Israel to build 323 new homes at W. Bank Settlement

[leftchick]

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israel announced Thursday it will go ahead with plans for construction of hundreds of new homes in Jewish settlements in the West Bank, the second time in a month it has defied a U.S.-backed peace plan on this issue.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20031023/ts_nm/mideast_dc

<snip>

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat condemned the project as well as Israel's decision Wednesday to press on with construction of a barrier in the West Bank despite a United Nations (news - web sites) resolution demanding it be torn down.


Urging the United States to intervene to stop construction of the barrier and the new homes, he added: "Settlements and walls are the number one obstacle to peace."


An Israeli Housing Ministry official said invitations to bid on construction had been announced for 143 new apartments in the Karnei Shomron settlement in the northern West Bank and 180 in Givat Zeev near Jerusalem.

[patdem]

1. How nice it would be for Isreal to build for the Palestians

They tear down so many homes...to say...we destroyed these homes because of terrorists...and we build these homes for the GOOD Palestians...(who are vetted) would go a VERY LONG way towards peace in the Middle East!!!

[mmm]

2. What a nice thought!

WOW!

[ldf]

24. in essence, i believe they are building for the palestinians...

because they WILL eventually have to return to the 1948 (or whenever it was approved) boundaries set up by the UN. what they will do, however, is destroy everything they have built, rather than allow the palestinians to benefit from it.

over the years i have done a 180 on the middle east situation. i had nothing but respect for the jewish people, who have suffered tremendously, yet still managed to accomplish so much.

but watching them since the 1967 war, i have lost that respect.

look at it like this... (obviously simplified, but ...)

who was kicked off the land so that there could be a state of israel? the palestinians.

why do the israelis have the right to the land? because, according to THEIR god, the land was their's, the chosen people descended from isaac, the father of the nation of israel. it did not belong to the palestinians, who are the "bastard offspring" of isaac. (god fucked up big time on that little arrangement. too bad he didn't have a crystal ball...)

so the palestinians, in their anger, screamed about destroying the state of israel. understandable reaction, given the circumstances.

the palestinians who are watching this, fight back, trying to regain what they feel is rightfully theirs, with any method available, causing many israeli deaths.

meanwhile, israel invades and occupies palestinian land, for "security" purposes. the palestinians, and their militias eventually agree to drop the "plank" about destroying israel from their charter. even while that is happening, israel, especially under sharon, thinks it can build settlements anywhere it damn well pleases, and the land is theirs. (is not one of their precious commandments "thou shalt not steal"?)

israel continues to take the hard line, afterall that is why sharon is in power. he knew what he was doing when he took armed israeli soldiers onto a sacred muslim site, and he got the response he wanted.

the palestinians respond.

then israel starts bombing and destroying palestinian homes, to teach the palestinians a lesson. suicide attacks on israel increase.

so...

israel has invaded the palestinian homeland, under the guise of security, when they are obviously the second most powerful military force on the planet, and they refuse to give up what they have stolen.

if israel agreed to return to the original boundaries, they would see a remarkable change in the palestinian response. the palestinians know they will never be able to destroy israel, but now they are fighting for what israel has taken from them, beyond the UN agreed boundaries. who of us, would not do the same, if our homes were taken, and/or destroyed?

eventually we will have an american president that insists that a peace in the middle east (at least between the israelis and palestinians) must occur, and apply the pressure for it to really happen.

just you wait. they WILL return to the 1948 boundaries.

until they get off the palestinian's land, they can just get used to be "suicided".

so sad that the chosen people's god could not see the death and destruction he was setting into play.

but then again, almost all the death and destruction now in play, and throughout history, has been at the foot of the force of some religion.

now, please, in all your rightous indignation, you may proceed to rip me to shreds......

[Resistance]

26. I think this is a great post

and I agree with nearly everything you say, except, I am wondering - do you really mean to say that you have lost respect for Jewish people? If you are saying that, I have to disagree completely. You just can't pin the aggression and ethnic cleansing committed by any State on the people whom that State claims to represent. Remember that some of the greatest critics of Israel are themselves Jewish.

If you didn't mean it as it came out in your post, then maybe you could clarify your position a bit further?

[ldf]

45. clarification

may apologies for taking so long to reply, i don't have a lot of time when i can post. which is the reason that although i have been on du since early 2001, i have so few posts.

anyway, i do make a distinction between a person, and a state. i tried to use the term israeli to indicate my concern with the actions of the state, vs what individuals do.

however, i did state that i had "lost respect" for the jewish people, and probably should have said israel instead.

i know it is so trite, but i have many dear friends, and co-workers, who are jewish. i work in a major jewish institution in nyc. i try not to categorize them in with the actions of the state of israel, the same way i try not to categorize against texans, in spite of the horror they have wrought on us.

but i also have to point out that sharon, and the other right wing governments, were elected. the same way we americans almost elected george w. bush.

the mindsets that allow that to take place is truly upsetting. both for them, and for us.

i certainly hope that the world does not hold us individual americans responsible for the abortion of democracy that is currently squatting in al gore's whitehouse. i can at least take comfort that our election was stolen.

i also promised myself to never, NEVER get involved in an I/P thread. unfortunately this time i just could not keep my fingers quiet. additional settlements is the absolute last thing that the region needs.

[JNelson6563]

39. In an excellent article in

Mother Jones there was a long story about hte settlements and how it is impossible to figure out just what they cost. There was also a quote from Sharon about "run and grab everything you can--get all the land possible" (paraphrasing here) while to the rest of the world putting on an act about fairness and two-state solutions.

Between the extremists on the Zionist side and the really angry extremists on the Palestinian side there will be nothing left one fo these days.

Julie

[Resistance]

3. Oh

Do they need more money to help with the project of stealing Palestinian land? As an American, I am so proud to support the blatant land theft. It's a great way to promote our values abroad.

And hey Sharon, let me know if any "leftist retard" peace activists start to protest, I'll cover the expense of any bulldozers needed to take them out. Of course, if you need missiles to strike Palestinian civilians with, I got that covered too.

Way to go, U-S-A!

[drewb]

4. Geeeez... You make it sound like they have a "blank check"!!!

You don't really mean that do you?

[0007]

5. Guess when ya got juice with Halliburton

& the Carlyle boys anything goes, 'eh?

[FlemingsGhost]

6. Oh great... 323 new targets.

"Dead families walkin'"

[Flying_Pig]

7. How much more proof does anyone need, that Israel's current

government does not want peace? And Bush, as long as he is assured the votes from conservative U.S pro-Israel voters, help from their friends and allies in the media, and Sharon's help in expropriating ME oil, will simply look the other way. No doubt too, Congress will write Israel another check to pay for it all, roundly supported by a gaggle of Dems.

All neat and tidy, except for those damned pesky Palestinians. But, with Sharon taking so many lessons from historical fascists, I have no doubt that apartheid, or worse, is coming. Hell, it's already there. "Final" solutions may be at hand.

[LeftistGorilla]

8. road map to peace?

Naaaaa...


road map to some brand spankin new homes!
you don't suppose the Palestinians will mind will they?

[Resistance]

9. Who gives a damn what Palestinians think?

It's all about what Gawd says! Yee-haw.

Isaiah 60:12

"For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted."

[MaidinVermont]

30. "It's all about what Gawd says! Yee-haw."

Nice touch on the respect of a Jewish choice of belief.

[E_Zapata]

10. Maybe they should build nine hundred and eleven homes (911)

All symbolic and all - now that the US and Israel can get away with anything they want.

[Voltaire99]

11. Light of democracy! Hope of the Middle East!

And best damn colonial housing contractor in the business.

Shame on Israel for permitting this.

[jplawne]

14. Let's debate the facts

There is a difference between legitimately debating Israeli domestic policy and prospects for peace, and just slandering Israel with innuendo and inaccuracies.

-Stealing Palestinian Land: Why is building a house on legally purchased land theft. Most land is purchased legally from Palestinians. The houses announced today are built in currently existing towns. This is not theft nor prohibited by any agreement or roadmap
-Now if you object to Jews living in Gaza or the West Bank and that to be there is in itself a form of stealing, can you explain why these areas are suppose to be ‘Jew free.’ Do you support Arab-Islamic ideas that only ‘believers’ should live in the Middle East? Wouldn’t that be racist? Jews lived in these areas thousands of years right up to 1947 and 1967 when Jordanians, Egyptians and Palestinians threw them out and burned their synagogues. Why can’t they move back? If you think it is stolen land, because it is occupied Palestine, Palestine has never been a nation. Arabs never accepted the UN partition plan and then Jordan and Egypt illegally possessed these lands through 1967.
-Bulldozer used to kill leftist protestor: You accuse Sharon of somehow responsible for a bulldozer accidentally killing Rachel Corrie. Efforts to demonize Sharon, making him guilty for actions that occur in the field for example, are sophomoric and only weaken your comments. I write ‘accidentally’, because that it was the IDF reported after an investigation and the US agreed. Now you can challenge the report, but you need to actually provide facts that demonstrate that it was on purpose. You can’t just believe that this 19-year-old kid in a battle zone killed Rachel on purpose because he wanted to (or Sharon order him). By the way Rachel was not a protester. She was working for a Palestinian organization that sought to put foreigners into battle zones to stop anti-terrorists activities. This organization, though supposedly anti-violence, never makes any attempt to stop Palestinian violence.
-Missiles to strike Palestinian Civilians. IDF does not use missiles to strike Palestinian civilians. They use force against armed terrorists and those engaged in terrorist activity. Though civilians may be killed in these attacks, they are not the targets. Under International law, the death of civilians is not illegal. It is only the purposeful targeting of civilians that is illegal. Palestinians on the other hand do target civilians of all ages simply because they are Jewish, which is why most Israelis that have been killed are civilians and most Palestinians killed are armed terrorists. If you trully care about Palestinians you should be outraged that suicide bombers, who were just stopped at the border and knowingly pursued by the Israelis, would drive into a town. Their behaviour disgusts me and I would hold them responsible for the resulting violence.
-Build homes for good Palestinians: I am not going to argue that Palestinians should be grateful for their condition, but before the Intifata the Palestinians had a higher standard of living than most Arabs, because the Israeli’s provided basic services and infrastructure as well as jobs. Where the PLO was strongest, these services were actually turned down so as to keep the Palestinian support for armed resistance strong. Palestinians were provided far more services than those living as refugees in Arab countries, such as Lebanon. Israel never received any thanks -unlike the implication that they would if only Israel would be nice to Palestinians.
-“I have no doubt that apartheid or worse is coming”: really no doubt? And on what do you base this deep anaylsis. In 1994 Israel welcomed the PLO to Gaza and the West bank, released most prisoners and than helped train the PLA police force. Odd for a country bent on ethnic cleansing! I remember how during the protests against the Iraq war, speakers would scream that this was all an attempt to provide Israel pretext for ethnic cleansing. Never happened. Facts: outside the extreme Israeli fringe, there is no talk about ethnic cleansing in Israel. The majority of Israelis want peace proved in every independent poll. Barak offered state-hood and peace, which Arafat rejected while preparing the 2nd Intifada. Arabs Muslims are the ones who regularly practice ethnic cleansing against each other, Christians, Jews and indigineous people. It is only the Palestinian mainstream leadership that has talked continuously about expelling the Jews from Israel as they have from all of the Middle East. Fifty-nine percent of Palestinians believe that Hamas and Islamic Jihad should continue their armed struggle against Israel even if Israel leaves all of the West Bank and Gaza, including East Jerusalem, and a Palestinian state is created. This conflict is not about Jewish towns in the West Bank.

Being anti-Israel is not the same thing as being right, though in some circles it has become one in the same. Discuss facts, be specific, and provide context.

[Blitz]

20. Outstanding first post

Welcome to DU. I sincerely hope that you stick around. You are very much needed here.

[FAndy9]

23. Reply

-Stealing Palestinian Land: Why is building a house on legally purchased land theft. Most land is purchased legally from Palestinians. The houses announced today are built in currently existing towns. This is not theft nor prohibited by any agreement or roadmap

It is conflicting a Security Council resolution and a peace plan it's supposedly opposing. If it's not theft, it's downright evil.

-Bulldozer used to kill leftist protestor: You accuse Sharon of somehow responsible for a bulldozer accidentally killing Rachel Corrie. Efforts to demonize Sharon, making him guilty for actions that occur in the field for example, are sophomoric and only weaken your comments. I write ‘accidentally’, because that it was the IDF reported after an investigation and the US agreed. Now you can challenge the report, but you need to actually provide facts that demonstrate that it was on purpose. You can’t just believe that this 19-year-old kid in a battle zone killed Rachel on purpose because he wanted to (or Sharon order him). By the way Rachel was not a protester. She was working for a Palestinian organization that sought to put foreigners into battle zones to stop anti-terrorists activities. This organization, though supposedly anti-violence, never makes any attempt to stop Palestinian violence.

Oh, you're talking about the man who said that he regrets not liquidating Arafat when he had the opportunity. You're talking about a man who has said nothing to condemn any illegal action of the IDF. We're also talking about a guy who has no problem with torture (it IS legal in Israel; some democracy).

Regardless of whatever report the US and Israel cooked up (which only god knows whether it's true or false, considering how the US and Israel are 100% thorougly unreliable to provide true information that conflicts with their interests), the IDF has shot, tortured, and maimed a sufficient amount of innocent people and international observers to make the matter near moot in the larger argument of considering the IDF simply a force of a terrorist state.

Missiles to strike Palestinian Civilians. IDF does not use missiles to strike Palestinian civilians.

No, but it sure as hell doesn't have any problem with killing a couple dozen civilians for the death of a suspected terrorist. Sure, it's not "purposeful", but if you're gonnat need to beat me senseless to try to prove to me it's ethical or moral.

They use force against armed terrorists and those engaged in terrorist activity.


False, they also shoot kids that violate curfew in the Occupied Territories (see Human Right Watch).

Though civilians may be killed in these attacks, they are not the targets. Under International law, the death of civilians is not illegal. It is only the purposeful targeting of civilians that is illegal.

See the other reply.

Palestinians on the other hand do target civilians of all ages simply because they are Jewish, which is why most Israelis that have been killed are civilians and most Palestinians killed are armed terrorists.


This has a LOT of errors.

First of all, it is only a small minority that actually performs those attacks. Not all of the Palestinian populance approves of this.

Now, if you were living in the conditions of indigence and misery that the average Palestitian suffers, I don't think you'd have that much trouble fighitng for your God, your people, and a cause, not to mention 72 virgins. People resist. It's true. A large part of the reason is because they were pushed into this situation and the amorality of the Israeli govt. has done nothing about it.

And while we're at it, remember that it was largely in part of Zionist terrorists who also didn't give about the life of civilians that the British found that holding Israel was no longer good for them. And they were just as zealous as the Palestinians you denounce.


-Build homes for good Palestinians: I am not going to argue that Palestinians should be grateful for their condition, but before the Intifata the Palestinians had a higher standard of living than most Arabs, because the Israeli’s provided basic services and infrastructure as well as jobs. Where the PLO was strongest, these services were actually turned down so as to keep the Palestinian support for armed resistance strong. Palestinians were provided far more services than those living as refugees in Arab countries, such as Lebanon. Israel never received any thanks -unlike the implication that they would if only Israel would be nice to Palestinians.

This is a load of BS. I think that the fact that the Isrealis are pretty much robbing the Palestinians of resources such as potable water (likud doesn't have much trouble with allowing a higher-than-fair use of that), closing down roads and putting every checkpoint they can so as to freeze traffic within the Occupied Territories shows that they care little about the quality of life.

So explain to me how in hell they should receive any thanks.

Facts: outside the extreme Israeli fringe, there is no talk about ethnic cleansing in Israel. The majority of Israelis want peace proved in every independent poll.

No shit? I thought all human being wanted peace, but now I'm sure that with Nethaniahu saying how they should kill the PLO leadership and all they are working towards peace. In a world as THEY see fit.

Listen to the crap that likud is saying and then try to tell me that they're working for peace.

Barak offered state-hood and peace,

With such limiting conditions that it was not feasable, hence rightfully rejected.

Arabs Muslims are the ones who regularly practice ethnic cleansing against each other, Christians, Jews and indigineous people. It is only the Palestinian mainstream leadership that has talked continuously about expelling the Jews from Israel as they have from all of the Middle East.

Having an Israeli leader who has openly proclaimed the wish of the death of the PLO and every Palestinian which has ever claimed something doesn't seem very different to me.

Fifty-nine percent of Palestinians believe that Hamas and Islamic Jihad should continue their armed struggle against Israel even if Israel leaves all of the West Bank and Gaza, including East Jerusalem, and a Palestinian state is created. This conflict is not about Jewish towns in the West Bank.

Well Einstein, take a guess and try to see WHY. You're quick to denounce this yet you are incapable of grasping the sociological and psychological concepts which show that people can back that sort of thing because they've been pushed to such an extreme. In my country, 30 years ago, we had people just like you and me who were pushing for an armed socialist revolution because they could no longer stand a fascist US-backed dictatorship which squeezed the life out of this country.

And beofre you try to say I'm some sort of anti-Israeli, know that this is coming from a guy in Argentina, the 3rd largest Jewish community in the diaspora, and that I myself go to a Jewish school. I study Jewish History, I have Jewish friends, but most importantly I have studied loads of this material, which means that I know what I'm talking about. BTW, most jews in my school know as well as I do that Isreal is as terrorist as Palestine. As a little extra to these credentials, I've done UN models representing Libya and the USA, on the subject of the Occupation.

[number6]

55. great reply

post 14 was a piece of crap !!!!!

[Devils Advocate NZ]

27. Actually...

Under International law, the death of civilians is not illegal.

This is a common fallacy. People seem to think that as long as you are not intentionally targetting a civillian, that their death is not illegal as per the Geneva Convention.

This is in fact not the whole truth. In reality, civillian deaths must be proportionate the military advantage gained by striking the target.

Here is the operative phrase in the Convention:

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

<SNIP>

b. an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-proto.htm

In other words, killing five civillians to take out one terrorist is actually a breach of the convention, especially when there are hundreds or thousands of terrorists, and the death of this one terrorist would not change much in the way of the terrorist campaign.

Even more of a breach is a targetted assasination of a suspected terrorist. There is no "concrete and direct" military advantage gained by such an assasination because in most cases the terrorist involved is not actually engaged in combat at the time.

Now let's also look at the destruction of houses belonging to the families of suicide bombers. In this case the terrorist involved is already dead, and the destruction of the house can in no way be said to prevent the act that has already occured. Thus it is illegal under both the above provision and this one:

6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

Destroying the house of a suicide bomber is a reprisal against his or her family and thus is illegal under the Geneva Convention.

Now many Israelis and their supporters will point out that Palestinian terrorists have breached the convention, and use this as an excuse for their own breaches. This itself is a breach of the convention which states:

8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

Another common excuse is that a civilian that is killed was a suspected terrorist. The Convention also covers this case:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A 111, lIl, (31 and 161 of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

So suspicion is not enough to clasify someone as a combatant. If there is doubt (as in the case of "suspected" terrorists) then the person is to be considered a civilian as per the Convention.

Now it may be said that a person was previously involved in combat, and thus they are a terrorist due solely to that past act. The Convention also covers this:

3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

In other words past actions are not an excuse. Unless they are actively part of hostilities at the time they are targetted, they are to be considered a civillian. Thus a suspected terrorist is obviously an excluded target because he or she is not actively involved in hostilities at the time of their targetting, and there is doubt as to whether they have ever been actively involved in hostilites.

The fact is that Israel breaches the Geneva Convention and International Law on a daily basis in the Occupied Territories.

[rini]

40. WOW!

A rational well written posting...welcome to the fray.

[The Stranger]

42. Welcome to DU.

I sincerely hope that you stick around. You very much need to be here.

[The Stranger]

43. Facts?

Stealing Palestinian Land: Why is building a house on legally purchased land theft. Most land is purchased legally from Palestinians.

Simply wrong.

Now if you object to Jews living in Gaza or the West Bank and that to be there is in itself a form of stealing, can you explain why these areas are suppose to be ‘Jew free.’

Non-sequiter. You seem to be the one supposing this. For millenia they were neither Jew- nor Palestinian-free.

Bulldozer used to kill leftist protestor: You accuse Sharon of somehow responsible for a bulldozer accidentally killing Rachel Corrie.

Even the bulldozer driver admitted to driving the vehicle in her direction knowing she was in the path he was travelling. Your premise that it was an accident is wrong.

Missiles to strike Palestinian Civilians. IDF does not use missiles to strike Palestinian civilians.

Even the IDF would not agree with this statement. Of course they use missles to strike Palestinian civilians. They claim that it is collateral damage and that they are really trying to assassinate (without any charges, indictments, trial, witnesses, judge or jury) suspected "militants." Some may call them "resistance fighters."

In 1994 Israel welcomed the PLO to Gaza and the West bank, released most prisoners and than helped train the PLA police force.

Then Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish extremist while in office, Israel refused the continued withdrawal from areas of the West Bank it had specifically agreed to vacate under Oslo, then the date under Oslo for the Palestinians to have a state came and went, giving rise to the Intifadah 2000. Then Sharon began making trips to the Western Wall, began systematically destroying the infrastructure that had been built under Oslo, including the police forces, the municipal buildings, even birth records of the Palestinians, and everyone began to remember his history. Certainly, you do know his history, don't you?

South Africa had the same problems. European immigrants seeking to establish a majority state democracy where the indigenous inhabitants outnumbered them. So they deprived the indigenous inhabitants of legal rights (Apartheid) and dispossessed them of their land, forcing them to Shanty Towns and Townships (today's "Refugee Camps"). Eventually, they had to allow the indigenous inhabitants into the system because of world pressure and the internal moral inconsistencies created by a majority race state trying to be a democracy. Historical note: there was no bloodbath in South Africa as everyone had warned and expected.

[jplawne]

57. No so simple as you think

Your understanding of the issues is rather bias and simplistic. Of course you can be pro-Palestinian, you can want the creation of a state (as I do), but if your argument for such a state is based on slander, errors, and fabrications then you really are not helping Palestinians are you?

-Stealing Palestinian Land: Let me get this right. Your reasoned argument on this is I am ‘simply wrong.’ Can you footnote that for me so I can look it up?
-Bulldozer used to kill leftist protestor: “My premise is wrong” 2 more words longer than 'simply wrong', but again somewhat short on content. In fact, it was an accident and the fact that ‘the driver knew she was there is out of context. She died by falling debris so the tractor never touched her. See article at the bottom. Refute if you want, but you know, provide some evidence.
-Missiles do strike Palestinian Civilians. IDF does not use missiles to strike Palestinian civilians. So your argument is that IDF knows that civilians may be killed. And so what? You may not like that, but then again you have the luxury of not having to defend you nation. I do not understand how this observation: civilians might be killed, means anything. Complete the thought, construct a logical argument. As for the issue regarding charges, trial etc, not really sure your point. These are not obligations under the rules of law. In war you kill, in a civil society you arrest.

Oslo accords:
This history of the Oslo peace accords is complicated. You should research them before you sting together your opinions and cite incidents that are out of sequence. Just like the Northern Irish peace agreement trust if difficult, each side has dissension and things are delayed. Yes, Israel did not comply with the time table. I have no issue admitting that. But unlike you, I have no interest in demonizing Israel or get all of my information from hate-Israel websites. Let’s see why Israel would not follow the time table? Because they really want to destroy the Palestinians, which is why they let the PLO come back at exactly their weakest moment come back? If Jews are so smart, how come we are such dumb fascists? (this is an example of applying logic and satire to an argument)

In the 30 months since the accords were signed in 1993 more Israelis were killed by terror violence than in the preceding 10 years. Arafat did not fulfill his very important obligation to disarm factions and build, will international help and money, a professional police force. Instead he coordinated with terror groups to use timely attacks to increase his negotiating power. This was the thanks that Labor received in trusting the PLA. Seven months after coming to Gaza, Arafat said the “Jihad will continue” and that the Oslo accords were a strategic agreement in the ongoing war. Suicide bombings began in 1993 but peaked right before Rabin was assassinated in 1995. I am sure you can point at other Israeli violations: perhaps they did not turn over some tax money; perhaps they kept a checkpoint they were supposed to give up. I do not agree to the equivalence between these to the murder of civilians and lack of compliance to disarm such groups. All this is before Israel realized that the PLA was complicit in these attacks and began taking action against PLA infrastructure. In April 2003 the statements of the arrested Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti were published in Israel. “When Yasser Arafat wanted a cease-fire, he would say so, and when he remained silent, it was understood as a green light to continue terror attacks,” stated Barghouti. Violence was not accepteable during the Irish peace process, but it seems when Jews are killed, it is irrelevant.

As for Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount: let me get this right, are you arguing that the presence of a Jew near a Mosque is sufficient to going on a murdeous rampage. The fact that his visit was one of many by Israelis officials since 1967, he has visited before, it was pre-announced, it was permitted under the Oslo accords, it is a shared holy site between Muslims and Jews, that Israeli police tried to work with PLA officials to ensure no provocateurs were permitted on the mount that day, and that Arafat has admitted that he used the visit to launch 2nd, but less spontaneous, Intifada is all besides the point. The basic premise that the presence of a Jew walking near the temple on land should lead to a riot and attempts to kill Jewish worshippers is sick. Yes I do know my history, thanks for asking

As for the South African examples you make some leaps that are just not true
- Israel did not deprive indigenous people their rights: Most Palestinians have never lived in what is present day Israel, and those that lost their home did so in a war as refugees, just like 500k Jews in the Middle East lost their homes and just like tens of millions people have in the 20th century. The difference between the Jewish and Palestinian refugees is that the Palestinians who became refugees were engaged in a declared war with Israel. And they lost again and again and again.

- As for the assumption that there was no blood-bath in South Africa I would make two points
1) Africans do not have a cult of hate and belief in martyrdom that was supported by their religious, civil and political institutions.
2) There has been a blood bath in South Africa: the murder rate is the highest in the world and AID’s rate is one of the highest. And where are all the anti-Apartheid people now as millions of blacks are dying, poor and malnourished. It now appears that the average liberal in the west was not motivated by concern for the Africans, but out of hatred of white, western orientated rule. The difference may seem slight to you, but it is what allows the pro-apartheid crowd to move on and not be bothered by the fact that black are now in many ways doing worse now than during Apartheid and need help from more than the few dedicated people that are working to fight poverty and AID’s. And this is exactly the position of pro-Palestinians around the world: unconditional support of the Palestinian cause, their practice of hatred, intolerance, racism, terrorism, and dictatorial rule. The moment Palestine is created in the image if Libya, Syria or Saudi Arabia, the liberals will move on without a concern that Palestinians are suffering under the rule of their own and that the PLA continues to encourage attacks on Israel. Only people or color should be allowed to oppress people of color. I wish you could let go of your hatred for Israel and ideological identity politics and get back to our Liberal intellectual roots that says a way needs to be found to allow for two, democratic, peaceful states to co-exist and that we will not unconditional support a movement that is violent and targets civilian over a nation that attempts to practive these liberal principles

[jplawne]

58. Rachel and the Bulldozer

This is an example of a reasoned, logical, rational discussion of the issue that seems to avoid name calling and hysterics. Now, it could be propaganda based on an iDF report, but when I read something written like this, with comparison, with little obvious agenda than trying to get to the truth I tend to not dismiss it because I think it is "simply wrong."

American Rachel Corrie was killed in the Gaza Strip on March 16, 2003, when she entered an area where Israeli forces were carrying out a military operation. The incident occurred while IDF forces were removing shrubbery along the security road near the border between Israel and Egypt at Rafah to uncover explosive devices, and destroying tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to illegally smuggle weapons from Egypt to Gaza. Corrie was not demonstrating for peace or trying to shield innocent civilians, she was interfering with a military operation to legally demolish an empty house used to conceal one of these tunnels.
A misleading photo published by the Associated Press gave the impression that Corrie was standing in front of the bulldozer and shouting at the driver with a megaphone, trying to prevent the driver from tearing down a building in the refugee camp. This photo, which was taken by a member of Corrie’s organization, was not shot at the time of her death, however, but hours earlier. The photographer said that Corrie was actually sitting and waving her arms when she was struck.23
Israel’s Judge Advocate’s Office investigated the incident and concluded that the driver of the bulldozer never saw or heard Corrie because she was standing behind debris that obstructed the view of the driver whose field of view was limited by the small armored windows of his cab. An autopsy found that the cause of Corrie’s death was falling debris.24
The State Department warned Americans not to travel to Gaza, and Israel made clear that civilians who enter areas where troops are engaged in counter-terror operations put themselves unnecessarily at risk.
This was not the first time protestors have tried to obstruct Israeli operations, and the IDF has made every effort to avoid harming them. This case received worldwide publicity in large measure because it was the first such incident where a protestor was killed. In fact, the army had told Corrie and other demonstrators from the anti-Israel International Solidarity Movement (ISM) to move out of the way. “It’s possible they were not as disciplined as we would have liked,” admitted Thom Saffold, a founder and organizer of ISM.25
The death of an innocent civilian is always tragic, and the best way to avoid such tragedies in the future is, first and foremost, by the Palestinian Authority putting an end to violence, and stopping the smuggling operations that have brought huge quantities of illegal weapons into the Gaza Strip. Activists interested in peace should be protesting the Palestinian actions. Activists also have every right to express their views about Israel’s policies, but they should take care to avoid the appearance of siding with the terrorists or placing themselves in positions where they could be inadvertently caught in the crossfire of a counter-terror operation or otherwise endangered by entering an area where military operations are being conducted.
“No matter how you turn the question, Rachel Corrie's death Sunday is a tragedy....But Corrie's death is no more tragic than the deaths of other young people — some of them young Americans who had traveled to Israel — who died in bombings committed by Palestinian terrorists. They're also worth remembering this day. However you feel about Corrie's actions, whether she was a martyr or misguided, she at least made her choice. Palestinian terrorists didn't give the young people killed in their bombings any choice in their deaths. That, it seems to us, is another kind of tragedy for these young Americans and their families.”

[Mari333]

12. Another reason I avoid all religion

and study it as mythology, rather than concretize it in any way.
What utter fools the human race is.

[Malva Zebrina]

15. I agree

.

[Khephra]

21. Religion is great

as long as people remember that the primary mover of mankind is FREE WILL. If you are religious and accept free will with all of its complexities, then you get out of all the "ordained" or "God meant us to do this" BS.

[Selwynn]

61. Another reason I embrace religion...

To stand up and be counted amoung the many many people who stand on the polar opposite side of the spectrum from people that use religion in this way, and instead find spiritual faith to be one of the most beautiful and enriching experiences of human life.

One of the biggest ways the human race shows its foolishness is when it makes sweeping generalizations. :)

[CWebster]

13. Even-handness not an option

and that is from the Democrats, right Senator Kerry, no righteous outrage from you. So when they aren't voting themselves another raise (for the fifth year in the row) the senate holds pep rallies in support of Israel.

Now someone answer me, why would any non-involved observer be wrong if they noted that Israel held too much sway over US politics?

[jplawne]

16. Even-handed, why?

Why would any non-involved observer be wrong if they noted that Israel held too much sway over US politics? Because there is no evidence that Israel or Jews in the US control US policymaking other than the accusation being repeated over and over again. I could ask you why Palestinians have so much control over your politics. You might answer because you believe in their cause, for example. This is the answer for most Senators, Representatives, and the Administration. They consider foreign policy, shared value and moral and ethic issues and choose to support Israel. Foreign policy is about many things, but never about being neutral or even-handed. You can disagree and you may be right, but how would I know. You have not offered any critical thinking on the issue. Your argument seems to be that because US foreign policy is different from your opinion it must be because Israel controls the conscience of a few hundred elected officials. Sounds paranoid to me. If you are going to repeat the charge that Israel controls US policy, which seems so similar to the historic Anti-Semitic charge that Jews control the world, then you might want to provide some evidence.

[Mari333]

17. Its not anti semitic to question neocon Sharon

because its Bushs base of whacko xian fundamentalists who back him up...and its whackos who want Armageddon to occur that back him up..and believe me, any Jewish person who trusts a Xian fundy is in a sorry state of mind..Christian evangelicals want Jews who dont accept Jesus to burn in hell for eternity..
In other words, the worst enemy any jewish person can have now is a christian fundy who believes in the end times horseshite

and they run the Bush regime
http://www.iraqwar.org/Armageddonupdates.htm

[jplawne]

18. Because they are wacky...

Thank you for proving my point. Let’s try to actually model liberal ideas and behaviour

"Because its Bush’s base of whacko xian fundamentalists": You just called millions or people 'whacko' because of their beliefs. That is prejudice. Christian fundamentalists make up a small portion of the Republican voters. Most Americans, as proven in polls, support Israel in its attempts to make peace. Your are never going to persuade anyone if your whole argument is ‘they are wacky and control everything.’

"any Jewish person who trusts a Xian fundy is in a sorry state of mind" Most Jews would not trust Christian fundamentalists for many good historical reasons, but have found themselves in a strange agreement with them. Jews did trust the liberal left, but have found that they have put identify politics above liberal values of non-violence, tolerance, and acceptance

"In other words, the worst enemy any jewish person can have now is a christian fundy" In face the worst enemy of the Jews are Muslims who preach horrible hatred against Jews in their countries and the UN and fund violence against Jews in Africa, Israel, and Argentina

[FlemingsGhost]

19. Welcome to DU, jplawne.

Quite an entrance you've made...

:hi:

[Desperadoe]

22. Welcome to DU jplawne

You're off to a flying start here. It only took you 4 posts to hit the Anti-Semitic card.

So much for even-handed debate.

[CWebster]

25. Don't even think to pull your crap on me

I know far too much about this state of affairs, the influence of AIPAC and the other powerful Zionist lobbies, the unified voice of the house and senate to jump on board the Israel yes-man brigade. Enormous sums of taxpayer money flow into Israel's coffers while they construct more settlements and bulldoze home of Palestinians. Israel and its faithful ally, the US, vote against every resolution and veto every attempt to resolve conflict. They spit out moral platitudes while Israel draws the US deeper into the vortex and carries on with it brutal agenda.

Any politician that would speak up or out doesn't know their place and is risking their career, and none of us are supposed to say it or speak the truth about it because of the cries of anti-semitism should anyone whisper the unspeakable truth. Pro-Israel Zionist hold too much sway in the US body politic. It's the truth.

[jplawne]

31. Knows too much to tell us

And again I ask; what is this influence of AIPAC and other un-named Zionist lobbies. How exactly do they control the US government? I can’t evaluate your point, because you do not give me any action-cause relationships. Only that you know far too much to actually tell me anything. Can you tell me any facts? For example how much money does AIPAC gives to elected officials?

Can you name one resolution (I assume you mean UN) that the US has vetoed that was a genuine attempt to resolve the conflict. I can’t think of one so I can’t really respond to this. Facts: the US has been the facilitator of peace whenever a Arab country was willing to accept Israel’s standing peace offers; Egypt and then Jordan. They hosted numerous attempts to broker peace with the Palestinians to only have the Palestinians reject it. Stop and think about this. You want the U.S. to support a peace deal and the Israelis to accept one. They already did AND THE PALESTINIANS REJECTED IT. What exactly is the brutal agenda that Israel has that involves inviting the PLO to come to the West Bank and Gaza and offer them their own state?

In fact there is tremendous criticism against Israel and I do not see anyone being punished. Who are these politicians that are afraid to speak the truth? Can you name any of them? Can you explain to me how Jews would get rid of these elected politicians in let’s say Arkansas, that voted against Israel aid? Again, your whole argument seems to read “I support Palestinians and know I am right, and many US politicians support Israel, so they must be threatened, ignorant or brought off. I generally like to think people, even elected officials have a conscience and while I disagree with them I at least try to understand them and not demonize the other side.

Remember provide facts and be specific. Otherwise you are just expressing abstract opinions which really can’t be debtated.

[bpilgrim]

32. birds of a feather

i don't know if anyone 'controls' the other but there is certainly a powerful israel influence here that can't be IGNORED nor that the PNAC crew is certainly onboard with the terrorist leader of THAT country sharon's approach for the most part with 'the war on TERROR' that has ONLY made the world MUCH MORE DANGEROUS.

one only needs to look at sharons bloody record to know he has UTTERLY FAILED to delier on his promise to bring PEACE and SECURITY to 'his' people.

just look up THE FACTS ON THE GROUND for the past 2 years :'(

welcome to du :hi:

peace

[bpilgrim]

33. flock together - "Bush Drops Opposition To Building Of Barrier"

OCTOBER 24, 2003

Bush Drops Opposition To Building Of Barrier

Fence Gains Nod As Road Map Dies

By ORI NIR
FORWARD STAFF
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has abandoned its opposition to Israel's construction of a security fence in the West Bank, easing a major point of tension between Washington and Jerusalem in recent months, according to pro-Israel activists in Washington, Palestinian diplomats and sources close to the Bush administration.

Until this summer, the administration had vocally expressed its opposition to the fence, warning that its construction could hinder America's "road map" peace plan. But with last month's resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, the administration now appears to accept not only the idea of the fence, but also its deep penetration into the West Bank.

snip

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.10.24/news1.fence.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=181752

:hi:

peace

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ex_jew]

29. Even-handed because we're tired of spending 100s of billions

and losing hundreds of lives so that some people can live in the area where "God" decreed they should. It wasn't enough to attack Afghanistan and Iraq, now we must subdue Syria and Iran. What does this have to do with the legitimate functions of U.S. government ? What gives those Senators, Representatives and the Administration the RIGHT to let "moral" and "ethical" issues lock this country into a death spiral with some arbitrarily-chosen group of people ? I put moral and ethical in quotes because I see nothing remotely moral or ethical about or policy.

Simply from a pragmatic point of view, when it becomes the norm for 144 countries to stand against the US, Israel and two other trivial countries, we are butting heads with every other party on the planet, and we are NOWHERE rich enough or strong enough to make this work for more than a short period.

As to whether Jews "control" US policy-making, I find it telling that serious students estimate Jewish political contributions to eomprise 50% of the total available to the Democratic party - dwarfing those of the traditional bigwigs. Considering that no Democratic candidate would have even a tiny chance of becoming President without the enthusiastic support of big-spending Zionists, what don't you understand ?

[jplawne]

34. Opinion in a death spiral

Israelis live in Israel for many reasons and it is very ignorant to say they live there because G-d decreed. In fact I have never heard this opinion from an Israeli. The main reason most Israelis live in Israel is because they were born there. I would be interested to hear your opinion why you think Israelis should leave.

Actually Afghanistan attacked the United States. That’s how it works sometimes. You attack someone and they attack back. Fascinating. As for Iran, are you really comfortable that Iran supports terrorism against a sovereign nation that is a member of the UN and is attempting to build a nuclear bomb? Seems you are in a minority because Russian and the Europeans have been apply pressure on Iran to stop enriching uranium

I am sure Micronesia would be happy to know that you value a people that have never had a nation over their ‘trivial’ little country.

I was not aware we are in a death spiral due to our support for Israel. Can you explain? I think it is very legitimate to support a Democracy with whom we share many values against oppressive dictatorships and Islamic-fascist states that have continually attacked Israel and supported terrorism against Israel, the US and Europe. The reason the US is not even-handed is because when Iraq invaded Kuwait and after 9/11, Israel supported the US. The Palestinians cheered Iraq and danced on 9/11. Israel is clearly an ally and friend of the US. Also, America does act out of self-interest AND ethics, and I am proud of our activities in South Africa and the Balkans for example and our recent support of Democracy in Latin America.

144 nations do not ‘stand against’ Israel and the US and we are not butting heads with every other nation on the planet. The UN GA is not some wise moral body. It is one vote per nation, and the many of these nations have dubious human rights records and rarely comments on the crimes of one another. Many nations vote in non-binding resolutions in the General Assembly in bloc as part of the non-aligned movement and to not incur disfavor against Arab oil nations. In no way does it impact the US’s relations with the majority of nations. Most of these nations also have normal relations with Israel and like to export to Israel. You probably should not bass your opinion on Israel on the fact that the GA regularly votes against Israel. They rarely say anything when other nations kill or gas more civilians in one day than Israel has killed in 10 years of conflict. They are something short of a moral, objective body.

Jewish control: first can you provide the reference that Jewish contributions to the Democratic Party make up 50% of total made. Since ~80% of Jews vote Democratic and Republicans raise 1.5x more money than Democrats, then really the majority of money donated is from Christians, so don’t Christians control the US government?

The only thing I understand is that you string together a bunch of unsubstantiated baseless ideas to support your opinion that Zionists control the US policy.

[FlemingsGhost]

36. I love the new bees...

Full of piss and vinegar, and such. So many words, too.

Fight it, jplawne. Go, go, go...

[ex_jew]

44. Reply

"why you think Israelis should leave"

I don't necessarily think Israelis should leave, I just don't want my country (the US) to get involved.

"Actually Afghanistan attacked the United States"

I hadn't heard about this. Do you have a reference ?

Iran "is attempting to build a nuclear bomb".

Iran says it is not building a bomb and has just agreed to inspections, although based on the Iraqi precedent, they'll be attacked in any case.

"Israel is clearly an ally and friend of the US"

It's an ally because we're useful. If we had given Syria hundreds of billions of dollars over the years, they'd be an ally too, instead of someone that needs to be destroyed because Sharon feels "threatened".

"I was not aware we are in a death spiral due to our support for Israel. Can you explain?"

We have lost our civil liberties, our standing in the world community, our fiscal health, the strength of our military (because it is bogged down in Iraq) all in some measure due to our mysterious bond with Israel. We are completely dependent on foreigners to finance our deficit and provide us with oil. Quite a dire outlook. If we continue on this path, it WILL be a death spiral.

"continually invaded Israel".

This is NOT the history of the last 25 years. Do you think Syria will "continue" to invade Israel ? Will Egypt "continue" to invade Israel ? What about Lebanon, or Jordan ? I'd be very surprised, and if it did happen, I think Israel could defend itself very nicely without any help from us.

"144 nations do not ‘stand against’ Israel and the US and we are not butting heads with every other nation on the planet. The UN GA is not some wise moral body"

Whether the UN is wise or moral or not, you may have noticed that the large majority of countries simply do not agree with US and Israeli policies regarding the wall, the occupation, Iraq, the oh-so-desirable assasination of Arafat etc.

"Jewish control: first can you provide the reference that Jewish contributions to the Democratic Party make up 50% of total made."

This was what I heard at a symposium this week in Berkeley. I believe the statement was made by Jeffrey Blankfort. I do not have a
scholarly source. He also estimated that Jews contribute about 25% of the funds raised by Republicans. My point is that since no one can think about running without these vast contributions, their freedom to choose "even-handed" policies does not exist. Dean tried an end-run around the conservative forces by soliciting donors on the internet, but even he had to make peace with the pro-Israeli establishment.

Is this "controlling the US" ? Yes, in the sense that no one can get
elected who disagrees with our policy toward Israel. It doesn't mean that Jews can force everyone to stop driving on Saturday, for instance.

[jplawne]

46. AZOM: anti-zionist occupied mind

Afghanistan attacked the US-you are surprised?: sovereign nations are responsible for attacks that emanate from their borders. Just because a citizen from another country commits a crime does not give a nation the right to retaliate. It depends on the actual reaction of the country from where this person came. Al Qaeda was a proxy army with a command structure who was sheltered, allied and protected by the government of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda attacked the US numerous times over many years and the Afghan government refused to take any action against this proxy army. These things are considered acts of war for a simple reason. To avoid nations getting away attacking others by using unofficial armed forces. It is surprising that you think Afghanistan, as a sovereign nation responsible for activities inside its borders, did not attack the US.

You are right, I do no ‘know’ that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb, I just suspect they do by their attempts to enrich weapons grade plutonium and not comply with the non-proliferation treaty. Iran will play along, secure all the technology they need and then simply withdraw from the treaty or become non-compliant. This was the tactic used by North Korea. Again, more amazement that as right wing Mullahs oppresses their people we feel comfortable projecting the best of intentions on the Iranian government.

Again the innuendos and baseless accusations; Is there any standard of debate anymore. Israel is our ally because we gave them ‘100 of billions of dollars’ (a rather broad number, but I understand fact finding is not your strong suit). Perhaps we provide them loans and aid BECAUSE they are our ally. That cause and effect thing again. I could not say for sure, but either can you. The US is hostile towards Syria on behalf of Sharon. Let’s make this real: thousands of Administration, elected, Defence, CIA and State Department officials and the US military stance with Syria is because they are somehow controlled by Israel. This is what you really mean. I would think you might have some facts to back up this tremendous ‘Enquiring Minds Want to Know’ conspiracy. Belief and fact are not the same thing. I wonder how it is that other countries in the world get into conflicts and have all sought of problems without Jews being the provocateurs. Or perhaps they are…

I was impressed already but no we get to the meat of your twisted logic. The war in Iraq, changes in civil liberties, our fiscal health is because of some ‘mysterious bond’ with Israel. Rather sweeping statement indicting thousands, maybe millions of people as acting on behalf of Israel. I am surprised you even pay taxes because that would make you an agent of Israel. Just above you said that Israel was our ally because we paid hem, now it is because there is some 'in the shadows secret handshake and exchange of blood oaths.' And then the irrelevant juxtaposition of unrelated issues to support your point: we are completely dependent on foreigners for oil and support of fiscal deficits. So this would put us in the company of just about most of the nations on the planet who import oil and finance their debt on the world market. Are they in a death spiral too? I consider all this abstract opinions and ideology. Not something one can really debate since ideology is based in unproven theory not reality.

You argument about Jewish control of both Republicans and Democrats, which prevents ‘even-handed’ debate, is not really supported by paraphrasing someone who is less than ‘even-handed’ with his abject, bias, one-side hatred of Israel and any Jews not against Israel. Again no facts; just the usual Jews donate money— conceptual leap,-- they control the government—I know because they don’t agree with me. Let’s look at Dean to cite one more tiresome specific example. “Dean had to make peace with pro Israeli forces.” On what do you base your assessment that Dean had to cave into these mysterious forces? How do you know he did not simply change his mind like he has before using facts and logic provided by various people. Me, I do not know how he decides his policies, and either do you. This is not only issue about Israel. It is an issue about critical thinking and anaylsis. Hold whatever opinions you wants, but if you going to enter in debate use facts and cohesive arguments. When you hear speakers or read websites that are so throughly bias against a positon, don't you think perhaps I am not getting a fair anaylsis of the situation. Why does not the author or speaker provide me the other side as well so I can do some of my own evaluation. That my friend is the difference between propaganda and journalism and fairness.

I know nothing about Jerry Bankfort, but just read a few articles and he is fairly typical. He is not an objective observer searching for a way towards peace, but is so thoroughly against the existence of Israel or anyone expressing any support for Israel that he twists every word and action by using inflammatory, loaded words. Every Israeli interest was a demand or an attack, every position by AIPAC was a commandment to legislatures, and every act by Congress was an act in name of Israel’s role to create a greater Israel through its proxy the Zionist Occupied government. Hence his cleaver speech title: Washington: Israel’s Most Important Occupied Territory. Among groups of administration officials, elected official, and media he calls out all the Jews and lumps the entire spectrum of Jewish political opinion into one category of a pro-Zionist lobby. Every speech starts off with the ‘secret must be told’ to create this phoney sense of oppression and fear in everything he writes. Every action against Palestinians is motivated out of nothing else other than racism. He was against the road map because it did not promise everything he thinks Palestinians should get. So he is not actually interested in a negotiated peace deal by and between Israelis and the Palestinians. He is simply pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. He portrays pro-Israeli’s as seeing any opposition as acts by enemies of Jews. Every time the US promotes something in line with Israeli opinion, US policy has been hijacked. He is quoted in total all over the really racist right wing and left wing websites that promote the ZOG idea, because he so thoroughly hates of Jews (which he is one) and Israel that he is acceptable by racists on both sides of the spectrum. He provides almost no facts or citings for the supposed hijackings and secret meetings. It is just pure propaganda strung together with simple facets. Here is one example of his thinking: every president who was not completely pro-Israel was a one timer (Ford, Carter, Bush Snr). Get it? Ford, who was not elected to the administration lost not because of the impeachment, Carter not because of the stagnation, malaise and Iran, and Bush because of the recession and Ross Perot splitting the vote, but because of Jewish vote and money. Not one single fact that a few percentage points change in the Jewish vote or decrease in money donated from Jews at all had an impact. I sincerely hope none of you go ah-ha when you read things like this, because it is sick any everyhting I understand intellecual liberalism to be

[The Stranger]

51. Invade?

This is NOT the history of the last 25 years. Do you think Syria will "continue" to invade Israel ? Will Egypt "continue" to invade Israel ? What about Lebanon, or Jordan ? I'd be very surprised, and if it did happen, I think Israel could defend itself very nicely without any help from us.

Actually, the history of the last 25 years has been one of Israel occupying its neighbors, including Lebanon for 19 years, Egypt until the Camp David Accords, and -- don't forget -- Syria, whose land Israel still occupies.

[jplawne]

54. do you know self defense

True, they have not invaded in the tradition sense, but I was referring to why the US has stood by Israel over most of its history. Please don't take my comments out of context and then attack them, because if that is the best you can do, makes me feel I am right and I am sure you don't want that to happen

That said, Lebanon, Syria and Iran commit 'acts of war' against Israel on a daily basis. They fund, train and promote terrorism. So for example, the attack on Syria can be criticized on many grounds, but not that it is a act of war. Syria is already officially at war with Israel.

True Israel has occupied territory of its neighbors. Your point? This is not illegal under International Law or the rules of Law since Israel fought wars with these nations. Syria refuses to enter into peace negotiations. Egypt did and received their land back, except Gaza which they did not want. By the way Lebanon is occupied by Syria and I am sure you were going to mention that next.

[wellst0nev0ter]

28. Looks Like Sumbodeee's Headed For The FP/IP Dungeon. . .

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

35. - israel is an out of control rogue nation

supplied fully by U.S. Tax Dollars.

maybe one day... some serious Reaper action

[Jim Sagle]

38. For someone who claims to be anti-war, you seem

MIGHTY bloodthirsty.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

48. karma my friend

yer trippin hard to say something like "bloodthirsty"
what are you on?
simply put
the reaper will visit you as well
no one escapes

[leftchick]

41. Here is a related link.....

Israel ignores International Laws....

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F6BCFA2F-53F3-4C24-A5FD-3232D119ED85.htm

[No Passaran]

47. sharon makes me sick!

Many times I felt hate towards Israel while watching their treatment of Palestinians, but then I realized: there are many peaceful, good Israelis living in Israel and from time to time we see examples of this (pilots refusing to fly, soldiers refusing to go and kill in the name of Sharon). I love peace-loving Israelis and wish they could just kick this guy out of power, take the government back from Zionists and establish peace once and for all. Give Palestinians their land back.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

49. that is right

this is true, it's not necessarily the people.
You can't group everyone together with their leaders.
That sould be like saying us D.Uers are supporting
our pResident's reign of terrorism.

[jplawne]

52. Two questions

How come Palestinian treatment of Israelis does not bother you? Millions of Arab-Israeli citizens live in peace in Israel and not a single unarmed Jew can walk into a Palestinian town without being lynched. Does that not bother you? How can you align yourself so totally with Islamic racism, intolerance and hatred instead of at least approaching this as a problem in which both sides need to sit down and negotiate. Sharon was votes in precisely because the peace-loving path resulted in refusal of Arafat to accept a peace deal and instead resort to violence to try to extract more concessions.

When you write give Palestinians their land back: what land do you mean. Palestine has never been a nation. They have refused all offers for statehood. In looking at the words of the PLA, Hamas and Islamic Jihad what they want is all of Israel. Exactly how does Israel make peace with that demand?


JP

[Darranar]

53. LOL...

You're really funny.

First of all, "millions" is innacurrate. Less than two milion Arabs live in israel; the true number is closer to 1.5 million.

Second of all, atrocities don't justify atrocities.

Third of all, Barak left the negotiations because he was concerned with elections. Barak, not arafat.

[jplawne]

63. Get specific

1. My mistake, thanks for pointing it out. More than a million is what I found

2. Again if you are going to address something I said, at least refer to what I said so I can address it specifically. I do not believe atrocities justify atrocities and never wrote that. I do have issue with people who only seem to think the Palestinian deaths are important and explain away all Jewish deaths. So my intent is not to excuse Palestinian deaths wholesale, but to point out the hypocrisy, false compassion and intellectual dishonesty in continuing to cry those poor Palestinians. POOR EVERYONE and the hatred towards Israel DOES NOT HELP PALESTINIANS.

I do object to your equivocation of iDF attacks and Palestinian terrorism. A attack that seeks to kill Palestinian terrorists operating in civilian areas is not an atrocity by any internationally accepted definition. An attack on a cafe or school bus is.

Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks on their civilians. If the terrorists put down their weapons tomorrow, Israel could negotiate a peace with the Palestinians and the Palestinians would have statehood. If Israel put down their weapons tomorrow the terrorists would continue to attack

Barak left: Which negotiations? I assume you mean Camp David. Barak left? I can't even decipher what this means. Logically, it would mean that Barak left and Arafat didn't (for some time). Did Arafat leave 5 minutes, 5 days or 5 years after Barak. Regardless, it only matters what happened at the negotiating table. Here are some observations that are not disputed by anyone, including Palestinians, other than Arafat.

the three leaders met at the White House in December and a final settlement proposal was offered. The U.S. plan offered by Clinton and endorsed by Barak would have given the Palestinians 97 percent of the West Bank, with no cantons, and full control of the Gaza Strip, with a land-link between the two; Israel would have withdrawn from 63 settlements as a result. In exchange for the three percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state, and refugees would have the right of return to the Palestinian state, and would receive reparations from a $30 billion international fund collected to compensate them. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places, and would be given desalinization plants to ensure them adequate water. The only concessions Arafat had to make was Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. <7>

The offer, it is true, was never written down. The reason for this, according to Ross, was the recognition by both the U.S. and Israel of Arafat’s fundamental negotiating tactic of using all concessions as a starting point for future negotiations. Afraid that the leader might once again revert to violence, and expect future settlement offers to be based on the generous concessions offered to him now, President Clinton gave him no written version. Instead, he read it to the Palestinian delegation at dictation speed, “to be sure that it couldn’t be a floor for negotiations... It couldn’t be a ceiling. It was the roof.” The Palestinian negotiators wanted to accept the deal, and Arafat initially said that he would accept it as well. But, on January 2, “he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.” <8> He could not countenance Israeli control over Jewish holy spots, nor would he agree to the security arrangements; he wouldn’t even allow the Israelis to fly through Palestinian airspace. He rejected the refugee formula as well.

The reason for Arafat’s rejection of the settlement, according to Ross, was the critical clause in the agreement specifying that the agreement meant the end of the conflict. Arafat, whose life has been governed by that conflict, simply could not end it. “For him to end the conflict is to end himself,” said Ross. <9> Ben-Ami agreed with this characterization: “I certainly believe that Arafat is a problem if what we are trying to achieve is a permanent agreement. I doubt that it will be possible to reach an agreement with him.” <10>

Instead, Arafat pursued the path of terror in hope of repositioning the Palestinians as victims in the eyes of the world. “There’s no doubt in my mind,” Ross said, “that he thought the violence would create pressure on the Israelis and on us and maybe the rest of the world.” <11> That judgment proved to be correct.

Clinton’s term in office soon ended, and with Barak’s premiership waning, he agreed to a meeting with the Palestinians in Taba, Egypt. That meeting ended with an optimistic joint communiqué being issued, but with no actual settlement or agreements. Barak was replaced by Ariel Sharon, and, as the violence and Palestinian terrorism intensified, negotiations were put on hold in favor of security arrangements.

Barak has since condemned his “peace partner,” and publicly supported Sharon’s tougher security tactics. <12> Clinton, too, did an about face on Arafat at the conclusion of his presidency. In his last conversation with Clinton, three days before his term ended, the PA Chairman told Clinton that he was “a great man.”

“The hell I am,” Clinton said he responded. “I’m a colossal failure, and you made me one.” <13>

Interview with Israeli negotiator:
Question: So it was over this that Camp David collapsed, the Palestinian rejection of an American proposal on Jerusalem that you found inadequate?

Answer: "No. Camp David collapsed over the fact that they refused to get into the game. They refused to make a counterproposal. No one demanded that they give a positive response to that particular proposal of Clinton's. Contrary to all the nonsense spouted by the knights of the left, there was no ultimatum. What was being asked of the Palestinians was far more elementary: that they put forward, at least once, their own counterproposal. That they not just say all the time `That's not good enough' and wait for us to make more concessions. That's why the president sent Tenet to Arafat that night - in order to tell him that it would be worth his while to think it over one more time and not give an answer until the morning. But Arafat couldn't take it anymore. He missed the applause of the masses in Gaza."

...

"But when all is said and done, Camp David failed because Arafat refused to put forward proposals of his own and didn't succeed in conveying to us the feeling that at some point his demands would have an end. One of the important things we did at Camp David was to define our vital interests in the most concise way. We didn't expect to meet the Palestinians halfway and not even two-thirds of the way. But we did expect to meet them at some point. The whole time we waited to see them make some sort of movement in the face of our far-reaching movement. But they didn't. The feeling was that they were constantly trying to drag us into some sort of black hole of more and more concessions without it being at all clear where all the concessions were leading, what the finish line was."

... I remember that at a certain point, I proposed to Arafat that we delay the discussion on Jerusalem for two years. `Not even for two hours,' Arafat said, waving two of his fingers."

[number6]

56. Hey JP are you a comedian ?

"Palestinian treatment of Israelis" ? who's the occupier ???

"not a single unarmed Jew can walk into a Palestinian town without being lynched" oh really "not a single" not one huh WOW

"How can you align yourself so totally with Islamic racism, intolerance and hatred" this stuff is just over the top man

dark comedy at its best...

.. now as for a few terrible terrorists , blowing up buses
resturants, coffees shops,,ect

they still havn't caught up to the IDF in killing ...

[jplawne]

62. Only your post deserves a laugh, though

Yes, Israel is the occupier. Again this is just an observation. Not actually a complete thought. The problem regarding treatment to which I referred is Palestinian continuing unwillingness to accept a Jews along side them, not to mention a Jewish state alongside their state. Their intolerance is the root cause of their situation. Arabs attacked indigenous Palestinians (as Jews were called before 1947) and immigrants before 1947. They refused the partition plan that would have left the majority of Palestinians ruled by Arabs in Jordan and Palestine. They attacked Jewish towns, invited in Arab armies and lost. Unlike Jews they threw out Jews living in the Wet Bank AFTER the cease fire, burned more than 50 temples in Jerusalem alone, and desecrated holy sites. They continued terrorism up into 1967 while the West Bank and Gaza was ruled by anyone, anyone? Jordan and Egypt. So what exactly did they want? To destroy a recognized state that was a member of the UN. Israel took this land because, anyone, anyone, they were attacked and did not give it back because Palestinians and Arabs were using it to attack Israel endlessly between the outright wars and Jordan refused to make peace. Why has Israel not given up the land before 1994? Because Jordan was still at war with Israel and funding and training terrorist to attack through the West Bank and the USSR was supporting the Arab states. What happened once Jordan made peace and the USSR dissolved? Israel entered into negotiations with the Palestinians. Why is there no peace today?: because Palestinians refuse to accept Israel. Israel in the 1990’s withdrew forces from most of the territories and the PLA was in charge, Palestinians blew it.
Lynching: your correct, I should have written not a single Jew can walk into a town IN THE territories without being lynched. There have been numerous incidents, including one filmed, in which Jewish contractors, delivery mean, and traders were killed entering Palestinian town and on roads while crowds watched.

As for 'catching up iDF killing': see this is my point; What kind of argument is this. Is your argument that the wrong side is the one that kills the most? Can you reference this logical argument? Many victors who were in the right killed more of the enemy (ie; the US in WWII) so what is the point. All it is proof of is that Israel is at war. When I read what you wrote, I think you whole thinking process is wrapped around an obsessive hatred of Israel to such a degree that you can write, 'see, see the IDF has killed more' and that you believe this is somehow a convincing argument. Perhaps you must spend too much time in chat rooms with people who think as you do

Yet even your basic, meaningless observations is not even right:
-In the 20th century more Palestinians were killed by the Jordanian government.
-In the first Intifada more Palestinians were killed by other Palestinians. NOT ISRAELIS. Does this mean that the first Intifada was wrong? I do not know because you do not tell us what your argument is.
-In this period since 2000, more Palestinians have died than Israelis, foreign workers and Arab-Israelis. Again, this is an observation looking for an argument. If you believe that this is somehow important for your opinion on Israel than how about these fun facts.
--Killed (including, Jewish Israelis, Arabs-Israelis and foreign workers) by terror
Civilians: 629
Security Forces: 260
Total 889
Injured: 6k
- Total Palestinians killed
2350
70% of all Israelis killed were non-combatants (10% were in uniform)
17% of all Palestinians killed were non-combatants of any kind
Thus, 400 Palestinian non-combatants have been killed compared to 629 Israeli civilians. Another 12% (300) Palestinians were killed by suicide bombings, bomb making accidents and in intra-Palestinian fighting-- meaning the only Israeli they saw when they died was the eyes of a child riding home from school

[tinnypriv]

59. Please explain what the PLA is

I've never heard of it.

Oh, and BTW, you blew it with this post. You were doing quite well.

[jplawne]

64. Typo

Meant to write PA not PLA

Hey I am open to learning. If I 'blew it' share with me your thoughts. Did I make an error in my logic? Did I insult someone? Was I ineffective?

My goal here is to not have anyone agree with my opinion on the matter. In fact I have only infrequently shared my opinion in the past few days. I have trying to elevate the conversation something above Israel is a racist, horrible state, Sharon is a killer, Palestinians die, suicide bombers are forced into the actions, blah blah blah. This would be an attack Israel chat room then, not a reasoned discussion on people rational arguments on the situation. The typical response back to my postings are yea but Israel has killed more, and Jews donate money and control Congress, but Israel is the occupier"

I am actualy tying to learn something about the arguments behind why people are so unconditionally pro-Palestinian. I can't do it in person, because when I engage people in conversations they hysterically share with me the Sharon is a killer and Israel practices genocide and when I ask what is the definition of genocide and exactly how Israel fits into that definition or how should Israel respond to an attack they are so shocked that I dare question the orthodoxy of Israel guilt that they ask if I am Jewish and there can really be no conversation after that.

[tinnypriv]

65. You've used PLA several times and the 'L' key is not a common typo

When made with the two letters P and A (considering the capitialisation, interkey distance and movement involved).

Especially so in light of the relative accuracy of your posts and obvious typing speed.

I personally think you are unaware of the intricate differences between the PLO and PA and were confused by them.

Or maybe you did indeed make the same typo several times (in posts with no other obvious errors).

Regardless, I couldn't care less.

Moving on to your reply, I'll only state this: since it is obvious that your posts are intelligent I suggest you take a trip down to FA-NS-I/P and join the discussion. You will find plenty of attempts to "elevate the conversation" there.

One polite suggestion: when quoting figures/stats you have not compiled yourself, give the sources. People can guess the sources, but it is more difficult that way.

For example, I'd guess that you got some of your (accurate) civilian casualty figures from the Israeli MFA web site. The inaccurate ones (which I'm not going to refute in this topic), were probably from somewhere else.

[Blitz]

60. "take the government back from Zionists"

I'm a zionist. Perfectly comfortable with being a zionist. My parents are zionists. So's the rest of my family. I don't personally know a single jew who isn't a zionist. In fact, the vast majority of non-Jews that I know are zionists. I'd say that most Americans are zionists and so is over 90% of Congress.

Do you know what a zionist is? Do you know what zionism is?

And here's a little fact for you: Sharon and Likud won the 2003 and 2001 elections by a landslide. They weren't even remotely close. His closest competition comes from his RIGHT in the form of Netanyahu. Sharon is a lamb compared to what Netanyahu would likely do in his place. Labor is barely a legitimate opposition party at this point.

To recap: The peaceful, good Israeli people have the government that they want and if they seek change it will likely be towards a more hard-line government that will use harsher measures to protect them and their children. If you think that there is some silent leftist pro-Palestinian Israeli majority just waiting to kick Likud and Sharn out of government and give the Palestinians everything that they are asking for, you're delusional and/or badly misinformed.

[markses]

50. Lebensraum, pure and simple

A sick sick irony of history that the Israeli state apparatus would be acting in this manner...

[TahitiNut]

66. Locking

According to Rules for Posting in the Latest Breaking News Forum, discussion of Israeli/Palestinian issues is not permitted in the Latest Breaking News forum, and instead must be posted in the Israeli/Palestinian Affairs forum. If, however, the news item is primarily about U.S. policy in Israeli/Palestinian affairs, you may post it in the Latest Breaking News forum. This news item, however, is not primarily about U.S. policy. It was allowed to stay open to see if the discussion focused at all on U.S. policy in any significant way. It didn't. Therefore, I'm locking this thread.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
TahitiNut - DU moderator