Who said Palestinians gave up the right of return?

[Resistance]

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article1741.shtml

Khalil Shikaki of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research was attacked by an angry mob when he recently held a press conference announcing the results of a poll conducted among 4,500 Palestinian refugees on the right of return. In his study, Shikaki reported that only 10 percent of Palestinian refugees would insist on returning to Israel and becoming citizens there. Supporters of Israel and others who want to disregard refugee rights in any solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict embraced the findings.

UN General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 1948, which applies the right of return to Palestinians, states: "Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the governments or authorities responsible."

The original homes and property of many Palestinian refugees were seized or destroyed by Israel. That is no less true for refugees who might choose to return as it is for those who do not. What this means in practice is that even those who exercise their right of return are legally entitled to compensation for property that no longer exists, which was damaged, or which was taken by Israel.

Yet the way Shikaki's options are formulated, they deny due compensation to those Palestinians choosing to return to Israel (though Palestinians opting to live in Israeli territory destined to be swapped would be eligible). For Palestinian refugees, therefore, the prospect of returning penniless and homeless to an Israel in which they are legally second-class citizens is bound to be far less appealing than the other choices. Why should Palestinians who choose to go to the Palestinian state "receive a fair compensation for the property taken over by Israel and for other losses and suffering," while those who go to Israel get nothing? How has their suffering been any less severe during the past decades?

Such polls as Shikaki's don't measure public opinion, they shape it and steer public policy in a predetermined direction.

(snipped parts - follow link for full story)

[Jim Sagle]

1. The right of return ain't nuthin' but shit.

[drdon326]

2. I knew that was coming.

d

[StandWatie]

3. I agree..

Israeli "right of return" ain't nothing but shit since they aren't returning from anywhere.

[papau]

4. Right of return is code words for never accept a Jewish controlled State

The UN resolution on this can be met by compensation - but never by forcing Israel to accept 10 million arabs as "new" citizen who then vote to end the Jewish state and to replace it with the standard mid-east arab state.

[Resistance]

5. thanks for repeating that talking point

care to address the actual article?

[quilp]

6. They don't want to be "citizens" of Israel. They want their country back!

n/t

[loquat]

9. THere never was an independent country called Palestine!

What was the name of the country ? Who was its head? What was its flag.

In 1949 ,at the UN meeting on refugees,Isreael offered to take back 260 000 Palestinians . By today this group would be over 1 million. It was refused by the Arab League representatives

An Theroffer totake care of the refugee problem was made in 1967 . Jordan accepted but the A rab League vetoed it. A similar offer was made at the UM and again it was refused .

It would help the Paletinian case if you knew the facts.

[Violet_Crumble]

189. No-one said it was independent!

What you don't seem to be able to wrap yr head around is the fact that for the indigenous folk who lived in Palestine prior to the influx of European zionists, it was their country and they wanted it to be independent. Of course none of that has anything to do with the very valid claim now that there has to be an independent and viable Palestinian state...

Could you give me a link to this 1949 UN meeting where Israel made this offer? Something other than from HonestReporting or wherever yr coming up with yr stuff? All I've read about it till now is that Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan offered to take back 100,000 refugees, and that their reasons for making that offer may have been solely for diplomatic reasons where making an offer with strings attached to ensure its failure could help mightily when being considered for membership in the UN but isn't meant to actually happen. It's important to note the number of refugees who have been allowed to return to their homes. Wouldn't it come in at somewhere around zero? Yeah, I know the routine. Froth at the mouth and lay blame everywhere else but on Israel, but in reality it isn't the problem of any other nation to solve because none of them are the nations where these refugees lived (most of which now are occupied by Jews who 'returned' to Israel from other parts of the world)...

What's the UM?

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Did you even read the article?

I think this bit applies so well to what you said:

"M.J. Rosenberg of the left-leaning Israel Policy Forum also welcomed Shikaki's poll, saying: "His findings rebut one of the central tenets of the anti-Israel argument and is (sic) a threat to rejectionist militants. Palestinians are not, apparently, set on returning to homes they left over 55 years ago. On the contrary, they recognize both the reality of Israel and the fact that the partition of Palestine is final and permanent. The terror groups which are attempting not merely to roll back 1967 but also 1948 do not represent Palestinian opinion. Essentially, they do not have much of a constituency." Hence, according to Rosenberg, for Palestinian refugees to insist on their fundamental human rights somehow aligns them with "terror groups" and "rejectionists."

Violet...

[Classical_Liberal]

35. Not so sure about that according DrDon not many want to

but old people.

[the_sam]

41. Good

A "Jewish state" is fundamentally anti-democratic and wrong, just as an Islamic state is.

[Lurking Dem]

44. Wow.

If you think both are wrong then why should the Palestinians get an Islamic state? Or do you think it won't be?

[the_sam]

55. No, it won't be

Since its inception, the goal of the PLO has been to set up a secular, democratic state in Palestine in which all religions and ethnic groups are treated as equal under the law.

Islamist parties were never popular until relatively recently. And even now, they hardly have the sympathy of the majority. All of the groups in the PLO are secularist (in many cases meticulously so, since many of them are Marxist in orientation).

[Darranar]

70. In all of Palestine...

and of course, in the early forms, the Jews were to be "removed."

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. If I were forcibly removed from my home

If I were forcibly removed from my home I would fight to return to it.

[loquat]

10. Check the facts!

UN resolution 181 in 1948 divided up territory it, the UN, owned . The Arabs got an additional 8% of Palestine after they had been given 78% in 1922.Not 1 inch of Arab land would have been lost if the Arab League accepted UN Resolution 181.

[tinnypriv]

12. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

us-israel.org can be a wonderful tool. :)

[Darranar]

13. Uhh... tinnypriv?

Address the points made, please.

[loquat]

14. The Palestinians have beenn betrayed by their own leadership

This is not only my opinion but that of the most important spokesperson
in the USA for the Palestinian cause. Edward Sa'id .

The return of Sharon to the USA again raises the issues of his past.The attacks on him because of Sabra and Shatila maasscres are based on fraud, political propaganda and a coverup of the dictater of Syria ,Hafez Assad.

I have a volume of proof but will give you only one now .There is no more anti-Israeli organization in Israel than Hamas. They wrote in their publication that the source of the crime was Syria and their agents.You must look there before you point at Sharon they wrote.

[Darranar]

15. I'm not sure I believe that about Hamas...

There is quite a bit of pro-Israeli propaganda out there, some of which is simply biased junk.

Anyway, regardless of Sharon's responsibility in those massacres, he is responsible for the bulldozing of houses and the hardline retaliation strategy that Israel now uses.

I agree that the Palestinians have been betrayed by their leadership, but that is even further reason for a state-an environment where they can freely elect new leadership when they wish.

[loquat]

38. HAMAS AND FACTS REVISITED

This item appeared in at least a half a dozen sources .If it will make a differnce in your and other attitudes I will look up the exact issue of the Hamas Publication in which it appeared.Can you read Arabic or could you haave it tranlated?

This forum seems to lack up to date informatiom on the Middle East

TRy this on for size . Which Arab tv station has said that the Arab Nations have lied to their people for over 50 years ?

Did you know that the Sabra Palestinian camp had an underground passage through which Arafats thugs escaped but could not be used by others in the camp?

There is a free book on the internet ,banned in Syria,which shows that Syria was behind the massacres at Sabra and Satilla by an insider.

Was Arafat elected for life and six months there after president ? When does his term expire?

Why is the Arafat called the leader of a Kleptocracy by the Palestinians ?

[Darranar]

42. No, I can't read Arabic...

but how in the world could the Syrian dictator be behind those massacres in Lebanon? What did he do, force Sharon at gunpoint to accept it?

Regardless of what Hamas says, I see no evidence whatsoever to back up this claim.

I agree with you about many of the Arab governments in that they are authoritarian and cruel. I agree that Arafat was never lected for such a long term realistically.

[StandWatie]

65. ah, please come forward with such things

I smell an interesting study in kookology.

[Gimel]

118. Stands to reason

The cover story, and the accusations, against Sharon, for example as "mastermind" of the massacres, lack solid evidence. In a situation like that of the intregues among the various warring factions in 1982 Lebanon do stand to reason. A lot was going on on a daily level of wheeling and dealing among various war lords, that putting the blame on an outside political figure is just scape-goating.

[loquat]

63. SABRA AND SHATILA EVIDENCE

This book is forbidden in Syria . People have been sent to Syrian Jails
for trying to bring this book into Lebanon,the Syrian colony.Its free on the internet

http://pages.prodigy.net/vladrjr/Cobra/welcome2.html

Elias Hobeika,was the Syrian agent, who did the killing , at Sabra and Shatila.He was rewarded by the Syrian government with a post in the Lebanese government . This is why Hamas ,an anti Israeli organization, said that the finger points to Syria before it can be pointed at Sharon.

After you read the above I will give you the tetimony of a Palestinian women from Sabra to the Belgium court which proves that the Stalinist-PLO propaganda is a lie.

I will also try to find my copy of the English translation of the Hamas statement pointing to Syria.

[Wonder]

66. Process much critical thought of your own?

:shrug:

[StandWatie]

67. Hobeika..

none of that fits the timeline at all, he didn't make ties with Syria until Israel dumped him.

[Gimel]

117. Heavy stuff

Thanks for posting it, loquat. I wasn't able to access the book online, but I read the author's bio.

Welcome to DU I/P forum.

[Wonder]

17. Is that ALL that Edward Said has to say on the subject?

Said is very critical of the Old PA (and the Arab world) as well as the Oslo process, much like Israeli dissidents and revisionists are critical of Israel; HOWEVER, Said certainly does not let Israel off the hook, which seems to be what you are suggesting, or have I misunderstood your point. Have you read much Said?

The matter of Sharon Sabra and Shatila is not a closed issue. It remains debatable. An attempt was made to create a vassal of South Lebanon (I have to double check something here) by Israel, which would stand as a christian client state to Israel. In this attempted an alignment was created between Israel and the Phalanges wherein the christain militia always sited as having conducted the massacre worked under Sharon orders. There is much left to debate surrounding this incident. One of the aims was to transfer all of the Palestinians out of Lebanon.

A little snatch from an Edward Said Review of a Judith Miller book wherein he points out she seems to have trouble getting many of her facts straight. It has direct reference to Lebanon.

snip
Perhaps Miller's most consistent failing as a journalist is that she only makes connections and offers analyses of matters that suit her thesis about the militant, hateful quality of the Arab world. I have little quarrel with the general view that the Arab world is in a dreadful state, and have said so repeatedly for the past three decades. But she barely registers the existence of a determined anti-Arab and anti-Islamic U.S. policy. She plays fast and loose with fact. Take Lebanon: She refers to Bashir Gemayel's assassination in 1982 and gives the impression that he was elected by a popular landslide. She does not even allude to the fact that he was brought to power while the Israeli army was in West Beirut, just before the Sabra and Shatila camp massacres, and that for years, according to Israeli sources like Uri Lubrani, Gemayel was the Mossad's man in Lebanon. That he was a self-proclaimed killer and a thug is also finessed, as is the fact that Lebanon's current power structure is chock-full of people like Elie Hobeika, who was charged directly for the camp massacres. Miller cites instances of Arab anti-Semitism but doesn't even touch on the matter of Israeli leaders like Begin, Shamir, Eitan and, more recently, Ehud Barak (idolized by Amy Wilentz in The New Yorker) referring to Palestinians as two-legged beasts, grasshoppers, cockroaches and mosquitoes. These leaders have used planes and tanks to treat Palestinians accordingly. As for the facts of Israel's wars against civilians -- the protracted, consistent and systematic campaign against prisoners of war and refugee camp dwellers, the village destructions and bombings of hospitals and schools, the deliberate creation of hundreds of thousands of refugees -- all these are buried in reams of prattle. Miller disdains facts; she prefers quoting interminable talk as a way of turning Arabs into deserving victims of Israeli terror and U.S. support of it. She perfectly exemplifies The New York Times's current Middle East coverage, now at its lowest ebb.
snip

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=19960812&s=said


It is kind of appropriate to use a Said Review of a RW Pro Israel Author it also illustrates to what extent the RW advocates will go to blur the history and confuse the facts. I am not sure, but I seem to recollect that Judith Miller writes for Arut Sheva

In the future, if you are going to Use Said as a reference, focusing on JUST his criticisms of the old PA will never do. I do no believe it is Said's intent to suggest that the old PA stands in full blame in regard to the failure of the Oslo peace process that would be a highly misleading suggestion. If that was your suggestion,in essence, that constitutes seriously undercutting what the man has to say. Now of course I jumped in and I might have misunderstood you altogether and if that is the case my apologies.

[loquat]

36. EVidence

There is overwhelming evidence that the massacre at Sabra and Shatila was done by Elia Hobeika ,a Syrian agent, in the ranks of the Phalange.There is a free book,which Syria has tried to stop,which gives all of the sordid details.

During this period Syria and its agents were killing Palestinians, who suported Arafat, all over Lebanon . In PLO literature it is called the War of the Camps.It was Hafez Assad who stated that there is no independent Palestinian entity and that only Syria could speak for all Arabs in Lebanon,Palestine,Israel,and Jordan etc..Do you know about Damour,Lebanon and the massacre of Christian women and children at the behest of Assad? He used the PLO in this case to wipe out opposition to Syrias occupation of Lebanon just as he used the Phalange to kill Palestinians.

"Those who do not learn by history are doomed to repeat it""The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Edward Sa,id in his column in Al Aharam stated the the Palestinians have been betrayed by the PLO ,Hamas,Islamic Jihad etc and that only amongst the Jews and Israelis can he find true friends of the Palestinians.

Do you belive the Israel has the right of self defence? How do you deal with an enemy that in their constitutions and eleswhere call for the destructionm of Israel?

[Darranar]

43. According to some...

there is "overwhelming evidence" that the Mossad caused 9/11, that Elvis Presley is still alive, that aliens are controlling every aspect of our world, and so on. I hope you see why I don't take that "overwhelming evidence" phrase too seriously.

[Wonder]

46. Patented denial of the big picture! Boring

yes edward Said said the Palestinians have been betrayd by Arafat blah blah blah that is not Said's whole statement...and to just focus on that aspect of his critque is downright ignorant if not just plainly catty.

It is just that part of his statement that you wish to focus on...

you are blahwahwahing into the wind here. To discuss Sabra and Shatilla you have to look at all the evidence not just that evidence that suits you...

[the_sam]

58. The Palestinians have been betrayed

You'd be hard-pressed to find a supporter of the Palestinian cause outside of Palestine who thinks otherwise.

However, that has nothing to do with the fact that Sharon is personally responsible for Sabra and Shatila.

[the_sam]

60. Re: "Evidence"

There is overwhelming evidence that the massacre at Sabra and Shatila was done by Elia Hobeika ,a Syrian agent, in the ranks of the Phalange.There is a free book,which Syria has tried to stop,which gives all of the sordid details.

Hey, I know where you can get a few free books detailing "overwhelming evidence" that the Holocaust never happened, that the Earth is flat, and that every President has been a reptilian alien in disguise. That doesn't make it so.

During this period Syria and its agents were killing Palestinians, who suported Arafat, all over Lebanon . In PLO literature it is called the War of the Camps.

Absolutely. The Palestinians were -- and still are, in many ways -- hated Arab nationalists. That's why it's so insulting to say that "there are no such things as Palestinians". For a people that supposedly don't exist, they're awfully persecuted for their origins. Arafat took lead of the PLO on a platform of independence of the Palestinian cause from all Arab states.

Do you know about Damour,Lebanon and the massacre of Christian women and children at the behest of Assad? He used the PLO in this case to wipe out opposition to Syrias occupation of Lebanon just as he used the Phalange to kill Palestinians.

Syria had nothing to do with Sabra and Shatila. Sabra and Shatila was committed after Palestinian and allied armed forces had been evacuated from the country. It was arranged and overseen by Ariel Sharon, and committed directly by over 150 Phalangist militiamen.

Edward Sa,id in his column in Al Aharam stated the the Palestinians have been betrayed by the PLO ,Hamas,Islamic Jihad etc and that only amongst the Jews and Israelis can he find true friends of the Palestinians.

Yes, but he doesn't mean what you think he does by that statement. You think he means that Arafat is too extreme. He doesn't. What he does mean is that Arafat sold out his people with the Oslo accords, sacrificing their dreams of statehood to satisfy his own thirst for power. On the other hand, the Islamists have damaged the Palestinian cause with their deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians.

Do you belive the Israel has the right of self defence?

All nations have the right to self-defense. They don't have the right to defend an illegal occupation. Also, they have an obligation to respond proportionately.

Under international law, the way to respond to terrorism is not to carpet bomb neighborhoods that may or may not have had anything to do with a particular act, but to pursue the capture and prosecution of the suspected terrorists. Had Israel pursued such channels years ago, the Israelis probably would not be faced with the problem have terrorism to the extent that they currently are.

Arafat was quite successful in cracking down on terrorist groups between 1993 and 2000. When the Al-Aqsa Intifada started, the situation spiraled out of control, and soon the Palestinian security forces were all but destroyed.

How do you deal with an enemy that in their constitutions and eleswhere call for the destructionm of Israel?

The PLO has accepted the existence of Israel for many years now. And even groups like Hamas have moderates that accept Israel's right to exist.

In any case, desiring a state's destruction is something quite different from acting on that desire. Israel has the most powerful military in the Middle East. Israel has biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. Israel receives the latest in military technology from the United States. The Palestinians are poorly armed and poorly trained.

And because Israel and the Occupied Territories together form a unified economic and geographic unit, any Palestinian state will remain economically dependent upon Israel. And it's important to remember that Israel has the protection of the world's lone superpower as well.

The Islamic fundamentalist leaders of Iran would, I'm sure, like to see the destruction of the United States. Does it follow that we should then invade, conquer, and occupy Iran? Of course not -- because Iran has neither the will nor the way to actually put this desire into action. The same would hold true of a Palestinian state and its attitute towards Israel.

[Aidoneus]

81. the "War of the Camps"

That "War of the Camps" began in the Spring of '85 and '86, in the period of Syrian "peacemaking" efforts (best described as herding cats), first between AMAL and Sunni/Nasserite militias over West Beirut, later Amal with the Druze/Palestinians in the 2 camps. The massacres were 3 years before. Amal tried to take control of the camps, but Druze support allowed the remaining Palestinian fighters to resist that and keep control of the camps until Syrian intervention forced Amal to give it up.

Hobeika may have later become a Syrian agent (practically everybody except Aoun was by the time the civil war ended, that's basically how the civil war ended) after his value to Israel ran out, but at the time of the Sabra/Shatilla massacres he was an Israeli agent and ally--the IDF even had the camps surrounded when Hobeika's Falange militia entered.

[Aidoneus]

82. as for Hatem's book,

the book itself at the page you posted is a dead link (http://www.israeltodamascus.com), but I think I've leafed through it before, the cover looked familiar anyway and I know that I've at least read an article or three about him.

IIRR, the translation borders on atrocious in spots, but I got what it was trying to say from what I think I read. Occasional accounts of sex lives kept it from being a bore, but some of the claims just don't mesh or even try to be plausible (maybe confusion was the point). The other point of it seems to be a hit piece on Syria in general, ultimately aiming for US intervention.

Google returns some interesting things on a search of his name, apparently they're fans of his work at HonestReporting.com, Pipes' MEF, and LittleGreenFootballs (and the other usual suspects), not exactly a case built on sturdy frames if that's the Unofficial Cobra Fanclub.

[loquat]

39. Edward Sa,id

May I suggest that you read the original column by Sa'id in Al Ahram . I admit that I understated his contempt for the entire curent Palestinian leadership .

[Wonder]

47. You blaspheme his name every time you utter it

you have half the facts and the ones you have you don't even have straight.

[the_sam]

57. And the Holocaust didn't happen, right?

Oh, I forgot, only racist lies about Arabs are acceptable...

So, do you subscribe to the Hamas newsletter? Or are you just getting this off some pro-Zionist Web site? I'm guessing the latter.

On various occasions, Zionists have invented lies (which are almost always quickly debunked, but of course, the debunking never get as much publicity as the lies), such as the idea that MLK defended Zionism (he didn't -- the infamous quotation was made up), or the big lie of From Time Immemorial. My guess is that this is just another one.

If what you're saying is true, then why did an Israeli government inquiry find Sharon responsible? Why did the Belgian Supreme Court?

On September 10, 1982, Sharon announced that "2,000 terrorists" remained in Palestinian refugee camps, even though all 14,000 armed resisters had been evacuated by multinational forces.

By September 16, the IDF had sealed off the exits from the refugee camps, shelling random targets and sniping at civilians. Ariel Sharon personally directed all of this, watching from the general army area of the Kuwait embassy junction, where what was happening inside the camps was clearly visible.

Then, General Drori phoned Sharon and announced, "Our friends are advancing into the camps. We have coordinated their entry." Sharon replied, "Congratulations! Our friends' operation is approved."

For the next 40 hours, the Phalangists raped, killed, and injured 700-3,500 people -- including women, children, and the elderly.

Sharon had full knowledge of what was happening in the camps right up the morning the massacre stopped, but did nothing to intervene. Instead, his forces prevented civilians from escaping the camps, and at night arranged for the camps to be illuminated by night by flares launched into the sky from helicopters and mortars.

After news of the massacre reached Israel, 400,000 conscience-stricken Israeli took to the streets in protest. The Knesset subsequently named a commission of inquiry presided over by Yitzhak Kahan. It was concluded that Sharon was personally responsible for Sabra and Shatila.

The UN condemned the massacre with Resolution 521. This condemnation was followed by a General Assembly resolution qualifying the massacre as an "act of genocide".

Ariel Sharon is a sick, seriously unbalanced man. He is not suited for his position.

[Wonder]

59. Ah but he had the deniablity factor - massacre by proxy

The conniving butcher that he is. Same deniablity as was exercised with the terrorist operations of the Sharon led commando unit 101.

Yes the RW propaganda has much history as well. Notorious it is. Also true that "the debunking never gets as much publicity as the lies."

Well looks like da sam's da man! or da wo-man!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. Fifty Sources Say Martin Luther King Defended Zionism

and one revisionist source says the defense was apocryphal.


I'll go with the fifty sources.

[StandWatie]

120. the problem is..

all fifty sources were using Socialism of Fools as their source and the source referenced by the original was a book that didn't exist.

[durutti]

176. About those 50 sources...

They're 50 sources quoting each other. No one has ever unearthed a primary source in which Martin Luther King defended Zionism.

It's also worth noting that many associates of MLK identified with the Palestinian cause. African American civil rights activists referred to Palestinians as "the niggers of the Middle East".

King did note that many people who claim to be criticizing Zionism are really attacking Jews -- a valid criticism. That's not the same thing as defending Zionism itself.

Of course, what King thinks is irrelevent. He was a great man, but only one of many great women and men. South Africans under apartheid identified closely with the Palestinian cause. So did many of the Latin American national liberation movements.

The point is that Zionists have engaged in deception to manipulate public opinion on an extraordinary scale. It's typical to hear them accuse people of parroting "Palestinian propaganda". The fact is that AIPAC, the ADL, and company are much, much more well-funded than any pro-Palestinian organization.

Perhaps the most egregious example is Joan Peters' book From Time Immemorial. It was highly praised by the establishment press in this country, but brutally criticized in Europe and in Israel.

It posited that the people we call the Palestinians were mostly recent emigrants. But if you examine her citations (as many more critical reviewers did), you find that the things she said had no basis in reality. She deliberately took quotations out of context, and in many cases simply fabricated evidence. The book is muh like Coulter's Slander in this regard.

Similarly, well-funded groups like Accuracy in Media, CAMERA, etc. are able to bully the media into eliminating the slightest inkling of criticism of Israel. There is no pro-Palestinian equivalent to these organizations.

Examples of this bias are too numerous to recount them all here. But think about it. It's perfectly alright to have an Israeli guest without a Palestinian counterpart, but a Palestinian guest without an Israeli counterpart is nearly unheard of.

[Violet_Crumble]

190. "Letter To An Anti-Zionist Friend" was a hoax...

It doesn't matter if fifty or a thousand 'sources' say he wrote it if the fact is that the letter never existed in the first place...

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-01/20wise.cfm

[Gimel]

101. I'd like to know

If you have personal memories of this story or are you quoting someone? Maybe you are "repeating" something you've read? The Kahan investigation reported that Sharon whas "indiretly responsible". If you'v like to read the entire report, there is a link to it:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/kahan.html

Here we see the section titled "Direct Responsibility"
Our conclusion is therefore that the direct responsibility for the perpetration of the acts of slaughter rests on the Phalangist forces. No evidence was brought before us that Phalangist personnel received explicit orders from their command to perpetrate acts of slaughter, but it is evident that the forces who entered the area were steeped in hatred for the Palestinians, in the wake of the atrocities and severe injuries done to the Christians during the civil war in Lebanon by the Palestinians and those who fought alongside them; and these feelings of hatred were compounded by a longing for revenge in the wake of the assassination of the Phalangists' admired leader Bashir and the killing of several dozen Phalangists two days before their entry into the camps. The execution of acts of slaughter was approved for the Phalangists on the site by the remarks of the two commanders to whom questions were addressed over the radios, as was related above.

And "Indirect Responsibility"

To sum up this chapter, we assert that the atrocities in the refugee camps were perpetrated by members of the Phalangists, and that absolutely no direct responsibility devolves upon Israel or upon those who acted in its behalf. At the same time, it is clear from what we have said above that the decision on the entry of the Phalangists into the refugee camps was taken without consideration of the danger - which the makers and executors of the decision were obligated to foresee as probable - that the Phalangists would commit massacres and pogroms against the inhabitants of the camps, and without an examination of the means for preventing this danger. Similarly, it is clear from the course of events that when the reports began to arrive about the actions of the Phalangists in the camps, no proper heed was taken of these reports, the correct conclusions were not drawn from them, and no energetic and immediate actions were taken to restrain the Phalangists and put a stop to their actions. This both reflects and exhausts Israel's indirect responsibility for what occurred in the refugee camps.

[tinnypriv]

16. LOL, yeah right if you insist

<< UN resolution 181 in 1948 divided up territory it, the UN, owned . >>

The UN didn't own it. Wrong.

<< The Arabs got an additional 8% of Palestine after they had been given 78% in 1922. >>

Nobody was given anything in 1922. Wrong.

<< Not 1 inch of Arab land would have been lost if the Arab League accepted UN Resolution 181. >>

Hilarious. One can make the argument that the Jewish people had a case for a homeland in Palestine, but that is no reason to say that the indigenous inhabitants should respect the magnamity of that proposal. Why should they lose out because Europe was full of racist, murderous thugs?

If a starving refugee burst into your home, confined you to the bedroom and then "divided" your house between you, hell you could have sympathy with his plight, but would you say he was right to do it?

.....

Refuting these idiotic LGF/us-israel.org/Arut Sheva talking points is getting beyond boring.

This poster has no points of their own. I suspect they barely comprehend what they're writing, since they're actually just cutting and pasting.

The appropriate response was my first response: laugh, and then move on to more serious topics. Flippancy has a place, especially when the initial posting deserves it.

[Darranar]

21. Jordan was created in 1922, or around there...

Some might view that as part of Palestine.

[tinnypriv]

24. Wrong

Transjordan, not Jordan.

Only racist lunatics consider that part of Palestine.

[Darranar]

25. Regardless...

of the name, the point should remain. The land was under the British Mandate of Palestine until it split away.

[tinnypriv]

26. Right

If I referred to Iraq as Mesopotamia, would you take whatever "point" I was making seriously? I should hope not. I would have thought that was trivial.

[Darranar]

27. Once again...

regardless of what I said that wasn't correct, will you address the points made, which are relevant regardles of the name?

[tinnypriv]

28. What, you want me to go through the entire history of transJ, cis-J etc?

I'd rather not if it is all the same. It really isn't worth the time and effort, especially since it has been more than amply demonstrated in this thread that the "points" being made by this poster don't even rise to the level of hilarity.

You on the other hand may have valid points, but IMHO I can see this tangent going nowhere fast. The history of transjordan and Jordan (vis a vis the Ottoman empire, the British etc) is extremely complicated. I'm not sure I even have the competence to understand it fully myself.

But to keep it simple, as regards your point, 'is Jordan part of Palestine'? The answer is no. Not historically, and certainly not in the modern period. That talking point is only brought up by racist lunatics, for transparent reasons - they want to deny Palestinian self-determination. I see no reason to waste time responding to that.

[Darranar]

30. Yes historically...

parts of it, at least. The Jewish nations in the region before conquest by the Romans had land in what is now Jordan.

I do not want to deny Palestinian self-determination. I support a Palestinian state.

[loquat]

37. PAY ATTENTION TO HISTORY

When was the last time you read a history book?

IN 1922 the British, who held the League of Nations mandate, , turned over to the Hashimites 78% of Palestine that belonged to the League of Nations.

The Arab historian Cecil Hourani points out that if the Arabs had accepted UN resolution 181 ,a tiny Israel would have been located in the sea of Arab nations.


The World Court in 1949 ,in Switserland,unanimously ruled that Palestine never belonged to the Arabs and that the UN could do what it wanted with the area.

It was the Arabs at the UN in 1948 who had urged that the issue be brought before the World Court.

For 400 years Palestine was a small part of a Turkish district.It was turned into a "desolation" do to neglect. In 1919 the British were given the mandate over Legue of Nations owned Palestine. .

The tiny part of the ancient Jewish homeland that was given back to the Jews in 1948 contained a smaller arab population. They were guranteed ,by the UN ,if they lost any part of their land they would
be compensated.

This was rejected by the Arab League without consulting the Palestinians.Why?

Because in the 1948 invasion of UN Palestine by the Arab dictators they knew that the Palestinians would side with the Israelis.More Palestinians faught on the side of the Israelis than supported the invaders.Most were neutral, pro Arab historians tell us.

If ignorance is bliss,you must be a happy man.

[tinnypriv]

40. LOL

Run along now.

Which history book would you suggest I read, BTW? Got it right there? If so, quote me a passage and I'll check it myself. Should be fun :D

[loquat]

45. READ BENNY MORRIS and Cecil Hourani and OTHERS

For years the Arabs favorite historian of the Arab Israeli disputes was Benny Morris.

Read his "1948 and After"

Cecil Hourani's "THe Moment of Truth" exposes the the "professinal demagogues,blackmailers ,and semi-educated fanatics " who lied and led the Palestinians to a disaster.

Read Edward Sa"id's column in Al Ahram in which he denounces Arafat the PLO, Hamas ,Islamic Jihad as betrayers of the Palestine people.

Read the opening statement of Qatar tv. "For over 50 years the Arab leadership has lied to its people"

Read the Arab intelectuals report from the UN that the worse place in the world for human beings is in the Arab areas .

Read Ibn Khaldun's "Introduction to History" and what he thinks of the Arabs. You never heard of him? A Muslimm giant who began the study of history as a science.

Try that for a start as to how the Palestinians have been used,abused,
an d lied to by the Arab dictators.

By your ignorance you have become part of the Palestinian nightmare.


Tell me what ,if anything you have read .

[Wonder]

49. you read them again

you are twisting the facts to suit your ignorance not to shed more light onto any objective discussion.

Read ES Read ES Read ES... YOU READ ES YOURSELF...

Apparently you lack the acuity to take in all he is saying... Stop trying to mislead people...and trying steping away from those RW talkpoints that have you so hemmed in you can not even get Edward Said's message straight .....

[tinnypriv]

51. Ah

Quote the fourth paragraph on page 74 from "1948 and After" please.

I picked that at random (and either edition will do).

[Wonder]

48. yes TP LOL LOL LOL

LMAO

[loquat]

61. WORLD COURT & PALESTINE

I know it is difficult for those who have been fed lies for years to change their minds.

It was the Arab League that demanded that the issue of partioning Palestine go to the World Court at the 47 UN meeting . In 1949 the World Court ruled om the issue .It unanimously agreed that the UN had the right to dispoSe of mandated territory anyway they decided . This decision is available for all to read on the internet.

The rational is simple .Palestine was a small part of the Turkish administrative province of Syria, for 400 years ,until 1917.At the end of the first World War Turkey ceded the area to the League of Nations who became the owners. With the demise of the League of Nations Palestine ultimately was ceded to the UN. The Arab League accepted this as a fact but wanted the World Court to rule on the issue.

At the end of the first world war Palestine was give to the British as a mandate until it could be disposed of . The Britsh ignored the League of Nations and began a process that gave the Arab dynasty,the Hashemities, 78% of the ancient Jewish homeland .

In the division of what was left the UN gave about 8% of the balance to the Jews. The other 8% west to the Arabs again to form another Palestinian state if they so desired .About 2% around Jerusalem was to remain in UN hands.In the tiny portion given to the Jews ,they were the majority.U resolution 181 also said that if the Arabs lost any portion of the land designated to the Jews they would be compensated.ALL OF THIS WAS REJECTED BY THE ARAB LEAGUE AND FIVE ARAB ARMIES INVADED IN MAY OF 48 TO DIVIDE UP PALESTINE FOR THEMSELVES (HISTORIAN BENNY MORRIS).

[tinnypriv]

64. Nice cut and paste

Post #51 is still lonely. Nice try.

[Gimel]

18. Try this one

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/palmanda.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/un/res181.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/israel.htm

Ot how about:

http://www.ariga.com/treaties/

The documents are the same on every site.
als http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/home.asp

[the_sam]

56. You mean the UN stole

General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding, and it was illegal to partition the land without a plebiscite.

And it's no wonder that the Arabs rejected the partition. The Palestinians were to get less than half the land, even though they were a 2/3 majority. The Arabs in the area allocated for the Jewish state would've been been forced to live with virtually no rights (Palestinians weren't even allowed to vote or join trade unions until the 1960s), despite the fact that they made up almost half the area's population. At the time of the partition, the Zionists owned no more than 6 percent of the land, much of it illegally.

Of course, this all ignores the most important point: no one but the Arabs should ever have decided what to do with Arab land. Wealthy Arabs ignored communal rights of land tenure and sold the land to the Zionists (a legally and morally questionable act). The British had no right (especially after promising the Arabs independence) to allow massive Jewish immigration against the will of the Palestinians, especially when many of these Jews came for the sole purpose of displacing the Palestinians.

[loquat]

62. WAKE UP AND READ THE FACTS

I know it is difficult for those who have been fed lies for years to change their minds.

It was the Arab League that demanded that the issue of partioning Palestine go to the World Court at the 47 UN meeting . In 1949 the World Court ruled om the issue .It unanimously agreed that the UN had the right to dispoSe of mandated territory anyway they decided . This decision is available for all to read on the internet.

The rational is simple .Palestine was a small part of the Turkish administrative province of Syria, for 400 years ,until 1917.At the end of the first World War Turkey ceded the area to the League of Nations who became the owners. With the demise of the League of Nations Palestine ultimately was ceded to the UN. The Arab League accepted this as a fact but wanted the World Court to rule on the issue.

At the end of the first world war Palestine was give to the British as a mandate until it could be disposed of . The Britsh ignored the League of Nations and began a process that gave the Arab dynasty,the Hashemities, 78% of the ancient Jewish homeland .

In the division of what was left the UN gave about 8% of the balance to the Jews. The other 8% west to the Arabs again to form another Palestinian state if they so desired .About 2% around Jerusalem was to remain in UN hands.In the tiny portion given to the Jews ,they were the majority.U resolution 181 also said that if the Arabs lost any portion of the land designated to the Jews they would be compensated.ALL OF THIS WAS REJECTED BY THE ARAB LEAGUE AND FIVE ARAB ARMIES INVADED IN MAY OF 48 TO DIVIDE UP PALESTINE FOR THEMSELVES (HISTORIAN BENNY MORRIS).

[the_sam]

175. Response

I know it is difficult for those who have been fed lies for years to change their minds.

The ADL, World Zionist Organization, and AIPAC are infinitely larger and better-funded than any Palestinian group. AIPAC spends over 100 times more on lobbying than all the pro-Palestinian groups combined. You tell me who's more capable of manipulating public opinion. A full listing of all the Zionist lies I've heard would take days.

It was the Arab League that demanded that the issue of partioning Palestine go to the World Court at the 47 UN meeting . In 1949 the World Court ruled om the issue .It unanimously agreed that the UN had the right to dispoSe of mandated territory anyway they decided . This decision is available for all to read on the internet.

The rational is simple .Palestine was a small part of the Turkish administrative province of Syria, for 400 years ,until 1917.At the end of the first World War Turkey ceded the area to the League of Nations who became the owners. With the demise of the League of Nations Palestine ultimately was ceded to the UN. The Arab League accepted this as a fact but wanted the World Court to rule on the issue.

First of all, it was arguably still illegal. Nowhere in the UN Charter is there power given to partition any country. The Arab League lost this case by only one vote, after Zionists and their allies had bribed and bullied those who sat on the Court.

Secondly, the World Court ruled that the resolution itself was legal, not that the actual partition was legal. General Assembly resolutions are not binding. They have no legal force. For it to have legal force, it would have had to have been endorsed by the Security Council rather than the General Assembly.

At the end of the first world war Palestine was give to the British as a mandate until it could be disposed of . The Britsh ignored the League of Nations and began a process that gave the Arab dynasty,the Hashemities, 78% of the ancient Jewish homeland.

The "ancient Jewish homeland" hadn't been controlled by Jews for 2,000 years. The Jews didn't originate in Palestine. They conquered it. They were only one of many peoples who have inhabited Palestine over the centuries, including Sumerians, Hyksos, Egyptians, Hittites, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Scythians, Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks, and Englishmen. Furthermore, Jewish control never extended throughout the entirety of Palestine, let alone the area to which you're referring. This was the area promised to the Jews in the Bible, not the area which they actually controlled.

You're right that the British ignored the League of Nations. Article 22 of the League of Nations ordered Britain to give control of the mandate territories to their peoples -- meaning that the Palestinians should've been controlling immigration.

In the division of what was left the UN gave about 8% of the balance to the Jews. The other 8% west to the Arabs again to form another Palestinian state if they so desired .About 2% around Jerusalem was to remain in UN hands.

First of all, the UN gave more area to the Jews than it did to the Palestinians. Palestine has existed with its current borders for over 1,000 years. Its people have, in that time, always referred to themselves as Palestinians. The Palestine mandate was a nation. It should not have been divided. Palestine forms a natural geographic and economic unit.

Moshe Sharett noted in 1937, "...in contrast to us they would lose totally that part of Palestine which they consider to be an Arab country and are fighting to keep it such... They would lose the richest part of Palestine; they would lose major Arab assets, the orange plantations, the commercial and industrial centers and the most important sources of revenue for their government which would become impoverished; they would lose most of the coastal area, which would also be lost to the hinterland Arab states."

Furthermore, while the Jews were a slight majority in the area allocated for them, Arabs made up almost half the population of the area. This large group would've been denied its right to self-determination, and denied civil rights.

If the Jews had a right to secede, then didn't the Arabs in the Jewish-allocated territory also have a right to secede? Shouldn't the area of for "Jewish state" have been smaller then?

Furthermore, the Jews in their area allocated for Israel didn't own most of the land. And starting in 1947, many of the indigenous Arab inhabitants were driven from their homes by force -- had they not been, the Jews would not have been a majority in their territory.

Add this to the fact that the manipulation of the Ottoman Land code and the fact that the British ignored the League of Nations made any kind of Jewish settlement morally and legally questionable.

U resolution 181 also said that if the Arabs lost any portion of the land designated to the Jews they would be compensated.

What if they didn't want compensation? What if they wanted to remain on the land they'd inhabited for generations?

ALL OF THIS WAS REJECTED BY THE ARAB LEAGUE AND FIVE ARAB ARMIES INVADED IN MAY OF 48 TO DIVIDE UP PALESTINE FOR THEMSELVES (HISTORIAN BENNY MORRIS).

1. Typing in all caps doesn't make your point any more valid.

2. Why should the Palestinians be made to suffer for decisions made by non-Palestinians? The Palestinians are not responsible for the fact that five Arab armies invaded.

By the time Israel declared independence, 300,000 Palestinians had already been expelled, resulting in potential instability in neighboring countries.

Intervention on the part of the Arab states was very reluctant. It was directed largely against Transjordan, not Israel, because a.) King Abdullah had become essentially a tool of the British and b.) Abdullah and the Zionists were conspiring to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, with control of the area that was to be part of the Palestinian state divided between Israel and Transjordan. After acheiving that goal, Abdullah wanted to conquer Syria. The neighboring Arab state intervened to prevent this travesty from happening.

Compare this with the Zionist reaction to the partition. The 20th Zionist Congress unanimously rejected the partition. They wanted the whole thing.

[loquat]

75. Have you read my input and the sources.

When was the last time you read a history book. Everything you say is wrong .You cant suck things out of your thumb when you dont know the facts!

[Wonder]

11. Same Party, Same Process

Same that went for Netanyahu, went for Barak, Goes for Sharon, Goes for the new PA today no different than yesterday, but for the PA is in Shambles and has begun another Exodus from the OT's

Those who remain interested in a Palestinian prospective which tends to balance out the same old propaganda... here is another essay which focuses on the Oslo process:

snip
For the past several weeks, two contradictory sets of happenings have occurred which, in their stark, irreconcilable antithesis, tell almost the whole story of what is wrong with an unevolved Zionism on the one hand, and what is just as seriously wrong with the peace process on the other. Barak and several of his faceless underlings have been on record tirelessly in Israel, in Europe and elsewhere to affirm their increasingly strident disavowal of any responsibility for Palestinian dispossession. Here and there, a more humane Israeli official will, for example, temper these disavowals with an acknowledgement that Israel bears some responsibility for the "transfers" that took place in 1948 and 1967, but that "the Arabs" -- who presumably are supposed to have evicted Palestinians too: the notion is too preposterous to require rebuttal -- are also responsible, thereby preparing the way for a magnanimous offer for Israel to take back 100,000 of the nearly 4.5 million refugees who now exist in the Arab world and beyond. But such individual declarations are remarkable for their infrequency and the lack of response they have engendered from Barak and his entourage, to say nothing of the Knesset majority, the settlers, and a dispiritingly large number of ordinary Israelis who seem to believe that, whatever happened in 1948, they will never have anything to do with it. It's not their problem, and so why should they have anything to say? That, of course, is precisely Barak's negotiating strategy: to refuse any discussion at all of the refugee claim to return, repatriation and/or compensation. Recent revelations by an Israeli researcher that a bigger 15 May 1948 massacre than the notorious one at Deir Yassin took place in Tantura, with over 200 Palestinian civilian victims shot in cold blood by Zionist soldiers, has not shaken Barak's stony rejectionism an iota.

The contradictory part of the issue is the snowballing effect of what is now a universal Palestinian demand heard literally all over the globe for the right of return. Petitions have been signed by the dozens, thousands of names in the Arab world, Europe, Africa and the Americas have been added to these lists on a daily basis, and for the first time ever, the right of return has been put squarely on the political agenda. Asaad Abdel-Rahman, the PLO's minister in charge of the refugee question for the peace process, has recently made some excellent strong statements about the absolute right of return for Palestinians evicted by Israel: these statements express the right kind of resolve and the right kind of moral indignation. After all, Abdel-Rahman says, a UN resolution (number 194) has been affirmed annually since 1948; it allows Palestinians the right of return and/or compensation. Why should there be a compromise by Palestinians given the world community's unanimity? Even the US has supported the resolution, with Israel the lone dissenter. The troubling thing, however, is that Abdel-Rahman hints that the PLO leadership may do a deal with Israel on the refugees behind his back which, in view of the long history of shabby Arafatian compromises whose net effect have been to sell out his people, is an allowable, not to say perfectly well-founded worry.

more...
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2000/468/op1.htm

My apologies if these same materials have been placed here before more than once. I suppose if that is the case someone will see fit to tell me.

[papau]

19. Wonder - Good to see you found the Taba ROR 100K only proposal

"a magnanimous offer for Israel to take back 100,000 of the nearly 4.5 million refugees who now exist" - plus compensation, case by case (the PA wanted a lump sum paid to the PA) - plus large numbers - more or less decided by the PA as to annual size - of folks back to the West Bank.

As your quote shows - Arafat was cast as evil if he accepted and allowed peace to break out - so Arafat rejected.

[Wonder]

20. You failed to quote what preceded

"the Arabs" -- who presumably are supposed to have evicted Palestinians too: the notion is too preposterous to require rebuttal -- are also responsible, thereby preparing the way for a magnanimous offer for Israel to take back 100,000 of the nearly 4.5 million refugees who now exist in the Arab world and beyond.

Said goes on to explain...


"But such individual declarations are remarkable for their infrequency and the lack of response they have engendered from Barak and his entourage, to say nothing of the Knesset majority, the settlers, and a dispiritingly large number of ordinary Israelis who seem to believe that, whatever happened in 1948, they will never have anything to do with it. It's not their problem, and so why should they have anything to say? That, of course, is precisely Barak's negotiating strategy: to refuse any discussion at all of the refugee claim to return, repatriation and/or compensation.

So you tell me

1-WHY did arafat refuse it?
2-CONSIDERING it remains a bone of contention WHERE IS THEIR CURRENT OFFER OR THEIR CURRENT PLAN FOR DUE REPARATION?

Nice try but you while Said is very critical of Arafat's corruptions and fumblings in many regards during the Oslo process, you seemed to have missed his point, but rather chose to do what GOI leaders do, omit certain points, because there seems to remain an overall refuse to admit any part in Palestinian dispossession, as you can see from that part of the paragraph you chose to cite those 100,000 seemed to be cited as dispossession cause by the Palestinians, in an attempt to turn tables in an ongoing effort to negate the fact that ISRAEL DISPOSSESS and DISPLACED the Palestinian refugees.

so WHERE IS THE SHARONS Comprehensive Reparation Plan? The question still stand. And if this is what you were referring to as the previous outline on Israeli Reparation. It hardly suffices as it hardly addresses the issue.

[papau]

23. Ok I am not understanding your goal - the Taba offer was and could

again be on the table with the 100,000 return to Israel over 10 years, unlimited return but at some agreed number per year to the west bank, and compensation for those who lost homes that are now occupied by others if they can show that they owned the homes.

We can cut out the guilt trip on which person left from Israeli forcing them on a bus (I doubt any - but it just does not matter) and who left because the Imam said to leave, expected the Arab armies would kill all the Jews and then they would go home - again it does not matter - let the history book folks write up who is the most evil.

For a 2 state solution - where one state is Jewish - as Bush said today the US supports a 2 state solution where one of the states is a Jewish state - the right of return MUST be the Taba formula - however unfair you may feel it is.

the mea culpa can be left to the treaty writers that translate the prolog into Hebrew and Arabic

[StandWatie]

29. why do you doubt?

You know I started to go into a long polemic about '48 and historical evidence that can't be denied but the more interesting question is why given the history of what happens during ethnic partition you think the Jews of the time were any different than anyone else based on pretty much nothing.

[papau]

31. I doubt evil if I have no "evidence" - but I do not doubt possiblity or

likelyhood of evil - and indeed that is what is in the history books (in Israel - although not in the US :-) ) where it does say there were Arab civilians encouraged to leave by non-Arabs.

The point is not past evil - a discussion that may be interesting for some - and indeed we can discuss how my various relatives from the Med have been harmed by members not of their tribe and of homes taken and the 40 or so tribes I was told to hate - but we were discussing mideast - as in Israel - peace

and MY ONLY POINT is that right of return beyond what was on offer at Taba means no peace - and that this the position of the US Gov.

[StandWatie]

32. you can throw blame in many directions..

Personally, I throw a ton at the British for not having balls enough to reject two states both in India/Pakistan and Israel/Palestine.

In both cases, by fair means and foul, I think in the end everyone would have been better served by a one state federal solution with strong constitutional guarantees to all residents with a sort of state system like the US gerrymanderinging out the Jewish/Hindu and Muslim communities.

I don't think the last partition deal in the Balkans will hold either, not in the long run, I supported anything that could be done against the Slobo regime but I think the solution imposed will still one day explode the way the rest have.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. Blame

It's too late for blame and it's too late for one-state fantasies. The real world option is either a two-state solution or the status quo.

[StandWatie]

34. eh, maybe..

I think it will still wind up as a temporary band-aid sort of solution, I'm not very hopeful one way or another. I would have thought at one time that people would evolve past sectarian and racial squabbling but the beginning of the 21'st century seems to indicate that the Dark Ages can always come back anyway.

[Wonder]

54. That is a mouthful there StandWatie!

:hi:

[Wonder]

53. Like most things it is not either or. The interpretation that

right of return harkens back to a one state solution is a misinterpertation and a gross misunderstanding of the Palestinian cause.

[Wonder]

50. 100,000 return to Israel over 10 years...

You miss my point altogether... I ask where is the Israeli Reparation Plan... 700,000 Palestinians were originally dispossessed or run off... since then the creation of homelessness in the OT's is overwhelming but generally ignored as a no thing.

RESTITUTION IS IN ORDER HERE. Yet Israel fails to admit it is responsible for any of it. Particularly the Policies of Sharon.

100,000 RETURN TO ISRAEL OVER A 10 YEAR PERIOD IS HARDLY RESTITUTION considering those 100,000 that are accounted for was dispossession blamed on the Palestinians and it is not even a bandaid, as it avoids rather than addresses the main grievance, based on years of Israeli denial of all of the history that relates to the Palestinian grievance itself.

What i am saying is that Israel Owes Damages. From my reading literal right to return is not as big an issue as Acknowledgement and Restitution, but instead the Hardline wants to brush the whole thing under the rug and is actually asking the Palestinians FORGET THEIR HISTORY AND THEIR PASS..

This is the heart of their grievance... HOW WOULD IT BE RECEIVED IF IT WERE THE OTHER WAY AROUND AND Germany, who paid much resititution to Israel, and Switzerland who did finally open up those accounts, instead said it is no big deal we will let a percent of you come live here but you must forget the incident ever occurred because your numbers and your claims do not reconcile with ours and we just happen to have more power than you so take it or leave it.

This kind of denial and arrogance will never do. This is the heart of the issue... I already put this somewhere here but I can not find it.

Said states in no uncertain terms:


There is now considerable evidence from research done in Israeli archives, in addition to the testimony and research prduced by Palestinians,to ascertain that the tragic fate of the Palestinian people for the past fifty years has derived in large measure from Israel's behavior--Israel,that is acting at the state of the Jewish people.

This is an important development in that for the first time since 1948 the wall of official denial has been penetrated, and the silence about what took place in 1948 has been broken despite the fact that some intellectuals still refuse to acknowledge the factual evidence. The Economist concludes as follows: 'The war of Israel's historians is fated to continue. That is probably , on balance, a good thing. Nobody can deny that, whatever the original intentions of Zionism's leaders, their project turned out to have calamitous consequences for the Arabs of Palestine. It may be that by accepting their portion of the blame Israelis will find it easier to reach a reconciliation with the Palestinians...

Against the background of swiss compliance with the World Jewish Congress's legitmate wish to have secret bank accounts of Holocaust victims uncovered, it is plain that the Palestinian claim for losses to Israel ought at least be addressed. It is hypocritical for Israel to require justice in one instance and refuse it in another, especially since nearly everyone of the seven million surviving Palestinians today incurred major losses because of deprivation, dispossession, military occupation, bombing campaigns, and terrorism. ...


Israel has never been required to face its own past. Its claim to have survived for fifty years as a state embodying the innocence of victim is of course is utter nonsense. Palestinian losses for which israel is directly responsible are estimated at many billions of dollars, considering that in 1948 the Zionists had only succeeded in buy 6% of Palestine's land area: the rest came by conquest and by driving out as many Palestinians as possible. Thus the Jewish victims of Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust produced their own victims, the Palestinians; even though it is difficult to formulate the claims of the victims' victims the fact is that such a claim must be formulaed by Palestinians above all, but also by Arab peoples and other peoples of human rights.

must remain true to the principle of our history and our losses, which cannot be sidetracked by such things as ridiculous "Allon Plus" plans offered by netanyahu and his right wing supporters . Peace can only come with reconciliation and restitution.

-------

Now if I must now articulate also an interpretation of these words, it is clearly not worth my time. It is not a matter of a bandaid called 100,000 Palestinians allowed to return... it is Acknowledgement that REPARATION is due, along with agreed upon restitution. The blatant and continued denial of worthy Palestinian claims, is a stake through the heart of the Palestinian Cause.

Giving up Right of Return just out of hand would be idiocy on their part. There claims have yet to be recognized. When I say reparation plan I mean a comprehensive plan which makes clear Israel understands that it's own struggle against persecution has caused the persecution of now and entire people, namely the Palestinians who are victims of Israel's cause. Without it, as Said makes clear, there will be no reconciliation.

Instead what do we have? We have a defacto separation Wall which now figuratively stands in arrogance and denial against the claims of a persecuted people. Persecuted by Who? Israel. The Propaganda alone deprives them of their right to fight in resistance to Israeli persecution. Israel continues to deny, in arrogance and by omission, the rights and claims of the victims of Israeli dispossession and Israeli occupation. That denial further conpounded by Israeli refusal acknowledge Palestinian claims, let alone make restitution,also in denial of the right wing anti-arab policies a causal factor in having created the refugee problem, while at the very same time Sharon carries out those very same policies... There will be no peace and it will be Israel that is to blame.

This bold face hypocracy and lack of honesty stand in direct opposition to any case Israel may have in it's defense. Reparation does not mean 100,000 Palestinians out of 4-7 million return, Reparation means taking right of return off final status and coming to some kind of sincere restitution within the two state construct. As another poster in this thread stated this is not about literal translation of Right of Return, that is another talk point the RW likud likes to keep alive. This is a matter of principle. You can not ask any people to just forget their past because remembering their past happens to make you look bad. Sorry, that will not do. And this is not a lone opinion I express here oh so emphatically but humbly. This is the way a percentage of people in the international community view Israel regardless of the propaganda war.

If this is not rectified and Sharon stays on course another exodus will not be avoided (one has already begun)... while it might be made to look once more like it was the fault of the suicide bomber... Sharon and AIPAC and the RW Likud do not fool all of us... and Israel stands to walk with eyes open right into another catastrophe...

Reparation is of a number one priority next to security. Security for who? Just Israel? Now if Papau you don't understand the point I am making someone else will have to jump in because this is not new news.

[Herschel]

22. Fantasies

Waiting on the right of return is waiting on peace.

[Wonder]

52. well then Herschel I guess peace will have to wait!

You can not expect a whole people to just forget their past because remembering it makes you look bad. I mean that figuratively. Unless of course Abbas decides to sell the Palestinian cause down the river like Arafat did.

[Herschel]

77. Explain yourself

Why you feel Arafat sold them down the river.

[loquat]

68. REFUGEE QUESTION REVISTED

Two citations from non Israeli sources.

A\" History of Arab Peoples\" Albert Hourani
From prudence to begin with ,later beacuse of panic,and the deliberate policy of the Israeli Army(?) almost two thirds of the population left their homes and became refugees \".Prior to their
refusalto return as indicated later.

Since the estmated (distorted }number of displaced Palestinians was about 650 000, the number of remaining Palestinians in Israel was about 223.000 .\\ .So only 433 000 becace dispalced according to Hourani. I wil even leave out those who left of their own free will or fear of the invading Imperial Arab armies

At what point should you count the number of refugees or displaced persons? What I found from my notes from the UNSCOP report.

Prior to partion, the total number of Palestinians living in unpartitioned Palestine was 1 288,000.Jordan absorbed 500 000 in the territory they took over, leaving 788 000.Egypt absorbed the
Gza strip with 100 000 Palestinians leaving 688 000
in the disputed territory. About 160 000 Palestinians remained in Israel and never left. This leaves 528 000 who were displaced but not yet refugees.

When the refugees passed motions ,as I CAN SHOW ,not to return unless they could destroy Israel in refusal of the UN resolutions
they became refugees of their own choosing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

69. Approximately 600,000 to 750,000 Palestinians

were displaced with the establishment of Israel.

I now see numbers of 4,000,000 to 5,000,000 displaced Palestinians;i.e their progeny

I empathize with their plight but it is an infantile fantasy to expect Israel to accommodate them all.

A reasonable solution is to allow a limited number to return and to compensate others who have legitimate claims.

The only alternative is continued violence.

[Wonder]

72. Payment in Restitution and Reparation

One of the main reasons that the only alternative seems continued violence is the original political zionists saught to conquer that land via dominance. The refugee the issue has hardly been addressed, no acknowledgement of Israeli responsibility, therefore no real offers made to right the injustice, which is one of the reasons why the only alternative that remains is continued violence.

To many who cite these numbers so matter of factly, 1- they seem oblivious of the facts omitted which has made this blatant denial possible, and 2-seem oblivious to the fact that this displacement has been a causal factor which set fire to flame of Palestinian hostility during mandate and partition back in '48 as well as fanning the flames of the Palestinian resistance since 1967.

Always there is a failure to admit that a more reasonable solution would be for Israel to finally admit they share in the blame, because as victims their cause created victims which is due in part to racist Zionism.

[Wonder]

73. Wow sounds like you are ready for your dissertation

on Palestine, from the extended kingdoms of David and Solomon through the Canaanites of the 7th century A.D.?

but first if you CAN SHOW what were the aims of the Jewish National Fund, going back to the late 1800's early 1900's.

Please can YOU SHOW what were the various massacres that made up al nakba...

and perhaps once you have SHOWN this you can better explain how it is becoming a refugee was the Palestinian Refugee's own choosing.

Then perhaps we can move on to Michael Oren's historical overview of the 6 Day War, but only if you can provide a list of all of his political affiliations.

Yesiree! I would be most interested in that SHOWING when you pull all your facts together.

with references and sources of course.

[loquat]

76. COFERENCE OF PALESTINIANS in SYRIA

The conference ended with the passage of the rsolution that any Palestinian who without the right to destroy Israel was a traitor. The UN resolutions always said that only those who wanted to returnin peace were welcome. Can you read English?

I WILL RUN THE ORIGINAL FOR YOUR EYES IF IT WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

[Wonder]

88. what do you mean can I read english

have I given another impression?

links where are your links?

[loquat]

74. DONT CONFUSE THEM WITH THE FACTS

They know better than the UN what the refugee numbers are from Arab propaganda .So how can they be wrong?

The UN Palestine Committee issued a report as follows:

"The Arab opposition to UN Resolution 181 has taken the form of organized efforts of strong Arab elements , both inside and outside of Palestine ,to preventthe impletation and thwart its objectves by threats and acts of violence ,including armed excursions into Palestine territory."

The UN does not give one example of Israeli initiated violence at this stage of the events. They do report that the Jews did try to defend themselves from the killings ,burning and violence that took place.

They were confronted by the statementof the secretary-general of the Arab League speaking for the governments of the six Arab states and the Arab Palestine Higher Commiittee when he said "This will be a war of extermination of the Jews .It will be a momentus massacre to be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

From the end of November 47 to the middle of April of 48 the marauding bands from acrossthe borders of Palestine were augmented by two military formations of local Arabs never consisting of more than 300 to 500 fighters .

This great number came out of a population of 1 million two hundred thousand. The grtreat irony is that so large a number of Palestinians volunteered to fight on the Israeli side that a separate unit had to be formed . (Read Benny Morris "1948 and After)

There are ignorant people without shame on this forum !

[tinnypriv]

78. Post #51

*whistles* :D

[loquat]

79. THE PALISTINIAN REFUGEES SPEAK

UN resolution 174 says those who want to return to Israel must live in peace.

Resolution adopted at the confedrence of Palestine refugees in Syria'," Any discussion aimed at a solution of the Palestine problem which will not be based on ensuring the refugees right to annihilate Israel will be regarded as a desecration of the Arab people and an act of treason"

Al Gumhuriyva " The refugees will not return while the flag of Israel flies over the soil of Palestine"

Are you victims of PLO propaganda?

I am checkin my files to find the Hamas claim that Syrian agents,like Elias Hobeika, were resposable for the Sabra and Shatila massacre . Stay tuned.

[tinnypriv]

80. Post #51

*twiddles thumbs* :D

[Wonder]

83. Yah! You do that. You check your files

What is the circulation on that ground breaking book? And how is that dissertation coming along? You might want to take a look at Teddy Katz's Thesis while you are at it. Might just give you a clue.

[loquat]

84. HERE IS THE HAMAS DOCUMENT I PROMISED ! NO PANIC.PLEASE

Saleh Al-Na'ami, a senior political commentator for the Hamas weekly, Al-Risala, related in its latest issue to the BBC/Panorama program about Sharon. Contrary to the consensus in the Arab media, Al-Na'ami states that the demand to prosecute Israeli PM Sharon as a war criminal is hypocritical and that Syria and the heads of the Christian Lebanese forces are the ones responsible for the massacre at Sabra and Shatila. Following are excerpts from his column:


(It is to long to print all.If you are interested I will give you the information where you can get the original and information about Israel)

"The documentary aired by the BBC's first channel has provoked the interest of the entire world... Naturally, many Arab intellectuals were enthusiastic about prosecuting Sharon, and the BBC deserves full credit for its objective handling of the issue..."

"However, with all honesty, there is a certain degree of hypocrisy in the Arab coverage of the Sabra and Shatila massacres!!!!! It is true that Sharon bears (some?) responsibility for these massacres, but the people who committed these war crimes with their own hands, were never tried."

"Moreover, Eli Hbeika who was head of security in the Lebanese Forces when they committed these massacres and who supervised the mass-killings and the rapes, boasted in the film itself that he was never, nor will he ever be tried, and that he lives completely free. The same goes for Fadi Afram, the commander of the Lebanese Forces, who had an actual role in committing the massacres."

"We ask once again the question we have been asking always: Who is protecting Eli Hbeika now, when nobody disputes his responsibility for these massacres? The answer is: The Syrian government who rewarded him two years after the massacre, by appointing him as a minister in the Lebanese government. The Syrian rulers, and first and foremost Bashar Al-Assad, should prove their commitment to the Palestinian cause before they fill the air with their slogans about it."

"Indeed, it is hypocritical to attack Sharon for his part in the Sabra and Shatila massacre, without demanding from Syria and from the Lebanese government to demonstrate minimal commitment towards the Palestinian people and allow the prosecution of the real war criminals - Hbeika and the gang of lowlifes that surrounded him at the time."

"When a committee was, finally, established by the Lebanese government, it acquitted Hbeika of any responsibility for committing the massacres and unloaded all the responsibility on Israel, even though, the court established that it was Hbeika's soldiers who committed the massacres."

"In all honesty, the regime in Syria has not found any flaw in its relations with Hbeika, despite his crimes against Palestinians and Lebanese alike, because this regime has lost the sensitivity to the lives of its own people."

"Someone who murdered tens of thousands in Hamma, cannot be expected to find any flaw in the murder of two thousands Palestinians by Hbeika."


Even this is not tthe complete story .I gave the URL how and when Hobeika became a Syrian agent in the ranks of the Phalange .

[Wonder]

87. link please

:hi:

[Aidoneus]

89. Re: this Hamas doc

I would like to know the source for this--ie, where you're reading this from originally--, and perhaps the original document if you can provide it.

I don't think it could be argued that Hobeika wasn't an unprincipled scum-for-hire, though certain details of his career seem to be disputed here?

Are you suggesting that Hobeika was a Syrian agent at the time of the camp massacres? Even publications by people like Daniel Pipes don't dispute that he was the IDF's top military liason in Lebanon through his position in the Lebanese Forces militia. Between the camp massacres and his death he spit out some pretty pathetic "the dog ate my homework"-type excuses as to his involvement, and a few months before he died he declared himself innocent and hinted that he had some new information that he was willing to reveal to the Belgian trial (hence the suggestion that Israel knocked him off to silence him), but his involvement isn't disputed by most serious sources--I believe according to some Israeli testimony, he watched it all from the nearby Kuwaiti embassy as his fighters did their deed (needing only a slight hint from Hobeika what was expected of them, as Israelis overheard on radio). When the IDF took over Beirut in their invasion of Lebanon, they sent for him to settle old scores with the Palestinians, having had the camps emptied of most PLO fighters in an American-bartered agreement a short time previous. What part could or would Syria have with any of this, were the Syrians in league with the IDF on it or what?

How he eventually did come to be in league with the Syrians is a strange story that, though I am more or less aware of the "facts" in the process, leaves me more than a little confused. Besides the general shifting climate in Lebanon tilting towards Syria's favour with their attempts to end the civil war, it seems to have started with the failure of the CIA's assassination attempt on Sheikh Sayyid Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.

According to one version (and this of course conflicts entirely with other versions of the event), he was in league with the CIA--having been trained by the CIA in the first place--in the massacre that came out of the failed assassination attempt on Sayyid Fadlallah. This disaster supposedly caused the CIA to break all ties with him, and he was winning enemies quick (among them Hezbollah).

At the same time period, he and a few peers were rebelling against the then-head of their Lebanese Forces militia over his (the leader they were rebelling against) reconciliation efforts with Syria, in the process Hobeika became one of the top (the top? I forget) leaders in it. Then rather suddenly, perhaps he realized the tide was turning, he tried to save his ass by sucking up to Syria in hopes of staying around in the post-civil war order.

I doubt it was a reward for the camp massacres that got him his position in the Syrian-backed order, but rather his existing position in the Lebanese Forces militia, for at the same time the Syrians brought Jumblatt and Berri along with him for the Tripartite Accord. Devils advocate is not a role I fancy myself in often, but I would assume it was more pragmatism than favouritism that brought him in. While Aoun was making noise I guess they felt they needed some Christian quisling to counter his influence and they took what they could find.

Some of the allegations that Hatem (that guy whose book you point to above, and I had to refresh myself about these since you posted it) made about him are interesting, particularly the execution of the 4 Iranian diplomats that were taken by his LF militia. The signifigance of those hostages being taken and executed is often understated, for if it's the same 4 Iranians I'm thinking of it all but triggered what would later be known as the "Hostage Crisis" as the Mughniyah and Musawi clans began taking "western" hostages in retaliation (and for various other reasons, the "Kuwait 17" and general angst being two of them).

At any rate Hobeika's past was a liability and Syria never bent over backwards to advance him, except perhaps by blocking some investigations into him made in the late 90s, and he eventually fell out of favour a couple years before his death. Hezbollah in particular held a grudge against him, along with pretty much anybody else he had dealt with.

What exactly are you trying to say about him? That he wasn't really an agent of Israel but was a Syrian agent the whole time? They favoured him why? Syria benefited from the massacres of Palestinians how, exactly? More damage was done to the Palestinians in Lebanon by Israel than by Syria at any point. Were the Syrians in league with Israel vis-a-vis Lebanon, rather than opposed as all obvious signs and logic would otherwise point to? The claims that you made regarding this Hamas document and the claims that this Hamas document make are different.

[Wonder]

92. That is what I was wondering too!

whether loquat was suggesting that Hobeika was a Syrian agent at the time of the camp massacres? Which is why I pulled my own files. It seems to me the Syrian after the fact suggestion is not all that surprising but more a convenient framing in an attempt to divert, and distract attention. Whether a scum-for-hire or a straight out patsy Hobeika was assassinated and oh so timely before he testified for a reason. wouldn't you think?

[loquat]

94. READ HATEMS FREE BOOK ON THE INTERNET

I suggest you read Hatems free book on thr internet for background on Hobeika. Hatem suggsts that Hobika was a Syrian agent for a long time. He mentions at least two meetings with the Syrian secret police prior to the massacres.A s late as 6 months before he was assasinated he and his goons were used to beat up Christian Lebanese kids who were demonstating.

The Christian freedom fighters against Syria have demonstrated that he was killed by Syrian agents beacuse he was TALKING TO THE CIA.


You cant understand the events at Sabra and Shatila unles you understand Syrian nationalpolicy.Hafez Assad stated it clearly that.Syria represents all all Arabs in Lebanon,Jordon,Israel and the PA .Syria used one faction against another at different times in Lebanon to keep them disunited.

Hafez to Arafat, " You do not represent Palestine as much as we do.Never foget this one point: THere is no such thing as a Palestine People,there is no Palestine entity,there is only Syria.You are an integralpart of the Syrian people.Palestine is an integralpart of Syria..Therefore it is we,the Syrian authorities who are the true representatives of the Palestine people."

In the 2 year War of the Camps, Hafez's agents killed thousands of pro-Arafat Palestinians using the Shia and at other times the Phalange.

[Aidoneus]

97. response

I know about Hobeika, he was trash who served himself. As I said above, the book link you give is dead, do you have another source for it? Besides, I think I've read it before, and at any rate I know of the claims in it.

What was the topic of discussion of those 2 supposed meetings with Syrian secret police? How did that mesh with his undeniable relations with Israel at the time, or would you & Hatem try to deny them?

Hamas does not claim, as you yourself said they did, in that document that Syria was behind the camp massacres, but rather that they later enlisted the man that was involved. That is a true fact, but I explained and expanded on some of the circumstances behind that and the context it occured in. I doubt it was a reward for the massacres themselves, but rather due to his posisition of power and Syria's intent to take the major warring parties out of the war (and fatten themselves with power at the same time)--"Who in Lebanon isn't a murderer?" was Syria's response to Jumblatt's confusion on bringing such an unsavory figure like Hobeika and his Lebanese Forces militia in on the Tripartite Accord.

I don't think it's known for sure who killed him--he kinda pissed everybody off that he ever dealt with (something of a Christian version of Abu Nidal), thus anybody could've done it. One theory goes that he was about to reveal information about Sharon to the Belgian court, so Israel killed him. Another was that Hezbollah held a residual grudge against him for his supposed role in the attempt on Sayyid Fadlallah's life and made their move against him when he had fallen from most favour and influence. Another was that Christian Lebanese, who you refer to as "freedom fighters", killed him as part of their ongoing campaign to re-destabilize Lebanon as part of a US intervention. Another that Syria killed him because he was about to turn on them. Another was that Imad Mughniyah did him in because he wanted to rat out the CIA on him. It is difficult to know who killed a guy when he's got so many powerful enemies, it's the sort of thing that people will just believe what they want to believe anyway, no matter that it's not anymore plausible than any of the other possibilities.

I know about Hafez Assad and Syria's national policy. Don't talk down to people here, approach the discussion on some normal level, ok? At the time of the war, Sabra and Shatilla was in Israel's sphere of influence--their army occupied & controlled the city and its surroundings, not Syria--, as far as the events being set in motion, being carried out, and such. The attempt to just place them on Syria's head due to just a couple supposed meetings with some secret police occurs to me as opportunistic and questionable, as opposed to the well-established and more plausible ties to the IDF that Hobeika had previously formed.

I've read that Assad quote before, the only places I can find it is from pro-Israel trolls on Miftah's board, Daniel Pipes' work and other blindly pro-Israel pages, and Christian fundamentalists. Do you have a more specific cite for it and a reliable original source? I've also seen it attributed to another person--some lower Syrian gov't functionary whose name I cannot recall.

The "War in the Camps" casualties wasn't thousands, but hundreds, and the Palestinians had some help from the Druze in resisting it. The AMAL did it as a part of consolidating its own power and position, unsuccessfully attacked the camps and eventually Syria intervened and forced AMAL to call it off.

tinnypriv's post #51 is still sitting there unanswered.

[Wonder]

98. your assessment

IMO casts the issue in it's appropriate perspective. I provided a source on the stragies employed behind both the litani and peace for galilee operations and Israel support of Lebanon's desired independence.

Also there does not appear to be any connection between Hobeika and syria at the time of the massacre. Sharon was the defense minister and Israeli troops were responsible for access into the camp.

That book loquat is waving around I have not read. But from searches, it seems a circulation only pamphlet not sold by more reputable book outlets. I placed a two sources on various aspects of the incident. in Post #91

Livia Rokach's work on Israeli expansionist strategy is a reliable one. She is or was the daughter of Israel Rokach who was within the Israeli Ministry with Moshe Sharret. Rokach's study shed much light on the rigors of the Israel propaganda campaigns, even as they applied to censoring her study.

Thanks for your input. You seem to have more fluency with the history than I. When one speaks out on the ip conflict it seems one must familiarize oneself with the whole region. It is a fascinating study, if not so heartbreaking as it applies to the Palestinians.

[loquat]

110. The Sabra and Shatila book URL moved

http://www.aceviper.net/members/cobra/intro.html

No one can understand the Syrian directed massacres at Sabra and Shatila
unless they have read this free book.

Try carrying this book into Syria if you want to commit suicide.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[loquat]

85. ROUND 2 DAMOUR MASSACRES BY THE PALESTINIANS

DO YOU KNOW ABOUT DAMOUR IN LEBANON ? THOUSANDS OF CHRISTIAN WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE BUTCHERED ON ARAFATS ORDERS. YES .ITS COMPLICATED BUT PLO DOCUMEMNTS ,MUCH TO THEIR CHAGRIN,IS AVAILABLE..

[Aidoneus]

86. Damour

it wasn't thousands, but rather between five and six hundred. Really nasty episode to be perfectly honest, completely arbitrary assault on civilians during a period of fighting between the reactionary fascists in the Falange and the various Palestinian factions. This particular event was carried out by the al-Sa'iqa movement, led by a man named Zuhayr Muhsin.

Not sure about Arafat's role (except that when the local priest called Jumblatt, the Druze leader suggested that Labaky call Arafat about it if he wanted it stopped), for according to propagandists of the anti-Syrian views I've read from in the past, they say it was carried out on Syria's behalf (for what motives I can't imagine, I believe that was still in the period where they were nominally on the side of the Christians against the Leftists/Muslim coalition, before the Syrians turned on them when the Maronites threw their lot in with Israel instead).

What PLO documents do you know of that implicate Arafat in this? I thought you said Syria was against Arafat/PLO too.

Typing in all caps isn't necessary, we can read you ok; normal conversations are better than the internet equivalent of screaming.

[Lithos]

102. loquat

Please avoid the use of all caps.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html#disruption

Do not post messages that are entirely in capital letters, unless you are trying to indicate yelling or intense emotion.

Regards

Lithos
FA/NS Moderator
Democratic Underground

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

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

[sushi]

90. Right of Return

Israel will never agree to the right of return for the Palestinians to their homes in Israel proper. Roughly 700,000 Arabs left and became refugees when Israel was created, and that number has become,
I understand, roughly 3 million.

Many of the refugees have made successful homes in other countries
(one of them even became queen of Jordan), so I don't think many will want to return to their previous lives in what is now Israel, BUT it would be a nightmare for Israel if it agrees to the right of return, and not 10% but all or most of the refugees return, then Israel, with a current population of 6.5 million, including roughly 1.5 million Arabs, will cease to be a Jewish state.
I do think it would be best for all sides if Saudi Arabia's proposal, that all refugees receive a financial settlement and go live somewhere else, is accepted.

I have read that Israel is fighting a losing battle, because the birthrate of Arabs is higher than that of the Jews, and many Israeli citizens of Arab descent have reached childbearing years. In other words, there will be more Arabs than Jews in Israel before too long!

[Wonder]

93. why do so many seem to miss the heart of the matter...

where Right of Return is concerned. At least that is MHO!

It is the principle more that is important. The Israeli acknowledgement that damages are due. Israeli pop is clearly outnumbered, which if a State of Palestine was ever on the agenda for real, is irrelvant but for all the vilification of the Palestinian resistance, it's cause, and the denial of its loses at the hand of Israel and its history.

Why do so many miss this very simple but oh so important point?

[sushi]

95. Right of Return

I agree that damages are due. I think Israel should dismantle ALL the settlements they built in the occupied territories, share Jerusalem with the Palestinians, and bring down that wall, but agreeing to the right of return of Arab refugees would be like committing suicide. Israel simply can't afford to do that.
Better to make generous financial settlements.

[Darranar]

96. Completely agreed, Sushi

But even that is unlikely to happen in the current Middle Eastern situation, unfortunately.

[Wonder]

99. Again - the focus on RtoR to Israel proper

is misleading. With the appropraite acknowledges of the Palestinian loses cause by Israel's original sins, and restitution of damages due, RtoR can be rectified. Palestinians will not let go of RtoR without.

More than once I have read material to suggest RtoR to Israel proper is a matter of principle. I agree they should not let it get swept under the rug, but the spin on it is misleading and only serves to negate any discussion or thought to the fact that Israel must be held accountable and bear it's responsibility in damages, and keeping it on final status because the progadanists insist on distracting us from the heart of the issue only serves to reinforce the fact that Israel under Sharon has no intention to acknowledge, admit, reconcile, or resolve RtoR. Easier to focus on they can not return to Israel proper, rather than focus on what reparation can be negotiated. Why do you think RtoR takes a back seat to all his contingenies, his outposts, his wall, his security, and remains once more on final status as if the claim itself is minor.

The claim is major it most be addressed and a real dialogue should have been initiated when the roadmap was first unveild, rather than the standard faire one comes by regarding the issue, but for Sharon's performance, and his slight of hand.

I agree imperative a financial settlement. But I fear this is only an intellectual exercise, more so than their being any hope of a settlement being negotiated or realized. At least not any time soon. First more ethnic cleansing, see if that will finally break the Palestinian spirit.

[Darranar]

100. The Palestinian refugees...

should be given financial reparation, and as well should be allowed to go to the future Palestinian state.

[sushi]

103. Right of Return

Palestinians will not let go of the Right of Return, but I don't think Israel will or can agree to that. So where do we go from here?

A solution that is acceptable to BOTH sides must be found.
Mistakes have been made in the past - if only we could turn the clock back! The answer now is compromise.

One can't possibly agree to something that would mean the end of one's country! Isn't VERY generous financial settlements better?
Thinking Palestinians would understand and, hopefully, accept this. Maybe they can extract concessions in other areas from Israel.
I think it's better to live somewhere else in peace with lots of money than to continue killing each other. After all many of the refugees haven't been back for decades.

We should keep our fingers crossed for the majority of Palestinians and Israelis who want to live in peace and are willing to compromise.

[Wonder]

104. They will not let go of right to return

Not in principle. I have already been through the spiel ... they have every right to hold fast to right to return... just ignoring it and purporting this no thing notion... that all 4 million want to go flocking back to israel proper is a RW distraction as far as I am concerned. They want acknowledgement of their loses. Admittance and accountability. For the most part the right to return is symbolic.

If addressed and mutually agreed upon. Palestinian's will let go of right to return specifically in Israel. They can not just drop it since the issue of reparation (monetary) have never been addressed their claims and losses ignored completely

But there is nothing really mutual about this. Tantura, al Nakba. So what the two legged creatures call "catastrophe" in quote ??? It is just some mere fiction in their mind. There is little mutual about this.

If I say anymore about right to return...it will at this point be redundant it's another round and round topic. Yes we will just keep our fingers cross Sushi... and hope for a miracle.

[loquat]

106. Get down to the facts

Stop wondering and get down to the fatcs. The roads to hell is paved

with good intentions.

In 1949 at the UN meeting in Lausanne the Israelis offered to take

into Israel 260 000 displaced Palis in addition to the 50 000 they had

admitted on a fmily reunion basis..This was turned down by

represtatives of the Arab League.

In 1967 Levi Eshcal,the Israeli prime minister,offered to solve the

Palestinain refugee problem. Jordan accepted but the Arab League

vetoed any solutionm to the problem.

Shortly thereafter Israel made the same offer at the UN only to be

turned down.


Why? The Arab dictators have used the Palestinians as canon fodder

to beat Israel over the head. Besides they would have to compensate

the Arabized Jews they had victimized.

Most of Palestiians were poor tenent farmers who did not own any land.

A very large section of the land was owned by absentee landlords who

lived in Cairo or the fleshpots of Lebanon.Another very large section

was public domain lands .Still an other large section was arid lands

of the government which was used by wandering tribes. Put into this

mix land purchased by Jewish organizations some of which was leased to

Arab tenent farmers.


Contrast this with the property taken from the Jews in Arab countries.

Most of them were in the middle or upper class. Their roperty had been

accumulated for thousands of years.Some,in Egypt, had been there

for 2500 years. Most of this stolen property went to the military and

political kleptocrats that ruled the Arab countries.


The Arab proagandist are afraid of the truth .Whem Qatar tv was

started they said they had to do it beacuse the Arab dictators had

lied to their people forover 55 years.

[Wonder]

109. One might suggest YOU get down to the FACTS

and stop spinning so many yarns!

[loquat]

105. Palestinian doubletalk and they have got you fooled!!

The great Palestinian hero,lord of Iraq ,Hussein expelled 800,000 from their homes and property. . The Kurds were moved out from their homes near the oil fields into the mountaisn and the Marsh Arabs had their homes destroyed en mass.Have you ever heard one Palestinian say that this was wrong?

In case you never saw a report of the Arab League meeeting of 1947 ,just before the UN met to decide to divide the UN property of Palestsine as it saw fit, let me give you a few highlights:

1- They decided to make military preperations to invade UN Palestine if they lost the vote on partition in violation of their oath to the UN.

2- They decided to take in the Palestinian people displaced by the war against the UN.

3- They decided to take such other action neccessary and 650 000 Jews lost their homes and property in the Islamic world and were exiled.

The Arab Palestine Higher Committee represented the Palestinians at this League meeting.

Read the UN 181 that the Arabs turned down.

It gave the Arabs another 8 percent of the ancient Jewish homeland to the Arabs to add to the 78% they got in 1922 .It internationalized two percent around Jerusalem and gave the Jews back only 8 peresent of their homeland where they were in a majority.

It also said that if sny Arab lost anything from this division they would be compensated .

UN resolution 181 was turned down by the Arabs and the Palestinians.

Read the Aesop fable about the dog who saw his image in the river..

Why wont the Arabs agree to compensate the Jews of Islamic world who

were despoiled? The Jews made lot of offers on the Palestinian self

inflicted refugees but not one offer from the Arabs on the exiled

Jews.

Your road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[sushi]

107. Mistakes were made in the past..

I think it was wrong not to have created a state for the Palestinians at the same time Israel was created, but it doesn't achieve anything to keep bringing up mistakes of the past.

We're now in a new century facing a serious conflict that has caused death and suffering to both Palestinians and Israelis.
The Palestinians are nowhere and the Israeli economy is suffering too. Surely grown men from both sides, with the world's support, can sit down, put aside their pride and grievances, and come up with an agreement both sides can accept!
Otherwise this killing goes on. Is that what we want? There are other problems to tackle.

I would like to add that, in my opinion, it looks like Israel wants peace on Israel's terms.

[Darranar]

108. I agree completely, sushi!

:toast: To a just and permanent peace!

[loquat]

111. No right of self defence for Israel

And the Arabs want peace on a dead Israel!Shame on you!Is Hitler dead?

[sushi]

112. That's the problem, Loquat!

They want each other dead, which isn't going to happen.
The Palestinians can NEVER drive the Israelis into the sea, and the Israelis know that even if they could get rid of all Palestinians in the occupied territories it isn't going to bring peace to Israel.

The only way, THE ONLY WAY, to peace is at the negotiating table, and negotiations wil only be successful if they benefit BOTH sides.

I definitely think, from everything I read and see on TV, that the current Israeli Prime Minister wants to force his solution to the conflict on the world.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[Wonder]

115. PRIMER: On the Uprising in Palestine (if you would get yr facts straight

and your interpretations correct and stop reciting Likud propaganda PERHAPS Loquat you WOULDN'T have to YELL so often)!!

On the Uprising in Palestine

snip

UN General Assembly Resolution 181 reaffirmed partition in 1947.

The war that followed led to the establishment of the State of Israel. Part of the area that was designated for the Palestinian state was conquered by Israel, leading to the displacement of some 750,000 Palestinians.

snip
UN Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967), still not implemented, affirmed "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and called upon Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict." The 1970s and 1980s saw Arab-Israeli wars in 1973 and 1982, the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, the outbreak of the Palestinian intifada in December 1987, and Yasser Arafat's condemnation of terrorism and recognition of the state of Israel in December 1988.

snip
Under the DoP, Israel relinquished day-to-day authority over parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, headed by Arafat who returned to Gaza in 1994. However, ultimate power remained with Israel, which exercised its control by frequently sealing off the Palestinian-governed areas from the rest of the Occupied Territories and from Israel. Subsequent agreements in 1995 (Oslo II), 1998 (Wye River) and 1999 (Wye River II) failed to resolve these issues. With Palestinian-Israeli negotiations stalled, US President Bill Clinton called a summit at Camp David in July 2000. After two weeks of intensive negotiation, the talks ended without a deal.

snip
In 1971, he ordered a systematic campaign to "pacify" the population of Gaza through massive repression, expulsions, and arrests. First elected to the Knesset in 1977, Sharon was defense minister during the June 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. An Israeli tribunal found Sharon indirectly responsible for the September 1982 massacre (by Lebanese militias under Israeli control) of thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians living in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. As a result, Sharon was removed as defense minister but retained a role in the Cabinet as "minister without portfolio." Survivors of the massacre filed briefs with a Belgian judge calling for indictment of Sharon and Lebanese militia commanders for war crimes. This effort is presently stalled.

http://www.merip.org/new_uprising_primer/primer_page2.html

snip

Who is Ariel Sharon?

Since taking office in February 2001, Sharon has increased repression against Palestinians, several times sending Israeli troops and tanks into Palestinian-controlled cities, villages and refugee camps, including the full-scale invasions of West Bank population centers in March-April 2002. Since the September 11 hijackings in the US, Sharon has ratcheted up rhetoric pinning the blame for Israeli-Palestinian violence on the person of Yasser Arafat and equating Israeli offensives in the Occupied Territories with George W. Bush's "war on terrorism."

snip

Despite his rhetorical support for "peace" and even a Palestinian state, Sharon has clearly articulated his refusal to compromise over Jerusalem or to withdraw Israeli forces from more than the 42 percent of the West Bank and 60 percent of Gaza now under nominal PA administration -- should negotiations begin again. He has also refused to discuss return or reparations for Palestinian refugees expelled in 1948.

http://www.merip.org/new_uprising_primer/primer_page3.html

snip

Is Arafat in Charge?

The Palestinian protests following Sharon's visit to al-Haram al-Sharif were spearheaded by Islamists and students -- the sectors of the population among whom Arafat enjoys the least influence. Since September 2000, Arafat has followed the uprising and guerrilla war, not led it.

http://www.merip.org/new_uprising_primer/primer_page4.html

snip

Who Orders Suicide Bombings?

There is no credible evidence that Arafat or any other officials of the PA have any prior knowledge of Hamas and Islamic Jihad operations. Moreover, frequent Israeli attacks on PA police and security forces over the past year have seriously undermined the PA's ability to prevent them. Arafat and the PA have repeatedly condemned suicide bombings inside Israel. In December 2001, Arafat explicitly condemned suicide bombings and called for a halt to all armed attacks on Israeli civilians.

http://www.merip.org/new_uprising_primer/primer_page5.html

Primer starts here: http://www.merip.org/new_uprising_primer/primer_intro.html

And for others... So? What's a little a review?

[loquat]

122. HARD FACTSAND QUESTIONS

A REAL WONDER

WoNder :UN General Assembly Resolution 181 reaffirmed partition in 1947.

Me: Turned down by the Arab League because it provided for another Palestinian state because the Arab states wanted to divide up Palestine for themselves. Early on,Syria made the offer to take a slice of Palestine with all the refugees.


WONDER: The war that followed led to the establishment of the State of Israel. Part of the area that was designated for the Palestinian state was conquered by Israel, leading to the displacement of some 750,000 Palestinians.


Me: The official UN figure was close to 500 000 but that doesn’t bother you!
ME: A s pro Arab historians have said, the illegal invasiopn of UN owned territory by five Arab armies caused the dispersal of the civilians of both sides.

Wonder: UN Security Council Resolution 242 (November 22, 1967), still not implemented, affirmed "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and called upon Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict." The 1970s and 1980s saw Arab-Israeli wars in 1973 and 1982, the 1978 Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, the outbreak of the Palestinian intifada in December 1987, and Yasser Arafat's condemnation of terrorism and recognition of the state of Israel in December 1988.

Me: The Arab states have refused to negotiate a final peace settlement within the terms of the UN resolutions which provided that refugees can only return if they have peaceful intent. One example,from many, In 1967 the Arab League meeting in Khartum turned down any negotiations that would lead to take care of all refugees and land questions. Only Jordan accepted but they were outvoted.


WONDER: Under the DoP, Israel relinquished day-to-day authority over parts of the Gaza Strip and West Bank to the Palestinian Authority, headed by Arafat who returned to Gaza in 1994. However, ultimate power remained with Israel, which exercised its control by frequently sealing off the Palestinian-governed areas from the rest of the Occupied Territories and from Israel. Subsequent agreements in 1995 (Oslo II), 1998 (Wye River) and 1999 (Wye River II) failed to resolve these issues. With Palestinian-Israeli negotiations stalled, US President Bill Clinton called a summit at Camp David in July 2000. After two weeks of intensive negotiation, the talks ended without a deal.


Me: The Islamic Jihad ,Hamas ,Fatah ,PFLP, PFLP GeneralCommand all have in their consttution the demise of Israel how do you negotiate with them.

A t the Clinton sumit the Arabs turned down the best deal that they had ever been offered. If by some logic they had not been offered enough ,and even more important, they never offered a counter offer as to what they would accept.



WONDER: 1971, he ordered a systematic campaign to "pacify" the population of Gaza through massive repression, expulsions, and arrests. First elected to the Knesset in 1977, Sharon was defense minister during the June 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. An Israeli tribunal found Sharon indirectly responsible for the September 1982 massacre (by Lebanese militias under Israeli control) of thousands of Palestinian and Lebanese civilians living in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. As a result, Sharon was removed as defense minister but retained a role in the Cabinet as "minister without portfolio." Survivors of the massacre filed briefs with a Belgian judge calling for indictment of Sharon and Lebanese militia commanders for war crimes. This effort is presently stalled.


ME: Read the inside story as how you have been fooled

http://www.aceviper.net/members/cobra/intro.html


WONDER; Who is Ariel Sharon?

Since taking office in February 2001, Sharon has increased repression against Palestinians, several times sending Israeli troops and tanks into Palestinian-controlled cities, villages and refugee camps, including the full-scale invasions of West Bank population centers in March-April 2002. Since the September 11 hijackings in the US, Sharon has ratcheted up rhetoric pinning the blame for Israeli-Palestinian violence on the person of Yasser Arafat and equating Israeli offensives in the Occupied Territories with George W. Bush's "war on terrorism."


ME. Edward Sa’id has better credentials than you .He says that Hamas ,the PLO et al have betrayed the Palestianians and that the guerilla war waged by them is a tragic mistake. Read his column in al Ahran


WOnDER: Despite his rhetorical support for "peace" and even a Palestinian state, Sharon has clearly articulated his refusal to compromise over Jerusalem or to withdraw Israeli forces from more than the 42 percent of the West Bank and 60 percent of Gaza now under nominal PA administration -- should negotiations begin again. He has also refused to discuss return or reparations for Palestinian refugees expelled in 1948.

ME : Why are you opposed to reperations for the Jews exiled in 1948 and robbed ? At the 1947 the Arab League meeting ,with the Arab Palestine Higher Command, voted to crucify the Jews before even one gun was fired in anger.
Billions were taken from the Jews,peanuts from the mostly tenent farmers who were the bulk of the Pali population. Will you join me in paying off both groups are are you only into lip service.


WONDER :Is Arafat in Charge?

The Palestinian protests following Sharon's visit to al-Haram al-Sharif were spearheaded by Islamists and students -- the sectors of the population among whom Arafat enjoys the least influence. Since September 2000, Arafat has followed the uprising and guerrilla war, not led it.

\
ME: Typical obfuscation. In the past he has stopped Hamas et al when he believed he could benefit .His kleptocracy has been charged with stealing the Palestinans blind. He is a self confessed liar and theif. ( Read Alan Hearts PLO endorsed biography of “Arafat” )

Arafat: Who Orders Suicide Bombings?

There is no credible evidence that Arafat or any other officials of the PA have any prior knowledge of Hamas and Islamic Jihad operations. Moreover, frequent Israeli attacks on PA police and security forces over the past year have seriously undermined the PA's ability to prevent them. Arafat and the PA have repeatedly condemned suicide bombings inside Israel. In December 2001, Arafat explicitly condemned suicide bombings and called for a halt to all armed attacks on Israeli civilians.

ME: Are you really that naive? Does Arafat control Fatah? Arafat has said publicly that he could stop the intifada but that would mean a civil war.

By the way you have failed to respond to the Hamas claim that Syria was resposable for the killing of thousands of Palis. I can give you one incident, out of many,where Syrian heavy weapons aided by the Phalange , killed thousands of Palestinians.

There was a two year war in which Assad and his allies butchered thousands of supporters of Arafat .Do you know the reason why? It appears in a book by Kamal Jumblatt ,”I speak for the Lebanese “ . He was the strongest supporter of the Palestoinians in Lebanon until he was assasinated by the Syrians.

Does any of this bother you?

Do Jews have a right to live in the Pali West Bank just as over 1 million Palis live in Israel?

Should the Saudis return Yathrip to the Jews?

Did the Jews save Mohammed"s life ?'

Do you approve of monopolies and international monoplies to restrict the free flow of products like medical discoveries, medicines ,bread,science or oil? Is OPEC a criminal enterprise under American law?

Why do poor,downtrodden Israeli Arabs have a higher standard of living than their free (?) brothers across from Israels borders?

Why are there more free Arab publications in Israel than in all the surrounding countries combined.?

Why are the largest part of the Arab immegrants in America,Christians?

Why did the top Arab intelectuals , with the protection of the UN) say that the Arab countries are the worse place in the world to live?

Have a nice ,honest day

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[Darranar]

124. That claim...

that the Jews killed Jesus Christ is spread around by anti-semites. Saying that all Jews caused Jesus Christ's death, or that "The Jews" instead of "some Jews" is simply an anti-semitic statement. Please clarify that statement.

[Wonder]

126. I made my mind up Back In Chelsea WHEN I GO

I'M GOING LIKE ELSIE!!

un cabaret

un cabaret

un ca-bar-ayyyyyyy!

[sushi]

127. It doesn' require many or some

people to kill somebody - it could have been done by one person, who is not around today. I must admit I don't know the history. Now you know, I'm not into religion. To be frank, I also don't know what anti-semitism means exactly.
I do look forward to seeing Mel Gibson's movie. Maybe the answer will be in there.

[Wonder]

128. un cabaret-ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy:crazy:

[Darranar]

129. I object...

to the use of the term "the Jews." That implies that the Jews as a whole killed Jesus Christ, a claim that is only supported by anti-semites in this day and age.

[Wonder]

130. T'IS ridiculous

this claim that the "THE JEWS" killed Jesus. After ALL THESE CENTURIES it is LUDICROUS, especially considering these very same ANTI-SEMITES to which you are referring are these xtian ZIONISTS that are so cosily snuggling up to Sharon...

BUT, I must say, in the mood I am in today, even though I am not fond of Mr. Gibson, I am very curious to know if FOR ONCE Hollywood gets it straight and casts Jesus AS A HEBREW!

This is where the whole ABSURD claim goes wrong, BECAUSE in my mind THE ONLY REASON these xtian anti-Semites are to this day so PISSED about this is because, they believe Jesus to be SAXON.

Talk about your SPINS!!

[Darranar]

132. Agreed, Wonder...

It is an area where those Christian evangelicals meet the true contradiction: If only those of perfect European ancestry are "worthy," how come Jesus was a Hebrew?

[Wonder]

133. I really don't know why Jesus was a Hebrew

I just know that he was! Perhaps MEL will clear that up as well.

[Darranar]

134. Jesus was a Hebrew...

because he was born to Hebrews.

[Wonder]

135. Now why didn't I think of that?

does his lineage go back to the Garden of Eden too?

[Darranar]

136. Acording to whom?

Evagelical Christians?

[Wonder]

Who the hell knows.

Amidst this complete and utter farce I am following here in the (cough) Holy Land, wherein, it still seems, the outcome is pretty much a foregone conclusion, you expect me to be serious?

[sushi]

137. I have read a review

about Mel Gibsons's controversial movie. It had a picture of the actor who played Jesus. He does't look Middle Eastern.

[Wonder]

140. Oh well in that case

Thanks for telling me. I don't like Mel Gibson. The only reason I would have gone was in the hopes that FINALLY Jesus would be a Hebrew. Reality is already fantasyland I don't have to pay to see more of it in the American Cinema.

Hollywood never gets this most important prophet right. In Jesus Christ Superstar he is a Saxon. Ben Vereen is what's his name, the black sheep apostle who sold him out. Then comes The Last Temptation of Christ, which was a very good book, BTW (Kokansakis). Not even Scorsese gets it right. While I love Daniel Dafoe, it was bad casting as far as Christ is concerned and don't even get me started on Mary Magdelaine.

Now again another non-Semitic Jesus, while the fanatics froth at the mouth so wet and pious. Count me out. That saves me the 10 bucks. I will have my car washed instead.

So if Jesus yet again is Saxon, what the hell is so contravercial about this movie. Oh wait don't tell me. Let me guess. Hollywood has gone out on a limb with a Jesus movie that strongly implies the Jews killed Jesus. Is that it. Damn. What is that apostles name?

[Wonder]

141. Judas Iscariot

finally, I remembered the fallen apostle's name.

[sushi]

146. Mel Gibson's movie,

"The Passion," about the death of Jesus Christ, recently screened for a select group of likely sympathisers, many months before it is due for release.

"Gibson is a member of a Catholic sect that rejects the reforms of the Second Vatican Council - reforms that included throwing out the charge of "Christ killing" that incited anti-semitic violence for centuries."

Critics say his personally funded movie, which is in Aramaic and Latin, has "provoked fresh and unnecessary dispute between Christians and Jews." Frank Rich, in The New York Times, accused Gibson of going out of his way to "bait Jews and sow religious conflict."

So Gibson was criticized in an opinion column of The New York Times, but he won support on the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal.
As usual, there are always people for and against things.

I haven't seen the three movies you mentioned in your post, but this one I don't want to miss. Never heard people speak Aramaic before.
Should be interesting!

[Wonder]

147. What pecular synchronicity

It is strange to me that he would go out of his way to do this, especially since he's a B actor, and as you have implied Jesus being depicted true to his ethnicity. I always imaged he was sephardic looking. You know, I didn't bother to read the article in editorials. Now my curiosity is piqued. I guess I will have to do that, but not now tomorrow. There's an article I want to print out and read before I turn in.

[Wonder]

131. In other words, that claim

: "ain't nuthin' but SHIT!"

[sushi]

143. It's a general statement, Darranar!

If people say "The Americans won this year's Tour de France again," they don't mean Americans as a whole cycled in France - everybody knows a guy called Armstrong did the hard work and won. If people say "The Americans won this year's Ladies Single Wimbledon's Title," everybody knows it was played and won by one American person, Miss Williams.

[Darranar]

145. It is still misleading...

I understand that you did not mean to offend anyone, but I ask you to please be more careful in the future.

[sushi]

148. I would appreciate your comment to the following

A letter writer in the paper:

"So Mel Gibson's new film about the death of Jesus is exciting claims of anti-semitism. ... In 'True Lies' the anti-semitism was dished out in spades."
"Fanatical, murdering, but incredibly dumb, semites were stalking the US, planting and detonating nuclear weapons and abusing American women. And when they weren't shooting one another they were of course getting their asses kicked by Arnie..."
"But anti-semitism's okay, isn't it - providing the semites are Arab and Muslim?"


(I haven't seen "True Lies" because I don't like AS).

Is the letter writer ignorant or can I conclude from the above and from what I read about Mel Gibson's movie that anti-semitism means anti people from all of the Middle East and not only anti people from Israel? Then I don't understand why it's such a sensitive issue. It's normal for people to like or dislike others. Why do we have to tiptoe around it.

[Darranar]

150. Anti-semitism...

literally means being against those who are semitic, which includes both Jews and Arabs. However, the term has been adopted to mean only hatred of Jews.

Anti-semitism, no matter how you define it, is racism. That is why it is such a sensitive issue.

[sushi]

151. Thanks for your reply

Now I have more questions.

1)Who has adopted that term to mean only hatred of Jews?

2)What right do they have, or who gave them the right to force their meaning of the term on everybody else?
I believe in democracy. Has it been put to the vote somewhere? Anywhere?

3)If it's not okay to use terms or do or say things that the Jews would find offensive is it okay to use terms or do or say things that Arabs would find offensive?

4)If your answer is 'no' then, if that letter-writer is correct in his description of the movie, why has "True Lies" not been severely criticized for offending Arabs? In fact, I understand it's a very popular movie. I have NEVER read any criticism of "True Lies" until this letter-writer.

5)Do you agree with this double standard, and should it be allowed to go on?

[Darranar]

152. Well...

1) I don't know who adopted it to mean that. I'm no expert on this matter. Does anyone else know?

2) No one has a right to dictate such a word's use. To me, it would make more sense to simply use anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, etc, but common usage is common usage, and it is hard to turn back.

3) No, it is most certainly not okay.

4) There is indeed a double standard in the US when it comes to such things. The Muslim anti-bigotry organizations in the USA don't have a very good reputation, due to their criticism of Israel and the claim made against many of them for supporting terrorism.

5) I strongly disagree with this double standard. I do not think it should go on, but it is not like I can go up to God and tell him to stop it.

[Wonder]

155. You can not go up to God and tell him to stop it?

That's too bad Darranar, because I was really counting you. You see neither can I. Darn.

[sushi]

156. Why is it "hard to turn back?"

If semitics means Jews and Arabs in the dictionary, then that is what it means(!), and we should not say or do anything to offend EITHER side. In fact we should not say or do anything to offend anyone!!!

Trouble is people are different. You can say the same thing to two people and find one is offended and the other isn't! I find that usually the more educated one, the broadminded one, is easier to get along with. Some people are oversensitive and take everything so personally - these people need to lighten up!

You say it is common usage. That doesn't make it right. If we just accept what people force on us, then aggressive types will get away with more and more.
And why should God have to stop it. It's people that did it.

Tell me again, Darranar, what have I done WRONG that I should be "more careful in the future?"

Btw, I've posted a new link in "Determined Settlers." I have no hope for the Roadmap.

[Darranar]

157. It is hard to turn back...

because, as said above, it is comman usage. Does that make it any better? No, of course not! Try to convince all those millions of Americans who are strongly in favor of the Iraq war or the Bsuh administration that they are wrong. It won't be easy.

Once again, the claim that "the Jews" killed Jesus is a crazy claim made up by fundamentalist Christian anti-semites (who are, by the way, both anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim.) Though some Jews may have participated in the killing, "the Jews" implies more than that.

[sushi]

165. One expects the "masses"

in every country to be ignorant, but I am disappointed that so many Americans are, and that only half bother to vote!

Mel Gibson does have the support of evangelical Christians. It looks like the Christians get together with the Jews to fight the Muslims, and after they've won they'll fight each other, or I should say they'll try to convert each other!

If "some Jews may have participated in the killing," who and of what religion were the others?

[Darranar]

171. I'm no expert on the New Testament...

or on the history during that time. I do not know the answer to your question.

I, too, am disappointed in the ignorance of America.

[sushi]

180. We might find the answer

in Mel Gibson's movie. I have never looked forward to a movie until now!

[Wonder]

154. No it should be challenged as fervently

as Jews challege anti-Semitism.

[Lurking Dem]

159. No one changed the meaning.

The term "anti­Semite" was coined in Germany in 1879 by Wilhelm Marrih to refer to the anti­Jewish manifestations of the period and to give Jew­hatred a more scientific sounding name. "Anti­Semitism" has been accepted and understood to mean hatred of the Jewish people.

[Wonder]

153. the term has been adopted to mean only hatred of Jews

Is that because the Jews painstakingly took the time to define the term and for many Arabs are just in the way? Just joking. Although it is interesting as phenomenon goes.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

162. no actually,...

the term was not painstakingly defined by Jews, it was painstakingly defined by an antisemite...not joking...

[Wonder]

164. well that actually

makes more sense. so then instead what has been more painstakingly defined is what elements make one an antiSemite... of course... making the call on a case by case bases... is not always as easy ... not joking ...

[sushi]

167. Is there a term that means

hatred of Arabs? If the term "anti-semitism" has been 'hijacked' to mean hatred of Jews, shouldn't there be a term that means hatred of Arabs?

I have a lot of questions. Here are a few. Will "True Lies" ever be criticized by an American? Are all Arabs bad? Are all Jews good? Are all Americans, British, Australian, etc. etc. (take your pick) good? Are all Christians good people? Are all Muslims bad people?

[cantwealljustgetalong]

168. reply...

"If the term "anti-semitism" has been 'hijacked' to mean hatred of Jews, shouldn't there be a term that means hatred of Arabs?"

the term wasn't 'hijacked' to mean hatred of Jews, rather, just the exact opposite, it was 'coined' that way, and has been historically continued to be defined that way through common usage, so if you are looking to make an accusation of hijacking, then it is the other way around and it is then being 'hijacked' to mean hatred of Arabs...

the terms 'anti-Arab racism' or 'racist Arab-hatred' seem pretty clear to me, is there a reason they don't work for you?...

[sushi]

177. I agree with the term anti-a nationality

Arab, Jew, American, British, French, or whatever. The argument was about the term "anti-semitism." If you want to be in it, for starters what does the word "semites" mean? Then read starting my post #148 to Darranar.

[sushi]

178. I agree with the term anti-a nationality

Arab, Jew, American, British, French, or whatever. The argument was about the term "anti-semitism." If you want to be in it, for starters what does the word "semites" mean? Then read starting my post #148 to Darranar.

[meti57b]

182. If it's so important to Arabs (and to some non-Arabs) to have ...

the word "anti-Semitism" for their very own, ...I (for one) would sure be more than pleased to let them (and you) have it. We will just use the words "Jew-hating", which I think is much more decriptive and won't cause confusion. I don't see why meaning or usage of the word "anti-Semitism" needs to be a real problem for anyone. "Anti-Semitism" is not a word originated by Jews and I think it's about time we (Jews) dumped it.

cantweallgetalong is correct on the origens of the word, "anti-Semitism". In addition to that, I think the word "anti-Semitism" has caught on in popular usage, because well-meaning non-Jews think there is something uncourteous about using the word "Jew"(or so I have been told by some). Because of this reason for usage, I don't like use of the word, "anti-Semitism". If we're talking about Jews, let's just say "Jews".

[sushi]

188. Although I have lived in

the Middle East I have never asked a local if they miss their very own anti-them term, since anti-semitism has, through common usage, come to means anti-Jews.

You say that cantweallgetalong is correct on the origin of the word "anti-Semitism," while Darranar wrote, and the letter-writer in my post #148 implies, Semites literally means Jews AND Arabs.

My point is that since Semites means Jews AND Arabs, and anti-Semitism, through common usage, means anti-Jews, there should be a term that means anti-Arab, and if there isn't then we should just use anti-a nationality! That, in my opinion, is fair.

I was just EXTREMELY ANNOYED that Darranar had the nerve to tell me to be more careful in future when I haven't done anything wrong!

This reminded me of the word "gay," which used to mean something else. To me it means what it means now, until an aunt pointed out that it used to mean 'a kind of happy feeling,' and she is right.
The term has been hijacked/taken.

[Wonder]

125. You seem to be one very confused pup BUT

I WONDER. soooooo I pulled the below portion of your post:

"WONDER; Who is Ariel Sharon?

Since taking office in February 2001, Sharon has increased repression against Palestinians, several times sending Israeli troops and tanks into Palestinian-controlled cities, villages and refugee camps, including the full-scale invasions of West Bank population centers in March-April 2002. Since the September 11 hijackings in the US, Sharon has ratcheted up rhetoric pinning the blame for Israeli-Palestinian violence on the person of Yasser Arafat and equating Israeli offensives in the Occupied Territories with George W. Bush's "war on terrorism."


ME. Edward Sa’id has better credentials than you .He says that Hamas ,the PLO et al have betrayed the Palestianians and that the guerilla war waged by them is a tragic mistake. Read his column in al Ahran"

_______________

Firstly, I most certainly must admit Mr.Said has far better credentials than I, for I am no Mr. Wonderful, that is for sure.

Secondly, from now on when you paraphrase or quote Mr. Said, it might be more edifying if you were to PLEASE place the source from which you are quoting him. This way we can see the context within which he is being paraphrased or quoted.

And Last but not least, I became so distracted by my curiousity as to whether or not you thought T'was I that authored this post of mine, to which you've responded, that I became even more so Fah-too-mult (pardon the phonetics), that I was unable to finish reading your curious post, because first I really must know:

Do you believe T'WAS I that authored those words you read within my post?

[Gimel]

139. Arafat in Charge

While Arafat may not have ordered suicide attacks, it was done with his knowledge and co-operation. Documents prove that he issued checks to the families, from funds transferred by Saddam. He was an important cog in the suicide-mass-homicide machine. He could have prevented it, or at least raised his hand against it. If the funds weren't forthcoming, the bombers would have had less incentive to carry out their deeds.

Did Arafat order the second Intifada? I'm sure he did. The students made thair own plans, but it doesn't account for the overall execution of the Intifada as a well orchestrated campaign of terror.

[Wonder]

142. I have heard mention of these documents and these checks

Where are these documents that substantiate these claims? From what office have they come this proof. The OSP? Up until now I have only heard of this proof regarding Arafat's checks and Saddam's transfers. Have you seen these documents? Or have there been reports of them? More than one news report? Please bring 'em on. So far this claim always has struck me as hearsay.

[StandWatie]

158. no, it's all wishful thinking

Arafat didn't have to do anything accept ride the phenomenon out but see if you belive it's all orchestrated from the evil lair of Arafat you can see a way out.

It's all garbage that goes back aeons, once upon a time it was absolutely well known in Israel that everyone in the West Bank and Gaza hated Arafat and he only gained his support through thuggish tactics (same wishful thinking) and corruption. Well, the PLO left, like all of them and everyone still liked Arafat but rather than just admit it's all an Israeli fantasy they just ride the thing to death.

It's great watching him fade out of the scene and have to deal with someone that they haven't got a thirty year long agitprop campaign against because no one has the balls yet to try and switch the bad jacket from Arafat to Abbas so they have to take things on face value which is damning to any defence of Israel's policies.

[Gimel]

209. It was well publicized

The documents were checked by Washington experts as well. Don't you remember the CNN interview with Yasser Arafat, in which he ws questioned about his role in the arms dealing an payments to the families of suicide bombers? He knocked the book right out of the woman reporter's hands.

These are the documents that I mentioned. If you've been following history as it unfolds, you would recall the capture of the Karin A arms ship and the documents obtained from a raid on Arafat's offices. The photos copies were seen on the internet as well. Try CNN search.

http://www.westerndefense.org/articles/PLO/feb02.htm

<snip>
Meanwhile, the State Department said Tuesday it believed Palestinian documents seized by the Israelis in West Bank raids last month are authentic, but differed with the Israeli authorities on their interpretation.

"We don't have any question about the authenticity of those documents," Ambassador Francis X. Taylor, the State Department's Coordinator for Counterterrorism, told reporters Tuesday.


He made the comment when asked specifically about one document the Israelis said was in Arafat's handwriting authorizing funding for Tanzim, the militant wing of the Palestinian Liberation Organization Fatah organization, and for the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.


The State Department has designated al-Aqsa as a foreign terrorist organization.


Documents captured by Israel and made available to journalists last month show detailed memos the Israelis said were from top Palestinian intelligence officials on the activities of terrorist cells operating in the territories.


The Israelis say the documents are a paper trail showing that Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and the top levels of the Palestinian Authority had direct links to militant attacks on Israelis in the intifada, or uprising.


Senior Palestinian officials, including Arafat, have denounced the documents as forgeries. Taylor's statement was the first indication that the State Department regards them as genuine.
<snip>

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0502/state_dept.asp

[newyorican]

160. documents? HAHAHA

Straight out of the thoroughly debunked "Book of Terror" the IDF pulled out of it's collective ass. It was such crap, even the US govt. didn't want to use it. Now it is ressurected again, maybe enough time has passed to allow people to forget it's garbage...nahhh.

[Wonder]

116. and if you think about it Loquat

Where is Israel going? Is Israel going anywhere soon?

And since you asked Does Israel have a sign: Palestinians are two legged Rodents and we would much perfer to give citizenship to german shepards rather than Palestinians? Israel doesn't have a sign like that do they?

[Gimel]

119. Israel's symbols

Israel has many symbols. One of them is the pomegranate. If you open this fruit, you will see the many seeds within. That is like Israel. The land is small, but it will stretch to include all the Yehudim (Jewish people).

The sign you mentioned for the Palestinians is very strange. Not at all complimentary.

[Wonder]

121. It was mentioned in sarcasm and actually just before the board went down

I thought better of it and had actually editted it, deleting the reference to the sign part. When I posted the edit the board went down. It was satire. I realize not complimentary. I guess the point may have been missed. It's okay. I am actually sorry my editted version did not post. It would have been deleted if it had.

I am familiar with pomegranates. We have them in America too! I agree Israel is very faceted in opinion and interpretation (as it seems are those of Jewish faith) it can not be sterotyped; America in comparison and ethnically and demographically speaking much more so faceted.

[Equinox]

172. Interesting symbol...

The land is small, but it will stretch to include all the Yehudim (Jewish people).

Yes, it most certainly is stretching.

[loquat]

144. ARAB DICTATORS AND THEIR FRIENDS

When Qatar TV says that the Arab people have been lied to by their

rulers for over 50 years ,you hear an echo of this problemen even in

the West and in this forum. When the Arab intelectuials ,under the

aegis of the UN.write

that the Arab world is the worst place on earth for human beings ,we

find the defenders of evil even in this free forum quiet.

The Palestinian people are used, confused and abused by the Arab

dictators and their friends in the west.


In Iran the people strive for freedom and democarcy .The unelected

government, like in the Arab world, controls all of the levers of

power . The twice elected president ,Khatami, and the twice elcted

parliment ae crushed by the uneleted clerical fascists who rule.

The economy is in shables. Drugs and prostitution are every where and

the clergy even owns some of the brothels.

There is no money for the hungry but thousands of dollars are given to

the neo-facists terrorists who work from Syrian and Lebanese

areas against Israel.

Iran objected to A merican intervention into their country in

establishing the Shah.They were right.

What hypocracy when they intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

This government and its friends in this forums are hated by most of

its people.

[loquat]

149. KHOMANAINI SPEAKS

Grandson of the original Khomamaini OF IRAN.

"All the countries in the region fear Iraq becoming a free, liberal, democratic state," he said. Todays NY TIMES

I doubt if we will have any answers from the defenders of the Arab dictators!

[loquat]

161. For those who support the dictatorships in the ME

For those who want more destails:

(What a revolting situation )

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 5 — The grandson of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the strident Iranian cleric who built his Islamic revolution on a platform of attacking all things American, said today that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would allow long-awaited freedoms to flourish throughout the region, and if they did not, United States intervention would be welcomed by most Iranians."

"All the countries in the region fear Iraq becoming a free, liberal, democratic state," he said

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/06/international/middleeast/06KHOM.html

Quick , the smelling salts.

[durutti]

179. That's funny

Last I checked, Iraq was being occupied by a foreign power. Hate to break it to you, but Bush wasn't elected President of Iraq.

[Equinox]

183. He wasn't elected president of the US either!

:eyes:

[Gimel]

138. Repeated accusations

These accusations, plus the negotiations card, are spat out constantly. Israel has negotiated with it's sworn enemy Arafat, who has rejected every offer.

On whose terms? both have to give up something for the sake of peace. It's a marriage that won't last, if either culture seeks to impose itself on the other. It is utter lunacy for anyone to expect the two peoples to live together under one law. A separate government is needed. Therefore separate states and separate land. "Right of Return" of one of the cultures to the land of the other (no reciprocity it seems) is a road map for domination.

Does Sharon have a solution? I think not. He represents the combined interests of the Jewish nation. There are issues on which he cannot compromise, but risks are being taken, such as with the prisoner release.

[loquat]

163. DOUBLE STANDARD

There was a time in Americamn history,,only about 50 years ago, when there were actual signs saying "No Jews, Blacks(the polite version,or dogs allowed to live here.

The Germans under Hitler had signs calling for the eimination of Jews ,Poles,Homosexals etc from their soil.

There are over 1 million Arabs living in Israel and they are welcome as they are good citizens for the most part.

Of the 900 000 Jews who lived in the Arab world in 1945 about 20 000 are left.

No Jews or Christians can live in Saudi Arabia and the last of the Iraqi Jews have left for Israel.Palis who have lived in Lebanon for even three generations are not allowed citizenship.

What is wrong with under 250 000 Jews living a Palestine of the West Bank as citizens of that country if they so desire ,with all of the rights that Palis have in Israel? What is all the fuss about ?

[sushi]

166. I agree with you

What is all the fuss about!
Jews should be able to live in a Palestinian country if that's what they want, but the Palestinians don't have a country yet!

One of the things I don't like about Saudi Arabia is that the Saudis don't allow churches to be built there, but Muslims keep building mosques in all western, mainly Christian, countries. That is not right.
The building of new mosques in the West should be stopped until the Saudi Arabians allow churches in their country.

[Wonder]

169. AWWW WE want Da'Funk Da'Bunked - We're looking for proof!

REPLACE da myths and da'lies uncover the truth!

http://freepalestine.com/Debunking%206%20common%20Israeli%20myths.htm

_________________________

snip
The reality of Israeli Annexation of the West Bank

The conventional wisdom in Israel is that in 2000, the Palestinians rejected the "generous" Israeli offer for a permanent solution and its readiness for a Palestinian state, and then the Palestinians initiated the outbreak of the bloody conflict. According to that same belief, many Israelis continue to support the establishment of a Palestinian state, even now - but not before the Palestinians stop the terrorism.

That belief plays an important role in the media and political propaganda effort made by Israel - meaning the IDF - in the West Bank and Gaza, along the lines of: the Palestinians started it, so they can suffer.

How absurd. During the decade of negotiations, which began in 1991 with the Madrid Conference, the idea of a "Palestinian state" as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict won ever-increasing numbers of supporters in Israel, and at the very least became a legitimate issue for discussion in the political arena, as it never had been before. But at the same time, the Palestinian lands earmarked for that state shrank, and were carved up and divided. It's all been documented and reported. But like now, back then, most Israelis never went to the territories. Therefore everything that took place was abstract. A bypass road? Land expropriations? Settlement expansion? Uprooted trees? Closure? What's all that compared to talk of Israeli readiness for concessions in some undefined future. Thus the myths became tangible and real - the myth of concessions like the myth of support for a Palestinian state. And those myths continue to feed the nearly unshakable support for the Israeli military policy in the territories.

http://www.tikkun.org/community/index.cfm/action/community_discussion/article/8.html

-----------------------------
And other grey matters worth considering GUSH SHALOM: 80 Theses for a New Peace Camp

snip
1. The peace process has collapsed--and taken down with it a large part of the Israeli peace camp.

2. Transient circumstances, such as personal or party political matters, failures of leadership, political self-interest, domestic and global political developments--all these are like foam over the waves. Important as they may be, they cannot adequately explain the peace process's total collapse.

3. The true explanation of this collapse can only be found beneath the surface, at the roots of the historical conflict between the two nations.

4. The Madrid-Oslo process failed because the two sides were seeking to achieve conflicting goals.

5. The goals of each of the two sides emanated from their basic national interests. They were shaped by their historical narratives, by their disparate views of the conflict over the last 120 years. The Israeli national historical version and the Palestinian national historical version are entirely contradictory, both in general and in every single detail.

snip

8. The Barak government, which had inspired so much hope, was afflicted with all these attitudes; hence, the enormous gap between its initial promise and its disastrous results.

9. A significant part of the old peace camp (also called the "Zionist Left" or the "Sane Constituency") is similarly afflicted by these attitudes and therefore collapsed along with the government it supported.

10. The primary role of a new Israeli peace camp is to get rid of the false myths and the one-sided view of the conflict. This does not mean that the Israeli narrative should automatically be rejected and the Palestinian narrative unquestionably accepted. But it does require open-minded listening and understanding of the other side's position in the historical conflict, in order to bridge the two national narratives.

snip

The Root of the Conflict

12. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the continuation of the historical clash between the Zionist movement and the Palestinian Arab people, a clash that began at the end of the nineteenth century and has yet to end.

snip

14. Traditional and religious motives drew the Zionist movement to Palestine (Eretz Israel in Hebrew) and led to the decision to establish the Jewish state in this land. The maxim was: "a land without a people for a people without a land." This maxim was not only created out of ignorance, but also reflected the general arrogance towards non-European peoples that prevailed in Europe at that time.

15. Palestine was not empty--not at the end of the nineteenth century, nor at any other period. At that time, there were half a million people living in Palestine, 90 percent of them Arabs. This population objected, of course, to the incursion of another nation into their land.

16. The Arab national movement emerged almost simultaneously with the Zionist movement, initially to fight the Ottoman Empire and later to fight the colonial regimes created upon its destruction at the end of World War I. A separate Arab-Palestinian national movement developed in the country after the British created a separate state called "Palestine," and in the course of the struggle against the Zionist infiltration.

more...

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1548/4_16/76560564/p1/article.jhtml?term=%2Bpeace
--------------------------

Avnery: The myths of the peace process


It is true that Arafat and Barak are very different, as different
from each other as David Ben Gurion was from Avrum Burg. As the
American saying goes: "a statesman thinks of the next generations, a
politician thinks of the next elections." Arafat is a historical
leader who led his people from the brink of total annihilation to the
verge of independent statehood (although not yet visible). Barak, as
Ben Ami describes him, was persistently preoccupied with the coming
elections. The third man in the game, Clinton, could not be
re-elected but he was very much concerned about Barak's re-election
and the electoral race of his wife in the world's largest Jewish city.

Arafat gave up nothing

Two very crucial facts, which cast a dark shadow on Barak and Ben
Ami, are conspicuously missing from Ben Ami's story: (a) Israel
refused to fulfill its obligation according to a signed agreement to
complete the third phase of the withdrawal, which was supposed to
encompass the entire West Bank with the exception of specific
military locations, and (b) throughout the negotiation, Barak
expanded the settlements and the by-pass roads at a frantic pace. To
this the Palestinians response was: "While you are arguing with us
about how to divide the pizza, you are eating it."

http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/peace/sep01/msg00111.html


AWWW WE want Da'Funk Da'Bunked -- We're looking for proof!
replace da myths and da lies -- to uncover the truth

[Wonder]

170. Ah So Palestinian Proverb

regarding Barak and the Peace process! Very simple observation...

"While you are arguing with us about how to divide the pizza, you are eating it."

[Equinox]

174. LOL....

it is funny and true...so it is funny and sad.

[Equinox]

173. Interesting quote...

There are over 1 million Arabs living in Israel and they are welcome as they are good citizens for the most part.


Very telling.

[Name removed]

181. Deleted message

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

[Equinox]

184. Thank you.

It's like talking to a brick wall sometimes. At least brick walls don't spit out the same old recirculated propaganda.

[loquat]

185. Not one correct statement

In 1948 650 000 Jews were driven out of the Arab states , based on the Arab League meeting before the UN meeting of Nov 1947.Billions of dollars of their property was stolen from them as they were exiled. Nobody leaves ,leaving billions of dollars of property behind unless they are forced to.Dont suck information out of your thumb .Read a history book.

The PLO constution provides that only Jews living in Palestine prior to 1947 will have the right to live there after Israel is destoyed.

The UN figures of Palis who left as a result of the Arab ivasion of UN territory called Palestine is about 500 000 .

Palestine belonged to the A rabs for a short time in the 7th century when they ,led by General Amir,they captured it from the Jews and Christians.

The Turks ruled Palestine for 400 years and it became a wasteland . The UN inherited it from the League of Nations . There has never been a local selected or elected Arab government until 1922 when the Brits ceded 78% of Palestine to the Arabs .(The Hashemite Kingdom of Tans-Jordan).What was left of Palestine still belonged to the International bodies until in 1948 they tried to make a division .


The Clinton Camp David bridging proposals, all of which Barak accepted and all of which Arafat rejected, included for the first time in history an independent Paletinian state. They therefore fulfilled rather than liquidated the Palestinian cause. Each included over 90% of the West Bank in one contiguous block, plus 100% of Gaza, and none contained any bantustans in the West Bank or Gaza, and none contained any Israeli settlements in the new Palestinian state.

If that was not enough the Arabs could have made a counter proposal.They didn't.All observers agree on this.

May I suggest that you read a history book and not Arab propaganda before you write.You are a victim of Arab propaganda. Qatar TV says that for over 50 years the Arab dictators have lied to their people.

Only the Israelis have tried to solve the refugee problem . There has never been an Arab proposal to take care of the Arabized Jews of the Moslim world that were exiled and their property stolen.Wake up!

You say"Israeli Palestinians are third-class citizens." This is a lie ! You should be ashamed of your self .Israeli Palestinians vote and elect there representatives to the Parliment . This is more than what they can do in the Arab countries..They have the freest Arabic press in the Area. They have a higher standard of living than the Arabs in the surrounding states.

The only thing they dont get is the right to serve in the Israeli Army. Howwever the Israeli Border Police is made up of Druse Arabs on a volunteer basis.Christsian Arabs volunteer to join the IDF.Bedu,who are Muslims volunteer to serve as trackers.

Did you read the Arab Intellectul's report ,under the aegis of the UN, that the worst place to live in the world is in Arab countries.

[loquat]

186. A LESSON TO BE LEARNED

Thanks for joining our conversation.
Your text has been added, as follows:

#134240 HS( A lesson to be learned) Sat Aug 9th 07:44:13 2003

For generatios progressives,liberals even conservatives like Teddy Roosevelt opposed monoplies .Worldwide monopolies,cartels,are even worse. Why ? Its primary victims are the poor masses.

What if Israel organized a world monopoly ,a caretel,by with holding generic drugs from the market unless paid for in blood.Israel is one of the largest producers of generic drugs.Add to this mix the single largest group of contrbuters to medical devlopmemnt,the Jews.The Jews have produced 129 Nobel prize winners in this araea of medicine with .02% of the population.The Muslims with 20% of the world population have given us one.

What an outcry of rage and indignation would come from Mike and Shirin.

OPOEC as a international caretel has caused more human misery ,especially in poor nations, than even some disease.

Who supports OPEC today ?

Once Islam was the most progressive force in the world until political and religious fundementalist got control .Read what the Arab intellectuals who,under the aegis of the UN, write about how low the Arab nations have fallen today. A lesson to be learned.

If you return to the forum and you don't see your message, make sure to press the reload button. Don't post it twice: your message has been received.

[Violet_Crumble]

187. Now for an incorrect statement from you...

Israeli Palestinians vote and elect there representatives to the Parliment . This is more than what they can do in the Arab countries.

I take it what yr actually trying to say is that Palestinians can't vote in other countries. That's totally untrue. Palestinians who are citizens of Jordan can and do vote. Also, maybe you haven't noticed this but when you crow about how Israeli Palestinians can vote in Israel, that's in no way proof that they're not treated as second or third-class citizens. There's groups in many democracies that can vote but face discrimination and don't have the same rights as other citizens and if you were to pop up informing them that they're all having delusions and voting means that they're all equal citizens, I wouldn't blame them for laughing in yr face...

What the hell is a Pali? And what's this crap about Palestine being a wasteland under the Ottoman Empire?

Violet...

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

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

[Darranar]

192. Um...

Loquat, are you aware of the PAlestinians in the West Bank and Gaza WHO CAN'T VOTE? Until you are, I suggest you refrain from calling anyone "ignorant."

[Lurking Dem]

193. Pardon me

but Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank are not Israeli citizens they are under control of the PA. They were supposed to be able to vote but Arafat kept cancelling elections. Imagine that.

[Darranar]

194. They are under the control of the PA?

Last time I heard, they didn't have a sovereign state. I think that means that they are still under the control of Israel, but perhaps I'm just ignorant. :eyes:

Oh, wait... Perhaps the Repubs should get rid of every state that voted Democratic in 2000 and say that anyone within them is no longer a citizen of the US! Then they wouldn't be able to vote, but that would be alright because they wouldn't be citizens!

I'm aware that the situation is different. My point is that if you don't want to accept them as citizens of Israel, give them their own state, for morality's sake!

[loquat]

196. You dontreadhistory !

Are you a Martian/ How many times have they refused a package which included staehood. While we are at it ,what was the name of the last PALESTINIAN government in the Area? The Judean Kingdoms !

[Wonder]

198. you really must make an effort to broaden your own book list Loquat

there are many points to be made... and some of yours have gotten redundant.

[Darranar]

203. No, Loquat...

however surprising it may be, I am no Martian.

Since when does Arafat = Palestinians? I don't know why he refused the deal, but there are other possible reasons aside from "he is a terrorist" or he "wanted to start another intefadah."

[Wonder]

205. Thank You!

spinning aside. Yes it seems a TRUISM that Arafat had a number of reasons for refusing Israeli/US deals... besides being a terrorist which as one can see leaves room for debate.

Could it have something to do with International Law and Right of Return? Water rights? Control of Roads? The occupation? Bantanstans? Annexation? I wonder.

Not that I have the energy to go round and round again on this subject. The grievance is hardly new news. Imperialist intruders, Mandate, 1948, 1967, ring a bell?

[loquat]

199. THE ELECTION OF ARAFAT

When does his term of office expire? / The answer;,He was elected for life and 6 months thereafter.

[Wonder]

201. The Israeli Palestinian Liaison Committee

Are you familiar with this committee? Do you know it gave Israel veto power over the Palestinian Election Process after Oslo was signed? Please you look at only that part you want to see to exonerate Israeli General's and foist all the blame on Arafat the PA and the Palestinian people. It becomes boring after awhile. To say nothing of only be half the story and half the truth with much lieing going on. Especially on those Pro-Likud sites you tend to cut and paste from.

[Wonder]

200. Imagine that!

The oppression stems from Arafat :shrug: the occupation is just a minor inconvenience :shrug:. Yes I suppose one could look at it from that angle. At least for a moment or two.

[loquat]

195. PAY ATTENTION

We are talkig about the Israeli Arabs.Have you nothing to say about the rest of my points or are you as bankrupt as she is?

[Wonder]

197. Tut Tut! Repeat after me!

"While Sharon is arguing with Abbas about how to divide the pizza, Sharon is eating it."

Old Palestinian Proverb

Have you noticed Sharon's weight problem?

[Darranar]

204. We are talking about Israeli arabs?

In almost every post, you've refered to them as "Israeli palis" or similar things. So, I hope you can understand the confusion.

Anyway, what is the difference? Some are accepted, others are not! Why not all?

[Wonder]

202. Right of Return

shall not be relinquished. Israel must be made to address it and the history it represents period. No reconciliation with Right to Return. No peace, and Israel shares in the blame. All of the main points have already been addressed in this thread. No Israeli Reparation. No Peace.

Those who insist Palestinians are responsible for the refugee problem have not yet atoned for Israel's Original Sin!

TAKE RIGHT OF RETURN OFF FINAL STATUS!!

[loquat]

206. Slogans are not discussions

I wonder if English is your second language.All you have is slogans. You cant address the specifc issues raised. You dont want to be confused by the facts.

Have a nice day !

[Wonder]

207. really all I have is slogans

I guess aside from the fact that you have yet not placed an actual worthy fact yet... you also can not read... blinded by the one side... yes... I understand there is much of that going around these days and on a number of other very important topics... not just this one...

tell me do you just read your own posts?

[loquat]

208. THE SHAME OF THE PLO

The Massacre and Destruction of Damour

Damour lay across the Sidon - Beirut highway about 20 km south of Beirut on the slopes of a foothill of the Lebanon range. On the other side of the road, beyond a flat stretch of coast, is the sea. It was a town of some 25,000 people, containing five churches, three chapels, seven schools, private and public, and one public hospital where Muslims from near by villages were treated along with the Christians, at the expense of the town.

On 9 January 1976, three days after Epiphany, the priest of Damour Father Mansour Labaky, was carrying out a Maronite custom of blessing the houses with holy water. As he stood in front of a house on the side of the town next to the Muslim village of Harat Na’ami, a bullet whistled past his ear and hit the house. Then he heard the rattle of machine-guns. He went inside the house, and soon learned that the town was surrounded. Later he found out by whom and how many — the forces of Sa’iqa, consisting of 16,000 Palestinians and Syrians, and units of the Mourabitoun and some fifteen other militias, reinforced by mercenaries from Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a contingent of Libyans.

Father Labaky telephoned the Muslim sheikh of the district and asked him, as a fellow religious leader, what he could do to help the people of the town. ‘I can do nothing,’ he was told ‘They want to harm you. It is the Palestinians. I cannot stop them.'

While the shooting and some shelling went on all day, Father Labaky telephoned a long list of people, politicians of both the Left and the Right, asking for help. They all said with apologies and commiserations that they could do nothing. Then he telephoned Kamal Jumblatt, in whose parliamentary constituency Damour lay. ‘Father,’ Jumblatt said, ‘I can do nothing for you, because it depends on Yasser Arafat.’ He gave Arafat’s phone number to the priest.

An aide answered, and when he would not call Arafat himself, Father Labaky told him, ‘The Palestinians are shelling and shooting at my town. I can assure you as a religious leader, we do not want the war, we do not believe in violence.’ He added that nearly half the people of Damour had voted for Kamal Jumblatt, ‘who is backing you,’ he reminded the PLO man. The reply was, ‘Father, don’t worry. We don’t want to harm you. If we are destroying you it is for strategical reasons.’
Father Labaky did not feel that there was any less cause for worry because the destruction was for strategical reasons, and he persisted in asking for Arafat to call off his fighters. In the end the aide said that they, PLO headquarters, would ‘tell them to stop shooting’.

By then it was eleven o’clock in the evening. As the minutes passed and the shooting still went on, Father Labaky called Jumblatt again on the telephone and told him what Arafat’s aide had said. Jumblatt’s advice was that the priest should keep trying to make contact with Arafat, and call other friends of his, ‘because’, he said, ‘I do not trust him’.

At about half-past eleven the telephone, water and electricity were all cut off. The first invasion of the town came in the hour after midnight, from the side where the priest had been shot at earlier in the day. The Sa’iqa men stormed into the houses. They massacred some fifty people in the one night. Father Labaky heard screaming and went out into the street. Women came running to him in their nightdresses, ‘tearing their hair, and shouting “They are slaughtering us!” The survivors, deserting that end of the town, moved into the area round the next church. The invaders then occupied the part of the town they had taken. Father Labaky describes the scene:
'In the morning I managed to get to the one house despite the shelling to bring out some of the corpses. And I remember something which still frightens me. An entire family had been killed, the Can’an family, four children all dead, and the mother, the father, and the grandfather. The mother was still hugging one of the children. And she was pregnant. The eyes of the children were gone and their limbs were cut off. No legs and no arms. It was awful. We took them away in a banana truck. And who carried the corpses with me? The only survivor, the brother ofthe man. His name is Samir Can’an. He carried with me the remains of his brother, his father, his sister-in-law and the poor children. We buried them in the cemetery, under the shells of the PLO. And while I was burying them, more corpses were found in the street.' The town tried to defend itself. Two hundred and twenty-five young men, most of them about sixteen years old, armed with hunting guns and none with military training, held out for twelve days. The citizens huddled in basements, with sandbags piled in front of their doors and ground-floor windows. Father Labaky moved from shelter to shelter to visit the families and take them bread and milk. He went often ‘to encourage the young men defending the town’. The relentless pounding the town received resulted in massive damage. In the siege that had been established on 9 January the Palestinians cut off food and water supplies and refused to allow the Red Cross to take out the wounded. Infants and children died of dehydration. Only three more townspeople were killed as a result of PLO fire between the first night and the last day, 23 January. But on that day, when the final onslaught came, hundreds of the Christians were killed. Father Labaky goes on:
'The attack took place from the mountain behind. It was an apocalypse. They were coming, thousands and thousands, shouting ‘Allahu Akbar! God is great! Let us attack them for the Arabs, let us offer a holocaust to Mohammad ‘And they were slaughtering everyone in their path, men, women and children.'

SNIP
For the entire story
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/2587/damour.html