|
|
|
|
|
| palestinean politics
Posted: 9/13/2008 8:58:51 AM | I have nothing new to say, but a couple of comments on a few posts.
No one has cared to answer my posts 101-103, concerning the deal that Arafat turned down. The one that Barak offered in the closing days of President Clinton's administration. I had always wondered why Arafat did so. Just last week it dawned on me.
What I have heard about this deal but I have not gone through the details, the Palestinians were offered pockets of lands, most of this lands were surrounded by Israel on all 4 sides. Obviously this plan originated from mistrusts of Palestinians. I said in another posts, all it needed is more negotiation, but our Billy boy was too busy getting serviced under the desk.
It has been proven that Clovis people where not the origial people at all, Europeans had made it first...
For heaven sake, please don't bring science here. It is only a theory and has not been proven. All human brains biologically are incredibly alike, the brain is the main source which develops hunting tools. The similarity in the shapes of hunting tools dosn't prove migration.
There are Pyramids in China and South America, that doesn't mean Egyptians migrated to China and S.A to build those. There are numerous examples where two people living in two separate continents developed identical scientific theories at the same time without being aware of each others works. This happened a lot during cold war era. | |
|
| palestinean politics
Posted: 9/13/2008 11:00:54 AM | "For heaven sake, please don't bring science here. It is only a theory and has not been proven. All human brains biologically are incredibly alike, the brain is the main source which develops hunting tools. The similarity in the shapes of hunting tools dosn't prove migration.
There are Pyramids in China and South America, that doesn't mean Egyptians migrated to China and S.A to build those. There are numerous examples where two people living in two separate continents developed identical scientific theories at the same time without being aware of each others works. This happened a lot during cold war era."
Yeah rite, wotever ye say....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070223-first-americans.html
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Clovis_People_Maybe_Not_First_To_Populate_North_America_999.html | |
|
| palestinean politics
Posted: 9/14/2008 10:44:02 AM |
No one has cared to answer my posts 101-103, concerning the deal that Arafat turned down. The one that Barak offered in the closing days of President Clinton's administration. I had always wondered why Arafat did so. Just last week it dawned on me.
What I have heard about this deal but I have not gone through the details, the Palestinians were offered pockets of lands, most of this lands were surrounded by Israel on all 4 sides. Obviously this plan originated from mistrusts of Palestinians. I said in another posts, all it needed is more negotiation, but our Billy boy was too busy getting serviced under the desk. Right! "What I have heard about this deal but I have not gone through the details, the Palestinians were offered pockets of lands" What you heard, is what what Arafat and the Palestinian side lied to have you believe! I now ask you to go back and read Dennis Ross's interview which I have posted in #102. Dennis Ross was actually there. He was the American negotiator, and served in that capacity under a number of US presidents, from both parties.
But I'll repeat the relevant portion:
Dennis Ross: ...Why lie about it? Why misrepresent it? Why say you were offered cantons when you weren’t? Why say that you didn’t have a border with Jordan when you did? Why say you weren’t even offered 90 percent when you were offered 97 percent? Why say that you did not get any of East Jerusalem when you were offered all of Arab East Jerusalem?
I think it's outrageous that no one on the Palestinian side admits this offer, or that there is might in fact be two legitimate sides to the conflict. Entire generations have been educated to blame the entire thing on the Israelis. As if there were no other side in history.
I will reiterate: The Palestinians have a legitimate claim and a legitimate side. The Israelis also have a legitimate claim and a legitimate side. Neither side is going to go away. Those who pretend otherwise prolong the suffering, and are costing actual lives. This is your responsibility. Despite claims that the Israelis are eternally at fault, those of you who are one-sided, yes, You, are responsible for Palestinian lives.
I realize this is a harsh judgement. I had hoped that someday the two sides might come together peacably. Those people who see only one side make that impossible. And I see this position as becoming more prominent rather than less. So I reluctantly conclude that peace will occur in some other generation, and I am saddened. | |
|
| palestinean politics
Posted: 9/14/2008 2:14:09 PM |
Despite claims that the Israelis are eternally at fault, those of you who are one-sided, yes, You, are responsible for Palestinian lives.
I'm responsible!!!! Man, you sure crack me up.
If I'm given the power, if TODAY I'm given the complete authority to settle the dispute between Israel and Palestine on USA's behalf, there will be a peace treaty signed, with all the celebration, between Israel and Palestine TOMORROW. (give or take a few days).
Like you I'm also so tired of reading news everyday of human sufferings in that area. I wish I could do something, but we are just powerless observers of human sufferings on both sides, nothing else. | |
|
| palestinean politics
Posted: 9/14/2008 4:09:16 PM | ^^^I don't know how fair you actually are. I'm just going by the fact that you buy into the Palestinian side without bothering to actually check out the facts. What I'm saying is that those who have just a one sided view, are responsible for prolonging the conflict. Yes, there are some on the Israelis side as well. But the one-sidedness of the Palestinian side is overwhelming.
I'm also tired of the suffering. But I'm greatly discouraged that I see absolutely NO indication from anyone on the other side that the are, in fact, two sides to this.
Check the various threads on this topic. I am unable to find an admission by someone who favors the Palestinian cause that the Israelis also have a legitimate claim. On the other hand, I freely admit that the Palestinians have a legitimate claim. In fact I admit they have a superior claim, and justly have been given the majority of the original Ottoman land of Palestine in the form of Jordan, leaving the rest to be further partitioned. This if fair, and no one disputes it.
But the simple assumption that the Palestinians must be right because they are the under-dogs is ridiculous. Their Arab bretheren vastly outnumber the Israelis, and have not helped. If being an under-dog is any criteria, I can only ask where everyone was prior to and during World War II, when Jews were the underdog. Or for the 1800 years prior to today when Jews were persecuted. The need for a land of their own is apparent.
Sorry, folks. I feel the burden of proof is on those who deny that Jews have a right to a land of their own, however small. And they have a right to defend it if attacked.
If the Palestinians, for whatever reason, cannot accept this, then unfortunately they probably will continue to attack and will contiue to die.
If the Israelis attack with no reason I will condemn that. But despite Palestinian claims, that's not what's happening.
Palestinians need to stop using violence to dispute their claim, as Israelis will retaliate, and the so-called "cycle" of violence will continue. Please note that this is not a cycle, as it has a distinct beginning. | |
|
| palestinean politics
Posted: 9/15/2008 6:08:07 PM | "Palestinians need to stop using violence to dispute their claims..."
According to B"Tselem, an israeli peace group, peaceful protest of the apartheid wall has gotten a lot of Palestinians shot and some killed by the occupation force. It should be noted the apartheid wall is used to dispossess the Palestinians of their property. the method is: the apartheid wall seperates a farmer from his feilds, the farmer cannot pass to cultivate , the land is declared abandoned and taken by the occupiers.
All these problems may be moot soon as the Palestinians and some israelis are considering a one state solution. | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/15/2008 6:43:16 PM | I remember about 2 years ago when Lebanon was invaded by Israel.
Hezbollah took 3 soldiers hostage, in response Israeli defense forces bombed entire towns and kill thousands of civilians. I even remember something in the news about Israeli attacks accidentally hitting a NATO bunker. Or when they bombed the civilians that were trying to escape the war-zone in their cars.
I don't think I was all that offended that people were criticizing the actions of Hamas or Hezbollah or anyone who did something terrible, but the very act of criticizing Israel makes one an Anti-Semite if that criticism was reasonably valid.
At the time it was almost impossible to find a news outlet coming from the states that didn't put a excessive pro-Israeli slant on the news.
When you bomb civilians repeatedly, and during that re-occupation attempt they sure as hell did, you should incur some kind of serious in depth discussion about your policies and war mongering. It just didn't happen for whatever reason. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 133 | |
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/15/2008 7:08:21 PM | ^^^ It doesn't necessarily make one a Jew-hater though at all. A lot of people criticized and stood against that, myself included , and I do not consider myself a Jew-hater or anti-Semite (how could I be?? Curb Your Enthusiasm's one of my favorite shows. ). But yes no doubt Israel's actions in summer '06 were IMO excessively heavy-handed (just like Russia's recent actions with regards to the comparatively minor Georgian provocations). In both cases you had (and you continue to have) militarily strong nations which see themselves as deeply insecure and having something to prove.
Israel is, IMO, always paranoid (to an extent quite understandably) about their own continued existence. (Russia's paranoia and anger has to do with different things; facing down the US and the West mainly, lately, and wanting to prove they won't back down from them, but that's another story).
Israel therefore reacted ham-handedly (IMO) to that relatively minor provocation. They want to prove beyond a doubt to all the Arabs (and the Persians as well) that Israel will not be messed with in any way by ANY of them, or if it is they will react immediately and brutally. It was meant as a warning to Iran, IMO, and they also may have even thought of retaking Beirut (as you mentioned) because to that end it would in fact have been strategic for them to have rooted out much of Hezbollah's influence (and Hezbollah is of course thought by many to basically be a branch of Iran really). So they were almost fighting a "proxy" battle with Tehran.
I'm not excusing their heavy-handedness with regards to the civilian and infrastructural damage, but at the same time the US is currently occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, has surely done much more overall civilian and infrastructure damage, and is sometimes not even judged quite as harshly on it as Israel often is for its actions (or rather its reactions). There are other things that are, IMO , worse than this, such as collective punishments and bulldozings, the humiliation of the daily checkpoints, and so on. All of which must surely give the Arabs the feeling they are living under a very real military occupational-type of gov't.
But in summer '06 they were acting in the way the current US administration basically gave the green light to in late '01 with the taking of Afghanistan and then in '03 with the bombing and occupation of Iraq. So they saw themselves as being able to behave this way because one of their key allies also was, and it was a hawkish time and a hawkish US admin which would certainly not press them on it later as well. | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/15/2008 8:02:37 PM | Like the U.S., israel is run by criminals. The bombing of south Lebanan was not gratuitous mindless violence. There was a plan, They have always lusted for the resources of the Litani River but they also saw an opportunity to cash in on the Caspian Sea oil.
The Caspian Sea oil is not destined for American markets. It is to serve the Asian markets. The easiest, shortest route for the Caspian Sea oil to reach Asian markets is across Iran using existing pipelines. But the U.S. is still in a snit from 1979 so that route is out. The next best route is across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea but crazy george skrewed that up to. so they built a pipeline across Georgia and Turkey ending at the Mediterranean. Still a long way to the Asian markets. a golden opportunity arose. A trans-israel pipeline to the Red Sea. All they needed was South Lebanon and the seashore of Syria or Syrian cooperation. Hence the attack on South Lebanon. But they were defeated by Hezbollah. | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/15/2008 8:13:36 PM | Point taken about Russia, yes I understand many of the things the US is doing are as bad, or worse than what the Israelis are doing. Similarly I understand that the extremists are hurting their own cause by attacking civilians in Israel which provokes them.
The problem is they're perpetuating a huge pissing contest, some stupid terrorists attack Israeli civilians and then Israel bombs an even more extreme number of civilians which provokes these other groups to wish more harm on Israel and in the end it's an endless circle of violence.
It gets pretty bad. 1 thing to the Russia invading Georgia thing, I got a good laugh out of the US's condemnation of an illegal war on a sovereign nation over events that didn't concern them. I mean that's the pot calling the kettle black if I ever heard it.
I think the point is that everybody is guilty of something, it's just a lot of countries are painting themselves as saints, but committing atrocities that are just astounding. | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/15/2008 9:31:17 PM | I have to wonder. i keep seeing random strangers walking into this thread, complaining about being called anti-semites whereas i haven't seen that happen here, not once.
Curious, eh? What's up with that?
I can think of a few who deserve the title, maybe i should start waving it around...
whiskey, you've outdone yourself in your latest post :) that sounds very much like hizballah rehtorics to me. sadly i must haunt you like a shadow to bring to public awareness that everything you say is propogandic drivel backed by no real source, which you probably got from some internet hate page made by a 15 year old with a lot of spare time.
I'd ask you if you have any sources for that, but we've been through this dance before so i just won't bother this time.
as scorpion and bear put it, more gracefully than i could ever manage, you whiskey, are the source of the conflict. the witness who swallows the nonsense and propagates it, delivering lies as facts, making the world simpler. blacks against whites, jews against arabs.
i'm just curious why.
i'd ask you, but you've not answered any of my questions, ever. | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/15/2008 10:58:20 PM | I was talking about in general, not in this thread. Where I live in Canada, freedom of speech vs Hate speech is constantly in the news from fringe minorities groups claiming someone has said something horrendous to them.
There was a relatively large segment in the news at one point about jews living in Quebec talking about how spiteful people are that don't support Israel as they do.
This isn't indicative of the majority of jewish people, sorta like how all white people don't think slavery was "no big deal" or most black people aren't like "white people are just trying to keep us down."
I think the point though is in Canada and America, any major Foreign Policy criticism involving Israel is seen as a slight towards jewish peopel by a vocal minority, which sorta has an impact among the perceptions of regular people.
That's really all I meant by that.
That and that placing the blame squarely on 1 party, which seems to be Hezbollah in your case, or sometimes Hamas, or Iran, or in other's Israel's shoulders, it's messed up. It solves nothing. There's attrocities on all sides, the problem I have with Israel is that they're not better and are somehow managing to pull off their antics as "Legal defense of their god given land". | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/16/2008 12:35:29 AM | "It gets pretty bad. 1 thing to the Russia invading Georgia thing, I got a good laugh out of the US's condemnation of an illegal war on a sovereign nation over events that didn't concern them. I mean that's the pot calling the kettle black if I ever heard it."
Actually two things...
I think the event in Georgia certainly does have conerns to the U.S.A and the world ...
I never heard the same rhetoric (pot telling the kettle black) against Mandela when he invaded a smaller, weaker nation for it's resources, and then complained bitterly against the invasion of Iraq... | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/16/2008 7:21:16 AM |
It was not until I read this thread that I think I understand. Raveninns, who's posts I have seen before on the Religious Forum, and whose opinion I respect, posted the following:
Bear, the respect is certainly mutual, so thank you for your comment. Most appreciated.
I actually have not come back to this thread since shortly after posting, so I do apologise for my seeming lack of response. It just seemed to me that there is no compromise in this situation, and your assertion that there is more to it than propoganda presents the hopeless feeling, what's the point?....much like my parallel to the Native American assertion that treaties were broken, the powerful factions will always insist that the underdogs retreat to dirty tactics.
I truly believe that Palestinians think that (know that) in the end, their land is going to get stolen away from them little by little as it has been and that they are going to get murdered anyways ... so why not take a few of their attackers with them?
When you look at it like that ... it makes perfect sense. I don't condone it, but can honestly understand their logic in it. It's pretty damn hopeless at this point. Hopeless people do hopeless things.
And this is my point exactly. Hopeless people will resort to extreme behaviour. When misery presents itself as never ending, and insurmountable forces are your enemy, there really is no point, is there? When world opinion and courts are ignored, because they can, then really, what is the point?
No one has cared to answer my posts 101-103, concerning the deal that Arafat turned down. The one that Barak offered in the closing days of President Clinton's administration. I had always wondered why Arafat did so. Just last week it dawned on me.
What I have heard about this deal but I have not gone through the details, the Palestinians were offered pockets of lands, most of these lands were surrounded by Israel on all 4 sides. Obviously this plan originated from mistrusts of Palestinians.
Again, I have not seen anything that would show me a fair deal was offered. Just various proposed lots of land interspersed with already existing "settlements", and the right to arm and protect them. Hmmmm, so a Palestinian country with all of the hills within their country peopled by Israelis. Really? This is fair???? I still stick with my assertion that the Israelis must leave.
and the Isrealis thought was so fair, would have been perceived as a crushing defeat by those who favor the Palestinian side. Since it left some of Israel remaining as a Jewish state. And apparently Arafat was smart enough to know that. To have accepted any offer would have divided his people, if nothing else.
Well, thanks for trying to understand the parallel, but in the Native position, it's not that we're not willing to share, but rather, just take back that which was agreed upon by treaties.
But I'm thinking Bear, if everyone entered into the spirit of truly looking at compromise as you have shown, there'd be a lot less contention.
Cheers, Raven | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/16/2008 2:29:59 PM | | Wellll ye know, it all seems to have been forgotten that land was attacked with the intent of taking from a people, land that was agreed upon in treaties in 1948.....There ye go, one rule for one set, another rule for others... | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/16/2008 5:59:56 PM | Despite numerous warnings from the moderator, Whiskeypapa is back with the same lie:
There was a plan, They have always lusted for the resources of the Litani River but they also saw an opportunity to cash in on the Caspian Sea oil.
Those of you who like to galk at collisions (OK, I admit it, me too!) are advised to watch this space! 
Good Heavens, What a slow learner! When one lie doesn't work you need to go on to another.  | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/16/2008 7:10:19 PM |
Well, thanks for trying to understand the parallel, but in the Native position, it's not that we're not willing to share, but rather, just take back that which was agreed upon by treaties.
But I'm thinking Bear, if everyone entered into the spirit of truly looking at compromise as you have shown, there'd be a lot less contention. Yes, I really am trying to look for a compromise, and to see the Palestinian side. And there is a real legitimate Palestinian side. But the only "compromise" you, and the vast majority of Palestinians supporters have is for Israel to simply leave. This is because to you there is only one legitimate side, not two.
I would claim that this ignores the history of the area, and simply buys into the propaganda. If nothing else, the land was solemely promised to both sided by Great Britain. Both sides were cheated. The various claims are much more complex than that of course, but the point is that there are two sides.
Again, I have not seen anything that would show me a fair deal was offered. Just various proposed lots of land interspersed with already existing "settlements", and the right to arm and protect them. Hmmmm, so a Palestinian country with all of the hills within their country peopled by Israelis. Really? This is fair???? I still stick with my assertion that the Israelis must leave. No, this was Arafat's lie.
He is quoted as saying "If I am willing to die for my country, wouldn't I be willing to lie for my contry?" And so, perhaps quite reasonably, he did.
The facts, from the best neutral observer I have been able to find are different, and are what I posted in #102, and what I was complaining that everyone had ignored. But I'll repeat the relevant portion:
Dennis Ross: ...Why lie about it? Why misrepresent it? Why say you were offered cantons when you weren’t? Why say that you didn’t have a border with Jordan when you did? Why say you weren’t even offered 90 percent when you were offered 97 percent? Why say that you did not get any of East Jerusalem when you were offered all of Arab East Jerusalem? For whatever reason, Arafat felt that Palestinian unity was worth more than accepting this settlement, but knew that the world would realize that the offer was in fact fair.
Thus the lie. As leader of the Palestinians, arguably it was Arafat's decision to make. Naturally it has cost Palestinian lives, but it has preserved Palestinian unity. Hardly any Palestinians are even aware of it, and simply blame their plight on the Israelis.
As to your assertion that the Israelis must leave: Not going to happen. Ever!
Where are the Jews going to go? This is where we started, and the land was stolen from us by the Romans. A long and complex history followed, but the claim to that land and the centuries of persecution elsewhere seems evidence of the need for a Jewish homeland, and there!
Sorry that you feel you can't share. As I've said, the one-sided view has consequenses. Even when held sincerely, as in your case. The results are lives. And since Israel has learned that only excess retaliation is effective, most of those lives will be Palestinian. | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/16/2008 9:19:25 PM |
That and that placing the blame squarely on 1 party, which seems to be Hezbollah in your case, or sometimes Hamas, or Iran, or in other's Israel's shoulders, it's messed up. It solves nothing. There's attrocities on all sides, the problem I have with Israel is that they're not better and are somehow managing to pull off their antics as "Legal defense of their god given land". The Israeli claim does not rest on it being "their god given land", except for a few extemists. There are a multitude of reasons and a solid background that anyone who sincerely wishes to investigate can find. I will spare you a repetition, as I think I outlined it earlier in this thread. The Palestinian claim, while valid, is not quite as solid as claimed. It too has problems.
I also think that your saying that we are claiming that Israel is faultless is incorrect. Israel, like all counties, has many faults. In particular, whether or not it is a fault, Israel has chosen to use excess retaliation in response to Palestinian violence, since proportinal retaliation proved ineffective.
And you are correct, that sometimes anti-Israel criticism gets labeled as anti-Semitism. On the other hand, in my opinion, a great deal of anti-Israel criticism IS anti-Semitism. When it's specific and factual, I have not disputed anti-Israel criticism. Where it's BS, lies, ignorance, or the result of inadequate research I have. | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/16/2008 9:25:17 PM | hezbollah rhetoric????
The world saw the murderous attack on Lebanon and the subsequent defeat at the hands of HEZBOLLA. No need to visit a "hate site" for that.
For information on israels pipeline aspirations read: Global Reseach; The War On Lebanon And The Battle For Oil. 26 July 2006. Global is not a hate site.
Israels lust for the Litani River is spoken of many times on antiwardotcom and by Eric Margolis a respected journalist and it is spoken of in those terms. neither are "hate sites".
You are curious of why I speak against zionist atrocities in the Holy Land, I am courious of why you don't. | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/16/2008 9:49:12 PM | I think all I was really trying to get at is that there's a lot of commentary on how the Israelis *should* be allowed to defend themselves. Though what they are calling "Defensive actions" is so marked with gaffs and atrocities that the idea it's still being labeled as "Defense" just seems wrong to me.
Anyway I'm purely interested in the policies of a nation that is war mongering, but calling things that could fall very similarly into the "Defensive tactics" category as "Terrorist Activity."
I'm sure everyone knows propaganda and slanted coverage is all anybody gets, anywhere. I just like to think the middle ground is in there somewhere. That whole region is gonna kill itself before working together. | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/16/2008 10:15:23 PM | raveninns:
And this is my point exactly. Hopeless people will resort to extreme behaviour. When misery presents itself as never ending, and insurmountable forces are your enemy, there really is no point, is there?
the wall is an example of an extreme solution to a hopeless situation, it has proven effective in reducing successful terrorist activities within israel.
on the other hand,
the only rationale behind intentionally targetting civilian locations to achieve maximum casualties is in order to demoralize your enemy.
the wall is self defense. targetting militants in the palestinean territories is hitting the problem at the root.
however,
attacking civilians in israel is not self defense and it doesn't solve the hopeless situation of the palestinean people, it just leads to stricter policies on the side of the israelis and hurts the palestineans even more.
as to the subject of respected treaties, as per the native analogy, there was a great deal of land bought by the jews, legally. even by your own standards the solution is not -- simply "for the israelis to leave".
and besides, as bear suggests, let's keep it real, the israelis aren't going anywhere.
explosivesheep: you're right, it's a two sided story, and the israelis do have their share of wrong doing, but knowing that a box contains nails does not grant you the ability to pull out a straw from the box and use it to hang a picture. you still need to choose the nail. you're welcome to criticise israel, as is whiskey, i just need to see criticism that's based on reality and not lies or the picture just doesn't hang right. believe me, it's there.
i don't know why the palestinean propoganda machine has to lie when there are so many simple truths they can and don't use that support their cause. i guess we spoiled them by so readily accepting their lies as facts.
as for the hizballah: they've recently butchered their own lebanese countrymen who opposed them, much like the hamas did a while ago to the fatah opposition, which is precisely the topic of this thread.
seeing how this is their way of handling opposition, and not as rogue individuals but as an organized policy, they should be the last to complain about israel's tactics. | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/17/2008 2:42:11 AM | the apartheid wall in the "Palestinian territories" is not hitting the problem at the root. The apartheid wall is being used to dispossess the Palestinians. And, peaceful protest, as reported by B'Tselem, is getting Palestinians shot and killed. The occupying force is bound by international law to protect the inhabitants and to not steal their land. The reason the zionists refuse to make peace with the Palestinians is , under international law, they will have to give up their ill-gotten gains.
Tell us the "simple truths" the Palestinians can and don't use to support their cause.
israel, as it stands, is a frankenstein, a theiving stinking torture state, no where near the "light unto the nations" the early zionists aspired to. | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/17/2008 3:12:59 AM | I dunno if talking about Zionist conspiracy is gonna help the cause or the argument.
The apathetic world isn't interested is more to the point. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 149 | |
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/17/2008 7:00:42 AM | Well, either way, given this particular strip of land's history, in all honesty the overall odds are IMO in favor of it changing hands yet again at some point (perhaps not even in all of our lifetimes, but, who can say for example what kind of situation even the US, much less Israel, will be in in 50 yrs).
The past nearly 40 yrs have really seen the Israelis consolidating their position in the region (prior to that it was a bit more tenuous....as France had been their main arms supplier, not the US, and then deGaulle cut them off when they pre-emptively struck the Arabs in '67).
Really, they got their bread buttered , so to speak, finally under Nixon (and Kissinger), more so than his predecessors. And that's ironic since history sometimes paints (possibly correctly , if only in his private world) Nixon as the type of old-line Republican who was not exactly fond of ANY "ethnics" , much less Jews. But he had hit if off with, or at least been charmed by, Golda Meir, and it's arguable his admin saved Israel in '73 with the crucial Galaxy airlift which was exactly what was needed at that very moment.
Without that, had the US refused to help them at all, they may well have been swamped at that point and we might not even be having this discussion at all today. But the ultimate point is, again considering this land's overall history of changing hands again and again after eras of rule by one power or another, the past 40 (-60) yrs are a drop in a bucket. Surely the Israelis must know this better than anyone, and this likely accounts for much of their constant existential angst. One way or the other, the numbers are on the side of the Arabs ~ who reproduce at higher rates than Israeli Jews.
And if one were to put it to a literal "Muslim vs. Jew" type of overall numbers comparison, then there really is no comparison since Islam has nearly 1 and a half billion worldwide adherents and growing considering conversions and high birthrates, dominating whole regions of the world culturally and numerically, as opposed to the remnant of world Judaism (they say around 6 million in Israel , and perhaps .... another 6 , 7 million ? .... dispersed worldwide, many of whom are in the US today I think). Jews , especially Westernized Jews, have lower birthrates and Judaism obviously has far less conversion as well. So one serious blow against Israel, and they're looking at the tables turning overnight and their world population suddenly being even more drastically decreased. This is why they are so concerned today about Iran I would think. | |
|
| palestinian politics
Posted: 9/17/2008 10:53:29 AM | I have a request to make of Raveninns, a favor from one sincere person to another.
As you know I might have an incentive to be biased, and Arafat would have had an incentive to be biased. But Dennis Ross, the American negotiator at the Barak-Arafat-Clinton talks was trusted by all sides. And thus is the closest we have to a neutral observer. Anyway he was there, and we were not.
So if you could, would you momentarily assume that Dennis Ross's version might be true.
Specifically that the deal Barak offered was 97%, contiguously (without cantons), including a border with Jordan, and including all of Arab East Jerusalem?
So my question is: if this were actually the deal that Arafat had, would you still feel that the Palestinians must hold out for the entire land?
After answering honestly, you are, of course free to disbelieve that this was the actual offer.
For all others: No fair attacking the premises. There is every reason to believe that this was indeed the actual offer, even if you choose to disagree. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
