TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Palestinian Mother Turns Suicide Bomber for Hamas
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »

Palistinean always DOES back his stuff up with creditable sources and all. most of diginuts info is not back up. but they both make a good point on things. just, why is their the personal insults. shouldnt this be about the conflict, not the way each other debates?? if u disagree with something, put up a response backed up by sources, not personal insults.

quote:

Palestinian Heinz, in the Old Testament, God made a covenant with His people. In the New Testament, Jesus makes a NEW covenant. And the old one becomes obsolete. This is what Christian Zionists fail to see. read this carefully: http://www.al-bushra.org/promisedland/labibkobti1.html

your right, jesus changed the entire story. which is why we have jews, and christians. christians follow jesus, jews follow moses, because christians believe jesus was the messiah, which is what i believe, and jews believe moses, as they always have. i have to find more passages..

many of u have already repeated many times, what ive had already and firstly said. its outlines on page 3. my first post is the way i think peace can be obtained. ill post it again.

I happen to sympathize on the Israeli side of things, but I also understand the Palistinean side too. But, there is one thing that both sides actually come into agreeance to! and that is, they both want peace! of course thats easy to understand, and come to, but neither side can come into any agreement of how to attain this peace. It is understood that Palistine wants their own government formed, and all their territory restored. My question goes to the Israeli side. Why not restore the pre-196(?) borders. before the arab war happened.....and help the Palistineans by withdrawing from that land, jewish settlements and all, and letting the palistineans take care of their own issues. and letting the jews take care of theirs.

I say, make a deadline for withdrawal, such as a year. restore the original borders...even though there might be land you want to keep, so what, you want peace or more bloodshed is my response. israel might even be able to help the palistineans by helping them achieve stability as they themselves are trying to achieve. official apologies should be made by both sides, and a treaty of goodwill signed. thereafter, both sides should show their goodwill, through whatever means is necessary to sustain their peace.
i dont believe this will ever be achieved during my lifetime, and im only 16.....

but aa. the attitudes being shown by both sides is untolerable. palistineans keep suicide bombing, isrealis keep launching incursions into the palistinean territory. both sides add into this conflict. each suicide bombing adds more conflict. each israeli incursion adds to the conflict. nothing can be made out of these actions. there is no excuse for suicide bombings, no matter what the situation is. think about, what if the palistineans took the initiative, and began showing signs, real signs i mean, that they really want peace. ceasing of suicide bombings, the distruction of the islamic terrorist groups, which are sorry excuses for anything but conflict. israel would most likely get the message, especially from international pressure, borders, might be restored, new gov't formed. thats one way of putting it.

but in conclusion. its really isreal who should take the initiative in that they are the strongest nation of the two by far.

1. Withdraw from Palistinean territory
2. Help to form new gov't of palistine
3. Stay out of Palistinean politics
4. Restore pre-arab war borders
5. Isreal stick to Isreal, Palistine stick to Palistine
6. Goodwill treaties signed.

Then the islamic terrorist groups would therefore be useless, for isreal would no longer be "oppressing the Palistinean people". therefore, they would lose public support, b/c the conflict is over. both sides have peace, abd they would be viewed as nothing more than trouble-makers trying to thwart the peace, as they do now, with every peace attempt. they try to thwart it before it starts.

i just got to tell u guys. im using this thread on a project i have. a 5-7 minute presentation on the israeli-palistinean conflict. thanks to u guys, i have all points of view, and all the sources i could ever ask for for. THANKS

quote:

Originally posted by Heinz i just got to tell u guys. im using this thread on a project i have. a 5-7 minute presentation on the israeli-palistinean conflict. thanks to u guys, i have all points of view, and all the sources i could ever ask for for. THANKS

too bad.. there have been much better and more informative Israeli-Palestinian fights.. err debates on this forum

I believe I liked the 27th one the best

no problem heinz. yoepus is right though. there were much better and more informative debates before this thread. especially when i first signed up in this forum in spring. Back then it was me against Izzy and Viber and then Yoepus. And now it's mostly Illan and Diginut. But my early debates with Izzy were probably the best.

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian no problem heinz. yoepus is right though. there were much better and more informative debates before this thread. especially when i first signed up in this forum in spring. Back then it was me against Izzy and Viber and then Yoepus. And now it's mostly Illan and Diginut. But my early debates with Izzy were probably the best.

Ya its true, I don't argue that much in the Palestinian-Israeli threads anymore, because we've basically argued every point, these arguments are simple reiterations. I mean I could swear we were arguing about Camp David at least twice before, and neither party deciedes to budge from its position. Regarding Camp David, both Clinton, Barak, and David Ross (even Madilin Albright I think if I recall her speech correctly) both basically said Arafat was the loser of the whole incident, the one who wouldn't budge, and wouldn't bring a counter proposal. But even on such an issue when is basically 4vs1 we can't come to any agreement.

Anyway.. Palestinian, if you are ever interested in reading some literature that should steam your nerves, Alan Dershowitz has wrote a new book, The Case For Israel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846). I highly recommend it to you, or anyone else who takes interest in this matter. He categorial goes through issues and claims typically your side of the debate goes through and with the thoroughness of a lawyers goes through them one by one. Although I've read several anti-Israeli books, I tend to favor the read pro-Israeli books at least on a 2-1 ratio (I just find them more rational), I'm sure you prefer anti-Israeli books the same, but I encourage the read.

Anyway all are welcome to buy it and read it, if I was rich I'd mail it all to you guys .. unfortunately I'm still quiet a ways away from taking over the world, and the mustard fields are preforming really poorly this year

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian no problem heinz. yoepus is right though. there were much better and more informative debates before this thread. especially when i first signed up in this forum in spring. Back then it was me against Izzy and Viber and then Yoepus. And now it's mostly Illan and Diginut. But my early debates with Izzy were probably the best.

ya those were some good times... i guess after a while it just gets old arguing debating but then agian you cant refrain yourself sometimes, like now:

quote:

What Barak offered at Camp David was a formula for continued Israeli military occupation under the name of a "state." The proposal would have meant: no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state,

excuse me, but the maps in your links do show a contigious state in the westbank, and it was proposed that a tunnel highway be built from the westbank to gaza

quote:

no control of its external borders,

how does having a soverign airport and naval port (both in gaza) support not having external borders?


sorry had to throw that in

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Ya its true, I don't argue that much in the Palestinian-Israeli threads anymore, because we've basically argued every point, these arguments are simple reiterations. I mean I could swear we were arguing about Camp David at least twice before, and neither party deciedes to budge from its position. Regarding Camp David, both Clinton, Barak, and David Ross (even Madilin Albright I think if I recall her speech correctly) both basically said Arafat was the loser of the whole incident, the one who wouldn't budge, and wouldn't bring a counter proposal. But even on such an issue when is basically 4vs1 we can't come to any agreement. Anyway.. Palestinian, if you are ever interested in reading some literature that should steam your nerves, Alan Dershowitz has wrote a new book, The Case For Israel (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...=books&n=507846). I highly recommend it to you, or anyone else who takes interest in this matter. He categorial goes through issues and claims typically your side of the debate goes through and with the thoroughness of a lawyers goes through them one by one. Although I've read several anti-Israeli books, I tend to favor the read pro-Israeli books at least on a 2-1 ratio (I just find them more rational), I'm sure you prefer anti-Israeli books the same, but I encourage the read. Anyway all are welcome to buy it and read it, if I was rich I'd mail it all to you guys .. unfortunately I'm still quiet a ways away from taking over the world, and the mustard fields are preforming really poorly this year

Thanks, Yoepus. I am fully aware of the book as Israeli supporters in my university have been promoting it and selling it for two dollars at their table. But my friend nailed it when he called the author "Alan Fraudowitz". But I may still read the book someday.

http://www.democracynow.org/static/dershowitzFin.shtml

quote:

too bad.. there have been much better and more informative Israeli-Palestinian fights.. err debates on this forum I believe I liked the 27th one the best

still, i have plenty of information right here.

i even saved all the crucial posts that u guys have made. palestineans, yoepus's, failsafe's, and diginuts, and mine of course into microsoft word. with your permission may i use some quotes??

sure

Re: Over 2000 Palestinians killed

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian Thanks, Yoepus. I am fully aware of the book as Israeli supporters in my university have been promoting it and selling it for two dollars at their table. But my friend nailed it when he called the author "Alan Fraudowitz". But I may still read the book someday. http://www.democracynow.org/static/dershowitzFin.shtml

I read that entire link and I'm really just confused. Finkelstein did show with certainty that there were some errors in Dershowitz's book, but I really haven't seen any evidence that it was a deliberate fraud. The interview was just one ad hominem attack after another... and Dershowitz was clearly getting very emotional but what do you expect from him after being called a fraud? I'm impressed how the interviewer admonishes him to "refrain from ad hominem" but doesn't ask Finkelstein to do the same.

Palestinian, most of what you wrote in response to my previous post was already addressed, and I'm not going to bother to respond to your charges of racism because they are the same ad hominem bullshit you apply to everyone else who doesn't take your side of the argument. I actually have more Arab friends than Jewish friends and I understand the Palestinian suffering but that's not the point, it was never the point, because they cause much of their own suffering. Not all of it, Israel is partially responsible, but not fully responsible.

Just a few things that haven't been addressed though:

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian The occupation is illegal. Check UN resolutions and international law.

TBH, I'm unwilling to accept UN resolutions as informed and unbiased. The UN may have made this declaration but the logic of their decision remains in question, in my opinion. You're entitled to your opinion of course.

quote:

Citizens from the territories were not blowing up Israeli civilians until 28 years after the occupation.

In fact, that pretty much says it all, doesn't it? The fact that the attacks never started until 28 years later gives rise to the fact that Palestinians weren't really "displaced" from their land, that the land was in fact relatively unused and that the Palestinians only wanted it after (a) the Israelis cultivated it and made it livable, and (b) they tried unsuccessfully to take it (or take it "back", whichever you prefer) from the Israelis.

28 years later. And it makes sense, because it takes time to establish an infrastructure of hate, propaganda, and most importantly, international politics. If the Palestinians truly felt so oppressed, if it was really all about their plight and about their suffering under the occupation, then why did they wait 28 years? The answer is because they knew they couldn't win their war the conventional way so they had to fight it politically, and a political war would look bad right after losing a real war, it would look like sour grapes, nobody back then would have supported them.

quote:

The Palestinians will never surrender their fundamental human rights. Face it.

The Palestinians should definitely not have to face killing and oppression from the Israelis, that I agree with. The right of return, however, is not a universally accepted fundamental human right - that is a matter of opinion and you've stated yours, but not everybody feels the same way, and you haven't made your case to such a solid extent that we can all accept it as a "fundamental human right."

quote:

I never posted any links from Arabic sources or Al Jazeera.

My apologies to you then. Someone did, and perhaps I confused them with you. I haven't read all the Israel/Palestine debates because I haven't been browsing this forum for more than a couple of months, but if you never used those sources then I guess I made an honest mistake.

Links to the "electronic intifada" aren't much better though. I'm sorry but that's not what I'd call an unbiased source. I took a look at that site several months ago and let me say, I am not even going to bother reading any links posted to that. It would make about as much sense as me quoting the IDF's public statement to you as a "source."

quote:

Palestinians also fear Israelis are trying to get rid of them, discreetly and circumspectly. Like someone is pushing them out. Check out the effects of the settlements, deportations and collective punishment. All forms of terrorism.

The settlements, I agree with you, were an absolutely horrible idea, because they just made it even harder to separate the two groups. The settlements are very difficult to just get rid of and that is part of the problem for Israel. To that extent I can understand why Palestinians are upset, but the Palestinians haven't come up with any real practical suggestions about what to do about it either (by practical I mean suggestions that also address Israel's fears).

Palestinians may feel that Israel is trying to get rid of them, but the difference is that Palestine seems to be doing it openly, in the political sense (paying families of bombers, cheering in the streets, etc.), while Israel really does not politically support the actions of its own violent extremists. Now of course I can understand that there is a fear that Israel MIGHT SUPPORT them, discreetly, but that fear is more like paranoia, and unless it's substantiated further, can hardly be likened to Israel's fear of being eliminated completely (which shouldn't be hard to understand, considering that the Jews have a long history of people trying to kill them).

"Collective punishment" I disagree with. That is again a matter of opinion. I think there is a striking difference between Israel's military operations which generally try to minimize casualties and, say, the USA's military operations, which basically consist of bombing the shit out of anything and everything until the person they're trying to catch is presumed dead amongst the rubble. Again, I am not talking about extremists within the IDF who go about killing innocents - those people are terrorists too and should be dealt with just as harshly as the Palestinian terrorists, but again, I don't think the actions of those soldiers characterize the entire Israeli military, as you would have us believe.

quote:

Again, you seem to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between justifying and understanding. It doesn't require too much intellect.

Again, please refrain from calling me stupid and other ad hominem attacks. Simply because I disagree with your distinction does not mean I lack the intellectual capability to understand it.

quote:

Terrorist (or Savage as it was called back then) activity by the native americans against the european colonizers was understandable.

Yes, it was, but I disagree with your comparison. The natives didn't bide their time and revolt 30 years later. As far as I know, their violent acts were essentially quashed (but I could be wrong here), and ultimately they began to get compensation through a completely non-violent political campaign. I'm sorry if I'm not 100% accurate here, but I think that although the INITIAL situations of both the natives and the Palestinians are similar, it's ludicrous to equate their CURRENT state of affairs and the ACTIONS they took.

quote:

Fatalities in the al-Aqsa Intifada,: 29 Sept. 2000 - 18 December 2003 In the Occupied Territories 2,289 Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces in the Occupied Territories, of whom 439 were minors under the age of 18. Within Israel 48 Palestinians, residents of the Occupied Territories, were killed by Israeli security forces gunfire. One of those killed was a minor aged 14. source: http://www.btselem.org/ The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories

Not disputing that statistic, not even disputing that many innocent Palestinians have indeed been killed - but within that statistic, how many were killed in self-defense? Do we have any info on that?

It's strange, as a general rule I tend to equivocate and support neither Israel nor Palestine. But your obvious hate for Israel has pretty much forced me onto the Israeli side of things because your arguments seem to lack objectivity or consistency. Every time I say something you repeat the same old dogma: The Palestinians are violent because they suffer, Israel is responsible for protecting their rights, the right of return is a human right, Israel refuses to negotiate... it just gets old after a while.

You've proven your point objectively about how Palestinians are suffering and how Israel is committing many immoral acts. However, you've still failed to apply any of that information to your argument!

"1 + 1 = 2, therefore Israel should give Palestine everything it wants." Okay, so your evidence isn't THAT disconnected from your thesis, but it's not connected enough for me to take in what you say as a believable argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Palestinian Thanks, Yoepus. I am fully aware of the book as Israeli supporters in my university have been promoting it and selling it for two dollars at their table. But my friend nailed it when he called the author "Alan Fraudowitz". But I may still read the book someday. http://www.democracynow.org/static/dershowitzFin.shtml

hehe I could see why they would be selling it... To be honest, further reading it, it does seem fairly one sided, and even I could try and pick apart his arguments sometimes.. it really does all depend what type of sources you want to look at. But I still think he makes a very solid point in the book, and achieves the "Case for Israel": The Case is why is Israel being so heavily critized for its right to self-defense, why is it being imposed with a international moral double standard?

As for a fraud he is far from it, I reviewed Mr. Noam's attack, and it really is very baseless. The typographical error on page 80 reads "Morris estimates between two and three [hundred] thousand Arabs fled their homes during this phase of the Arab-intiated fighting" - the transcript notes it as 2000 and 3000, and so it makes it harder to see how it would be a typographical error, but in the book it the number are the written word, and so forgetting to place a "hundred" or somehow it being overlooked is not really a case for fraud.

As for the other attack, obviously he is using sources used by other sources, this is not plagarisim. I have used the Mark Twain quote myself that Dershowitz used and I've seen it in several other books on the subject. Just because other people have made the same reference to the same sources does not prove he is a fraud or is copying. Dershowitz also does not use any of the conlusions that Joan Peters presented in The Case For Israel, and as Dershowitz notes, the timeline for his book is mainly focused on the present, he just does a tad of history reference.

To be honest, I think it is very horrible for Mr. Noam to call this book a lie and plagarized, he has not been able to scholarly disprove this book... and it would be hard to, as even though the opinion and conclusions Dershowtiz gets at might not be what he would like to here, he uses real facts to back them up. The best argument one could make is the Dershowitz did not chose to look at this fact or that fact, but I think almost all people who write on this subject are guilty of that... and it does not show fraud.

Personally if I was Prof. Dershowitz, I think I would bring this little case to court and see who would win it than

Anyway.. for $2 it definetly is worth the money, even for you Palestinian - it never hurts to know how your enemy thinks, after all if you read it and are able to make counters to his arguments, even if they are false counters like Noams, you'd make a good debate and could easily change the weak-minded

Having a conflict is far more useful to Arafat then a solution will ever be.

If the PA made a real peace they would be responsible for health care, jobs, and ending poverty. They know they cant do that, because they steal all the aid the EU and U.S give them.

Did you hear about the latest story. Arafat took 900 million dollars in aid intended for his people. Arafat put the money in his secret bank account. Its the old story with Arab dictators. There rich while they keep there people poor.
Here's the article about this.
http://www.news.com.au/common/story...55E1702,00.html

The PLO who rejects all offers of peace, including Camp David and Taba, because The PLO entity represents a dictatorial oppressive and aggressive regime, whose goal is to eliminate the Jewish state by terror or diplomacy or by a combination of both.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte...01/168lewqp.asp

Myths of the Intifada
Yasser Arafat has propagated three myths about the deals he turned down. Now Dennis Ross has set the record straight.
by Fred Barnes
04/25/2002 12:00:00 AM

Fred Barnes, executive editor

PALESTINIAN and other apologists for Yasser Arafat have propagated three myths about his failure to reach peace with Israel. And only now--two years after Israeli-Palestinian peace talks collapsed because of Arafat's intransigence--is the truth becoming known. This is mostly thanks to Dennis Ross, the Middle East negotiator for both the first Bush administration and President Clinton.

The first myth is that the final deal offered to Arafat would have created a new Palestinian state fragmented into four "cantons" on the West Bank, each surrounded by Israeli territory, none connected to Gaza. It was understandably unacceptable to the Palestinians. The second is that Arafat actually accepted a later, more generous peace settlement, only to have it nullified by the election of Ariel Sharon as Israeli prime minister in February 2001. And the third is that this final offer, an official United States proposal made by Clinton, was never put on paper, making it a matter not to be taken seriously, then or now. (Yes, the myths conflict. Arafat is said to have turned down one final deal but accepted another, later, final offer.)

Myth number one has an element of truth. Indeed, the terms of the peace settlement offered by then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak at Camp David in July 2000 involved four separate clusters of territory on the West Bank and no land link to Gaza. Arafat said no and didn't make a counteroffer. Instead, in September, he started a violent new intifada, or insurrection, against Israel. But the myth, persistently voiced by
such Arafat sympathizers as James Zogby of the Arab American Institute and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, is that this was the final peace proposal. It wasn't.

Following the Camp David summit, Arafat asked for another meeting, according to Ross, and was told he would need to be prepared to accept a deal before a new summit would be set up. So Arafat "agreed to set up a private channel between his people and the Israelis," Ross told Brit Hume on "Fox News Sunday" on April 21. Arafat knew the United States was "poised to present our ideas" when he ordered a new intifada. The United States asked Arafat to prevent violence from erupting after Sharon's provocative visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and he said he would. "He didn't lift a finger," Ross said.

In December 2000, Israeli and Palestinian negotiators were brought to Washington. And on December 23, President Clinton presented a new plan to them. The Palestinians would get 97 percent of the West Bank, Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new Palestinian state, refugees would be allowed to return to Palestine but not Israel, and a $30 billion fund would be established to compensate refugees. This was the final offer: The cantons were gone and a land link to Gaza was included.

And that leads into myth two, that Arafat accepted the fresh and far more generous proposal. True, he said yes when he met with Clinton on January 2, 2001, in the Oval Office. "Then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give," Ross said. He rejected the idea Israelis would have sovereignty over the Western Wall in Jerusalem and other religious sites. He rejected the scheme for refugees and what Ross called "the basic ideas on security . . . So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him, he rejected." How can Ross be so sure of that? He was in the room with Clinton and Arafat when it happened.

As for myth three, Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi and others have dismissed the U.S. offer, which the Israelis under Barak were willing to accept, as so inconsequential it wasn't even written down and publicly announced. But by late 2000, Ross said, Americans had learned Arafat's negotiating style. Any formal offer would be taken as the floor for further negotiations requiring more Israeli concessions.

But with the Clinton administration soon to leave office, there wasn't time to allow Arafat to prolong talks. "We wanted them to understand we meant what we said," Ross said. "You don't accept it, it's not for negotiation, this is the end of it, we withdraw it . . . It couldn't be the floor for negotiations. It was the roof." So for Arafat, it was take it or leave it. He left it, and soon the negotiating environment changed with the election of Sharon and George W. Bush.

In truth, the offer was written down when it was initially presented by Clinton in December. "He went over it at dictation speed," Ross said. After Clinton left the meeting, Ross stayed behind to make certain the Palestinian negotiators had gotten "every single word." They had. A footnote: Ross insists the Palestinian negotiators were ready to accept the offer. They "understood this was the best they were ever going to get. They wanted [Arafat] to accept it." He refused. Why? Ross believes Arafat simply doesn't want to end the conflict with Israel. His career is governed by struggle and leaving his options open. "For him to end the conflict is to end himself," Ross said.

What's important about the history of peace talks in the Middle East is what it tells us about Arafat. The inescapable conclusion is that he will never reach a settlement with Israelis leading to two countries, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace. The Israelis? An honest recounting of the Clinton-led peace talks shows they were willing, though hardly eager, to make substantial concessions to reach a settlement. Had Arafat gone along, Ross believes Barak could have sold the deal to the Israeli people, even as Palestinian terrorism continued and Sharon's election victory loomed. Maybe so, but that was a moment in time that, because of Arafat, has now passed away.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard

The Case for The Case Of Israel:

Found this, here you guys can make up your own mind.. or better yet read his book and then make up your own mind:

It begins, Sep 29th 2003 in op-ed:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349044

Sep 30th:
Alan responds, op-ed: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349031

Oct 2nd, Alan rebute in the news:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349102

Oct 3rd:
It gets heated, Finkelstien enters in, op-ed:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349123

Oct 3rd:
And Alan defends his stand, op-ed:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349122
the last one is the best.. read it if you just read one

Palestinian wants Israel to take in millions of Palestinians and have this as one state.
Does he realize that Arafat would be the leader of this state.
Thats who the Palestinians would elect since they would be the majority.
Does he realize Arafat would be leader for life.
Does he realize there will be no criticism of Arafat allowed.
Does he realize Arafat will steal all the money intended for the people
Does he realize Arafat will teach hate on TV.
In Israel today, opposition is in general viewed as everyone's inallienable right, whereas the PLO is a dictatorship ruled through terror. So his idea would lead to another Arab dictatorship. (Arafat)
The PLO adopted a constitution based on Sharia law. Which means all Jews will be living under Sharia law.
Do you honestly think Israel fought 5 wars to have Arafat as there dictator. When you talk about the right of return, what your really talking about are two Palestinian states.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus The Case for The Case Of Israel: Found this, here you guys can make up your own mind.. or better yet read his book and then make up your own mind: It begins, Sep 29th 2003 in op-ed: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349044 Sep 30th: Alan responds, op-ed: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349031 Oct 2nd, Alan rebute in the news: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349102 Oct 3rd: It gets heated, Finkelstien enters in, op-ed: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349123 Oct 3rd: And Alan defends his stand, op-ed: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349122 the last one is the best.. read it if you just read one

hehe, i guess that goes to show you cant beat lawyer in his own punch

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy hehe, i guess that goes to show you cant beat lawyer in his own punch

whats sad is their debate seems to resemble our debate... just that its on a slightly "higher plane"... the same arguments of "you're biased", "no you're biased"... and "Eat mustard!".. it just sounds so fimilar..

Palestinian perspective

I may read The Case For Israel one day. The first book I read about the conflict was zionist and I didn't know it. But it was good that I did because it made me know how zionists argued.

Anyway, getting to Diginut's response. Racism is racism. You do make racist comments but I'm tired of pointing them out for you.
Palestinians do not cause much of their own suffering. That sounds ridiculous. Blaming people for their own suffering. Have you lived under Israel's military occupation? You can't imagine the suffering it causes.

When I said the attacks started 28 years later, I meant 28 years after the military occupation of Gaza and the West Bank started in 1967. The Israelis did not 'cultivate' 67 lands, they occupied it militarily and demolished several villages. It took 28 years of suffering to culminate into anger and then war of independence i.e Intifada. Not 28 years to build an "infrastructure of hate". But yes, hate exists. Why does it exist? Because of the effects of military occupation: it creates hate.

Regarding the right of return. I do believe in international law and UN resolution 194. I also believe in morality. Iraqis who fled the recent war are allowed to return to Iraq. Morality tells me everyone has a right to return to their lands after war.

The Israeli right-wing government has many politicians who favor "voluntary transfer" of Palestinians. I do fail to see how Israel could be eliminated completely. Palestinians have a much more genuine fear of being eliminated than the fourth most powerful state in the world.

Israel's operations do not try to minimize casualties. There are numerous reports on Israel's collective punishment policies and destructive operations that do not distinguish between innocent and guilty, human and building. I'm not talking about particular IDF soldiers who are extremists. I'm talking about the IDF policies as a military occupier. I know you're not convinced and I'm not really in the mood to provide sources and links at the moment.

About the Natives. Palestinians didn't abide their time either. They revolted in 1936. They were quashed. Then revolted again in 1987. Agreed to compromise, and when that failed revolted yet again in 2000. The natives of America failed. Many are still suffering the consequences. You see, we don't wanna end up like them.

I fail to see the relevance of how many Palestinians were killed in self-defence because I don't believe the IDF should be there in the first place. I view as legitimate any attacks against Israeli soldiers. But I can tell you that a great number of those killed are unarmed people. I don't have a source for this now, I'm too tired to look for it.

Check this Btselem's website for statistics. I trust Btselem and hope you will too.
http://www.btselem.org/

I find it increasingly difficult to believe that you tend to support neither side. I don't think I needed to do much to 'force' you into the Israeli side of things. If those were your views before we debated, then I you were an Israeli supporter from before.

I never said I was trying to be objective. I'm a Palestinian. I support my people in their struggle. I'm not here to be objective but to defend the Palestinian perspective.
It's late, I'm tired, good nite.

Palestinian and Btselem.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/379769.html

Not the slightest regret
By Yoel Marcus
Ha'aretz, January 6, 2003

Eitan Ronel, a retired lieutenant colonel, returned his rank insignia to the chief of staff this week, along with a letter full of bitterness. "Human life has lost its worth and values we were raised on, such as purity of arms, have become a bad joke," he wrote (Haaretz, January 4).

Ronel's protest over the IDF's conduct in the territories is not the first and won't be the last. The reserve pilots, the Sayeret Matkal commandos and the 12th graders got there before him. Before them, there were the four Shin Bet chiefs and the former head of the Mossad. On top of that, we've got B'Tselem and Gush Shalom, plus the Beilins and the Sarids and the Burgs, who are big on peace with the Palestinians and feel their pain. We have committees of inquiry investigating how and why Palestinian women and children were killed in this or that operation. We have a High Court to which every Palestinian can appeal. We have a media that will not allow the least injustice or wrong to slip by. We have columnists whose hearts ache along with the Palestinians.

What I would like to know is why there is no one on the other side crying out against the Palestinian Authority's policy of hatred and bloodshed. Where is their B'Tselem? Where are the Palestinian refuseniks who object to the murder of women and children?

How come, when civilians are accidentally killed in one of our military operations, everyone clamors right away for an investigation, while their suicide bombers have no qualms about boarding a bus packed with children or entering a crowded restaurant and blowing themselves up, fully aware of who they are taking with them? Not only are they not denounced, but their families are treated with respect and showered with perks and pensions.

While we quarrel bitterly over ways to solve the conflict, the Palestinian government has only one way, and it begins and ends with violence. The Palestinians imbibe hatred of Israel with their mothers' milk. From childhood, they are taught that the Jews must die.

In their textbooks, it doesn't say, of course, that the ones who stole their rights were the Arab countries, who invaded the land earmarked for them in the UN partition plan when they attacked in 1948. It doesn't say that they were liberated from Arab occupation only in 1967 - by Israel. Actually, it's been easier for them to push for an independent state under Israeli control than it would ever have been under Jordanian-Egyptian rule.

Whenever a truly historical moment arises - the Oslo Accords, the Clinton-Barak initiative - that's when they go on a spree of suicide bombings in the heart of Israeli population centers. The Palestinians have crossed all the red lines. They have turned Israeli peaceniks into radicals, rousing them into angry rebellion against what is happening around them. But while we respond, while we torture ourselves, while we keep asking ourselves every second if we haven't gone overboard and maybe it's time to stop, the Palestinians have never shown the slightest regret over any attack, no matter how massive, no matter how cruel.

Instead of the Palestinian Authority keeping Hamas in check, it is Hamas that sets the tone. Even in times of grief and pain, the two peoples are poles apart. When we bury our dead, we weep quietly at the graveside. For them, every funeral becomes a raucous demonstration of hatred and incitement against Israel.

Israeli society is plunged in gritty debate. The government is being criticized for not doing enough to end the conflict. Before the intifadas, there were signs that coexistence was possible. Tens of thousands of Israelis flocked to the territories - to have their teeth fixed, to have their cars repaired, to do their food shopping. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians worked in Israel proper.

Today, the only contact is via the barrel of a gun, the army checkpoint, the helicopter gunship, the Qassam rocket and the explosive belt. The IDF reprisal attacks in the territories may be brutal, but there are also people who feel sorry for the Palestinians' bitter lot.

Here one finds anger mixed with compassion; there, one finds anger mixed with loathing. Below the surface in Israel, hopes for peace continue to rumble. For them, hatred is total and blinding. Here they are with President Bush's road map staring them in the face, giving them a state of their own. And yet they won't do the one thing that will open the gate for them: dismantle terrorist infrastructure. Abu Mazen was ousted and Abu Ala will follow the orders of Arafat, who knows no other way but terror.

It is not a fence that will change things but tearing down the wall of hatred that the Palestinians have built between the two peoples.

Palestinian human rights group steals millions. Haha, there no different then Arafat.

http://www.icej.org/news/index.html
PA FREEZES HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP BANK ACCOUNTS
Leading Palestinian NGO accused of embezzling millions

Officials and employees of leading Palestinian human rights group LAW stand accused of siphoning several million dollars in international donations into secret bank accounts, and using other funds to furnish lavish lifestyles, and to finance private commercial transactions.

Following a criminal complaint lodged with the Palestinian Authority by major European donors including Norway, Denmark, Switzerland, Ireland, the PA has seized the bank accounts of several Jerusalem-based officials suspected of orchestrating the scam.

Among them is Khader Shkirat, the outspoken former head of LAW, the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment. Shikirat has been summoned to Ramallah for questioning over his use of some $10 million from philanthropic sources during the funding-rich Oslo years having been named in the complaint alongside 26 other employees.

The action comes after an audit report commissioned by the European donors found that some $2.35 million of their donations had been transferred to secret bank accounts and that Shkirat ran the organization as a private business. Among the long list of financial improprieties is Shkirat�s alleged use of $490,000 from LAW funds to conduct personal transactions among friends, accountants and senior staff and to acquire ownership in the Arab Phones Company, The Post reports.

"We are taking this case very seriously and there will be no discounts for those involved," one PA official told The Post, pointing out that PA Chairman Yasser was being briefed on developments.

Even after the first detected signs of financial discrepancies emerged in July 2002 when the auditing firm Ernst and Young first alerted donor states that major funds from the NGO had been diverted to private accounts in Israeli and Palestinian banks, LAW has continued to be at the forefront of the NGO campaign against Israel.

Founded in 1990 by a group of Palestinian lawyers to �promote human rights and further the principles of the rule of law, and to defend Palestinian rights in accordance with international human rights law,� LAW has long been accused of forcing its human rights agenda to serve an ideological commitment to Palestinian nationalism.

According to the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs� NGO Monitor, �Law should make clear it is not simply a human rights organization, but rather a blatant Palestinian political and ideological organization, issuing unbalanced and unashamedly partisan press releases.�

In 2001, it was one of the principle Palestinian rights groups responsible for the hijacking of the UN�s Durban Conference on Racism, playing a central role in the steering committee and in the pre-conference organizing to ensure that Zionism was singled out as the most pernicious force of discrimination despite the growing wave of global anti-Semitism.

More recently LAW has taken a leading role in the campaign against Israeli�s �apartheid wall,� lobbying hard from its platform as an affiliate of the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva � the leading body for the furtherance and implementation of International Law.

Clearly embarrassed by the affair, PA officials have been quick to promise the EU a speedy and thorough investigation, and may well make and example of Shkirat to prove their point, all with the backing of Arafat.

Meanwhile the group of Palestinian legislators who in October demanded an investigation into the whereabouts of huge amounts of Palestinian Authority funds, believed to have been diverted by leading PA government officials, have had no such success.

In a different league from Shkirat�s $2.35 million alleged embezzlement, Arafat�s personal financial adviser Muhammad Rashid has been openly accused of holding some $200 million for the PA leader in a secret bank account.

According to an IMF report released last September $591m in tax revenue and an additional $300m in profits from commercial investments were "diverted away from the (PA annual) budget."

Forbes magazine also recently listed Arafat as one of the richest men in the world. "

Talk about biased media:

Palestinian boy killed by israeli troops [VIDEO]

Israel kills 10 Palestinians in Gaza air strikes

Fatalities in the al-Aqsa Intifada,: 29 Sept. 2000 - 18 December 2003

"2,289 Palestinians were killed by Israeli security forces in the Occupied Territories, of whom 439 were minors under the age of 18"
"573 Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians, 30 of them were minors under the age of 18"

Israeli State Terrorism

Life in Palestine by the eyes of an english girl

borron, the Pals should be grateful there dealing with Israel.
If they did what they do against Israel in an Arab country. What do you think would happen? In 1970, after Arafat and the PLO tried to overthrow King Hussein's goverment. Hussein in one week killed 20,000 Palestinians. So ferocious was the final Jordanian attack on Arafat's forces that many of his fighters chose to surrender to Israelis rather than face the terror from their own Arab brethren.

Boron, why dont you check out this link if your concerned about Pal Children. Just recently Arafat told a group of Palestinian youth who'd come to see him on "Children's Day" that martyrdom was their highest national and religious calling.
Only Palestinian leaders celebrate Children's Day by telling children to kill themselves. http://www.pmw.org.il/new/ASK%20FOR%20DEATH.htm

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.