The palestinian case is flawed - can anyone explain to me wh

[Mattan Lass]

1

[maxfish17]

I can understand why the palestinians are angry. It was all their land until 1947 when the U.N. gave about half of it to Israel. And now they have about 10% of what they had in 1947.




(Edited by maxfish17 at 12:03 am on May 23, 2002)

[Bakunjin]

To Mattan Lass...
WILL YOU TELL ME WHY DID ISRAELI PEOPLE CHOSE ARIEL SHARON for prime minister if it is known what he was doing in Sabra and Shatila AND if it is known that the person responsible for all latest violence (last two years) is Ariel Sharon with his appearance by Al Aqsa (or somewhere near, I don't know egzactly where). He claimed it was in peacefull intentions but Hey! He is responsible for Sabra and Shatila!!!
Arafat and Barak had a final deal in negotiations and Sharon blew it up. So, choosing him it was choosing war...So please...

[Reuben]

a) Regarding the generous offer that you mentioned: this was not very generous at all. Zionists often like to maniulate words so they can quote offers of 97 per cent. This is not the case. At oslo the palestinians generousely agreed to recognize israel in 78 per cent of historic Palestine asking only for the other twenty two per cent. Barak offered the palestinians a proportion of this. THIS ALSO SHOWS THAT CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU SAID, THE PALESTINIANS ARE NOT ASKING FOR ISRAEL TO BE DESTROYED. Furthermore what they were offered was closer to 80 per cent with TEN PER CENT of their country still held by israeli settlers, and a furthr ten per cent under "indefinite temporary control'

If as you say Israel want peace (which seems pretty unlikely) then they must recognize that the most important prequisite to a lasting peace is justice!

[Maaja]

I've heard that Israel needs the war with Palestine because if it ended, they would have too many inner conflicts between orthodox Jews and not religious Jews. At the moment they don't have enough time for thinking about it, because they do have the common fight against Palestinians. I am not sure is it true but I think that in some way, it definitely is.

[Hattori Hanzo]

Israel might have most of the land, but they have way more of the people (more Jews than Muslims). I personally don't see why there can't be one country!

[maxfish17]

I think the Israelis have no right to the land they won in wars after 1947. The U.N. specifically gave them about half the land in the partition plan, and they've won huge chunks of land in the wars after 1947.

The best way to resolve the conflict fairly is to restore the borders to what they were in 1947. Everyone says the arabs missed a grand opportunity when Barak offered them land and they said no. The land he offered them was only 22% of what they had in 1947 (but I'll admit 22% is a lot more than what they have now)

Unfortunately Israel will never agree to putting the borders back to what they were in 1947. My Bubby's justification is:
"When you win land in a war, you never give it back. That's that whole point. There are never wars where they give back the land afterwards!"

Even so, it's still unfair to the arabs.

[Fires of History]

I'll tell you what's flawed: Israel's basis for existing in the first place.

[Reuben]

My Bubby's justification is:
"When you win land in a war, you never give it back. That's that whole point. There are never wars where they give back the land afterwards!"



Hey! thats my Bubby's justicfication as well. Although it is also mixed in with anti-arab racism

[Mattan Lass]

1

[El Che]

Is so disturbed and anoyed by this person`s statements that I can even answer him. This bullshit does not deserved to be dignified with an answer.

[Guest1]

yes... the evil palestinians came to replace the israeli "settlers", who got the name by accident... and yes, there is no such thing as a palestinian... my mother just decided to call herself that and fake being kicked out of her land at gun-point when she was four...

(Edited by Che y Marijuana at 1:12 am on May 24, 2002)

[Blasphemy]

matan, my fellow israeli, there are enough reasons why israel would want to continue iccupying the territories.

i'm sure you are familiar with the term "Eretz Israel Hashlema" (the complete land of israel). it means that the land of israel belongs only to the jews. this perception is twisted.

Golda Meir was a very intelligent woman, but her claim that there are no palestinian people is ludicrous. at the same breath you can say that there are no jewish people because they are either european or arabs or whatever.

[M O E]

Mattan, what kind of a fuckin' moronic cult stuffs your heads with those ideas. First of all, yes there's such a thing as Palastenians, if you've ever heard of the Felistiens and the Canaans, you would know that they are the the oldest tribes that have lived and controlled the region for thousands of years, most palastenians are decendents of the those tribes, and jordanians are mostly Palastenians who either left the region long ago, or were forced into exile, so you got it the other way around you idiot.

Second of all, you claim that the Palastenians don't have elections... are you nuts? give me a time when the palastenian situation has been stable enough to have elections...

and what's all this talk about Isrealis being nice and generous? The nubmer of Jewish settlement in Gaza and The West bank is rising and doesn't seem to be stoping, and one of the things that Isrealis says will never happen is stoping the building of jewish settlements. How's that for generous?

And what's all this talk about muslim brothers not helping their fellow muslims in Palestine, do you know how much donations are collected in some of those countries? but it never gets to the palestenians, all Isreal has to do is whine and ***** to the states, and the money is labelled as terrorist funding, and it's blocked.

get your fuckin' head out of your ass...

[Angie]

Curiously, there's an interesting quote from the Old Testament somewhere that claims that God would provide the people of Israel the land from the Nile to the Euphrates Rivers. Basically, this consists of Egypt, right through to Iraq, including present-day Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, most likely Kuwait, and judging from previous conflicts, probably Syria and Lebanon as well.

Not sure about anyone else, but I personally do not believe that God would be particularly happy with present-day Israel's activities, and would be especially displeased with Ariel Sharon. Were God truly in support of Israel? The Palestinians wouldn't be killing Israelis, and the Israelis wouldn't need to take their tanks into Palestinian areas to gain the land they were "promised".

What a crock.

[Blasphemy]

god is a big hoax. "thou shall not kill" he said, and went on and murdered 250 people just because they didn't support Moses's rule and wanted to hold elections. god is not only a murderer, but a fascist as well.

[Reuben]

im with blasphemy

[ComradeChe]

Hi Guys,
Maybe I'm not as good as you in writing, but i have to say that what Mattan Lass have said is not
that right, we palestinians hate war, but all the people in the world whoes land was taken in war
or in a UN's decision tried to get his land back, so we do, "israel's new and poorly organised army"
as you've said was not as poor as you think, he had the british support maybe not by men but by
wepons and training, and money.
and now israel is the strongest "existence" in the medeast.
Thanx

[ComradeChe]

we ruled this land befor the showing up of the judaism
I'll try to send the whole history one day

[Reuben]

welcome to the board comrade.

http://zapata765.bravepages.com/8809-.gif

[ComradeChe]

Thank you Reuben,
its an honor to be one of your Community

[LeonardoDaVinci]

Mattan Lass. It is amazing how all zionists and pro-israelis come up with the same bullshit time after time. I have already discussed the so called "generous" offer by Barak in Camp David, but here it goes again.

First of all, the state of Israel was founded in 1948, following the catastrophe that overtook European Jewry in the 1930s and 1940s, and which culminated in the extermination of 6 million Jews in the Nazi concentration camps. The ionist movement was able to channel the despondency felt by Jews at what had happened behind a perspective for creating a separate Jewish state through the partition of Palestine, which had been controlled by Britain since 1917. A Jewish state would build, it was claimed, a just and democratic haven for a people who had faced discrimination and oppression for centuries. It would be a state defined uniquely, not in geopolitical terms, but by religion. Its doors would be open to all who subscribed to Judaism.

The formation of such a state inside Palestine, a country where Jews were in the minority, inevitably led to what today would be called ethnic cleansing. Zionism's central slogan was: “A land without people for a people without
land.” Thus the very foundation of the state was based on
profoundly undemocratic principles: the denial of the rights of non-Jews already living there. It would also sanction control by religious authorities, something that modern states had rejected and overthrown centuries ago.

The sympathy felt throughout the world for the plight of the Jews following World War Two lent support for the creation of such a state. In addition, the major powers, and particularly the United States, saw the establishment of
Israel as a means of enhancing their own strategic interests in the region, or at least blocking those of Britain, which was then the dominant power in the Middle East. As a result, in November 1947, the Zionists were successful in persuading the United Nations General Assembly —to the fury of the Arab
world—to vote for the partition of Palestine into two states: one Palestinian and one Jewish.

Israelis and pro-Israelis often claim that the Palestinians were offered a genuine peace chance in Camp David but it was Arafat who turned down the offer and instead chose the path of "terror". Barak talked about his unprecedented concessions
and the 96% of Palestinian land that he had offered to give back. This supposed unparalleled Israeli "generosity" had become the accepted account of things in the United States. However, the truth is that never was an offer. According to those 'bases' discussed, Palestine would have sovereignty over 91 percent of the West Bank; Israel would annex 9 percent of the West Bank and, in exchange, Palestine would have sovereignty over parts of pre-1967 Israel equivalent to 1 percent of the West Bank, but with no indication of where
either would be.

However, there is a much bigger problem. They were only offering 91% of the West Bank, not 91% of the land occupied in 1967. They never talks about the Gaza Strip of which one-third is still under occupation and he never defines
what the Israelis meant by 91% of the West Bank. Israeli governments doesn't consider Greater Jerusalem as part of the West Bank. Left out of the equation was Arab east Jerusalem - illegally annexed by Israel after the 1967
Arab-Israeli Six Day War - the huge belt of illegally built Jewish settlements, including Male Adumim, around the city as well as those scattered in the West Bank, and a 10-mile wide military buffer zone around the Palestinian territories. Therefore, the total Palestinian land from which Israel was prepared to withdraw came to only around 46 per cent of the Palestinian land occupied in 1967. The Occupied Territories are 22% just of pre-'48 Palestine. So the entire "unprecedented" offer is about 10% of the original land of Palestine. Not to mention that the Israelis were not even prepared to talk about the right of return for the refugees.

When Sharon came to power, he made it very clear that he will not even entertain the thought of making half as many "concessions" as Barak did. His idea of peace is forcing the Palestinians into submission, and we have already witnessed his methods of obtaining peace.