the Karine-A affair, the ship laden with 50 tons of advanced weaponry, including lethal rockets with a range of 12 miles, headed for Palestinian territory from Iran, a nation on the record as denying Israel"s right to exist and bent on its destruction? Or Arafat's brazen lie when he pleaded ignorance about the ship -- not the first such ship, by the way -- in a letter to President Bush?

But then hasn't a clear pattern of lies, distortions, deceptions, and exaggerations always been part of the modus operandi of Arafat and his spokesmen, too often uncritically reported by a gullible or smitten Western press?

How about the wildly exaggerated casualty figures in Lebanon in 1982 claimed by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (chaired by Arafat's brother), the libelous accusations about Israeli doctors injecting the HIV virus in Palestinian children made by the Palestinian delegate to the UN in Geneva, the lies about Israeli use of poison gas made by Arafat's wife, and, most recently, the effort by the Palestinian Authority to recast a fierce armed battle in Jenin -- involving Palestinian gunmen, booby-trapped homes, and mines placed in the midst of a civilian population -- into a massacre?

Or what about the deliberate and macabre use of children -- their brainwashing and approved suicide -- in the Palestinian war of terror against Israel? Shouldn't this inhuman practice be universally condemned? Why hasn't the UN expressed itself on the matter?

Or what about the cash payments -- perhaps, more accurately, incentives -- of $25,000 given by Saddam Hussein's Iraq to the families of each of these so-called martyrs, actually murderers, with additional money coming from Saudi Arabia?

Are we supposed to ignore, as if it has no relevance, the endless revelations of Arafat's direct connection to terror -- the smoking-gun documents found in Ramallah, the direct links between Arafat and armed terrorist groups under his control that have claimed responsibility for terrorist attacks against Israeli men, women, and children, and the ties between Arafat and Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, all groups long committed to Israel's total destruction?

Or Arafat's refusal to arrest known Palestinian terrorists, despite repeated pleas by the United States, or, almost as outrageous, arresting them while the world is watching and then releasing them as soon as he has been given credit for the arrests?

Or the use of summary justice to kill alleged collaborators, while not a peep is heard from the international community?

Or the calculated use of homes, schools, hospitals, ambulances, and religious sites to hide weaponry and shield gunmen, so that when Palestinians shoot at Israelis from behind a church, say, they hope to draw a response and then count on the Western media to report that Israeli troops fired at Christian holy sites?

Speaking of the media, why is that no one exposes some of the dirty, dark secrets known to many reporters covering the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, such as the use of fear and intimidation by Palestinians, or the fact that many of the crews for Western television are recruited from the local Palestinian population?

Did anyone notice the shockingly skimpy coverage of the media angle of the barbaric Ramallah lynching of the two Israeli soldiers in the fall of 2000? Where were the stories about the Palestinian seizure of the films of Western crews or, above all, the startling disclosure by the correspondent for RAI, Italian public television, that the film eventually smuggled out and shown worldwide was not his (it actually came from a private Italian station) because he would never do anything to undermine the Palestinian cause?

More recently, why were we once again subject to a virtual media blackout when thousands of Palestinians took to the streets on September 11 to celebrate America's day of agony? Why were we not told that Associated Press had footage of those celebrations but chose not to air it after threats were made on the life of its reporter on the ground?

And when the media showed the world images of Israel bulldozing homes in Gaza, suggesting the ruthlessness of Israel, why did they not mention that those houses, mostly abandoned, were hiding the access points to tunnels linking Gaza and Egypt and were being used for smuggling weapons?

Moreover, isn't it long overdue for Arab spokesmen -- and the world -- to face head-on the steady diet of racial and religious incitement against Israel and Jews that has become a permanent feature of government-controlled media in too many countries -- replete with Nazi-like images, Holocaust denial, and denigration of Judaism?

Why did it take The New York Times, the newspaper of record, until April 19, 2001 to write an editorial on the subject, when the problem of virulent anti-Semitism, both in the Muslim world and, as we have now seen so vividly, in Europe"has been festering for 18 months, if not longer?

Didn't it take the same newspaper just about 48 hours to write an editorial condemning the alleged threats against the Brooklyn family of Adam Shapiro, the Jewish-born Palestinian activist, a story, incidentally, that died just as quickly as it surfaced?

How can a true foundation of peace ever be built if the inflammatory language of hate and calls for "holy war" fill the air in mosques and media outlets, as well as in European Union-funded schools?

Or if the Syrian president, in the presence of Pope John Paul II last spring, can reawaken the outrageous deicide charge, and then proceed merrily along his way to warm state receptions in Paris and Madrid and, a few months later, celebrate his country's election to a two-year term on the powerful UN Security Council, a body that Israel has never even been eligible to serve on since its admission to the UN in 1949?

Or if the Syrian minister of defense can proudly claim authorship of a 1983 book that accuses Jews of the infamous blood libel charge?

Or if Saudi censors can approve an article by a prominent medical professor, written on the eve of Vice President Cheney's recent visit, claiming that Jews need the blood of Christians and Muslims for their Purim and Passover ritual foods?

Had today's 18-year-old Palestinian youths been taught peace and mutual respect since the 1993 Oslo Accords rather than hate, would they be blowing themselves up in Israeli cafs and restaurants? Or might they be enjoying the fruits of statehood, side by side with Israel, and the chance for a brighter future that they, like youngsters everywhere, so richly deserve?

Why is that we witness a vigorous and impressive debate in democratic Israel about every aspect of the conflict with the Palestinians, but there is nothing remotely comparable in Palestinian society and, what's more, few stop to note the difference, or its implications?

Why do virtually no Palestinians (or Arabs) have the courage publicly to examine their own role and responsibility for reaching this point in the conflict, and instead contentedly shift the entire blame to Israel, the United States, world Jewry, or any other convenient scapegoat -- in other words, anyone other than themselves?

Where are the voices of honesty and good will to expose the unspeakably perverse historical distortions committed by Palestinians and their supporters when they obscenely choose Nazi analogies to describe Israeli leaders and their policies? Or where is the criticism of a noted Portuguese writer who outlandishly compares Ramallah to Auschwitz?

Why is it that non-governmental groups that claim to defend democratic values and human rights are so vocal when it comes to criticizing Israel -- a nation committed to those very same values -- and so deafeningly silent when it comes to Israel's adversaries, none of whom make even the slightest pretense of respecting either democracy or human rights?

How much do we hear from these groups about the fact that, according to Freedom House, not one of the 22 Arab countries today can be labeled democratic?

Or about the tens of thousands of people killed in the Algerian civil war; the two million -- yes, two million -- people killed in the war against Christians and animists in Sudan; the complete denial of women's rights in Saudi Arabia, including even the right to drive a car, or the asylum granted by Saudi Arabia to one of the twentieth century's leading butchers, Idi Amin of Uganda; the total suppression of the Baha'i faith in Iran; or the unrelenting persecution of homosexuals in Egypt?

Why have we never heard a peep for 20 years from these groups about the actual perpetrator of the 1982 massacre in Sabra and Shatila -- Elias Khobeika, the commander of the Phalange militia and, later, a cabinet member in the Lebanese government?

And what about the ongoing occupation of Lebanon by Syria, a country that does not even recognize Lebanon's independence and sovereignty? For those who allege concern about "occupation," why are they not heard from on this naked act of aggression?

Why is it that Israel so captures the imagination of these groups while other, truly egregious human rights situations do not?

And isn't the situation precisely the same at the United Nations, where, given the simple, unalterable fact that it's all about numbers, Israel doesn't stand a chance against a bloc of 22 Arab countries and a group of 57 countries that form the Organization of the Islamic Conference?

What are the odds on Israel receiving a fair hearing in that world body, when the deck is so overwhelmingly stacked against it? Conversely, how much attention will the UN ever pay to serious human rights abuses in the Muslim world given the organization's make-up?

Are we to ignore the situation on university campuses here at home, where Jewish and pro-Israel students are increasingly harassed and intimidated if they stand up for Israel or, in the case of two students at Berkeley, physically assaulted? Or where the student leader of an Arab group at NYU that distributed a vile, anti-Semitic screed by the infamous David Duke, written shortly after September 11, was honored this month with the university's prestigious President's Service Award?

And last but by no means least, why do so many fail to understand that Israel is facing a threat to its existence and has every right and obligation to defend itself against an enemy that has no compunction about sending suicide bombers to target a Passover Seder or a bar mitzvah celebration?

That Israel, unlike any other nation on the face of this earth, has actually been fighting this war with one hand tied behind its back because of its own democratic and ethical values and because its every action is being scrutinized microscopically by the UN, Europe, the media, and human rights groups? What other country has chosen to expose its troops to far greater risks than might otherwise be the case for these reasons?

Anyone care to remember how our nation fought the war against Serbia? Wasn't it from 35,000 feet up to prevent U.S. casualties, even if some of our bombs inevitably hit civilian targets, including the Chinese Embassy?

Anyone care to remember that, during the British-Argentine war over the Falkland (or Malvinas) Islands, Whitehall deliberately kept the media far away from the war zone, yet no one questioned the British commitment to democratic values?

Isn't it painfully clear that any failure of resolve on Israel's part in the current Palestinian war of terror will only encourage its enemies to believe that the ultimate goal of Israel's destruction is within reach, and thereby diminish still further the chances for a peaceful resolution of the conflict?

And that there is a profound moral distinction, as we in the United States should especially appreciate after September 11, between those terrorist groups that destroy and those armies that seek to prevent the destruction?
Did the United States exercise restraint or rush into negotiations with Al Qaeda and the Taliban after September 11?

Has the United States been willing to enter into face-to-face peace talks with Saddam Hussein since the 1991 Gulf War?

Has our country sat down to negotiate with Cuba's Fidel Castro, positioned just 90 miles off the coast of Florida, since he seized power over four decades ago, much less lifted the economic sanctions we imposed at the time?

Hasn't Israel time and again demonstrated its willingness to take unparalleled risks in the quest for peace, while at the very same time operating with a miniscule margin for error, since the country at its narrowest point (pre-1967) was exactly nine miles -- nine miles! -- wide and, given its topography and concentrated population, all the more dangerously vulnerable?

As a consequence, shouldn't those critics outside Israel -- at least, those whose intentions toward Israel are honorable -- show just a bit more intellectual humility about trying to second-guess Israel's life-and-death decisions?

And shouldn't they show just a bit more understanding of the extraordinary dilemmas -- and dangers -- Israel faces no matter which way it seeks to turn?

And shouldn't they show just a bit more recognition of the fact that Israel today does not have a credible negotiating partner in the Palestinian Authority and can't pretend that it does?

And shouldn't they show just a bit more appreciation of the fact that no people -- I repeat, no people -- seeks peace more than the Israelis, precisely because they've not known a single day of it since the state's founding in 1948, but that peace at any price, history has painfully taught us, is worse than no peace at all?

How about dealing with at least a few of those questions? Will you? CAN you?

Im tired of seeing only one side of this conflict presented as if there was no other. Im tired of seeing the Palestinians presented as total innocents, terrorism being justified and excused (which, in spite of your disclaimer, you have done here), and the Israelis presented as bloody-handed minions of pure evil and cruelty whose brutalities come out of a vacuum with no provocation at all.

I respect your point of view; I respect your intelligence and your good will. But I have to ask; have you ever even considered any of these questions, or read anything from the Israeli side that does?

Do you have anything to say on these questions? If so, what is it?

[Murad]

You cant really blame them?
Dont get me wrong; i dont support any terrorism in any way; as its against the authentic teachings of Islam; but, illegal occupation; testing of weapons(white phosphorus); mass jailing civilians; isn't really helping.

Illegal occupation is relative to a nation's desire to defend itself.

Precisely.
Im sure you agree; this is how israel compromises international law.

White phosphorus is a legal weapon when applied to military targets. That so many hide civilians among military targets is not the responsibility of the one using WP for attacks against military targets.

The 'Democratic' Government of Israel has been purposely attacking geographic locations of Gaza where they know innocent citizens are.
Calling this 'collateral damage' makes me sick; or calling this 'caught in the crossfire' is blatently a lie.

Mass jailing of folks is tricky, but I do note if one seeks to limit the ability of the enemy to wage war, locking up legimate enemy combatants is legal.

Yes; but many are being held without charge; if a dominant male of a family gets jailed for an 'unspecified' reason; how on earth will their family survive; expecially when they live in Gaza?

I do agree that such methods are "not helping" when one's enemy uses such as an excuse for further attacks.

I share your opinion; adding fuel to the fire doesn't help.

You must also understand; the middle easterners arn't too happy with the Americans aswell...

Who are they happy with?

They are pretty much Neutral with every country; except Israel; America; Britain.

...and when they supply military funds(In the tens of Billions)

Yet Iran supplying Hamas with weapons is fine?

Ofcourse its not; but do you see where im going with this?

I note that Israel has procedures in place to supply its enemies with the minimal needs of life.

Is that sufficient?
Humanity's history of Warfare; shows captive prisoners were given 'minimal needs of life'
Do you take palestinians as prisoners in their own land?

Also what about the Israeli Prime Ministers that are terrorists?
Menachim Begin
Yitzhak Shamir(former member of LEHI)
Ariel Sharon

Please present pertinent data for examination.

Here is a brief overview:

# Menachim Begin took part in terrorist acts in the 1940s, including the attack on the King David Hotel which killed 91 people.

Begin ordered ... the destruction of the central British administrative offices in the King David Hotel. " Jewish Virtual Library

In 1946, Jewish terrorists agitating for their own state in British-occupied Palestine blew up Jerusalem's King David Hotel, killing 91. Two years later, an independent Israel was established. "There were a lot of innocent British women and children killed there," says Hanson. "But in the end, it worked; the British left." " Some Dirty Little Secrets About Terrorism

# Yitzhak Shamir was the operations commander, and later leader, of the Stern Gang, a terrorist group which was responsible for a string of political assassinations.

Shamir was a member of two militant Jewish underground organizations which ... were active in counter-terrorist acts against Arabs as well as sabotage against the British. " The Department for Jewish Zionist Education (Note the use of the term counter-terrorist to disguise terrorism.)

In post-war British-mandated Palestine the words Stern Gang equalled "terrorism" " assassinations, bombings, the full works. ... Yitzhak Shamir had been the gang's operations commander. ... By appointing Shamir Foreign Minister, Prime Minister Menachem Begin had selected the organiser of two famous assassinations: the killing of Lord Moyne, the British Minister representative in the Middle East, in 1944, and that of Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN's special Mediator on Palestine, in 1948. " Stern Gang: what does 'mekhabbel' mean?

During the fight for Jewish statehood, extremist military groups sometimes resorted to the use of terrorist tactics. One such instance occurred in 1948 when members of the Jewish underground organization LEHI (Fighters for the Freedom of Israel) killed UN Peace Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte to protest his diplomatic efforts to modify the Palestine partition plan. ... Yitzhak Shamir reputedly played a role in planning the assassination; however, he was never tried and went on to become Prime Minister of Israel. " The Assassination of Count Bernadotte

# Ariel Sharon initiated the Sabra-Shatila massacre in which between 1000 and 3000 people (mostly Palestinians) were murdered, and now leads a terrorist campaign against all Palestinians living in the occupied territories of the West Bank.

As commander of the notorious Unit 101, Sharon led attacks on Palestinian villages in which women and children were killed. The massacre in the West Bank village of Qibya, on October 14, 1953, was perhaps the most notorious. His troops blew up 45 houses and 69 Palestinian civilians " about half of them women and children " were killed. " The Electronic Intifada

No one has ever been tried for the massacre, but an official Israeli commission of inquiry found that Israel's defense minister at the time, Ariel Sharon, "bears personal responsibility" as well as "indirect responsibility." It was Sharon, after all, who had ordered the Israel Defense Forces to invade Beirut and surround the camps. ... Like Pinochet and other war criminals, Sharon and his Phalangist underlings should be brought to book; if they can successfully evade justice, then it will give heart to killers everywhere. " Marking a Massacre, The Nation

Sharon's preemptive logic undercuts all form of dialogue and negotiations. Its rule of thumb is violence, and then more violence, whether it manifests itself as a military attack or as an aggressive act of dispossession. So while it may seem that the bloody routine is in some way preordained, it is actually Sharon's preemptive zeal alongside Hamas' and Islamic Jihad's fundamentalism that has clouded the horizon and concealed, as Arendt might have said, the possibility for a better future. " Neve Gordon, Sharon's Preemptive Zeal, Counterpunch, 2003-09-24

So tell me; why doesn't America prosecute them? Do they have any right to evade international law?

International law, in the form of UN resolutions says Israel has a right to exist. They then have a responsibility to defend their citizens from attack.

This is the point we should emphasize a bit more.
It is this exact excuse the Israeli government uses to infringe international laws.
Hamas thinks they are doing the exact same; 'defending their citizens & rights'.... does that give them the right to evade international law?

Now look at it from a palestinians point of view; America acts like a complete hypocrite when it comes down to hamas.

A known terror orginization whose aims are to remove the internationally recognized Israel from the globe.

What does 'terrorist' necessarily mean?

# Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist

No doubt i see hamas as a terrorist militant group; no doubt at all.
BUT; using the same cognitive process that gave me this conclusion; i can apply it to Israel; and conclude with a similar result.

Further, Israel has repeatedly offered land for peace, only to be rebuffed.

Thats the thing; Palestine see's Israel offering something that isn't theirs.
No doubt i disagree with Palastine; i believe Israel has the right to some land; but the exact geographic location; and quantity is left for debate.
____________________________________

I believe in a "two-state solution," with an independent and peaceful Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza; but the single biggest obstacle to that is Arab intransigence and determination to destroy and erase Israel while expelling or exterminating every Jew in the Middle East.

You cant really blame them?

That is, right out front, excusing and justifying the mass murder of innocents. Lets get that clear. In spite of the disclaimers to follow, thats what it absolutely is.

Let me give you a different perspective.
Im a kurd; a people with no country; no where to go.
On the collapse of the Islamic Khilafah; the kurds were left out of any agreement to ownership of land. Hence i can understand the Israeli position. The kurds were/and still are; scattered among the middle east. Often prosecuted in different countries for no reason; & the women raped; their language banned in countries such as 'turkey'; and all kinds of hardship are being faced by the kurds.
Not as extreme as the 'holocaust'; but alot of hardships nevertheless.
Like all oppressed people that believe their 'rights' have been taken away; a kurdish militant group named "PKK" was born; its fuel was its ideology that their people were being abused; and thus they initiated in killings with the hope that they get recognized & their rights get restored.
I dont support any killing; and my subjective position differs from generally accepted Sharia.
But; i do not (and speech mark) "blame" the PKK for their actions.
These are my subjective beliefs.

Dont get me wrong; i dont support any terrorism in any way; as its against the authentic teachings of Islam; but, illegal occupation; testing of weapons(white phosphorus); mass jailing civilians; isn't really helping.

And the hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of suicide-bomb attacks against Israeli civilians are?

Ofcourse not; and they never will & can be justified; but wait; do you equate the "Democratic" government of Israel to 'terrorist' groups?

And the fact that the Palestinian terrorists hide their fighting men, bombs, and weapons in schools, hospitals and mosques, and use ambulances and men disguised as pregnant women in labor to help them in their campaign of mass murder -- all of which are WAR CRIMES under the Geneva convention -- are not worthy of notice?

I share this perception; its really sad.

Joeys remarks here are precisely on point, and Id add that the Palestinian terrorists have no warrant for complaining about criminal attacks and brutality against civilians that occurs as a side effect of the battle against murderers till they stop their own deliberate targeting of unarmed civilian noncombatants.

There are a few factors here.
1) Palestine is not under any real 'governance'(state of anarchy).
2) Palestine is surrounded by israeli blockades
3) Palestine is threatened by the expanding Israel.
4) The people of Palestine are becomming more radical; as a result of all this.

Lets compare:

1) Israel is under a "Democratic Government"
2) Israel is the Big Boss(Nuclear Power); & controls the blockades
3) Israel is threatened by the arab countries; but this threat is unnulled with its nuclear capacity & allyship with the US & Britain.
4) The people of Israel are becomming more patriotic; as a result of all the hate thats directed towards them.

Conclusion:
It takes two to tango.
And Newtons third law:
For every action there is an opposite reaction.

The Israelis dont WANT the West Bank, and they keep trying to give it to the Arabs; but as long as the price is stop murdering Israelis, it seems to be too high.

What about the building of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank? Either the Israelis are doing it for no reason; OR they want the land.
Which sounds more logical?

Third, the blockade is entirely legal and legitimate.

I disagree.
Can you provide proof that the blockade is "Entirely legal & legitimate"?

The law or armed conflict requires that blockading states allow aid through to the civilian population; however, the blockading state may control the channel through which aid is delivered, and that is what Israel has been doing. The authority to intercept vessels and control aid deliveries, however, is available only in a lawful blockade. To be lawful, a blockade must not be implemented where the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade, and this is where Israels legal position is open to question.

Israels defense of the blockade thus appears to create a serious dilemma for it. Insofar as Israel insists that it is not currently occupying Gaza, it cannot plausibly claim that it is involved in an IAC with Hamas. And if it is not currently involved in an IAC with Hamas, it is difficult to see how it can legally justify the blockade of Gaza. Its blockade of Gaza, therefore, seems to depend on its willingness to concede that it is occupying Gaza and is thus in an IAC with Hamas. But Israel does not want to do that, because it would then be bound by the very restrictive rules of belligerent occupation in the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Well, first, there is that little matter of jurisdiction.

Second, crimes that occurred in wartime more than 60 years ago still being waved as fresh bloody shirts seems more than a little out of place to me in the present debate. Its also interesting to note that one doesnt see any tales of Israeli terrorists SINCE 1948 (and see the note on Sharon below).

I disagree; i dont believe israeli jurisdiction should allow terrorists to evade international law.
And time is not an excuse. I cannot emphasize that enough.
Lets say; if miraculously...; there was peace with the two parties(Israel & Palestine).
And the hamas leaders obtained high roles within the Government that was formed; does that allow them to evade international law? No. They should be prosecuted like any other terrorist. They should be subjected to law; no matter what the national jurisdiction is.

As I keep saying to DeBunkem, there have been a very great many events since 1967, and God knows since 1948, that seem to get no attention whatever from the Palestinian side

I agree; it seems the conflict has made the Palestinians more "barbaric" in nature. (no offense to anyone)

You wont see Israelis, other than a few extremists (like those who applaud the execrable murderer Baruch Goldstein), celebrating or commemorating the extreme acts of the men youve named above from 60 years ago; whereas acknowledged present-day terrorists who murder unarmed families at Passover seders and Bar Mitzvahs, at bus stops and discotheques and pizzerias, are hailed as brave freedom fighters and their families rewarded with cash and celebrity status.

I agree with you; although you should understand the state of Palestine is similar to the state of Israel when it did not exist.
The same way Israelis saw "LEHI" as a noble cause for the Jewish people; thats the exact same way Palestianians see "Hamas".

Lets not have any criticism of so-called Israeli terrorists from the Palestinians till the mass murder of unarmed civilians by suicide bombers no longer sees support from a majority of Palestinians in every survey that anyone takes. Thats called hypocrisy.

Indeed it is "hypocrisy" as you put it.
But like i said earlier; it takes two to tango.
Israel "Defending" itself; is the same as Palestine "Defending"; both nations commit barbaric acts and are human rights violators & there is no excuse that can be made up to justify their acts.
I disagree with both parties & i dont endorse either side in what they do; i hope you can understand my position.

Now look at it from a palestinians point of view; America acts like a complete hypocrite when it comes down to hamas.

Those are not matters for debate; they are spelled out explicitly in the charter of every terror organization in the region. If the Arabs, collectively, ever set aside the vicious Nazi-style antisemitism that is deliberately promoted and promulgated by Arab and Muslim leaders and governments, and stop the unending campaign of war, terrorism, hatred and mass murder, peace will come -- inevitably and rather quickly. If they don't, peace will never come at all.

It seems you are putting all the blame on the arabs? I dont disagree with you; there is a very evident element of antisemitism; but i dont agree with your wording that makes it seem the arabs are the sole party to blame in this conflict.
The Jews are equally responsible; it takes two to tango; i acknowledge the palestinian faults; you dont seem to acknowledge any israeli faults.
I repeat; it takes two to tango.

Here is the loop; where we will go around in circles;
Palestine wants all its land back.

Lets stop there for just a moment.

Are you OK with that goal? If so, we can stop here, because we have nothing to talk about.

If your talking about the Palestinian Goal; ofcourse not. Its an illogical & ridiculous goal. And i believe Israel has a right to exist; the same way Kurds have a right to exist.

Till that demand is dropped, completely, there can never be peace, and there is nothing whatever that Israel can do to remedy that. Its nice to see someone on the Palestinian side actually ADMIT it, but -- since you did bring it up -- how on Earth can the Israelis be expected to respond to that?

I have no idea; it seems currently impossible.
But i have no doubt the 2 parties can come to a compromise; and until they do come to a compromise; i agree; there will never be peace.

How do you negotiate with people who say, right out front, We want you all dead or exiled? Who is the obstacle to peace where THIS issue is concerned, and why is that not the key issue here?

I dont intend to negotiate with or for terrorists; and you are generalising too much.
Thats like a palestinian saying "Israel is causing all the problems; they took land that belonged to us & their country is rightfully ours"

cnorman18; you keep repeating yourself with the intention to prove Palestine alone is the reason for the conflict. If this is your aim; there is no point of me continuing this discussion; as we cannot conclude from such different positions.
But what we can do is acknowledge the faults both sides have; and thus we both can gain a better understanding of "the other side".... does that sound reasonable to you?

Israel wants to exist & wants to expand.

Do they really?

From 2000 to 2010; thats what illegal israeli settlements are telling us.

Who is willing to negotiate and make concrete offers here, and who is intransigent and bent on the scorched-earth total defeat and destruction of their perceived enemies?

Although you are sugar coating a bit too much; i agree with you. There has to be some sort of compromise.

There is also the small matter that if the Arabs had accepted partition in 1948, that would have resulted in a two-state solution THEN, and avoided the following 60 years of war and untold deaths and destruction on both sides. Why is everyone pretending that that solution will even bring peace, when, as you say yourself, the Arabs goal is no Israel?

A very good question; even if the two parties come down to a solution; will there really be peace? No; i dont believe so; not straight away nevertheless.

But; im more than sure; Israel & Palestine wont be as hostile as they are now; and slowly the newer generations will reduce their hate for one another.

Once again; How do you make peace with people whose only goal, openly and explicitly stated, is We want to kill you all or drive you into the sea?

That is the goal of Hamas; not the palestinians as a whole; but as i said before; the Palestinians have become more barbaric because of this conflict.
The word 'compromise' is the most important word we can apply; both sides have to apply that word in order for any peace to come. Expecially the Palestinians. But also the Israelis.

I personally; do not believe in any so called "peace"; as too much has been done; & sadly the once good relationship between the Muslims & Jews can never be the same again.

But i still hope for a miracle; as our history books show peaceful & flourishing co-existence of all abrahamic religions; which we as a humanity could only hope to happen again.

I agree that its unlikely; but I place the blame at the feet of the Palestinians.

I dont blame anyone because im a firm believe in "it takes two to tango"; and i disagree with your position that Palestine is soley to blame.

Here are some questions for YOU

How about dealing with at least a few of those questions? Will you? CAN you?

Could you present them one/two/three at a time? I dont intend to make a rebuttal to a whole page.

Im tired of seeing only one side of this conflict presented as if there was no other. Im tired of seeing the Palestinians presented as total innocents, terrorism being justified and excused (which, in spite of your disclaimer, you have done here), and the Israelis presented as bloody-handed minions of pure evil and cruelty whose brutalities come out of a vacuum with no provocation at all.

I agree; this is very unfair.
Thats why i can relate to you unlike most muslims. Because im kurdish.
I know how ridiculous it feels when all the blame is directed to you.

But i never denied or presented myself as the Palestinians being "Innocent" people(I even called them more barbaric).
The main quote i wanted to emphasize was "It takes two to tango"; this is what you seem to not accept.

I respect your point of view; I respect your intelligence and your good will.

Mutual respect is a requirment for any civil talk/debate. And no matter how strongly one feels about something; it should never be used as an excuse to infringe another persons rights. This is the ideology i want the Palestinians to have.

But I have to ask; have you ever even considered any of these questions, or read anything from the Israeli side that does?

Yes; im generally unbiased when it comes to this topic; although i have personal beliefs that sometimes conflict with how "unbiased" i really am. Nevetheless; im 50-50 or sometimes 60-40.

Yes i've actually debated with Jews; personally; face-to-face. In university; there was a guy named Joseph that was in my class(we both studied abrahmic divinity); and i had the pleasure to discuss many topics with him.
He rid me of any previous stereotypes i had; so yes; i have evaluated the Israeli position. And it has only reinforced my belief that both parties have faults; no matter how big or small; they both have contributed to the conflict; and they both have the power reduce hostility if they only compromise.

I often say both sides should compromise; but i dont know how to fully define 'compromise'; or what it really means.
Generally i believe; both sides should sacrifice a belief; or ideology; so that the other side benefits. That sounds like a good start.

Do you have anything to say on these questions? If so, what is it?

As i said earlier; pick the questions you believe have the most significance; and i wouldn't mind giving my 2 cents.

[DeBunkem]

"Oh, lots of historical precedence...Attila the Hun, etc. But now we have the UN, preceded by the league of Nations, which makes Conquest a crime. This was in recognition of the (I need to mention it in reference to the UN) Nazi invasions, and the ruin it inflicted on the world. Israel and the US have shown the damage it causes to violate this anti-conquest treaty by the wrecks they have made of the countries they occupy."

Every nation today and all of it's borders were created though conquest.

Just because the U.N says Conquest is a crime, it does not make conquest a crime. Just like every other law that conflicts with other laws. It's just a law made by the U.N. Laws differ from nation to nation and even state to state though out the world. If the U.N made these laws and backed them up with a massive military force that stopped EVERY con-questing army throughout the world then it would hold weight because and only because they would be stepping in to stop the so called crime with a more powerful military force.

I'm pretty sure the laws of the American Indians did not allow them to be slaughtered and run off there land but since nobody stopped it, it happened. Now it's American land, owned rightfully by Americans.

Whats to stop any nation from taking land that does not currently belong to them? War and the ability to stop the enemy. THAT'S IT

If you cannot stop the enemy from taking your land, it then belongs to the enemy because they control it.

The laws of the people your conquering and the laws of others not willing to fight for the cause mean nothing.

Time is the factor, you can take a country over, but if you can't control it, you lose it and it will rightfully belong to someone else.

Well, I'm sure you wouldn't fight back if some foreign nation invaded your country, killed your family, seized your posessions, bulldozed you house, and corralled you in a ghetto. Perhaps you would be too afraid that someone might call you a terrorist. It interests me to note that so many who support Israeli and US ME policies find eloquent ways to honor barbarism, as if International Law did not exist. We've come a long way since the Enlightenment.....NOT.

[DeBunkem]

It is a frequent claim that Palestinian Resistance fighters herded into a crowded ghetto are repeatedly charged with "hiding" in their own population. The UN report notes:

The incidents described include:
Attacks in the Samouni neighbourhood, in Zeitoun, south of Gaza City, including the shelling of a house where soldiers had forced Palestinian civilians to assemble;
Seven incidents concerning the shooting of civilians while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, .

There are also confirmed incidents of IDF shelling the UNRWA shelter, including the the use of white phosphorus; totally illegal, and if not for the courageous action of UN staff, would have ignited the fuel depot, causing a Holocaust.
Again, it is no surprise that Zionists and their unquestioning supporters would take a John Bolton-style contempt for the UN. It is the only organization on site that can report the plain facts of war crimes and atrocities on either side...it has no self-interest in propagandizing this conflict. In fact, in both Occupied Palestine and Iraq, it has repeatedly come under military attack with nothing to gain but observing the facts.
The use of disproportionate force is also a violation of Judaic and Christian basic priciples. "An eye for an eye" is an outright repudiation of the IDF's attacks. Christianity goes another step in "turn the other cheek."
When I said that Palestinians should have free access to their own State I was referring to a proposed Palestine, not a proposed Israel behind the Green Line.

It probably should be debated on another thread, but there is no other unbiased (other than for the facts as far as it is possible to confirm) that I know of except the UN. NeoCons and Zionists reject it for obvious reasons, but the US and Israel are members and we are under international law, as plainly stated in the Constitution. So with all due respect, defend the IDF from UN reports if you can...not AIPAC or NeoCon propaganda.



Mission Members

The Mission is headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, former member of the South African Constitutional Court and former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The three other mission members are:

Professor Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science, who was a member of the High Level Fact Finding Mission to Beit Hanoun (2008);

Ms. Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and former Special Representative of the Secretary General on Human Rights Defenders, who was a member of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2004);

and Colonel Desmond Travers, a former officer in the Irish Armed Forces and member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations (IICI).

As is usual practice, the Mission is supported by a Secretariat provided by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hr ... za_FMM.doc

[cnorman18]

It is a frequent claim that Palestinian Resistance fighters herded into a crowded ghetto are repeatedly charged with "hiding" in their own population. The UN report notes:

The incidents described include:
Attacks in the Samouni neighbourhood, in Zeitoun, south of Gaza City, including the shelling of a house where soldiers had forced Palestinian civilians to assemble;
Seven incidents concerning the shooting of civilians while they were trying to leave their homes to walk to a safer place, .

There are also confirmed incidents of IDF shelling the UNRWA shelter, including the the use of white phosphorus; totally illegal, and if not for the courageous action of UN staff, would have ignited the fuel depot, causing a Holocaust.
Again, it is no surprise that Zionists and their unquestioning supporters would take a John Bolton-style contempt for the UN. It is the only organization on site that can report the plain facts of war crimes and atrocities on either side...it has no self-interest in propagandizing this conflict. In fact, in both Occupied Palestine and Iraq, it has repeatedly come under military attack with nothing to gain but observing the facts.
The use of disproportionate force is also a violation of Judaic and Christian basic priciples. "An eye for an eye" is an outright repudiation of the IDF's attacks. Christianity goes another step in "turn the other cheek."
When I said that Palestinians should have free access to their own State I was referring to a proposed Palestine, not a proposed Israel behind the Green Line.

It probably should be debated on another thread, but there is no other unbiased (other than for the facts as far as it is possible to confirm) that I know of except the UN. NeoCons and Zionists reject it for obvious reasons, but the US and Israel are members and we are under international law, as plainly stated in the Constitution. So with all due respect, defend the IDF from UN reports if you can...not AIPAC or NeoCon propaganda.



Mission Members

The Mission is headed by Justice Richard Goldstone, former member of the South African Constitutional Court and former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The three other mission members are:

Professor Christine Chinkin, Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science, who was a member of the High Level Fact Finding Mission to Beit Hanoun (2008);

Ms. Hina Jilani, Advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan and former Special Representative of the Secretary General on Human Rights Defenders, who was a member of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur (2004);

and Colonel Desmond Travers, a former officer in the Irish Armed Forces and member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for International Criminal Investigations (IICI).

As is usual practice, the Mission is supported by a Secretariat provided by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hr ... za_FMM.doc

The FACT that you yourself posted proves UN bias against the Israelis and in favor of the Palestinians beyond all doubt or question:

Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.

So much for the UN being a fair arbiter. Find another argument.

And feel free to field any of the questions I posted to Murad as well -- as opposed to ignoring them, continuing to refuse to acknowledge the EXISTENCE of the campaign of mass murder of innocents, and attempting to distract with fake quotes and biased "reports" from an organization that YOU have conclusively proven is in the tank for the terrorists.

"Last word." Yeah. Right.

[bobroonie]

Well, I'm sure you wouldn't fight back if some foreign nation invaded your country, killed your family, seized your posessions, bulldozed you house, and corralled you in a ghetto. Perhaps you would be too afraid that someone might call you a terrorist. It interests me to note that so many who support Israeli and US ME policies find eloquent ways to honor barbarism, as if International Law did not exist. We've come a long way since the Enlightenment.....NOT.

You misunderstand my stance on the matter.

I believe in land by conquest because like it or not our world was built on it. I believe that if Israel wants to occupy a land mass, for what ever reason be it greed or defense, if nobody can/will stop them, the land rightfully belongs to Israel.

Right and wrong are relative and time is a huge factor, so I cannot take a personal or moral side on the matter of Israel or Palestine. They both have past and present claim to the land. They both are killing each other for it so they both have continual hatred for each other.

The "crimes" of those taking the land are only crimes if they can be prosecuted. The U.N, U.S or any Arabic country can call out war crimes all they want, but if nobody does anything about it, it is not a crime. It's just another nations law that conflicts with another nations set of laws.

I do not believe that the past delegates to who, which land mass belongs too. Again time would be the factor, and the length of time would be relative.

If Saddam was able to invade Kuwait and take control of the country, the country would rightfully belong to him, until a more powerful country was able to fight him for it and take control. Kuwait would then belong to the predecessor, and it would then be up to the predecessor to decide what happens to the country.

The world is not a fair or safe place and it never will be. I do not see a Utopia any time in the near future, so I do not expect people to live by the same standards.

I have always said the difference between a terrorist and a patriot was time. And I do not call the actions of Palestinians to be war crimes by targeting Israeli civilians and visa versa. They are at war fighting under their own set of laws over a land mass that has claim to both. IMO Israel is actually being lenient with Hamas and Palestine and should at the least be commended for that. If Israel really wanted they could march a much larger, much more powerful war campaign on Palestine. Like it or not there is almost nothing any Arabic country with military ties to Palestine can do about it. Sure it would look "bad" to other countries but if nobody stops them so what. If Israel can control that country long enough the world would start to justify them controlling it.

If you are openly declaring war on another country, if you do not posses the military power to fight a modernized war, you have to fight by any means. If you and others feel the need to fight for your rights, what ever YOU feel those rights should be, it is my opinion you are not a "terrorist" in the excepted media form since in a straight definition anyone can be considered a terrorist. And if you win the war you would be a patriot to you and your people by "freeing" yourself and others from a tyrant. But this comes at a price, you cannot wage war against an enemy and expect them to fight "your" war. Or expect mercy if they have the power to kill all of you.