[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The war was started when the legitimate state of Israel was attacked shortly after it's founding.

Are you so naive? The war started way before, it actually even started before the first european zionists arrived in Palestine, the declaration of war by the zionists was made when they planned to create a jewish state in Palestine. The next step in the war was the 1917-Balfour-declaration and Britain's colonialistic regime helped the zionists to create a state in the state during the 1920's. But I don't want to elaborate further on it in this thread as I promised to open a thread of its own telling about the story of zionism and Israel and more, so I'll leave it at that for now.

Originally posted by vmarks:
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.

Oh, no, my post basically expressed the view that Israel has to be shown through resistance and just retaliation that oppression and violence won't achieve them anything worthwhile.

Originally posted by vmarks:
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

I can see why you might think so, since you believe already Israel's official history of Israel's creation, then everything offering a contradictory view is off course fiction, isn't it?

Regarding your link about France-2's footage of the palestinian boy that was killed either by israeli or palestinian fire, there is nothing new reported about, and I have already responded to it a few posts above in this thread. The concencus is that the footage was not staged nor faked, but that it isn't clear if the boy was killed by palestinian or israeli fire:

When Mr. Leconte and Mr. Jeambar saw the full footage, they were struck that there was no definitive scene showing that the boy had died. They wrote, however, that they were not convinced that the scene was staged, but only that "this famous �agony' that Enderlin insisted was cut from the montage does not exist."

(and)

A 2002 German documentary, "Three Bullets and a Child: Who Killed the Young Muhammad al-Dura?" tried to address lingering questions about whether the boy was killed by Israelis or Palestinians.

Originally posted by vmarks:
Thank you for admitting you support terrorism. It is your attitude that actually prevents peace.

No, mister, I do not support terrorism, I support retaliation in times of war. You think that the palestinian's retaliations are terrorism, but I think that Israel's occupation, driving outs, expropriations, destroying of homes, collective punishments as well as the killing of palestinian civilians are terrorism, and since I surely don't support those activities by Israel, that means I'm actually against terrorism.

As to your accusation that I prevent peace, that's nonesense as I clearly stated that the palestinians should even forgive and do without retaliations during the peace-negotiations, despite israeli provocations, and also after peace is achieved.

Originally posted by vmarks:
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.

That's an interesting topic, what about Jordan? Why don't the palestinians try to negotiate with Jordan? Why didn't the Fatah attack Jordan-soldiers when they kept control of the Westbank between 48 and 67...? These are very interesting questions, and the answer is off course that Jordan didn't drive out palestinians (with the exception of the PLO at one time) from their lands and homes, and equally important didn't send out settlers to expropriate more and more land from the palestinians, and didn't order its military to squash resistance against the expropriations and driving-outs...

Sure, Jordan is not completely innocent and righteous, after all it made secret deals with the zionists before the 48-war, and didn't offer palestinian refuggees better possibilities to integrate into Jordan... but all that is way better than the constant oppression and losing of ground to the israeli settlers that the palestinians experienced in the Westbank and East-Jerusalem around 67 and after.

Originally posted by vmarks:
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.

Now, I'm baffled, why is my wish for a souvereign palestinian state in the Westbank with East-Jerusalem as its capital an impasse to peace?

Originally posted by vmarks:
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'.

How you can derive your conclusion from article 24 is beyond me. What you have quoted from the article 24 of the PLO-charter had just confirmed the fact that at the time of 64 (notice the present time that is used in the formulation: "does not exercise territorial sovereignty".), Jordan's kingdom exercised the territorial souvereignty, that's all.

Besides up until 67, the palestinians in the Westbank didn't want a palestinian state of their own, they didn't mind that Jordan would exerice souvereignty, as long as they could live on their land and not be expropriated and driven out from it. It was the occupation of Israel and the subsequent repeat of driving outs and expropriations and the settler-activities, that they already experienced since 1917 and espescially in 1947/48, in combination with the surrounding arabic countries having lost the 67-war and the feeling of being left in vain that ignited a political movement among all palestinians under israeli occupation to fight for themselves for their own souvereignty and freedom.

Taliesin

[eklipse]

Originally posted by vmarks:
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.

So, you are saying that 'an independent and sovereign state of Palestine' would be an 'impasse to peace'?

Interesting.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by eklipse:
So, you are saying that 'an independent and sovereign state of Palestine' would be an 'impasse to peace'?

Interesting.

Not at all- Israel has repeatedly offered an independent and sovereign state of Palestine.

However, there are two reasons it has not happened yet:

1) Palestinian leaders do not know how to say yes. At every stage when they have been asked to do anything as a means to getting to the eventual state, they fail.

Oslo? No removal of the articles in the PA Charter that mean the elimination of Israel.

Camp David? No to anything offered. And that was the intention from the beginning.

The Roadmap and its current revival? No elimination or crackdown on terrorists, instead the insistence that terrorists be released, incorporating them into the police force, and the police force's refusal to stop terrorist activities. Most revealing should be that Abbas' strongest condemnation is simply that 'the timing' of the attack is wrong.

2) The PA's official and continued stance on a "Phased plan" which means, as PA minister Farouk Khaddoumi said in November 2004, that a two-state solution is a temporary solution by which to eliminate Israel.


The Palestinians are the impasse to peace- their continued insistence on destroying Israel and Jews has prevented them from moving forward, improving an economy, establishing trade, establishing an educational system that doesn't indoctrinate hatred, establishing a free media that isn't the mouthpiece of the PA...

[bstone]

It is profoundly clear, to any objective observer and anyone who has spent time "over there", that the real block to peace and progress are those who are unwilling or unable to say yes.

Arafat wasn't able to say yes. So far Abbas is also unable to say yes....to stoping things like "combating terrorism", "preventing attacks" and "fighting corruption".

It is, indeed, a sad state of affairs.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by bstone:
It is profoundly clear, to any objective observer and anyone who has spent time "over there", that the real block to peace and progress are those who are unwilling or unable to say yes.

You are right, all israeli administrations that were involved in peace-negotiations weren't willing or able to say yes to a contigous palestinian state in the Westbank with East-Jerusalem as its capital. All Israel could say yes to was a "homelands"-concept of Palestine, with highly scattered territories, that would be surrounded by "Israel" and its settlements, and off course without East-Jerusalem.

Taliesin

[bstone]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
You are right, all israeli administrations that were involved in peace-negotiations weren't willing or able to say yes to a contigous palestinian state in the Westbank with East-Jerusalem as its capital. All Israel could say yes to was a "homelands"-concept of Palestine, with highly scattered territories, that would be surrounded by "Israel" and its settlements, and off course without East-Jerusalem.

Taliesin

That's funny. Camp David II?

President Clinton, with PM Ehud Barak standing next to him, reporting on the failure of the negotiations. Clinton saying how Arafat was simply uninterested.

Moreover, Ambassator Dennis Ross repeatedly saying that the Israeli/American attempts were sincere, yet Arafat had no interest in actual negotiations.


I think someone is involved in history revionism. That someone is Taliesin.


___________
linky

While then-president Clinton made clear that Barak had been prepared to make peace, apologists for Arafat insisted that the only offer made by Barak was a fragmented state divided into four �cantons,� none of them connected with the Gaza Strip; that Arafat eventually accepted a settlement offer, which was withdrawn when Ariel Sharon was elected Prime Minister; and that this final offer was not a serious one, and was never put on paper by the U.S. or Israel. These myths, in varying forms, have become the backbone of the Palestinian revisionist account, supported most vocally by New York Times journalist Deborah Sontag, U.S. negotiator Robert Malley (and co-author Hussein Agha, and the Palestinian Authority itself.


The firsthand accounts of other officials, however, have confirmed the conventional wisdom, and cast doubt on the revisionist assertions. These politicians include Ambassador Dennis Ross, the chief negotiator for the U.S.; Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel�s chief negotiator; and President Clinton and Prime Minister Barak themselves.


At Camp David, Ross has said, there was no comprehensive final settlement offered. The Israeli and American negotiators put forth ideas regarding borders, Jerusalem, and land transfers. One of those was a Palestinian state comprised of four cantons. Arafat rejected these suggestions, but did not raise a single idea himself. Ben-Ami, who kept meticulous diaries of the proceedings, said that Clinton exploded at the Palestinians over their refusal to make a counteroffer. ��A summit's purpose,� Clinton said, �is to have discussions that are based on sincere intentions and you, the Palestinians, did not come to this summit with sincere intentions.� Then he got up and left the room.� [1]

[Taliesin]

Oops:

'Violation'

The report details how officials in the ministries of defence and housing and the settlement division of the World Zionist Organisation spent millions of dollars from state budgets to support the illegal outposts.

Ms Sasson called it a "blatant violation of the law" and said "drastic steps" were needed to remedy the situation.

It describes secret co-operation between various ministries and official institutions to consolidate wildcat outposts, which settlers began setting up more than a decade ago.

It was an initiative backed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, then foreign minister, who urged settlers to seize hilltops in order to break up the contiguity of Palestinian areas and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The report found:

* The housing ministry supplied 400 mobile homes for outposts on
private Palestinian land
* The defence ministry approved the positioning of trailers to
begin new outposts
* The education ministry paid for nurseries and their teachers
* The energy ministry connected outposts to the electricity grid
* Roads to outposts were paid for with taxpayers' money

Seems like with every week another of my accusations against Sharon and Israel gets confirmed.

Read it up in this BBC-report: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4328817.stm

Taliesin

[bstone]

So, wait a minute. Sharon has a hidden agenda of populating the W Bank and Gaza Strip with outposts and settelments, yet he is going full steam for a July pull out from the Gaza strip and far reaching settelments in the W Bank.

Which one is it?

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by bstone:
So, wait a minute. Sharon has a hidden agenda of populating the W Bank and Gaza Strip with outposts and settelments, yet he is going full steam for a July pull out from the Gaza strip and far reaching settelments in the W Bank.

Which one is it?

Hey, it's not me that is confirming myself, it's a report of an investigation done by israeli officials. I guess not all israeli officials are on the same zionistic trip of establishing Big-Israel as Sharon and co.

What is important to know is that Sharon is much more interested in the Westbank as in Gaza, as there is much more water and better usable ground. Besides, eventhough he is ready to pullout settlers and soldiers from Gaza, he will still order that israel's army controls all of Gaza's borders and airspace.

Taliesin

[bstone]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
What is important to know is that Sharon is much more interested in the Westbank as in Gaza, as there is much more water and better usable ground. Besides, eventhough he is ready to pullout settlers and soldiers from Gaza, he will still order that israel's army controls all of Gaza's borders and airspace.

Taliesin

Interesting how you can be so factually incorrect.

First, dozens of isolated and far reaching settelments in the W Bank will be pulled back. Isn't that what you want? There are almost 300,000 Israelis living in the W Bank. Quite frankly, it is not possibly to relocate them. Espically in areas where they are the majority population, why should they? The W Bank has strategic and military importance and it utterly required to mount an effective defense against an attack on that front.

Second, Israel has stated intentions to pull out of the Philadelphia Route and security at the Int'l border between Gaza and Egypt would be the direct responsibility of the Egyptian Army.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by bstone:
Interesting how you can be so factually incorrect.

First, dozens of isolated and far reaching settlements in the W Bank will be pulled back. Isn't that what you want? There are almost 300,000 Israelis living in the W Bank. Quite frankly, it is not possibly to relocate them. Espically in areas where they are the majority population, why should they? The W Bank has strategic and military importance and it utterly required to mount an effective defense against an attack on that front.

No, that's not what I want, the israeli settlers can stay in the Westbank, off course without the benifits of the apartheit-regime currently there, and off course only with so much land and water per settler as a palestinian gets.

What I want is that Israel withdraws all its troops and secret-agents from all of Westbank and East-Jerusalem, on which a palestinian state will be founded.

What Sharon has offered as far was to hold on to half of the Westbank, and only to remove four settlements symbolically and to leave hundreds of other settlements in place and under the protection of the israeli army and possibly the wall. Absolutely inacceptable, if you ask me.

Originally posted by bstone:

Second, Israel has stated intentions to pull out of the Philadelphia Route and security at the Int'l border between Gaza and Egypt would be the direct responsibility of the Egyptian Army.

That news must have slipped me, can you provide a link for that?

Taliesin

[bstone]

Originally posted by Taliesin:

What I want is that Israel withdraws all its troops and secret-agents from all of Westbank and East-Jerusalem, on which a palestinian state will be founded.

Then you condem Israel to an indefensible border, which would cause her destruction in the even on an Arab wide-scale attack.

And please don't try to refute this point if you truly cannot offer a valid opinion. I have military service and know these sorts of things. Do you?

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by bstone:
Then you condem Israel to an indefensible border, which would cause her destruction in the even on an Arab wide-scale attack.

And please don't try to refute this point if you truly cannot offer a valid opinion. I have military service and know these sorts of things. Do you?

Two points.

1. Those borders weren't indefensible in the previous wars were they? And now Israel has a much better military than any of their neighbours.

2. No Arab country would attack Israel at this time or anytime in the near future because the US is in the area and would definitely help Israel in the case of war. Or do you doubt that?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Two points.

1. Those borders weren't indefensible in the previous wars were they? And now Israel has a much better military than any of their neighbours.

2. No Arab country would attack Israel at this time or anytime in the near future because the US is in the area and would definitely help Israel in the case of war. Or do you doubt that?

1. Said borders led to repeated attacks, mortars and rocket fire, which actually STILL continue to this day.

2. Israeli security is not reliant on US troop locations, nor should it be. That kind of thinking suggests that Israel is not an independent state with the right of, and responsibility of, self-defense.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by vmarks:
1. Said borders led to repeated attacks, mortars and rocket fire, which actually STILL continue to this day.

2. Israeli security is not reliant on US troop locations, nor should it be. That kind of thinking suggests that Israel is not an independent state with the right of, and responsibility of, self-defense.

1. So the occupation of that territory hasn't done anything for Israeli security? What do you propose then that will increase Israeli security?

2. All true. But isn't Israel already very reliant on US aid? Doesn't Israel rely on around 700m US dollars per year? Putting Israel in the top 25 aid recipients in the world? Putting it in the same group as New Caledonia, Tanzania, Zambia, Bosnia, Ukraine, Mozambique and Kazakhstan. Wouldn't you say from that, that Israel already relies on the US for survival? And one last question. Do you think that Israel is in the same need of all that money as the other nations I mentioned above?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
1. So the occupation of that territory hasn't done anything for Israeli security? What do you propose then that will increase Israeli security?

2. All true. But isn't Israel already very reliant on US aid? Doesn't Israel rely on around 700m US dollars per year? Putting Israel in the top 25 aid recipients in the world? Putting it in the same group as New Caledonia, Tanzania, Zambia, Bosnia, Ukraine, Mozambique and Kazakhstan. Wouldn't you say from that, that Israel already relies on the US for survival? And one last question. Do you think that Israel is in the same need of all that money as the other nations I mentioned above?

1. it helps. the rocket attacks and mortars have been in lieu of actual armed troops invasion.

2. Actually, Palestinians recieve more aid per capita than anyone else in the world.

[von Wrangell]

Originally posted by vmarks:
1. it helps. the rocket attacks and mortars have been in lieu of actual armed troops invasion.

Do you have any stats to back that up. That there are fewer rocket and mortar attacks on Israel than there were pre-49? Would be interesting to see any good data on it.

2. Actually, Palestinians recieve more aid per capita than anyone else in the world.

Actually, that's wrong.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_rec_cap

Gaza is in 14th place and the West Bank is in the 20th place. While Israel(who most would think are quite well off and close to European standards) is in 42nd place.

Above Israel are nations like Kiribati, Guyana, Yemen and below Israel are nations like Jordan, Grenada and Swaziland. Would you say Israel is in as much need of assistance as those nations?

But to remind you of my original question. Don't you think that Israel already relies on the US for survival?

[bstone]

Originally posted by von Wrangell:
Do you have any stats to back that up. That there are fewer rocket and mortar attacks on Israel than there were pre-49? Would be interesting to see any good data on it.

All one has to do is look at the Golan Heights. When it was under the control of Syria, the Israelis were living in their bomb shelters. The Syrians were launching rockets, mortors and missles day and night into Israel proper.

Israel took over the Golan Heights and it's been entirely quiet. I met a fellow who is part of a UN observer force of 400 soliders and when I asked his view, "Israel should never give it up. Since they've had it it's been totally quiet."

[bstone]

Originally posted by Taliesin:

That news must have slipped me, can you provide a link for that?

Taliesin

Israel and Egypt reach agreement on Gaza security

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by bstone:
Israel and Egypt reach agreement on Gaza security

That are good news, eventhough the IDF holds onto the requirement that a full withdrawal will only be commited, if Egypt succeedes in preventing the smuggling of weapons. The other problem is that the palestinian authority wouldn't want Egypt's soldiers to patrol in Gaza, they want to do it themselves. We will see how that pans out.

Thanks for the link.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by bstone:
Then you condem Israel to an indefensible border, which would cause her destruction in the even on an Arab wide-scale attack.

And please don't try to refute this point if you truly cannot offer a valid opinion. I have military service and know these sorts of things. Do you?

Oh, yes, I know alot about military defense and espescially military strategies and tactics. The point is though that the only real defense for Israel will be peace-agreements with the new palestinian state in all of Westbank, and peace-agreements with Syria and Lebanon, and even with Iraq/Iran and Saudi-Arabia. Egypt and Jordan already have signed peace-agreements with Israel.

And all these countries, except maybe of Iran, really want to sign peace, if Israel gives up the Westbank, Golan, the sheeba-farms and East-Jerusalem, or better yet, internationalises whole Jerusalem and helps in founding a souvereign palestinian state side by side with Israel.

The reason why the Westbank is no defense for Israel as it was maybe in 1948 is that all arabic armies have modernized to such a point that groundinvasions are not necessary anymore to destroy Israel. Rockets, planes, jets, cruisemissiles, even nukes are all there.

Times are achanging and only peace-aggreements can prevent utter destruction for the whole middle-east including Israel.

Taliesin

[bstone]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Oh, yes, I know alot about military defense and espescially military strategies and tactics.

Really? When did you serve in a military? What was your rank? Did you go through combat and/or officer training?

And all these countries, except maybe of Iran, really want to sign peace, if Israel gives up the Westbank, Golan, the sheeba-farms and East-Jerusalem, or better yet, internationalises whole Jerusalem and helps in founding a souvereign palestinian state side by side with Israel.

They all rejected Israel in the 1947 UN Partition Plan. There were no "terroritories" then, yet they still all attacked an infant nation. What what you think things will be any different? You forgetting that the Arab/Israeli conflict is, indeed, the Muslim/Jewish conflict. Shall I begin posting links to the murderous rampages which occured in Hebron in the early 1900 (before any State of Israel existed) when the local Muslim populations murdered dozens and dozens of Jews....just because they were Jews.

The reason why the Westbank is no defense for Israel as it was maybe in 1948 is that all arabic armies have modernized to such a point that groundinvasions are not necessary anymore to destroy Israel. Rockets, planes, jets, cruisemissiles, even nukes are all there.

This statement clearly demonstrates you have no grasp of military situations.

Times are achanging and only peace-aggreements can prevent utter destruction for the whole middle-east including Israel.

Peace, but with security. You don't hand your most loathed enemy, who has sworn to murder you in cold blood, the keys to your house.

[bstone]

Any, FYI, the UN Security Council says that the Sheba Farms is not part of Lebanon.

"On June 16, 2000, the UN Security Council adopted the report of the Secretary General verifying Israeli compliance with UNSCR 425 and the withdrawal of Israeli troops to their side of the demarcated Lebanese-Israeli line of separation (the "Blue Line") mapped out by UN cartographers."

Had Israel still been maintaining an anti-terrorist, security buffer in parts of Lebanon, the UN most certainly would not have certified compliance with the resolution.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by bstone:
Really? When did you serve in a military? What was your rank? Did you go through combat and/or officer training?

I don't want to divulge any personal information about me, if you can't handle a discussion without personal information about the other discussers, then maybe you shouldn't participate in an internet-discussion-forum.

Originally posted by bstone:
They all rejected Israel in the 1947 UN Partition Plan. There were no "terroritories" then, yet they still all attacked an infant nation. What what you think things will be any different? You forgetting that the Arab/Israeli conflict is, indeed, the Muslim/Jewish conflict. Shall I begin posting links to the murderous rampages which occured in Hebron in the early 1900 (before any State of Israel existed) when the local Muslim populations murdered dozens and dozens of Jews....just because they were Jews.

Just because they were jews, lol! Maybe you don't know it, or you don't want to hear it, but zionism in Palestine started in 1881, and the conflict with the zionists began then and not in 1948, when the zionists achieved their goal.

By the way, I don't want to sound overly intellectual, but the Hebron-massacre took place in 1929, after the Balfour-declaration and right in the mid of zionistic activities to create Israel. Also important is that about 67 jews were killed, 55 of them were european and 12 were arabic jews, and even more important, that islamic arabs have saved dozens maybe even hundreds of jews from being massacred by the mob:

Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../hebron29.html

As to the partition plan of the UN that palestinians rejected, maybe you should also remember that the zionists rejected it, too, since the partition-plan would have prevented any israeli expansion, and since zionists planned to gain whole "Eretz Israel" at that time.

The palestinians rejected the plan because they were expelled from their land by zionists and british colonists. Britain stopped its help for zionists in 1939, after the big arabic rebellion was squashed, but before that Britain worked together with zionists to create a jewish homeland as promised to the jews in 1917.

The ideal and just solution would be to allow the refugees to return to their lands and homes, but nearly sixty years have passed, and only a minority of the palestinians now living are actually born in the area of Israel, so a compromise can be made, when Israel pays reparations and helps in creating a palestinian state in the Westbank, with East-jerusalem as capital of Palestine, or at the least with an "internationalised" Jerusalem that noone has souvereignity over.

Originally posted by bstone:
This statement clearly demonstrates you have no grasp of military situations.

Without words...

Originally posted by bstone:
Peace, but with security. You don't hand your most loathed enemy, who has sworn to murder you in cold blood, the keys to your house.

Actually Israel has done so already and it was to Israel's advantage to do so: Israel has given back Sinai to Egypt and gained a peace-agreement. Unfortunately though Israel, with Sharon as defense-minister, has used that peace in the south to start wars and massacres elsewhere, namely in Lebanon.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by bstone:
Any, FYI, the UN Security Council says that the Sheba Farms is not part of Lebanon.

"On June 16, 2000, the UN Security Council adopted the report of the Secretary General verifying Israeli compliance with UNSCR 425 and the withdrawal of Israeli troops to their side of the demarcated Lebanese-Israeli line of separation (the "Blue Line") mapped out by UN cartographers."

Had Israel still been maintaining an anti-terrorist, security buffer in parts of Lebanon, the UN most certainly would not have certified compliance with the resolution.

What do you want to suggest with that and in what context do you want to put that posting of yours, or are you responding to any comment of others, but then why didn't you quote the specific comment?

Regardless, the UN says that the sheebafarms belong to Syria, so Israel is still occupying something that is not theirs.

Taliesin

[bstone]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
What do you want to suggest with that and in what context do you want to put that posting of yours, or are you responding to any comment of others, but then why didn't you quote the specific comment?

Regardless, the UN says that the sheebafarms belong to Syria, so Israel is still occupying something that is not theirs.

Taliesin

Screaming "it's mine, it's mine, it's mine!" doesn't make it so. Syria making claims is nice and all, but when the UN actually sides with Israel on the issue you can sure bet they are not fibbing.

[bstone]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
I don't want to divulge any personal information about me, if you can't handle a discussion without personal information about the other discussers, then maybe you shouldn't participate in an internet-discussion-forum.

You can't possible expect me to "trust you" when it comes to an opinion on military matters. If you cannot cite qualifications in this area then you simply disqualify yourself from making an authoritative statement. Attempting to pass this off as ad hominem is bad form.

By the way, I don't want to sound overly intellectual, but the Hebron-massacre took place in 1929, after the Balfour-declaration and right in the mid of zionistic activities to create Israel. Also important is that about 67 jews were killed, 55 of them were european and 12 were arabic jews, and even more important, that islamic arabs have saved dozens maybe even hundreds of jews from being massacred by the mob:

It matters that some of the Jews were European and some were Arabic? Nice and all that in the past the Muslim lands were somewhat hospitable to the Jews (certainly moreso than the Christians, but that didn't take much).

As to the partition plan of the UN that palestinians rejected, maybe you should also remember that the zionists rejected it, too, since the partition-plan would have prevented any israeli expansion, and since zionists planned to gain whole "Eretz Israel" at that time.

Yes, because the Jews dancing in the streets celebrating the passing of the 1947 UN Parition Plan really demonstrated how they rejected it.

Actually Israel has done so already and it was to Israel's advantage to do so: Israel has given back Sinai to Egypt and gained a peace-agreement. Unfortunately though Israel, with Sharon as defense-minister, has used that peace in the south to start wars and massacres elsewhere, namely in Lebanon.

Eh? You mean the same Sharon who evacuated Saini, the same who is pulling out of Gaza and isolated settelments in the W Bank? Are you sure you got your facts straight?

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by bstone:
You can't possible expect me to "trust you" when it comes to an opinion on military matters. If you cannot cite qualifications in this area then you simply disqualify yourself from making an authoritative statement. Attempting to pass this off as ad hominem is bad form.

You can do and think whatever you want, afterall this is a free country, eh, I mean free internet.

Originally posted by bstone:
It matters that some of the Jews were European and some were Arabic? Nice and all that in the past the Muslim lands were somewhat hospitable to the Jews (certainly moreso than the Christians, but that didn't take much).

Yes, it does matter as well as it matters when the Hebron-massacre took place, because it clearly shows that it isn't a MuslimvsJews-conflict as you wanted to portray it, and that muslims have saved dozens if not hundreds of jews in Hebron from the mob also contradicts your idea. It's more a european-colonists vs native population-conflict than anything else. It may well be that over the years, espescially after the establishment of Israel, islamistic groups have tried to interpret the conflict as a religious conflict, in order to rally more financial support from other islamic countries and in order to motivate its guerillia-fighters to risk their lifes for a higher cause, the conflict though still remains a very secular one.

Originally posted by bstone:
Yes, because the Jews dancing in the streets celebrating the passing of the 1947 UN Parition Plan really demonstrated how they rejected it.

Jews celebrating in the streets was only natural as the UN recognized that there would be a jewish state, but the world zionist organization still rejected it on the ground that the partition plan would have limited the state of Israel to fixed boundaries and the zionists surely preferred more the "open west"-concept the american colonists had used against the indians centuries before.

Originally posted by bstone:
Eh? You mean the same Sharon who evacuated Saini, the same who is pulling out of Gaza and isolated settelments in the W Bank? Are you sure you got your facts straight?

I've got my facts straight but obviously like in the case of Hebron, you haven't: While it's true that Sharon as a defenseminister executed the last step of the Sinai-withdrawal, it's as well true that he didn't have an option to act differently, because the Sinai-withdrawal was decided and signed in 1978 as an incentive for Egypt to sign a peace-agreement with Israel. And as you should know Sharon became defenseminister in 1981, and it didn't take him a year in his position to start a new war and new massacres. What is also interesting is that in 1981 Begin sent out airforces to destroy an iraqi nuclear reactor, and ordered basically the annexation of Golan and pushed for more settlement-activities in all of the occupied territories.

Sources: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...hy/sharon.html
http://www.countriesquest.com/middle...with_egypt.htm

Taliesin

[vmarks]

In the case of Hebron, you don't have your facts straight.

As a service, I will recount the facts here for you.

The Hebron Massacre was the culmination of a series of religiously inspired massacres deliberately incited by the grand Mufti (Hajj Amin al-Husseini). In October 1928, the Mufti organized a series of provocations against the Jews who prayed at the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site because it is believed to be the only remnant of the Second Temple. The Mufti ordered new construction "next to and on top of the wall" with bricks often falling on Jewish worshipers, the driving of mules "through their praying area, often dropping excrement," and the turning up of the volume of muezzins (Islamic callers) during Jewish prayer. -Benny Morris' Righteous Victims (New York: Vintage Books 2001, p112)

The Jews protested and tensions remained high for months. In August 1929, leaflets prepared by the Mufti instructed Muslims to attack the Jews. One such leaflet said that Jews had "violated the honor of Islam" (Morris p113) and had "raped the women and murdered widows and babies." It was a blood libel demanding a holy war against the Jews. A well-organized mob burned Jewish prayer books at the Western Wall and destroyed notes of supplication left in its crevices. This was followed by attacks on Jews and the burning of Jewish stores, with Arab policement joining in the attacks.

On August 23, Hebron was attacked. Unarmed yeshiva students were murdered, Jewish homes attacked, and their occupants were slaughtered. Sixty Jews were killed and the remainder were chased out of town. The synagogues were desecrated. For the first time in centuries, Hebron was made empty of Jews. The grand Mufti's policy of ethnic cleansing of Jewish inhabitants was being implemented with a vengeance. The British police chief of Hebron later gave the following testimony:

"On hearing screams in a room, I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me, he tried to aim the stroke at me but missed: he was practically in the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sheril from Jaffa. . . He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out- shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." I got into the room and shot him. (Palestinian Royal Commission Report (Peel Report) London: His Majesty's Stationary Office, 1937) p68)

The rioting soon reached Safed, where 45 Jews were murdered or seriously injured. (Morris 116. As if to suggest some moral equivalence, Morris reports that 116 Arabs were killed. But most were armed perpetrators killed by the police, not unarmed innocent civilians; see Peel Report p68.) Additional murders took place throughout the Jewish areas of Palestine. Before the orchestrated bloodshed was over, 133 Jews had been murdered and 339 injured. (Morris 116, quoting Sir John Chancellor)

The British condemned "the atrocious acts committed by bodies of ruthless and bloodthirsty evildoers." They railed against the "murders perpetrated on defenseless members of the Jewish population. . . accompanied, as in Hebron, by acts of unspeakable savagery." They blamed the murders on "racial animosity on the part of the Arabs." (Peel Report p68)

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by vmarks:
In the case of Hebron, you don't have your facts straight.

As a service, I will recount the facts here for you.

The Hebron Massacre was the culmination of a series of religiously inspired massacres deliberately incited by the grand Mufti (Hajj Amin al-Husseini).

Maybe you don't know it, but the arabic/islamic world was oppressed for centuries by the ottomanic empire, and maybe you don't know it, too, Amin Al-Husseini served in the ottoman army during ww1, while the arabic world tried its best to get rid of the ottoman empire by fighting on the side of Britain and France.
Maybe you haven't noticed that the ottoman empire made an alliance with Germany during which a lot of antisemitic propaganda swept over from Germany (off course Hitler didn't become influential until 1933, but the antisemitic propaganda was decades before spread over whole Europe), and during which Germany trained, equipped and instructed the ottoman army of which Husseini was part of.
After the ottoman empire collapsed Husseini went back to Palestine and tried to fight the British colonists on his own by instilling riots and using some of the european anti-semitism to instill hatred against jews.
It's ironical that despite this past, a british and jewish high-commisioner pardoned Al-Husseini and gave him the position of the Grand-Mufti of Jerusalem, eventhough Husseini had no religious authority to deserve such a position.

In that position he simply continued his secular mission to get the british and jewish colonists out of Palestine and used whatever could mobilise the masses, namely the (ab)use of religious sentiments. Nonetheless only a minority followed his ideas and propaganda, because the majority were suspicious of someone who served for the oppressor of arabs.

Source: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...phy/mufti.html

Originally posted by vmarks:
On August 23, Hebron was attacked. Unarmed yeshiva students were murdered, Jewish homes attacked, and their occupants were slaughtered. Sixty Jews were killed and the remainder were chased out of town.

According to http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...hebron29.html:

Arabs spread false rumors throughout their communities, saying that Jews were carrying out "wholesale killings of Arabs." Meanwhile, Jewish immigrants were arriving in Palestine in increasing numbers, further exacerbating the Jewish-Arab conflict.

Hebron had, until this time, been outwardly peaceful, although tension hid below the surface. The Sephardi Jewish community in Hebron had lived quietly with its Arab neighbors for centuries. The Sephardi Jews (Jews who were originally from Spain, North Africa and Arab countries) spoke Arabic and had a cultural connection to their Arab neighbors. In the mid-1800s, Ashkenazi (native European) Jews started moving to Hebron and, in 1925, the Slobodka Yeshiva, officially the Yeshiva of Hevron, Knesset Yisrael-Slobodka, was opened. Yeshiva students lived separately from the Sephardi community, and from the Arab population. Due to this isolation, the Arabs viewed them with suspicion and hatred, and identified them as Zionist immigrants. Despite the general suspicion, however, one yeshiva student, Dov Cohen, still recalled being on "very good" terms with the Arab neighbors. He remembered yeshiva boys taking long walks late at night on the outskirts of the city, and not feeling afraid, even though only one British policeman guarded the entire city.

On Friday, August 23, 1929, that tranquility was lost. Arab youths started throwing rocks at the yeshiva students. That afternoon, one student, Shmuel Rosenholtz, went to the yeshiva alone. Arab rioters later broke in and killed him, and that was only the beginning.

So, there were rumors spread by arabs, probably from the propaganda-group of the very secular "ottoman-agent" Husseini, that european jews would conduct "wholesale killings" of arabs, that and the drastically increased immigration of european jews and the british help by driving out arabs from their land, that was purchased by jews from absent landlords, in order to make room for the new immigrants led to the riots and massacres. Like I already said it was a secular conflict between european colonists, that happened to be jews and the native population that happened to be muslims.

Originally posted by vmarks:
The British condemned "the atrocious acts committed by bodies of ruthless and bloodthirsty evildoers." They railed against the "murders perpetrated on defenseless members of the Jewish population. . . accompanied, as in Hebron, by acts of unspeakable savagery." They blamed the murders on "racial animosity on the part of the Arabs." (Peel Report p68)

When the Peel-Commission set out to investigate the occurings in Palestine in 1937, the arabs were involved in the biggest rebellion yet, and therefore boycotted any british officials, commissions or proposals, so that the investigators only talked to zionistic officials and their views and their witnesses they presented... a very biased report was the consequence, yet I acknowledge the Peel-Commission's intentions to do their best to be unbiased.

I blame therefore the arabic leaders in Palestine for not having used the opportunity to present their view and history of the events and causes.

Taliesin