crumbbum

Correction about the Ben-Gurion quote- didn't see that it was from 1948. Same thing applies though- it was a hostile center in the war, that occupied a crucial position and was a launching bad for Arab attacks against the Kibutzes in the area. It was a war!

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

crumbbum

SLM3, I am not going to respond to you anymore after this. I produced a link to a completely impartial source, PBS, that explained that the PLO had not pulled out of Lebanon at the time of Sabra and Chatila, as you postulated. You have not addressed the fact that in the case against Time magazine, that their assertion that Sharon bore direct responsibility was false. I did not use the Israeli inquiry as my only evidence. Your tone in towards me in your posts has made the discussion very unpleasant.
I did respond to your post with sources supposedly linking Sharon to the massacre. You must have missed it. From the sources you provided it is apparent that Sharon approved the Phalangist operation. I have never asserted or heard otherwise. The massacre was not their mission. Their mission was to clear the PLO out of the camps. Instead, they engaged in a massacre, a revenge killing for the PLO assassination of the newly elected Lebanese president. You didn't respond to my previous post about this.
I will close with a question: Do you see any hypocrisy or political intrigue in the fact that no one has tried ever bring a lawsuit against the Phalangists, the party with direct responsibility, themselves? Why do you think this is? Why, in your perception, haven't investigations or lawsuits been launched against the Jordanian government for it's massacre of thousands of Palestinians in "Black September", or the Syrians for their brutal ocupation of Lebanon? What about Iraq, before the war? How about Yasser Arafat, who is responsible for the murder of more Jews than anyone since Hitler? Goodnight.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

SLM3

Your faith in Sharon means you'll never objectively look at the evidence I'm provided. It's obvious he was kept very well aware of exactly what was happening in those camps as it was happening yet you refuse to believe he had any clue of what was going on. My point is I don't understand how he could have known about everything EXCEPT the massacres. He sent them in only to get PLO terrorists? How would they seperate terrorists from innocents? Do they carry terrorist ID? It just seems painfully obvious that the whole operation was a recipe for disaster.

Don't ask me why, but a later Lebanese internal investigation found Phalangist fighters immune from prosecution for the massacres. Perhaps they decided the man who gave the orders should be most responsible.

To label the Jordanian killing of Palestinians as murder shows a total lack of historical understanding. You make it sound like the Jordanians rounded them all up in a camp, sorrounded it with tanks, and killed everyone inside. I dunno, but something about an attempted overthrow of the government by radicals comes to mind.

Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Yet another historical fallacy. Well, maybe if you ask some of the Christians they'd call it an occupation. I for one would like to see the Syrians out but I don't forget that the French created borders of Lebanon once constituted the Western half of Syria.

What about Iraq before the war? GREAT question. Who would possibly block investigations into Iraq? What about the US and the European countries who gave him all the proper tools and support to carry out his most heinous attrocities?

If you want to prosecute Arafat, go ahead. What does that have to do with Sharon and his crimes? Why does the US attack Iraq claiming a ruthless tyrant needs to be disposed of when it ignores all the other ruthless tyrants in the world? Are you saying Sadaam should be left in power as long as the world isn't willing to attack all dictators?

You said you're not going to respond. That's fine, don't. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Sun Tzu

We're all passionate about what we believe and our desire for there to be a just and peaceful world. As with every thread I’ve seen posted in the forum; including the last one the very same pattern has evolved. I’m guilty of contributing to it as well. What I’m referring to is the progression of the discussion. Many things have been said, facts (?), historical accountings (the many versions that exist), and other elements that lend for good debate, with the small hope (I speak for myself) that maybe will help shed light on someone who's misinformed and/ or fallen prey to a successful and strategic disinformation campaign. The truth is the only things I learn from each of the discussions are familiar elements that only strengthen what I believed before. It always seems to be exactly the same for those I debate with.
There are no dummies or drones in the forum, IMO people like don't care what’s going on around them, unconnected in a world they're checked out of. With that said there is enough information in multiple forms out there (including going there) that whatever position they have arrived at did so because that’s how they chosen to interpret what the see, feel, hear, and experience as their reality. I’m not one to say that's right or wrong. The people who are saying its right or wrong are the ones dying from this senseless perpetual greed. Then again that exists everywhere; even within are own borders. crumbbum thanks for interesting conversation its never dull when talking about this issue, but because I find myself sinking into this every time; posting my perceptions and the reason that are so blatantly clear to me I feel almost bound to assist in making them clearer. As with each of the threads with this subject I realize your doing the same thing. Because of time (and maybe not getting anything else done) I'll respectfully bow out of this conversation for now.
I'll leave with maintaining my hope that one day (sooner the better) the two will leave in peace side by side.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

crumbbum

Sun Tzu, it has been a pleasure discussing these hairy issues with you- you are a very intelligent, respectful and impressively scholastic poster . I hope you aren't also bowing out of our other thread, but if so, I understand. It has been very interesting and stimulating for me as well. Best wishes.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

crumbbum

SLM3, this could go on forever, but it has only been established that Sharon gave the ok for the Phalangists to go into the camps to carry out their mission, which was to clear out the PLO presence. This was done, by the Israelis all over Lebanon, and is not the paradox you have presented it as. The PLO had a pseudo-army- there were bunkers and weapons caches at Sabra and Chatila, and there were, it was estimated beforehand, between 100-200 PLO fighters holed up there. Sharon gave the ok for the Phalangists to go in- that is not in doubt. But it is a serious allegation to say that he had knowledge of, or even more serious, gave an order for a massacre.
Since in court he has already been found innocent of these things, in his suit against Time magazine (and the Israeli publication), as well as the Kahan commission, the burden of proof is on you if you are trying to prove that despite the findings in these three cases, that they are wrong and he had direct knowledge and/or participation. I don't see how you assume he knew everything that was happening- the Phalangists went in alone, and as Minister of Defense in wartime, I assume he was a pretty busy man- he had many other things going on at the same time as well. If he had been listening on the radio, or somehow in direct contact, that would have been surfaced. The Kahan commision, although you don't take it seriously, was ordered by people who were political enemies of Sharon, and it was meticulous. I am not expecting you to rely on that as the only proof, of course. But you have presented no evidence that would indicate his guilt or direct compliance- at most, he is guilty of poor judgement, as the commission found (he "should have known"). Again, no one else predicted this either, it wasn't obvious before it happened. They did not have orders to carry out a massacre.
And about your trivialization of the Jordanian massacre of Palestinians, yes, the PLO tried to overthrow the government. It was civilians that were killed, in the thousands. You don't care about this? The Phalangists, representatives of the Lebanese, killed Palestinians in a revenge attack for the assassination of their president, and the years of brutalization by the PLO.
The Syrian occupation of Lebanon is not a historical fallacy, that is ridiculous. That is a terrible thing to say. Lebanon is a sovereign country.
Anyway, like I said before, the burden of proof is on you, and you haven't presented any. I understand your suspicion, I had much of it myself on learning about the topic. I didn't make up my mind until I learned the details, and observed the facts. I am not arguing with you to defend Sharon, I'm only trying to defend the truth. Anyway, unless you can post something which proves your point I'm done with the discussion.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

crumbbum

Sun Tzu, if you are still reading this, did you get my response to the list of quotes you asked about? You don't have to respond in detail, but I hope you at least got my response to that. Cheers.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

SLM3

If Israel and Sharon truly had no idea what was going to occur then they must be the most ignorant people alive. To think nothing would occur sending in the Phalange to a camp full of Palestinians, whom they'd been fighting for 7 long years, is just preposterous. Furthermore, it was Israel's responsibility, under Geneva conventions as the occupying power, to protect the innocents in those camps. There was a very interesting investigation into the events, including eye witness accounts, provided by the BBC. Entitled, "The Accused", here is a transcript of the show.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...t_17_06_01.txt

crumbbum

Ok, I read through a lot of this, but it has not been established that he knew it would happen. The Phalangists weren't just some random militia, they were the sovereign Lebanese military. The IDF was in the process of pulling out of Lebanon, and the Phalange was the military that would inevitably fill the vacuum.

"To think nothing would occur sending in the Phalange to a camp full of Palestinians, whom they'd been fighting for 7 long years, is just preposterous. "

Israel's civilian population has been under attack by terrorists in a series of brutal massacres now for over 2 years, but there have been no massacres of Palestinians. The Phalange was a professional military force that had trained with the Israelis. The IDF assumed that they would conduct themselves as a military should.
Also, if a massacre was so obvious, then why did no one else think to mention it before it happened either? No one did. The Phalangists had carried out other operations professionally. To assume that they would go crazy and massacre people is racist- like I said above, not expecting the same standards anyone does from anyone else. I am not trivializing the massacre, obviously- but if anyone should be prosecuted, it is the Phalangists themselves!
Sharon does bear indirect responsibility, as the military commander in the area, it did happen under his jurisdiction. But if he had known, why on earth would he have let it happen? He was and is well-aware of the intense scrutiny the world watches Israel with. Why would he allow something to happen that would for a long time destroy his political career, tar his country's reputation and allow innocent people to be killed? Israel had everything to lose from this, and nothing to gain. The IDF has never engaged in massacres, and has a strict purity of arms code. What the legal cases found was that he should have known- it was an error in judgement. It was one that all the journalists, the UN, and everyone else made too. It is wrong to say that he knew this was happening.

You say it was obvious because the Phalangists had been engaged in fighting with the PLO for 7 years. Well in case you didn't notice, there are tons of ongoing conflicts in the middle east- and the only way to assume that it is natural for that to result in a massacre of innocents is if you are racist to begin with, and do not consider arabs to be of the same moral status as the rest of humanity. The Israelis have shown remarkable restraint in their short history, and I don't see why the same shouldn't be expected of everyone else, especially when it's a professional army (as opposed to PLO terrorists, who commited many atrocities as you said), and the legitimate and sovereign military power in Lebanon. It was their country, and Israel was pulling out. The massacre was clearly barbaric, and a disaster. But Sharon did not know it was going to happen- you can attribute this to poor judgement, but there is no reason to believe that it was pre-meditated, when the 3 legal inquiries all found him only indirectly responsible. Again, the burden of proof is on you, if you wish to say that all 3 of these cases, which exhumed the facts far more exhaustively than you or I have, are all wrong. If you assume despite the findings of others based on all the evidence, that Sharon is guilty, then it is only because you want him to be guilty.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

SLM3

I guess it depends on how strictly you define a massacre. Instead of rounding up Palestinians and killing them one by one out in the open, Israel has been operating a brutal occupation. Destroying homes, infrastructure, as well as enforcing harsh curfews which don't allow people to work or go to school. They're killing them slowly, agonizingly.

For someone who denies the very existence of a Palestinian people, you use the word "racist" an awful lot.

I don't paint the world with such broad strokes like you do. It was Sharon's responsibility to look at each situation in its uniqueness and make decisions accordingly. This means rethinking the idea to send in a group of militiamen who's leader had just been assassinated. The Phalangists had been the subject of some horrible acts by Palestinian people; any honest observer would have an easy time describing tensions as extremely high. It's not racist, it's called using your head. I'm not a violent person, but if someone kills a member of my family it's probably not a good idea to stick me in the same room as the murderer and lock the door.

The point is, the evidence shows that it was such a blatantly ignorant choice that it just screams there must have been more going on. Sharon very deliberately sent in the enemies of those people to handle the "mop up" as he so elegantly put it. There's more than just "poor judgement" evident here. Use your head, don't apply broad generalizations of people. Look at each case individually. You're not giving this incident the respect and attention it deserves.

crumbbum

Look, I never said it wasn't poor judgement- that was what the Kahan commission found, and why he was forced to step down. That said, if it was so obvious, then someone else would have spoken up before it happened- as it happened, no one in the press, the US, the UN, or anyone ever pointed out the danger beforehand. He was indirectly responsible, as was found. This does not make him a war criminal. If he was a war criminal, then he would have been proven as such, as this incident has been exhaustively investigated.

Your rant about the oppression of the Palestinians is uncalled for. It cannot be compared to a massacre, as no one is trying to exterminate them. "Destroying homes, infrastructure, as well as enforcing harsh curfews which don't allow people to work or go to school" - first, there was never much infrastructure to begin with, and infrastructure is not targeted. The IDF does a huge amount humanitarian assistance in the territories that you never hear about.

Secondly, and this doesn't even deserve being argued, the "occupation" (it hasn't been once since 1993) is in self-defense- if Israel's civilians weren't constantly being targeted, shot and blown up then Israel would have no need to militarily control Palestinian areas. To argue this point is ludicrous- the Israelis don't want to be in there, but are given no chance, since the well armed security forces of the Palestinian Authority have still not taken any action to prevent terror attacks against innocent Israelis. You tell me that I am paying selective attention, but you don't seem to be particularly outraged about bus bombings, rocket attacks on schoolbuses where children get their legs blown off, shootings, murders of women and children, targeted, the sniping of babies- these are things that have all happened.

Your interest in this is clearly not humanitarian, and you have allied yourself with some of the most deplorable and sick murderers the world has ever known. I am through with this conversation. If you are actually interested in learning a bit before continuing your ranting, read the thread about the Peace plan and the settlements. I have nothing left to say here.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

crumbbum

"Sharon very deliberately sent in the enemies of those people to handle the "mop up" as he so elegantly put it."

The Phalangists, again, were the sovereign military force there, and representatives of the Lebanese government. Israel was in the process of pulling out of Lebanon, and was obviously transferring military control back to the sovereign entity in the area, the Lebanese government.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

SLM3

KEANE: But the Israelis also mentioned the possibility of deploying the Phalange in West Beirut. Morris Draper says the Americans were horrified at the suggestion.

DRAPER: We made it very clear, under no circumstances could the United States tolerate this.

KEANE: Why?

DRAPER: Because it would be a massacre, we knew. Couldn't let those people in.

Seems like the Americans had the foresight to see this was a bad idea. The Phalanage were allies of Israel, and both were struggling with a Palestinian conflict. You're hiding the truth by simply referring to the Phalangists as a sovreign Lebanese army. You're ignoring their alliances. Lebanese politics is a complex issue indeed, it's hardly fair to label Lebanon as feeling one way or the other during this time. There was a civil war if you recall.

Protect your Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut. The truth will be revealed, of that I'm sure. The Palestinians deserve better than this brutal, oppressive regime which occupies them and their land.

crumbbum

You are ridiculous. You think you know better than the 3 inquiries into this topic? You haven't seen the evidence, he has never been convicted of it, and a biased BBC documentary about it doesn't prove anything. The Palestinians deserve..... do you think all the Israeli civilians that have been targeted and killed "had it coming"? What about Leon Klinghoffer, who was thrown off a cruise ship in his wheelchair by the PLO? How about Israeli schoolkids who had their legs blown off when Palestinians fired rockets at their schoolbus? How about the girl who watched half her family get murdered in front of her at her Bat Mitzva, or the Holocaust survivors who were killed sitting at a Passover seder?

A further question. If you were the PM of Israel, what would you be doing to protect your citizens? How do you think the US would respond if the Palestinians walked away from peace agreements and launched a terror war against American civilians? What would happen, if proportionally to the population, America had experienced 6 9/11s in 2 years?

You are sick, and I have nothing else to say to you.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

crumbbum

You appear as anti-semitic, since you don't care at all about any other massacres in the region, and since you refuse to apply the same standards to any other world leaders, including the US military.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

SLM3

sigh...

I'm not anti-semitic. I'm a semite! My background trails through both Lebanon and Palestine.

I must apologize. I'm sorry if I'm not as comfortable swallowing everything that is force fed to me. I'm sorry if I have a tendency to use my own head and make my own decisions. When I'm ready to base my decisions on Israeli reports, I'm sure we'll see eye to eye.

You see, I don't deny atrocities committed by both sides in this conflict. Do you want me to start listing off instances of Palestinian civilian casualties? Shall we sit here forever comparing stories?

Can you possibly imagine what Palestinian people must have felt after the joke that was offered them in those peace agreements? It was a complete farce as any impartial observer would be glad to admit. I'm not making excuses, but don't you dare claim the Palestinians walked away from peace.

How would anyone in the world feel if they experienced the carnage of a 9/11 constantly for over 50 years?

So now the BBC is biased as well? Is that going to be your answer to everything?

crumbbum

saying that they experienced 9/11 constantly for 50 years trivializes 9/11. The Palestinians danced on 9/11. The term anti-Semitic, despite its literal definition, refers to Jews. The BBC, and the rest of the British press, is biased against Israel- Israel was made a state in spite of British efforts.

There have been many Palestinian civilian casualties. However, Palestinian civilians are not targeted, whereas Israeli civilians are deliberately killed. The Israeli offer at Taba was a more generous offer than the Palestinians will ever get, and Arafat didn't even make a counteroffer- he walked away and launched a terror war against civilians.

"You see, I don't deny atrocities committed by both sides in this conflict."
You have not once acknowledged the barbarity of the Palestinian terror attacks against Israeli civilians, or shown any concern for other massacres in the Middle East, including those against Palestinians that had no connection with the Israelis.

"When I'm ready to base my decisions on Israeli reports, I'm sure we'll see eye to eye."
I have cited 3 different inquiries into the incident, and they were not all Israeli. You have chosen to ignore this fact.

In your opinion, why were the Palestinian refugees left in camps for 55 years? Considering the vast sums of money poured into the camps from the US, EU, UN, and Israel (but not the arab world, incidentally), why haven't living conditions improved?

Why did the Palestinians never demand a state or even autonomy before 1967 when the Egyptians and Jordanians controlled the territories?

If a state next to Israel is what the Palestinians want, then why was the PLO formed in 1964, before Israel controlled the West bank or gaza? What exactly did they plan on liberating?

If there IS a such thing as the Palestinian people, tell me about their history? How far does it go back? Is there a Palestinian language? Is there a unique Palestinian culture? Why is there hero and leader, Arafat, an Egyptian?

In 1948 the State of Israel absorbed nearly 700,000 refugees from the arab world. Why didn't anyone absorb the Palestinian arab refugees?

If the Palestinians have a historical tradition, then why is it that the Jews in Palestine were referred to as "Palestinians" before 1948?

If Israel is evil, and robbed the Palestinians of their homeland, and is an enemy, why do so many Palestinians depend on employment in Israel? Why are 20% of Israelis arabs?

I would like to see truthful answers to these questions.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

Nad Adam

SLM3: The grass is green!
crumbbum: But cucumbers are green, therefore the grass can't be green!
SLM3: The grass is still green!
crumbbum: Why do you hate the grass?


Just give it up.

__________________
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Psalms 137:9

crumbbum

Nad Adam, perhaps you can answer some of the questions I presented to him in my last post. If you can't, please don't try and insult my contentions with his claims.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

Lebell

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

SLM3

1) The dwellers of those camps are mainly villagers and agricultural workers whos land was taken away from them. On many occasions, they themselves have refused to be moved to more permanent locations. This is because they refuse to give up their right of return and do not look favourably on what would look like a permanent relocation to a host country. Go to a Palestinian refugee camp and ask someone there what they think. They'll explain their attachment to their land. As for the monies you claim to have been poured into the camps. Please know that Israel has not committed one cent to UNRWA despite the fact they took over all the moveable and immoveable possessions of the refugees (lands, houses, furniture, livestock, bank accounts etc). You mention the EU but you don't seem to realize that the EU is a relatively young group that hasn't existed during the bulk of this conflict. I believe you over estimate their contribution. Also, with respect to the UN, much of the UNRWA's budget is contributed to by Arab countries.

2) The Palestinians have been seeking an independant, autonomous, entity since the early 20th Century. To become more knowledgeable, look at all the Palestinian conferences held since the 1920's concerning the subject.

3) The Palestinians had continuously called for a united democratic bi-national Palestinian Jewish state in Palestine. This position was continuously rejected by the Israeli state which defines itself in exclusivist racial terms as a Jewish state. It remained until the conference in Algiers when the Palestinians, at the request of Arab countries and the international powers, adopted the 2 state concept for the Palestinian Israeli conflict. The idea of a unified democratic bi-national state is far superior and far more humane than the notion of a religiously based political entity.

4) To my knowledge, we don’t have a Lebanese language, a Syrian language, an Egyptian language, a Moroccan language, or a Sudanese language. People are not necessarily defined by their language. The Palestinians are the decendants of the Canaanites, Hebrews, Philistine, and Arab residents of Palestine and they assumed their distinct Arab character after the 7th century. The Palestinians have some idiosyncratic cultural traits and other traits that they share with people from the region. Alas, a large portion of the Jewish Israelis have no cultural traits that they share with the region. They are alien and they brought their Russian, Ukranian, Polish, German, and other traits with them to a land that they have no affinity, no history, to. Unlike the Palestinian Jew, who shares everything with the Palestinian people. As for Arafat, you show great ignorance. He is from the Husayni family of Jerusalem, a family that traces its roots through Jerusalem for many centuries.

5) The Palestinians do not want to be absorbed. They want Israel to recognize their right of return. I don’t know what your background is, but wherever your country is, then that’s where you belong and the Palestinians belong in Palestine. Israel did not absorb refugees; they took Jews from inside and outside the Arab world and told them to immigrate to Palestine. They tells Jews that they must not continue to live in countries outside Palestine because humanity will never come to accept them despite the fact that Jews have lived and survived within Arab societies throughout history.

6) That proves my point. They were because they were part and parcel of Palestinian society. Jews in Palestine, prior to the rise of Zionism (1897), were an integral part of the Palestinian society and the land continued to be named Palestine until 1948 when a major portion of it was forcibly transformed into an exclusivist Jewish state.

7) The 20% Arabs in Israel are remnants of Arabs of Palestinian society. They are a small portion. Today, the Palestinians count over 7 million people. 1 million in Israel, 3 million in the occupied territories and 3 million waiting to return to Palestine. If some Palestinians in the occupied territories depend on employment in Israel for their income, it is because they have been deprived of their businesses and lands. Israel is hardly giving back.

You seem to lack sources. If you'd like, I'd be happy to recommend a reading list to you.

crumbbum

Every factual statement I have said I can produce sources for. I am afraid that you have been misinformed about some things. Your post seemed sincere, and not as angry as previous ones, so I will respond civilly. You seem to believe what you are saying, but you may have learned some of these things wrong. I will go through.


1) The dwellers of those camps are mainly villagers and agricultural workers whos land was taken away from them. On many occasions, they themselves have refused to be moved to more permanent locations. This is because they refuse to give up their right of return and do not look favourably on what would look like a permanent relocation to a host country. Go to a Palestinian refugee camp and ask someone there what they think. They'll explain their attachment to their land. As for the monies you claim to have been poured into the camps. Please know that Israel has not committed one cent to UNRWA despite the fact they took over all the moveable and immoveable possessions of the refugees (lands, houses, furniture, livestock, bank accounts etc). You mention the EU but you don't seem to realize that the EU is a relatively young group that hasn't existed during the bulk of this conflict. I believe you over estimate their contribution. Also, with respect to the UN, much of the UNRWA's budget is contributed to by Arab countries.

It must be noted that 67% of the Palestinians left the area before the 1948 war, without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. This was for different reasons- most fled at the urging of Arab leaders, who told them that they could return to their homes after the Jews had been "pushed into the sea". There was also pressure on them to leave, as it was implied that those who didn't leave would be "personas non grata". In addition, rumors were spread, especially by the Mufti of Jerusalem and his gangs(more on him later), that in the villages where battles had taken place, that the Jews had raped arab women, etc, which terrified them and led them to fled. This had never happened, but the rumours were spread by those who wanted the Palestinian arabs to flee. I don't doubt that if I were to ask Palestinians today, that they would tell me how attached they are to their land. The rest were expelled in the course of the war, from villages that served as forward bases for the Arab armies, centers of the Fedayeen, or when the residents were hostile to the Jews, and the village was in a militarily crucial area.
The UN definiton of a Palestinian is any Arab who lived in the area of Palestine and owned some property, for 2 years or more. That is all. If you look at the population and immigration numbers, it becomes clear that the vast majority of Palestinians were only fairly recent immigrants to the land- they had come seeking employment. Before Jewish immigration picked up (there was always a Jewish presence in the land, albeit a small minority, except in Jerusalem), there were approximately 250,000 arabs in the entire area of Palestine. The region was very underpopulated, and the land was barren. There were isolated Arab villages, as well as Bedouins. Primarily though, the land was nearly empty, and almost entire barren and undeveloped. Arabs from surrounding countries came seeking employment as the Jews came. The Jewish immigrants drained the swamps, established infrastructure and created many employment opportunities. The benefits Jewish immigration brought to the area were appreciated by many of the Arabs, and many were openly friendly and appreciative of Jewish settlement, seeing the benefits it brought to all. There has been a great mythology built up, but in reality, only a small minority of the Palestinians today have a legitimate case for reimbursement from Israel. The Palestinians who willingly fled their homes are owed nothing by Israel, it wasn't Israel's fault they fled. They were invited to stay, and become Israeli citizens. 20% of Israelis today are Arab, and they are the descendants of those who stayed. Among the remaining 33%, those who in fact had a family history in the land and were not recent immigrants or migrant workers do deserve reimbursement, or possibly Israeli citizenship, if they were not hostile to the State of Israel. But the vast majority of Palestinians do not come under this category.

"2) The Palestinians have been seeking an independant, autonomous, entity since the early 20th Century. To become more knowledgeable, look at all the Palestinian conferences held since the 1920's concerning the subject."

Palestinian nationalism developed as a reaction to, and out of fears of Jewish immigration. In the 800 years that Palestine was under Arab control (the Ottomans), it was never more than a barren, underpopulated backwater territory. There was never any state, or aspiration to statehood, by it's inhabitants during this time period, at any point.


"3) The Palestinians had continuously called for a united democratic bi-national Palestinian Jewish state in Palestine. This position was continuously rejected by the Israeli state which defines itself in exclusivist racial terms as a Jewish state. It remained until the conference in Algiers when the Palestinians, at the request of Arab countries and the international powers, adopted the 2 state concept for the Palestinian Israeli conflict. The idea of a unified democratic bi-national state is far superior and far more humane than the notion of a religiously based political entity."

Israel, as a Jewish state, was founded as such because of the horrific treatment of Jews throughout history whenever they lived under the power of any other people. As you know, 20% of Israelis are arab- the state is obviously not racially exclusivist. It retains, however, its Jewish character as a homeland for the Jewish people. A unified, bi-national state would destroy Israel, because the Arab birthrates are higher, and because it would result in the same situation Jews were always in under Arab rule- dhimmihood, or 2nd class citizenship. Granted, the experience of the Jewish people in Muslim countries was better than the genocide they experienced in Christian lands, but it was still terrible- there were frequent pogroms, and the tide between coexistence and hatred changed suddenly. Many Jews were killed by Arab mobs. Arab rulership, for the Jews, was in no way Benign, it was simply a lesser evil than that of the Europeans.


"4) To my knowledge, we don’t have a Lebanese language, a Syrian language, an Egyptian language, a Moroccan language, or a Sudanese language. People are not necessarily defined by their language. The Palestinians are the decendants of the Canaanites, Hebrews, Philistine, and Arab residents of Palestine and they assumed their distinct Arab character after the 7th century. The Palestinians have some idiosyncratic cultural traits and other traits that they share with people from the region. Alas, a large portion of the Jewish Israelis have no cultural traits that they share with the region. They are alien and they brought their Russian, Ukranian, Polish, German, and other traits with them to a land that they have no affinity, no history, to. Unlike the Palestinian Jew, who shares everything with the Palestinian people. As for Arafat, you show great ignorance. He is from the Husayni family of Jerusalem, a family that traces its roots through Jerusalem for many centuries. "

First, the Palestinians are NOT descended from the Canaanites. That is a myth. The canaanites were not Arab.
"The Palestinians are the decendants of the Canaanites, Hebrews, Philistine, and Arab residents of Palestine and they assumed their distinct Arab character after the 7th century. The Palestinians have some idiosyncratic cultural traits and other traits that they share with people from the region."- exactly. They are arabs from the surrounding areas in the region, and are culturally indistinguishable as such.

To say the Jews have no history or affinity to the land of Israel is an extremely ignorant statement. The only sovereign political entities that ever existed in the land, until recent times, were Jewish kingdoms. Religious Jews have prayed, for thousands of years, facing Jerusalem, 3 times a day, and the return to Zion is begged for in Jewish prayers. The Jewish people and the Land of Israel are inseparable in any way- the Jews have been in exile for nearly 2000 years, but Israel is their home, and it has always been regarded as such. This needs no further clarification.
Also, Arafat IS Egyptian- his uncle was Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was allied with the Nazis, and was responsible for numerous terror attacks and pogroms against the Jewish settlers. It was him, largly, who destroyed the coexistence that the Arabs and Jews had lived in before his coming to power. Arafat was born in Egypt, but came to Jerusalem as a boy to live with his uncle.

"5) The Palestinians do not want to be absorbed. They want Israel to recognize their right of return. I don’t know what your background is, but wherever your country is, then that’s where you belong and the Palestinians belong in Palestine. Israel did not absorb refugees; they took Jews from inside and outside the Arab world and told them to immigrate to Palestine. They tells Jews that they must not continue to live in countries outside Palestine because humanity will never come to accept them despite the fact that Jews have lived and survived within Arab societies throughout history."

First, Jews have lived and survived through the most persecution any people has ever faced in history. This has nothing to do with the benevolence of their hosts. The refugees from Arab countries were expelled from those countries after the war. There were pogroms and angry mobs, who vented their frustrations about the Arab loss against them. I talked before about the experience of Jews living in Arab countries. The "right of return", which as I said before only a tiny minority of Palestinian could legitimately claim, is now claimed by millions of Palestinians. Their "return" would destroy the State of Israel, and is unrealistic. It is inhuman that they have been left in camps for 55 years- no other refugees in history have been left in camps like that. There has always been a population transfer when territory changed hands in a war.


"6) That proves my point. They were because they were part and parcel of Palestinian society. Jews in Palestine, prior to the rise of Zionism (1897), were an integral part of the Palestinian society and the land continued to be named Palestine until 1948 when a major portion of it was forcibly transformed into an exclusivist Jewish state"

The land was named Palestine, after the name the Romans gave it, Palaestina. This name was given after the Philistines, the ancient enemies of the Israelites, as an insult to the Jews who had been driven from their homeland.


"7) The 20% Arabs in Israel are remnants of Arabs of Palestinian society. They are a small portion. Today, the Palestinians count over 7 million people. 1 million in Israel, 3 million in the occupied territories and 3 million waiting to return to Palestine. If some Palestinians in the occupied territories depend on employment in Israel for their income, it is because they have been deprived of their businesses and lands. Israel is hardly giving back."

The Palestinians have had 55 years to build their own economy and society. It has never happened, due to corrupt leadership. There is no reason camps still exist- more humane living conditions should surely have been established by now, there has certainly been enough money donated for it. The only reason Palestinians depend on Israel for employment is because they do not have their own economy. Palestinian identity and society has been shaped around the idea of their having been robbed, and one day taking it back. This has led them to stagnate instead of building where they are. It has been 55 years, and if Palestinians, and their leaders who have so cruelly misled them for political ends, were working towards life, and not destruction, and had been working to build, and to live, instead of wallowing in victimhood, there would be no humanitarian crisis now, and no economic dependence. The Palestinians could be living in thriving, vibrant and succesful communities, under autonomy. The Palestinians are the best educated of all arabs, and certainly are capable of creating an open, progressive and succesful society. This, sadly, will never happen until they accept the truth that they have been misled, and move on and choose life.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

SLM3

Many Palestinians did leave before the Israeli soldiers got there. Is that really surprising to you? Would you wait for the soldiers to tap their guns on your door before you decided to leave? There was a war going on, what do you expect these people to do? Why does them leaving to avoid an oncoming army deny them any rights to their land? Also, many did in fact choose to stay only to be forced out at gunpoint by the Haganah, the Stern and the Irgun Zionist forces. Why should they stay and become Israeli citizens? The point is, they had no choice. You say a few have a case for reimbursement. What if they want their home back instead?

How can you say this area, so hotly contested for its importance to two religions (one the 2nd largest in the world), was barren and empty? I'm not surprised by your comments, they are common in the Zionist propoganda machine. The area was not underpopulated, it was a religious centre.

The doublestandard you present is remarkable. Bi-nationalism would cause Jews to be relegated to 2nd class citizenship? What about those Arab-Israeli's who live as 2nd class citizens today? In every aspect of life, from education to health care, being an Arab is a hindrance to them in Israel. Islam has always been accepting of Judaism. Mohammed referred to both Jews and Christians as people of the book. When the Spanish Inquisition started, where did the Jews run to? They ran to the Muslims for protection, that is why there's a Jewish population in Morocco. I don't pretend to make excuses for all conflicts, but to label Jews as 2nd class citizens in their history with Muslims is unfounded.

Your post reeks of religious bias. The Jews have been in exile? What about the constant Jewish presence in the region and especially Jerusalem? Israel is their home? According to whom? Are you gonna tell me God works in real estate? If that is your contention then there's really nothing more to say. Jewish prayers are legitimate enough to displace an entire population? According to Arafat himself, he was born in Jerusalem. Others say he was born in Cairo. There is no internationally accepted answer. For you to steadfastly claim one answer is intellectually dishonest. However, we KNOW that his mother and father were Palestinian as well as his family lineage. Is that not good enough for you? Must he be born in Palestine? Tell me, what is Sharon's background?

Palestinian natural growth will of course mean there are larger numbers claiming their right to return. Hell, Sharon thinks it's a good enough reason to expand his settlements. What's good for the goose...

Look at the conditions the Palestinians live in and tell me how they could possibly build a sustainable economy. Are you serious? Curfews, demolitions, destroyed power plants. This is an every day way of life for these people. How can they be expected to thrive under these conditions? Are we not seeing the same slums on tv?

crumbbum

Many Palestinians did leave before the Israeli soldiers got there. Is that really surprising to you? Would you wait for the soldiers to tap their guns on your door before you decided to leave? There was a war going on, what do you expect these people to do? Why does them leaving to avoid an oncoming army deny them any rights to their land? Also, many did in fact choose to stay only to be forced out at gunpoint by the Haganah, the Stern and the Irgun Zionist forces. Why should they stay and become Israeli citizens? The point is, they had no choice. You say a few have a case for reimbursement. What if they want their home back instead?

Like I said, fear was deliberately sown in these people by those in the arab world that wanted them to leave, since anyone staying made the arabs look bad. There was indeed a war going on, but a significant enough number of Arabs stayed in their homes to prove that except in the cases where they were forced to live (33%), they had the choice to stay and live in peace with their neighbors. Why Israeli citizens? Arab-Israelis make the most money, have the best standard of living and enjoy more political rights than in any country in the Arab world. (Turkey is one possible exception). Most Israeli arabs, in polls, would not want to live in the Palestinian state, were it to be created.

"How can you say this area, so hotly contested for its importance to two religions (one the 2nd largest in the world), was barren and empty? I'm not surprised by your comments, they are common in the Zionist propoganda machine. The area was not underpopulated, it was a religious centre."
Those are the numbers, 250,000 arabs in the land before Jewish immigration. I don't know why more people weren't there- I would assume because it was so hard to live there, since there was rampant malaria and the ground was unfertile. It should be noted that the Israelis have always protected and respected the holy sites of other religions, even when it conflicted with their own (like the Temple mount). Israeli holy places, like Joseph's tomb in Nablus/Shechem, have been destroyed. The yeshiva and synagogue on the site of Joseph's tomb were burned to the ground, and a mosque built in its place. Then, more recently, the tomb itself was desecrated. Jerusalem had a majority of Jews before Jewish immigration began.

In every aspect of life, from education to health care, being an Arab is a hindrance to them in Israel.
Arabs in Israel receive the same health care as Jews. As far as education and other public services, the Arab population resembles in a lot of ways the Chareidim is Israel, having many children. Also, statistically Arab-Israelis have failed to pay their taxes as much as Jewish Israelis- as a direct result, the public services in Arab-Israeli areas are underfunded. I am not saying that there is perfect equality, but they are not 2nd class citizens.


"The doublestandard you present is remarkable. Bi-nationalism would cause Jews to be relegated to 2nd class citizenship? What about those Arab-Israeli's who live as 2nd class citizens today? In every aspect of life, from education to health care, being an Arab is a hindrance to them in Israel. Islam has always been accepting of Judaism. Mohammed referred to both Jews and Christians as people of the book. When the Spanish Inquisition started, where did the Jews run to? They ran to the Muslims for protection, that is why there's a Jewish population in Morocco. I don't pretend to make excuses for all conflicts, but to label Jews as 2nd class citizens in their history with Muslims is unfounded."'

Jews often were treated somewhat favorably in Muslim countries, certainly better than in Europe. However, this goodwill often changed overnight, and there were many massacres of Jews by arab mobs as well. Jews were 2nd class citizens- they "dhimmis". There were laws like "A Jew's head must never be higher than an Arab's", Jews had to pay special taxes, to wear special marking, like a yellow patch marking them as a Jew, their testimony did not count in a court, if a Muslim killed a Jew, he was only required to pay "blood money", instead of the death penalty resulting from killing another Muslim. Also, since Jewish testimony wasn't counted in court, even this often was ignored.
Under the most benign rulers, Jews basically had only to mark themselves, pay special taxes, live in ghettos and accept their 2nd class status. But when there were social or economic upheavals in the country, the Jews often paid the price, when angry mobs would go into the Jewish quarters and commit massacres. Jews were also forced sometimes to do the worst jobs, like picking animal carcasses off the street, or cleaning latrines, sometimes on their Sabbath, for no pay.
Basically, Muslim rule was far better than European, but it was still terrible for the Jews.


"Your post reeks of religious bias. The Jews have been in exile? What about the constant Jewish presence in the region and especially Jerusalem? Israel is their home? According to whom? Are you gonna tell me God works in real estate? If that is your contention then there's really nothing more to say. Jewish prayers are legitimate enough to displace an entire population? According to Arafat himself, he was born in Jerusalem. Others say he was born in Cairo. There is no internationally accepted answer. For you to steadfastly claim one answer is intellectually dishonest. However, we KNOW that his mother and father were Palestinian as well as his family lineage. Is that not good enough for you? Must he be born in Palestine? Tell me, what is Sharon's background?"

First, there has been a constant Jewish presence in the land of Israel, but it was small. Most Jews never could have come. Israel is the Jewish homeland because it was where the Jewish kingdoms existed, and where the Jews were exiled from by the Romans. In the Jewish religion, the land was promised to them by G-d. But from a secular perspective, it was simply where they had been a nation. The land is filled with archaelogical evidence of the Jewish kingdoms there. Since the Jewish exile 1900 years ago, religious Jews have prayed facing the Land of Israel, and it is mentioned constantly throughout the Jewish liturgy. I am not saying anything from religious bias, these are just the facts of the matter. I never said that the Jewish religion is reason to expel a population. The only arabs that were expelled by Jews were expelled in 1948, for military purposes. It is important to note that no one would have been expelled if the Arabs hadn't declared war on Israel. There wouldn't have been any fighting, and no one would have been expelled. In fact, under the UN mandate, there would have been a Palestinian state then, which the Jews accepted.
About Arafat, he says he was born in Jerusalem because this is what he would like people to believe, as the founder of the PLO. He was born in Cairo. I don't know about his parents, but I know about his uncle, the Mufti. The Mufti, who I talked about in my last post, met with Hitler and Eichmann, and begged them to bring the"Final Solution" to Palestine. He was also responsible for fomenting hatred and fear in the Palestinian arabs, and for ruining co-existence. He was the head of the Fedayeen. (So that's where Arafat gets it....). He came to Jerusalem to live with his uncle as a boy. As far as his parents being Palestinian, again this means that originally they are from a surrounding country, I don't know for sure which one, although it is probably Egypt. Sharon is a Jew, descended from the Israelites, who were exiled from the land of Israel 1900 years ago.

"Look at the conditions the Palestinians live in and tell me how they could possibly build a sustainable economy. Are you serious? Curfews, demolitions, destroyed power plants. This is an every day way of life for these people. How can they be expected to thrive under these conditions? Are we not seeing the same slums on tv?"
I agree completely. This is why they deserve new leadership not compromised by terror, monetary interest or a political agenda. The only time this development could have happened was after Oslo, when the Palestinians were granted autonomy. Arafat and the PA's corrupt leadership stole money from the people, crashed the Palestinian economy and ruined chances for peace and development. It can't happen as long as Israel has to carry out curfews and raids, etc. The terror needs to stop so that the Palestinians can have their lives back. Without an end of terrorism though, Israel has no choice but to defend it's citizens.

I'd like to end with one point about the Palestinian refugees- there would have been no refugees had there been no war. There would have been no war if the Arab countries hadn't collectively declared it. It is the fault of these countries not only for starting the war, but for urging and intimidating the Palestinian arabs to leave their homes when they didn't have to. There could have been a Palestinian state in 48, and no refugees at all. The primary responsibility for refugees expelled because of military necessity, by Israel in the course of the war, rests with the Arab countries that started the war. The same countries are guilty of ignoring the Palestinians humanitarian needs, and leaving them in refugee camps as a political weapon against Israel. This is a really sick exploitation of human suffering. The same countries also owe reparations to the Jews that were expelled. The reason it is unlikely that the few refugees who do have legitimate claims of disposesion will ever be able to return to their homes, is because it wasn't Israel's fault that they were expelled, it was the fault of the Arab countries, and it is unlikely that Israel will accept that responsibility. These people should, however, be monetarily reimbursed for their losses, and maybe even offered Israeli citizenship, if they were not enemies of the state.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

SLM3

I really don't know why you're sticking to these lies. According to the TARI publication by Phyllis Bennis entitled, "Understanding the Palestnian-Israeli Conflict", she clearly states that a large number of Israeli academics, the "new historians", carefully researched and completely debunked that myth. There were no such broadcasts, ever. They fled because they were being attacked by the Haganah, Palmach and Irgun militias. Others left because they were scared and believed they would eventually come home because international law protects their right to do so. Soldiers would drive through Palestinian villages screaming through their loud-speakers, "Deir Yassin, Deir Yassin!".

Again I am confused. Israel has what are commonly referred to as "nationality rights". This concept in practice favours Jews over non-Jews in such areas as social services, the right to own land, access to bank loans and education, military service, and more. How can you not recognize this vast difference?



Not even looking at the distant historical connection, are you really going to just ignore over 1200 years of direct Muslim rule? Are you so stubborn that you wont recgonize the fact that this area was a cultural and religious centre? That it was an important trading crossroad for several empires? That during this time it was an identifiable region within the larger empire, linked closely with what was then known as Greater Syria? How can you keep denying the existence of these people? My point about Sharon is that his family is Russian. It's ok to link him to a group of people "exiled" 1900 years ago, even if he probably has had no connection to an Israel since then, but you wont offer the same definiton to people that have been there for 1200 straight years? Arafat, like it or not, has family ties to Palestine that date back centuries. Sharon's background is Russian!! But you question Arafat's connection to the region?

Again, according to this latest publication from TARI, the UN estimated that Palestinians lost between $2.4 and $3.2 billion dollars in income due to Israeli border closures from October 2000 to September 2001. Do you realise how much money that is to these people? Occupation of Palestinian cities was matched by a complete division of the West Bank into tiny cantons. Villages are cut off from each other, from main roads, and are sorrounded. Armed checkpoints, destruction of roads, huge berms created by tractors, all had the purpose of preventing Palestinians to move between territories. Truckloads of produce rotted in the sun at checkpoints, milk soured, and workers could not even get to their jobs. Palestinians are also dependant on Israel for permits to pretty much do anything. Most of the time, these permits remain unattainable.

Again, instead of reimbursement, what if these people want to go back to their homes instead? What if they want to accept their right to return home, a right the Israelis even conceded to so that they could achieve their statehood. The majority of Palestinians don't want to become Israelis just like they don't want to become Lebanese or Egyptian or Jordanian. Why must they?

At the time of the UN Partition Plan, Jews comprised just 30% of the population and owned only 6% of the land. The Resolution, however, would have given the Jews 55% of the land and the Arabs, who already controlled 94%, just 45%. The area desginated for the Jews contained 450,000 Palestinian Arabs. Does this seem like a just decision to you? Can you not see why they would have turned down such a concept?

crumbbum

"I really don't know why you're sticking to these lies. According to the TARI publication by Phyllis Bennis entitled, "Understanding the Palestnian-Israeli Conflict"

What is TARI? I don't mean necessarily to say it is invalid, but I am just not familiar with it. The Israeli "new historians" were just that- they rewrote Israeli history. They had a political agenda in their work, and it is not objective. These books can't be used as the only reference to Israeli history, as such.
"There were no such broadcasts, ever. They fled because they were being attacked by the Haganah, Palmach and Irgun militias. Others left because they were scared and believed they would eventually come home because international law protects their right to do so. Soldiers would drive through Palestinian villages screaming through their loud-speakers, "Deir Yassin, Deir Yassin!"

I don't know about broadcasts- I didn't say there were broadcasts in 1948. The events took place over a fairly long amount of time. The arabs in Palestine were still encouraged and intimidated to leave, being promised they could return to their homes once the Jews had all been killed. Like I said, some villagers, in militarily important locations, were attacked and driven out, but this was not the majority, only 33%. "Others left because they were scared"- they were, but this was more from rumors and fear deliberately sown by agents of the Mufti, and other arab leaders. The rumors of Israeli soldiers raping women, in particular, led many to flee, even though this never happened in any instance. These rumors were spread deliberately to terrify the Palestinian Arabs. Internation law does not protect the right of the Palestinians who fled, expecting to return when the Jews were annihilated. Those who were forced out by the Haganah, Palmach or Irgun should be reimbursed if they were expelled only because of their location. If the village was collaborating with the Arab armies, and the refugees had been partners and supporters of the war against Israel, then Israel owes them nothing. Repatriation, however, is unrealistic at this point, since again, there would have been no war had not the Arabs attacked, and therefore the responsibility of the refugees is on the heads of the Arab countries. As far as the speaker saying "deir yassin", they might have done that, I don't know, while evacuating some villages, so as not to have to drive the people out physically. The Jews needed these areas in order to defend themselves from the Arab armies, and this was a way to make taking the area easier, and reduced the chances of blooshed. BTW, please don't accuse me of "lies", I am not lying or trying to spread misinformation here. That is insulting and unnecessary.

"Again I am confused. Israel has what are commonly referred to as "nationality rights". This concept in practice favours Jews over non-Jews in such areas as social services, the right to own land, access to bank loans and education, military service, and more. How can you not recognize this vast difference?"

This isn't true. Arabs, with the exception of the Druze, do not serve in the IDF, for two reasons. One, it would be wrong to force them to do so, since they would be fighting against their own people, and two, because it would be a security risk for Israel, as a sizable percentage of Arab-Israelis sympathize with the Palestinians, and have in recent years become increasingly radicalized. With the exception of army service, Arab-Israelis have equal citizenship rights as Jews. The lesser quality of some of their public services is the result, as I said before, of large families and failed tax payments. Economically, Arabs and Jews are in the same playing field, when the size of families, etc., is taken into account. A Jew with 7 kids does the same economically as an Arab with 7 kids- most Jewish Israelis, however, only have 2 or so children, and therefore have more diposable income. When the financial criteria is the same, they receive the same income for identical work. They are economically equal citizens. As far as bank loans, that is the banks' business, but I imagine that again it has to do with economic criteria, not racial. I was under the impression that Arab-Israelis do own land, but that it must be land ok'd by the government. This isn't surpising, given the reality of the region today. As far as education, Arab-Israelis have their own schools (I doubt arabs would enjoy Jewish history, etc.). They are funded by their own tax dollars, as are the Jewish schools. If the quality is lower, it's because they are underfunded, because of taxes not being paid by Israeli-Arabs. This isn't to say that Israel is some kind of utopian, perfect equality society- it's not. But for the most part, there is indeed at least economic and political equality. I do not mean to say that there aren't instances of discrimination in the country, I'm sure there are, just as there are everywhere, even in America, the most tolerant and diverse society on the planet. But Israeli-Arabs are by no means "2nd class citizens", and most of the claims against the Israeli government in this matter are unjustified, and can be disproven by studying the actual statistics, and economic data.


"Not even looking at the distant historical connection, are you really going to just ignore over 1200 years of direct Muslim rule? Are you so stubborn that you wont recgonize the fact that this area was a cultural and religious centre? That it was an important trading crossroad for several empires? That during this time it was an identifiable region within the larger empire, linked closely with what was then known as Greater Syria? How can you keep denying the existence of these people? My point about Sharon is that his family is Russian. It's ok to link him to a group of people "exiled" 1900 years ago, even if he probably has had no connection to an Israel since then, but you wont offer the same definiton to people that have been there for 1200 straight years? Arafat, like it or not, has family ties to Palestine that date back centuries. Sharon's background is Russian!! But you question Arafat's connection to the region?"

The Arab rule was for approximately 800 years, not 1200. The land has changed hands many times. When it was under Muslim control, it was never more than an underpopulated, backwater province of the Ottoman Empire. Yes, in ancient times it was an important trading route for many kingdoms and empires. Of course it is a religious center, it is arguably the center of world religion. It housed the Jewish Temples- Jesus supposedly preached at the 2nd temple, and Muhammed originally viewed himself as a Jewish prophet. It is the origin point of the world's 3 largest monotheistic religions. Sharon is not a Russian. He is a Jew. He is a Jew whose family comes from Russia. What is your point? Jews today are the bloodline descendants of the Israelites, from the time when the Temples stood (the Western wall is a wall of the 2nd Temple). The Jews were forced, kicking and screaming from their land by the Romans, and they have remembered their homeland ever since. Also in Israel, there is of course the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. It was originally a church, but was converted by the Ottomans. Arafat, if any of his family is from within the Palestine mandate (though you haven't shown which family members, or any evidence of this), so what? Again, most arabs in the land in 1948 had only come in recent years seeking employment, starting in 1880 or so. There were only 250,000 arabs in the whole place prior to Jewish immigration. If Arafat comes from one of those families, then why was he born in Cairo? What were his parents doing in Egypt?



"Again, according to this latest publication from TARI, the UN estimated that Palestinians lost between $2.4 and $3.2 billion dollars in income due to Israeli border closures from October 2000 to September 2001. Do you realise how much money that is to these people? Occupation of Palestinian cities was matched by a complete division of the West Bank into tiny cantons. Villages are cut off from each other, from main roads, and are sorrounded. Armed checkpoints, destruction of roads, huge berms created by tractors, all had the purpose of preventing Palestinians to move between territories. Truckloads of produce rotted in the sun at checkpoints, milk soured, and workers could not even get to their jobs. Palestinians are also dependant on Israel for permits to pretty much do anything. Most of the time, these permits remain unattainable."

I am aware that the IDF closures, curfews, checkpoints, etc. disrupt the Palestinian economy. However, the Israelis have no choice but to do this when Palestinian terrorists from these territories are constantly attempting to attack Israelis. If the terror stopped there would be no IDF presence in Palestinian areas, and life could resume normally. It is the persistence of terrorism against civilians, which has never been abandoned by the Palestinians as a legitimate tactic that results in this. By not stopping the terrorism, and the elements that breed it withing Palestinian society, the Palestinians (and more specifically, the corrupt and greedy leadership) brings this upon themselves, leaving Israel with little choice.


Again, instead of reimbursement, what if these people want to go back to their homes instead? What if they want to accept their right to return home, a right the Israelis even conceded to so that they could achieve their statehood. The majority of Palestinians don't want to become Israelis just like they don't want to become Lebanese or Egyptian or Jordanian. Why must they?

"At the time of the UN Partition Plan, Jews comprised just 30% of the population and owned only 6% of the land. The Resolution, however, would have given the Jews 55% of the land and the Arabs, who already controlled 94%, just 45%. The area desginated for the Jews contained 450,000 Palestinian Arabs. Does this seem like a just decision to you? Can you not see why they would have turned down such a concept?"

The partition plan was laid out as such that the Jews were the majority in the areas that would have been the Jewish state, and Palestinian arabs the majority in the Arab sections. The arabs did not control 94% of the land in 1948, unless you are counting Jordan, which was also originally part of the Palestine Mandate.
I think that many of the arabs originally would have been happy to live in peace with the Jews- early on in Jewish settlement, there were many examples of coexistence, that drastically improved living conditions for the Arabs, and was mutually appreciated and beneficial to both parties. As I said before, there were Arab leaders, especially the Mufti, who, seeking power for themselves, worked tirelessly to make co-existence impossible, by organizing attacks on Jews, by bullying and threatening Palestinian arabs who "collaborated" with Jews or sold them land, and by speading fear and hatred amongst the mostly poor and illiterate arab population. Then, later, under the shadow of the powerful arab countries, the state, and coexistence, was also rejected. The arab fellaheen had little say in the matter, as loyalty to their people was demanded of them. Besides, the Arabs announced that they would declare war even before the Partition Plan was ratified.

Anyway, this is probably my last post for awhile, since I'm going on a trip. Thank you for challenging me, and giving me the chance to debate with you. I've found it very interesting and stimulating. I might be able to post again, maybe once more, but no guarantees.

__________________
Truth is peace. We are all souls in bodies.

toxic515

Oh sheesh, this is great, but I am now spending entirely too much time reading some rather intelligent arguments about all of this!!! Thanks again to Sun Tzu and Crumbbum and others for providing such strong mind-fodder... I think I need a drink and a really crappy comedy movie to re-numb my mind... I'll try to come up with something witty to say later, as this is all too much to assimilate and address in one night.

__________________
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies
like a banana.