babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Hamas, Palestinians clash

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Hamas, Palestinians clash
clockwork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 690

posted 22 March 2003 07:34 AM      Profile for clockwork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
GAZA CITY - A Palestinian militant was killed yesterday as a gun battle erupted in northern Gaza when Palestinian authorities tried to break up an outdoor training session being held by the militant group Hamas on how to fire homemade rockets at Israel.

Palestinian forces kill Hamas activist


From: Pokaroo! | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
xrcrguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1562

posted 22 March 2003 09:13 AM      Profile for xrcrguy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Ya gotta give a little to get a little..."

Hopefully this proves true and the PA can regain some effectiveness and credibility instead of being humiliated and weakened.


From: Believe in ideas, not ideology | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 22 March 2003 09:52 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If this stroy is true I am extremely heartened. It would show that in fact the PA authorities are beginning to act like a nation and it will help its cause tremendously.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 22 March 2003 11:51 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes it would be nice. But once again it's hard to call a source crediable when it's only from one newspaper this doesn't make anyone look bad so I don't see a reason why not to print it in every news paper it's good news people would love to hear. Especially in Israel if it were true.

[ 22 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 22 March 2003 02:16 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Justice has a point, Mishei. You seem pretty quick to question the authenticity of allegations made even in mainstream Western news outlets if they happen to be with respect to Israeli soldiers.

Now, even though "only one newspaper" has reported this, you're all rushing off to pat the Palestinian Arabs on the head like a good doggie and patronizingly snort that if they acted like this more often then Israel might throw them more doggie treats. Come ON, Mishei. Aren't you supposed to be telling me you're waiting till every Israeli newspaper reports this too?

quote:
If this stroy is true I am extremely heartened. It would show that in fact the PA authorities are beginning to act like a nation and it will help its cause tremendously.

I should note that it is exactly the actions of the Israeli government that you support that has made it impossible for the PA to do its job outside certain areas of what is legalistically the PA's jurisdiction.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 22 March 2003 02:29 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So DrConway you are finally welling to accept that my skepticism is justified about the story varnish as my skepticism is now. You can’t believe only one news source in today’s world they same report has to be mentioned a multitude of times in order to have creditability. Also if you interview some one just off the street are you going to automatically when he/she tells you a story how do you know until you’ve heard the other side.

I think the best thing to do is to follow my Grandmothers wisdom may she rest in peace “Respect them but suspect them”


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 22 March 2003 02:33 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The conclusion I was trying to draw, Justice, is that Mishei's belief of the news is directly dependent on the actions being reported. It's been seen in action before. It would be nice if I saw a little more consistency in that respect. (although even I would demand that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, such as in the area of paranormal and psychic phenomena)

[ 22 March 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 22 March 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No argument there.

But as so you said "extordinary claims require extrodinary evedince"

I do think it is nearly impossible with today technology to hide evidence.

I might be shooting myself in the foot when it comes to Iraq. But my reason for supporting this war wasn't about weapons of mass destruction I felt it was the only way to get rid of Saddam which the evedince of the crimes agaist humanity that he's done there is no question about I feel especially the Iraqi people will benifit all though I know sadly very sadly they will pay a high price for these benefits.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 22 March 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Justice has a point, Mishei. You seem pretty quick to question the authenticity of allegations made even in mainstream Western news outlets if they happen to be with respect to Israeli soldiers.
Doc perhaps you need your glasses adjusted or then again maybe you are just wilfully blind. Let us examine exactly what I posted OK?

quote:
If this stroy is true I am extremely heartened.
(my emphasis)

Whoa quelle suprise I wrote one very important two letter word "IF". You missed it huh Doc??? Sheesh!!


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 22 March 2003 03:53 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But my reason for supporting this war wasn't about weapons of mass destruction I felt it was the only way to get rid of Saddam which the evedince of the crimes agaist humanity that he's done there is no question about I feel especially the Iraqi people will benifit all though I know sadly very sadly they will pay a high price for these benefits.

So you would agree the international community should act to rid Palestinians of Sharon?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 22 March 2003 04:52 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
and hear is an exact example of how people take thing a hear what they want too.

No I never said that. But Saddam is one of the worest criminals in the world "one of the worest" and if you leave him be he'll just continue commiting crimes against humanity.

Sharon as much as he disgusts me he is no where near Saddam and many other criminals I can name.

What the international community should do is act to get rid of the Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP. I think then the palistinians will be better off.

I'm all for the UN being in Palistine instead of the IDF then they can see how it feels.

[ 22 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]

[ 22 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]

[ 22 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 22 March 2003 06:32 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But I thought Arafat was the problem? Learning are we. PS: If it weren't for the occupation Hamas and the PA would be at war, not with Israel but with each other.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 22 March 2003 06:55 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your absouletely right but that would be good and bad.

Less israeli's especially soldiers would die.

They would probably be slaughtering eachother and would end up balming Israel for it because Israel should have known that would happen. Justlike in Sabbra and shatila when the christians masscared the muslims after the Israel left.

Also when Israel puts up a fence to defened it's self from being a by standard it would be blame for apartihied sanctioned to hell their be no Israel and no democracy in the middle east.

[ 22 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 22 March 2003 07:15 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Israeli did not leave Sabra and Shatila. They surrounded the camp, and then let the Christian Phalangist Militia in, and no one out. During the period the IDF was in complete control of the perimeter of the camp, your ability to get things wrong is astounding.

What is annoying is that you make these proclomations about things as if you know the facts, when it it is clear that you do not. Even an Israeli panel of Judges found:

quote:
that Israel had indirect responsibility for the massacre since the I.D.F. held the area... Mr. Sharon was found responsible for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge when he approved the entry of the Phalangists into the camps as well as not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed.

In fact, less biased sources such a US nurse, Ellen Siegel, who was inthe camp make it clear that Israel had substantial control of the events at the camp, enough to stop the massacre. These are quotes from her testimony:

"An Israeli official ran to the spot and told the militia to stop".

Taken to a UN building where "the courtyard was littered with Israeli army rations..."

In the same place, they were subjected to a "little interrogation" by the Phalangists.

They took the foreigners to the IDF's forward command post and then they (the militia) tried to take away a pretty Norwegian nurse. IDF interceded and Phalange drove off without her. An Israeli officer "gave one of the Physicians a note in both Hebrew and Arabic, telling him that the note would get him past the checkpoints on the way back to the hospital."

But then some people only want to believe what they choose to believe, as you say, ignoring all the rest.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 22 March 2003 07:35 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wasn't justifying Sharon I know he's guilty and yes he is a criminal I didn't deny it.

But in the case of the palistinians no matter what the Israelies and this has nothing to do with Sharon they talk about Barak and Rabin the same way there all criminals right.

Your the one only hear what you want to and interped my remarks as justifying sharon all I was saying it doesn't matter how some people look at it israel is always to blame. Yes they should have stopped the Massacare no doubt about it as the americans should have gotten rid of Saddam and the Taliban years ago. But at the same time it's not like they went out and told them to commit these crimes it's not like they gave them orders.

[ 22 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]

[ 22 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 22 March 2003 07:40 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But you agree Sharon is a war criiminal but you do not agree he should be removed for peace?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 22 March 2003 08:14 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He should have never been there in the first place trust me if the palistinians proved thats what they wanted he'd be long gone. I supported Barak and I think Rabin was one of the Greatest men that ever lived. Probably was on of the saddest days in my life when he died.

Arafat could have refused Baraks offer but when he responded with violence then what do you expect to happen. I still didn't vote for sharon but I sort of understand the feeling the other had. So I blame the palistinians for sharon being elected it's only thier loss. It's also the israelis too.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 23 March 2003 11:02 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I wasn't justifying Sharon I know he's guilty and yes he is a criminal I didn't deny it.

That is not the point, you have your opinions, I have mine. Thing is that you are always getting the facts wrong. That is really irritating.

For instance did you know that in 1982, as part of Begin's efforts to shore up support in the military for the war in Lebanon, he gave a speach were he stated that Israel 'chose' to go to war with the Arab states in 1967, and that there was no attack or imminent threat to Israel from Nasser's Egypt or any of the other Arab states. This theme has been repeated by many other prominent Israeli Politicians and generals.

If you actually are interested io seeing another point of view, and not simply see what you want to see, let me know and I'll provide some links.


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 23 March 2003 11:49 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've seen that before.

But alright send me the links.Don't expect me to believe everyone some links are probably better then others. If it's someone being critical of themselves then that is probably the most crediable

I didn't know about that speech. I'm not going to say your lying could be true just show me a creidable source. Anyways I don't think he needed any excuses to go to leabanon when rockets were falling on peoples heads in north Israel. The way the goverment went about it was wrong and they made some stupid mistakes thats why I'm so greatful that Barak backed out.

And as far 1967. Yes Israel has made many mistakes with it's intelegnce regardless of the famous stories. However I still don't think Israel would attack unprovoked. They are not a conquring army. Everytime excepet for 1967 they were attacked first. In 73 they reached damascus and retreated they gave back the sinai. I think there only mistake was not retreating from the west bank and Gaza in 1967. They offered it to Jordan and Eygpt but they didn't want. The Israelis shoud have liberated the palistinians then.As much as I have experince I don't know what the miltary strategy was to take control.

All I know is that when Israel finaly decide to retreat and perhaps help the palistinains have a homeland of their own the Israelis got attacked more.

[ 23 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 23 March 2003 05:01 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did it ever occur to you that the Palestinians don't want a prison of their own? Israel including all its occupied territory is the Palestinian homeland. You can't change history, no matter how many you kill, how much you lie, or how long you occupy Palestine.
From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 23 March 2003 07:38 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Santana

So you don't want a compromise. You can't expect anybody to accept that, give me a good alternative maybe I'll think about it but until then I'll believe your really not interested human right your just a selfish person.

Your worse then Bush, Bush maybe a hypocrite but you don't even seem to care that human rights matter.

You proved my point to everyone it is the Palestinians assuming you are one (if so I don’t believe you’re a good representation) who don’t want to compromise not the Israeli’s. If your not a Palestinian your simply racist toward Jews and Israeli’s.

Tell me one thing I said that is a lie? I might make mistakes but I can admit when I'm wrong your simply blind and racist.

The palistinians don't want to be prisoners in their homeland. Well most of the Jews are tired of being refugess too.

[ 23 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]

[ 23 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 23 March 2003 07:48 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Arafat could have refused Baraks offer but when he responded with violence then what do you expect to happen. I still didn't vote for sharon but I sort of understand the feeling the other had. So I blame the palistinians for sharon being elected it's only thier loss. It's also the israelis too.

You accuse satana of racism while you smear all Palestinnians? Huh?

Anyway, you are spreading a lie. Go back and check. Barak and Arafat had a deal. It was Barak who refused to sign when Sharon, who is responsiible for the current violence, siad he would not honour a deal negotaited by Barak. Barak said he would not sign a deal before an election which had been forced on him by Sharon's actions.

Barak was a coward who gave into the political manipulations of Sharon who set in motion all of all the current viloence . All Israle is a viictim of Shatron .

[ 23 March 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 23 March 2003 08:06 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I differentiate between Palestinians and dictators or Terrorists who want to destroy who don't want Israel to exist I even was careful to say that don't believe Santana is representative of them.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 23 March 2003 08:15 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
FACT

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 95 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 5 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.

Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have "religious sovereignty" over the Temple Mount.

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference.

“[Prime Minister Barak] was prepared to make decisions; Arafat was not. I believe he is capable of launching the process, but he is not capable of concluding it.”

— U.S. mediator Dennis Ross on the failure of the Camp David Summit31


The proposal also addressed the refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion international fund that would be collected to compensate them.

Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.

Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," said Ross.30c

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations – that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the intifada that began in September 2000 – prevailed for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say "yes" to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.

“In his last conversation with President Clinton, Arafat told the President that he was "a great man." Clinton responded, "The hell I am. I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one.”31a

source

and before you say this is an unreliable source I suggest you check all of the 79 notes at the bottom.

[ 23 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 23 March 2003 08:24 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Israel also agreed to give the Palestinians access to water desalinated in its territory.



How generous of them.

Fact: I have already sourced and posted, some time ago, the time line of those negotiations. And demonstrated that Barak ended the negotiations at the time of the election with Sharon refusing to sign. I also quoted Sharon saying Araft's agreeing to the terms with Barak was a ruse and Sharon syaing he would not "homour" (and why shoudl he, he has never been honourable) any agreement signed by Arafat and "Barak's" negotiators.

It was Barak who squandered the opporunity even iif Sharon, who does not and never has wanted peace, was going to kill it anyway. At least Barak would have put Sharon in the position of turning his back on peace before the entore world. Instead if left us with a lie you repeat here today.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 23 March 2003 08:35 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
show me the money.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 23 March 2003 08:43 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sure. When it come to the truth many are lazy.

quote:

Barak Freezes Contacts With Arafat Until After Election
Israeli caretaker Prime Minister Ehud Barak has decided to halt peacemaking contacts with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and his officials until after Israeli prime ministerial election on February 6, his office said Sunday.

"Prime Minister Ehud Barak has decided not to continue diplomatic contacts with Arafat and his people until after the election in Israel," Barak's office said in a statement.

http://fpeng.peopledaily.com.cn/200101/29/eng20010129_61284.html



quote:
Barak's challenger for the prime minister's post, hard-line, hawkish Likud party chairman Ariel Sharon -- who holds a commanding lead in the polls -- has said he would not honor any agreement worked out between Barak's negotiators and the Palestinians.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/27/mideast.01/


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 23 March 2003 08:56 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your talking about something that happened a week before elections in 2001 how do you expect anyone to make any agreements on the spur of the moment like that the only reason Arafat may have came round that time is because he finally realized he wasn't going to get a better deal. The violence brook out September 2000 something I'm never going to forget and the Negotiations I'm talking about were in July 2000 if he wanted a better deal he didn't have sign then but the violence certainly didn't help.

Sharon may have done something stupid apparently for him it was smart political move because the violent response was even a stupider move. Sure everyone probably knew it was going to happen does it make it right does it make it smart?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 23 March 2003 09:45 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Your talking about something that happened a week before elections in 2001 how do you expect anyone to make any agreements on the spur of the moment like that the only reason Arafat may have came round that time is because he finally realized he wasn't going to get a better deal.

Who cares when it happened. barak was still in a position to sign. And who cares why Arafat was ready to agree the point is he was ready toa gree. And all of this is moot because as Sharon made clear, he would not honour it anyway.

But my entire poingt of this is to "show you the money." The lie that Barak was ready to make a deal and it was Araft that stymied it must end.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 23 March 2003 10:01 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But it’s not a lie Barak was willing in July 2000 Arafa wasn’t. Arafat stymied it fact period. We just proved it. All of a sudden Arafat feels he made a mistake and then says yes? What kind of way is that to do business?

And it sure it matters Sharon wasn't Prime Minster then. Thanks to the violence he got elected.

I don't expect Barak to sign because it was good time for Arafat and Vise Versa. They both deserve their own time but responding with violence certainly wasn’t the answer.

[ 23 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 23 March 2003 10:37 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First, Sharon initiated the violence with his obvious and calculated provocation.

Second, you want the violence to end but Barak signing the deal would have shortened the violence. So really you don't want the violencce to end. You only want Palestinian violence to end. Israeli violence can continue unabated.

Finally, the negotiations contiinued up until the date in the linked article when Barak ended the negotiations. The negotiators were not Barak's as Sharon said they were. They were Israeli acting on behalf of the people of Israel. So when Barak ended the negotiations as Arafat stood poised to sign, he ended the hopes of both peoples for an early peace. And when Sharon says he would not honour the agreement of Barak's negotiators he is really saying he would not honour the agreement of the Israeli people. Who betrayed whom?

You should be really angry. But level your anger at the people who deserve it. Not Palestinian mothers trying to buy groceries to feed children but your own cynical and manipulative leadershiip.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 23 March 2003 10:45 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Calculated Provocation? Are you justifying violence?

I don't get angry. Anger isn't a good emotion it causes people to do stupid and bad things.

I’ am upset at a lot of people on both sides. I don't try and make myself righteous but certainly Arafat’s no angle. He had a chance he forced Barak into in to a corner. Yeah Sharon made it worse and the violence made it even more worse.

I do feel sorry Palestinian mother even more so for Palestinian children. Yes Israel has a little blame but the corrupt Palestinian government and the terrorist organizations are more at fault.

Rabin and Barak did the best with what they had to work with.

Why Arafat there was no one else at least know that could the Palestinian people everybody claims that’s what they wanted. I guess it's a little like asking to negotiate with Saddam or Hittler.


I do feel sorry palininan mother even more so for palistinian children. Yes israel has a little blame but the corrupt palistinain goverment and the terorrist orginizations are more at fault.

Rabin and Barak did the best with what they had to work with.

Why Arafat there was no one else at least know that could the Palitinian people everybody claims thats what they wanted. I geuss it's a little like asking to negotiate with Saddam.

[ 23 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 23 March 2003 10:51 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Calculated Provocation? Are you justifying violence?

I don't get angry. Anger isn't a good emotion it causes people to do stupid and bad things.



A calculated provocation is exactly what it was and I don't need to justify it to recognize it.

I am glad you don't get angry. But many others do,. Sharon's provocation was designed to anger Palestinians. He was succesful. He knew there anger would erupt into violence which would spiral out of control. Which it did.

He then used the vilonce to justify more violence and conviinced the Israeli people only more violence would end the violence. And they bought that strange formula.

So here we find ourselves. Daily violence. Daily brutality. No end in sight. Sharon is very successful. His allies in Hamas must be very happy.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 23 March 2003 11:03 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with you everything you said about sharon is ture but what does Barak have to do with it? And it still doesn't justify violence.

Your right it spiral effect the responsiblity for that falls equally on both sides

[ 23 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]

[ 23 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 23 March 2003 11:37 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Justice, I am looking for the War College information for you, but while I was doing so I came across this page, very similar to the 'Facts and Myths' about Israel link you provided from the Jewish Virtual Library (a worthy source of information no doubt but somwhat biased in its perspective.) Contained in it there is other information that may balance your perspective:

The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict

I like this Dave Ben Gurion quote provided by Nathan Goldman in his book "The Jewish Paradox:"

quote:
"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs, We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?"

[My empahasis.]

At least the founding father of Israel was not a wide-eyed and naieve knee-jerk right winger.

I find the Begin quote later, actually its a whole speach.

[ 23 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 24 March 2003 12:04 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here is a nice timeline of the 1967 war, including quotes from Rabin and Begin, in regard to the Arab threat to Israel and Israel attack on the Arab countries:

quote:
Both Yitzak Rabin and Menachem Begin were to contradict the common belief that the 1967 war was a defensive attack on the part of Israel. Both claimed publicly that Israel knew Nasser was not planning to attack. His troop movements were the pretext for a long planned Israeli move to gain more territory. Rabin was quoted in Le Monde, February 29, 1968, as saying, "I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." On August 8, 1982, Prime Minister Begin made a speech saying, "In June, 1967, we again had a choice. the Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" (New York Times, August 21, 1982).

What is oddest about this debate is that it is almost exclusively discussed in the Uniter States not Israel, where most Israelis understand that it was Israel that attacked first, not the other way around, even if they still support the action.

Another source for the quote:

Begins Admission in 1982 That Israel Started Three of Its Wars

Notice how he talks about Gaza as: "...that liberated portion of the homeland."

[ 24 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 March 2003 01:15 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What is oddest about this debate is that it is almost exclusively discussed in the Uniter States not Israel, where most Israelis understand that it was Israel that attacked first, not the other way around, even if they still support the action.

I have also observed that the 1973 war is regarded as something almost akin to a defeat and a failure rather than a resounding success, the way it is treated in North America.

This incongruence of perspective is rather interesting.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 24 March 2003 06:06 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Palestinians have homes inside Israel. It is their right to return to those homes. Denying that is racist. Ask any Palestinian to draw a map of their homeland. It will look like Israel. Palestinians can never accept a compromise of their fundamental human right to return to their homes. The only acceptable compromise is for Israel to abandon Jewish supremacism.
From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 24 March 2003 10:10 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sanatana

It's not Jewish supremacsim. you can not expect a Jew accepet what you yourself are not welling to accepet.

DrConway

There are no winner in war. And Israel suffered in this war more then any other since it's creation. Ask an Arab if there are any winners?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 24 March 2003 10:13 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moredreads

I will have to look your site over carefully and will take sometime. I hope you understand if I just can't accepet everything blindly just like that.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 24 March 2003 10:14 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Its not my site.

And I don't expect you to accept anything blindly. However, I will tell you this, at one time I thought about Israel more or less as you do, but I have had enough, and seen enough. The turning point was Sabra and Shatila. I think if you do your research and read some new sources, you might have a change of heart to.

Sure, look at that if you like but I think you would do better to read this exspository essay by Illan Pappe, of the Univeristy of Haifa, who is an Israeli with historical narrative that is quite different to your own: Israeli Historians Ask: What Really Happened Fifty Years Ago

[ 24 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 24 March 2003 10:43 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know your a nice guy Moreheads I know we can talk I didn't mean that in an agessive Manner.

Anyways I can tell you what they wrote about the constitution is wrong. There are many other reasons why Israel doesn't have constitution.

And it's not always a good thing Laws should never be set in stone look what goes on in the states with Gun laws and stuff like that.

By the way you know you will find many Isreali's who think Sabbra and Shittila was a horrific incdent and know that much of the blame is our side but it doesn't mean we just turn and run away from shame. We deal with are faults and our rights.

[ 24 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 24 March 2003 10:50 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The real reason that Israel does not have a constitution has little to do with Israel's expansionist tendency. It has to do with the clash between Israel's emotional construction as a religious state, and its intellectual construction as a secular 'socialist' state. The socialists and the religious people were never able to agree as to whether Israel should be a secular state or a religious state. That is my opinion.

Not having a constitution has had secondary consequences that have had a huge impact on relations with Arabs. Because not having a constitution allows for a free floating legal realtionship with minority groups that are easily exploited by less moraly concious fources within Israeli society, such as Likud.

What I am saying is that the lack of constitution is not a 'plot' intentionally designed to disenfranchise Arabs, as some would have it, but the expression of a genuine split in Israeli political thinking. The fact that it has helped to disenfranchise Arabs is only a side effect of the lack of a constitution.

[ 24 March 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 24 March 2003 03:03 PM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Justice: It's not Jewish supremacsim. you can not expect a Jew accepet what you yourself are not welling to accepet.

what am I not willing to accept?
and what do you call allowing Jews into Israel while denying Palestinian refugees to return to their homes?

From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 24 March 2003 06:59 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Moredreads

that comment was better, the side effect I don't know, sounds a little far fetched.

You do know has basic laws. Palisitne is not a part of Israel so it's not covered by them that could be used an excuse but it still no excuse to violate international law. There have been violations I can admit but the extent and degree does matter and it is way over exgdurated in Israel case I can bring a 100 cases a 100 times worse. Shouldn't those cases have priority? Does Israel really Jeporidizze the existance of the palistinians. We can go back decide wether this incdent was justified or that incdent and perhaps many of them were wrong but one things for sure with out Israel the Jewish culture chances of survival would be greatly reduced.

Is there a real threat to the Palistinain culture? And if so is Israel really that threat? Or perhaps just a small piece of much larger problem? I think these are the real important questions. Also note that I took care to say palistinian culture and not arab because I believe in ever persons right to Identify with a specific group no matter how similiar it is to an other group I also believe in that groups right to indpendnce in a land of it's own.

Sanatana

It's not supremiscim it's a problem, paradox. One that will have to be figured out. the questions in the other thread I'll copy them for you.

[ 24 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 24 March 2003 07:05 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here they are

First we must ask how can we creat to viable states to co-exsist side by side? Then it's a much more difficult question to deal with the right of return because you must insure that nither state loses it's make up and nither state forces anyone to be second class citizenes.

You can't expect any Jews to really move out of Israel.


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 March 2003 07:45 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I am glad you don't get angry. But many others do,. Sharon's provocation was designed to anger Palestinians. He was succesful. He knew there anger would erupt into violence which would spiral out of control. Which it did.

Frankly I find this downright condescending. What are you saying..that Palestinians have such little self-control that a walk by Sharon (stupid yes but as a Jew he had the right to do so) on a site holy to Jews and Muslims would lead them to terrorist violence? Patronozing Wing and some might suggest a bigotted comment!!

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 March 2003 08:08 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is the best you can do, isn't it Mishei?
In fact your comments are patronizing and bigotted.

I can assure you the best way to rile any group in the mid-east is to commit a violation against a holy place. Whether it be a mosque a temple or a church. Let us be clear, Israeli settlers are taking land and killing Palestinians and cheering each other on, as well as having assassinated Israel's best hope for peace, over land they say was given to them by God many tousands of years ago. And Sharon's army is defending them.

Would devout Jews be silent if Arafat marched into tthe gropunds of the Wailing Wall with armed Palestinian gunmen, cleared it of Israeli worshippers, and then smiled for the cameras as smarmy a smile as he could muster and said: "I want peace with Israelis.?" Would they take it all in stride and just shrug?

Sometiime Mishei you are honest and open. Sometimes you are a phony propagandist with nothing to add but more cynical manipulations. This is one of those times.

[ 24 March 2003: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 24 March 2003 08:48 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Frankly I find this downright condescending. What are you saying..that Palestinians have such little self-control that a walk by Sharon (stupid yes but as a Jew he had the right to do so) on a site holy to Jews and Muslims would lead them to terrorist violence? Patronozing Wing and some might suggest a bigotted comment!!

And how many Jews do you know, Mishei, who would not explode in anger if some asshole did a drive-by swastika-ing of a synagogue in broad daylight with witnesses?

And if you still want to make the case that Jewish people are somehow more "levelheaded", then I could point out that Christian fundamentalists in the USA regularly go berserk whenever it is suggested that they might potentially be required to behave themselves.

As evidence I could cite the rantings of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell who regularly scream into the TV set that Christianity in the USA is under siege and that if they don't donate their $50 now then God will punish the United States of America.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 24 March 2003 09:53 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I can assure you the best way to rile any group in the mid-east is to commit a violation against a holy place. Whether it be a mosque a temple or a church
Wing, Sharon went to a holy Jewish site with the full knowledge and agreement of both Jewish and Muslim religious authorities.

He is a citizen of Israel and a Jew. He has as much right to go to the Temple Mount as any other Jew or Muslim. I still stand by my assertion. Your claim that a Sharon has no right to go to his holy site or by going there would have caused people to commit murder is patronizing and belittling of the Muslim population.

Wing, I lived in Israel and went many times to the Temple Mount.No one tried to harm me in fact I was treated with dignity as are the many Jews and Muslims that visited there on a daily basis. You are trying to rationalize your mistake. I understand. But truthfully I am convinced that the violence erupting after Sharon's walk (and BTW politically it was dumb I agree) was a set up by Arafat's militanats. Anyone who knows that area knows full well that either a Jew or Muslim can attend there it is holy to both religious traditions.

quote:
And how many Jews do you know, Mishei, who would not explode in anger if some asshole did a drive-by swastika-ing of a synagogue in broad daylight with witnesses?

And if you still want to make the case that Jewish people are somehow more "levelheaded", then I could point out that Christian fundamentalists in the USA regularly go berserk whenever it is suggested that they might potentially be required to behave themselves.

As evidence I could cite the rantings of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell who regularly scream into the TV set that Christianity in the USA is under siege and that if they don't donate their $50 now then God will punish the United States of America.


Doc under no circumstances that I know of would any of the examples you cite have led to stoning, assaults and murder. As I said it was a set-up. I do not believe for an instant that the average Muslim would react as did those provocateurs of Arafat did that day. Just dont believe it and I am surprised you and Wing seem to accept it as a fact of Muslim life

[ 24 March 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 March 2003 10:09 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But truthfully I am convinced that the violence erupting after Sharon's walk (and BTW politically it was dumb I agree) was a set up by Arafat's militanats.

From what I understand of the situation, you could look at it as politically smart by Sharon - after all, by provoking anger among the Palestinians, he gave Israel an appetite for a more right-wing, militant government.

Maybe it's true (I'm sure it is if you say it is - I've never been there) that ordinary, low-profile Jews can go to the Temple Mount and be treated with respect and not rile up the Palestinian population. But then, the Palestinians don't see you, Mishei, as the person responsible for a massacre they way they do Sharon. Whether or not Sharon WAS responsible for that massacre is debatable, I know, but surely Sharon knew that it is a common perception of the Palestinians and that he was being provocative. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise in my opinion.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 24 March 2003 11:08 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are being dishonest mishei.
Yes, everyone is welcome at the temple mount and yes it is holy to both Jews and Muslims. Abd maybe violence would not have erupted if Sharon just visited among the Jews and Muslims there as opposed to arriving with an armed force and evicting all the Palestinian worshippers.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 March 2003 08:26 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I know, but surely Sharon knew that it is a common perception of the Palestinians and that he was being provocative. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise in my opinion.

I never said it was a good idea for him to go there as he did. In fact it may vey well have been provocative. But many things in life are provocative and while the odd sociopath that cannot control criminal impulses may act out on provocation the vast majority of people keep it in check.but In this case mob behaviour is being ascribed to an entire faith community. This in my books can be seen as prejudicial pure and simple. It evokes a negative sterotypical image and suggests that Muslims are prone to violence . I don't accept that and neither should you.

quote:
You are being dishonest mishei.
Yes, everyone is welcome at the temple mount and yes it is holy to both Jews and Muslims. Abd maybe violence would not have erupted if Sharon just visited among the Jews and Muslims there as opposed to arriving with an armed force and evicting all the Palestinian worshippers.
As I recall Sharon gained permission of both Muslim and Jewish authorities prior to his arrival. Nonetheless you are quite right to suggest that the manner in which he carried out his visit was inappropriate at best.

That said, it still should not have resulted in the violence that occurred nor should it have evolved into the 2 years of terrorism that seemed to become the trigger from this event.

I do not accept your postulation and hold to my theory that the violence was a set-up provoked by Arafat and Fatah. Any other explanation falls into areas in which I have already articulated my feelings.

[ 25 March 2003: Message edited by: Mishei ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 March 2003 09:27 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
many things in life are provocative and while the odd sociopath that cannot control criminal impulses may act out on provocation the vast majority of people keep it in check.but In this case mob behaviour is being ascribed to an entire faith community.

Mishei, I'm sure the Palestinians thank you for this vote of confidence in their humanity and rationality. M'self, I think I'm just going to store it in my private files -- with a note about the context from which it was generalized.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 March 2003 10:45 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl your sarcasm is unbecoming so I too will store that in my "private files".

Please "storing things in private files" ranks as low-brow intimidation. If you dont believe me say so instead of skulking into these tactics.

That said, it seems to me that you take this position more as a rationalization for your own predisposition of what happened at the Temple Mount. I stand by my position that it was a set-up. You hold to yours but please no more threatening with "private files".


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 March 2003 10:50 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mishei: How much scope do you honestly think you're ever going to have to accuse moi of being disingenuous, of rationalizing anything, of doing PR for anybody?

Give it a rest, Mishei. We've known each other far too long.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 March 2003 11:03 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl, I just vehemently dislike your tactic of slyly suggesting things and intimating that they go in "private files". No one here is any more special than anyone else. I respect your positions and it is in that vain that I critisize what was an effort at being disingenuous. You dont wear it well and I wish you would stop.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 March 2003 11:22 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I appreciate your concern for moi, Mishei.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
satana
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2798

posted 25 March 2003 11:28 AM      Profile for satana     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Justice, I'll reply to you on the other thread later.

I think there is some truth in what Mishei is saying in that Palestinian organizations abused Palestinians emotions for their own interests. Its also importnat to realize that these organizations are powerless without outside funding. Hamas, Jihad, Fateh and others are ultimately instruments of Europe and the US in the region. The injustice of Israel's creation and the failure of the international community to acknowlege Palestinian human rights has made them a very passionate people. Their anger and frustration has been taken advantage of by other people at the cost of many innocent lives.

There has always been resistance to Israel ever since it was created. But I think what we are seeing in the last few years is an attempt by the US to force a settlement of the Palestinian issue, by defining Israel's borders, and normalising its relationship with the Arab autocracies. The PA, headed by Arafat and now also Mahmoud Abbas, is being promised some kind of state, so they are trying to regain control of the territories by destroying the other organizations. I think we can expect more killing and arrests by the PA in the future.

quote:
Mishei: It would show that in fact the PA authorities are beginning to act like a nation and it will help its cause tremendously.
What cause? They are acting like a corrupt and oppressive regime. Is that your definition of "nation"?

From: far away | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 25 March 2003 01:14 PM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Regarding Sharon's actions around the Temple Mount, here's what happened:

CBC timeline

Here's what happened the day after the visit, during which Sharon, accompanied by scores of police, claimed Israeli ownership of the Mount:

quote:
After prayers, they riot, tossing stones at police outside the compound and at Jewish worshippers in the Western Wall plaza far below. Police use gas, then rubber-coated steel slugs. Suddenly, though, people are dying. It is carnage. Not until hours later do the police admit using snipers with live ammunition. Police explained they felt lives were in danger, and that they used snipers to isolate and kill troublemakers. According to Israeli authorities, the precision of the snipers actually prevented even higher numbers of Arab dead. The Arabs called it murder, and even many Israeli commentators were flabbergasted. One newspaper columnist wrote that, in Israel now, Jewish lives are sacrosanct, whereas Arabs are just numbers, easy to kill in the powerful pretext of security. Was live ammunition really necessary? No matter. It was done.

So the blame, I think needs to be laid at Sharon's door for starting the whole thing, but the situation could still have been defused had the security forces not used live ammunition on the (predictable) Palestinian response.

A final excerpt:

quote:
Arafat simply could not have orchestrated all that followed, as the Israelis have said, but he certainly did not discourage it. Why should he? He and the Palestinian leadership realized its value. Like Sharon, Yasser Arafat knows death. He came to understand long ago that violence inevitably goes hand in hand with realizing national aspirations.

In the words of Arafat official Hassan al Kashef, writing in the Arabic newspaper El Ayyam, "had it not been for this blood, the world would have never been interested in us. We should not toss this weapon away. Our national duty is to continue the confrontation, continue to sacrifice our martyrs, so that the blood will not have been spilled in vain."


And there we have it, right up to the present day.


From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 25 March 2003 04:13 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know it is so easy to wonder how things could have been done better. While not wishing to support Sharon's misguided decsion to go to the Temple Mount, for balance I have attached his explanation of these events in a letter he sent to then Secratary of State, Madeline Albright. FYI

Sharon


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 25 March 2003 10:31 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
While not wishing to support Sharon's misguided decsion to go to the Temple Mount

Ah, I see you have finally admitted that Sharon did something monumentally stupid.

quote:
Skdadl, I just vehemently dislike your tactic of slyly suggesting things

Oh, and you don't?

*walks away, roaring with laughter*

[ 25 March 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 25 March 2003 11:29 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I do not accept your postulation and hold to my theory that the violence was a set-up provoked by Arafat and Fatah. Any other explanation falls into areas in which I have already articulated my feelings.



So, let's recap:

1) Sharon provokes violent Palestinian response when he enters the Temple Mount with armed gunmen and evicts worshippers.

2) Violence spreads with attacks by both Israelis and Palestinians upon each other.

3) Barak's government is shaken.

4) Sharon uses the opportunity of the violence he precipitated by forcing an election during a time of crisis.

5) Sharon promises to deal with the violence he created with an iron fist.

6) Barak, shaken and headed for defeat, breaks negotiations with Palestinians even though Palestinians and Israeli negotiators report a breakthrough.

7) Sharon reports he believes the Palestinians only agree to Taba because they are trying to shore up support behind Barak and says he will not honour and agreement signed by Barak's (Israel's)negotiators.

8) The increasing violence leaves Barak impotent and the man who started it all is elected by Israelis fearful of increasing violence.

9) Sharon holds to his promise to deal with violence through more violence.

10) He targets the Palestinian Authority ensuring they have no ability to crack down on Hamas or Islamic Jihad. He reoccupies the West Bank in bloody fighting costing hundreds of Palestinian lives and resulting in many dead Israelis also.

11) The resulting violence leads to Israelis leaving the country and reduces Israel to economic beggars before their Anerican masters.

12) Palestinians live in bombed out shells, subject to daily humiliation, abuse, violence, malnutrition and other illnesses including water borne diseases. There is no end in sight as Sharon is returned to government.

Conclusion: It is all Arafat's fault.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 25 March 2003 11:40 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right on.
From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 26 March 2003 12:34 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You missed something Wingnut

Arafat had a deal in July 2000 camp David it wasn't what he wanted so he holds back making everyone look like idiots including Clinton.

Then the whole thing with Sharon starts

Arafat sees Sharon is going to get elected so he ask Barak one quick favor before he goes. That being Arafat request the opurtunity to "reconsider because he isn't going to get a better deal" with Sharon.

Barak had nothing to lose and be stupid to agree underfire well Arafat is backing him into a corner. Arafat certainly didn't help the palistinians or realy had their best interests at heart as much as the Israeli's suffered the poor Palistinians suffered worse from his stupidity. And if you want to know about water born Diseases and all that, Ask Arafat how come he isn't using the billions he got to build infrastructure?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 26 March 2003 07:13 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I see.

So you wamt to sell a car. Selling the car will provide you with the income you need to pay the rent. The guy you want to sell it to really needs a car. The car sits in you driveway and your neighbour threatens to have it towed if you don't move it.

The guy you want to sell it to hems and haws looking for a better deal. You are despondent. As the tow truck idles on the street, though, the guy you want to sell it to arrives, not having being able to find a better deal, and says, okay, sell me the car I'll pay cash.

But you don't sell it because you question his motives and allow your neighbour to tow it instead. You are an idiot.

Why Arafat returned willing to sign the deal is completely irrelevant. What is more important the signature on the agreement or the slant of the pen that writes the signature?

This whole approach is stupid. I am sorry to say that.

Yes, all of Palestines deserves the terrible brutality and disease inflicted upon them and all of Israel deserves the insecurity and violence and deepening economic crisis because Arafat's motives for peace were not entirely pure. Unlike Israel's which is as pure as the milk and honey which flows through the veins of all her leaders.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 March 2003 09:04 AM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wing you should have ended with your very first point.

quote:
) Sharon provokes violent Palestinian response when he enters the Temple Mount with armed gunmen and evicts worshippers.

Are you continuing to say that Palestinians can be so easily "provoked" to violence? I reject this. It was a set-up. Sharon on the Mount was the trigger for the set-up. I do not believe that anyone Jew Muslim or Christian are violence prone to the extent that they would engage in such criminal behaviour.

BTW, Were worshippers eveicted by Sharon's people (if at all) ?

quote:
Ah, I see you have finally admitted that Sharon did something monumentally stupid.


Doc, I now believe you are wilfully blind. Any time I have talked about Sharon's "walk" I have ALWAYS prefaced it by saying that I thought it was dumb. Alas, I guess as seems to be your case with me, you have selective memory syndrome. Get a diagnosis and find a cure .

From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 26 March 2003 10:27 AM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wingnut

“hems and haws???”

He points a gun to my head!

Arafat didn't have to sign it still no excuse for violence.

Usually when it stills down the Israelis begin to back out things start to happen. Barak more then proved himself when he went out of Lebanon and we all know that even today Lebanon poses a threat to security.

The question you should ask yourself is "if I put a gun to your head and say sign a piece of paper is it right???"


It's not because Arafat’s motives aren't pure. It's because Arafat couldn't care less about his own people rather then using the money and aid he was given to build a county he use it to destroy a country. Instead of building infrastructure he supports terrorism, Makes schools that teach hate and stuffs much of the money and aid into his own pocket. Israel’s motives may not be pure but it isn't half as responsible for the situation as Arafat is.

[ 26 March 2003: Message edited by: Justice ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Blind_Patriot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3830

posted 26 March 2003 01:30 PM      Profile for Blind_Patriot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The question you should ask yourself is "if I put a gun to your head and say sign a piece of paper is it right???"

Is pointing nukes and having military supremecy at someone, then asking them to sign right?

From: North Of The Authoritarian Regime | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 26 March 2003 04:30 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
When has Israel ever threatend anyone. If Israel didn't have those weapons believe me they would have long ago destroyed Israel. If they had F-16's and Aopaches they wouldn't be making the effort to differentate bettween military targets and civilians they really would be blowing up whole cities.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 26 March 2003 05:40 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think moredreads provided direct quotes from Israeli leaders establishing that Israel began three of four wars. As well, Israel brutsally occupies the West Bank and Gaza. Israel does far more than merely threaten.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 26 March 2003 05:44 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are you continuing to say that Palestinians can be so easily "provoked" to violence?

Blah, blah, blah.
Subjugate them. Humiliate them. Starve them. Steal their water. Kill them. Leave them with nothing but their faith. And then say with all the false conviction you can possibly dreg that they cannot be "so easily" provoked and if they were, then they are as bad as the racist Israeli elements say they are.

I am finding hard to believe the depths to which you will sink mishei.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 26 March 2003 10:01 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Blah, blah, blah.
Subjugate them. Humiliate them. Starve them. Steal their water. Kill them. Leave them with nothing but their faith. And then say with all the false conviction you can possibly dreg that they cannot be "so easily" provoked and if they were, then they are as bad as the racist Israeli elements say they are.
I am finding hard to believe the depths to which you will sink mishei.


When you speak of depths my friend all you need do is turn the mirror on yourselfe.

Remember that at the time of Sharon's ill-advised sojurn Barak was PM. While things were not great they were far far better for the Palestinians than today or for that matter under any other rule historically. The economy was thriving in the PA, there was no cufew,the casino was making big bucks (mostly lining the pockets of Arafat and his cronies though) in fact Israelis and Palestinians were still taliking peace. So dont give me your sanctimonious bullshit.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 26 March 2003 10:08 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can't we have this debate without accusing each other of sinking to depths and crap like that? Geez. Every thread turns into this and it makes me nuts.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Justice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3877

posted 26 March 2003 10:41 PM      Profile for Justice     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Common Wingnuts I expected more from you then that think harder.

Today with the amount of WMD that Israel has if really wanted to conquer the whole middle-east it would not do so??? What do you think Israel is waiting for why bother decades of its own personal bloodshed??? When it could practically bomb all those problems away??? No Israel enjoys watching the Palestinians starve to deaf and suffer like animals it's such a great show that it's even the risk of a couple suicide bombers on it's own people???


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca