[vmarks]

I can't imagine whyever Egypt would have a bad impression of Sharon- probably because they've bought into the same fictional account of his history that you have.

The Christians who acted in Sabra and Shatilla acted of their own accord, around 3am when Sharon was in bed in Tel-Aviv. No order had been given. But it doesn't matter, you'll make up what you want to make up regardless of what truth I point out.


You entirely fabricated the history of Sabra and Shatilla, and you believe the fabrication of the death of this 13 year old girl- the commander was on trial for killing her, and his soldiers admitted they made it up to get rid of him.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:

You entirely fabricated the history...

What do you think of these quotes?

"... we have no solution, that you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wants to can leave -- and we will see where this process leads? In five years we may have 200,000 less people -- and that is a matter of enorous importance."
-- Moshe Dayan encouraging the transfer of Gaza strip refugees to Jordan (from Noam Chomsky's Deterring Democracy, 1992, p.434, quoted in Nur Masalha's A Land Without A People, 1997 p.92).

"It is an open secret that Israeli policy makers hoped for a massive emigration of Palestinians as a result of economic and demographic pressure. Therefore, they also developed a clever system which caused numerous Palestinians born here to lose their residency rights when they went to work or study abroad."
-- Amira Hass in 08/26/1998 Ha'aretz Op'Ed titled The Settlers are Not to Blame.

While campaigning for the prime ministership, Binyamin Netanyahu Criticized his Labor party opponents for missing an opportunity during the Tiannamen Square massacre. "Had he been prime minister, he said, he would have seized the chance then, while the world was watching China, to carry out the transfer of the Palestinians."
-- p. 137 Washington Report 09/1998

"I don't sign orders to destroy the houses of Jews, only of Arabs,"
-- Haim Miller, deputy mayor of Jerusalem and acting mayor in Olmert's absence, quoted in Yediot Aharonot, Feb. 7, 1998.

"[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat."

-- Yitzhak Rabin (a "Prince of Peace" by Clinton's standards), explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen's remarks to the Kenesset's foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)




"To solidify their gains after the 1967 war, according to UN figures, the Israelis destroyed during the period between June 11, 1967 and November 15, 1969 some 7,554 Palestinian Arab homes in the territories seized during that war; this figure excluded thirty-five villages in the occupied Golan Heights that were razed to the ground. In the two years between September 1969 and 1971 the figure was estimated to have reached 16,312 homes."
--from The Zionist Connection II, by Alfred Lilienthal, p.160. 1978


"Jews came and took, by means of uprooting and expulsion, a land that was Arab. We wanted to be a colonialist occupier, and yet to come across as moral at the same time... The Arab armies -- chiefly from Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Transjordan, now Jordan -- totaled just over 20,000 men. The core of the Arab nations' fighting forces remained behind, in part to ensure the internal stability of their own fledgling regimes.... Crucially, Israel had a quiet agreement with Transjordan that its Arab Legion, the strongest of the invading armies, would take over only the West Bank, which the U.N. partition plan had intended as the center of a Palestinian Arab State."
-- Ilan Pappe', Israeli Historian at Haifa University.

"Till then everyone in Israel spoke about Arabs who had just run away in 1948, but there existed no real historical research on it. There were two conflicting propaganda versions, one Arab and another Jewish. As one who received his education in Israel, I thought I knew that the Arabs had 'run away.' But I knew nothing else. The Jewish generations of 1948, however, knew the truth and deliberately misrepresented it. They knew there were plenty of mass deportations, massacres and rapes . . . . The soldiers and the officials knew, but they suppressed what they knew and were deliberately disseminating lies."
-- Israeli Historian Benny Morris in an interview with Rami Tal published in Israeli Daily Yediot Ahronot December 1994.

"For it was precisely the unignorable plight and suffering of the Palestinian Arabs during April-May of that year that forced the hand of the reluctant Arab political and military leaders to take the plunge and invade Palestine on 15-16 May.
-- Israeli Historian Benny Morris in an 03-04/1998 article in Tikkun.

"In 1948, we deliberately, and not just in the heat of the war, expelled Arabs. Also in 67 after the Six-Day War, we expelled many Arabs."
-- Tzvi Shiloah, a senior veteran of the Mapai Party and a former deputy mayor of the town of Hertzeliyah. (Modelet, no.12, October 1989)

"Nazareth, all-Palestinian with 17,000 residents was captured on 16 July [1948]. However, Palestinian residents were allowed to remain, the only major Palestinian town where this happened. In most areas the Palestinians were actively forced to flee or deliberately panic-stricken into fleeing with reminders of Deir Yassin" This happened because "the local Jewish commander who captured Nazareth, Ben Dunkelman, two days after the city's fall he was ordered to force its civilians to evacuate [but refused to obey orders]"
-- Donald Neff in his book Fallen Pillars, (1995) p.65., p.288 and supported on pp. 201-202 of Benny Morris' Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.

The Result: "Israel's conquests included not only such major cities as Jaffa, Lydda and Acre, but also 418 Palestinian villages that were destroyed and another 100 villages that were occupied by Jews. In all Israelis took over more than 50,000 homes, 10,000 shops and 1,000 warehouses. It was estimated that about a quarter of the buildings in the new state were originally the property of the Palestinians."
-- p. 72 of Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff

Partition: "after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine "
-- Ben Gurion, p.22 "The Birth of Israel, 1987" Simha Flapan.


"At no point during the war did the Arab leaders issue a blanket call to Palestine's Arabs to leave their homes and villages and wander into exile. Indeed, I have found no trace of such a campaign, and had it taken place, had there been such broadcasts, they would have been quoted or at least left traces in the documentation."
from the book 1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians by Benny Morris.

Upon examining all of the British and American monitoring of broadcasts [the BBC recorded them and kept transcripts as did the American government] in the area at that time, Irish journalist, Erskine Childers concluded that "There was not a single order, or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948."


"Only then [after an internal revolution] will the young and old in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruit of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed, we put up houses of education, charity and prayer." -
- Philosopher Martin Buber addressing fellow Jews in 1961.

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. ... Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice."
-- David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

Or how about Mahatma Gandhi:

Later, Gandhi clarified in one of his final pieces on Zionism and the Palestine question on 14 July 1946 that "I did say some such thing in the course of a conversation with Mr. Louis Fischer on the subject." He added, "I do believe that the Jews have been cruelly wronged by the world."

Gandhi went back to his initial position by categorically stating that "But in my opinion, they [the Jews] have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism... Why should they depend on American money or British arms for forcing themselves on an unwelcome land? Why should they resort to terrorism to make good their forcible landing in Palestine?"

There were an influential number of Jews who thought that force, only force, could ensure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. They adopted terrorism as the method to achieve their national goal. This policy of subjugation of the Palestinians by Zionist terror was totally rejected by Gandhi in no uncertain terms.

A few months before his assassination, Gandhi answered the question "What is the solution to the Palestine problem?" raised by Doon Campbell of Reuters:

"It has become a problem which seems almost insoluble. If I were a Jew, I would tell them: 'Do not be so silly as to resort to terrorism...' The Jews should meet the Arabs, make friends with them and not depend on British aid or American aid, save what descends from Jehovah."

Are these people also just fabricating history?

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
What do you think of these quotes?

"... we have no solution, that you shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wants to can leave -- and we will see where this process leads? In five years we may have 200,000 less people -- and that is a matter of enorous importance."
-- Moshe Dayan encouraging the transfer of Gaza strip refugees to Jordan (from Noam Chomsky's Deterring Democracy, 1992, p.434, quoted in Nur Masalha's A Land Without A People, 1997 p.92).

Chomsky is a virulent proponent of destroying Israel, and has actually endorsed the work of Holocaust deniers. Your quote here is not a primary source, not a secondary source, but is three times removed from an original source- how can this be credible?

"It is an open secret that Israeli policy makers hoped for a massive emigration of Palestinians as a result of economic and demographic pressure. Therefore, they also developed a clever system which caused numerous Palestinians born here to lose their residency rights when they went to work or study abroad."
-- Amira Hass in 08/26/1998 Ha'aretz Op'Ed titled The Settlers are Not to Blame.

It is no secret that Haaretz is one of the three left wing papers in Israel. It is also no secret that the UNRWA intentionally inflates the numbers of Palestinians. Who is to say whether or not what Hass says in an Op-Ed is the truth? It is his opinion.

While campaigning for the prime ministership, Binyamin Netanyahu Criticized his Labor party opponents for missing an opportunity during the Tiannamen Square massacre. "Had he been prime minister, he said, he would have seized the chance then, while the world was watching China, to carry out the transfer of the Palestinians."
-- p. 137 Washington Report 09/1998

Not a quote of Netanyahu, but instead a quote of the author of the article. In fact, there is no quote of this nature, but instead a WR author's opinion that this is his position: http://www.washington-report.org/bac...8/9812138.html -- "However, If Netanyahu Seizes Upon...


...Inevitable security mishaps as excuses to avoid carrying out his Wye commitments, it will mean he has no intention of ever making peace with the Palestinians. Instead, he will be looking for an opportunity to “transfer” them all to Jordan or other Arab countries, just as his Likud predecessors always planned to do. If he does carry out the second withdrawal in accordance with Wye, but then tries to turn the resulting lines into final borders, it will just be a sneakier way to get into transfer mode, since no Palestinian leader can accept them."

"I don't sign orders to destroy the houses of Jews, only of Arabs,"
-- Haim Miller, deputy mayor of Jerusalem and acting mayor in Olmert's absence, quoted in Yediot Aharonot, Feb. 7, 1998.

And good for him. The destruction of the houses of Arab terrorist abettors is legal, and certainly more appropriate than that of Jews, because when the heck was the last time a Jew suicide bombed anything? Punish those who aided in the commission of terrorism, I say.

"[Israel will] create in the course of the next 10 or 20 years conditions which would attract natural and voluntary migration of the refugees from the Gaza Strip and the west Bank to Jordan. To achieve this we have to come to agreement with King Hussein and not with Yasser Arafat."

-- Yitzhak Rabin (a "Prince of Peace" by Clinton's standards), explaining his method of ethnically cleansing the occupied land without stirring a world outcry. (Quoted in David Shipler in the New York Times, 04/04/1983 citing Meir Cohen's remarks to the Kenesset's foreign affairs and defense committee on March 16.)

I cannot verify this quote, but given that Jordan is comprised of Palestinians, it's not wholly unreasonable- create favorable conditions that will attract people to move of their own free will. Rabin never brought this to fruition, and in fact created Oslo that slated Israel to endure the violence it undergoes now. However well-intentioned he was, Oslo prolonged the fighting, deaths, murders, and suffering.

"To solidify their gains after the 1967 war, according to UN figures, the Israelis destroyed during the period between June 11, 1967 and November 15, 1969 some 7,554 Palestinian Arab homes in the territories seized during that war; this figure excluded thirty-five villages in the occupied Golan Heights that were razed to the ground. In the two years between September 1969 and 1971 the figure was estimated to have reached 16,312 homes."
--from The Zionist Connection II, by Alfred Lilienthal, p.160. 1978

Alfred Lilienthal, much the same as Chomsky- notorious anti-Israeli Jew, whose work mainly aids those whose stated goal is to kill Jews. Wonderful source. That he cites UN numbers, when we know UN numbers to be inflated doesn't help.

"Jews came and took, by means of uprooting and expulsion, a land that was Arab. We wanted to be a colonialist occupier, and yet to come across as moral at the same time... The Arab armies -- chiefly from Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Transjordan, now Jordan -- totaled just over 20,000 men. The core of the Arab nations' fighting forces remained behind, in part to ensure the internal stability of their own fledgling regimes.... Crucially, Israel had a quiet agreement with Transjordan that its Arab Legion, the strongest of the invading armies, would take over only the West Bank, which the U.N. partition plan had intended as the center of a Palestinian Arab State."
-- Ilan Pappe', Israeli Historian at Haifa University.

Ilan Pappe was expelled from his position at Haifa University for his falsifications of history and supporting one of his MA students who falsified history in an MA thesis, libeling Israeli military from 1948 who sued the student over the libel.

"Till then everyone in Israel spoke about Arabs who had just run away in 1948, but there existed no real historical research on it. There were two conflicting propaganda versions, one Arab and another Jewish. As one who received his education in Israel, I thought I knew that the Arabs had 'run away.' But I knew nothing else. The Jewish generations of 1948, however, knew the truth and deliberately misrepresented it. They knew there were plenty of mass deportations, massacres and rapes . . . . The soldiers and the officials knew, but they suppressed what they knew and were deliberately disseminating lies."
-- Israeli Historian Benny Morris in an interview with Rami Tal published in Israeli Daily Yediot Ahronot December 1994.

"For it was precisely the unignorable plight and suffering of the Palestinian Arabs during April-May of that year that forced the hand of the reluctant Arab political and military leaders to take the plunge and invade Palestine on 15-16 May.
-- Israeli Historian Benny Morris in an 03-04/1998 article in Tikkun.

"In 1948, we deliberately, and not just in the heat of the war, expelled Arabs. Also in 67 after the Six-Day War, we expelled many Arabs."
-- Tzvi Shiloah, a senior veteran of the Mapai Party and a former deputy mayor of the town of Hertzeliyah. (Modelet, no.12, October 1989)

"Nazareth, all-Palestinian with 17,000 residents was captured on 16 July [1948]. However, Palestinian residents were allowed to remain, the only major Palestinian town where this happened. In most areas the Palestinians were actively forced to flee or deliberately panic-stricken into fleeing with reminders of Deir Yassin" This happened because "the local Jewish commander who captured Nazareth, Ben Dunkelman, two days after the city's fall he was ordered to force its civilians to evacuate [but refused to obey orders]"
-- Donald Neff in his book Fallen Pillars, (1995) p.65., p.288 and supported on pp. 201-202 of Benny Morris' Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.

Neff fails to mention the Arabs of Deir Yassin who admit that there were no rapes or massacre at Deir Yassin, and that they were warned by loudspeaker before Israelis arrived. If he gets this wrong, why can he be trusted on Nazareth? Why does he fail to mention Bethlehem?

The Result: "Israel's conquests included not only such major cities as Jaffa, Lydda and Acre, but also 418 Palestinian villages that were destroyed and another 100 villages that were occupied by Jews. In all Israelis took over more than 50,000 homes, 10,000 shops and 1,000 warehouses. It was estimated that about a quarter of the buildings in the new state were originally the property of the Palestinians."
-- p. 72 of Fallen Pillars by Donald Neff

Partition: "after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine "
-- Ben Gurion, p.22 "The Birth of Israel, 1987" Simha Flapan.


"At no point during the war did the Arab leaders issue a blanket call to Palestine's Arabs to leave their homes and villages and wander into exile. Indeed, I have found no trace of such a campaign, and had it taken place, had there been such broadcasts, they would have been quoted or at least left traces in the documentation."
from the book 1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians by Benny Morris.

- Published when, exactly?

Here's what you need to know about Morris: Morris is one of the so-called-New-Historians- of the same category as Ilan Pappe- the difference is that Morris comes up with these things and then says, 'but they were necessary and right' in essence.

Morris isn't wholly bad, his history of Mossad, Shin Bet, and such, is invaluable. His book Righteous Victims (2001) is excellent.

Upon examining all of the British and American monitoring of broadcasts [the BBC recorded them and kept transcripts as did the American government] in the area at that time, Irish journalist, Erskine Childers concluded that "There was not a single order, or appeal, or suggestion about evacuation from Palestine from any Arab radio station, inside or outside Palestine, in 1948."

The same British that first denied, and later admitted that they had been warned well in advance of any action at the King David Hotel the British used as a military installation. Right.

"Only then [after an internal revolution] will the young and old in our land realize how great was our responsibility to those miserable Arab refugees in whose towns we have settled from afar; whose homes we have inherited, whose fields we now sow and harvest; the fruit of whose gardens, orchards and vineyards we gather; and in whose cities that we robbed, we put up houses of education, charity and prayer." -
- Philosopher Martin Buber addressing fellow Jews in 1961.

Interestingly, Buber and his family were forced from their Jerusalem apartment where they lived from 1938 until forcible transfer in 1942 by Nahiba Said- a distant relative of Edward Said, who fictionalized his own history on many occasions, including when he claimed he had lived in Buber's apartment. Supposedly Buber said these things when he himself and his family had been uprooted by Arabs.

-- I say 'supposedly' because I can find no primary source for this quote after a half-hour of searching. In fact, some people claim it was a letter, but do not reprint the whole letter, some claim it was a speech, and in either case, present no source. So, the quote is not credible.

"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country. ... Behind the terrorism [by the Arabs] is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice."
-- David Ben Gurion. Quoted on pp 91-2 of Chomsky's Fateful Triangle, which appears in Simha Flapan's "Zionism and the Palestinians pp 141-2 citing a 1938 speech.

Another tertiary source, and we've addressed Chomsky.

So, either by using bad sources, sources thrice removed from the primary source, op-eds, and selective quotation, you bend history to fit your fiction.

Or how about Mahatma Gandhi:

Later, Gandhi clarified in one of his final pieces on Zionism and the Palestine question on 14 July 1946 that "I did say some such thing in the course of a conversation with Mr. Louis Fischer on the subject." He added, "I do believe that the Jews have been cruelly wronged by the world."

Gandhi went back to his initial position by categorically stating that "But in my opinion, they [the Jews] have erred grievously in seeking to impose themselves on Palestine with the aid of America and Britain and now with the aid of naked terrorism... Why should they depend on American money or British arms for forcing themselves on an unwelcome land? Why should they resort to terrorism to make good their forcible landing in Palestine?"

There were an influential number of Jews who thought that force, only force, could ensure the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. They adopted terrorism as the method to achieve their national goal. This policy of subjugation of the Palestinians by Zionist terror was totally rejected by Gandhi in no uncertain terms.

A few months before his assassination, Gandhi answered the question "What is the solution to the Palestine problem?" raised by Doon Campbell of Reuters:

"It has become a problem which seems almost insoluble. If I were a Jew, I would tell them: 'Do not be so silly as to resort to terrorism...' The Jews should meet the Arabs, make friends with them and not depend on British aid or American aid, save what descends from Jehovah."

Are these people also just fabricating history?

Taliesin

Ghandi, for all the good he did in India, failed when he tried to apply the lessons of India to Israel. He says the solution is to tell Arabs "Do not be so silly as to resort to terrorism" - yet that has been the point as Israel has offered the hand of peace in 1937, 1947, 1967, at Oslo, at Camp David, at Sharm al-Sheik... - And Ghandi's descendant who visited Israel in recent years is also mis-applying his ancestor's lesson- he declared that the Jews of the Holocaust should have simply laid down and non-violently resisted. Right. All the way to their deaths.

[vmarks]

Update:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._executions_dc

The Palestinian Authority really wants to start executing people (including suspected “collaborators” with Israel, although this Reuters story doesn’t mention it), but they’re just a bit worried about the reaction from Europe.


JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The Palestinian Authority has taken steps toward resuming executions as part of a campaign to halt lawlessness and prevent revenge killings, despite the risk of European condemnation, legal and religious officials said.

A top Muslim religious official said President Mahmoud Abbas, responding to public pressure to crack down on crime, had asked him for Islamic legal rulings that would pave the way for him to carry out 16 death warrants, some issued years ago.

The move has worried human rights activists and threatens to make waves with the European Union, which is staunchly against the death penalty and is also the top donor to the aid-dependent Palestinian Authority.

[vmarks]

Update continued:

http://israelnn.com/news.php3?id=77437

Terrorist released to PA re-arrested-

Yet another released terrorist has been re-arrested by Israeli security forces for involvement in terrorism.




The arrested man, Waseem Akab Khalil Mantzur, had been released from an Israeli prison in 2003 after spending less than a year in jail for his involvement in previous shooting attacks.

Since his release, Mantzur has been involved in weapons dealing and various attacks against Israeli targets. The Tanzim faction to which Mantzur belonged has been carrying out its attacks in the Shechem region in coordination with the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, also affiliated with Fatah, and with the Hizbullah terrorist organization.

Mantzur is from the village of Kfar Kalil and was involved in many recent attacks against IDF forces in the vicinity. He was involved in last week’s attempted attack on the Jewish community of Bracha, in which another released terrorist, Atzam Mantzur, was killed while planting a bomb. Israel set him free in January 2004 as part of an exchange for kidnapped Israeli Elhanan Tenenbaum and the bodies of three IDF soldiers murdered by Hizbullah.

Despite the attack on Bracha, Israel released the first group of 500 Arab prisoners last week as a “good-will gesture” to provide PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) with an accomplishment he can chalk up to his credit.

Yehudit Dasberg, whose daughter and son-in-law were murdered by terrorists nine years ago, told Arutz-7 today that the government disregards the fact that a large percentage of the released terrorists return to murdering Jews. “The government releases terrorist murderers, without examining at all whether the freed terrorists return to killing Jews. We have in our possession dozens of names of Israelis wounded by terrorists who released by Israel in the past,” said Dasberg.

According to Dasberg, Deputy Defense Minister Zev Boim has confirmed that due to lack of budget, the IDF and security services have not carried out any investigation into how many freed terrorists have returned to carrying out attacks.

“We, the families of terror victims, are representing all of Israel’s citizens," Mrs. Dasberg said, "and not just those on the right-wing. It is in everyone's interest not to release terrorists who, in light of past experience, will definitely return to trying to kill Jews. When they say the terrorists being released have no ‘blood on their hands,’ it just means they weren’t successful in killing Jews on their first try. Their desire to continue trying to murder remains. What kind of country will we have with 900 more terrorist murderers roaming freely in our land?”

Dasberg added that when she petitioned the Supreme Court, asking how Israel could continue to arrest criminals when murderers are released, Justice Mishael Heshin told her, “You are bringing claims from the realm of ethics and justice when we are here to discuss law alone.”

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:

So, either by using bad sources, sources thrice removed from the primary source, op-eds, and selective quotation, you bend history to fit your fiction.

First, I want to thank you for taking the time to adress most of the quotes I presented. Eventhough I don't agree with your assessments, which mostly go the route of discrediting every one who argues against the state of Israel, it is still nice to see the things from the eyes of the other side.

Next week, if God wants, I will open up a thread, where I will present the story of zionism and Israel that I have researched, and for that I will only use western and jewish sources in order to prevent accusations of seemingly obvious bias. You are invited to take part in that discussion.

Originally posted by vmarks:
Ghandi, for all the good he did in India, failed when he tried to apply the lessons of India to Israel. He says the solution is to tell Arabs "Do not be so silly as to resort to terrorism" ...

Reread the complete quote of Gandhi and you will see that he didn't talk about arabic terrorism but about jewish terrorism: He said the solution is to tell the jews "Do not be so silly as to resort to terrorism"...

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

This vmarks smackdown was brought to you by Wrigley's Gum.

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
This vmarks smackdown was brought to you by Wrigley's Gum.

If you think that's a smackdown you should probably stop using the word. Scrabbling around trying to discredit every source that disagrees with you smacks of desperation, little else.

Or - and I realise this is radical stuff - you could even try constructing an original thought or argument of your own, rather than just commenting on other people's discussions. You know, just for a change.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by nath:
If you think that's a smackdown you should probably stop using the word. Scrabbling around trying to discredit every source that disagrees with you smacks of desperation, little else.

Or - and I realise this is radical stuff - you could even try constructing an original thought or argument of your own, rather than just commenting on other people's discussions. You know, just for a change.

If the sources aren't credible, then I have to say so. The fact that he used poor sources, unverifiable sources, and has used fictional quotes in the past, putting words in the mouths of people who never said such words, is open for exposure, as I did.

Nevermind that he pays no attention to the fact that the started this thread with a title intending to show Abbas as cutting down on or ceasing violence, and my two posts following the discussion of his quotes show no such thing- released terrorist criminals back committing terrorism, and elsewhere in this thread PA police under Abbas' orders ignoring terrorism or taking terrorists into their ranks.

[nath]

Originally posted by vmarks:
If the sources aren't credible, then I have to say so. The fact that he used poor sources, unverifiable sources, and has used fictional quotes in the past, putting words in the mouths of people who never said such words, is open for exposure, as I did.

Nevermind that he pays no attention to the fact that the started this thread with a title intending to show Abbas as cutting down on or ceasing violence, and my two posts following the discussion of his quotes show no such thing- released terrorist criminals back committing terrorism, and elsewhere in this thread PA police under Abbas' orders ignoring terrorism or taking terrorists into their ranks.

Sorry, but the tone of many of your posts in this thread is pretty disturbing. You seem as determined to maintain the status quo in this conflict as you are completely unwilling to see any positives in the current moves (on both sides) towards peace. Sad really, and the absolutism with which you laboured over the 'smackdown' is indicative of this kind of totalitatian thinking. Hopefully history will eventually leave it behind, as it has slowly begun to in Northern Ireland.

Still, on with the smiting, eh.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nath:
If you think that's a smackdown you should probably stop using the word.

No I assure you it was.

Scrabbling around trying to discredit every source that disagrees with you smacks of desperation, little else.

Unless you happen to agree with the person doing so you mean. He is just debunking the FUD.

Or - and I realise this is radical stuff - you could even try constructing an original thought or argument of your own, rather than just commenting on other people's discussions. You know, just for a change.

Baseless accusation. I have on MANY occasions.

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Baseless accusation. I have on MANY occasions.

It is not a baseless accusation and you know it. The vast majority of your posts are commentary (usually negative) on other people's posts. There is a search engine you can use to confirm this. You might be surprised.

Anyone visiting these pages on a regular basis knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Now, come on, time for your 'fanboy' spiel isn't it?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by nath:
Sorry, but the tone of many of your posts in this thread is pretty disturbing. You seem as determined to maintain the status quo in this conflict as you are completely unwilling to see any positives in the current moves (on both sides) towards peace. Sad really, and the absolutism with which you laboured over the 'smackdown' is indicative of this kind of totalitatian thinking. Hopefully history will eventually leave it behind, as it has slowly begun to in Northern Ireland.

Still, on with the smiting, eh.

Actually,
I've laid out the path for peace several times. The path to peace does NOT involve a 'peace process' - negotiations are the formality after the cause for fighting has ended. As long as Palestinians hold the cause for fighting, elimination of Israel, as a goal, negotiations actually =prolong= the war. After all, they keep fighting and getting more concessions, which inspire the hope that they can destroy Israel.

Either the Israelis give up on having a country and their will to live, or the Palestinians give up on wiping Israel and the Jews from the face of the Earth. If the former happens, negotiations will be irrelevant. If the latter takes place, then negotiations will lay out the form peace will take.

Unfortunately, all the 'peace process' talks give hope to those carrying the goal of destroying Israel and her people as PA minister Farouk Kahddoumi said in November 2004, saying that the two-state solution is a temporary step to pushing Israel into the sea.

So how then do we remove that hope Khaddoumi has, that the PA has, of conquering Israel and pushing the Jews into the sea? Stop premature negotiations that prolong the war, fight the war to quash the hope of destroying Israel, and THEN when they accept that they will never destroy Israel, negotiations will work, peace will reign, and the lives of Palestinians will improve as they can get on with growing an economy and society.

[nath]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Actually,
I've laid out the path for peace several times. The path to peace does NOT involve a 'peace process' - negotiations are the formality after the cause for fighting has ended. As long as Palestinians hold the cause for fighting, elimination of Israel, as a goal, negotiations actually =prolong= the war. After all, they keep fighting and getting more concessions, which inspire the hope that they can destroy Israel.

So the desire to eliminate Israel has to be wiped from the mind of every Palestinian? Or a majority of them? Or some of them? I'd be interested to hear more about this, particularly how you would envision successfully quantifying the cause and intent of a large population of people.

Sorry, but if the above is your 'path to peace', it's still looking remarkably like an excuse for continued slaughter to me.

[vmarks]

Israel has repeatedly initiated peace talks, repeatedly agreed to a two-state solution, armed the Palestinians, improved their quality of life, restrained from waging all-out war despite continued intentional attacks on Israeli non-combatants, despite the PA stated goal of eliminating the state of Israel.

The 'peace process' prolongs the Palestinian murder of Israelis. It prolongs the conflict by giving Palestinians hope that the conflict will continue to net them concessions as a reward for violence, and hope that they will eventually succeed in eliminating Israel.

To put it another way, have the 'peace process' talks worked yet? Then my way is the answer to a quick resolution, actually ending the slaughter committed by Palestinians.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nath:
It is not a baseless accusation and you know it.

Obivously not or I wouldn't have said it. Stop being silly.

The vast majority of your posts are commentary (usually negative) on other people's posts. There is a search engine you can use to confirm this. You might be surprised.

Oh I have. You said "Just for a change" as if I never make comments about how I feel personally.

Not that you have any room to talk. What are you doing now?

Glass houses and stuff.

Anyone visiting these pages on a regular basis knows exactly what I'm talking about.

ANYONE EVERYONE CONSTANTLY FOREVER!!11 And other silly exaggerated extreme words used to try to make it look like it's not just you whining.

Now, come on, time for your 'fanboy' spiel isn't it?

Hey, if the shoe fits. You are the one that said it.

I can't think of any other reason you singled me out to attack me on something so silly and petty.

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Oh I have. You said "Just for a change" as if I never make comments about how I feel personally.

It looked about 80/20 in favour of mindless trolling to me. So, well done for that.

The fact that you can have this discussion whilst simultaenously flaming away relentlessly on the same topic in other threads and still keep a straight 'face' speaks volumes. Keep it up old chap.

[Taliesin]

Update 14:

Today, a setback in peace-process has happened, a palestinian from the Westbank conducted a retaliation in Tel-Aviv by blowing himself up and taking four israelis with him and injuring more than thirty. It's still not clear which group has equipped him and sent out, some say he was a member of Al-Aksa-Brigades, others are blaming Islamic Jihad or even the Hezbollah, and it's also not clear how he overcame the wall, but it's a disservice to the cause of palestinians to retaliate in a time when the PA has declared a ceasefire.

Unfortunately though Israel's army has taken the matter into its own hands and started emprisoning palestinians from the Westbank, it would have been better to let Abbas' administration prove its promises of finding, emprisoning and punishing the people that have organized the retaliation-operation.

I shouldn't be as surprised as I am, that some group organized a retaliation, considering that Israel has already breached the ceasefire twice and killed palestinians, but it would have been better for the palestinians to ignore israeli provocations as painful as they are and pull through the peace-process without incidents caused by palestinians.

Read it up in this BBC-report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4299995.stm

Taliesin

[lil'babykitten]

I don't think either side understands the term ceasefire.

[paully dub]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:

Is that the Separation Wall?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Update 14:

Today, a setback in peace-process has happened, a palestinian from the Westbank conducted a retaliation in Tel-Aviv by blowing himself up and taking four israelis with him and injuring more than thirty. It's still not clear which group has equipped him and sent out, some say he was a member of Al-Aksa-Brigades, others are blaming Islamic Jihad or even the Hezbollah, and it's also not clear how he overcame the wall, but it's a disservice to the cause of palestinians to retaliate in a time when the PA has declared a ceasefire.

Unfortunately though Israel's army has taken the matter into its own hands and started emprisoning palestinians from the Westbank, it would have been better to let Abbas' administration prove its promises of finding, emprisoning and punishing the people that have organized the retaliation-operation.

I shouldn't be as surprised as I am, that some group organized a retaliation, considering that Israel has already breached the ceasefire twice and killed palestinians, but it would have been better for the palestinians to ignore israeli provocations as painful as they are and pull through the peace-process without incidents caused by palestinians.

Read it up in this BBC-report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4299995.stm

Taliesin

Retaliation? Your link mentions nothing about actions that they are retaliating against.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Update 14:

Today, a setback in peace-process has happened, a palestinian from the Westbank conducted a retaliation in Tel-Aviv by blowing himself up and taking four israelis with him and injuring more than thirty. It's still not clear which group has equipped him and sent out, some say he was a member of Al-Aksa-Brigades, others are blaming Islamic Jihad or even the Hezbollah, and it's also not clear how he overcame the wall, but it's a disservice to the cause of palestinians to retaliate in a time when the PA has declared a ceasefire.

It was not today, it was yesterday. the 25th. On Shabbat.

It was at a crowded club that I used to frequent with my friends. Four young Israelis and over 50 injured, not 30.

Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility. They said they never agreed to a ceasefire anyway.

A senior Palestinian security official confirmed the bomber was recruited by Hezbollah. The official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said the bomber, a Palestinian from the northern West Bank town of Tul Karm, was a member of the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades.

HizbAllah denied responsibility. They normally claim it- which points the finger back at Abbas' own Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade or Islamic Jihad.

Unfortunately though Israel's army has taken the matter into its own hands and started emprisoning palestinians from the Westbank, it would have been better to let Abbas' administration prove its promises of finding, emprisoning and punishing the people that have organized the retaliation-operation.

Damn your lies: Abbas' police force already stated that they would not pursue 'militants' and that they were taking released terrorists into their ranks. And even now, Abbas' police force did make two arrests.

I shouldn't be as surprised as I am, that some group organized a retaliation, considering that Israel has already breached the ceasefire twice and killed palestinians, but it would have been better for the palestinians to ignore israeli provocations as painful as they are and pull through the peace-process without incidents caused by palestinians.

Read it up in this BBC-report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4299995.stm

Taliesin

Again, Israel never breached the ceasefire, it was already broken when she suffered rockets and mortars less than a day after the ceasefire was agreed to.

Israel ignored past provocations- it simply killed the Palestinians in the act of infiltrating a community to do evil, it did not launch any offensives. This is not a provocation. This is a terrorist attack, and you don't have the honesty to call it as such.

And even after this attack, what does Israel do? Respond to this terrorist act of war with an all-out offensive? With tanks? NO. Israel waited and let the Palestinians arrest two people for the bombing. So Israel made a few arrests too. Heaven forfend that they defend Israelis. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...l_palestinians

I will be watching to see if they are released within a few hours or days, as has been the pattern for all other 'arrests' made under Abbas.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Retaliation? Your link mentions nothing about actions that they are retaliating against.

But this link does:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4301249.stm

My own analysis: Obviously Abbas has achieved a deal with the palestinian militant groups in the occupied areas to not react to israeli provocations, but not with palestinian militant groups outside of the occupied areas. The office of "Islamic Jihad" in Syria's capital Damascus has taken responsibility for the Tel-Aviv-attack saying it was a retaliation for Israel's breaches of the ceasefire.
I agree there is enough to retaliate for and Israel has broken the ceasefire already twice but it should have been ignored and forgiven for the sake of the peaceprocess.
In the middle-east everything is interconnected with each other: The ex-primeminister of Lebanon, who was sympathetic to Lebanon's opposition, that called for Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon was assassinated by a massive carbombing, then Syria-based Islamic Jihad tries to torpedate the peaceprocess by retaliating.

Either Syria's regime is what Israel and the US tries to portray it like, a terroristic regime, that assassinated a lebanese politician and tries to torpedate the peace-process between the palestinians and israelis or Syria is the victim of a propaganda-machinery directed by Sharon.
If the latter is true, then Hariri was assassinated by the Mossad, and it also would mean that the Mossad has infiltrated the militant group "Islamic Jihad" and actively convinced that group and helped to organize the "Tel Aviv"-attack, which would also explain why the suicide-bomber could overcome the wall and travel so deep into Israel to reach Tel Aviv.
If all that is true, then the only question that remains is why should Israel's government and secret-service conspire in such a way that it would harm israeli lifes? The only answer that pops up is that Israel's government wants to terminate the peace-process with the palestinians with all means possible, as it wants to prevent the esablishment of a palestinian state in the Westbank, while at the same time trying to get the UN-security-council to put economic sanctions on Syria or even to call for military action.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
But this link does:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4301249.stm

My own analysis: Obviously Abbas has achieved a deal with the palestinian militant groups in the occupied areas to not react to israeli provocations, but not with palestinian militant groups outside of the occupied areas. The office of "Islamic Jihad" in Syria's capital Damascus has taken responsibility for the Tel-Aviv-attack saying it was a retaliation for Israel's breaches of the ceasefire.
I agree there is enough to retaliate for and Israel has broken the ceasefire already twice but it should have been ignored and forgiven for the sake of the peaceprocess.
In the middle-east everything is interconnected with each other: The ex-primeminister of Lebanon, who was sympathetic to Lebanon's opposition, that called for Syria to withdraw its troops from Lebanon was assassinated by a massive carbombing, then Syria-based Islamic Jihad tries to torpedate the peaceprocess by retaliating.

Either Syria's regime is what Israel and the US tries to portray it like, a terroristic regime, that assassinated a lebanese politician and tries to torpedate the peace-process between the palestinians and israelis or Syria is the victim of a propaganda-machinery directed by Sharon.
If the latter is true, then Hariri was assassinated by the Mossad, and it also would mean that the Mossad has infiltrated the militant group "Islamic Jihad" and actively convinced that group and helped to organize the "Tel Aviv"-attack, which would also explain why the suicide-bomber could overcome the wall and travel so deep into Israel to reach Tel Aviv.
If all that is true, then the only question that remains is why should Israel's government and secret-service conspire in such a way that it would harm israeli lifes? The only answer that pops up is that Israel's government wants to terminate the peace-process with the palestinians with all means possible, as it wants to prevent the esablishment of a palestinian state in the Westbank, while at the same time trying to get the UN-security-council to put economic sanctions on Syria or even to call for military action.



Taliesin

You'll do anything to blame Israel and the US. The Lebanese themselves are blaming the Syrians for the assassination, and for the Tel-Aviv bombing, my original assertion of Islamic Jihad has proven correct.

Israel never broke the ceasefire. Your precious Palestinian terrorists did break it. There is no breaking a ceasefire twice, once it's broken, it's broken.

Israel practiced incredible restraint, gave the Palestinians the names of the people involved, the PA only arrested two of the ten, so Israel detained the others.Meanwhile Israel stopped a 1 ton bomb from being exploded in a city center, following the smaller (!) Tel-Aviv bombing.

Imagine the devastation caused by such a bomb- it would be worse than the bombing in Iraq that killed 125 iraqi police and applicants.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
...Meanwhile Israel stopped a 1 ton bomb from being exploded in a city center, following the smaller (!) Tel-Aviv bombing.

Imagine the devastation caused by such a bomb-...

Yes, 'imagine'.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Yes, 'imagine'.

Yes, a one ton bomb according to your Haaretz op-ed got it's target and 14 people.

The Israeli military expressed regret over the innocent casualties. Sharon said at the time that had Israel known civilians lived there, another method would have been chosen.

In fact, the attack on Shehada, the target of the bombing, had been cancelled eight times prior because of concerns about innocents being in the vicinity.

Ben-Eliezer said at the time ""At the end of last week we decided to operate when we knew the man is planning what would perhaps be the biggest terror attack in Israel ... a mega-terror: a truck with one ton of explosives that ... could cause hundreds of deaths," he said."

And that is all the difference- Israel sets out to stop attacks and avoids attacking innocents, and apologizes profusely on having attacked innocents unintentionally.

The PA never does.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
And that is all the difference- Israel sets out to stop attacks and avoids attacking innocents, and apologizes profusely on having attacked innocents unintentionally.

That is no difference at all to the victims and the families of the victims.


...and Sharon didn't know before hand that a residential neighbourhood housed innocent civilians?

...and he didn't know this despite the operation allegedly being cancelled several times because of possible innocent casualities?

BS.

'Apologies' under such circumstances are worthless and insulting.

[vmarks]

So worthless that the PA can't even be bothered to issue any. ever. or make meaningful arrests. ever. Though that isn't stopping the PA in their rush to execute people without trials.

It's very simple. The Palestinians and associated terror groups started a war in 2000, and it's a real shame that innocent people are accidentally injured in war. It is criminal that Palestinians intentionally target innocents, and justify it claiming that there are no Jewish innocents. Perhaps Palestinians shouldn't start wars.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
You'll do anything to blame Israel and the US. The Lebanese themselves are blaming the Syrians for the assassination, and for the Tel-Aviv bombing, my original assertion of Islamic Jihad has proven correct.

Israel never broke the ceasefire. Your precious Palestinian terrorists did break it. There is no breaking a ceasefire twice, once it's broken, it's broken.

Israel practiced incredible restraint, gave the Palestinians the names of the people involved, the PA only arrested two of the ten, so Israel detained the others.Meanwhile Israel stopped a 1 ton bomb from being exploded in a city center, following the smaller (!) Tel-Aviv bombing.

Imagine the devastation caused by such a bomb- it would be worse than the bombing in Iraq that killed 125 iraqi police and applicants.

What I've done in my analysis about Syria and Hariri is the old criminalistic thinking in the line of who has a motive and who gains the most through the incident. For Syria to kill Hariri is like shooting the own foot, as it would/has just create(d) a martyr that calls for Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon.

But regarding your notion about the car, actually that's another interesting tidbit, the discovery of a car with 500 kg explosives (not a ton by the way) in the Westbank, as it also supports my personal analysis that Israel's secret-service has had a hand in "Islamic Jihad"'s activities: The report says "israeli army Col Oren Avman" luckily "discovered" the car. How likely is that?

Besides even more important, how did "Islamic Jihad" plan to smuggle the car with 500 kg explosives through the wall?

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
So worthless that the PA can't even be bothered to issue any. ever. or make meaningful arrests. ever. Though that isn't stopping the PA in their rush to execute people without trials.

That's also quite interesting that you talk about unmeaningful arrests and executions without trials. Haven't you yourself in this thread delivered the news that the israeli soldier that shot dead a palestinian girl with 20 shots got released again? And hasn't Sharon, the defenseminister who ordered the bombardments of refuggeecamps in Lebanon and killed more than 20,000 civilians in Lebanon and who let christian militants, who he trained and equipped, conduct two face-to-face-massacres in Lebanon, been elected as primeminister?

And just to round up the picture, hasn't Israel's army executed people without trials?

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
That's also quite interesting that you talk about unmeaningful arrests and executions without trials. Haven't you yourself in this thread delivered the news that the israeli soldier that shot dead a palestinian girl with 20 shots got released again? And hasn't Sharon, the defenseminister who ordered the bombardments of refuggeecamps in Lebanon and killed more than 20,000 civilians in Lebanon and who let christian militants, who he trained and equipped, conduct two face-to-face-massacres in Lebanon, been elected as primeminister?

And just to round up the picture, hasn't Israel's army executed people without trials?

Taliesin

Actually,
I've shown where you completely fail to understand events.

The soldier was released because his soldiers made up the event in order to get released from his command.

Sharon had nothing to do with the christian massacres in lebanon other than the fact that he hadn't anticipated them. He conducted no face-to-face massacres in lebanon, but you'd rather make things up than deal with the fact that you support Palestinian murderers, terrorists who would just as soon kill me as look at me.

You also presume that there was only one bomb stopped - 500kg in a car, 1ton in a truck, sounds like different events to me.

How else do people trained to look for suspicious objects and vehicles find them other than to 'discover' them? Sounds to me like you're shaping events again to fit your conspiratorial view- which is nothing divergent from your rewriting of history.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:

Morris isn't wholly bad, his history of Mossad, Shin Bet, and such, is invaluable. His book Righteous Victims (2001) is excellent.

Now I know why you think Morris isn't "wholly bad", quite an interesting wording by the way. It's because he is a proud zionist and plays on the vibes you like, neo-conservatism, paranoid apocalyptical thinking, colonialistic racism and superiority-feelings...

I just read an interview with him, that's why I reply to your posting about him so late, but better late than never. Here is a quote from that interview:

You went through an interesting process. You went to research Ben-Gurion and the Zionist establishment critically, but in the end you actually identify with them. You are as tough in your words as they were in their deeds.

"You may be right. Because I investigated the conflict in depth, I was forced to cope with the in-depth questions that those people coped with. I understood the problematic character of the situation they faced and maybe I adopted part of their universe of concepts. But I do not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered."

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?

"If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."

It was actually quite a funny interview conducted by a left-israeli, thinking Morris is also a left one, but slowly but surely and also painfully realizing that he is even more right than Ben Gurion and most of the current right-factions, that basically he is a neo-conservative just like the ones in the US, like Huntington, Perle and co...

But it wasn't just funny because of the painful realization of the interviewer but also because of the 18th/19th-century-colonialistic thinking he exposed, calling all arabs barbarians, and the arabs in Israel and the occupied areas, barbarians that have to be caged in:

What does that mean? What should we do tomorrow morning?

"We have to try to heal the Palestinians. Maybe over the years the establishment of a Palestinian state will help in the healing process. But in the meantime, until the medicine is found, they have to be contained so that they will not succeed in murdering us."

To fence them in? To place them under closure?

"Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."

and

The Muslims are barbarians, then?

"I think the values I mentioned earlier are values of barbarians - the attitude toward democracy, freedom, openness; the attitude toward human life. In that sense they are barbarians. The Arab world as it is today is barbarian."

Maybe someone should tell him that people that didn't know the other people or didn't even want to know anything about the other called the other people barbarians, China called all foreign people, including europeans barbarians, Japan did the same for centuries, Greece did the same... I find it ironical that a historian like him fell into the same trap.

But what is more interesting is that real barbarians are people that are really free, with no morale code or laws or religion restricting them or forcing them to justify anything, where the right of the strong one is the only right, the survival of the fittest the only goal, and that ironically closes down the circle, as the interview with Morris has the title "Survival of the fittest":

http://www.israelblog.org/Articles/S...e_fittest.html

Taliesin

[vmarks]

There you have it. quoting a blog that ripped off it's source from haaretz (the hasan link at the bottom is a clue) and because I say Morris isn't wholly bad, you take that to mean I think Morris' supposed support for fencing in folks who otherwise are trying to kill me is the right thing to do- when I CLEARLY STATED what were his better works, and that I was referring to his work, not whatever personal opinions he held.

There you go again, contorting to make things fit your twisted and hateful view of me, and of the world.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
There you have it. quoting a blog that ripped off it's source from haaretz (the hasan link at the bottom is a clue) and because I say Morris isn't wholly bad, you take that to mean I think Morris' supposed support for fencing in folks who otherwise are trying to kill me is the right thing to do- when I CLEARLY STATED what were his better works, and that I was referring to his work, not whatever personal opinions he held.

You are right, you said that you liked one special book of him, that was written by him before he changed his views, due to the second intifada and the traumatising effect of the suicide-bombings, but your own personal and political view that you have presented numerous times is more in line with the "new" post-2001-Morris, or do you want to deny that? I have no problems with you or with any israeli, except with Sharon, and I actually like outspoken, even controversial views as long as the discussion doesn't deteriorate into name-calling.

By the way, at the bottom of said blog it reads "hasen", not "hasan", a small but deciding difference.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
You are right, you said that you liked one special book of him, that was written by him before he changed his views, due to the second intifada and the traumatising effect of the suicide-bombings, but your own personal and political view that you have presented numerous times is more in line with the "new" post-2000-Morris, or do you want to deny that? I have no problems with you or with any israeli, except with Sharon, and I actually like outspoken, even controversial views as long as the discussion doesn't deteriorate into name-calling.

Actually, I cited at least two works of his that I consider to be a very worthwhile read. But hey, that's only a "small but deciding difference"

I find that Morris is more valuable to any discussion as a historian. I agree he has undergone a change- he used to be among the same set of historians as the one who was dismissed from university in Haifa for teaching lies as fact, the so-called "New Historians." Morris sort of fits within the New Historians except that he now seems to hold the opinion that any horrors he accuses early Israelis of was justified. It doesn't stand up as accurate history. The two books I cited, do.

Morris does get a few things right in this interview. They are: the PA love for the phased plan of destruction of Israel, the deception that was Oslo, the need to defend the country vigilantly, the notion of political correctness poisoning history, the legitimacy of Zionism and of Israel, and the fact that the majority of Palestinians "want what happened to the bus to happen to all of us."

Morris believes that there will be no peace. I believe that is one possibility. The other possibility is that Israel will follow the path I have laid out for peace, and achieve it.

I am an optimist.
A negotiated 'peace process' puts the cart before the horse- talks are premature when one side behaves like Arafat and uses them as deception (Oslo, camp david, and so on.) Both sides have to agree on the outcome of further conflict before talks to negotiate the details of that outcome make any sense at all. When further fighting no longer gains Palestinians concessions or hope of success in eliminating Israel, then peace can come. Until that recognition, peace talks that give concessions prolong fighting and death.

EDIT: Morris, in case you're wondering, completely and accurately refutes your accusations of Sharon in Lebanon in his history entitled Israel's Secret Wars.

By the way, at the bottom of said blog it reads "hasen", not "hasan", a small but deciding difference.

Taliesin

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects...?itemNo=380984

Is the link that the blog took the interview from. Without credit or attribution, because obviously they just broke the link in half and it's an exercise for a person with a sharp eye like myself to piece it back together.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:

I find that Morris is more valuable to any discussion as a historian. I agree he has undergone a change- he used to be among the same set of historians as the one who was dismissed from university in Haifa for teaching lies as fact, the so-called "New Historians." Morris sort of fits within the New Historians except that he now seems to hold the opinion that any horrors he accuses early Israelis of was justified. It doesn't stand up as accurate history. The two books I cited, do.

That's exactly the point, he changed his opinion after the second intifada started. That means he still says everything is correct about the work he and others of the New Historians have made, but he now holds the opinion, like you said, that the atrocities, the massacres and the violent driving outs of palestinians were justified in order to create the state of Israel as a jewish state, which would have otherwise been very problematic when half or more of the population were islamic.
He changed his opinion because of the second intifada, because he felt that it was a declaration of war by the palestinians and that as a true and loyal zionist he doesn't want to help the "enemy" with his denouncing of early zionist's deeds in this critical time of war.

Originally posted by vmarks:
Morris does get a few things right in this interview. They are: the PA love for the phased plan of destruction of Israel, the deception that was Oslo, the need to defend the country vigilantly, the notion of political correctness poisoning history, the legitimacy of Zionism and of Israel, and the fact that the majority of Palestinians "want what happened to the bus to happen to all of us."

The PA's socalled love for a phased destruction of Israel is nothing more than a PR-trick to convince the hardcore fighters and militant islamists to agree to a peace-plan. Israel by the way destroyed Palestine and tries to prevent the creation of a "shadow" of Palestine.
As to Oslo, I agree it was a deception but not in the way you might think. During the peace-negotiations Israel expropriated more palestinian land than before, sent out more settlers into the Westbank than ever, and made life for the palestinians actually worse than before the peace-process, and also important didn't execute most of the steps it signed up to do...

Originally posted by vmarks:
Morris believes that there will be no peace. I believe that is one possibility. The other possibility is that Israel will follow the path I have laid out for peace, and achieve it.

I am an optimist.
A negotiated 'peace process' puts the cart before the horse- talks are premature when one side behaves like Arafat and uses them as deception (Oslo, camp david, and so on.) Both sides have to agree on the outcome of further conflict before talks to negotiate the details of that outcome make any sense at all. When further fighting no longer gains Palestinians concessions or hope of success in eliminating Israel, then peace can come. Until that recognition, peace talks that give concessions prolong fighting and death.

I see it similar but regarding Israel, only when Israel recognizes that military force against palestinians won't drive out palestinians anymore and won't squash resistance and makes security for Israel and its soldiers worse, only then will Israel really work to achieve peace and not to use peace-processes as a vehicle to bring more settlers into the Westbank and to expropriate more palestinian land, like it did during "Oslo, Camp David and so on..".

I think that point in time has come, as Sharon has recognized that his brutal use of military during the second intifada hasn't achieved anything he wanted, the palestinians didn't leave the occupied areas, the resistance is not defeated despite the emprisoning and executions of numerous leaders, despite the housearrest for Arafat...

Originally posted by vmarks:
EDIT: Morris, in case you're wondering, completely and accurately refutes your accusations of Sharon in Lebanon in his history entitled Israel's Secret Wars.
[/B]

I have claimed that Sharon is a massmurderer of palestinian civilians, yes, like during the time as he was commander of the notorious Unit 101 and continuing with his deeds during the Lebanon-wars as defense-minister and his deeds during the second intifada as primeminister, but I have never claimed that he is as stupid as to leave behind a trace proving his direct involvement in face-to-face-massacres in the refuggeecamps in Lebanon.

But even if you could say that without real proof, Sharon is innocent of having ordered or inspired the face-to-face-massacres, you can't deny that he ordered the airbombardments of refuggeecamps and of the capital Beirut, which is equally condemnable.

By the way, out of curiosity, what was the official justification of Sharon at that time of sending christian militias into palestinian refuggeecamps instead of israeli forces?

And what was the official justification of the israeli army that surrounded those camps for not intervening when they heard and saw the massacres?

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Actually,
I've shown where you completely fail to understand events.

The soldier was released because his soldiers made up the event in order to get released from his command.

..Cough..:

At the discussion it was reported that the main conclusion of the subcommittee is that the IDF culture of investigation is defective, there is no system of punishment for acts of fraud and deception by those responsible for carrying out the investigations, and there have been quite a number of cases of cover-ups and attempts to whitewash facts.

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/545729.html

Taliesin

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nath:
It looked about 80/20 in favour of mindless trolling to me. So, well done for that.

The fact that you can have this discussion whilst simultaenously flaming away relentlessly on the same topic in other threads and still keep a straight 'face' speaks volumes. Keep it up old chap.

\

You are the one that started the trolling nath.

You don't go up to a guy, punch him in the face, then complain when he punches you back harder with bigger fists.

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

You are the one that started the trolling nath.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
\This vmarks smackdown was brought to you by Wrigley's Gum.

Originally posted by Zimphire:

You don't go up to a guy, punch him in the face, then complain when he punches you back harder with bigger fists.

[Zimphire]

Trolling AKA Personal attacks.

That post was no personal attack.
You know, what I did wasn't against the forum rules, and what you did was.

That post wasn't directed towards you. So I have no idea why you took it so personally.

Nice try though sugar thighs.

[nath]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

You know, what I did wasn't against the forum rules, and what you did was.

Third rule of the Political Lounge: Don't take it personally

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
..Cough..:



Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/545729.html

Taliesin

Actually, there you go again- you changed to some unrelated event.

This was a public trial with admission by the soldiers under his command that they lied to get the soldier in command removed. Petty.

http://israelnn.com/news.php3?id=76567

Accuser of ´Confirmed Kill´ IDF Captain: We Lied
15:29 Feb 08, '05 / 29 Shevat 5765





Captain "R." is on his way to aquittal following a major breakthrough in his trial. He is the IDF commander accused of "confirming the death" of an Arab girl suspected of being a terrorist.




The prosecution's key witness admitted Sunday to having lied during the investigation.

The incident occurred last October. Two soldiers in R.'s unit had testified that he carried out a point-blank "confirmed-kill" of 13-year-old Arab girl Iman al-Hams, who had entered a closed military zone adjacent to the Girit IDF position. R. admitted that he and his soldiers had opened fire at a suspicious figure, based on intelligence information and the fact that the figure threw a bag toward them. But he denied confirming the kill at close range.

Already three weeks ago, one of the accusing soldiers contradicted previous testimony he had given. Now, Lieutenant S., who had been on lookout duty during the incident and subsequently accused R. of shooting the girl at close range admitted during his cross-examination by defense attorney Elad Eisenberg, that he and his fellow soldiers had been lying all along.

The judge, Lt.-Col. Aharon Mishnayot, ordered the release of R., who has been confined to his army base, as well as the return of his weapons and his reinstatement in the Givati Brigade. "It is an inarguable fact that the dramatic development with regard to the testimony of Lieutenant S., who admitted flat-out that he did not tell the truth during the military police investigation, significantly undermines at least the value of [his] testimony," Mishnayot said.

Though the story was originally reported widely in the world press, including headlines such as "IDF Captain Shoots 13-year-old 20 Times," the latest developments have been virtually ignored. The admission of false evidence against the commander belies the hundreds of headlines around the world blaring yet another Israeli "atrocity."

Already in October, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Yaalon told the cabinet that the girl had been dispatched by terrorists as a decoy in order to draw out soldiers and turn them into targets for terrorist snipers. Yaalon also explained that the girl was in a closed military area, and that she threw a bag at the soldiers - a suspicious move under the circumstances, even though the bag was later found to contain only schoolbooks and no explosives.

Shortly after the incident, one of the soldiers involved explained the tension under which he and his colleagues were operating:
"For several weeks now, we have been in a state of high alert due to warnings of infiltration attempts. Only two weeks ago, three of our friends were killed in Morag. With death suddenly arriving at our doorstep, we were extremely tense. We knew the terrorists were coming, we just weren't sure when. On the day in question, we spotted a child just over 100 meters from our post. At first we thought she was a terrorist, not a girl; we were sure the moment had arrived, that which we had been talking about all along. We immediately knew what we had to do: to open fire. We all opened fire.

"After we fired, the platoon commander went out to make sure she was dead. He fired only two bullets at her from a relatively distant point, fearing she was wearing a bomb belt. He then headed back to the outpost, but suddenly turned around and fired a long burst. I saw where the body was, and in which direction he fired. It wasn't even close [to the girl]...

"The soldiers who turned to the media tried to frame him because he was a tough commander and often handed out harsh punishments. The veteran soldiers were angry with him. I also was tempted to say he had done it, but that's not the way. It would be a despicable thing to do," the soldier said.

A second soldier in the platoon also said at the time that the accusing soldiers had ulterior motives.

In the trial, Attorney Eisenberg asked S. whether it was accurate that following R.'s suspension, S. had bragged to his fellow soldiers, saying, "We managed to get rid of the company commander."

S. answered: "Not exactly. I said it humorously. Most of the soldiers in the company didn't care about the girl who was killed. Many people did it in order... to get rid of the company commander."

Eisenberg said: "Did what?"

S. answered: "Lied during the investigations."

Eisenberg then accused S. of lying to investigators when he told them that he saw R. confirm the kill by firing two individual bullets, followed by a burst of fire toward the girl.

Repeating the question of whether or not he told the truth, S. said his words were not "intentionally" false, then argued that they were not meant "maliciously" and finally admitted: "I didn't exactly lie ... I said an untruth."

Following the development, the defense requested that the prosecution withdraw the indictment altogether, but the request has been declined so far.

R. was in good spirits upon his release. "I have missed my job and my unit, and am happy that in the end justice is being brought to light - what you saw today speaks for itself."

The story was originally reported by Israel Radio defense affairs correspondent Carmella Menashe. Menashe, famous for her exclusive stories exposing misconduct within the IDF, noted at the time that her source- who later became the lead witness who now admits to lying about the incident - had called her many times previously complaining that he did not like his commander but that his complaints were not substantive enough to report on or affect the Captain's removal.

S., who is the most veteran member of his company, previously admitted that he had personal enmity toward R. over R.'s active campaign to increase discipline in the company since he assumed command and his quest to promote equality between newer and more veteran soldiers.

[vmarks]

And as an added note: You never were honest enough to admit that the latest attack on Tel-Aviv was a terrorist crime.

But you aren't alone: the PA-run media portrays the perpetrators as 'shahid', martyrs.

Sunday's front-page coverage of the story in the official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda features a giant color photo of the terrorist at the top of the page, with the caption: "The executor of the Tel Aviv operation, the shahid Abdullah Badran." Another photograph shows his mother holding a picture of her son, and is captioned: "The mother of the Shahid."

The daily newspaper Al-Ayyam refers to "the family of the Shahid."

Al-Quds refers to "the family of the shahid Abdullah," and to the arrest of "the shahid's two brothers" and to a "mourning tent in memory of the shahid."

An earlier story in Al-Ayyam refers to the bomber as Istish-hadi – a shahid who actively sought death for Allah and succeeded. To get a sense of the status the Palestinian media is granting Friday's terrorist by defining him as a shahid, here are the rewards awaiting the shahid, as described earlier by a Palestinian religious leader on Palestinian TV:

"When the Shahid meets his Maker, all his sins are forgiven from the first gush of blood, and he is exempted from the torments of the grave. He sees his place in Paradise. He is shielded from the Great Shock and marries 72 Dark-Eyed [Maidens]. He is a heavenly advocate for 70 members of his family. On his head is placed a crown of honor, one stone of which is worth more than all there is in this world." (Dr. Isma'il al-Raduan, PATV, August 17, 2001)

Accordingly, the use of the terms "shahid" and "Istish-hadi" for the terrorist leaves no question about the message the Palestinian media is sending its people about this terror attack: This murder and death for Allah, like those in recent years, is the supreme positive act for a Muslim.

Given this ultimate veneration of the act of murder, condemnations of the suicide attack within the Palestinian-controlled media have focused on the "poor timing" and the fact that the attack was a violation of the agreement between Abbas and Hamas to stop killing civilians during the cease-fire. The killings were detrimental to PA policy – nothing more. As in the Arafat years, the act itself was not portrayed as immoral or wrong.

On Monday, Hassan Asfour, a member of the PA parliament, put it this way on Palestinian TV: "This is the first action that no one is happy about. Everyone felt that the timing is not [right] and there is absolutely no need for it... It is not because the resistance against the occupation is a mistake, but because the nature, location and timing of the action are a mistake."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1006953079865

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by nath:
Third rule of the Political Lounge: Don't take it personally

I wasn't the one hissing and honking. You were.

Notice I didn't report you.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Actually, there you go again- you changed to some unrelated event.

This was a public trial with admission by the soldiers under his command that they lied to get the soldier in command removed. Petty.

It's actually very related, as it doesn't matter, if the trial is public or not. The quote I provided and the link I posted talked about the summary-results of a subcommitee, that found out that the IDF has used coverups and whitewashing of facts in order to protect its organization from image-damages and its members from emprisoning.

The case that sparked the investigations was a case in which israeli soldiers (who were killed by a palestinian sniper) might have died because of some tactical wrong decisions of some israeli commanders.

If the IDF is capable of covering-up and whitewashing even in cases where israeli soldiers died, you can be as sure as possible the IDF can do it when the victim was a palestinian girl from the occupied areas.

I could care less though, if israeli soldiers withdraw their testimony in order to help their commander or not, or if they did it under pressure from higher ranks in the IDF or not, the sad fact remains a palestinian school-girl was killed by israeli soldiers, and she is barely the only one.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:


"When the Shahid meets his Maker, all his sins are forgiven from the first gush of blood, and he is exempted from the torments of the grave. He sees his place in Paradise. He is shielded from the Great Shock and marries 72 Dark-Eyed [Maidens]. He is a heavenly advocate for 70 members of his family. On his head is placed a crown of honor, one stone of which is worth more than all there is in this world." (Dr. Isma'il al-Raduan, PATV, August 17, 2001)

That is a nice fairy-tale, but there is nothing in the Quran that talks about people going into paradise that marry more than one woman/man, and no human can advocate for any other human on judgment day. The PATV is clearly spouting nonsense in order to motivate people for the guerillia-warfare, and it really shouldn't abuse the islamic religion for it.

Originally posted by vmarks:

Given this ultimate veneration of the act of murder, condemnations of the suicide attack within the Palestinian-controlled media have focused on the "poor timing" and the fact that the attack was a violation of the agreement between Abbas and Hamas to stop killing civilians during the cease-fire. The killings were detrimental to PA policy – nothing more. As in the Arafat years, the act itself was not portrayed as immoral or wrong.

On Monday, Hassan Asfour, a member of the PA parliament, put it this way on Palestinian TV: "This is the first action that no one is happy about. Everyone felt that the timing is not [right] and there is absolutely no need for it... It is not because the resistance against the occupation is a mistake, but because the nature, location and timing of the action are a mistake."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...=1006953079865

I see it the same, the timing was wrong, the israeli provocations and breaches of ceasefire should have been ignored and forgiven for the sake of the peace-process and to give the negotiations an opportunity to blossom.

As to the loss of israeli lifes, it is indeed sad, and I wished no civilian life would be lost on palestinian and israeli side, but unfortunately that isn't the reality. The reality is that Israel is killing palestinian civilians at a 5x-rate, and retaliations for it are part of the resistance. It's just that during peace-negotiations retaliations should be suspended and even completely scratched in order to see the peace-negotiations to their end.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

you cry about being killed at a "5x rate" -

Don't start wars if you aren't prepared to accept the fact that people may die.

Don't start wars to eliminate the legitimate state of Israel and then presume, as you do, that the road to peace is the elimination of Israel.

After all, that's what you essentially said here:
"I see it similar but regarding Israel, only when Israel recognizes that military force against palestinians won't drive out palestinians anymore and won't squash resistance and makes security for Israel and its soldiers worse, only then will Israel really work to achieve peace and not to use peace-processes as a vehicle to bring more settlers into the Westbank and to expropriate more palestinian land, like it did during "Oslo, Camp David and so on..".
"


Israel has refrained from military force, offered a Palestinian state repeatedly, only to be met with justifications for terror as you echo -- "the timing was wrong", but the unspoken subtext is that you believe the means, the action, was correct.

When you say that Israel has never offered a Palestinian state, but instead a "shadow of Palestine" I want you to ask yourself honestly what you would do to get a Palestinian state that incorporated ALL of your vision of Palestine- Including that part that Jordan sits on.

Remember, Arafat himself tried to set up a Palestinian state within Jordan, even though the PLO charter states clearly that the PLO (now PA) has no claim on Gaza or the West Bank.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
you cry about being killed at a "5x rate" -

Don't start wars if you aren't prepared to accept the fact that people may die.

Hmm, first you start to whine about some killed israelis, then I hinted at the fact that Israel is killing much more, then you accuse me of crying...

By the way the war was started by the zionists who came under the gun of british colonists to found a nation where there was already another.

Originally posted by vmarks:
Don't start wars to eliminate the legitimate state of Israel and then presume, as you do, that the road to peace is the elimination of Israel.

After all, that's what you essentially said here:
"I see it similar but regarding Israel, only when Israel recognizes that military force against palestinians won't drive out palestinians anymore and won't squash resistance and makes security for Israel and its soldiers worse, only then will Israel really work to achieve peace and not to use peace-processes as a vehicle to bring more settlers into the Westbank and to expropriate more palestinian land, like it did during "Oslo, Camp David and so on..".
"

I see, showing Israel that military force against palestinians won't achieve them anything worthwhile, means the destruction of Israel? Very interesting interpretation.

Originally posted by vmarks:
Israel has refrained from military force, offered a Palestinian state repeatedly, only to be met with justifications for terror as you echo -- "the timing was wrong", but the unspoken subtext is that you believe the means, the action, was correct.

See, that's the problem, you don't even see what happens. Just look at the peace-negotiation-times of Oslo, Camp David and co, during which Israel increased its settler-activities in the Westbank like never before in order to create facts on the ground that should prevent the creation of a contigous palestinian state in the Westbank, and deliberately delayed or didn't conduct at all the steps it signed up to do. You can't deny that strategy, can you?

As to the method of retaliations against civilians, I believe it is the right of palestinians to retaliate for killed civilians among their own people, but not during peace-negotiations and also not after peace is established.

Originally posted by vmarks:
When you say that Israel has never offered a Palestinian state, but instead a "shadow of Palestine" I want you to ask yourself honestly what you would do to get a Palestinian state that incorporated ALL of your vision of Palestine- Including that part that Jordan sits on.

I haven't said anything about Israel offering anything, I said: "Israel by the way destroyed Palestine and tries to prevent the creation of a "shadow" of Palestine."

My vision of Palestine is an independent and souvereign state of Palestine in all of the Westbank, with East-Jerusalem as its capital, a democratic state with a real army, with water-sources, free and souvereign airspace... The israeli settlers in the Westbank can stay if they want but only without the apartheit-regime and the benifits it brought them.

Originally posted by vmarks:
Remember, Arafat himself tried to set up a Palestinian state within Jordan, even though the PLO charter states clearly that the PLO (now PA) has no claim on Gaza or the West Bank.

Hmm, strange I swear I could remember that the PLO-charter stated they claimed all of Palestine, i.e. Westbank, Israel and more.

Have fun, read you tommorrow.

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Hmm, first you start to whine about some killed israelis, then I hinted at the fact that Israel is killing much more, then you accuse me of crying...

By the way the war was started by the zionists who came under the gun of british colonists to found a nation where there was already another.

The war was started when the legitimate state of Israel was attacked shortly after it's founding.

I see, showing Israel that military force against palestinians won't achieve them anything worthwhile, means the destruction of Israel? Very interesting interpretation.

The path to peace is for Palestinians to accept a state of Israel and live alongside it, or for Israel to cease to exist. Your quote is something other than Palestinians accepting Israel. Those are the two choices, eradication or acceptance.

See, that's the problem, you don't even see what happens. Just look at the peace-negotiation-times of Oslo, Camp David and co, during which Israel increased its settler-activities in the Westbank like never before in order to create facts on the ground that should prevent the creation of a contigous palestinian state in the Westbank, and deliberately delayed or didn't conduct at all the steps it signed up to do. You can't deny that strategy, can you?

I see exactly what happens, but most of the time you fabricate elaborate fictions of events, either embellishing reality to the point of unrecognizability, or simply create events that never happened.

You aren't alone in this, France 2 and BBC have both bought into and reported events that never happened as truth. -= http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/bu...pagewanted=all

As to the method of retaliations against civilians, I believe it is the right of palestinians to retaliate for killed civilians among their own people, but not during peace-negotiations and also not after peace is established.

Thank you for admitting you support terrorism. It is your attitude that actually prevents peace.

I haven't said anything about Israel offering anything, I said: "Israel by the way destroyed Palestine and tries to prevent the creation of a "shadow" of Palestine."

Jordan was also a part of the land you call a 'destroyed Palestine'. Strangely you expect everything from Israel and nothing from Jordan, and nothing from Palestinians.

My vision of Palestine is an independent and souvereign state of Palestine in all of the Westbank, with East-Jerusalem as its capital, a democratic state with a real army, with water-sources, free and souvereign airspace... The israeli settlers in the Westbank can stay if they want but only without the apartheit-regime and the benifits it brought them.

Yes, again, you're the impasse to peace. The only thing you can take pride in is that unlike the PA, you would allow Jews to stay- the PA would kill or remove all Jews.

Hmm, strange I swear I could remember that the PLO-charter stated they claimed all of Palestine, i.e. Westbank, Israel and more.

Article 24 of the PLO Charter, 1964 states:

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

http://www.palestine-un.org/plo/pna_two.html

So if they believe all Palestine (including Jordan) is an indivisible unit, it is apparent that they did not believe that for all time, and in fact the borders of any proposed state ARE open to change- if they can change from leaving out West Bank and Gaza, they can change from this 'indivisible unit'.

[bstone]

According to Issam Abu Issa, chairman and founder of the Palestine International Bank, when asked:

QUESTION:
You've been very critical of the international community's policy vis- -vis Arafat. What mistakes did they make?

ANSWER
The biggest mistake they made was to support a corrupt dictatorship instead of a free and democratic society, a society that thrives on law, order and economic development.


full article here