Middle East Peace Plan and the Settlements - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

MrSmashy · 05-09-2003, 12:33 PM

Think that Sharon and the Likud party will actually pull the settlers out to make the peace plan work?

Also: Don't you think that Israel should pull back all settlements to ensure that the pre-1967 War borders are the ones that are eventually settled on? If they used that as a bargaining chip they could probably talk down the right of return (thereby presumably keeping Israel Jewish).

Liquor Dealer · 05-09-2003, 03:46 PM

I really don't think they are being given an option. Someone or something is leaning on them very hard. The settlement issue is definitely on the table and Israel will have to abandon many of those settlements. I understand that most of the settlements are considered illegal even by Israel. The current attitude being expressed by Israel toward Syria and others appears to be conducive to a lot of fences being mended. The extreme hard feelings that exist are going to take time and a lot of patience on the part of both Israel and Palestine - something neither side has ever demonstrated much of. The current economic state of Palestine may lend a bit of urgency in their attepts to reach an understanding. The threat of missile attack on Israel no longer exists and this was one of the biggest reasons behind a lot of their actions in the past. If a successful government is formed in Iraq it will have a dramatic effect on that entire part of the world.

I guess I might add: Arafat is probably going to have to be removed from the loop for much of anything to happen. You know! He looks a lot like Castro - maybe we could put them on a tropical island somewh... And a lot of bad would probably go away.

MrSmashy · 05-09-2003, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquor Dealer
I really don't think they are being given an option. Someone or something is leaning on them very hard. The settlement issue is definitely on the table and Israel will have to abandon many of those settlements. I understand that most of the settlements are considered illegal even by Israel. The current attitude being expressed by Israel toward Syria and others appears to be conducive to a lot of fences being mended. The extreme hard feelings that exist are going to take time and a lot of patience on the part of both Israel and Palestine - something neither side has ever demonstrated much of. The current economic state of Palestine may lend a bit of urgency in their attepts to reach an understanding. The threat of missile attack on Israel no longer exists and this was one of the biggest reasons behind a lot of their actions in the past. If a successful government is formed in Iraq it will have a dramatic effect on that entire part of the world.

I guess I might add: Arafat is probably going to have to be removed from the loop for much of anything to happen. You know! He looks a lot like Castro - maybe we could put them on a tropical island somewh... And a lot of bad would probably go away.

Arafat is about as problematic as Sharon and the Likud party. They should both be removed.

Its unclear how hard they are being leaned on with regard to the settlements. We shall see whether or not the US has the will to bring Israel to heel, and whether Sharon will gamble loosing the hard right support on the matter...some of those psycho hard righters will hold out no matter what and will be as big a problem for peace as the psychos amongst the Palestinian.

gibber71 · 05-09-2003, 07:29 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrSmashy
[B]Arafat is about as problematic as Sharon and the Likud party. They should both be removed.

I've been saying this for 2 years and I get nothing but a blank stare in return. The Isreali's and Palestinian's want peace.At least those with semblences of intelligence do. The problem is that the Palestinian Authority wants to see the extinction of Isreal and the Isreali Government never in a million years ever want to see a Palestinian state. Plain and simple.

MrSmashy · 05-10-2003, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gibber71

I've been saying this for 2 years and I get nothing but a blank stare in return. The Isreali's and Palestinian's want peace.At least those with semblences of intelligence do. The problem is that the Palestinian Authority wants to see the extinction of Isreal and the Isreali Government never in a million years ever want to see a Palestinian state. Plain and simple.

I do blame the media partly for the lack of understanding that there are problems with both sides in this conflict.

Sun Tzu · 05-10-2003, 05:54 PM

I've seen Arafat’s version of what he considers he believes will be the future boundaries of Palestine. It’s the entire country. I understand the Palestinian anger with regards to the settlements; there is even a growing list of Israeli soldiers that are refusing to serve in the Gaza Strip and West Bank.

I think that if Israel moves all illegal settlements out of Palestinian territory all the worlds’ eyes will then look upon the newly formed Palestine. If the bombings continue; it will be extremely bad for the Palestinian people. That’s if there is even an agreement of the peace plan. As far as I know Hamas has vowed not to accept it and resist it at all costs. This being due to Jerusalem being made the capital city of Israel, which the Palestinians feel is theirs.

gov135 · 05-10-2003, 06:28 PM

Certain groups of Israelis feel they have a divine right and obligation to form settlements. Why, I'm not sure. Many of their settlements are little more than camps. They need to be fortified and protected by troops.

The settlements must go to show good faith by the Israelis. Not sure, wink, and not do it. But they all really need to go.

4thTimeLucky · 05-11-2003, 06:34 AM

I believe strongly that the settlements should go, but am sad in my conviction that they will not.

Currently Israel is connecting its settlements with a huge Berlin-like Wall to ensure that they are properly entrenched before any peace process needs to be signed.

I also get annoyed by the attitude towards Americans who go out and protest against Israeli oppression. When that girl was crushed by a bulldozer the comments on TFP seemed to be mostly along the lines of "she deserved it, stupid girl". To me she was braver and greater than any of us who just talk about the injustice.

gibber71 · 05-11-2003, 08:15 AM

Just a quick note regarding settlements.Since the UN (I know the UN is ineffective) imposed resolutions against Isreali in 1996 to stop building settlements,the settlement population has risen from approx.40,000 to near 400,000 to date. Why? Because the Isreali Government is using these people as pawns.Before the current 'road map' was introduced,the Isreali's were banking on the international community to say the illegal settlers couldn't be exiled,meaning you can't have a mass exodus of people to create statehood for someone else.(anyone see the irony here.Think 1948).In some newspapers that was given the same symbolic equivalent to the mass exodus of Jews in Nazi Germany. Now,since the settlements are at the fore front of the new'road map',the Isreali's will be forced to concede them even though they will concede to giving away land that isn't theirs to begin with. The continuing support by the Isreali Government to build more settlements is their way of trying to guarantee the Palestinian's will never see statehood. This isn't a popular opinion,at least not in a politically correct sense,but none the less something you may never see reported for fear of those who choose to,being labeled anti-semitic

crumbbum · 05-11-2003, 07:53 PM

So guys, why exactly do you think the settlements are such a hot issue? Actually, not many are illegal, and those that are tend to be like trailers on hilltops. The settlements aren't built on arab land, no land was ever stolen to build them. If you need 2 states, then I suppose some would have to be removed to make the state viable and all, what what is so explosive about the settlements themselves? They aren't being built on "palestinian land". The land was occupied by Jordan before Israel got it, and the area is actually the heartland of ancient Israel. Also, the settlements exists to give Israel territorial depth- it's a tiny country, about the size of delaware. In the end, the israelis have at least as much right to live there as anyone else. And in fact there are far, far more illegal arab settlements that no one ever speaks about. Why do you think the settlements are so bad? It's one thing to talk about removing some to create the state, but despite the rhetoric I don't really understand what the actual problem is, except that the Palestinians hate seeing the jews gain control of more land. This has been the case since the mid 1800s! There aren't really any new settlements being built, what is being protested now is the "natural growth", like when babies are born and new homes are built as the population grows. By the way, even if you don't like Sharon, it is really wrong to equate him with Arafat. Arafat is a lifelong murderer and terrorist thug. Sharon was a general, and has spent his life defending his people from the enemies that they are surrounded by. He was also heavily involved in the peace with Egypt.

gibber71 · 05-11-2003, 08:20 PM

Point taken but by the same token,Ariel Sharon is no saint. There is blood on everyones hands on both sides of the equation and anyone who doesn't see that,chooses not to.

MrSmashy · 05-11-2003, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crumbbum
So guys, why exactly do you think the settlements are such a hot issue? Actually, not many are illegal, and those that are tend to be like trailers on hilltops. The settlements aren't built on arab land, no land was ever stolen to build them.

No. It was just built on land that was taken after 1967...it was annexed...not stolen. Oops. Big difference.

Quote:

If you need 2 states, then I suppose some would have to be removed to make the state viable and all, what what is so explosive about the settlements themselves?

To connect them with Israel, either more land will be annexed (which is a hot topic given that every inch of land in that overcrowded hole is worth an incrdible amoutn) or the roads to them will cut up a Palestinian state in a way that no sovereign state would normally be expected to tolerate.

Quote:

They aren't being built on "palestinian land". The land was occupied by Jordan before Israel got it, and the area is actually the heartland of ancient Israel.

Semantics. The palestinians were 'jordanians' if you want to consider tha land 'jordanian' at that time. Also, heartland of ancient Israel means fuck all. I have plenty of ancient homeland all over Europe and the middle east that is owed to me by right of my genetic code, but i don't go about claiming it. Seriously, all this bullshit about people who think they get a chunk of dirty because someone in the past owned it is the stupidest arguement I've heard and if i have to explain why it is so to you, I don't see a reason continuing this arguement. Understand, however, I am the same way towards the Palestinian right of return (despite the fact that some of the original owners are alive and there has been less time since they were kicked off the land).

Quote:

Also, the settlements exists to give Israel territorial depth- it's a tiny country, about the size of delaware.

So? Are we supposed to justify the settlements are part of Israel strategic needs. I am sure that the Palestinians or Jordan could use a nice seaport like Tel Aviv, but I wouldn't say "go and conquor it."

Quote:

In the end, the israelis have at least as much right to live there as anyone else.

No they don't. And yes, you failed to prove that they do.

Quote:

And in fact there are far, far more illegal arab settlements that no one ever speaks about.

Evidence please.

Quote:

Why do you think the settlements are so bad? It's one thing to talk about removing some to create the state, but despite the rhetoric I don't really understand what the actual problem is, except that the Palestinians hate seeing the jews gain control of more land. This has been the case since the mid 1800s!

Right...its because the Palestinians hate the jews, not because the jews keep taking land and building settlements that will result in Isreal gobbling up more territory to make them part of Israel.

Quote:

There aren't really any new settlements being built, what is being protested now is the "natural growth", like when babies are born and new homes are built as the population grows.

Ok. We are obviously getting different impressions of the situation here, but regardless of whether or not it is natural growth, it doesn't matter...they shouldn't be there.

Quote:

By the way, even if you don't like Sharon, it is really wrong to equate him with Arafat. Arafat is a lifelong murderer and terrorist thug. Sharon was a general, and has spent his life defending his people from the enemies that they are surrounded by. He was also heavily involved in the peace with Egypt.

So having recognition as a state from the US is the difference between terrorist acts and the acts of a stateman concerned for his people?

also: So the arabs can't remove the Isreali settlements to make a viable state, but the Isrealis can. Nice double standard. Thanks for making all jews around the world just a little closer to standing with our backs to the wall and guns to our faces.

crumbbum · 05-12-2003, 08:02 AM

Ok, I don't even know where to start- you mock Israel's need for depth and equate it with palestinians wanting a seaport. But how much do you about the history there? Israel needs depth so the country doesnt get destroyed in a war. When Israelis surrendered in past wars they were frequently massacred, with their bodies mutilated. The arabs broadcast that they would push the jews into the sea. The country needs strategic depth to live, not because it's "nice", as you equate it. That is ridiculous. No one is trying to exterminate the palestinians. Israel may not be keen on giving them a state, I really can't see how that land can hold 2 states without resulting in war, and that's beyond the ridicuousness of rewarding years upon years of terrorism, the brutality of which is unparalleled. Second, Israel has already said that they will remove some settlements, once the terror stops. This is perfectly reasonable, no one should the the palestinians a damn thing if they aren't running a civilized society. And again, the land was annexed from Jordan, right- it wasn't "palestinian land". Many of the so called settlements have been there since long before 1948, and some since time immemorial, like Hebron, etc. Oh, and I don't consider the land Jordanian, Jordan's occupation of the West bank (which was the name under Jordanian occupation, the western bank of the jordan river- the traditional names of the regions are Judea and Samaria) was illegal. By international law Israel's annexation was NOT illegal. The land wasn't stolen from anyone, Jordan had no right to be there, and it wasn't palestinian arab land at all. There were arabs there, and jews there. Then you say we are getting different impressions of the situation with regards to settlement growth- but that's a fact, they have stopped building new settlements in deference to the US. That's been the case for some time. But anyway, the settlements again serve a defensive purpose, and why shouldn't they build them when they are still under attack? Oh, and in the last part about Sharon and Arafat, recognition from the US has nothing to do with it. Arafat spent his life killing innocent people. Sharon spent his defending his country from those that would destroy it and massacre its inhabitants. There can be no equivocation made. In case you forget the arabs have made war on Israel many times, and the country is perpetually threatened, they have never known peace. You probably are one of the people that states simplistic analyses like "why can't they stop killing each other? Sharon doesn't want peace", etc. Who do you think wants peace more? Who stands to gain more from it? Who is waging war on who? There has been a terror war against Israel for the last 2 years. They are surrounded by enemies. You think Israel is the obstacle to peace? Why? No one needs peace more than Israel. And almost all Israelis are willing to make concessions for peace. Sharon, Barak, left and right, they all want the same thing, they just have different ideas of how to achieve it. You DON'T get peace by rewarding terrorism or by capitulating under attack by your enemies, who want to destroy you and see that as weakness. Sharon wants peace, he just doesn't want a false peace. Another question, why didn't any arab countries absorb the palestinians in 1948? In every other war in history when refugees were created, there was a population exchange, India/Pakistan, Germany/Czechoslovakia, etc. Did you know that slightly more jewish refugees were created in 48 than arabs? They were expelled from arab countries amidst pogroms and all their belongings and property stolen. Israel took them in, as any civilized country would do. The palestinian arabs are kept in squallid refugee camps, for 55 years now, as a political weapon wielded by despotic arab rulers, who use the issue to blame Israel for all the problems in the Arab world and divert anger away from themselves, while they take in Billions as their population starves. Learn your history. Why exactly do you think the Palestinian arabs deserve a state? What about the Tibetan Buddhists? What about the Kurds? There are enough people in the world that have suffered far more, and have infinitely less blood on their hands, that could use a state. This one is all politics. Oh, and you say they have no rights to the land based on history. But you don't realize that jews have lived there all along. They never left. They were a minority there until the mid 1800s, but there was always a presence there, in many places. If the arabs love the land so much, why was there no country there before? Why were there only a few hundred thousand migrants in the whole place? Why was the land desolate? You don't realize, but almost all the arabs who were there in 1948 came as a result of jewish settlement, looking for work. The jews started farming and built hospitals, and the arabs benefited greatly. As far as the refugees, 67% left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. They were encouraged to by the arab leaders, promised they could return once the jews were all killed. Did you know that to be a palestinian, one simply has to be related to some arab that lived in the land pre-48 for 2 years? That is the UN definition. You don't know what you're talking about with this, and I suggest you learn your history before making these kinds of statements in public.

4thTimeLucky · 05-12-2003, 08:11 AM

As much as i'd love to enter this debate, i think I should refuse to until crumbbum decides to become a little friendlier in his use of paragraphs.

miked10270 · 05-12-2003, 08:20 AM

Personally, I think that the real problem dates back to 1946 when the Jews were given Palestine as a "homeland". Wouldn't it have made more sense to have given them Austria?

Mike.

gibber71 · 05-12-2003, 09:50 AM

First of all crumbbum,both Palestinian's as well as Isreali's have been terrorizing each other for decades,unfortunately with the lines of terrorism and self defense blurred.Second,the building of settlements have only been halted a very short time ago and that was due to the 'road map'.Third and again,Sharon is no saint.Fourth,Sharon agrees to peace,but he's full of shit.He wants peace as much as Arafat does. Peace means Palestinian Statehood and he doesn't want that.But he does look good blowing smoke up George Bush's ass which can be seen again May 20 when Sharon makes his 8th appearance in one year to the White House. Finally,both sides are to blame for being so fucking stupid and racist. Ignorance is not a one way street.I suggest if you really believe what you've written,you'll enjoy 'honestreporting.com'.

crumbbum · 05-12-2003, 12:22 PM

You say they have been terrorizing each other, but again, there is only one side of the equation that continuously targets innocent civilians. It is in the PLO covenant to destroy Israel. Abbas is a PLO vet and Arafat is the founder. I never said Sharon was a saint, but he has admirably defended his country from first arab armies, and then the PLO all his life. Israel has not beena ttacking the palestinians- the palestinians have been attacking Israeli civilians, and Israel has taken defensive measures. The palestinian terrorists are the agressors, and sadly, about 70% of them support suicide bombing. And don't say "they have no other means to fight". Arafat walked away from the negotiating table at Taba without even making a counteroffer, and proceeded to launch a terror war. No, in his heart I sincerely doubt that Sharon wants a palestinian state- but why do you think that is? Someone here said Israel should go back to the pre-67 borders. The problem is, those borders are militarily nearly indefensible, and the middle of the country then is only 7 miles wide, and can be easily split in 2 in an invasion. I have not seen any reason to believe at all that such a palestinian state will ever be peaceful, if it is built on the foundation of the past 2 years of bloody terrorism targeting innocent civilians. How does that create peace? When the PLO had a mini-state in Lebanon, it became a center for terrorists from all over the world, including the Japanese red army, various Arab groups, the IRA, etc. In case you have forgotten the US is in a war on terrorism, and I can't see how yet another arab state in the middle east solves anything. It will likely create another regional war. This state would be a military nightmare for Israel, and this is why so many oppose it. Arab armies could use it as a forward base, as it would cut into the midsection of Israel. In fact, that is the idea in the PLO "phased plan"- set up an autonomous entity with a territorial foothold, and then get the arab armies to attack again. The settlements are the only thing that could maintain Israel's defense if such a state existed, and that's why they have been built for so long. And I don't think "both sides are to blame for being so fucking stupid and racist". I don't see anything racist in a government defending it's citizens from terrorist attacks targeting them. Do you think the US is racist for attacking Afghanistan? Is it racism or is it self-preservation? I have not seen anything to indicate that racism is dictating policy here. I'm sure many Israelis hate the arabs at this point, after so many people have been murdered in the past 55 years(and before). They obviously don't all hate them, because there is arab representation in the Knesset and 20% of Israelis are arab. Remember now that the Palestinian Authority has a controlled media, autocratic government, an education system that teaches hatred (Abbas recently gave the education portfolio to Hamas- no joke). That is what fuels hatred. The only way for there to be real peace is to drain the swamp of the hatred and brainwashing and corruption that creates palestinian terrorism. Leaders like arafat skim billions off the top while their people rot, and feed them propaganda about the evil jews. It was Arafat that walked away from the negotiating table- why? Because he would have had to give up the "right of return", which is a joke. Someone earlier said maybe if Israel pulled back to the post 48 borders they would compromise, but that would be granting it legitimacy, which it doesn't have. The palestinians do not deserve a state, and terrorism should not be appeased. If they really do fight the terrorism, and stop educating their kids to hate, and create transparent institutions and actually start creating real conditions for peace, it would happen. At this point in time, howevver, it is serious foolishness and self-defeating to offer them a state. Why don't we offer Osama the mayorship of new york?

Sun Tzu · 05-12-2003, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gibber71
Point taken but by the same token,Ariel Sharon is no saint. There is blood on everyones hands on both sides of the equation and anyone who doesn't see that,chooses not to.

This is an accurate statement. The entire area is a historical mess. To look back is too dam complicated and people will interpret what they will.

I hope everyone looks to the future. Sharon knows what’s illegal and what’s not. Same with Arafat. If adjustments are made according to what the rest of the world sees it will be a step in the right direction for everyone.

homerhop · 05-12-2003, 03:12 PM

"If they really do fight the terrorism, and stop educating their kids to hate."
I have seen programs on discovery where Isreali's have spoken on how they have taught their childern to hate all Palestinians and even how to kill them. hmmm spot the difference

crumbbum · 05-12-2003, 04:40 PM

Ok, you saw a program that interviewed some fringe Israelis, they were probably Kahanists. I'm sure there are some Israelis that think that way, but they are an extreme minority. Anyway, I wasn't talking about what was being taught in the homes- I'm talking about the Palestinian public educational system. The schools are filled with posters of suicide bombers, and the kids are taught with textbooks where Israel doesn't even exist on the map. They are taught to hate jews. There is a big difference between individual sentiment and public policy. Israeli schools educate for peace. There will always be people filled with hatred, but the Palestinian Authority is actively indoctrinating its population with it. And about the above comment, the area is a historical mess, but there is no peace without truth. What the world thinks isn't good enough- the world has never been kind to the jews, and most world governments have vested political interests(oil) in the middle east. Peace must be based on truth, and justice. The complicated history must be analyzed and understood to formulate the way to approach the present. This is the only way there will ever be real peace.

gibber71 · 05-12-2003, 04:49 PM

crumbbum, you may find this hard to believe,but I understand what you are saying. I also understand opinion's given to me from the other perspective by people who are saying exactly what you are saying but in support of the Palestinian's. I have the ability to be objective. And by the way,racism afflicts every culture, that being unless a certain culture is more important or significant than any other's. Would you happen to know of a superior culture or of any culture deserving of such an honour? And tell me one more thing. You mentioned that the 'Palestinian's do not deserve a state'. Well why is it when(obviously someone anti-Isreali) someone says that the Isreali's don't deserve statehood, they are labeled anti-semitic, anti-Isreali,hate propogandists etc.. but when an Isreali or supporter there of, says that the Palestinian's don't deserve statehood,no one blinks an eye? Why is it that one form of racism is condemned outright while the other is form is unconditionally accepted? Political correctness? Ignorance? Take a walk in the Palestinian's shoes,then if you come back with the same ideology,I will then be certain peace will never exist in the Middle East

crumbbum · 05-12-2003, 05:30 PM

You may not believe this, but I don't necessarily blame the Palestinians for their situation. They have been abused by Arab leaders from the very beginning. First they were encouraged by the arab countries to leave their homes, and of course some were expelled in the course of the fighting, and then when they lost the war their "friends" just turned their backs on them and left them to rot. They have been living on world charity forever, have never had a working economy (most relied on jobs in Israel). Their media is controlled, anyone who dissents is killed as a "collaborator". I remember seeing a few months back, when an 18 year old girl, among others, were killed for "collaboration", and their bodies hung on lampposts in Bethlehem. Where was the rest of the world? Yasser arafat and the other corrupt leaders have amassed fortunes from all the money given, that the people never see. They are deliberately made to suffer, as human polical weapons. It is truly sick. As far as racism, again, obviously there are racist Israelis too. But the conflict for Israel isn't about racism, it's about defense and security. No country can sit by when it's citizens are murdered en masse. And as far as deserving a state goes, the palestinians shouldn't be given a state now 1. because it would be rewarding terrorism, and would send the message that it works to all the other would-be terrorists in the world, and 2. Because the current palestinian leadership isn't after statehood- the goal is the destruction of Israel. You should read the translations of the speeches Arafat makes in arabic. I think the US or Israel should reoccupy, clean out the terrorists for good, free the media and revamp the schools to educate for peace. wait a few years, Add some economic development, help them create their own infrastructure, and if they are content to just live and there is no more terrorism, then the conditions for peace will have been created. Giving them anything now will only lead to more violence. Jews deserve a state because after thousands of years of disgusting persecution, and in the end the Holocaust, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that no other nation could be trusted to guarantee the safety of jewish people. As for the place, it has always been the jewish homeland. It's where they come from and where they have prayed to ever since they were exiled. The palestinians shouldn't get a state because at this point it would just be another terror state, which no one wants or needs. No one stands to benefit from that right now except the greedy palestinian leaders and the western governments who want to appease the arabs. The Israelis lose and the Palestinians themselves lose too, because it would be a repressive police state, like it is now. If peace is what the world wants, the palestinian arabs need to normalize their society, as it has become distorted and warped after years of brainwashing and progaganda. There is too much bloodlust to make peace now, and to do so would be foolish. It will only make things worse. Also, there are huge, fertile and empty tracts of land all over the place in the arab world. Why exactly does the state need to be where everyone wants it? It will surely lead to war. The palestinians don't, despite the brainwashing have any tangible connection to the land, with some exceptions. The definition of a palestinian, according to the UN, is any arab who is descended from someone who lived in the land for at least 2 years. A small minority of them actually do go back a lot longer, but any of those are Israeli arabs, and the ones that aren't, obviously should be compensated. But most are descended from arabs who came seeking work. They could have their state anywhere, politics aside. It doesn't make sense to create it where it will surely lead to war. And again about racism, 20% of Israelis are arabs. In 2000 when two Israeli reservists accidentally got lost and wandered into Ramallah, they were taken to a palestinian police station, where they were severely beaten, and then their bodies thrown out of the high window into the arab mob below. They proceeded to tear their bodies apart and dance around with their entrails and in their blood, singing and cheering exultantly. Last time I checked, there haven't been any jewish lynch mobs tearing palestinians apart and dancing in their blood. I'm sure there are racist Israelis, but there is no equivalence to Palestinian hatred.

Sun Tzu · 05-12-2003, 06:56 PM

crumbbum rather than to post a statement I'll post a link. Scroll down and you will see the list of Israeli soldiers. You can see a few of their pics, but its their letters that Im most interested that you read (if/when you get the time). Hearing things from their perspective will give you another angle to view. Not to change your stance, but contribute to it being more rounded.

http://www.couragetorefuse.org/defaulteng.asp

crumbbum · 05-12-2003, 08:33 PM

I have seen this before. It was a good thing to recommend me to read. I think that this shows pretty clearly how sick the Israelis are of fighting with the Arabs. That said, there are only a little over 500 refusers, in an army of, including the reservists, over a million. This makes them a pretty fringe group, that has gotten a great deal of media attention. I assume they are legit- many Israeli leftist groups though are funded by the EU, which makes their sincerity somewhat questionable. The website has the different guys' stories. Some mention abuses by soldiers. These things have happened. These happen in every army. They are not typical, and perpetrators are disciplined, like recently, some border police are on trial for brutality. That said, upwards of 95% of the reservists showed up when they launched Operation defensive shield, where they re-established military control of the terror centers. That is way above the average in most places, and shows the understanding the soldiers have, that their service is necessary to fight terrorism. Most Israelis hate being in palestinian areas, and they hate having to control them. But they realize that they are left with no choice when a failure to do so would allow more people to get killed. Obviously it is wrong if settlers attack any palestinians- of course no soldier should violate the purity of arms. But again, the wrong actions of a very few individuals do not change the basic reality of the situation, or the reality which can only be understood by learning the history. It is indeed a very complicated situation, but at the moment Israel is left with only choice: to fight the terrorists, or else stand back and let its citizens be murdered. No country can do that, every government is obligated to defend the lives of its citizens. The Israelis are sick of war, but it is not in their power to change the hatred and backwardness that exists in the middle east. Serious reform and liberalization is needed in Israel's neighbors before there will be any possibility of peace. This is why Bush is trying to set up a free trade zone in the middle east- if these countries can be modernized, and the brutal autocratic regimes that run them broken, free speech and human right granted, then these people will finally be able to build real social infrastructures and healthy, educated societies. As it is, the state of Israel can't make peace with Arab regimes that brainwash their citizens. They simply have no choice, and this new "roadmap" will unfortunately only exascerbate the problem. Israeli concessions, such as settlement removal, should be saved for actions on the part of the palestinians and arab countries that really deserve rewarding, like real acceptance of Israel, freedom of speech, a free press, economic liberalization, human rights, and other things. For the Palestinians, they need to really change their leadership (this "new" governent is almost the same as the last one, most of the ministers are the same, the only difference is Abbas, the financer of the Munich olympics massacre and Holocaust denier, is the new Prime Minister, with Arafat breathing down his neck. That is not real reform. Still, everyone is intent on giving him a chance. Ok. But what is needed is transparent institutions, an end of corruption, the end of the ridiculous "right of return", a preparation of the population through the school system and media for peace and self-sufficient life, and an end to the tactics of intimidation and brutality in their politics. If you wipe out the terrorists, a lot of ordinary palestinians would probably breathe a sigh of relief. It needs to be "ok" in their society to be against terrorism and pro-peace. Making peace is like making a marriage- you need 2 independent, mature and responsible parties. If one person is immature or needy, the relationship fails. Same here- the palestinians need to create their own jobs and stop relying on Israel, stop the insane terrorism and learn how to live as a normal society, not one that lives and breathes hatred and destruction. Having the grandfather of modern terrorism(Arafat) as their leader shows that they have a long way to go until peace can be made. Any "carrots" given until then will be supporting terrorism. There has to be zero tolerance, the massacre of innocent civilians can never be normalized or "ok"- if it becomes an acceptable and succesful tactic, it will spread everywhere, as it is already starting to after so much disastrous and misguided western diplomacy.

Sun Tzu · 05-12-2003, 10:28 PM

In looking at a map of Israel and the occupied territories it would seem to me that pulling the settlements off the areas they shouldn't be in would only increase Israel’s security. For me; there is enough substance that each side has strong reasons for the actions it does (im not saying I agree or disagree with them) I’m also attempting to image what I would feel by putting myself where each of the sides is I understand the rage of each.

With relation to inside the borders of Israel and the occupied territories what was happening prior to the bombings starting? Main the timeline from the incident that happened to Sharon at the temple mount to 4 years before. What were both sides doing? I’m trying to understand what the progression was up to the bombings.

crumbbum I tried searching google for recent logistics of Israels military and couldnt find a straightforward site could you post a link where you got your info (not questioning what you wrote I would just like to have for my own sources--thanks)

homerhop · 05-13-2003, 02:17 AM

Its a tough one .I my own opinion there will never be peace in the middle east.It runs too deep for it ever to work. Looking at the political status in my country and what is happening there I can see alot of similar things happening that has happened here in the last 30 years.We keep trying for peace but there is hard liners on both sides that will never accept it.Until both sides can sit down and admit they were both wrong in things they have done instead of blaming each other for everything You are going to have this hatered in the middle east well past our life time

crumbbum · 05-13-2003, 09:13 AM

Sun tzu, what information did you want specifically? I could try and find it, much are things I read at the time, but I could try looking it up. Pulling the settlements in dangerous areas out would only bring the terrorists who attack them closer to more populated Israeli areas. The settlements create distance there. They also are there so the military has a foothold- the west bank is the high ground in the area. Whoever controls the mountains can shell the whole country. There are radar stations there that give Israel advance warning if they are being attacked by air. They need to hold onto these, as it is a military necessity to properly defend themselves. Sun tzu, you say you understand both sides. But you must realize, that the Israelis are acting out of self-defense, not rage. How can you see any justification for the deliberate murder of so many innocent people? Suicide bombers blowing up teenagers in dance halls, or opening fire at a girls bat mitzva? Shooting to death a mother shielding her children with her body, and then executing the kids as they hide under their covers? It is barbaric beyond belief. It is not desperation that leads someone to strap a bomb to themself, packed with nails and bolts and rat poison, and blow themselves up among a crowd of women and kids. It is unbridled and boundless hatred and indoctrination with the belief that doing this will grant them immediate access to paradise. There can never be any justification for these massacres. It is inhuman. I don't think you fully comprehend the hatred and unbelievable cruelty involved here. The israelis are under attack, and are fighting the terrorism with one arm tied behind their backs because of international politics. Can you imagine what the US would do if they were attacked in the same way? There is no, and can never be any justification for such sickening tactics. Israel was ready to talk peace, and Arafat walked away. There is no reason for this. Arafat didn't even make a counteroffer. As far as those refusenik soldiers, this is the whole point of the terrorism- Israelis are weary and sick of fighting the arabs, and policing the palestinians. Arafat thought they were ready to crack. That was why he walked away and launched a terror campaign (which by the way, was planned long before Sharon's walk on the Temple mount- the temple mount is the holiest site in the world to jews, and his visit was even coordinated with the mosque authorities beforehand. it was an artifical pretext for the terror war. This was proven, they found many documents showing that it was being financed and planned before that happened).
In the years before the violence started again, there were peace negotiations going on things were sort of in a stalemate after Oslo, when the palestinians didn't live up to their side of the agreements, and Shimon Peres was voted out of office. Netanyahu replaced him, and there were more attempts to give military control to the palestinians, that ended disastrously. Then BArak was elected, and with Clinton he had new peace talks. This was Camp David 2. After those negotiations failed they met again at Taba, where Barak put everything on the table, even offering to divide Jerusalem, and giving them almost all of the west bank and Gaza. Arafat stormed away from the table without even making a counteroffer, presumably, because in return he would have had to give up the so called "right of return", or the destruction of Israel. Arafat also thought that to make such an offer, which crossed all previous Israeli red lines (and wasn't supported by most Israelis- but Barak was a puppet of Clinton), meant that they were weak and about to break. He planned the terror campaign. A few weeks later, Israeli elections were coming up, and Sharon made his walk on the Temple mount to show that if elected he wouldn't abandon the holiest site in Judaism. The muslim waqf had been doing "excavations" on the mount, and still are, and don't let any archaeolgists see what they are doing. They carry truckloads of gravel out daily. Many priceless artifacts and archaelogical history are being destroyed (Arafat has claimed in the past that the jews have no claims to the sight). Sharon went to see what was going on, among other things. He never entered any mosque. This visit was about as controversial as an Italian politican visiting the Vatican. Under this pretext the terror war was launched, and soon there were suicide bombing almost every day, and hundreds of Israelis were killed. At first Israeli retaliation was piddling, Barak was still trying to "make peace" and hesitated. Then Sharon was elected in a landslide victory, and I assume you know what has happened since then.
I disagree with the last post. I don't think peace is possible for awhile, until the palestinians are capable of peace. There is a great deal of societal deprogramming to do until then, but I think that perhaps after 30 or so years of an incitement and intimidation free society, peace could be made. There are no easy solutions though and it is foolish to try and force one now, and to expect Israel to give up its few bargaining chips in return for words and BS. Sharon is right about this- there can be no negotiations or army withdrawals until the terror stops. The palestinians have a huge police force, that was armed, foolishly, by Israel. They have been involved in terror themselves, not fought it. They need to fight the terror and learn as a society how to live in peace. They are not a capable partner in any peace at this time.

Sun Tzu · 05-13-2003, 12:50 PM

crumbbum I'll address everything you've stated here, but before this conversation continues I want you to know I've been to Israel many times. I've traveled to many parts of the country, and (with the help of a particular archeologist on a couple of trips) have seen things alot haven't. (I consider myself lucky) Perhaps if there is a proper area (I don’t think the exhibition area is it) I'll post some pics that I found of particular interest ruins of Gomorrah, Solomon’s Post (supposed Red Sea parting area, etc) Of course I haven’t been in 5 years for obvious reasons. I state this to lend to me comprehending more than you think.

I've been studying this for quite some time; in fact my views were opposite what they are now 15 years ago. When I say I understand both sides; I’m attempting to be polite.

This doesn’t mean I’m for any loss of life, there’s nothing more than I dream of than a world where everyone lives in peace. I can tell you have a lot of emotion in this area, as well do I. What I view as the unfolding reality over there has taken along time and personal experience to arrive to. Even if I disagree, I’ll respect what you say; but I have to state I usually hang out of these discussions because I FULLY comprehend what’s going on over there.
All I can do is politely as possible; disagree with some of what you said. But I’ll only attempt to keep my responses brief with appropriate links (links are understandably what they are—but they’re the best we have for this type of conversation) I’ve given the 5 page responses and found that no matter what I or anyone shows; people will see what they choose to see. That’s not right or wrong. It’s not good news or bad news its just the news, its always been that way.

For starters if you would please look at this map--I’m not much for the MSNBC, but this visual representation is the quickest visual guide I could find to recent historical demographics. Alongside the main article you'll see a conflict guide of Israelis and Palestinians click on a history of Jewish Settlement.

I wanted you to see that before I responded to your position. What’s your take on that?

http://www.msnbc.com/news/801833.asp

crumbbum · 05-13-2003, 03:20 PM

Ok, read the article and looked at the map- with regard to the article, I don't think Sharon's response to Powell is very surprising. Every time Israel has made concessions for him in the past it has only brought more bloodshed. In the current US administration, it seems like Powell doesn't hold many cards. He sort of embarassed the US over Iraq, and recently with Syria, he met with Assad. Assad said he would obey and shut down terror group offices in Damascus, which he has not done. Powell said they did, but both Assad and the groups denied it.
Anyway, on the 48 map it says "The UNs decision to recognize Israel's independence in 1948 led to full-scale war and the displacement of 750,000 arabs. First, the number is inflated. At the time of the UN vote there were 809,000 arabs within the borders of the about-to-be-declared jewish state. In 1949 an Israeli government census found 160,000 arabs in the country (Israeli Arabs). There couldn't have been more than 650,000 refugees. In fact, the UN mediator in Palestine found an even lower figure- 472,000. Also, the war began when 5 arab armies arrived to exterminate Israel. Arabs inside the Palestine mandate also were participating in guerrila attacks on jews before the war started. Before and during the war there were a great number of civilian atrocities, incuding the massacre of 77 jews in a convoy on the way to Hadassah Hospital, doctors nurses and patients.
Anyway, as you can see on the 77' map, the early settlements were all built near the vulnerable borders with Egypt, Syria and Jordan. This was done for defensive purposes. Then in the recent map, there are many more settlements. Many more settlements were built. But they were built in unpopulated areas- no palestinians were displaced ever in the building. As it also says, Sharon has stopped building new settlements, but has supported natural growth(the settlements are towns and villages, and the people have children. The population grows. Sharon said to Powell when he mentioned a construction freeze "you want the women to have abortions? This is a valid point- most of these communities have been there for 30+ years. A question that is rarely asked is why must thousands and thousands of jews be evicted from their homes for peace? 20% of Israelis are arab- why can't any jews live within the boundaries of a palestinian state? That is racist. If there were real peace, Israel wouldn't have to defend the settlements from constant attack. Also, the map is somewhat misleading, it looks like most of the west bank is settlements, when that isn't the case. Anyway, as to why so many settlements grew- After the Soviet union fell, more than a million Russian jews fled and came to Israel. Israel is a tiny country, and many of these immigrants moved to the only place there was real estate available, in the settlements. When it comes down to it, the real reason for settlement growth is because people need a place to live. There are a great number of arab settlements as well, if you didn't know. And among the settlements that are illegal, there are far more arab ones than jewish ones. The Israelis do not take down illegal arab settlements for fear of political and media backlash, and also because they don't want a riot. The law is not enforced equally. A number of illegal jewish settlements (they are mostly trailers on hills) have been dismantled.
I really think the settlement issue is not at the root of the conflict. If the Palestinian society over time reformed itself, and really became capable of living in peace, and it was still thought that a second state west of the jordan would bring peace and not war(I have yet to see how this could do anything but lead to WW3), then some settlements, as Sharon has conceded, would need to be dismantled to give them a viable state. The question is whether now is an appropriate time to do that. I think to make any concessions now would only create more violence in the long run and send the message that terror works. You can't appease fanatics or murderers, the best a country can do is defeat them and make peace then, like in WW2. There could be no peace made with the Nazis. They tried to give them czechoslovakia as a concession, hoping that would appease them, but it only emboldened them to continue intimidating and invading. Only after Germany was decisively defeated could peace and reconstruction take place- as a result Germany has been an extremely succesful and peaceful nation for the last 50+ years. Japan also. Times and tactics have changed, but this reality hasn't. You can't make peace with people who are trying to kill you, and mercy to the cruel only begets cruelty to the merciful.
BTW, I'd love to see your pictures. I think amidst the violence and the geopolitics people tend to forget what a beautiful place it is. What exactly did you do there? It sounds really interesting. Thank you for considering what I have to say on this, you are right that so many people don't want to hear anything that doesn't agree with their preconceived assumptions. I see a lot of emotivism forming people's opinions instead of fact. I don't see how anyone can ever understand what goes on there unless they have both a well functioning brain and a conscience, and I often see an absence of one or the other. Alternatively, people are just misinformed, as I was not so long ago. The region is the center of so much international political intrigue, that the truth is often buried in politics. Looking forward to your next post.

crumbbum · 05-13-2003, 03:44 PM

Oh, just wanted to clarify above what i mean here by making concessions wrongly- I think it was a mistake for them ever to negotiate with the PLO, a terrorist organization, to begin with. Granted, they did so under immense international political pressure, but still. Negotiating with them grants them legitimacy. The PLO has carried out so many gruesome atrocities that it should never have been considered legitimate. It is not a coincidence that the Oslo accords resulted in all this bloodshed. The violenced after Oslo was more than in all the years before. This is because in Oslo they were negotiating with and making concessions to, and thus strengthening, a crazy terrorist organization, the PLO, and it's despotic leader, Arafat. Peace can't be made with people that want to kill you, period. When you make concessions to another, be it an individual, a group, or a nation, you strengthen their position. That is why the concessions should be saved until there is real change and a real chance for peace, giving them now will only strengthen and embolden terrorism. If the world forces them to give into it there, it will come to us here, without question, much more than it already has, eventually. The terrorism against Israel and that against the West is the same phenomenon, and the same fight. The longer this harsh reality is ignored, the bigger hole we will all dig ourselves into.

Sun Tzu · 05-13-2003, 07:01 PM

The initial few times were actually diving around Sinai and Eilat. Of course my curiosity brought me up to Jerusalem, Bethlehem, around the Dead Sea. On my fourth trip I met an archeologist that became my mentor in this area, and he began to show me things that were defiantly not on any map. Alongside him and with more solo travels I was lucky enough to see a very large portion of the land. I was also very surprised at the large amount of Palestinians that were Christian; I had always just linked them with Arabs; thus being of Islamic faith.

I didn’t read the article, the title alone summed up what is already blatantly apparent and of no surprise to me. That’s not what I provided the link for; it was the map. The number your saying is inflated was actually lower than I have read in multiple sources and saying that it is inflated is a very strong statement, but I’m not saying your wrong. I will act as a critical thinker and attempt to prove MSNBC wrong in their statistics by investigating their sources. Where did you obtain the numbers stated?

Is it possible that a 1949 ISRAELI government census may not be the most accurate in terms of their accounting? I think considering such things don’t question your integrity, but strengthens it once such issues are clarified by different means all reaching a common denominator. Let’s say you are correct in 650,000 refugees plus the number that remained behind what was the number of Jewish populous? What was the ratio of Jew to Arab prior and even during the initial Zionist founders such as Ben Gurion and others that were migrating from Europe and other parts?

In referring back to the map, outside of the possible inaccurate numbers in simpler terms what do you see happening?

I’m not dodging your statements questions, but you’ve presented a lot and I just want to make sure you understand why I‘m having you look at the map.

crumbbum · 05-14-2003, 12:29 PM

Okay, my numbers- they come from a book called Myths and Facts, by Mitchell G. Bard. The book has its own sources, that I'll give. And the Israeli census, I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be legit, as it was a ocunt of their own citizens. The arabs in Israel in 1949 were Israeli citizens, who vote, have governmental representation, etc. I can't find the source for the 809,000, it just says it in the book, but there is a source for the UN number of refugees (472,000). (Progress report of the UN mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official records: Third session, Supplement no. 11 (A/648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement no. 11A (A\689, and A\689\add. 1, p. 5).
As far as the population numbers over the years, I know that prior to Jewish immigration in the mid 1800s, there were fewer than 250,000 arabs west of the Jordan in Palestine. Let's go back a bit- the name Palestine was given by the Romans, after they went to war against the kingdom of Judea in the second century BC. Despite a protracted revolt, the Romans eventually killed over a million of the jews, destroyed their Temple and drove them all out. They renamed the area "Palaestina" after the ancient Philistines, as an insult to the the Jews.
Rome became christian not long after, and around the 8th century Islam grew, and expanded rapidly. They eventually got as far as Spain. They took control of Palestine from the christians at first. (Incidentally, the Muslim claim to Jerualem is based on the premise that in Muhammed's dream in the Quran, where he rides on a magic peacock to the "further mosque", and ascends to heaven, meeting Jesus and all the jewish prophets, he rose from the Temple mount. The thing is, there was a church on the site during Muhammed's lifetime, so if he indeed rose to heaven from the spot, it was from the roof of a church :-). (Not very PC, I know). Anyway, the muslims had a policy of converting churches and holy sites of enemies they conquered in to Mosques, and they converted the church into a mosque, and assigned the passage in the Quran to that spot.
A few years ago I was in Instanbul and saw the Aya Sofia, this huge and beautiful crusader cathedral, that had been taken by the Ottomans and made into a mosque. When I was there, they had done renovations, and you could see the christian mosaics juxtaposed with the islamic writing and these huge gold discs, it was realy amazing. Anyway....
So then the crusaders and muslims fought over the holy land, as is well known. The crusaders were trying to drive out the "infidel muslims", and the muslims were trying to drive out the "infidel crusaders". The area ended up as a province of the Ottoman empire. The ottoman empire was huge- Constantinople(Istanbul) was the capital, and it stretched to southern Russia, encompassed modern day Turkey, and a number of other provinces. Palestine was never settled or developed, and it was pretty much a wasteland for hundreds of years. Like I mentioned before, there were only 250,000 arabs in the whole place. There was always a jewish presence in Palestine, from the the time of the Romans. The number was around 10,000, many were killed by the crusaders, and many died of dysentery and malaria. It was never any easy place to live, but even so many rabbis in jewish history made pilgrimmages and settled there. There was never any national entity on the land in all of history except for the Jewish kingdom. Then, in the mid-late 1800s, many jews started coming in. There were fewer than 250,000, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades (Carl Voss, "The Palestine Problem Today, Israel and its Neighbors", (MA: Beacon Press, 1953), p. 13). As jewish immigration increased, they began settling the land- draining the malarial swamps, creating farmland. The land was barren and in disrepair when they arrived, and over many years they planted trees and worked the ground and made it fertile again. They built schools, hospitals, an infrastructure. This development created employment opportunities for the arabs, and many came in large numbers seeking work. As you probably know, the Arab world is very poor, with the leaders stinking rich. At first there was a lot of cooperation between the arabs and the jews- the jews taught arab villagers how to farm, they shared knowledge and medical facilities, etc. That's why in 1948 many arabs stayed in Israel- because it was the Jewish settlement that had given them a decent life. Anyway, as time went on more jews came, fleeing Europe among other things. Some arabs were threatened by their success, others at the prospect of losing "arab land". Gangs formed that started attacks on the jews, and there were pogroms, such as the one in Hebron in 1929, where an arab mob attacked the jews, and killed 133 of them, and wounded 399. They were attacked with axes and knives, for the most part, and the bodies were mutilated and beaten. In the course of that, virtually the entire Jewish population in Hebron, which had been there since the Romans, had fled or been killed. The leader of the gangs that terrorized the jews was the infamous Mufti of Jerusalem. He met with Hitler and begged him to bring his final solution to Palestine. He also met Eichmann and other nazi leaders. Many arab leaders allied themselves with the Nazis in WW2. This mufti is actually Arafat's uncle. Arafat lived with him for some time as a boy (so THAT'S where he gets it...). No kidding.
The UN divided the land in 48 based on population- the jews were the majority in the jewish mandate, and the arabs in the arab sections. By the way, it should be noted that as the jews settled, they were never stealing land lfrom anyone- they purchased the land legally, as they went, often at excorbitant prices. The jews didn't "steal arab land". You know what happened after 48.
I found the statistics for Israel's military, in 2001 Israel had 186,500 regular troops and 445,000 reserve. So the 500 or so refusers are a pretty marginal phenomenon. They also had 3,930 tanks and 800 aircraft. Egypt, their biggest military threat, has 450,000 regular troops and 254,000 reserves, 3,505 tanks and 494 aircraft. Syria has 380,000 troops regular troops and 132,500 reserve troops, 4,800 tanks and 520 planes. (Shai Feldman and Yiftah Shapir, Eds., "The Middle East Military Balance", (Cambridge: MIT press, 2001).
You asked what I saw on the map of the settlements. Clearly in the 80s and 90s more settlements were built. Obviously, Israel was trying to get a stronger foothold in these territories. I am pretty sure that they knew that eventually some solution would need to be found for the palestinians. That said, Israel was and is not willing to go back to the pre-67 borders, which leave the country 9 miles wide at it's most vulnerable point. Abba Eban, the late former Israeli ambassador to the UN, described them as Auschwitz borders. Israel lost 1% of its total population in the 48 war, and they are intent on keeping a military reality on the ground that deters attacks on them. They are not going to sacrifice the lives of their citizens by making themselves militarily vulnerable again. The point of the settlements was to have some foothold in crucial strategic areas, like the Golan(which Israel took heavy losses from when Syria attacked them from there, it's the high ground), the high ground in the west bank, gaza, etc. The settlement establish strategic depth. One reason more settlements were built was just to give people places to live. But also, they were clearly trying to increase their foothold in these areas. They knew eventually that they would have to dismantle some of them, but the more there now, the more strategic depth Israel will be able to retain. A palestinian state in all of the west bank would be a mortal threat to the state of Israel- from it they could shoot down planes coming into Ben Gurion airport and shell most of Israel. The settlements are there to hold onto as much of the land as possible. Considering the reality of the situation, I can't blame them for that. It says in 96 Netanyahu resumed building. It had stopped since the Begin administration. I can tell you why he resumed it- after the Palestinians failed to stop terror after Oslo, the "peace process" had already been set in motion. Israel repeatedly had its arm twisted to make more concessions to Arafat, and Netanyahu knew this would keep coming. He realized that Oslo had been a mistake, and he resumed the building of settlements to try and minimize the damage that was sure to come. They weren't, and aren't trying to annex the land- if they had intended that, they could have done it in 67, legally. By international law, Israel has just as much right to hold the land as anyone else. Sharon, and most Israelis, are prepared to dismantle some settlements now, once the Palestinians truly dismantle the terror groups and actively end the violence. They agreed to do this at Oslo, and every subsequent agreement, and never ever followed through. Were terror to be truly renounced as a negotiating tool, peace could be made. The Israelis are ready to give up some settlements- more were made so that Israel could hold onto some of the west bank, which they need to do for security reasons, it is a military reality. This is the only reason they occupied it in the first place. It isn't a choice- most Israelis, Sharon himself included, if you read his interviews, don't want to be ruling over another people. Sharon also knows the Palestinian leadership's real intentions, which are abundantly clear after the last few years.
I'd like to note that the Palestinian government is made up almost exclusively of PLO members. The PLO slogan is "revolution until victory- see www.fateh.net. The PLO was formed in 1964, with the goal of "liberating palestine". The thing is, if what they were really killing all those people for was a state in the west bank, what were they planning on liberating in 64? That was before the 67 war, before there was ever any occupation by the IDF.
About news today- you should be aware that most western news sources rely heavily on Palestinian sources. Journalists are frequently intimidated and given threats over publishing anything that makes the palestinians look bad. Much like CNN's Issan jordan recently admitted that they had withheld reporting about Iraq's human rights abuses, as it would have compromised their coverage, it is the same situation here, and in most of the arab world. Also, the majority of reporters don't have any real background in the history of the region, even of basic things. The news that comes through is often simplistic and imbalanced- it tends to portray everything as 2 sided, no matter what, and fails to try and dig for any truth. I'd like to end with some quotes from Palestinian and Arab leaders:

"They(the jews) try to kill the principle of religions with the same mentality that they betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to betray and kill the prophet Muhammed."
-Syrian President Bashar Assad at May 5 welcoming ceremony for the Pope, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 6, 2001.

"Thanks to Hitler, blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals on the face of the earth. Although we do have a complaint against him for his revenge on them was not enough."
-Columnist Ahmad Ragab, Al-Akhbar (Egyptian newspaper), April 18, 2001

"The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity."
-Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al-Dawalibi before the UN Human Rights Commission on religious tolerance, December 5, 1984

" The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world we were going to fight."
Jamal Husseini, before the Security Council, April 16, 1948

" The arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but, instead, they abandoned them . forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."
PLO spokesman Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen), on the Palestinian refugeses in 1948, Falastin a-Thaura, March 1976

"Allah willing, this unjust state... Israel will be erased; this unjust state, the United States will be erased; this unjust state, Britain will be erased... Blessings to whoever waged Jihad for the sake of Allah... Blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons' and plunged into the midst of the Jews..."
-Sermon by Sheik Ibrahim Mahdi a few days after Yasser Arafat's cease-fire declaration. P.A. Television, June 8, 2001

"The Palestinian people accepted the Oslo agreements as a first step and not as a permanent arrangement, based on the premise that the war and struggle on the ground [i.e., locally against Israeli territory] is more efficient than a struggle from a distant land... for the Palestinian people will continue the revolution until they achieve the goals of the 65' revolution..."
-PA Minister of Supply Abd El Aziz Shahian, Al-Ayaam, May 30, 2000 (the "65' revolution" is the founding of the PLO and the publication of the Palestinian covenant that calls for the destruction of Israel via an armed struggle)

"We decided to liberate our homeland step by step... this is the strategy... we say: "should Israel continue- no problem. And so we honor the peace treaties and non-violence, so long as the agreements are fulfilled step by step. But if and when Israel says "enough", namely, "we will not discuss Jerusalem, we will not return refugees, we will not dismantle settlements, we will not withdraw to the borders," in that case it is saying that we will return to violence. But this time it will be with 30,000 armed Palestinian soldiers and in a land with elements of freedom. I am the first to call for it. If we reach a dead end, we will go back to our war and struggle like we did 40 years ago."
PA Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Nabil Sha'ath, interview with ANN television, London. October 7, 2000.

Phew, I guess that's enough for now. Please resp

Sun Tzu · 05-14-2003, 01:01 PM

I will respond, thanks for providing your sources. I may be a day before I get back I want to read the material and sources you provided.

Just a couple quick points and a question. In refering to the map you mentioned Israel was trying to get a stronger foothold and they knew a solution would eventually have to be developed. Is it possible thats putting it mildly? Just looking at progression CLEARLY, beyond any shadow of remote doubt shows whats going on. WHat methods do you think were/are being used to get this stronger foothold? (Im talking about before the bombings)

Do you respect the words of Ben Gurion as being accurate in what happened during the founding of Israel?

crumbbum · 05-14-2003, 01:41 PM

when you ask what methods were used to establish this foothold, I assume you are talking about the settlements. The settlements were built, and that's about it. No arab property was ever stolen or built on, they were meticulous about this. They just built towns and communities, and people moved there, and that's it. You mentioned Ben-Gurion speaking about the founding of Israel- I assume by this you mean the 48 war? I don't know which words you are referring to. Some arabs were expelled from their villages, and their villages destroyed in the course of the war. This is because many of the arab villages were being used as forward bases, supply depots, and training camps by the arab armies, as well as the the Mufti's gangs in Palestine. That's war for you. Villages that weren't a military threat were left alone. Certainly in some cases the arabs were driven out. That is a reality of war. It wasn't done to steal the land for settlement, it was done for defense. Other arab villages in stategically important locations were seized. It must be understood that if the arabs hadn't declared a war of annihilation on the jews in Palestine, there never would have been any expulsions. The blame for what the jews had to do in self-defense is on the Arab countries, and those among the palestinians, who created the situation. the jews only wanted to live in peace with their neighbors, even asking for peaceful coexistence in their declaration of independence.
What do you see as going on with the settlements? I have stated the Israeli governments reasons for building them and supporting them- they strengthen the security of the state of Israel, a tiny country that needs the territorial depth to defend itself if attacked, and also needs to control the high ground in the land. They, in the end, want to retain as much control of the West bank as they can. This isn't surprising. They tried to make peace with the Palestinians, with Oslo, which resulted in the current terror war. In 1996, the failure of the peace accords, and the false premises upon which they had been built had become apparent to the Israeli government. The terror groups hadn't been taken out, and incitement was getting worse. The Palestinians weren't fulfilling their end of the agreements- the failure of the peace process, especially after camp David II and taba, is widely blamed on the Palestinian side, by those involved and by experts in the area. Netanyahu saw this, and was also aware of the huge international pressure which was and would brought put on Israel to continue the doomed "peace process". He resumed the building of settlements to strengthen Israel's position as much as possible before it was too late. Soon, he was voted out, and the Labor party was back in business, and Barak went against his own population and government's will, not consulting them, as he offered to divide Jerusalem and give up 97% or so of the West Bank. It was international and American interference in Israeli politics that led to this- Barak was Clinton's brainchild. Anyway, my point is Barak's premiership and the last 2 years of terror proved Netanyahu right. If you look at the huge International pressure on Israel, like with the roadmap(concocted by the UN, EU, Russia, and US- all except the US overtly hostile to Israel). How do you see it differently?
What words of ben-Gurion do you refer to, and do they conflict with anything I have said?

Sun Tzu · 05-16-2003, 04:42 AM

crumbbum before going on and in the same theme of conversations down this same path I want to state that I’m not anti-Semitic. I think basing a prefabricated assessment of someone as a good/or bad person on their chosen path of spirituality is ignorant. Even further I’m not in a place that I can proclaim to judge anyone; nor do I care to be. I don’t know of all the injustices that have happened in the world and I’m probably uninformed to multiple current events of the same. When I do see injustice happening it bothers me. Therefore the actions of people supercede what color, race, religion, sex, financial status, political clout they have. Actions are clear, human ingenuity with reference to selective remembrance has the power change what has happened in the eyes of individual perception.

Conquest, good timing, industrial progress, and similar represent the victors in the social evolution of homosapiens. The people that chose not to accept that reality and replace it with justifications that suit their needs don’t seem to realize that actions such as that carry a price. It becomes an annoyance when power is given to this to expand outside of the sphere it was created in. I'm not saying that’s the case here yet.

I humbly feel I know a great deal about the history of this region, but I also respect there’s a great deal I don’t know. I've started reading where it seems a majority of your views seem to be sourced at http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html
I wont be able fully converse until giving a fair read in its entirety. Of the little I’ve read here are some observations:

You commented earlier on why the Israeli government has no reason to lie about Arab demographics: You sound extremely intelligent, so I'll trust you can probably think of a few, even if you don’t agree. It’s a matter of selective perspective. Myths and Facts is a high seller, I’m confident I could take an educated guess on which readers give the book a great review.

I’m not calling Mitch Bard a liar, but is there any aspect about him that suggests the tone and influence of his book may possibly be toward a selective view as opposed to an unbiased researcher? Bard holds a Ph.D. in political science from UCLA and a master’s degree in public policy from Berkeley. He received his B.A. in economics from the University of California at Santa Barbara. Mitchell Bard is the Executive Director of the nonprofit AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) and a foreign policy analyst who lectures frequently on U.S.-Middle East policy. Dr. Bard is also the director of the Jewish Virtual Library, the world’s most comprehensive online encyclopedia of Jewish history and culture.

One of the first glances was at the Immigration numbers of European Jews to Palestine. I went to the source he used for that data; Yehoshua Porath. He is a professor of Middle East and Hebrew History at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and a Contributing Editor of AZURE: Ideas for the Jewish Nation. It clearly states within its own ledgers it’s of Zionist persuasion. That’s his source for that particular bit of data I read in his book. I’m not knocking this person, I’m sure they carry an unbiased view in their historical interpretation, but I’m oddly enough his data conflicts directly with:

[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0UgDiAsMZ0FesJVubx9lw*X6j2qyVc3vZyfX7SwFX713S29UC3i9wj8OiN8WqLVST0REm*OKnm3AcPyiFBQTSZY6VIdvcoV2UmV90CnrENpEuhQyrbrulLEzTqC1QKNye/SurveyOfPalestine-copy.jpg?dc=4675422122529326675[/IMG]

[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0PwAAAHgSKEbD0lc7bGVqB4AUOoNgoFhvfvAq6QXLg36JFWnAnaOIG1U22W*cYjAmMNjYlinQVcmn9w45ndF0R5bAfe5lB7U7/pop_1.jpg?dc=4675422122526045002[/IMG]

[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0PwDiAnkSYUZOEx0yzHl!OrGFRG3!FlPLnC4OpK2LU3auNY3JxK9yH3bbLhMrbnR6ITF9CWCaA4G*UZLamBnMkT3ekObnT2m0/pop_2.jpg?dc=4675422122527756626[/IMG]

Although its possible many might take old records of the British Government with a grain of salt, I personally give them credibility for my conclusions. In the small amount I’ve read according to him the following which are both records of the British government and the United Nations are not reality. Where is selective perception happening here?

[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0VwAAAH4bN!hWP1AaQy186JkYRXoG0q0XCkYJC9jzHlbouNkZVR5lSU6OLqfYK9iUqMor2jzLyqfDR*1L06AHENYP*QQGxA8vZGy0hj17vMEaICQZe3eo4pNR2ArYPWVU/PeelPartition1937ParitionPlan.jpg?dc=4675422122523658909[/IMG]

[IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwDiAvIeSxMvDWKWkdsnWDMxKpv37fj1mkEsJNxHUK2RqDJ5R4zKCB0fzWp!*4CPFaYg3F0lylZUI!XDy7J0ABn3Odi7aOkYapsLtlbELhwNindiWhxJWHohelZDlTTuOHZVAx!EO6I/Palestine1946DistributionOfPopulation.jpg?dc=4675422122521345990[/IMG]

What would you make of the following: (attempt to be as neutral as possible) This is his an example of the accounting on the views and statements of the founding Zionists- This in relation to Ben Gurion:
Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as "the most important asset of the native population." Ben-Gurion said "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price."
Here’s some of Ben’s quotes he opted not to include

". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale."

"With compulsory transfer we have vast areas .... I support compulsory transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England .... Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. .... But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them."

That particular statement directly contradicts one of his myths debunkings. This was recorded by Ben’s personal biographer another source used by the author numerous times as his source.

"The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is more than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland."

"Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the Arabs are removed this will improve their condition and not the contrary."

Other quotes from Moshe Sharett (Shertok), Ukrainian born, was the director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department from 1933 until May 1948 (when the State of Israel was founded), then he became its first Foreign Minister until 1954. For a brief period between 1954-1955, Sharett was Israel 's Prime Minister, and briefly it's Foreign Minster again in 1955-56. After being politically marginalized in the Israeli Cabinet, he resigned office and became the Chairman of the Jewish Agency between 1956-1960.

We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise.

This list goes on. Do you see any glimpse of selective perception?

As I stated I need to finish the book, and attempt to keep an open mind. You mentioned a massacre earlier. That is very sad, and tragic. Although you never state it, I’m given the impression you believe there were no massacres done upon the Palestinians. If that’s the case; you haven’t even come close to scratching the surface, but to find such information you’d have to look for it, so if you've chosen not to see or believe they happened, then your belief will continue as it does. (Not right or wrong)

This is how easy selective perception can happen: the list of Israeli soldiers refusing to serve in the West Bank and Gaza strip gave you the impression their making such a stance because they are tired of fighting the Arabs. I have to wonder if you read the personal accounts, because the perception I’m left with is they are doing so because they fell what is happening is wrong and contradicts the very values of love and justice they were raised to honor. That doesn’t mean either of us is right or wrong IMO, but if such views affect the life and existence of a populous it’s not going to be free. There’s many other points you stated I wanted to comment on, but the overall point I’m trying to make is this there’s innocent people dying on both sides. I see killing people with bombs as a terrible thing, but throwing pebbles didn’t seem to stop settlement growth, Israeli won the war, it should have the right to exist. America’s manifest destiny solved the Indian issue; it should have the right to exist. Due to the fact certain Indian tribes don’t seem to be using their land in a way I judge as effective does that give me the right to move them to . . .to . . .

If you see the settlements as being legal, and common sense shows they will grow, what do you think the current residents should do as they're watching the patch of land they have left dwindle. Go to over crowded Jordan, Syria? Some say that the Palestinians never were or classify as a populous; when does any culture begin to be recognized and by whom? If theres no difference between Jordians, "Palestinians", Lebenese, and Syrians then really what the difference between Canadians, and Americans. Or someone whos British and and someone whos American. It’s not like the term American is an ancient race. Im not stating you have this position, but there have been times with people with similiar views as yours stop short of saying "You've seen one Arab you've seen them all" Lastly if justification is built around how the story goes in the Bible what if that’s not one’s religion? It goes back to he who has the bigger guns. So just say that. It’s a little easier to swallow than selective interpretation, personal justifications, and historical manipulation. (I’m not referring to you personally)

crumbbum · 05-16-2003, 01:01 PM

I have to tell you, I really do appreciate this dialogue- you also seem well-informed, open minded and very intelligent. Compared with much of the ignorance that I've seen on this issue, this discussion is very refreshing, and I hope mutually rewarding. I had never seen much of what you posted before. That said, I still have some comments.
As you know, I'm sure, in the Jewish religion the land of Israel is very central- it has always been conceived of as the jewish homeland. It is no real secret that most jews in touch with their religion in any deeper level would, in a perfect world, like to have their homeland again in its entirety. You quote ben-Gurion talking about the necessity of displacing arabs, and of gaining more land. He also said that he hoped the british would do this. He may have, in his heart, hoped for such things, but the important thing is that it wasn't done- the Jews in Palestine didn't displace any arabs with force, they purchased the land, often at excorbitant prices. In the course of the 48 war some arabs were displaced- more fled upon the urging of arab leaders. The ones that were displaced were displaced when their villages were enemy bases, or when the location was militarily critical. The refugees from those villages were still not forced to leave Palestine. Obviously, many arabs remained, and they became Israeli-arabs. The refugees that fled (again, 67% of which never saw an Israeli soldier) were then forced to remain in refugee camps instead of being absorbed in any arab country, where they have remained until this day. They had been urged, and bullied, to leave by arab leaders, and then completely abandoned.
I have in no way suspected you of any sort of anti-semitism, you have presented valid evidence and points and backed them up. I respect your intellectual honesty, your knowledge base and your respectful attitude, I really mean that. I'd like to think I am mature enough to have an honest discussion of history without resorting to unfounded accusations, to end the discussion if it doesn't go my way :-).
It is true what you said, that countries like America, Britain, etc. also are not so distinctive from each other. America has no 1 ethnicity, it is a combination of its parts. Obviously, not all legitimate nations in the world are founded only on racial or cultural uniqueness. The significance about the the Palestinians, is that they were made a nation arbitrarily- they were artificially nationalized as a political weapon. They never identified as a separate nation at any point before 1967, if I am correct (or perhaps a few years before, as the PLO was founded in 64 or 65). Before 1967, when Jordan controlled the West Bank, and Egypt the Gaza Strip, there was never any sign of nationalism at all. The refugees never demanded a state, or even autonomy. They considered themselves as part of the Arab nation (the arab countries themselves were mostly carved up by the british in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There were no nation states in "Arabia" before then, a feudal tribal system was the dominant political format). I am not saying that due to the lack of a common history, language, or distinct ethnicity or culture necessarily means that they should not have a state- after all, after 55 years in refugee camps, they do indeed identify and see themselves as their own nation- this has been driven taught to them for 55 years. I think they should be given a state somewhere, obviously some solution is necessary, they can't be left in those camps forever, kept in intentionally poor condition. As human beings they deserve a government that will actually serve their humanitarian needs, and not steal from them, abuse them, and use them, exploiting their suffering for political goals.
As for the refusers, I did read the personal accounts- I know that they refuse (assuming they are not on anyone's payroll, which, sadly, many groups like "Peace now" are in Israel), because they feel that what they are required to do in the Army, in occupying the territories, is immoral. They hate having to carry out a military occupation. I don't blame them for not liking it, I have not met an Israeli soldier that was ever happy about this. I'm sure it is pretty ugly and terrible, having to impose curfews, having to demolish houses of terrorists, that many people live in, etc. However, as long as there is terrorism, and these places are hotbeds of hatred and violence, then Israel has no choice but to control these places and defend themselves. With the Oslo agreements, Israel actually ended its occupation, giving the Palestinians autonomy. The PA was set up. The Israelis even armed the Palestinian police force. Those guns were later turned on Israeli civilians.
It wasn't until last year, during "Operation Defensive Shield", that the territories were re-occupied, in response to the wave of horrific suicide bombing, like the one that killed almost 30 people at the Passover seder in Netanya, including Holocaust survivors, the suicide bomber who walked into a girls Bat Mitzvah celebration (ceremony of adulthood, when a girl reaches 13 years old), killing half of the girls family. He was shot before detonating himself. The list of attacks goes on indefinitely, but those are two particularly horrific ones I remember from the time.
Israel does not want to be in the territories. They tried pulling out, and it was the terrorism that forced them to go back in. Even Ariel Sharon does not want to remain there, he has said "we cannot rule over another people indefinitely". It is basically unanimous in Israel that a solution needs to be found, that the military control of the Palestinians is demoralizing and wrong. The question is, what choice does Israel have? No one wants this. Terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians have been taking place non-stop since the 1800s, in the region. In the past, whenever the Israelis pulled out of an area, giving security control back to the palestinians, it always resulted in more dead Israelis. No government can stand by and let its citizens be murdered in pizza parlors, on buses, on the street, etc. If there was a more humanitarian alternative, I am sure they would take it. And again- the refusers are a pretty marginal group, I posted the statistics about Israel's military. The number is pretty insignificant. To put things more in context, when in recent military operations (defensive shield) Israel called up it's reservists, there was a 95% mobilization rate. That is almost the highest in Israeli history. Most Israelis know why they have to fight, even though they don't like doing it. They realize that they have no choice until the terror stops.
You said about the settlements, "what do you think the current residents should do as they're watching the patch of land they have left dwindle?" Well, again, you have to understand the no settlements are being built on palestinian land. They are only built in undeveloped and uninhabited areas. The palestinians are not watching "their land" dwindle. It isn't their land. Legally, it isn't their land- there was never any sovereign entity on the land before Israel, and under international law there is nothing illegal about the settlements.
You mention massacres on both sides- the only massacre carried out by jews that I am aware of was at Deir Yassin- and that has been since exploited by propagandists to smear Israel. It talks about it in the myths and facts as well, I haven't checked out the sources, it would probably be worthwhile. It wasn't premeditated, I know. They were forced to attack house to house in taking the village, which was filled with Fedayeen and Iraqi troops. Apparently, the arab fighters kept civilians in the houses as cover. There was firing from windows and doors, etc. The jewish soldiers tossed grenades into some houses, which unbeknownst to them killed civilians as well. In the course of the battle, they set up an evacuation route for the arab civilians. Among these, was an Iraqi soldier, dressed as a woman. after "she" "surrendered", he pulled out a gun and shot the jewish commander. The soldiers went nuts and started shooting everyone.
The raid was carried out by the Irgun and the Stern gang, of which you probably have heard of. They were a somewhat radicalized jewish group. They participated in many retaliatory bombings against british installations, though they gave warnings and did not attack civilian targets. They were still, however, hotheaded and unreliable soldiers. Here is a link to an article that discusses it- I know, you will probably hate where I found it, but it has sources and seems legit. BTW, i mentioned one particularly sickening one, but there were many, many massacres of the jewish settlers by their neighbors- there was never a period when there were no terror attacks, until this day. http://www.zoa.org/pubs/DeirYassin.htm
I wasn't aware of the information you presented about Yehoshua Porath. I agree, that he probably isn't the best source for the real numbers for immigration. However, I have to disagree with you about the British, they are not reliable sources either. During the whole period of jewish immigration, the british were in a balancing act, trying to not offend the arabs (the infamous "white paper", which put harsh caps on jewish immigration, making it impossible for many jews to escape the Holocaust, was done to avoid angering the arabs). During WW2, the British were trying to get the arabs to revolt against the Ottomans, which were allied with the Nazis. They made many monetary and military gifts, concessions, and other gestures to try and shore up this support. It never came, until after it became clear that the Allies were winning the war. Among these gestures were the caps on Jewish immigration. If the British were publishing numbers, it is likely that they underestimated as much as possible, just as the Professor you quoted may have overestimated. As regards the palestinian arab refugees, the UN number is probably the most unbiased (the UN has since become extremely biased against Israel, due to the overwhelming number of arab states in the general assembly, oil politics in the Security council, and attempts to counter America, which is Israel's only strong ally, by China, France, Russia, etc.)
I'd like to mention, that there would have been a Palestinian state in 1948, if the Arabs hadn't insisted on a war of extermination. There also has not been any accounting for the fact that upwards of 600,000 Jewish refugees were created when they were thrown out of their homes in arab lands during the war. They lost everything, amidst pogroms and persecution, but Israel absorbed them and helped them get their lives back on track. No reparation payments were ever made, and today this basic fact, that there were refugees from both sides, is forgotten or ignored, simply because Israel did what every nation has done throughout history with their refugees. The palestinian refugees are the only refugees in history that have not been absorbed by any country(they could easily have been absorbed into arab countries, the language and culture is the same, and there is more than enough vacant land in the arab world). It is not Israel's fault that the Palestinian refugees exist today- it wasn't their fault that they were created. It isn't their responsibility to deal with them, and especially when there has been no justice in regard to the jewish refugees.
I'm sure that the myths and facts book obviously has a pro-Israel bias, as you rightly have noticed. I still think it contains a lot of valuable information and sources.
If you were interested in a more unbiased (the writer was originally hired by an arab foundation to unearth wrongs committed by the jewish settlers) book, that discusses the roots of the conflict, and the years of immigration, I'd recommend "From Time Immemorial", by Joan Peters. I haven't read it myself, but it is considered pretty damning to a lot of palestinian arguments. From reviews on Amazon I've read that she gets a bit worked up over her argument sometimes, but there are over a hundred pages of footnotes. Some reviewers said there was some inconsistency in some facts, as is typical of any history book, but that it is minor and does not sink her arguments or thesis.
All this aside, when it comes down to it, I don't see how having 2 states west of the jordan will lead to anything but war. The land is so small, and the conflict so deep, that I can't see how peace is possible at this point. If you're interested, there is another article that talks about the peace process, written by Daniel Pipes in 1990. He is a scholar who was on the American task force for counter-terrorism, he predicted 9/11 years before it happened, and he was just appointed to the US Institute of Peace. His website is www.danielpipes.org, he has written a great deal about the middle east. In particular, the article I mentioned was this- http://www.danielpipes.org/article/194.
And lastly, I'd recommend "A Durable Peace", by Benjamin Netanyahu. I'm sure you know who he is- he obviously is biased, but this book is a strong articulation of the hardline Israeli position, and is backed up with facts. He obviously is trying to convince the reader of his opinion, but he backs what he says up. I'd recommend the book strongly.
I look forward to your reply.

crumbbum · 05-17-2003, 04:54 PM

I was also thinking, and I'd like to ask the question about the Ben-Gurion quotes- is it possible he was saying this in reference to the partition plan? The Israelis officially accepted it, while the arabs didn't, but I think any impartial observer could tell that it is pretty unrealistic. It would have been very difficult to make a viable state from the land alloted- could it be this that he was referring to? I don't know for sure, but the possibility occured to me.

crumbbum · 05-17-2003, 09:09 PM

Also, I realized that I forgot to mention something else about the british numbers. The british were trying to limit Jewish immigration (made famous by the movie "Exodus"). They had set up detention camps on Cyprus, and were stopping the boats, for the reasons I mentioned above. I forgot to say that another reason there numbers are probably wrong is that most of the Jewish immigration was done illegally, in defiance of the British, especially before, during and after the Holocaust, when so many Jews were trying to escape Europe. I understand your concern about the numbers from the guy you mentioned. While I wouldn't know where to find the best source, I do think that in all likelihood the party mostly likely to have the real numbers is the Israelis themselves, since they were the only ones keeping track of both the legal and illegal immigration. I guess it comes down to a question of whether or not you trust all, some, or no Israeli sources. If it is assumed that no Israeli source is trustworthy, then I think it would probably be impossible to find the real numbers. As you said, some of the Israeli numbers might be inflated- or maybe not. I guess there is really no way to know for sure.

seretogis · 05-17-2003, 09:23 PM

For the love of god, please, please, put a blank line between paragraphs.

crumbbum · 05-17-2003, 09:39 PM

Sorry about the paragraphs- I've tended to have a lot to write in these responses, and the tab button doesn't work for some reason, making paragraph breaks minimal at best. Sorry if it's difficult to read- did you read the whole thread? Do you have any comments on the discussion?

05-09-2003, 12:33 PM	#1 (permalink)
MrSmashy Crazy Location: Soviet Canukistan	Middle East Peace Plan and the Settlements Think that Sharon and the Likud party will actually pull the settlers out to make the peace plan work? Also: Don't you think that Israel should pull back all settlements to ensure that the pre-1967 War borders are the ones that are eventually settled on? If they used that as a bargaining chip they could probably talk down the right of return (thereby presumably keeping Israel Jewish).

05-09-2003, 03:46 PM	#2 (permalink)
Liquor Dealer Super Agitator Location: Just SW of Nowhere!!! In the good old US of A	I really don't think they are being given an option. Someone or something is leaning on them very hard. The settlement issue is definitely on the table and Israel will have to abandon many of those settlements. I understand that most of the settlements are considered illegal even by Israel. The current attitude being expressed by Israel toward Syria and others appears to be conducive to a lot of fences being mended. The extreme hard feelings that exist are going to take time and a lot of patience on the part of both Israel and Palestine - something neither side has ever demonstrated much of. The current economic state of Palestine may lend a bit of urgency in their attepts to reach an understanding. The threat of missile attack on Israel no longer exists and this was one of the biggest reasons behind a lot of their actions in the past. If a successful government is formed in Iraq it will have a dramatic effect on that entire part of the world. I guess I might add: Arafat is probably going to have to be removed from the loop for much of anything to happen. You know! He looks a lot like Castro - maybe we could put them on a tropical island somewh... And a lot of bad would probably go away. __________________ Life isn't always a bowl of cherries, sometimes it's more like a jar of Jalapenos --- what you say or do today might burn your ass tomorrow!!! Last edited by Liquor Dealer; 05-09-2003 at 04:19 PM..

05-09-2003, 07:29 PM	#4 (permalink)
gibber71 Loser	[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrSmashy [B]Arafat is about as problematic as Sharon and the Likud party. They should both be removed. I've been saying this for 2 years and I get nothing but a blank stare in return. The Isreali's and Palestinian's want peace.At least those with semblences of intelligence do. The problem is that the Palestinian Authority wants to see the extinction of Isreal and the Isreali Government never in a million years ever want to see a Palestinian state. Plain and simple. Last edited by gibber71; 05-09-2003 at 08:34 PM..

05-10-2003, 05:54 PM	#6 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	I've seen Arafat’s version of what he considers he believes will be the future boundaries of Palestine. It’s the entire country. I understand the Palestinian anger with regards to the settlements; there is even a growing list of Israeli soldiers that are refusing to serve in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. I think that if Israel moves all illegal settlements out of Palestinian territory all the worlds’ eyes will then look upon the newly formed Palestine. If the bombings continue; it will be extremely bad for the Palestinian people. That’s if there is even an agreement of the peace plan. As far as I know Hamas has vowed not to accept it and resist it at all costs. This being due to Jerusalem being made the capital city of Israel, which the Palestinians feel is theirs. __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

05-11-2003, 06:34 AM	#8 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	I believe strongly that the settlements should go, but am sad in my conviction that they will not. Currently Israel is connecting its settlements with a huge Berlin-like Wall to ensure that they are properly entrenched before any peace process needs to be signed. I also get annoyed by the attitude towards Americans who go out and protest against Israeli oppression. When that girl was crushed by a bulldozer the comments on TFP seemed to be mostly along the lines of "she deserved it, stupid girl". To me she was braver and greater than any of us who just talk about the injustice. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!

05-10-2003, 06:28 PM	#7 (permalink)
gov135 Junkie Location: Midwest	Certain groups of Israelis feel they have a divine right and obligation to form settlements. Why, I'm not sure. Many of their settlements are little more than camps. They need to be fortified and protected by troops. The settlements must go to show good faith by the Israelis. Not sure, wink, and not do it. But they all really need to go.

05-11-2003, 08:15 AM	#9 (permalink)
gibber71 Loser	Just a quick note regarding settlements.Since the UN (I know the UN is ineffective) imposed resolutions against Isreali in 1996 to stop building settlements,the settlement population has risen from approx.40,000 to near 400,000 to date. Why? Because the Isreali Government is using these people as pawns.Before the current 'road map' was introduced,the Isreali's were banking on the international community to say the illegal settlers couldn't be exiled,meaning you can't have a mass exodus of people to create statehood for someone else.(anyone see the irony here.Think 1948).In some newspapers that was given the same symbolic equivalent to the mass exodus of Jews in Nazi Germany. Now,since the settlements are at the fore front of the new'road map',the Isreali's will be forced to concede them even though they will concede to giving away land that isn't theirs to begin with. The continuing support by the Isreali Government to build more settlements is their way of trying to guarantee the Palestinian's will never see statehood. This isn't a popular opinion,at least not in a politically correct sense,but none the less something you may never see reported for fear of those who choose to,being labeled anti-semitic

05-11-2003, 07:53 PM	#10 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	So guys, why exactly do you think the settlements are such a hot issue? Actually, not many are illegal, and those that are tend to be like trailers on hilltops. The settlements aren't built on arab land, no land was ever stolen to build them. If you need 2 states, then I suppose some would have to be removed to make the state viable and all, what what is so explosive about the settlements themselves? They aren't being built on "palestinian land". The land was occupied by Jordan before Israel got it, and the area is actually the heartland of ancient Israel. Also, the settlements exists to give Israel territorial depth- it's a tiny country, about the size of delaware. In the end, the israelis have at least as much right to live there as anyone else. And in fact there are far, far more illegal arab settlements that no one ever speaks about. Why do you think the settlements are so bad? It's one thing to talk about removing some to create the state, but despite the rhetoric I don't really understand what the actual problem is, except that the Palestinians hate seeing the jews gain control of more land. This has been the case since the mid 1800s! There aren't really any new settlements being built, what is being protested now is the "natural growth", like when babies are born and new homes are built as the population grows. By the way, even if you don't like Sharon, it is really wrong to equate him with Arafat. Arafat is a lifelong murderer and terrorist thug. Sharon was a general, and has spent his life defending his people from the enemies that they are surrounded by. He was also heavily involved in the peace with Egypt. __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

05-11-2003, 08:20 PM	#11 (permalink)
gibber71 Loser	Point taken but by the same token,Ariel Sharon is no saint. There is blood on everyones hands on both sides of the equation and anyone who doesn't see that,chooses not to.

05-12-2003, 08:02 AM	#13 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	Ok, I don't even know where to start- you mock Israel's need for depth and equate it with palestinians wanting a seaport. But how much do you about the history there? Israel needs depth so the country doesnt get destroyed in a war. When Israelis surrendered in past wars they were frequently massacred, with their bodies mutilated. The arabs broadcast that they would push the jews into the sea. The country needs strategic depth to live, not because it's "nice", as you equate it. That is ridiculous. No one is trying to exterminate the palestinians. Israel may not be keen on giving them a state, I really can't see how that land can hold 2 states without resulting in war, and that's beyond the ridicuousness of rewarding years upon years of terrorism, the brutality of which is unparalleled. Second, Israel has already said that they will remove some settlements, once the terror stops. This is perfectly reasonable, no one should the the palestinians a damn thing if they aren't running a civilized society. And again, the land was annexed from Jordan, right- it wasn't "palestinian land". Many of the so called settlements have been there since long before 1948, and some since time immemorial, like Hebron, etc. Oh, and I don't consider the land Jordanian, Jordan's occupation of the West bank (which was the name under Jordanian occupation, the western bank of the jordan river- the traditional names of the regions are Judea and Samaria) was illegal. By international law Israel's annexation was NOT illegal. The land wasn't stolen from anyone, Jordan had no right to be there, and it wasn't palestinian arab land at all. There were arabs there, and jews there. Then you say we are getting different impressions of the situation with regards to settlement growth- but that's a fact, they have stopped building new settlements in deference to the US. That's been the case for some time. But anyway, the settlements again serve a defensive purpose, and why shouldn't they build them when they are still under attack? Oh, and in the last part about Sharon and Arafat, recognition from the US has nothing to do with it. Arafat spent his life killing innocent people. Sharon spent his defending his country from those that would destroy it and massacre its inhabitants. There can be no equivocation made. In case you forget the arabs have made war on Israel many times, and the country is perpetually threatened, they have never known peace. You probably are one of the people that states simplistic analyses like "why can't they stop killing each other? Sharon doesn't want peace", etc. Who do you think wants peace more? Who stands to gain more from it? Who is waging war on who? There has been a terror war against Israel for the last 2 years. They are surrounded by enemies. You think Israel is the obstacle to peace? Why? No one needs peace more than Israel. And almost all Israelis are willing to make concessions for peace. Sharon, Barak, left and right, they all want the same thing, they just have different ideas of how to achieve it. You DON'T get peace by rewarding terrorism or by capitulating under attack by your enemies, who want to destroy you and see that as weakness. Sharon wants peace, he just doesn't want a false peace. Another question, why didn't any arab countries absorb the palestinians in 1948? In every other war in history when refugees were created, there was a population exchange, India/Pakistan, Germany/Czechoslovakia, etc. Did you know that slightly more jewish refugees were created in 48 than arabs? They were expelled from arab countries amidst pogroms and all their belongings and property stolen. Israel took them in, as any civilized country would do. The palestinian arabs are kept in squallid refugee camps, for 55 years now, as a political weapon wielded by despotic arab rulers, who use the issue to blame Israel for all the problems in the Arab world and divert anger away from themselves, while they take in Billions as their population starves. Learn your history. Why exactly do you think the Palestinian arabs deserve a state? What about the Tibetan Buddhists? What about the Kurds? There are enough people in the world that have suffered far more, and have infinitely less blood on their hands, that could use a state. This one is all politics. Oh, and you say they have no rights to the land based on history. But you don't realize that jews have lived there all along. They never left. They were a minority there until the mid 1800s, but there was always a presence there, in many places. If the arabs love the land so much, why was there no country there before? Why were there only a few hundred thousand migrants in the whole place? Why was the land desolate? You don't realize, but almost all the arabs who were there in 1948 came as a result of jewish settlement, looking for work. The jews started farming and built hospitals, and the arabs benefited greatly. As far as the refugees, 67% left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. They were encouraged to by the arab leaders, promised they could return once the jews were all killed. Did you know that to be a palestinian, one simply has to be related to some arab that lived in the land pre-48 for 2 years? That is the UN definition. You don't know what you're talking about with this, and I suggest you learn your history before making these kinds of statements in public. __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

05-12-2003, 08:11 AM	#14 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	As much as i'd love to enter this debate, i think I should refuse to until crumbbum decides to become a little friendlier in his use of paragraphs. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 05-12-2003 at 08:20 AM..

05-12-2003, 08:20 AM	#15 (permalink)
miked10270 Banned Location: Scotland	Personally, I think that the real problem dates back to 1946 when the Jews were given Palestine as a "homeland". Wouldn't it have made more sense to have given them Austria? Mike.

05-12-2003, 09:50 AM	#16 (permalink)
gibber71 Loser	First of all crumbbum,both Palestinian's as well as Isreali's have been terrorizing each other for decades,unfortunately with the lines of terrorism and self defense blurred.Second,the building of settlements have only been halted a very short time ago and that was due to the 'road map'.Third and again,Sharon is no saint.Fourth,Sharon agrees to peace,but he's full of shit.He wants peace as much as Arafat does. Peace means Palestinian Statehood and he doesn't want that.But he does look good blowing smoke up George Bush's ass which can be seen again May 20 when Sharon makes his 8th appearance in one year to the White House. Finally,both sides are to blame for being so fucking stupid and racist. Ignorance is not a one way street.I suggest if you really believe what you've written,you'll enjoy 'honestreporting.com'.

05-12-2003, 12:22 PM	#17 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	You say they have been terrorizing each other, but again, there is only one side of the equation that continuously targets innocent civilians. It is in the PLO covenant to destroy Israel. Abbas is a PLO vet and Arafat is the founder. I never said Sharon was a saint, but he has admirably defended his country from first arab armies, and then the PLO all his life. Israel has not beena ttacking the palestinians- the palestinians have been attacking Israeli civilians, and Israel has taken defensive measures. The palestinian terrorists are the agressors, and sadly, about 70% of them support suicide bombing. And don't say "they have no other means to fight". Arafat walked away from the negotiating table at Taba without even making a counteroffer, and proceeded to launch a terror war. No, in his heart I sincerely doubt that Sharon wants a palestinian state- but why do you think that is? Someone here said Israel should go back to the pre-67 borders. The problem is, those borders are militarily nearly indefensible, and the middle of the country then is only 7 miles wide, and can be easily split in 2 in an invasion. I have not seen any reason to believe at all that such a palestinian state will ever be peaceful, if it is built on the foundation of the past 2 years of bloody terrorism targeting innocent civilians. How does that create peace? When the PLO had a mini-state in Lebanon, it became a center for terrorists from all over the world, including the Japanese red army, various Arab groups, the IRA, etc. In case you have forgotten the US is in a war on terrorism, and I can't see how yet another arab state in the middle east solves anything. It will likely create another regional war. This state would be a military nightmare for Israel, and this is why so many oppose it. Arab armies could use it as a forward base, as it would cut into the midsection of Israel. In fact, that is the idea in the PLO "phased plan"- set up an autonomous entity with a territorial foothold, and then get the arab armies to attack again. The settlements are the only thing that could maintain Israel's defense if such a state existed, and that's why they have been built for so long. And I don't think "both sides are to blame for being so fucking stupid and racist". I don't see anything racist in a government defending it's citizens from terrorist attacks targeting them. Do you think the US is racist for attacking Afghanistan? Is it racism or is it self-preservation? I have not seen anything to indicate that racism is dictating policy here. I'm sure many Israelis hate the arabs at this point, after so many people have been murdered in the past 55 years(and before). They obviously don't all hate them, because there is arab representation in the Knesset and 20% of Israelis are arab. Remember now that the Palestinian Authority has a controlled media, autocratic government, an education system that teaches hatred (Abbas recently gave the education portfolio to Hamas- no joke). That is what fuels hatred. The only way for there to be real peace is to drain the swamp of the hatred and brainwashing and corruption that creates palestinian terrorism. Leaders like arafat skim billions off the top while their people rot, and feed them propaganda about the evil jews. It was Arafat that walked away from the negotiating table- why? Because he would have had to give up the "right of return", which is a joke. Someone earlier said maybe if Israel pulled back to the post 48 borders they would compromise, but that would be granting it legitimacy, which it doesn't have. The palestinians do not deserve a state, and terrorism should not be appeased. If they really do fight the terrorism, and stop educating their kids to hate, and create transparent institutions and actually start creating real conditions for peace, it would happen. At this point in time, howevver, it is serious foolishness and self-defeating to offer them a state. Why don't we offer Osama the mayorship of new york? __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

05-12-2003, 03:12 PM	#19 (permalink)
homerhop Insane Location: ÉIRE	"If they really do fight the terrorism, and stop educating their kids to hate." I have seen programs on discovery where Isreali's have spoken on how they have taught their childern to hate all Palestinians and even how to kill them. hmmm spot the difference __________________ its evolution baby

05-12-2003, 04:40 PM	#20 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	Ok, you saw a program that interviewed some fringe Israelis, they were probably Kahanists. I'm sure there are some Israelis that think that way, but they are an extreme minority. Anyway, I wasn't talking about what was being taught in the homes- I'm talking about the Palestinian public educational system. The schools are filled with posters of suicide bombers, and the kids are taught with textbooks where Israel doesn't even exist on the map. They are taught to hate jews. There is a big difference between individual sentiment and public policy. Israeli schools educate for peace. There will always be people filled with hatred, but the Palestinian Authority is actively indoctrinating its population with it. And about the above comment, the area is a historical mess, but there is no peace without truth. What the world thinks isn't good enough- the world has never been kind to the jews, and most world governments have vested political interests(oil) in the middle east. Peace must be based on truth, and justice. The complicated history must be analyzed and understood to formulate the way to approach the present. This is the only way there will ever be real peace. __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

05-12-2003, 04:49 PM	#21 (permalink)
gibber71 Loser	crumbbum, you may find this hard to believe,but I understand what you are saying. I also understand opinion's given to me from the other perspective by people who are saying exactly what you are saying but in support of the Palestinian's. I have the ability to be objective. And by the way,racism afflicts every culture, that being unless a certain culture is more important or significant than any other's. Would you happen to know of a superior culture or of any culture deserving of such an honour? And tell me one more thing. You mentioned that the 'Palestinian's do not deserve a state'. Well why is it when(obviously someone anti-Isreali) someone says that the Isreali's don't deserve statehood, they are labeled anti-semitic, anti-Isreali,hate propogandists etc.. but when an Isreali or supporter there of, says that the Palestinian's don't deserve statehood,no one blinks an eye? Why is it that one form of racism is condemned outright while the other is form is unconditionally accepted? Political correctness? Ignorance? Take a walk in the Palestinian's shoes,then if you come back with the same ideology,I will then be certain peace will never exist in the Middle East

05-12-2003, 05:30 PM	#22 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	You may not believe this, but I don't necessarily blame the Palestinians for their situation. They have been abused by Arab leaders from the very beginning. First they were encouraged by the arab countries to leave their homes, and of course some were expelled in the course of the fighting, and then when they lost the war their "friends" just turned their backs on them and left them to rot. They have been living on world charity forever, have never had a working economy (most relied on jobs in Israel). Their media is controlled, anyone who dissents is killed as a "collaborator". I remember seeing a few months back, when an 18 year old girl, among others, were killed for "collaboration", and their bodies hung on lampposts in Bethlehem. Where was the rest of the world? Yasser arafat and the other corrupt leaders have amassed fortunes from all the money given, that the people never see. They are deliberately made to suffer, as human polical weapons. It is truly sick. As far as racism, again, obviously there are racist Israelis too. But the conflict for Israel isn't about racism, it's about defense and security. No country can sit by when it's citizens are murdered en masse. And as far as deserving a state goes, the palestinians shouldn't be given a state now 1. because it would be rewarding terrorism, and would send the message that it works to all the other would-be terrorists in the world, and 2. Because the current palestinian leadership isn't after statehood- the goal is the destruction of Israel. You should read the translations of the speeches Arafat makes in arabic. I think the US or Israel should reoccupy, clean out the terrorists for good, free the media and revamp the schools to educate for peace. wait a few years, Add some economic development, help them create their own infrastructure, and if they are content to just live and there is no more terrorism, then the conditions for peace will have been created. Giving them anything now will only lead to more violence. Jews deserve a state because after thousands of years of disgusting persecution, and in the end the Holocaust, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that no other nation could be trusted to guarantee the safety of jewish people. As for the place, it has always been the jewish homeland. It's where they come from and where they have prayed to ever since they were exiled. The palestinians shouldn't get a state because at this point it would just be another terror state, which no one wants or needs. No one stands to benefit from that right now except the greedy palestinian leaders and the western governments who want to appease the arabs. The Israelis lose and the Palestinians themselves lose too, because it would be a repressive police state, like it is now. If peace is what the world wants, the palestinian arabs need to normalize their society, as it has become distorted and warped after years of brainwashing and progaganda. There is too much bloodlust to make peace now, and to do so would be foolish. It will only make things worse. Also, there are huge, fertile and empty tracts of land all over the place in the arab world. Why exactly does the state need to be where everyone wants it? It will surely lead to war. The palestinians don't, despite the brainwashing have any tangible connection to the land, with some exceptions. The definition of a palestinian, according to the UN, is any arab who is descended from someone who lived in the land for at least 2 years. A small minority of them actually do go back a lot longer, but any of those are Israeli arabs, and the ones that aren't, obviously should be compensated. But most are descended from arabs who came seeking work. They could have their state anywhere, politics aside. It doesn't make sense to create it where it will surely lead to war. And again about racism, 20% of Israelis are arabs. In 2000 when two Israeli reservists accidentally got lost and wandered into Ramallah, they were taken to a palestinian police station, where they were severely beaten, and then their bodies thrown out of the high window into the arab mob below. They proceeded to tear their bodies apart and dance around with their entrails and in their blood, singing and cheering exultantly. Last time I checked, there haven't been any jewish lynch mobs tearing palestinians apart and dancing in their blood. I'm sure there are racist Israelis, but there is no equivalence to Palestinian hatred. __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

05-12-2003, 06:56 PM	#23 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	crumbbum rather than to post a statement I'll post a link. Scroll down and you will see the list of Israeli soldiers. You can see a few of their pics, but its their letters that Im most interested that you read (if/when you get the time). Hearing things from their perspective will give you another angle to view. Not to change your stance, but contribute to it being more rounded. http://www.couragetorefuse.org/defaulteng.asp __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

05-12-2003, 08:33 PM	#24 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	I have seen this before. It was a good thing to recommend me to read. I think that this shows pretty clearly how sick the Israelis are of fighting with the Arabs. That said, there are only a little over 500 refusers, in an army of, including the reservists, over a million. This makes them a pretty fringe group, that has gotten a great deal of media attention. I assume they are legit- many Israeli leftist groups though are funded by the EU, which makes their sincerity somewhat questionable. The website has the different guys' stories. Some mention abuses by soldiers. These things have happened. These happen in every army. They are not typical, and perpetrators are disciplined, like recently, some border police are on trial for brutality. That said, upwards of 95% of the reservists showed up when they launched Operation defensive shield, where they re-established military control of the terror centers. That is way above the average in most places, and shows the understanding the soldiers have, that their service is necessary to fight terrorism. Most Israelis hate being in palestinian areas, and they hate having to control them. But they realize that they are left with no choice when a failure to do so would allow more people to get killed. Obviously it is wrong if settlers attack any palestinians- of course no soldier should violate the purity of arms. But again, the wrong actions of a very few individuals do not change the basic reality of the situation, or the reality which can only be understood by learning the history. It is indeed a very complicated situation, but at the moment Israel is left with only choice: to fight the terrorists, or else stand back and let its citizens be murdered. No country can do that, every government is obligated to defend the lives of its citizens. The Israelis are sick of war, but it is not in their power to change the hatred and backwardness that exists in the middle east. Serious reform and liberalization is needed in Israel's neighbors before there will be any possibility of peace. This is why Bush is trying to set up a free trade zone in the middle east- if these countries can be modernized, and the brutal autocratic regimes that run them broken, free speech and human right granted, then these people will finally be able to build real social infrastructures and healthy, educated societies. As it is, the state of Israel can't make peace with Arab regimes that brainwash their citizens. They simply have no choice, and this new "roadmap" will unfortunately only exascerbate the problem. Israeli concessions, such as settlement removal, should be saved for actions on the part of the palestinians and arab countries that really deserve rewarding, like real acceptance of Israel, freedom of speech, a free press, economic liberalization, human rights, and other things. For the Palestinians, they need to really change their leadership (this "new" governent is almost the same as the last one, most of the ministers are the same, the only difference is Abbas, the financer of the Munich olympics massacre and Holocaust denier, is the new Prime Minister, with Arafat breathing down his neck. That is not real reform. Still, everyone is intent on giving him a chance. Ok. But what is needed is transparent institutions, an end of corruption, the end of the ridiculous "right of return", a preparation of the population through the school system and media for peace and self-sufficient life, and an end to the tactics of intimidation and brutality in their politics. If you wipe out the terrorists, a lot of ordinary palestinians would probably breathe a sigh of relief. It needs to be "ok" in their society to be against terrorism and pro-peace. Making peace is like making a marriage- you need 2 independent, mature and responsible parties. If one person is immature or needy, the relationship fails. Same here- the palestinians need to create their own jobs and stop relying on Israel, stop the insane terrorism and learn how to live as a normal society, not one that lives and breathes hatred and destruction. Having the grandfather of modern terrorism(Arafat) as their leader shows that they have a long way to go until peace can be made. Any "carrots" given until then will be supporting terrorism. There has to be zero tolerance, the massacre of innocent civilians can never be normalized or "ok"- if it becomes an acceptable and succesful tactic, it will spread everywhere, as it is already starting to after so much disastrous and misguided western diplomacy. __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

05-12-2003, 10:28 PM	#25 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	In looking at a map of Israel and the occupied territories it would seem to me that pulling the settlements off the areas they shouldn't be in would only increase Israel’s security. For me; there is enough substance that each side has strong reasons for the actions it does (im not saying I agree or disagree with them) I’m also attempting to image what I would feel by putting myself where each of the sides is I understand the rage of each. With relation to inside the borders of Israel and the occupied territories what was happening prior to the bombings starting? Main the timeline from the incident that happened to Sharon at the temple mount to 4 years before. What were both sides doing? I’m trying to understand what the progression was up to the bombings. crumbbum I tried searching google for recent logistics of Israels military and couldnt find a straightforward site could you post a link where you got your info (not questioning what you wrote I would just like to have for my own sources--thanks) __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

05-13-2003, 02:17 AM	#26 (permalink)
homerhop Insane Location: ÉIRE	Its a tough one .I my own opinion there will never be peace in the middle east.It runs too deep for it ever to work. Looking at the political status in my country and what is happening there I can see alot of similar things happening that has happened here in the last 30 years.We keep trying for peace but there is hard liners on both sides that will never accept it.Until both sides can sit down and admit they were both wrong in things they have done instead of blaming each other for everything You are going to have this hatered in the middle east well past our life time __________________ its evolution baby

05-13-2003, 09:13 AM	#27 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	Sun tzu, what information did you want specifically? I could try and find it, much are things I read at the time, but I could try looking it up. Pulling the settlements in dangerous areas out would only bring the terrorists who attack them closer to more populated Israeli areas. The settlements create distance there. They also are there so the military has a foothold- the west bank is the high ground in the area. Whoever controls the mountains can shell the whole country. There are radar stations there that give Israel advance warning if they are being attacked by air. They need to hold onto these, as it is a military necessity to properly defend themselves. Sun tzu, you say you understand both sides. But you must realize, that the Israelis are acting out of self-defense, not rage. How can you see any justification for the deliberate murder of so many innocent people? Suicide bombers blowing up teenagers in dance halls, or opening fire at a girls bat mitzva? Shooting to death a mother shielding her children with her body, and then executing the kids as they hide under their covers? It is barbaric beyond belief. It is not desperation that leads someone to strap a bomb to themself, packed with nails and bolts and rat poison, and blow themselves up among a crowd of women and kids. It is unbridled and boundless hatred and indoctrination with the belief that doing this will grant them immediate access to paradise. There can never be any justification for these massacres. It is inhuman. I don't think you fully comprehend the hatred and unbelievable cruelty involved here. The israelis are under attack, and are fighting the terrorism with one arm tied behind their backs because of international politics. Can you imagine what the US would do if they were attacked in the same way? There is no, and can never be any justification for such sickening tactics. Israel was ready to talk peace, and Arafat walked away. There is no reason for this. Arafat didn't even make a counteroffer. As far as those refusenik soldiers, this is the whole point of the terrorism- Israelis are weary and sick of fighting the arabs, and policing the palestinians. Arafat thought they were ready to crack. That was why he walked away and launched a terror campaign (which by the way, was planned long before Sharon's walk on the Temple mount- the temple mount is the holiest site in the world to jews, and his visit was even coordinated with the mosque authorities beforehand. it was an artifical pretext for the terror war. This was proven, they found many documents showing that it was being financed and planned before that happened). In the years before the violence started again, there were peace negotiations going on things were sort of in a stalemate after Oslo, when the palestinians didn't live up to their side of the agreements, and Shimon Peres was voted out of office. Netanyahu replaced him, and there were more attempts to give military control to the palestinians, that ended disastrously. Then BArak was elected, and with Clinton he had new peace talks. This was Camp David 2. After those negotiations failed they met again at Taba, where Barak put everything on the table, even offering to divide Jerusalem, and giving them almost all of the west bank and Gaza. Arafat stormed away from the table without even making a counteroffer, presumably, because in return he would have had to give up the so called "right of return", or the destruction of Israel. Arafat also thought that to make such an offer, which crossed all previous Israeli red lines (and wasn't supported by most Israelis- but Barak was a puppet of Clinton), meant that they were weak and about to break. He planned the terror campaign. A few weeks later, Israeli elections were coming up, and Sharon made his walk on the Temple mount to show that if elected he wouldn't abandon the holiest site in Judaism. The muslim waqf had been doing "excavations" on the mount, and still are, and don't let any archaeolgists see what they are doing. They carry truckloads of gravel out daily. Many priceless artifacts and archaelogical history are being destroyed (Arafat has claimed in the past that the jews have no claims to the sight). Sharon went to see what was going on, among other things. He never entered any mosque. This visit was about as controversial as an Italian politican visiting the Vatican. Under this pretext the terror war was launched, and soon there were suicide bombing almost every day, and hundreds of Israelis were killed. At first Israeli retaliation was piddling, Barak was still trying to "make peace" and hesitated. Then Sharon was elected in a landslide victory, and I assume you know what has happened since then. I disagree with the last post. I don't think peace is possible for awhile, until the palestinians are capable of peace. There is a great deal of societal deprogramming to do until then, but I think that perhaps after 30 or so years of an incitement and intimidation free society, peace could be made. There are no easy solutions though and it is foolish to try and force one now, and to expect Israel to give up its few bargaining chips in return for words and BS. Sharon is right about this- there can be no negotiations or army withdrawals until the terror stops. The palestinians have a huge police force, that was armed, foolishly, by Israel. They have been involved in terror themselves, not fought it. They need to fight the terror and learn as a society how to live in peace. They are not a capable partner in any peace at this time. __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

05-13-2003, 12:50 PM	#28 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	crumbbum I'll address everything you've stated here, but before this conversation continues I want you to know I've been to Israel many times. I've traveled to many parts of the country, and (with the help of a particular archeologist on a couple of trips) have seen things alot haven't. (I consider myself lucky) Perhaps if there is a proper area (I don’t think the exhibition area is it) I'll post some pics that I found of particular interest ruins of Gomorrah, Solomon’s Post (supposed Red Sea parting area, etc) Of course I haven’t been in 5 years for obvious reasons. I state this to lend to me comprehending more than you think. I've been studying this for quite some time; in fact my views were opposite what they are now 15 years ago. When I say I understand both sides; I’m attempting to be polite. This doesn’t mean I’m for any loss of life, there’s nothing more than I dream of than a world where everyone lives in peace. I can tell you have a lot of emotion in this area, as well do I. What I view as the unfolding reality over there has taken along time and personal experience to arrive to. Even if I disagree, I’ll respect what you say; but I have to state I usually hang out of these discussions because I FULLY comprehend what’s going on over there. All I can do is politely as possible; disagree with some of what you said. But I’ll only attempt to keep my responses brief with appropriate links (links are understandably what they are—but they’re the best we have for this type of conversation) I’ve given the 5 page responses and found that no matter what I or anyone shows; people will see what they choose to see. That’s not right or wrong. It’s not good news or bad news its just the news, its always been that way. For starters if you would please look at this map--I’m not much for the MSNBC, but this visual representation is the quickest visual guide I could find to recent historical demographics. Alongside the main article you'll see a conflict guide of Israelis and Palestinians click on a history of Jewish Settlement. I wanted you to see that before I responded to your position. What’s your take on that? http://www.msnbc.com/news/801833.asp __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking* Last edited by Sun Tzu; 05-13-2003 at 01:09 PM..

05-13-2003, 03:20 PM	#29 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	Ok, read the article and looked at the map- with regard to the article, I don't think Sharon's response to Powell is very surprising. Every time Israel has made concessions for him in the past it has only brought more bloodshed. In the current US administration, it seems like Powell doesn't hold many cards. He sort of embarassed the US over Iraq, and recently with Syria, he met with Assad. Assad said he would obey and shut down terror group offices in Damascus, which he has not done. Powell said they did, but both Assad and the groups denied it. Anyway, on the 48 map it says "The UNs decision to recognize Israel's independence in 1948 led to full-scale war and the displacement of 750,000 arabs. First, the number is inflated. At the time of the UN vote there were 809,000 arabs within the borders of the about-to-be-declared jewish state. In 1949 an Israeli government census found 160,000 arabs in the country (Israeli Arabs). There couldn't have been more than 650,000 refugees. In fact, the UN mediator in Palestine found an even lower figure- 472,000. Also, the war began when 5 arab armies arrived to exterminate Israel. Arabs inside the Palestine mandate also were participating in guerrila attacks on jews before the war started. Before and during the war there were a great number of civilian atrocities, incuding the massacre of 77 jews in a convoy on the way to Hadassah Hospital, doctors nurses and patients. Anyway, as you can see on the 77' map, the early settlements were all built near the vulnerable borders with Egypt, Syria and Jordan. This was done for defensive purposes. Then in the recent map, there are many more settlements. Many more settlements were built. But they were built in unpopulated areas- no palestinians were displaced ever in the building. As it also says, Sharon has stopped building new settlements, but has supported natural growth(the settlements are towns and villages, and the people have children. The population grows. Sharon said to Powell when he mentioned a construction freeze "you want the women to have abortions? This is a valid point- most of these communities have been there for 30+ years. A question that is rarely asked is why must thousands and thousands of jews be evicted from their homes for peace? 20% of Israelis are arab- why can't any jews live within the boundaries of a palestinian state? That is racist. If there were real peace, Israel wouldn't have to defend the settlements from constant attack. Also, the map is somewhat misleading, it looks like most of the west bank is settlements, when that isn't the case. Anyway, as to why so many settlements grew- After the Soviet union fell, more than a million Russian jews fled and came to Israel. Israel is a tiny country, and many of these immigrants moved to the only place there was real estate available, in the settlements. When it comes down to it, the real reason for settlement growth is because people need a place to live. There are a great number of arab settlements as well, if you didn't know. And among the settlements that are illegal, there are far more arab ones than jewish ones. The Israelis do not take down illegal arab settlements for fear of political and media backlash, and also because they don't want a riot. The law is not enforced equally. A number of illegal jewish settlements (they are mostly trailers on hills) have been dismantled. I really think the settlement issue is not at the root of the conflict. If the Palestinian society over time reformed itself, and really became capable of living in peace, and it was still thought that a second state west of the jordan would bring peace and not war(I have yet to see how this could do anything but lead to WW3), then some settlements, as Sharon has conceded, would need to be dismantled to give them a viable state. The question is whether now is an appropriate time to do that. I think to make any concessions now would only create more violence in the long run and send the message that terror works. You can't appease fanatics or murderers, the best a country can do is defeat them and make peace then, like in WW2. There could be no peace made with the Nazis. They tried to give them czechoslovakia as a concession, hoping that would appease them, but it only emboldened them to continue intimidating and invading. Only after Germany was decisively defeated could peace and reconstruction take place- as a result Germany has been an extremely succesful and peaceful nation for the last 50+ years. Japan also. Times and tactics have changed, but this reality hasn't. You can't make peace with people who are trying to kill you, and mercy to the cruel only begets cruelty to the merciful. BTW, I'd love to see your pictures. I think amidst the violence and the geopolitics people tend to forget what a beautiful place it is. What exactly did you do there? It sounds really interesting. Thank you for considering what I have to say on this, you are right that so many people don't want to hear anything that doesn't agree with their preconceived assumptions. I see a lot of emotivism forming people's opinions instead of fact. I don't see how anyone can ever understand what goes on there unless they have both a well functioning brain and a conscience, and I often see an absence of one or the other. Alternatively, people are just misinformed, as I was not so long ago. The region is the center of so much international political intrigue, that the truth is often buried in politics. Looking forward to your next post. __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

05-13-2003, 03:44 PM	#30 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	Oh, just wanted to clarify above what i mean here by making concessions wrongly- I think it was a mistake for them ever to negotiate with the PLO, a terrorist organization, to begin with. Granted, they did so under immense international political pressure, but still. Negotiating with them grants them legitimacy. The PLO has carried out so many gruesome atrocities that it should never have been considered legitimate. It is not a coincidence that the Oslo accords resulted in all this bloodshed. The violenced after Oslo was more than in all the years before. This is because in Oslo they were negotiating with and making concessions to, and thus strengthening, a crazy terrorist organization, the PLO, and it's despotic leader, Arafat. Peace can't be made with people that want to kill you, period. When you make concessions to another, be it an individual, a group, or a nation, you strengthen their position. That is why the concessions should be saved until there is real change and a real chance for peace, giving them now will only strengthen and embolden terrorism. If the world forces them to give into it there, it will come to us here, without question, much more than it already has, eventually. The terrorism against Israel and that against the West is the same phenomenon, and the same fight. The longer this harsh reality is ignored, the bigger hole we will all dig ourselves into. __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

05-13-2003, 07:01 PM	#31 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	The initial few times were actually diving around Sinai and Eilat. Of course my curiosity brought me up to Jerusalem, Bethlehem, around the Dead Sea. On my fourth trip I met an archeologist that became my mentor in this area, and he began to show me things that were defiantly not on any map. Alongside him and with more solo travels I was lucky enough to see a very large portion of the land. I was also very surprised at the large amount of Palestinians that were Christian; I had always just linked them with Arabs; thus being of Islamic faith. I didn’t read the article, the title alone summed up what is already blatantly apparent and of no surprise to me. That’s not what I provided the link for; it was the map. The number your saying is inflated was actually lower than I have read in multiple sources and saying that it is inflated is a very strong statement, but I’m not saying your wrong. I will act as a critical thinker and attempt to prove MSNBC wrong in their statistics by investigating their sources. Where did you obtain the numbers stated? Is it possible that a 1949 ISRAELI government census may not be the most accurate in terms of their accounting? I think considering such things don’t question your integrity, but strengthens it once such issues are clarified by different means all reaching a common denominator. Let’s say you are correct in 650,000 refugees plus the number that remained behind what was the number of Jewish populous? What was the ratio of Jew to Arab prior and even during the initial Zionist founders such as Ben Gurion and others that were migrating from Europe and other parts? In referring back to the map, outside of the possible inaccurate numbers in simpler terms what do you see happening? I’m not dodging your statements questions, but you’ve presented a lot and I just want to make sure you understand why I‘m having you look at the map. __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

05-14-2003, 12:29 PM	#32 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	Okay, my numbers- they come from a book called Myths and Facts, by Mitchell G. Bard. The book has its own sources, that I'll give. And the Israeli census, I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be legit, as it was a ocunt of their own citizens. The arabs in Israel in 1949 were Israeli citizens, who vote, have governmental representation, etc. I can't find the source for the 809,000, it just says it in the book, but there is a source for the UN number of refugees (472,000). (Progress report of the UN mediator on Palestine, Submitted to the Secretary-General for Transmission to the Members of the United Nations, General Assembly Official records: Third session, Supplement no. 11 (A/648), Paris, 1948, p. 47 and Supplement no. 11A (A\689, and A\689\add. 1, p. 5). As far as the population numbers over the years, I know that prior to Jewish immigration in the mid 1800s, there were fewer than 250,000 arabs west of the Jordan in Palestine. Let's go back a bit- the name Palestine was given by the Romans, after they went to war against the kingdom of Judea in the second century BC. Despite a protracted revolt, the Romans eventually killed over a million of the jews, destroyed their Temple and drove them all out. They renamed the area "Palaestina" after the ancient Philistines, as an insult to the the Jews. Rome became christian not long after, and around the 8th century Islam grew, and expanded rapidly. They eventually got as far as Spain. They took control of Palestine from the christians at first. (Incidentally, the Muslim claim to Jerualem is based on the premise that in Muhammed's dream in the Quran, where he rides on a magic peacock to the "further mosque", and ascends to heaven, meeting Jesus and all the jewish prophets, he rose from the Temple mount. The thing is, there was a church on the site during Muhammed's lifetime, so if he indeed rose to heaven from the spot, it was from the roof of a church :-). (Not very PC, I know). Anyway, the muslims had a policy of converting churches and holy sites of enemies they conquered in to Mosques, and they converted the church into a mosque, and assigned the passage in the Quran to that spot. A few years ago I was in Instanbul and saw the Aya Sofia, this huge and beautiful crusader cathedral, that had been taken by the Ottomans and made into a mosque. When I was there, they had done renovations, and you could see the christian mosaics juxtaposed with the islamic writing and these huge gold discs, it was realy amazing. Anyway.... So then the crusaders and muslims fought over the holy land, as is well known. The crusaders were trying to drive out the "infidel muslims", and the muslims were trying to drive out the "infidel crusaders". The area ended up as a province of the Ottoman empire. The ottoman empire was huge- Constantinople(Istanbul) was the capital, and it stretched to southern Russia, encompassed modern day Turkey, and a number of other provinces. Palestine was never settled or developed, and it was pretty much a wasteland for hundreds of years. Like I mentioned before, there were only 250,000 arabs in the whole place. There was always a jewish presence in Palestine, from the the time of the Romans. The number was around 10,000, many were killed by the crusaders, and many died of dysentery and malaria. It was never any easy place to live, but even so many rabbis in jewish history made pilgrimmages and settled there. There was never any national entity on the land in all of history except for the Jewish kingdom. Then, in the mid-late 1800s, many jews started coming in. There were fewer than 250,000, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades (Carl Voss, "The Palestine Problem Today, Israel and its Neighbors", (MA: Beacon Press, 1953), p. 13). As jewish immigration increased, they began settling the land- draining the malarial swamps, creating farmland. The land was barren and in disrepair when they arrived, and over many years they planted trees and worked the ground and made it fertile again. They built schools, hospitals, an infrastructure. This development created employment opportunities for the arabs, and many came in large numbers seeking work. As you probably know, the Arab world is very poor, with the leaders stinking rich. At first there was a lot of cooperation between the arabs and the jews- the jews taught arab villagers how to farm, they shared knowledge and medical facilities, etc. That's why in 1948 many arabs stayed in Israel- because it was the Jewish settlement that had given them a decent life. Anyway, as time went on more jews came, fleeing Europe among other things. Some arabs were threatened by their success, others at the prospect of losing "arab land". Gangs formed that started attacks on the jews, and there were pogroms, such as the one in Hebron in 1929, where an arab mob attacked the jews, and killed 133 of them, and wounded 399. They were attacked with axes and knives, for the most part, and the bodies were mutilated and beaten. In the course of that, virtually the entire Jewish population in Hebron, which had been there since the Romans, had fled or been killed. The leader of the gangs that terrorized the jews was the infamous Mufti of Jerusalem. He met with Hitler and begged him to bring his final solution to Palestine. He also met Eichmann and other nazi leaders. Many arab leaders allied themselves with the Nazis in WW2. This mufti is actually Arafat's uncle. Arafat lived with him for some time as a boy (so THAT'S where he gets it...). No kidding. The UN divided the land in 48 based on population- the jews were the majority in the jewish mandate, and the arabs in the arab sections. By the way, it should be noted that as the jews settled, they were never stealing land lfrom anyone- they purchased the land legally, as they went, often at excorbitant prices. The jews didn't "steal arab land". You know what happened after 48. I found the statistics for Israel's military, in 2001 Israel had 186,500 regular troops and 445,000 reserve. So the 500 or so refusers are a pretty marginal phenomenon. They also had 3,930 tanks and 800 aircraft. Egypt, their biggest military threat, has 450,000 regular troops and 254,000 reserves, 3,505 tanks and 494 aircraft. Syria has 380,000 troops regular troops and 132,500 reserve troops, 4,800 tanks and 520 planes. (Shai Feldman and Yiftah Shapir, Eds., "The Middle East Military Balance", (Cambridge: MIT press, 2001). You asked what I saw on the map of the settlements. Clearly in the 80s and 90s more settlements were built. Obviously, Israel was trying to get a stronger foothold in these territories. I am pretty sure that they knew that eventually some solution would need to be found for the palestinians. That said, Israel was and is not willing to go back to the pre-67 borders, which leave the country 9 miles wide at it's most vulnerable point. Abba Eban, the late former Israeli ambassador to the UN, described them as Auschwitz borders. Israel lost 1% of its total population in the 48 war, and they are intent on keeping a military reality on the ground that deters attacks on them. They are not going to sacrifice the lives of their citizens by making themselves militarily vulnerable again. The point of the settlements was to have some foothold in crucial strategic areas, like the Golan(which Israel took heavy losses from when Syria attacked them from there, it's the high ground), the high ground in the west bank, gaza, etc. The settlement establish strategic depth. One reason more settlements were built was just to give people places to live. But also, they were clearly trying to increase their foothold in these areas. They knew eventually that they would have to dismantle some of them, but the more there now, the more strategic depth Israel will be able to retain. A palestinian state in all of the west bank would be a mortal threat to the state of Israel- from it they could shoot down planes coming into Ben Gurion airport and shell most of Israel. The settlements are there to hold onto as much of the land as possible. Considering the reality of the situation, I can't blame them for that. It says in 96 Netanyahu resumed building. It had stopped since the Begin administration. I can tell you why he resumed it- after the Palestinians failed to stop terror after Oslo, the "peace process" had already been set in motion. Israel repeatedly had its arm twisted to make more concessions to Arafat, and Netanyahu knew this would keep coming. He realized that Oslo had been a mistake, and he resumed the building of settlements to try and minimize the damage that was sure to come. They weren't, and aren't trying to annex the land- if they had intended that, they could have done it in 67, legally. By international law, Israel has just as much right to hold the land as anyone else. Sharon, and most Israelis, are prepared to dismantle some settlements now, once the Palestinians truly dismantle the terror groups and actively end the violence. They agreed to do this at Oslo, and every subsequent agreement, and never ever followed through. Were terror to be truly renounced as a negotiating tool, peace could be made. The Israelis are ready to give up some settlements- more were made so that Israel could hold onto some of the west bank, which they need to do for security reasons, it is a military reality. This is the only reason they occupied it in the first place. It isn't a choice- most Israelis, Sharon himself included, if you read his interviews, don't want to be ruling over another people. Sharon also knows the Palestinian leadership's real intentions, which are abundantly clear after the last few years. I'd like to note that the Palestinian government is made up almost exclusively of PLO members. The PLO slogan is "revolution until victory- see www.fateh.net. The PLO was formed in 1964, with the goal of "liberating palestine". The thing is, if what they were really killing all those people for was a state in the west bank, what were they planning on liberating in 64? That was before the 67 war, before there was ever any occupation by the IDF. About news today- you should be aware that most western news sources rely heavily on Palestinian sources. Journalists are frequently intimidated and given threats over publishing anything that makes the palestinians look bad. Much like CNN's Issan jordan recently admitted that they had withheld reporting about Iraq's human rights abuses, as it would have compromised their coverage, it is the same situation here, and in most of the arab world. Also, the majority of reporters don't have any real background in the history of the region, even of basic things. The news that comes through is often simplistic and imbalanced- it tends to portray everything as 2 sided, no matter what, and fails to try and dig for any truth. I'd like to end with some quotes from Palestinian and Arab leaders: "They(the jews) try to kill the principle of religions with the same mentality that they betrayed Jesus Christ and the same way they tried to betray and kill the prophet Muhammed." -Syrian President Bashar Assad at May 5 welcoming ceremony for the Pope, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, May 6, 2001. "Thanks to Hitler, blessed memory, who on behalf of the Palestinians, revenged in advance, against the most vile criminals on the face of the earth. Although we do have a complaint against him for his revenge on them was not enough." -Columnist Ahmad Ragab, Al-Akhbar (Egyptian newspaper), April 18, 2001 "The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity." -Saudi Arabian delegate Marouf al-Dawalibi before the UN Human Rights Commission on religious tolerance, December 5, 1984 " The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world we were going to fight." Jamal Husseini, before the Security Council, April 16, 1948 " The arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but, instead, they abandoned them . forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live." PLO spokesman Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen), on the Palestinian refugeses in 1948, Falastin a-Thaura, March 1976 "Allah willing, this unjust state... Israel will be erased; this unjust state, the United States will be erased; this unjust state, Britain will be erased... Blessings to whoever waged Jihad for the sake of Allah... Blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons' and plunged into the midst of the Jews..." -Sermon by Sheik Ibrahim Mahdi a few days after Yasser Arafat's cease-fire declaration. P.A. Television, June 8, 2001 "The Palestinian people accepted the Oslo agreements as a first step and not as a permanent arrangement, based on the premise that the war and struggle on the ground [i.e., locally against Israeli territory] is more efficient than a struggle from a distant land... for the Palestinian people will continue the revolution until they achieve the goals of the 65' revolution..." -PA Minister of Supply Abd El Aziz Shahian, Al-Ayaam, May 30, 2000 (the "65' revolution" is the founding of the PLO and the publication of the Palestinian covenant that calls for the destruction of Israel via an armed struggle) "We decided to liberate our homeland step by step... this is the strategy... we say: "should Israel continue- no problem. And so we honor the peace treaties and non-violence, so long as the agreements are fulfilled step by step. But if and when Israel says "enough", namely, "we will not discuss Jerusalem, we will not return refugees, we will not dismantle settlements, we will not withdraw to the borders," in that case it is saying that we will return to violence. But this time it will be with 30,000 armed Palestinian soldiers and in a land with elements of freedom. I am the first to call for it. If we reach a dead end, we will go back to our war and struggle like we did 40 years ago." PA Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Nabil Sha'ath, interview with ANN television, London. October 7, 2000. Phew, I guess that's enough for now. Please resp __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

05-14-2003, 01:01 PM	#33 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	I will respond, thanks for providing your sources. I may be a day before I get back I want to read the material and sources you provided. Just a couple quick points and a question. In refering to the map you mentioned Israel was trying to get a stronger foothold and they knew a solution would eventually have to be developed. Is it possible thats putting it mildly? Just looking at progression CLEARLY, beyond any shadow of remote doubt shows whats going on. WHat methods do you think were/are being used to get this stronger foothold? (Im talking about before the bombings) Do you respect the words of Ben Gurion as being accurate in what happened during the founding of Israel? __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

05-14-2003, 01:41 PM	#34 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	when you ask what methods were used to establish this foothold, I assume you are talking about the settlements. The settlements were built, and that's about it. No arab property was ever stolen or built on, they were meticulous about this. They just built towns and communities, and people moved there, and that's it. You mentioned Ben-Gurion speaking about the founding of Israel- I assume by this you mean the 48 war? I don't know which words you are referring to. Some arabs were expelled from their villages, and their villages destroyed in the course of the war. This is because many of the arab villages were being used as forward bases, supply depots, and training camps by the arab armies, as well as the the Mufti's gangs in Palestine. That's war for you. Villages that weren't a military threat were left alone. Certainly in some cases the arabs were driven out. That is a reality of war. It wasn't done to steal the land for settlement, it was done for defense. Other arab villages in stategically important locations were seized. It must be understood that if the arabs hadn't declared a war of annihilation on the jews in Palestine, there never would have been any expulsions. The blame for what the jews had to do in self-defense is on the Arab countries, and those among the palestinians, who created the situation. the jews only wanted to live in peace with their neighbors, even asking for peaceful coexistence in their declaration of independence. What do you see as going on with the settlements? I have stated the Israeli governments reasons for building them and supporting them- they strengthen the security of the state of Israel, a tiny country that needs the territorial depth to defend itself if attacked, and also needs to control the high ground in the land. They, in the end, want to retain as much control of the West bank as they can. This isn't surprising. They tried to make peace with the Palestinians, with Oslo, which resulted in the current terror war. In 1996, the failure of the peace accords, and the false premises upon which they had been built had become apparent to the Israeli government. The terror groups hadn't been taken out, and incitement was getting worse. The Palestinians weren't fulfilling their end of the agreements- the failure of the peace process, especially after camp David II and taba, is widely blamed on the Palestinian side, by those involved and by experts in the area. Netanyahu saw this, and was also aware of the huge international pressure which was and would brought put on Israel to continue the doomed "peace process". He resumed the building of settlements to strengthen Israel's position as much as possible before it was too late. Soon, he was voted out, and the Labor party was back in business, and Barak went against his own population and government's will, not consulting them, as he offered to divide Jerusalem and give up 97% or so of the West Bank. It was international and American interference in Israeli politics that led to this- Barak was Clinton's brainchild. Anyway, my point is Barak's premiership and the last 2 years of terror proved Netanyahu right. If you look at the huge International pressure on Israel, like with the roadmap(concocted by the UN, EU, Russia, and US- all except the US overtly hostile to Israel). How do you see it differently? What words of ben-Gurion do you refer to, and do they conflict with anything I have said? __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

05-16-2003, 04:42 AM	#35 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	crumbbum before going on and in the same theme of conversations down this same path I want to state that I’m not anti-Semitic. I think basing a prefabricated assessment of someone as a good/or bad person on their chosen path of spirituality is ignorant. Even further I’m not in a place that I can proclaim to judge anyone; nor do I care to be. I don’t know of all the injustices that have happened in the world and I’m probably uninformed to multiple current events of the same. When I do see injustice happening it bothers me. Therefore the actions of people supercede what color, race, religion, sex, financial status, political clout they have. Actions are clear, human ingenuity with reference to selective remembrance has the power change what has happened in the eyes of individual perception. Conquest, good timing, industrial progress, and similar represent the victors in the social evolution of homosapiens. The people that chose not to accept that reality and replace it with justifications that suit their needs don’t seem to realize that actions such as that carry a price. It becomes an annoyance when power is given to this to expand outside of the sphere it was created in. I'm not saying that’s the case here yet. I humbly feel I know a great deal about the history of this region, but I also respect there’s a great deal I don’t know. I've started reading where it seems a majority of your views seem to be sourced at http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mftoc.html I wont be able fully converse until giving a fair read in its entirety. Of the little I’ve read here are some observations: You commented earlier on why the Israeli government has no reason to lie about Arab demographics: You sound extremely intelligent, so I'll trust you can probably think of a few, even if you don’t agree. It’s a matter of selective perspective. Myths and Facts is a high seller, I’m confident I could take an educated guess on which readers give the book a great review. I’m not calling Mitch Bard a liar, but is there any aspect about him that suggests the tone and influence of his book may possibly be toward a selective view as opposed to an unbiased researcher? Bard holds a Ph.D. in political science from UCLA and a master’s degree in public policy from Berkeley. He received his B.A. in economics from the University of California at Santa Barbara. Mitchell Bard is the Executive Director of the nonprofit AMERICAN-ISRAELI COOPERATIVE ENTERPRISE (AICE) and a foreign policy analyst who lectures frequently on U.S.-Middle East policy. Dr. Bard is also the director of the Jewish Virtual Library, the world’s most comprehensive online encyclopedia of Jewish history and culture. One of the first glances was at the Immigration numbers of European Jews to Palestine. I went to the source he used for that data; Yehoshua Porath. He is a professor of Middle East and Hebrew History at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and a Contributing Editor of AZURE: Ideas for the Jewish Nation. It clearly states within its own ledgers it’s of Zionist persuasion. That’s his source for that particular bit of data I read in his book. I’m not knocking this person, I’m sure they carry an unbiased view in their historical interpretation, but I’m oddly enough his data conflicts directly with: [IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0UgDiAsMZ0FesJVubx9lwX6j2qyVc3vZyfX7SwFX713S29UC3i9wj8OiN8WqLVST0REmOKnm3AcPyiFBQTSZY6VIdvcoV2UmV90CnrENpEuhQyrbrulLEzTqC1QKNye/SurveyOfPalestine-copy.jpg?dc=4675422122529326675[/IMG] [IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0PwAAAHgSKEbD0lc7bGVqB4AUOoNgoFhvfvAq6QXLg36JFWnAnaOIG1U22WcYjAmMNjYlinQVcmn9w45ndF0R5bAfe5lB7U7/pop_1.jpg?dc=4675422122526045002[/IMG] [IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0PwDiAnkSYUZOEx0yzHl!OrGFRG3!FlPLnC4OpK2LU3auNY3JxK9yH3bbLhMrbnR6ITF9CWCaA4GUZLamBnMkT3ekObnT2m0/pop_2.jpg?dc=4675422122527756626[/IMG] Although its possible many might take old records of the British Government with a grain of salt, I personally give them credibility for my conclusions. In the small amount I’ve read according to him the following which are both records of the British government and the United Nations are not reality. Where is selective perception happening here? [IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0VwAAAH4bN!hWP1AaQy186JkYRXoG0q0XCkYJC9jzHlbouNkZVR5lSU6OLqfYK9iUqMor2jzLyqfDR1L06AHENYPQQGxA8vZGy0hj17vMEaICQZe3eo4pNR2ArYPWVU/PeelPartition1937ParitionPlan.jpg?dc=4675422122523658909[/IMG] [IMG]http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0XwDiAvIeSxMvDWKWkdsnWDMxKpv37fj1mkEsJNxHUK2RqDJ5R4zKCB0fzWp!4CPFaYg3F0lylZUI!XDy7J0ABn3Odi7aOkYapsLtlbELhwNindiWhxJWHohelZDlTTuOHZVAx!EO6I/Palestine1946DistributionOfPopulation.jpg?dc=4675422122521345990[/IMG] What would you make of the following: (attempt to be as neutral as possible) This is his an example of the accounting on the views and statements of the founding Zionists- This in relation to Ben Gurion: Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as "the most important asset of the native population." Ben-Gurion said "under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them." He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. "Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement," Ben-Gurion added, "should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price." Here’s some of Ben’s quotes he opted not to include ". . . In many parts of the country new settlement will not be possible without transferring the Arab fellahin. . . it is important that this plan comes from the Commission and not from us. . . . Jewish power, which grows steadily, will also increase our possibilities to carry out the transfer on a large scale." "With compulsory transfer we have vast areas .... I support compulsory transfer. I do not see anything immoral in it. But compulsory transfer could only be carried out by England .... Had its implementation been dependent merely on our proposal I would have proposed; but this would be dangerous to propose when the British government has disassociated itself from compulsory transfer. .... But this question should not be removed from the agenda because it is central question. There are two issues here : 1) sovereignty and 2) the removal of a certain number of Arabs, and we must insist on both of them." That particular statement directly contradicts one of his myths debunkings. This was recorded by Ben’s personal biographer another source used by the author numerous times as his source. "The compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even when we stood on our own during the days of the first and second Temples. . . We are given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our wildest imaginings. This is more than a state, government and sovereignty----this is national consolidation in a free homeland." "Zionism is a TRANSFER of the Jews. Regarding the TRANSFER of the Arabs this is much easier than any other TRANSFER. There are Arab states in the vicinity . . . . and it is clear that if the Arabs are removed this will improve their condition and not the contrary." Other quotes from Moshe Sharett (Shertok), Ukrainian born, was the director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department from 1933 until May 1948 (when the State of Israel was founded), then he became its first Foreign Minister until 1954. For a brief period between 1954-1955, Sharett was Israel 's Prime Minister, and briefly it's Foreign Minster again in 1955-56. After being politically marginalized in the Israeli Cabinet, he resigned office and became the Chairman of the Jewish Agency between 1956-1960. We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it, that governs it by the virtue of its language and savage culture ..... Recently there has been appearing in our newspapers the clarification about "the mutual misunderstanding" between us and the Arabs, about "common interests" [and] about "the possibility of unity and peace between two fraternal peoples." ..... [But] we must not allow ourselves to be deluded by such illusive hopes ..... for if we ceases to look upon our land, the Land of Israel, as ours alone and we allow a partner into our estate- all content and meaning will be lost to our enterprise. This list goes on. Do you see any glimpse of selective perception? As I stated I need to finish the book, and attempt to keep an open mind. You mentioned a massacre earlier. That is very sad, and tragic. Although you never state it, I’m given the impression you believe there were no massacres done upon the Palestinians. If that’s the case; you haven’t even come close to scratching the surface, but to find such information you’d have to look for it, so if you've chosen not to see or believe they happened, then your belief will continue as it does. (Not right or wrong) This is how easy selective perception can happen: the list of Israeli soldiers refusing to serve in the West Bank and Gaza strip gave you the impression their making such a stance because they are tired of fighting the Arabs. I have to wonder if you read the personal accounts, because the perception I’m left with is they are doing so because they fell what is happening is wrong and contradicts the very values of love and justice they were raised to honor. That doesn’t mean either of us is right or wrong IMO, but if such views affect the life and existence of a populous it’s not going to be free. There’s many other points you stated I wanted to comment on, but the overall point I’m trying to make is this there’s innocent people dying on both sides. I see killing people with bombs as a terrible thing, but throwing pebbles didn’t seem to stop settlement growth, Israeli won the war, it should have the right to exist. America’s manifest destiny solved the Indian issue; it should have the right to exist. Due to the fact certain Indian tribes don’t seem to be using their land in a way I judge as effective does that give me the right to move them to . . .to . . . If you see the settlements as being legal, and common sense shows they will grow, what do you think the current residents should do as they're watching the patch of land they have left dwindle. Go to over crowded Jordan, Syria? Some say that the Palestinians never were or classify as a populous; when does any culture begin to be recognized and by whom? If theres no difference between Jordians, "Palestinians", Lebenese, and Syrians then really what the difference between Canadians, and Americans. Or someone whos British and and someone whos American. It’s not like the term American is an ancient race. Im not stating you have this position, but there have been times with people with similiar views as yours stop short of saying "You've seen one Arab you've seen them all" Lastly if justification is built around how the story goes in the Bible what if that’s not one’s religion? It goes back to he who has the bigger guns. So just say that. It’s a little easier to swallow than selective interpretation, personal justifications, and historical manipulation. (I’m not referring to you personally) __________________ To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking* Last edited by Sun Tzu; 05-16-2003 at 08:47 AM..

05-16-2003, 01:01 PM	#36 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	I have to tell you, I really do appreciate this dialogue- you also seem well-informed, open minded and very intelligent. Compared with much of the ignorance that I've seen on this issue, this discussion is very refreshing, and I hope mutually rewarding. I had never seen much of what you posted before. That said, I still have some comments. As you know, I'm sure, in the Jewish religion the land of Israel is very central- it has always been conceived of as the jewish homeland. It is no real secret that most jews in touch with their religion in any deeper level would, in a perfect world, like to have their homeland again in its entirety. You quote ben-Gurion talking about the necessity of displacing arabs, and of gaining more land. He also said that he hoped the british would do this. He may have, in his heart, hoped for such things, but the important thing is that it wasn't done- the Jews in Palestine didn't displace any arabs with force, they purchased the land, often at excorbitant prices. In the course of the 48 war some arabs were displaced- more fled upon the urging of arab leaders. The ones that were displaced were displaced when their villages were enemy bases, or when the location was militarily critical. The refugees from those villages were still not forced to leave Palestine. Obviously, many arabs remained, and they became Israeli-arabs. The refugees that fled (again, 67% of which never saw an Israeli soldier) were then forced to remain in refugee camps instead of being absorbed in any arab country, where they have remained until this day. They had been urged, and bullied, to leave by arab leaders, and then completely abandoned. I have in no way suspected you of any sort of anti-semitism, you have presented valid evidence and points and backed them up. I respect your intellectual honesty, your knowledge base and your respectful attitude, I really mean that. I'd like to think I am mature enough to have an honest discussion of history without resorting to unfounded accusations, to end the discussion if it doesn't go my way :-). It is true what you said, that countries like America, Britain, etc. also are not so distinctive from each other. America has no 1 ethnicity, it is a combination of its parts. Obviously, not all legitimate nations in the world are founded only on racial or cultural uniqueness. The significance about the the Palestinians, is that they were made a nation arbitrarily- they were artificially nationalized as a political weapon. They never identified as a separate nation at any point before 1967, if I am correct (or perhaps a few years before, as the PLO was founded in 64 or 65). Before 1967, when Jordan controlled the West Bank, and Egypt the Gaza Strip, there was never any sign of nationalism at all. The refugees never demanded a state, or even autonomy. They considered themselves as part of the Arab nation (the arab countries themselves were mostly carved up by the british in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. There were no nation states in "Arabia" before then, a feudal tribal system was the dominant political format). I am not saying that due to the lack of a common history, language, or distinct ethnicity or culture necessarily means that they should not have a state- after all, after 55 years in refugee camps, they do indeed identify and see themselves as their own nation- this has been driven taught to them for 55 years. I think they should be given a state somewhere, obviously some solution is necessary, they can't be left in those camps forever, kept in intentionally poor condition. As human beings they deserve a government that will actually serve their humanitarian needs, and not steal from them, abuse them, and use them, exploiting their suffering for political goals. As for the refusers, I did read the personal accounts- I know that they refuse (assuming they are not on anyone's payroll, which, sadly, many groups like "Peace now" are in Israel), because they feel that what they are required to do in the Army, in occupying the territories, is immoral. They hate having to carry out a military occupation. I don't blame them for not liking it, I have not met an Israeli soldier that was ever happy about this. I'm sure it is pretty ugly and terrible, having to impose curfews, having to demolish houses of terrorists, that many people live in, etc. However, as long as there is terrorism, and these places are hotbeds of hatred and violence, then Israel has no choice but to control these places and defend themselves. With the Oslo agreements, Israel actually ended its occupation, giving the Palestinians autonomy. The PA was set up. The Israelis even armed the Palestinian police force. Those guns were later turned on Israeli civilians. It wasn't until last year, during "Operation Defensive Shield", that the territories were re-occupied, in response to the wave of horrific suicide bombing, like the one that killed almost 30 people at the Passover seder in Netanya, including Holocaust survivors, the suicide bomber who walked into a girls Bat Mitzvah celebration (ceremony of adulthood, when a girl reaches 13 years old), killing half of the girls family. He was shot before detonating himself. The list of attacks goes on indefinitely, but those are two particularly horrific ones I remember from the time. Israel does not want to be in the territories. They tried pulling out, and it was the terrorism that forced them to go back in. Even Ariel Sharon does not want to remain there, he has said "we cannot rule over another people indefinitely". It is basically unanimous in Israel that a solution needs to be found, that the military control of the Palestinians is demoralizing and wrong. The question is, what choice does Israel have? No one wants this. Terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians have been taking place non-stop since the 1800s, in the region. In the past, whenever the Israelis pulled out of an area, giving security control back to the palestinians, it always resulted in more dead Israelis. No government can stand by and let its citizens be murdered in pizza parlors, on buses, on the street, etc. If there was a more humanitarian alternative, I am sure they would take it. And again- the refusers are a pretty marginal group, I posted the statistics about Israel's military. The number is pretty insignificant. To put things more in context, when in recent military operations (defensive shield) Israel called up it's reservists, there was a 95% mobilization rate. That is almost the highest in Israeli history. Most Israelis know why they have to fight, even though they don't like doing it. They realize that they have no choice until the terror stops. You said about the settlements, "what do you think the current residents should do as they're watching the patch of land they have left dwindle?" Well, again, you have to understand the no settlements are being built on palestinian land. They are only built in undeveloped and uninhabited areas. The palestinians are not watching "their land" dwindle. It isn't their land. Legally, it isn't their land- there was never any sovereign entity on the land before Israel, and under international law there is nothing illegal about the settlements. You mention massacres on both sides- the only massacre carried out by jews that I am aware of was at Deir Yassin- and that has been since exploited by propagandists to smear Israel. It talks about it in the myths and facts as well, I haven't checked out the sources, it would probably be worthwhile. It wasn't premeditated, I know. They were forced to attack house to house in taking the village, which was filled with Fedayeen and Iraqi troops. Apparently, the arab fighters kept civilians in the houses as cover. There was firing from windows and doors, etc. The jewish soldiers tossed grenades into some houses, which unbeknownst to them killed civilians as well. In the course of the battle, they set up an evacuation route for the arab civilians. Among these, was an Iraqi soldier, dressed as a woman. after "she" "surrendered", he pulled out a gun and shot the jewish commander. The soldiers went nuts and started shooting everyone. The raid was carried out by the Irgun and the Stern gang, of which you probably have heard of. They were a somewhat radicalized jewish group. They participated in many retaliatory bombings against british installations, though they gave warnings and did not attack civilian targets. They were still, however, hotheaded and unreliable soldiers. Here is a link to an article that discusses it- I know, you will probably hate where I found it, but it has sources and seems legit. BTW, i mentioned one particularly sickening one, but there were many, many massacres of the jewish settlers by their neighbors- there was never a period when there were no terror attacks, until this day. http://www.zoa.org/pubs/DeirYassin.htm I wasn't aware of the information you presented about Yehoshua Porath. I agree, that he probably isn't the best source for the real numbers for immigration. However, I have to disagree with you about the British, they are not reliable sources either. During the whole period of jewish immigration, the british were in a balancing act, trying to not offend the arabs (the infamous "white paper", which put harsh caps on jewish immigration, making it impossible for many jews to escape the Holocaust, was done to avoid angering the arabs). During WW2, the British were trying to get the arabs to revolt against the Ottomans, which were allied with the Nazis. They made many monetary and military gifts, concessions, and other gestures to try and shore up this support. It never came, until after it became clear that the Allies were winning the war. Among these gestures were the caps on Jewish immigration. If the British were publishing numbers, it is likely that they underestimated as much as possible, just as the Professor you quoted may have overestimated. As regards the palestinian arab refugees, the UN number is probably the most unbiased (the UN has since become extremely biased against Israel, due to the overwhelming number of arab states in the general assembly, oil politics in the Security council, and attempts to counter America, which is Israel's only strong ally, by China, France, Russia, etc.) I'd like to mention, that there would have been a Palestinian state in 1948, if the Arabs hadn't insisted on a war of extermination. There also has not been any accounting for the fact that upwards of 600,000 Jewish refugees were created when they were thrown out of their homes in arab lands during the war. They lost everything, amidst pogroms and persecution, but Israel absorbed them and helped them get their lives back on track. No reparation payments were ever made, and today this basic fact, that there were refugees from both sides, is forgotten or ignored, simply because Israel did what every nation has done throughout history with their refugees. The palestinian refugees are the only refugees in history that have not been absorbed by any country(they could easily have been absorbed into arab countries, the language and culture is the same, and there is more than enough vacant land in the arab world). It is not Israel's fault that the Palestinian refugees exist today- it wasn't their fault that they were created. It isn't their responsibility to deal with them, and especially when there has been no justice in regard to the jewish refugees. I'm sure that the myths and facts book obviously has a pro-Israel bias, as you rightly have noticed. I still think it contains a lot of valuable information and sources. If you were interested in a more unbiased (the writer was originally hired by an arab foundation to unearth wrongs committed by the jewish settlers) book, that discusses the roots of the conflict, and the years of immigration, I'd recommend "From Time Immemorial", by Joan Peters. I haven't read it myself, but it is considered pretty damning to a lot of palestinian arguments. From reviews on Amazon I've read that she gets a bit worked up over her argument sometimes, but there are over a hundred pages of footnotes. Some reviewers said there was some inconsistency in some facts, as is typical of any history book, but that it is minor and does not sink her arguments or thesis. All this aside, when it comes down to it, I don't see how having 2 states west of the jordan will lead to anything but war. The land is so small, and the conflict so deep, that I can't see how peace is possible at this point. If you're interested, there is another article that talks about the peace process, written by Daniel Pipes in 1990. He is a scholar who was on the American task force for counter-terrorism, he predicted 9/11 years before it happened, and he was just appointed to the US Institute of Peace. His website is www.danielpipes.org, he has written a great deal about the middle east. In particular, the article I mentioned was this- http://www.danielpipes.org/article/194. And lastly, I'd recommend "A Durable Peace", by Benjamin Netanyahu. I'm sure you know who he is- he obviously is biased, but this book is a strong articulation of the hardline Israeli position, and is backed up with facts. He obviously is trying to convince the reader of his opinion, but he backs what he says up. I'd recommend the book strongly. I look forward to your reply. __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

05-17-2003, 04:54 PM	#37 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	I was also thinking, and I'd like to ask the question about the Ben-Gurion quotes- is it possible he was saying this in reference to the partition plan? The Israelis officially accepted it, while the arabs didn't, but I think any impartial observer could tell that it is pretty unrealistic. It would have been very difficult to make a viable state from the land alloted- could it be this that he was referring to? I don't know for sure, but the possibility occured to me. __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

05-17-2003, 09:09 PM	#38 (permalink)
crumbbum Crazy Location: CT,NYC,NJ(have been all over)	Also, I realized that I forgot to mention something else about the british numbers. The british were trying to limit Jewish immigration (made famous by the movie "Exodus"). They had set up detention camps on Cyprus, and were stopping the boats, for the reasons I mentioned above. I forgot to say that another reason there numbers are probably wrong is that most of the Jewish immigration was done illegally, in defiance of the British, especially before, during and after the Holocaust, when so many Jews were trying to escape Europe. I understand your concern about the numbers from the guy you mentioned. While I wouldn't know where to find the best source, I do think that in all likelihood the party mostly likely to have the real numbers is the Israelis themselves, since they were the only ones keeping track of both the legal and illegal immigration. I guess it comes down to a question of whether or not you trust all, some, or no Israeli sources. If it is assumed that no Israeli source is trustworthy, then I think it would probably be impossible to find the real numbers. As you said, some of the Israeli numbers might be inflated- or maybe not. I guess there is really no way to know for sure. __________________ Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

05-17-2003, 09:23 PM	#39 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	For the love of god, please, please, put a blank line between paragraphs. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames