The Israel / Palestine situation

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I remember , i talked with 37 yeah old woman ( jewish) , when i asked her , what she thinks about palestinians - one word came from her mouth " Animals " , it was the most non-explicit word from her mouth about them . I think i know , who invented Nazism . Maybe Not .

And i still think that country called Israel will bring much more suffer , pain and agony to ALL people in the area then peace , Love and Justice .

Some people , you talk to them , they don't want to hear you , they keep looking at others as dead corps , enemies , rats , shit , junk . this concerns all of us .

This is my sincere opinion , i have nothing against jews and this is not anti-jewish or nazi post .

This is what i feel .
Please tell or explain me : what was the reason for Israel to be constructed in that area ????
 
pinkfloyd said:
I remember , i talked with 37 yeah old woman ( jewish) , when i asked her , what she thinks about palestinians - one word came from her mouth " Animals " , it was the most non-explicit word from her mouth about them .

I hate it when people oversimplify a situation based on what they heard one person say. You're going to have to talk to a lot more Jewish people before you start making gross generalizations about how they think. They're a diverse group of people you know, even the Israelis...
Also you don't mention in what context she said something like that; if one of her loved ones has been injured/killed in an attack, it is easier to understand where she is coming from (and no, I do not agree with her).

I think i know , who invented Nazism . Maybe Not .

I find that very offensive...and pointless..and just silly really...

And i still think that country called Israel will bring much more suffer , pain and agony to ALL people in the area then peace , Love and Justice .

As if Israel is the only thing staying in the way of peace in the Middle East. Let's foget about crazed dictators, fundamentalist terrorist groups, etc. Anyway, Israel is capable of living with its neighbours in peace, it has done so for many years with Egypt and Jordan after having negotiated treaties with real leaders who had a vision for peace, unlike Arafat who is too concerned with saving his own a**.

Please explain me : what was the reason for Israel to be constructed in that area ????

Please see the previous posts in this thread by STING2 and others.
 
Last edited:
Sting2
Originally posted by STING2
I'd be careful about defining someone's arguement as not being solid just because they have not cited an internet source. You certainly have not cited every single post you have made at interference, but I'm not going to then say you don't have a solid arguement for that reason alone. Its fine to list sources of info whether they be biased or unbiased and present info to back your arguement up. Whats the point in defining someones arguement as not being solid by a single criteria. Present your information and sources if you have them and make your point and move on. Were getting into the whole clarification thing now. Most post on these discussion boards are uncited and based on the general knowledge one may have gained from looking at multiple sources on a particular topic over several years. One may have read or learned from certain people the information they present here and may not be able to identify a particular source at the current time for the info and idea's they present. Don't assume that just because someone has not cited an internet source for their points that they don't have a solid arguement.

This particular point we are revolving around doesn't make much sense to continue discussing since it doesn't add anything to the thread's topic. However it's necessary to clarify that I did not say that you didn't have a solid argument because you didn't cite an internet source. My point is that you refuted my arguments without providing any reason as to why you thought they were wrong other than you disagreed with them. I'm aware that "most posts on these discussion boards are uncited and based on the general knowledge one may have gained from looking at multiple sources on a particular topic over several years and that one may have read or learned from certain people the information they present here and may not be able to identify a particular source at the current time for the info and ideas they present", in fact, as you have correctly said, I did not reference every entry I posted. This is because, as you say, it is sometimes difficult to pinpoint the source even if you are absolutely certain you read the information somewhere and because, unless it is necessary to reinforce an argument or to contend someone else's claims, it makes no sense at all. However when emphatically refuting a post which contains precise and cited information I believe it necessary to present certain references (not necessarily internet ones) to back such a refutation, otherwise the rejection of arguments sounds unwarranted and there's nothing left for the other part to argue or agree with. This prevents debate which is, in my opinion, the main reason which justifies the existence of an open forum. If I'm deprived of the possibility of debating it makes no sense for me to participate in something like this as instead of a dialogue it would become a monologue. I mean it is all right to present information, make your point and move on, if to state your position is all you want. It doesn't seem to be your policy though, as you evidently like to indulge in debate, which is great. It isn't mine either as I don't post just to present my position but rather to debate with people as, further than just listening to other people's views, finding out the reasons why they hold such views, broadens my scope since it allows me to see things from another angle and either reinforce my own opinion or else change it based on new info or a perspective I wasn't aware of.

In my opinion I would not automatically label a source that is from a citizen of Israel or an Israely organization as a Zionist source.

Why not? What's wrong with it? I don't find the term Zionist to have any particular negative connotation - it's simply indicative of sources/people favourable to the process of creation of the state of Israel the way it was and its policy of continuity along the lines it has. It's true that not every Israeli or Israeli organisation is Zionist in the pure sense of the term. However whenever I have used the term it was meant to express what I defined as Zionist.

The UN source is great. But I would not present it as the Gospel or that it is entirely free of Bias, the report itself that is.

I did not say it is the "gospel" or the only valid source on the subject, I simply presented it as a source which I believe to be within the obvious limits of what can be considered free of bias, objective. If you don't feel it is, it is perfectly OK. I was only curious to find out what parameters you take into account to consider a source unbiased since it seems to me from what I've read from you on this and other threads that you deem biased all sources which aren't in sync with your own views. This is not to attack you but rather to be able to understand what you mean by "biased".

I never said "try telling an Israely". Look back at that post where I first mentioned Rainbow.

Your exact quote is "try exlpaining that to our fellow Interferencer RAINBOW who lives in Israel". Is it that much different to have the need of making a point of it?
 
pinkfloyd said:
I remember , i talked with 37 yeah old woman ( jewish) , when i asked her , what she thinks about palestinians - one word came from her mouth " Animals " , it was the most non-explicit word from her mouth about them . I think i know , who invented Nazism . Maybe Not .

YOU BETTER EXPLAIN THIS COMMENT AND FAST!!!!!

After reading your broken-English post, I am hoping that I have lost something in what you were trying to say. Please tell me I am right. If however you decide to tell me that you think the Jews "invented" Naziism

YOU BETTER GIVE A GOOD GODDAMNED EXPLANATION FOR YOUR COMMENT!!!!!!!!!!
 
pinkfloyd throws the word "nazi" around this forum quite often and very casually. I am surprised he has gotten away with it this far. It is not the only controversial word he uses either. I can see where some people would have the opinion that pinkfloyd is offensive.

~U2Alabama
 
First of all , i ' m not against jews ( i have thier blood in my veins ) , i never meant to say harsh words or to hurt somebody here , ALright !!!
However , some political views by certain jews , i find really offensive towards other nationalities , and i reallly don't like them . I don't understand why people should differ each other by color of thier pants or skin . Nazism was not inveted by jews , but by all people .
 
Official apologise

OK OK , i apologise , for my 1st post in this thread , ok
um , frankly i just was shocked by how she spoke about different race that's all .

Peace for all .
 
Ultraviolet7:

I in general agree with you on the whole debate thing, but don't think its right to go around and lable other peoples positions as not solid or weak because they failed in that particular instance to cite a particular source. I clearly stated that I did not have enough time to respond in that post.

Thanks for clarifying the Zionist thing.

I don't think its fair to say that I deem all sources with views different from my own as biased. I could certainly make the same generalization about you based on things you have posted, but I'm not going to do that. Such labling and generalizations, in my opinion, don't contribute to the main topic of the thread.

I think raw statistical information has a good chance of being free of bias. The problem is when objective information is surrounded with subjective statements and conclusions based on that objective material. Someone looking at the same objective data might reach a different conclusion based on other things he/she knows personally, from other sources, or other people. Its very difficult to find any source that could not be construed in some way as being biased. At the same time, just because a source is perhaps biased or even clearly biased does not in of itself mean that it is incorrect or not legitimate on a particular issue. If there is time and I have a particular source available, I'll cite it, if I feel it would make an important contribution to the debate. But I'm far more interested in someone's collective knowledge, gained in a variety of ways, than a single particular source.

"try exlpaining that to our fellow Interferencer RAINBOW who lives in Israel" is a lot different from simply saying and claiming that I said "try telling and Israely". I had just had a discussion with RAINBOW and something you said immediately triggered something she had been concerned about. Notice I said "try explaining" not "try telling", there is a difference. In addition, were not talking about any Israely, but a fellow interferencer who often reads your comments on the situation in her country. There is a clear difference and obviously you mis-quoted me. But either way I really don't think its a big deal, so I'd really like to let this one go if you don't mind.

There is actually a book that was supposed to come out this week on many of the things we are talking about, but now I'm not sure if it is coming out or even if it still exists. This an interesting and complex topic and I'll respond when I have the time to give it justice and perhaps a few good sources to look at.
 
pinkfloyd said:
First of all , i ' m not against jews ( i have thier blood in my veins ) , i never meant to say harsh words or to hurt somebody here , ALright !!!
However , some political views by certain jews , i find really offensive towards other nationalities , and i reallly don't like them . I don't understand why people should differ each other by color of thier pants or skin . Nazism was not inveted by jews , but by all people .


That is fine, but understand when you post here, you are putting your opinions out there...

Nazism was not inveted by jews , but by all people

I will still say, however that this is still a shallow statement. Nazism was not invented by all people, but actually by a specific group of people in Germany. The National Socialist party. To say "all people" invented this is a bit unfair as a group of people who had six million of their own slaughtered for no good reason clearly had no role in inventing this.

that's all.
 
Not George Lucas, cool posting... YOu put things down clearly...

I suggest people should watch John Pilgrims videos on the Arab-Israeli conflict....

This is where you can actually see ex-Israeli soldiers say how disgusted they are with their government...

This is where you can see an Israeli father who lost his daughter in a suicide attack, say that the victims in this was his daugter and the suicide bomber, and the agressor was Sharon and his administration.....
Lets stop the terrorism by tracking the agressor....
I pray that no more innocent blood has to be shed...

Peace out,
 
If you are feeling quizy ouizy then don't look at this thread... Truth of the matter of fact is that this is a discussion on the
Arab-Israeli conflict, anyone sane should not feel Happy Go-Lucky about this topic in the first place.:censored:
 
discussion and debate educates and broadens the mind.... it can also ultimately lead to peace and resolve.

for some, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict may be a sensitive issue.
those people perhaps should simply stay away from such threads. on the other hand, for those who have any opinions to share, we can together work towards a common understanding, through intelligent yet peaceful debate.
 
Amna said:

I suggest people should watch John Pilgrims videos on the Arab-Israeli conflict....

Peace out,

It's John Pilger ;) (just to clarify in case someone actually goes hunting for this film) and the film is called "Palestine is Still the Issue."
 
CannibalisticArtist
War Child

Location: West Coast babyeee
Local time:
03-31-2003 09:53 PM
Registered: Nov 2001
Posts: 505


10-23-2002 03:04 PM -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter. everything is subjective, including death.
if its your freedom fighter fine!!!! but what freedom fighter would bomb the enemies children at an ice cream store? i fail to see the logic! if you want to be a freedom fighter wich i have no problem with fight the people who need fighting innocent people and babies getting killed is a horrible thing and if anyone stands by it as supporting their country they should be killed.... lets save some babie yall...
 
I know this is from alternet BUT...

Penny Rosenwasser spoke in my class (international relationships between rich and poor nations) earlier this year. This thread made me think of her article, it was assigned reading.
:shrug: discuss if you like.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14770

Personal Voices: Crossing the Green Line

By Penny Rosenwasser, AlterNet
December 16, 2002

I returned from Israel and Palestine months ago; and still I dream of felafel stands, security checks at every caf? ? and a sea of taxis and donkey carts, baking for hours in the blazing sun, waiting to crawl through a Gaza checkpoint.


As an American Jew, for three weeks I criss-crossed the Green Line, the shifting border between Israel and Palestine, reconnecting with old friends and meeting new ones on this, my seventh trip to the region. This time I participated in the International Solidarity Movement's Freedom Summer campaign, doing nonviolent direct action with Palestinians against the Occupation and also networking with Israeli peace activists.


In Gaza I stayed near the spot where, one week later, the Israeli military dropped a one-ton bomb on an apartment building, assassinating a Hamas leader suspected of planning suicide bombings. Nine children were killed with him ? and this only hours after Hamas had indicated a willingness to stop suicide bombings, if Israel would withdraw from Palestinian population centers. I also gazed from a hill overlooking Jerusalem, near the Hebrew University cafeteria where seven Israelis and Americans were subsequently killed by a Palestinian explosive a few days after the Gaza bombing.


In Tel Aviv my friends Anna and Leon told me how their 8-year-old screams when they leave him to go to the movies, terrified that they will be killed by a bomb, or will return without a leg or an arm. "Whenever I see 15 people in a group," Leon sighs, "I think, 'This is a good target.'"


In nearby Al-Amari refugee camp, I witnessed soldiers rounding up hundreds of Palestinian men and boys, and holding them in a field, handcuffed. "You're scaring women and children. Do you ever think about what you are doing?" my friend asked one young soldier. He looked down. "I think about it all the time," he murmured.


I traveled to Gaza with eight other Americans and one Canadian between the ages of 23 and 61; half of us were Jews. Our Palestinian host Ali was so moved by our presence that he introduced us to everyone he knew: "They are Jews, and they stand with us for peace." Most of these Palestinians had never before met a Jew without army fatigues and a gun.


In Rafah camp, Ali showed us where nine homes had been demolished the night before. In a house left standing nearby, scarred by bullet holes, we met 2-year-old Deeah, wearing overalls with elephants on it. He is so frightened by the constant Israeli shelling, his mother said, that he still does not speak.


Upon leaving southern Gaza we approached the soldiers up in their concrete towers, their guns pointed. Holding our international passports high so they would not shoot, we asked them to open the checkpoint. Two hours later, they finally lifted the gate, while a morass of cars jockeyed to squeeze through before the gate again slammed shut. Although Israel claims that checkpoints ensure security, no IDs were checked, no cars searched. "It's all about power and control ? and humiliation," Ali sighed. "This is what builds hatred in people."


"But I have a dream," he continued. "That Israel will be my neighbor ? there are a lot like me who believe this. One day the peacemakers will win, and you will come here as tourists ? not to stand at checkpoints."


Back in Jerusalem, I spent an evening with 50 Israeli youth who are considering refusing their army service. My friend Yvonne was there with her teenaged son, Tomer, whom I had held in my lap as a little boy. In the last year, nearly 400 Israeli high schoolers have signed letters declaring their opposition to Israel's human rights abuses, joining the nearly 500 reservists who signed a statement refusing to serve any longer in an Occupation army. Some young people present had already served prison time for refusing army duty.


I spoke about what I had seen in Gaza. Afterwards, a young soldier approached me, gun slung over his back. "Thank you," he smiled. "Your talk was so powerful. Now I would like to go to Gaza, without this uniform, to see for myself."


Even after hearing all the reports of Jenin refugee camp, I was unprepared for what I witnessed there: a devastation like the aftermath of a giant earthquake. Trudging through mountains of debris ? coming upon a child's shoe, a smashed wheelchair, a mangled sewing machine, a couch dangling out of a half-demolished house ? I felt I was walking through a graveyard. When we saw wires poking out of the ground, my Palestinian friend whispered, "We are walking on the second story of a house." I wondered how many children, women and men had been buried alive beneath my feet.


My friend Hanan is a striking young Israeli-Palestinian lawyer, who "opposes attacks on Jewish Israeli civilians." She has not yet recovered from taking survivors' testimonies from the April assault on Jenin. "We found one man alive, underneath the rubble," she said. "He said the last thing he remembered was his grandchildren trapped with him, crying 'Grandfather, we are so hungry, we want to eat!"


When my group entered Nablus soldiers stopped us at the checkpoint, even though there was no curfew that day. As I tried to negotiate with them, one soldier looked at me intently: "I want to help you, I believe in what you are doing," he said quietly. Two hours later, when we were finally allowed to pass, he crossed the road and shook my hand. "Good luck," he smiled.


In Nablus I marched with Palestinians and internationals against an Israeli-imposed curfew that holds 2 million Palestinians captive inside their homes, sometimes for days at a time ? homes where 10 people may share two rooms. Because they cannot go to their jobs, or harvest their crops, the poverty level throughout Palestine is increasing dramatically. Reports from the US Agency for International Development state that 30 percent of Palestinian children under 5 are suffering from chronic malnutrition. Our taxi driver shrugged, "A kilo of tomatoes is only 2 shekels (40 cents) ? but who has 2 shekels?"


But despite the curfew, in the late afternoon something magical happens. As the light turns amber, children appear on rooftops and balconies ? all flying kites. The sky fills with these homemade wonders, symbolizing a high-flying spirit that prevails, despite overwhelming suffering. They remind me of graffiti I saw in Gaza: "If you destroy our houses, you will not destroy our souls."


My greatest hope is with the women of the Jerusalem Link, Israeli and Palestinian, with whom I shared coffee and dreams, who through the hail of bullets and bombs, through the obstacles of checkpoints and curfews, mistrust and fear, are together forging a joint movement for peace.


In a declaration before the UN Security Council last May, they asserted that "The deliberate harming of innocent civilians, Palestinian or Israeli, must not be condoned." Calling for "a life of security and dignity for both peoples," Israeli Jewish peace activist Terry Greenblatt explained, "My government fears that international intervention will prevent it from carrying out its agenda. We, the peace activists of Israel, are insisting that you do just that."


They also asked that Palestinian and Israeli women be included in all peace negotiations, in keeping with UN Resolution 1325. As Greenblatt explained, "We are learning to shift our positions, finding ourselves moving towards each other, without tearing out our roots in the process. Even when we are women whose very existence and narrative contradicts each other, we will talk, we will not shoot."


During the Days of Awe this past fall ? the holiest time in the Jewish calendar ? I reflected on where I had "missed the mark" in the past year, and how I could do better in the year following.


And this year, while I support Israel's right to exist, and care about its people, and love its land, I ask the government to reflect on where it has missed the mark in terms of violating the human rights of three and a half million Palestinians. And then, to make it right. To end the Occupation.


As Americans, we need to follow the lead of Israeli and Palestinian peace activists, and call on our government to send international peacekeepers into this region immediately. To join with the majority of Israelis who want to dismantle the settlements. To join with the majority of Palestinians who support a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel. Before it is too late.


Penny Rosenwasser is a social justice activist in Oakland, California. She is the author of "Voices from a 'Promised Land: Palestinian & Israeli Peace Activists Speak Their Hearts" (Curbstone, 1992).
 
arafat should ahve taken that clinton peace deal....the onus is on the palestinian side ever since he turned that deal down.
 
Arun, during that Peace treaty signing, the IDF should have never marched through a sacred mosque killing people while they were in prayer.
 
Call me old fashioned, but I still believe in noblesse oblige and therefore put the onus on Israel. That is a country with an actual democratically elected goverment, with loads of foreign investment, constant monetary bailouts by the US, good infrastructure, a good standard of living. I don't put the onus on people who have virtually no leadership, no economy to speak of, no borders, live in refugee camps and 1 in 3 children is malnourished.
 
Arun V, Amna, anitram:

I agree to all your points - and that's the sad thing both political leaders make a lot of decisions to escalate the israeli/palistine situation, only to fiew try to deescalate.

And back to anitram's post: The Israelis have the chance to vote what they want but they still take the hate-route, maybe the US should talk to the democratic leader of israel and make it clear that they expect less violations of human rights - but i'm affraid the current US leader isn't the best person to do that job :(

Klaus
 
Hello,

Here is an article from The Independent telling how 6 Israeli soldiers on reserve duty have to protect 1 illegal settler in the West bank, costing the Israeli government about $40,000 dollars a month:
Israel spending ?27,000 a month on protection for lone settler
By Justin Huggler in Jerusalem
02 April 2003


A Jewish settler living alone on a hill in the West Bank is being guarded by six Israeli soldiers. The cost is about ?27,000 a month, an opposition member of parliament says.

The outpost is unauthorised and illegal, and Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister, has promised to investigate.

The newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth said the six soldiers, who are performing the reserve duty all men are obliged to fulfil every year until their forties, were so unhappy that they clubbed together and offered to pay for the settler, Yossi Ayalon, to move to a hotel in Israel. He refused.

The case has put into sharp focus the divisions in Israeli society over the Jewish settlers, who live in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip in settlements that are illegal under international law.

Many Israelis resent being forced, during their compulsory military service, to guard settlements from attack by Palestinian militants ? more so because some ultra-Orthodox settlers refuse to do military service for religious reasons.

Most Israelis support dismantling some of the settlements as part of a peace deal, according to recent polls. The settlements are one of the biggest obstacles to a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. America has urged Israel to stop building settlements, but under Mr Sharon their number has increased.

As well as the settlements officially sanctioned by the Israeli authorities, there are "illegal outposts" set up without a government licence. They are collections of trailers and huts on remote West Bank hilltops ? Mr Ayalon is believed to be living in one of these. They are set up by the most ideological of settlers. When Israeli soldiers tried to close one last year, they were attacked by the settlers.

? Israel would seek changes in the Middle East peace plan due to be published soon by the United States, Silvan Shalom, the Israeli Foreign Minister, said yesterday after talks in Washington with President George Bush. Mr Shalom laid down a number of conditions for the resumption of talks between Israel and the Palestinians and said "the road-map needs to be adapted".

The Israeli opposition leader, Amram Mitzna, and Palestinian officials said the comments showed that Israel was, in effect, rejecting the plan, a three-stage programme to achieve Palestinian statehood by 2005.

I they continue like this I fear that peace is still a long way ahead...

Marty
 
anitram said:
Call me old fashioned, but I still believe in noblesse oblige and therefore put the onus on Israel. That is a country with an actual democratically elected goverment, with loads of foreign investment, constant monetary bailouts by the US, good infrastructure, a good standard of living. I don't put the onus on people who have virtually no leadership, no economy to speak of, no borders, live in refugee camps and 1 in 3 children is malnourished.

I find it hard to agree with this.

I do not think Israel could possibly start to give to the people you described while they are making home-made bombs and blowing themselves up during terrorist activities.

One would think that the "people who have virtually no leadership, no economy to speak of, no borders, live in refugee camps and 1 in 3 children is malnourished."would do just about anything (including putting religion aside, but not blowing themselves up) in the name of peace.


flame me as much as you choose to, but you do not reward a bad child, you reward a good child...
 
It sux when the good child spends his or her life seeing everyone in the family brutally killed... Witnissing a child's death every day...
Hoping that they may have a chance to drink a cup of water...
Call me crazy, but people here in the US face extreme deppression just because they got laid off.... Hmmmmm, I wonder what these people in the West Bank are going through, mentally...

I don't justify suicide bombings, I think its a major sin... But, we are talking about people here, youths, killing themselves... Why are they doing this???
Ouizy, i'll repeat what i said earlier...

IF A FATHER WHO LOST HIS DAUGHTER TO A SUICIDE ATTACK, CAN BE OPEN MINDED ENOUGH TO SAY THE VICTIMS OF THE ATTACK WAS HIS DAUGHTER AND THE SUICIDE BOMBER, AND THE AGRESSOR IS SHARON AND HIS GOV'T... THEN WHAT MAKES YOU THINK ANY DIFFERENTLY?

I only pray that the Israeli gov't stops opressing the Israelis and Palestinians....

The West Bank is a death camp at the moment, these people have nothing to look forward to, their right for education, healthcare, and right to socialize is taken from them....

I think the bad boy in this, Sharon, needs a time out.
 
ouizy said:
flame me as much as you choose to, but you do not reward a bad child, you reward a good child...

Why would I flame you?

And in this instance, I see no good children. Suicide bombing is bad, demolishing the houses and livelihoods of innocent people just because some relative of theirs may have been a loon is bad. They both make me sick. If both Sharon and Arafat were to be kicked out tomorrow, I'd lose no sleep over it.
 
Last edited:
The idf killings in the mosque were inconsequential to the rejection of the peace deal.


If arafat wished to stop future incursions of it he'd 1.) have to take that deal or 2.) actually stop terrorism.



he didn't do the first and he can't do the second...because he's irrelevant to the process


there have been 15 israeli PM's and one PLo chairman....and still no resolution...where's the problem???


the election of sharon was an unfortunate reaction to the consistent threat of violence the israeli people live under.


I firmly believe sharon is a war criminal and should be tried by the hague. But I also believe arafat is useless...and needs to go he has no bargaining power

The israelis do need to use more restraint in their dealings with terroists...but that does not excuse the consistent attacks that the palestinians seem to be using as their only bargaining chip.



I used to believe that a secure palestinian state is important to the security of the middle east...and I believe the territorial integrity of palestine should be respoected by israel with regard to the settlements....but like I said arafat got 95 percent of what he wanted in the clinton deal and contrary to the interests of his people he turne it down.



in a speech clinton gave at my school he described arafats rejection as "disasterous"...and I firmly agree with him.


and Amna..I can't find any info on that mosque slaying your reffering to..I'd like to read more on it..could you post a link?
 
ouizy said:

flame me as much as you choose to, but you do not reward a bad child, you reward a good child...

Yes, but in this situation Israel is hardly the "good child." I'm referring to Israel's policy towards the Palestinian people here. Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the UN has passed numerous resolutions calling on it to withdraw. There are also many, many accounts of horrendous human rights abuses occuring within the occupied territories, for example the bulldozing of Palestinian homes and the Palestinian people being kept under curfew for days at a time.

Also as anitram said, the Palestinian people live in extreme poverty and one in three Palestinian children suffers from malnutrition. I'd like to recommend a report recently published by Christian Aid on the subject of poverty in the occupied territories. It's entitled "Losing Ground: Israel, poverty and the Palestinians" and you can find it at: http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/0301isra/losing.htm

Amnesty International also have some excellent and impartial information on the situation in Israel and Palestine, which again does not support the idea that Israel is the "good child." Amnesty's pages on Israel and Palestine can be found at: http://web.amnesty.org/web/web.nsf/pages/IOT_home
 
Man Inside The Child said:
discussion and debate educates and broadens the mind.... it can also ultimately lead to peace and resolve.

for some, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict may be a sensitive issue.
those people perhaps should simply stay away from such threads. on the other hand, for those who have any opinions to share, we can together work towards a common understanding, through intelligent yet peaceful debate.

Excellent post!
 
I never said Israel was the good child, actually I was trying to nicely refer to the Palestinian population (mainly Arafat) as the bad child.

As Arun has said there have been 15 Israeli PM's trying to negotiate peace, and 1 Palestinian figurehead denying them.

What if Israel said, "screw peace, and screw you." What would the Palestinian population, who believe they have a right to something do? Would they bomb the Israelis? They already do. Would they look at themselves and realize the problem may lie in the leaders they follow? Maybe.

The point is, Israel has never, and will never say that. HOWEVER Arafat has. He has had no concrete solution to helping his own people. He simply has said no to anything put on the table from Israel or her allies.

The Palestinian people have a right to food, water, shelter and moreover peace.

You call this a leader?

What I do not understand is how these people can turn their hatred agains the Israelis, a people of prosperity, instead of trying to follow their example of a relatively young nation.. Why do they not revolt against the true evil here, their own leadership?

Is Cuba a better place for being run by Castro?

Is Iraq a better place for being run by Hussein?

Are the Palestinians in a better situation due to ANYTHING that Arafat has ever done?

I am sure there is a more intelligent, modern, and peace-loving citizen in the Palestinian population than Arafat. Why they listen to an aging leader who has doen nothing for them in the history of his leadership is beyond me.

As far as the Israelis destroying the homes of the Palestinians, last I heard the policy was that this was only done AFTER a "disruption" from the Palestinians.

I am getting tired of everyone complaining about all that Israel has done to the Palestinians. Why do they not look at what the Palestinians have done to the Palestinians?

I do not claim that the Palestinians are not in terrible terrible shape, or that they are living in anything but the lowest form of third world conditions.

I simply cannot say that it is Israel's fault.

Back to the child analogy:

When you have a child and they do something productive or good (read a book, learn to speak, do their homework) you reward them. You do not reward them if they misbehave, or do something wrong. When the Palestinian population comes up with a legitimate leadership who actively seeks peace, then Israel should listen, until then they need to be strict with the terrorist leadership this unfortunate group is following.
 
ouizy said:

When you have a child and they do something productive or good (read a book, learn to speak, do their homework) you reward them. You do not reward them if they misbehave, or do something wrong. When the Palestinian population comes up with a legitimate leadership who actively seeks peace, then Israel should listen, until then they need to be strict with the terrorist leadership this unfortunate group is following.

I understand what you're arguing and I personally don't see Arafat as the best leader for the Palestinian people. However, firstly I would defend the Palestinian's right to choose their own leader and if they choose to be led by Arafat then it is none of my business to tell them otherwise. Secondly, many people would say that Ariel Sharon does not represent a leadership which actively seeks peace: the coalition he has formed consists of the far-right of Israeli politics and includes parties which advocate what amounts to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

I believe it's necessary for both the Israeli and Palestinian representatives to genuinely want to seek a peaceful settlement in order to have any sort of peace in the region. Right now I don't believe the leadership of Israel wants any such thing.
 
Back
Top Bottom