Hamas, Islamic Jihad reject truce, pledge more attacks

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Radical, Sep 26, 2001.

  1. Radical Registered Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Captain Canada Stranger in Town Registered Senior Member

    Is this need to madly counter any comment, no matter how innocuous, that has the temerity to cast some suggestion of Israeli aggression a national chacteristic?

    The attempt to bully everyone else will not work. Look at Sharon after Straw mentioned the word 'Palestine.' His crude bullying of the Foreign Secretary for comments that were hardly controversial, is a typical example of the man. There can be absolutely no doubt that peace in the region will require the creation of a Palestinian state - which after all is what the Israelis signed up to in accepting the Oslo process - and a complete end to the Israeli occupation.

    And why do you feel the need to justify each Israeli atrocity with an account of some other? Are you saying that Arab atrocities would justify Israeli ones? Depending on which came first?

    As for the Sabra and Shatilla massacres - I think you'll find the truth is quite different, and your prime minister may soon be getting the Milosevic treatment once the Hague investigates...if the US allows it.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Radical Registered Senior Member

    Captain Canada

    i am simply stating some facts
    feel free to defy/counter/deny any byte or nibble out of them.

    do you feel intimidated by my posts?

    the majority in Israel think that the right solution is a unilaterally seperation from the west bank,gaza wth fences,border ,land mines and all that stuff.and the pals can do whatever they want over there.
    the problem is that yaser arafat does not want this due to varius reasons among them is the reason that the majority of the pal's population makes its livelihood in working inIsrael and exporting stuff into Israel.

    where did i justify any of the bad deeds Israel did to the pals?
    do paste.

    the only thing sharon is being accused of is that tose events took place while sabra and shatila and other parts of leb were under Israeli sovereignty.

    do you deny that not a single israeli participated in those events?
    do u deny that the xtian arabic lebs and druzes had a long score with the pals?
    do u deny that at the moment that those events were known to the Israeli army the israeli parlament declared that justice will be done and the ones who committed it are going to face trial (nowadays they are living rather ok in lebanon)
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Good link, Radical. Well, this needs a closer look.
  8. Captain Canada Stranger in Town Registered Senior Member

    Radical, this really is a pointless exercise. But all too often Israeli propogandists (through a lack of anything else to do?) seem to spend night and day twisting the facts and ignoring opposing viewpoints. I take on board what you say, but feel compelled to dispel myths you seek to perpetuate.

    So, yawn, check out a few facts rather than propoganda. Sabra and Shatilla from human rights watch:


    Details of the massacre: The massacre at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps occurred between September 16 and 18, 1982, after Israel Defense Forces (“IDF”) then occupying Beirut and under Ariel Sharon´s overall command as Israeli Defense Minister permitted members of the Phalange militia into the camps. The precise civilian death toll most likely will never be known. Israeli military intelligence estimated that between 700 and 800 people were killed in Sabra and Shatilla during the sixty-two-hour rampage, while Palestinian and other sources have claimed that the dead numbered up to several thousand. The victims included infants, children, women (including pregnant women), and the elderly, some of whom were mutilated or disemboweled before or after they were killed. Journalists who arrived on the scene immediately after the massacre also saw evidence of the summary execution of young men. To cite only one contemporaneous account, that of Thomas Friedman of the New York Times: “[M]ostly I saw groups of young men in their twenties and thirties who had been lined up against walls, tied by their hands and feet, and then mowed down gangland-style with fusillades of machine-gun fire.”

    By all accounts, the perpetrators of this indiscriminate slaughter were members of the Phalange (or Kata´eb, in Arabic) militia, a Lebanese force that was armed by and closely allied to Israel since the outbreak of Lebanon´s civil war in 1975. It must be noted, however, that the killings were carried out in an area under IDF control. An IDF forward command post was situated on the roof of a multi-story building located some 200 meters southwest of the Shatilla camp.

    Findings of the Kahan Commission:

    In February 1983, the three-member Israeli official independent commission of inquiry charged with investigating the events known as the Kahan Commission named former Defense Minister Sharon as one of the individuals who "bears personal responsibility" for the Sabra and Shatilla massacre.

    Former Defense Minister Sharon´s decision to allow the Phalange into the camps: The Kahan Commission report detailed the direct role of former Defense Minister Sharon in allowing the Phalangists into the Sabra and Shatilla camps. For instance, then-Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Rafael Eitan testified that the entry of the Phalangists into the refugee camps was agreed upon between former Defense Minister Sharon and himself. Thereafter, former Defense Minister Sharon went to Phalangist headquarters and met with, among others, a number of Phalangist commanders. A document issued by former Defense Minister Sharon´s office containing “The Defense Minister´s Summary of 15 September 1982” states: “For the operation in the camps the Phalangists should be sent in.” That document also stated that “the I.D.F. shall command the forces in the area.”

    Former Defense Minister Sharon´s disregard of the consequences of that decision: As to former Defense Minister Sharon´s testimony that “no one had imagined the Phalangists would carry out a massacre in the camps,” the Kahan Commission concluded that “it is impossible to justify [Sharon´s] disregard of the danger of a massacre” because “no prophetic powers were required to know that a concrete danger of acts of slaughter existed when the Phalangists were moved into the camps without the I.D.F.´s being with them.” In fact, the Commission found: “In our view, everyone who had anything to do with events in Lebanon should have felt apprehension about a massacre in the camps, if armed Phalangist forces were to be moved into them without the I.D.F. exercising concrete and effective supervision and scrutiny of them…. To this backdrop of the Phalangists´ [enmity] toward the Palestinians [in the camps] were added the profound shock [of Bashir Jemayel´s recent death]….”

    The Kahan Commission further found that:

    If in fact the Defense Minister, when he decided that the Phalangists would enter the camps without the I.D.F. taking part in the operation, did not think that that decision could bring about the very disaster that in fact occurred, the only possible explanation for this is that he disregarded any apprehensions about what was to be expected because the advantages . . . to be gained from the Phalangists´ entry into the camps distracted him from the proper consideration in this instance.

    The Commission explained that “if the decision were taken with the awareness that the risk of harm to the inhabitants existed, the obligation existed to adopt measures which would ensure effective and ongoing supervision by the I.D.F. over the actions of the Phalangists at the site, in such a manner as to prevent the danger or at least reduce it considerably. The Defense Minister issued no order regarding the adoption of such measures.”

    The Commission concluded: “In our view, the Minister of Defense made a grave mistake when he ignored the danger of acts of revenge and bloodshed by the Phalangists against the population in the refugee camps.”

    As its ultimate recommendation, the Kahan Commission recommended that Sharon be discharged from serving as Minister of Defense, and that, if necessary, the then-Prime Minister should consider removing him from office.

    * * *

    Human Rights Watch takes the position that what happened at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that all those responsible need to be brought to justice. Enough questions are raised by the Kahan Commission report to warrant a criminal investigation by Israel into whether former Defense Minister Sharon and other Israeli military officials—including some who knew the massacre was occurring but took no actions to stop it—bear criminal responsibility. The findings and conclusions of the Kahan Commission, however authoritative in terms of investigation and documentation of the facts surrounding the massacre, cannot substitute for proceedings in a criminal court in Israel or elsewhere that will bring to justice those responsible for the killing of hundreds of innocent civilians. The Lebanese government should institute a similar investigation into the Sabra and Shatilla massacre.
  9. Captain Canada Stranger in Town Registered Senior Member

    And for Your Reading Pleasure

    Why do I not respond to you point by point? Well apart from you constantly missing the point (a habit or problem?), I have better things to do. Still, I will provide you with some links and cut & paste material to sink your teeth into. I look forward to a reply.

    a series of links that may be interesting, though I doubt you'll read them:




    (1) "Barak has turned every stone to achieve peace."
    Truth is, he has turned every stone to build settlements. Since his first day in office, he has accelerated the pace of setting up new settlements (in the guise of "enlarging" existing ones), confiscating lands, demolishing Palestinian homes and building "by-pass roads" (whose main purpose is to add Palestinian lands to the 'settlement blocs" which he wants to annex to Israel.) In all these activities, Barak has done more than Netanyahu. In the political field, too, Barak has upstaged Netanyahu: Bibi returned at least the greater part of the town Hebron to the Palestinians. Barak has not returned one single inch of occupied territory.

    (2) "At Camp David, Barak went further than any previous Prime Minister."
    Even if this were true, it would mean very little. If one Marathon runner (Netanyahu) falls down after one mile, and another (Barak) falls down after three, the difference between them is not really important. What is important is that neither of them got even near the finishing line (26 miles). Barak's proposals at Camp David were far from the minimum necessary to make peace with the Palestinian people and the whole Arab world: Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem, and especially the compound of the holy mosques (Haram al-Sharif). Barak indicated at Camp David that he might "consider" some cosmetic changes (and thereby he indeed broke some of the Israeli taboos concerning Jerusalem) " but as a matter of fact he denied the Palestinians, the Arabs and the Muslims sovereignty over the compound of the holy mosques and the major Arab neighborhoods in the city. That's why the summit failed and the escalation started, leading up to the "al-Aksa intifada".

    (3) "Arafat blew up the Camp David summit."
    On the eve of his departure for the summit, Barak announced five "Red Lines", which he would not cross under any circumstances. Among them: Israeli sovereignty over the entire city of Jerusalem, No return to the 1967 border, Keeping 80% of the settlers were they are, No return of a single refugee to Israel!!! Afterwards he softened some of these stands, but not enough to come anywhere near an agreement.

    (4) "All the time, we give, give, give. Arafat doesn"t give anything."
    When the Palestinians agreed to a peace settlement based on the pre-1967 border (the Green Line), they were already giving up in advance 78% of the land between the sea and the Jordan river. They are ready to set up their state in the remaining 22%. Our government wants a "compromise" over this area. Meaning: "What's mine is mine, about what's yours, we shall compromise". (Factual background: the November 29, 1947, UN partition resolution gave the Jewish state 55% and the Arab state 45% of Palestine. In the ensuing war [started by the Arabs], we conquered half of the territory allotted to the Arab state. Thus the "Green Line" came about, leaving 78% of the country in our hands.) The problem is not expressed in percentage points only. Barak appears to be asking for only 10% of the occupied territories. In reality, it's closer to 30%, taking into account the territories he wants to annex in the Jerusalem area and place under his 'security control" in the Jordan valley. But even worse, in the map submitted to the Palestinians, these percentage points cut the country up from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state will consist of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers.

    (5) "How can one make peace with the Palestinians when they break every agreement?"
    Well, Palestinian violations pale in comparison with ours. Before the end of the 5-years interim period (May 1998), the IDF had to withdraw from all the West Bank and the Gaza Strip except 'specified military locations", settlements and Jerusalem. Barak refuses to do this even at this late date. Also, four 'safe passages" between the West Bank and Gaza should have been in operation long ago. In practice, only one was opened, and this one can only be used by Palestinians after much harassment.

    (6) "Barak is the heir to Rabin."
    Far from it. Within a few months he has succeeded in destroying not only all the achievements of Rabin, but those of Begin, too. He has buried the Oslo agreement (to which he objected from the beginning) and destroyed the relations built up with much effort between Israel and a number of Arab countries. He has created ferment among the Arab citizens in Israel itself. In many respects, he has thrown us back to 1948, even 1936.

    (7) "The lynching in Ramallah shows that the Arabs are animals."
    In a confrontation like this one, each side points to the atrocities committed by the other, "forgetting" the atrocities committed by his own side. Israel points to the horrible lynching, the Palestinians point to the killing of 12- years old Muhammad al-Dira in the arms of his father and the brain-killing bullets used by Israel army snipers against stone-throwing children. Our acts of violence come in response to the actions of the Palestinians, theirs come in response to ours. It's a vicious circle.

    (8) "The Palestinian media are instruments of incitement."
    That is true, but unfortunately there is no great difference between theirs and ours in this respect. Ours and theirs speak the same language, following guidelines from above. When Palestinian TV shows over and over again the picture of the boy dying in the arms of his father, that's incitement. When our TV shows dozens of times a day, day after day, the atrocious lynching in Ramallah, that's incitement.

    (9) "They shoot at us and the Israeli army is exercising self-restraint."
    It is strange that in two weeks of 'self-restraint"" about 110 Palestinian and 3 Israeli soldiers have been killed. No Israeli officer has explained (or was asked to explain) this curious ratio. (The explanation is, of course, that the Israeli army has long in advance trained snipers to choose a person from among the demonstrators, take exact aim through a telescopic sight and hit him with a special deadly, high-velocity bullet. Instead of "pacifying" the area, as intended, this method has inflamed it even more. Every funeral has led to another confrontation.)

    (10) "The Arabs send their children against our army positions, so that they can be killed, in order to provide pictures for the world media."
    This is a horrendous accusation, betraying an obnoxious racism. It contains the belief that Arab parents do not care about their children dying. In the struggle waged by our underground organizations before 1948 and during our War of Independence, boys and girls played an important part. The arms training of Palestinian boys is no different from the training of our own Gadna youth battalions. The boy who, in 1948, destroyed a Syrian tank at kibbutz Deganya has become a national hero. When a people fights for its very existence and freedom, its youth cannot but take part. (I joined the Irgun, defined by the British as a terrorist organization, at the age of 14 and a half. By the age of 15 I carried guns.) It is an illusion to think that Palestinian parents can restrain their children from going out into the street and throwing stones, when they live under a cruel occupation and their brothers and sisters provide examples of heroism and self-sacrifice. It is quite natural for the Palestinian people to be proud of them. Joan of Arc, by the way, was 16 years old when she led the French army into battle. The settlers routinely exploit their children and babies, not hesitating to put them in harm's way.

    (11) "Again it is proved that the whole world is against us. They are all anti- Semites."
    World public opinion is always on the side of the underdog. In this fight, we are Goliath and they are David. In the eyes of the world, the Palestinians are fighting a war of liberation against a foreign occupation. We are in their territory, not they in ours. We settle on their land, not they on ours. We are the occupiers, they are the victims. This is the objective situation, and no minister of propaganda (like Mr. Nachman Shai) can change that.

    (12) "We have no partner for peace."
    True, we have no partner for a peace that Palestinians see as a capitulation to Israeli ultimatums. We do have a partner for a peace based on equality and mutual respect. The solution is quite clear: the State of Palestine must be set up within the pre-1967 border, with Jerusalem serving as the capital of the two states - East Jerusalem with the Haram al-Sharif must belong to Palestine, West Jerusalem with the Western Wall and the Jewish quarter must belong to Israel.. When this solution is accepted in principle, negotiations can start about the other problems: mutual security, exchange of territories, a moral and practical solution for the refugee problem, water allocation etc. This peace will come about, because the only alternative is hell for both sides


    Since the establishment of Israel there have been five major wars between Arabs and the Israelis. These wars occured in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982. Israel claims that the Arabs started all the wars. Although there has been low-intensity conflict in the intervening years and major conflagrations during the "War of Attrition" in 1969-1970 and the 1978 invasion of Lebanon, massive civil disobedience during the Uprising of 1988, and in 2000-2001 during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, it is these five wars Israel refers to when it makes its claims, creating the impression that Israel has only acted "in self-defence".

    The roots of the 1948 war go as far back as the first recognition on the part of the Palestinians that the Zionists wished to establish a Jewish state on their land. In late 1947 the United Nations proposed that Palestine be divided into a Palestinian Arab state and a Jewish state. The UN Partition Plan recommended that 55 percent of Palestine, and the most fertile region, be given to the Jewish settlers who compromised 30 percent of the population. The remaining 45 percent of Palestine was to comprise a home for the other 70 percent of the population who were Palestinians. The Palestinians rejected the plan because it was unfair.

    Israel and its supporters claim that the Arabs first attacked in Janurary 1948 and then invaded Israel in May 1948.

    The truth is that by May 1948 Zionist forces had already invaded and occupied large parts of the land which had been allocated to the Palestinians by the UN Partition Plan. In January 1948 Israel did not yet exist.

    The evidence that Israel started the 1948 war comes from Zionist sources. The History of the Palmach which was released in portions in the 1950s (and in full in 1972) details the efforts made to attack the Palestinian Arabs and secure more territory than alloted to the Jewish state by the UN Partition Plan (Kibbutz Menchad Archive, Palmach Archive, Efal, Israel).

    Already, Zionist forces were implementing their "Plan Dalet" to

    "control the area given to us [the Zionists] by the U.N. in addition to areas occupied by Arabs which were outside these borders and the setting up of forces to counter the possible invasion of Arab armies after May 15" (Qurvot 1948, p. 16, which covers the operations of Haganah and Palmach, see also Ha Sepher Ha Palmach, The Book of Palmach).

    1. Operation Nachson, 1 April 1948

    2. Operation Harel, 15 April 1948

    3. Operation Misparayim, 21 April 1948

    4. Operation Chametz, 27 April 1948

    5. Operation Jevuss, 27 April 1948

    6. Operation Yiftach, 28 April 1948

    7. Operation Matateh, 3 May 1948

    8. Operation Maccabi, 7 May 1948


    9. Operation Gideon, 11 May 1948

    10. Operation Barak, 12 May 1948

    11. Operation Ben Ami, 14 May 1948

    12. Operation Pitchfork, 14 May 1948

    13. Operation Schfifon, 14 May 1948

    The operations 1-8 indicate operations carried out before the entry of the Arab forces inside the areas allotted by the UN to the Arab state. It has to be noted that of thirteen specific full-scale operations under Plan Dalet eight were carried out outside the area "given" by the UN to the Zionists.

    Following is a list drawn from the New York Times of the major military operations the Zionists mounted before the British evacuated Palestine and before the Arab forces entered Palestine:

    · Qazaza (21 Dec. 1947)

    · Sa'sa (16 Feb. 1948)

    · Haifa (21 Feb. 1948)

    · Salameh (1 March 1948)

    · Biyar Adas (6 March 1948)

    · Qana (13 March 1948)

    · Qastal (4 April 1948)

    · Deir Yassin (9 April 1948)

    · Lajjun (15 April 1948)

    · Saris (17 April 1948)

    · Tiberias (20 April 1948)

    · Haifa (22 April 1948)

    · Jerusalem (25 April 1948)

    · Jaffa (26 April 1948)

    · Acre (27 April 1948)

    · Jerusalem (1 May 1948)

    · Safad (7 May 1948)

    · Beisan (9 May 1948).

    David Ben-Gurion confirms this in an address delivered to American Zionists in Jerusalem on 3 September 1950:

    "Until the British left, no Jewish settlement, however remote, was entered or seized by the Arabs, while the Haganah, under severe and frequent attack, captured many Arab positions and liberated Tiberias and Haifa, Jaffa and Safad" (Ben-Gurion, Rebirth and Destiny of Israel (N.Y.: Philosophical Library, 1954, p. 530).

    Although late PM Ben-Gurion speaks of "liberating" Jaffa it was alloted to the Palestinians by the UN Partition Plan.

    Late PM Menachem Begin adds:

    "In the months preceding the Arab invasion, and while the five Arab states were conducting preparations, we continued to make sallies into Arab territory. The conquest of Jaffa stands out as an event of first-rate importance in the struggle for Hebrew independence early in May, on the eve [that is, before the alleged Arab invasion] of the invasion by the five Arab states" (Menachem Begin, The Revolt, Nash, 1972, p. 348)

    On 12 December 1948 David Ben Gurion confirmed the fact that the Zionists started the war in 1948:

    "As April began, our War of Independence swung decisively from defense to attack. Operation 'Nachson'...was launched with the capture of Arab Hulda near where we stand today and of Deir Muheisin and culminated in the storming of Qastel, the great hill fortress near Jerusalem" (Ben Gurion, Rebirth and Destiny of Israel (N.Y.: Philosophical Library, 1954, p. 106).

    Israeli historians have themselves refuted the claim that the Arabs started the 1948 war. Benny Morris uncovered a report from the Israeli Defense Force Intelligence Branch (30 June 1948) that shows a deliberate Israeli policy to attack the Arabs should they resist and expel the Palestinians (Benny Morris, "The Causes and Character of the Arab Exodus from Palestine: the Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Branch Analysis of June 1948", Middle Eastern Studies, XXII, January 1986, pp. 5-19).

    In sum, it is not true that the Arabs "invaded Israel" in 1948.

    First, Israel did not exist at the time of the alleged invasion as an established state with recognised bounderies. When the Zionist leaders established Israel on 15 May 1948 they purposely declined to declare the bounderies of the new state in order to allow for future expansion.

    Secondly, the only territory to which the new state of Israel had even a remote claim was that alloted to the Jewish state by the UN Partition Plan. But the Zionists had already attacked areas that were alloted to the Palestinian Arab state.

    Thirdly, those areas which the Arab states purportedly "invaded" were, in fact, exclusively areas alloted to the Palestinian Arab state proposed by the UN Partition Plan. The so-called Arab invasion was a defensive attempt to hold on to the areas alloted by the Partition Plan for the Palestinian state.

    Finally, the commander of Jordan's Arab Legion, was under orders not to enter the areas alloted to the Jewish state (Sir John Bagot Glubb, "The Battle for Jerusalem", Middle East International, May 1973).
  10. tsahi Registered Member

    this was the first time an arab layed foot in israel, hundreds of years after the jews estableshed a kingdom here.

    this was the first time in history the arabs in palestine declared themselves as a nation. fact is, if it weren't for zionizm, there never would have been a palestinian nation. they realized that they have common interests when these were jeopardized by the development of the Jewish settlment.

    or combats in which the arabs lost their asses.

    ...the Jews responded to it by dancing in the streets. the arabs (by then they weren't called "palestinians" yet) can only blame themselves for not having a state already then.
    that, and 2 other things: 1, the syrians using Soviet tactics that fail in face of constant counter-attack of the IDF. 2, egypt, never really wanting to take over sinai again, stopped it's progress after 10 km, letting us transfer forces to the syrian front.

    not true. the "iron fist" was ordered 2 years later, when the Intifada started, and palestinians started violent demonstrations, in which they throu stons (sometimes as big as building bricks off roofs) and molotov coctails at israeli soldiers.

    to the "point", occupation shouldn't exists, and can only result in an uprise (see the "jewish-british war"). nevertheless, the current "uprise" in the territories is a well planned attack, skillfuly concertrated by Arafat, that involves trained soldiers of his own security forces, as well as members of Hammas and Islamic Jihad, groups that see the entire state of Israel as one giant setllment on their land, and will not rest until it is removed. most common palestinians do not participate in it. it has a clear objective: to achieve in the battle field what he couldn't achieve near the negotiating table, i.e. sole soverieghnity on the teple mount (which they deny it ever hosted the temple) and a right of return to every refugee, his son and grandson, which will result in the destruction of israel.

    conclusion: yes, they do have a right for self determination, and no, arafat is not the one that will get it for them.
  11. tsahi Registered Member

    well.... no! the palestinians never ever had a country of their own. and if it weren't for israel, they never would have either. their arab "brothers" would never have given a bunch of villagers a country of their own, and if zionizm didn't exists, my guess is that this country whould have beed devided between syria, jordan and egypt.
  12. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Yow! This conflict has no end. I just don't know what to think now.

    I say we partitian Afghanistan and send the palestinians over there. And while we are at it, let's make space for the Kurds in Iraq. <img src = "http://www.sciforums.com/t4091/sc67f05ded9e7685b6abd853c721a13d9/images/icons/icon10.gif">
  13. Captain Canada Stranger in Town Registered Senior Member


    Well finally, we get to address the main points of the dispute itself rather than petty bickering over the struggle (I think the rights and wrongs of 'atrocities', 'terrorism' and all that follows is dependant upon a view regarding the ultimate rights and wrongs).

    Interesting take on it, though I would, as you no doubt expect, take issue with much of what you say.

    There is some truth to this. But of course Palestine was a melting-pot of ethnic and religious groups. The Arabs did not so much displace the existing population as belnd in. Just as not all Jews left, they were not replaced by Arabs. Palestinains are still a Semitic people.

    Well, the issue was one that developed from a Western notion of the nation state. If we are to judge all self-governing entities against a 19th Century notion of the nation-state, then yes, Palestine never was a state. It was always a distinct province ruled by a succession of semi-autonomous rulers within the framework of a larger empire. The same could be said for Scotalnd and Wales. And as you point out, the national convention predates any declaration of an Israeli state by some 25 years - even under Western conceptions of the nation state.

    Well I think that's a bit disingenuous. They were also held back by the British and shafted by Lawrence.

    I could go on, but to cut it short will ask a couple of questions.

    What legitimate claim does Israel have to the West Bank and Gaza?

    Why does Israel continue to tear up and ignore agreements it has signed (settlement building etc.)?

    What do you expect the Palestinians to do in their situation?

    I do agree that Arafat is not the man to deliver though. Equally, I am at a loss to see who on the Palestinian side could. I have much sympathy for them - I feel thay have a legitimate claim to a genuinely sovereign and contiguous state, but have been screwed by just about everybody - the West, Israel, Arab states, their leadership. In my mind though, that does not weaken the need for a just settlement to a just cause.
  14. tsahi Registered Member

    in fact,
    by then there wheren't many jews to expell, because most of them where spread all over the middle east and the roman empire, following the crack down on the maccabian revolt.
    this has no relevance. the cultural differences between Jews and Arabs are more or less as those between America and the Taliban. we are complete opposite in values, and this is one of the reasons to the conflict.
    first of all,
    and this was only the zionist decleration. needless to say, jews existed as a nation (with or without a state) since ~2500BC.
    but this is not what i meant. regardless of any palestinian state, they did not exist as a nation, as an ethnic group, that shared common interests and aspirations, prior to that declaration (i think Hanan Ashrawi won't like this

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ). jews are praying to the rebuilt of the temple every morning (or at least the religios of them do ) in the last 2000 years.

    ...not to kill all jews. they expressed their disagreement with resolution 181 by atacking every jewish setlment.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page