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

___________________
*** Sig will be edited -> see rule #5 regarding political/religious content
Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization: "Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."

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.

___________________
My party schedule:
2009-02-21 - DJ Attention @ I'm So Popular
2009-06-18 - DJ Annoying @ People Need To Know Where I'll Be
2012-11-32 - DJ Insufferable ɸ Or At Least the Stalkers I Complain About
2048-06-66 - Spastic & Whocares ¶ Although I'm Actually Flattered
9999-45-81 - Tweaker Gimp ☼ I Probably Won't Even Go To This But I Have To Make Sure I Fill Up All The Available Space Here

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

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

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..

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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.

___________________
*** Sig will be edited -> see rule #5 regarding political/religious content
Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization: "Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."