Israelies bulldozed another 14 Palestinians homes this week

[breaksny]

And to the poster b4 that, your still totally off base like almost everyone else on this thread. Wtf kind of reasoning is that? 1st of all NY is probably the wrong board to be discussing this on for supporters of the Palestinian independence movement like myself since 1/8 of the city's residents are Jewish and many of them seem still to have funky views about Germany 50 odd years after the Holocaust (more so than most Israelis even who basically have friendly relations with Germany and even have memorials to people like Schindler on their own soil). It's 10 times harder for people like me who support the Palestinian cause. And I'm just being blunt here, but it's certainly true that like the NRA lobby, the tobacco lobby, and the anti-Castro lobby, the pro-Israel coalition of lobbyists on Capital Hill is one of the most powerful in Washington. That statement is neither an anti-semitic (remember arabs are semites too btw), anti-zionist or anything else, it's just a statement of fact. That's why Israel gets more military and economic aid than almost any other nation from the US, in addition of course to the center religious, economic, and strategic role having Israel as an ally plays in America's national security interests aboard.

Back on topic, howevewr, the peace offer from Barak @ Camp David was insufficient to make any palestinian state viable. I've proven that myself in previous posts...you can't have security cooridors, military and settlement encampments, control of vital land, borders, and water rights on Palestinian land (the territories) controlled by Israel in Palestine itself, and still say that's making for a viable state. Can anyone on this board refute that argument? No you can't b/c if the situation were reversed, the Jewish groups wouldn't accept it for Israel. That, the issue of East Jerusalem, and the refugee problem (the latter 2 of which are, granted, more complex than any of the others) were the reason Arafat couldn't accept the camp david offer. Barak's and Clinton's redlines didn't go far enough...coupled with the fact that Arafat repeatedly said during the negotiations that he couldn't make the final deal in one fell swoop that Barak insisted upon. I remember this from Tom Friedman (senior NYTimes Foreign Affairs columnist) @ the time, that Barak and the Israeli government wanted a complete resolution of the conflict in one giant leap, in return for a permenant peace. I don't deny it was visionary, but it was impractical. Perhaps if the East Jerusalem and refugee issues had been tabled till later, and Barak had been willing to lay out this as an interim, instead of final, agreement on other issues on which the 2 sides saw common ground (which was most of the others), then Arafat could've accepted this agreement without "risking his life," as he told Clinton in the last serious negotiating meeting the 2 had during the summit. He said he would've been killed if he had accepted the deal on the table, and I doubt he's exaggerating. And as to the bs contention that Arafat made no counter offer, he did...he offered an agreement under UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 448, which seek the establishment of a Palestinian state to pre-1967 (not 48) borders. Agreed, the issue he should've been more flexible over was East Jersulem and possibly considered some sort of financial compensation for the millions of refugees in the Palestinian diaspora in lieu of the right of return, but that would be extremely politically difficult for Arafat or anyone else to've done, just as it would be for the Israeli right to accept sharing Jersusalem (particularly the temple mount) with Palestine. Those were the final issues around which the entire negotiation process collapsed, but others such as the nature of the agreement Barak demanded (and which Clinton essentially sided with him on) pushed Arafat into a corner to make a deal the he could not accept. Get that in your skulls or go read "The New Intifada" for proof. Any Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, or other book by true moderates will show you the same thing.

The occupation is the problem here and frankly if you were under occupation, you'd probably be doing alot of the things the Palestinian people were doing as well. As I said before, I know what this is like from my Dad's stories of growing up in Lithuania under Russian occupation...you want your country free. And as I've said while I don't condone killing civilians, if a forein occupier that's destroyed my or one of my relatives' homes or killed someone I know or love, it's not hard to understand how that would radicalize you. That's why no I guess the one thing alot of you are right about now is that after 35 years of occupation (and 2 intifadas) more and more Palestinians really are coming to hate their imperialistic appartheidistic occupier. Btw, how exactly is Israel getting by economically by shutting tens of thousands of Palestinian merchants and laborers out of Israel proper b/c it thinx their a security threat? Who's doing the jobs they used to do? And as to the person who said Israel will win this war...how? Are you now advocating ethnic cleansing, or an acceleration of the Jewification of the last sliver of the Palestinians' homeland? Do you really think that'll stop the armed struggle? Do you really think Sharon or even Netanyahu or any Labor leader has the stones to do that? Do you even think they have any concept of what comes after Arafat for that matter, or more long term, after the destruction of the PA? Cuz I sure as hell don't see it! Israel will lose this war. No one's saying it will disappear, but it can't win b/c the cost of they're not being Palestine is simply an intensification of the current situation. Someday the US and Israel's gonna have to face that fact.

And on the Friedman thing...fine he won a Pulitzer. Woopeedoo. He's also very conservative. Maybe not by American or Israeli standards, but both societies are much more conservative than most other western nations anyway. I dont think that's saying much since in the end, I don't find his writing objective at all. It would be nice to see the Times get a columnist who's actually liberal on foreign policy for once cuz Friedman's not. I wouldn't say as far as the middle east goes, he's particularly centrist either. I respect his opinion but I think (rather I know) he's often full of bs too. He's only liberal if you compare him to someone like Safire...big friggin deal.

One last thing, if you hate CNN and live in the city, then watch the BBC news. It's far superior for world news to anything on American TV anyway and it's only 30 mins and on 4 times a day in NY between Channels 13 and 21. That's what I watch. And I'll tell you this...they're balanced as hell. They talk to, and they grill everyone and they get all the sides to the conflict, objectively. And more importantly, they put this conflict (and most world news events) in their proper global news perspective. Screw CNN.

[tribal]

breaks

take a look at what youve just said and then try to think why things are the way they are

1. israel gets more financial and military aid than any other country in the region. why? the AIPAC? yes to an extent. a bigger reason is that israel is the only true allie and a reliable military power, proven in battle. israel is the only country that US can truly rely upon to project its power. its all about strategic interests, and if you think that the jewish groups are the sole cause of US aid to israel, you have a lot of historical reading to do.

2. Clinton was regarded both by israelis and palst as an honest and fair broker. he brought barak and arafat together and said, "lay out your do's and donts and we wil go from there"

barak gave arafat more than any other previous israeli administration, a chance for a palst state, part of jerusalem and dozens of other vital arrangements, and most importantly, trust in the PA for providing security, something most israeli were very suspicious about, and understandably so. if you are telling me the reason that arafat didnt accept it was because fear of his life, well than, i dont see how the israelis faulted in this one. the other reasons that youve mentioned are minor intricacies that could have been settled only if arafat accepted the resolution.

the problem here isnt with israel anymore. yes, the occupation brought on the antifada, but the palst had many chances to put down the gun and establish a state, and they quiet frankly fucked up.

arafat did not accept the offer solely because he know from the beginning of camp david that he would never be able to make

peace with israel. why? because palst have never accepted the right of israelis to live where they live. if you are so cosmopolitan, please read a fragment of palst media, schoolbooks and articles in their newspapers. you will see why they will never want peace. im very open minded about most things, except the better nature of people in that region.

call it Hobbesian complex, but so far i dont see any way out of this mess. like ive said earlier in this post, the main problem is the PA lack of laws and social organization, the palst society exists only on paper, rule of the AK-47 is stronger than law.

btw, the issue of Jerusalem as a palst capital is a fairly new one. as you probably know, jerusalem was never regarded as important to arabs as it was to jews, to arabs its i believe 4th or 5th holiest city, while the jews regard it as their point of origin. i swear i hate religion so much.

[crobra]

Originally posted by breakbeatz2

bro if you dont know, then do me a favor and dont speak

everybody know who started this shit first palestinian terrorists. its not like you'll hear "israeli terrorist kills palestinian children, palestinian army blows up israeli village in retaliation"

second, Israeli govt. never said they dont want Palestinian state. they were willing to compromise. its the Palestinian who year for the destruction of Israel and cant be satisfied with anything but their own death!

I think that you should not speak, because you really have no clue. For your information Israeli soldiers (for lack of a better word) do kill Palestinian children. In-fact, there was a great article in the NY times two months ago explaining how nothing happens to an Israeli soldier if he "accidentally" shoots a Palestinian child. The authorities know it happens, acknowledge it and do nothing about it; therefore, the Israeli government condones not just the killing of civilians, but children too!! The Fact is Sharon is considered a war criminal in Western Europe and his own lawyer has requested that he doesn't travel to most European countries, because he would be dragged of for crimes against humanity (these are crimes that were committed twenty years ago- another NY times article). Therefore, Israel has a war criminal as a leader, this would be similar to the Germans having a prime minister who was in the S.S.

If you condone an army fighting against civilians who throw rocks, then you are not thinking logically. If you were poor, hungry, and thrown out your home so some eastern European can live where were you once lived for 1000's of years, I doubt you would act any differently. Plus armed soldiers surround your settlement and don't allow free movement!!

My whole point is that both sides have blood on their hands, not just the Palestinians or not just the Israelis!! In fact, Israeli hands are dirtier cause they have the power. Every year each U.S. citizen on average pays $300 of his or her taxes to support Israel. Israel has the money, the weapons, the backing of the US - they have the power. They still have not fulfilled the peace agreement from like 30 years ago. Israel is like a teenage boy beating a young child. Whoever would like to have a dialectic discussion the matter, please IM me or just talk to me at one of the meet-ups!! I know there is a lot more to it than this and people using bombs to kill Israeli civilians doesn't make it any easier for the situation, but one must look at who has the power - If the palestinians had any they would have killed all the israilis off according to your rationale!!

I don't want to see Israel or Palestine destroyed, what I hope for is peace to return to the area. Both sides once lived together peacefully and it can happen again!!

[tribal]

also, ive read E.Said's work. i wouldnt exactly call him a moderate. what you dont understand is that in this type of conflict, there is no true moderate. the closest thing to moderates in that region are Peres and Ashrawi. and they have proven to be completly non effective. as ive said, i dont support this type of palst struggle. is they would wage any other form of protest, if they truly feel oppressed, which im sure they are, they should use non violent protest. i can not sympathisize with supporters of terror. there are hundreds of ethnic groups who feel oppressed across the globe, from Sikhs to Kurds to Tibetans. i think the palst are getting more attention than they deserve.

[breaksny]

Israel is the power it is today b/c of the aid it's been getting from the US for 50 years. You have heard of the 1st Camp David summit, correct? We have peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and most of the Gulf States as well. I don't think the US per se had a problem with the other regimes (though they are autocratic or monachical for the most part it's true) when it comes down to it. We want the Gulf States oil, in return for it we protect their security. Though in the case of Saudi Arabia, the whole Wahhabist politics and Al Qaeda makes that a bit more complicated. I never said btw that it was only b/c of AIPAC, but religious issues play a key issue. We are a Christan country after all. I do have alot of history reading to do, but I know alot of it as well, and enough to show that this has been a major factor influencing American policy in the region. You seem to have missed my emphasis on that in my last post.

On your main point Tribal, you're wrong. Period. The offer didn't go far enough and those are not "minor intricacies" as you call them. Sure negotiations are in steps, but this offer from Barak was a "final" offer. Notice the words in my previous post referred to "the nature of the proposed offer," that refers to it being a final one. Israel would've maintained the presence of settlements, security battalions, border controls with Jordan, control over water rights (did you look @ a proposed map of the Barak offer in the Times or elsewhere btw? I have...many times). The phrase Bantustans that the Palestinian negotiators have used isn't an exaggeration. The threat to Arafat's life lay in the fact that Clinton felt there was a time crunch in him with the 2000 election being around the corner and his inability to devote the time needed to negotiations beyond roughly August 2000. Barak likewise faced the collapse of his own government at the time of the negotiations and the prospect of an election which he could only win if he emerged with a comprehensive (probably final) peace agreement. That's what the Israelis wanted, a final agreement, or at least the broad parameters of it. On the Jerusalem issue, the Temple Mount wasn't even offered and Barak gave no hint of bending on the issue (though it's true Arafat didn't particularly either himself).

You are aware the Palestinians have a democratically elected parliament are you not? I don't say it's perfect and it's authority isn't like that of the Knesset in Israel (poverty, corruption in the PA, and an occupation will do that to your legal system). But you make the territories sound like Somalia, which is a load of bs. They do have a legal system, probably alot of it rooted in Islamic law, as any Islamic society does, just as Israel follows Jewish laws in many areas of its society. The Palestinians also have deeply embeded network of social and civil organizations that take care of health care, education, elderly, child, and women's interests run by mosques, and all sorts of other organizations. Am I being too academic for you? If not, this just means these are popular organizations, many not controlled by the PA in any way. Hamas started and still largely is a charity service organization. It's armed wing and political wing have just gotten carried away with violent attacks. I have a book on them published by a couple Israeli scholars which basically argues they thrive on ambiguity in supporting the Palestinian cause, but not wanting to be seen as compromising their national interests or the central character of Islam in any future Palestinian state. That's a huge difference from what the Fatah faction stands for.

You're also clearly unaware of how important Haram al Sharif is to the Palestinian people and all Moslems (just as it is to christians). You're aware that that is where Mohammed ascended to heaven, correct? It's the 3rd most important city, but I wasn't aware we were ranking religious issues here (particularly you since you said you hate to do so). The ranking is irrelevant, if you know a thing about Islam (and I dunno much, but I know this much), Jerusalem is extremely symbolically and spritually significant to all Moslems (all 1 billion+ of them) for that and many other reasons. Why do you think the Arab nations fought so hard for it in the previous wars? Why do you think Saladin defended it against the Crusaders, or the Ottomans invested so much in protecting its mosques, churches, and synagogues (or Jewish temples). YOu cannot claim that one religion is superior to another in the holiest city on Earth b/c it matters as much to Moslems as to members of the other 2 religions (maybe it's b/c Islam is a global religion so it makes sense for it to have more than one spiritual center, just a thought).

You know I should add btw, the Intifada started when Sharon walked into the Temple Mount on a Friday (the Moslem holy day). I'm not denying his right to do so, but he knew it was a provocative act...what's happened is probably beyond his wildest dreams, though. He knew something would happen and look where he is now? It was a calculated political as well as religious decision to do what he did. And Barak fell into his trap by trying to crush the Palestinian anger at that provocation. No wonder he lost the election (among many other reasons).

On your assertions about inflammatory statements from the Palestinian media, yes of course there's plenty, as there is on the Israeli side. And especially now, the word jihad comes all the time, I saw Arafat say it in Arabic on BBC himself last week. He means the independence struggle, i.e. the creation of a state in the territories. But your wild assertion that the Palestinians never wanted to coexist with the Israelis is utter nonsense. Of course they did, why would Arafat wait for sooooo long through the Shamir, Rabin, Netanyahu, and finally Barak administrations and the continual Israeli footdragging with just a statelet as his territory...whose borders were controlled by Israel, whose land was littered with foreign (i.e. Israeli) settlements, whose territory was crisscrossed with Israeli controlled roads and security cooridors just for the faint hope of seeing a sovereign state emerge one day? Honestly...the Palestinian media is as inflammatory as the Israeli media is (and there's plenty of crap coming out of there). Sure there are groups who support Israel's destruction (just as there are parties in the Knesset that want to expel all Palestinians from the territories as well as Israel proper), but they're still on the fringe. The problem is, the young in the territories are increasingly supporting these groups as the occupation affects more and more people's lives. Corruption in the PA doesn't help either, but as I illustrated above...your Somalia-esque metaphor to their society being just one of the gun is crap.

Sure many of these groups have links to Hezbollah...I'm not saying it's something Israel should overlook. My bottom line is...the current Israeli policy is to blame more for the problems here as I've amply demonstrated that Barak's offer while generous didn't go far enough. How many times do I have to say it? At least on the GU board, there are more people who recognize that fact. You all really don't seem to understand the Palestinians plight at all.

Crobra...you seem pretty moderate on the issue, I'll exclude you from that diatribe. And Tribal, ok fair enough...the names you put out there are moderates your right. I could except them as the standard for moderation (though I think Burg is more dovish than Peres and hence more moderate since he wants to speak to the palestinian parliament right now). Don't take the other stuff I said personally, this is just my issue as you can see.

[breaksny]

One other point I wanna make....you're all sick of me by now I know. Tribal, while idealistically I'd agree with you that pacificism is the way to go...notice how unsuccessful the Tibetan independence movement has been against Chinese oppression, despite its outwardly pacifist leanings. I should also note an historical example. I went to a pretty leftist college (surprise there!) and I can tell you that among the South Asian student community (particularly among Indians) the support for Nehru was as high or higher than it was for Ghandi for a few crucial reasons. While Ghandi's movement spoke to western (especially christian pacifist sensibilites, a la MLK) and helped to unite the entire Indian population across class and caste lines in its opposition to British colonialism, and thereby succeeded in the independence struggle, it failed to destroy the caste system or class systems that even today still plague India, and are a root cause of the country's poverty. Many of the students who I knew who supported Nehru more did so b/c the Socialistic ideology he stood for had as an explicit aim the destruction of the caste and class systems (well at least many Indian leftists did). The point is...the cost of violence might've been a more violent and divided society, and a class revolution that would've accompanied the nationalist one. But the poor masses might well have been freed by this. Of course, this opens the door to dictatorship, and India of course is a democracy...but one in which the poor vastly outnumber the rich, and in which bonded labor is still common in some areas of the country.

I'm not really convinced pacifism would work in the Palestinian struggle, anyway. There are those (like Ashrawi) who support it and do enjoy some substantial popular support. And I suppose it also depends on the sort of pacifism you are talking about. The thing is...I don't support killing anyone obviously, but the problem is....when you're under occupation, what do you do? Roll over and die? If a tank is sitting 100 meters from your presidents compound what do you do? I don't see the Israeli response to terrorism as "defense" b/c it's clearly an invasion. And when one's homeland is invaded, you defend it, as Malcolm X said, "by any means necessary." If that means firing tank guns at the tank to drive it out, so be it. If it means a peaceful demonstration, fine. Try em all. But while I see the issue Israel supporters here (which seems to be most of you) are most concerned about is terrorism inside Israel proper or against settlers or the military, I don't see them urging caution. Maybe they're just fed up. I dunno. The settlements (none of them!) should be there. Why are they there? B/c Israel has a population problem? Is that any more defensible than the Palestinians' "Right of Return?" Is military invasion of another country-in-the-making a defense of your own homeland when you're destroying someone else's house or another proto-nation's security offices? Is putting its democratically elected leader under house arrest a form of self defense(how does a democracy justify doing that to another democratically elected leader anyway?...that's where the Saddam Hussein comparisons some of you make just puzzle me, particulary since Arafat is again laying his life and that of his administration on the line to support the American war against Terrorism)? I don't think so. I guess what I'm saying here is...I don't support attacks in Israel, but the occupation (including the settlements, which are basically on Palestinian land) shouldn't be there. And the only reason I can figure they are is b/c Israel, not Palestine which is doing alot to try to achieve peace, doesn't want the existence of Palestine and never did.

[tribal]

breaks i see where youre coming from and i gotta tell you, you side step on so many important issues

the case with the current antifada isnt merely an uprising against the occupation, its a calculated move by the PA and arafat. by now, arafat has established strong ties with a number of syrian and iranian backed terror groups, which explains why he was able to finance the Karine A cargo. if you are so adamant on the issue of palst wanting to live with israelis, why did it until 93 say in the palst national charter, that the goal of PA was to eliminate the state of Israel? it was removed only because of the camp david and oslo, and it wasnt done willfully by the palst. i think you are pretty naive to think that the palst want to live next to the israelis, and vice versa. the settler issue is one i would agree with you on. i think its an abomination and a clear violation of international law. this is one great israeli flaw. my point is however, if the palst would stop terror attacks, their point and their struggle would be deemed acceptable and valid, through lack of israeli blood, and it would make israelis look twice at their actions, just like the british looked twice at their treatment of indians and gandi. obviously thats a bit of wishful thinking, but at the current stage, i cant agree on your view of the palst agenda.

oh btw, comparing the PA and Israeli media is not equitable. they are simply not similar. the amount of stereotyping, hate speech and violent visual imagery shown on israeli media is nothing compared to PA programs. there was a NY times article about a year ago, reporting what kind of propagnda the palst were feeding their children. i dont blame them for picking up stones and firebombs. the children are plain brainwashed by the PA media.

what school did u go to?

[h2baplaya]

IF I HAD THE POWER I WOULD WIPE OUT EVERY PALESTINIAN ON EARTH AND FILM IT FOR CAPONE...ISRAEL NEEDS TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE ANIMALS ONCE AND FOR ALL...AND QUITE FRANKLY, I CAN'T WAIT TILL THEY GO DOWN

[tribal]

yea ok h2bayplayer, whatever you say

stupid people piss me off sometimes.

[aak911]

the facts are blatant. the plo refused an agreement which would have given them a huge amount of land in order for them to kill more innocent israelis. By the way before the land was returned to israelis by the UN, it was nothing but an abandoned desert piece of crap land. the israelis took it over and made it into a modern metropolitan nation and now the palestinians want it back. Screw that. its not hard to see who is full of crap and it is the former and probably present terrorist Yasser Arafat and the PLO

[scoob-e]

how about the guy in cambodia who was cooking a cat and set a huge fire that left 1000 people homeless? (i dunno if someone brought this up but i have to run and dont have time to read all the long posts in this topic)

[mysterynyc]

Originally posted by scoob-e

how about the guy in cambodia who was cooking a cat and set a huge fire that left 1000 people homeless? (i dunno if someone brought this up but i have to run and dont have time to read all the long posts in this topic)

:confused:

riiiiiight...and this pertains to this post HOW??

[breakbeatz2]

Originally posted by mysterynyc

:confused:

riiiiiight...and this pertains to this post HOW??

maybe its a Confuscious saying......

[mysterynyc]

Originally posted by breakbeatz2

maybe its a saying Confuscious......

Confuscious say: cook cat....leave 1000 homeless....

sounds more like CONFUSION.

[breakbeatz2]

Originally posted by mysterynyc

Confuscious say: cook cat....leave 1000 homeless....

sounds more like CONFUSION.

you're just too foolish to understand the depth of a quote like that!

[breaksny]

Tribal, I didn't sidestep anything. I just disagree with most of what you've said, and probably all of what almost everyone else has said on here. Chris being the exception.