Rattling the Cage: Say 'no' to Hamas

[shira]

<snip>

Now that Hamas says it's willing to negotiate a 10-year truce, what, people ask, does Israel have to lose by trying? A lot of lives, I think. While I'm all for a negotiated truce with Hamas and for lifting the Gazan blockade in return, the idea of recognizing Hamas and going into peace talks like we did with the PLO in 1993 is like walking into fire.

If there's one thing we learned from Oslo, it's that failed Middle East peace talks are worse than none. Expectations get raised to a very high altitude, so the crash is all the more violent. Before we start a dramatic, historic new chapter in peacemaking, we ought to know from the outset that there's a good chance for success. With Hamas, it would be just the opposite: We'd know going in that we were headed for a cliff.

EVEN if we could agree with them on the borders between Israel and Palestine - an extreme long-shot - there's no way on Earth we could agree on the so-called right of return for Palestinian refugees. There are all sorts of suggestions how to bridge this gap, but even the most "generous," from a Palestinian point of view, is totally unacceptable - even to me, and I'm probably more left-wing than 95 percent of Israeli Jews.

The most far-reaching concession I've heard is that we needn't agree to let the refugees return to Haifa, Jaffa, etc., so long as we acknowledge responsibility for their tragedy. We must, in effect, apologize for having made them refugees. This is ridiculous. This suggestion, which I first heard of years ago coming from Sari Nusseibeh, the most moderate Palestinian leader alive, and that I most recently read in a column by The New York Times's Roger Cohen, requires us to tell a terrible lie against ourselves. I am ready to apologize for a lot of things we've done to the Palestinians - I apologize for the settlements, I apologize for Operation Cast Lead - but I am not ready to apologize for the direct consequence of a war the Palestinians started.

<snip>

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710698216&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Larkspur]

1. Say "No" to Israel's apartheid and ethnic cleansing policies against Palestinians

Those policies and Israel's abuse of nonviolent Palestinian advocates propels Hamas to the leadership role they have.
Israel is as much at fault for Hamas' rise as the Palestinians who voted them into power. Israel arrests and tortures nonviolent Palestinian protesters too. In Israel's mind the only good Palestinian is a dead one. That's the same attitude 17-19th Century European-Americans had towards the indigenous people of America.

[Fozzledick]

4. Say "No" to Hamas' genocidal war of aggression against Israel!

Denounce the running dog lackeys of the Islamist paper tiger!

(OK, so I'm a little rusty at this stuff... )

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GoesTo11]

19. So you think #1 was a little non-responsive?

[Fozzledick]

2. Hamas: We will never recognize the enemy

Two top Hamas leaders made their first appearances at public events since Israel's Gaza war on Friday, signaling defiance of rival Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as he discussed peace prospects with a U.S. envoy.

"We cannot, we will not, and we will never recognize the enemy in any way, shape or form," Mahmoud Zahar, one of the two leaders, said in a mosque sermon broadcast on the Islamist movement's radio station.

...

Egypt has been trying to arrange a new factional alliance after brokering an end to the Gaza war, which killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians and 13 Israelis, most of them troops.

Haniyeh, who was formerly prime minister under Abbas, hailed the conflict as a "big victory".

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1079063.html

I don't think there's any ambiguity about Hamas' opposition to peace on any terms, never mind a two-state solution.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sezu]

23. Oh the lil rascals could never destroy Israel ya know.

After all, they only have firecrackers.

:sarcasm:

[Fozzledick]

24. Still, they seem determined to fight on until the last Palestinian is killed

At least the "leadership" in Damascus is.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. Of course the Palestinians didn't start the war.

They didn't ask to have most of their homeland taken away to make Israel. The foundation of Israel was a crime against humanity and a humanitarian catastrophe.

The two-state solution is a massive, massive concession on the Palestinian part - it's acknowledging that the great crime commited against them in 48 is never going to be remedied or punished.

Israel abandoning the "we had a right to come here in 48" narrative in favour of "our ancestors should never have come here, but they did, and since they did we have a right to stay here" is, of course, never, ever going to happen, and is not worth even pushing for, but it would be a good thing if it did happen.

[shira]

6. Palestinian leadership like the Grand Mufti, in fact, did start the war

And Jews came to Israel well before '48, to a land that always had a continual Jewish presence (majority Jews in Jerusalem since the mid 19th century). The Ottoman Turks ruled at the time, and Jews had no plan to "steal" anything from them. The ruling Turks were well reknowned for being extremely brutal to anyone who would dare challenge their authority.

But yeah - Jews should admit they had no right to go where other Jews had always been for thousands of years. They should have stayed where they belonged, er, didn't belong....like Europe and elsewhere....where they were treated so well and were "safe" and never had any worries.

[Vegasaurus]

7. There are far greater "crimes against humanity"

happening every day.

The Palestinians have been left in miserable fetid refugee camps for 60 years, with the promise that they would one day run the Jews out and get their land back.

It is time for a new dream.

That one isn't happening.

And the false hopes prevent forward momentum.

I know you would like to see some forward momentum, right Donald?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. I am seeing some. Not much, but some.

Obama is finally adopting a strategy of putting pressure on both sides, rather than just putting pressure on the Palestinians. If - at last - a US president has realised that treating Israel as an adult will not lead to peace and is ready to start treating it like the recalcitant child it acts like, there may possibly be peace.

I'm not optimistic, though - I suspect that you and your ilk will force him to back down and go back to giving Israel carte-blanche, making peace impossible.

[shira]

9. From the past 20 years, what makes you think PA leadership has ever really been interested in a

peaceful 2 state solution?

Personally, I believe the grassroots Intifada I leadership (before Arafat) was the most representative of Palestinians and could have made a deal. Arafat came in, killed most of them and here we are today.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. Arafat was willing to make peace at Camp David.

If Barak had been willing to offer the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, I think the conflict could have ended 9 years ago.

Unfortunately, he was more interested in hanging on to illegal settlements and Clinton let him push the blame onto Arafat, and here we are.

But a more even-handed US approach may yet pay dividends.

[shira]

11. It's cute you think that way of Arafat

Here's Saeb Erekat just days ago - on Arafat wrt CD/Taba 9 years ago:

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2074.htm

After watching or reading the transcript, or both, lemme know if you still have the same view about Arafat 9 years ago.

[Idealism]

12. Shira how many times before you realize Taba was Israel's fault?

How many times must you be corrected?

Will you ever realize what the rest of the world knows, save for some in the Israeli government trying to spin them canceling the talks?

Taba, by every account, was the best chance for peace. "Weeks away" was the common phrase, referring to it being just around the corner when the Israeli PM pulled the plug because the incoming administration vowed to torpedo any deal made. Yet you blame this on Arafat, STILL, after being corrected by myself, Douglas, VC, etc over and over.

[shira]

13. what part of Saeb Erekat's speech in the last post did you not understand?

Arafat was in no way interested in a fair deal for peace. I'm stunned you don't see that for yourself. Do you think Saeb Erekat is lying?

As for TABA, that was the 'ceiling'. Clinton said so. Israel had a few problems initially but agreed. Arafat rejected it and wanted much more than the ceiling. You realize the 'ceiling' is not just a springboard for twice or three times as much? What part of 'ceiling' or 'limit' is difficult to comprehend? It's not as if Arafat agreed in principle but wanted to tweak it here and there. He rejected it wholesale. The 2 sides weren't close on Taba.

Please watch Saeb Erekat. Read the transcript. Come back and tell me that Arafat wanted to really negotiate a peace deal after not giving any counter-offers at Camp David.

[Vegasaurus]

14. It's revisionist history

Our friends here like to see history in a way that fits their political agenda, but it isn't reality.

[shira]

15. yep, the question is why they WANT their fiction to be reality

[kayecy]

17. Now which bit of their history do you think is fiction?

.....the question is why they WANT their fiction to be reality

Now which bit of their history do you think is fiction?

The bit where a foreign power allowed in thousands of aliens into their land?

The bit where the rest of the world stood by whilst these aliens promulgated a convenient 'Law of Return' to enshrine the majority they had engineered?

.
.

[shira]

18. the topic is Camp David / Taba 2000-01 and the narrative is that if only given more time Arafat

would have maybe signed a peace deal.

No evidence exists that gives justification for such a view.

[kayecy]

20. You are quite right, I should have replied to your reply No6.........

Your reply No6 stated........

And Jews came to Israel well before '48, to a land that always had a continual Jewish presence (majority Jews in Jerusalem since the mid 19th century). The Ottoman Turks ruled at the time, and Jews had no plan to "steal" anything from them.

No plans to 'steal anything? - Come, come now, what evidence do you have for that claim?

Who is the one now wanting fiction to be reality?
.
.

[shira]

21. you need to do a little research on Ottoman rule of Arab land

Only people with a death wish would have gone into Ottoman territory thinking they would "steal" land from the Turks. The Turks ruled with an iron fist. Things were relatively quiet in the Ottoman empire due to that brutal rule.

[kayecy]

25. I'm sure you are right about the Ottomans but.......

.....the mass immigration of Jews did not start until the 1920s, by which time Palestine was occupied by the British.
.
As you no doubt know, prior to 1920, the Jewish population of Palestine never exceeded some 15% of the population. Between 1920 and 1939 some 360,000 Jewish immigrants poured into a land (Mandate Palestine) which was already home to 590,000 Palestinian Arabs.
.
Are you trying to claim that the leaders of those 360,000 Jews had no intention of 'stealing' the land from the indigenous inhabitants?....that they had no intention of 'stealing' the inhabitants right to self-determination?
.
I claim that the Israel-Palestine conflict started as a result of the mass immigration of aliens into Palestine. No other people would have accepted such an 'invasion' of aliens and it is not surprising that the Palestinian Arabs resisted in any way they could.
.
.

[shira]

26. come on

Can you admit that Zionism and the first few mass immigrations into Israel by Jews prior to 1920 were NOT about stealing land?

After you answer that, give me reason to believe 'zionism' took on a different character and turned into land grabs.

[kayecy]

30. The Zionist 'theft' of the Palestinian inhabitants right to self-determination....

Can you admit that Zionism and the first few mass immigrations into Israel by Jews prior to 1920 were NOT about stealing land?

I do not claim that Jewish immigration into Palestine prior to 1920 was about stealing land. The numbers involved were far too small, nor was there a pro-Zionist occupying power to over-ride the wishes of the locals.
.

After you answer that, give me reason to believe 'zionism' took on a different character and turned into land grabs.

I will explain how Zionism, post-Balfour, was a land grab later, but first let us deal with the Zionist ‘theft’ of the Palestinian inhabitants right to self-determination.

Herzl’s published ‘The Jewish State’, Weizmann favoured the creation of a Jewish state. If the mass immigration into Palestine from 1920 onwards was not designed to create facts-on-the-ground leading to a Jewish-dominated state, what was it?

Perhaps you think the Palestinians had no right to resist this invasion? ......that they had no right to claim self-determination in the land of their fathers and grand-fathers?

[shira]

31. first, tell me how to quote, okay? i try brackets with 'q' and then brackets with 'quote' and it

doesn't work.

Second...what land was "stolen" before the 1947 partition plan was announced? Which arabs were tossed out or dispossesed before the 1947 partition plan? If zionism post-1920 was nothing but a land-grab scheme, then you should have 27 years worth of proof for your theory.

Finally...let's say Jews started immigrating to the Las Vegas area late 19th century and started settling there, buying land, etc. They immigrate in thousands, other Americans go there for opportunity and jobs. Is that a land grab or "steal" by the Jews?

[kayecy]

32. I said I would deal with 'stolen land' but first tell me if the Palestinians had a right to resist..

what land was "stolen" before the 1947 partition plan was announced? Which arabs were tossed out or dispossesed before the 1947 partition plan? If zionism post-1920 was nothing but a land-grab scheme, then you should have 27 years worth of proof for your theory.

I said I would deal with the land-grab but first agree or otherwise whether the Palestinian inhabitants had the right to resist the Zionist invasion? Would you have welcomed 360,000 alien immigrants intent on removing your right to self-determination?
.
.
.
PS: I use the 'HTML' lookup table to create highlights

[shira]

33. check out my 3rd point, last post

how would that be classified as stealing?

[kayecy]

34. Not really a good illustration was it?........

Finally...let's say Jews started immigrating to the Las Vegas area late 19th century and started settling there, buying land, etc. They immigrate in thousands, other Americans go there for opportunity and jobs. Is that a land grab or "steal" by the Jews?

One: Las Vegas in the late 19th century had a population density of what? About a 100th of the population density of Palestuine I imagine.

Two: In your hypothetical situation, did the Jews intend to create a Jewish-majority in the state? Did the Jews intend to disenfranchise the locals? If your answer is yes, then I think the locals would have resorted to force to evict the immigrants.

Three: In your hypothetical situation, did the locals have representation in Congress and could object to a massive immigrantion if they had wanted? Sadly, no-one, not the US, the UK, and certainly not the Zionists was interested in what the Palestinians wanted

Not really a good illustration was it?
.
.

Now, to get back to Palestine. You don't seem to want to tell me whether the locals had a right to resist immigrants being forced on them. Was it the Zionist leaders who started the conflict or the Palestinian inhabitants?
.

[shira]

35. No, resistance would be wrong to answer your question

Minorities move into "white" neighborhoods all the time and in a matter of years, those neighborhoods are minority-dominated and "ruled", and no longer white. Should the whites resist? Don't they have that "right"? Or does this "rule" of resistance only exist WRT Jews and Israel?

I don't see how you can claim Zionist leaders started the conflict. No one was dispossessed of their land prior to 1948. No one was thrown out or forced out. Nothing was stolen pre-1948. Do you agree?

You realize that Herzl tried but failed in negotiating a Jewish state with the Ottomans in the early 20th century? That doesn't sound like a plan to steal anything.

[kayecy]

36. Most wars are started by alien invaders.........

Minorities move into "white" neighborhoods all the time and in a matter of years, those neighborhoods are minority-dominated and "ruled", and no longer white. Should the whites resist? Don't they have that "right"? Or does this "rule" of resistance only exist WRT Jews and Israel?

Immigrants move all the time but off-hand I can't think of a case where they have dis-enfranchised the locals. Only the Zionists attempted that (with the help of the British occupation forces). Israel uses force to prevent Palestinians from returning to their homes even now - How much more justified were Palestinians in trying to prevent massive Zionist immigration.

As far as I am concerned the 'rule' of justified resistance applies to any invader - don't you agree?

Nothing was stolen pre-1948. Do you agree?

Only the Palestinians right to self-determination - you call that nothing?

You realize that Herzl tried but failed in negotiating a Jewish state with the Ottomans in the early 20th century? That doesn't sound like a plan to steal anything.

What Herzl didn't get by negotiation Weizmann got by persuading the British to give away something they didn't own. It was still theft even if the British agreed to support him.

As for Zionist land-grab, do you know what proportion of Palestine land was owned by Zionists in 1948? - About 4%! And the proportion claimed by Israel today is what?
.

[shira]

38. you couldn't be more wrong

During the entire time of Jewish migration into Israel from the late 19th century until 1948, there was no restriction whatsoever on Arab migration. There was no disenfranchisement going on, at least until 1948 - if you want to call it that due to a war the Arabs started. Can you at least admit this? Resistance is therefore unjustified.

Palestinian right to self-determination was not stolen pre-1948. What do you call Jordan? What do you call the rest of what was left of the original mandate that was offered for Palestinians? Outside of the little part that was to be Israel due to the 1947 partition plan, Palestinians actually had a lot of self-determination. And NO arabs were told to leave or forced to leave what would then be Israel due to the partition plan.

What do you make of the Weizmann-Faisal Agreement? Because it certainly doesn't resemble a Jewish land grab.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal-Weizmann_Agreement

As for Jewish owned land prior to 1948, it was 9% while 21% was Arab owned and the other 70% was British. At worst, 21% of Arab land was "stolen" after the 1948 war that Israel didn't start.

[kayecy]

50. I couldn't be more wrong?????

During the entire time of Jewish migration into Israel from the late 19th century until 1948, there was no restriction whatsoever on Arab migration.

I have seen no evidence that the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine objected to Arab immigration from surrounding areas. What they did object to was alien immigration from European Zionists.

There was no disenfranchisement going on, at least until 1948 - if you want to call it that due to a war the Arabs started. Can you at least admit this? Resistance is therefore unjustified.

.
Resistance is therefore unjustified! Now here we have the nub of the matter.

1. Do you deny that Weizmann and the other Zionist leaders encouraged immigration to Palestine with the intention of creating a Jewish-majority state without regard to the wishes of the local inhabitants? (King Faisal was hardly representative of local opinion.)

2. Do you deny that when they found that engineering a Jewish majority in the whole of Palestine was going to be difficult, the Zionists settled for partition as a way of artificially producing a Jewish-majority state?

Can you show me any other people that would not have resisted such a plan? The Algerians resisted the French settlers (pieds-noirs) as did the Aztecs with the Spanish. No people on earth would simply lie down and accept domination by incoming aliens.
.
I realise that it may seem natural to you to accept the official Israeli narrative without question, but I think the brutal honesty of those pre-war Zionists like Ben Gurion, Begin, and Jabotinsky give a truer idea of Zionist intentions:
.
“There will always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. “
.
“Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement.”
.
“Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population.”

“.......that is to say the strengthening in Palestine of a government without any kind of Arab influence, that is to say one against which the Arabs will fight.”
.
.
Now you justify your claims of ‘....resistance is therefore not justified’ and ‘....a war the Arabs started.’

[shira]

59. How do you figure King Faisal was hardly representative of local opinion when he agreed with Weizman

In fact, the Faisal Weizmann agreement defeats your entire argument.

[kayecy]

62. Still unable to justify your claim "resistance is therefore not justified"?.......

1.

How do you figure King Faisal was hardly representative of local opinion when he agreed with Weizman

a) Faisal claimed Arab leadership because his father, the Sherif of Mecca, had been appointed leader by the Ottoman Turks. I have seen no evidence that Palestinian Arabs considered him their leader.

b) As you know, Weizmann's 1918 agreement with Faisal include the final over-riding statement:

"Provided the Arabs obtain their independence as demanded...I shall concur in the above articles. But if the slightest modification or departure were to be made, I shall not then be bound by a single word...."

I think that answers your question. Faisal did not represent the Palestinian Arabs, and in any case, did not agree to Jewish immigration unless the Arabs achieved independence and thus ruled over the Jews.



2. Now do you think you could get round to justifying your claim that "...resistance was therefore not justified."?

[shira]

63. nope......Faisal was the boss at the time

He was proclaimed King of greater Syria (Israel at the time was part of this kingdom). There was no other ruler to go to at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Syria

And there was nothing in the agreement about Arabs ruling over Jews. He was an advocate of the Balfour declaration (which was about an indepenent Jewish state).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal-Weizmann_Agreement#The_agreement

Arabs did eventually get their own states carved out for themselves, so the agreement was upheld.

[kayecy]

64. Check you own reference - Faisal ignored the wishes of the1920 Palestinian Arabs....

Faysal ibn Husayn of the House of Hashim was proclaimed King of Greater Syria on 7 March 1920 in Damascus

True, but irrelevant. Modern Israel was NOT part of his kingdom. The British occupied Israel/Palestine from 1918 onwards and never had any intention of letting him rule over the Palestinians.

Now to get back to the legitimacy of the Palestinian struggle. If you check your own reference: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal-Weizmann_Agreement#The_agreement) you will see Faisal never claimed to represent the Palestinians:

The wishes of the Palestinian Arabs were to be ignored, and, indeed, both men seem to have held the Palestinian Arabs in considerable disdain. .......Weizmann reported that Faisal was "contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn't even regard as Arabs".

Do you still think Faisal was speaking for the Palestinian Arabs? As far as I can see, no-one was the least concerned with the wishes of the Palestinian people, neither Faisal, the Zionists or the British.
.
In those circumastances, do you still think Palestinian resitance was not justified?
.
If so why?
.

[shira]

69. Faisal was the only recognized Arab leader of that time in that region and Palestine was called

...part of southern Syria by many Arabs from Faisal's days. Hafez al Assad (Bashar's father) of Syria used to call Palestine part of southern Syria. It doesn't matter what Faisal thought of Palestinians. He was the only Arab representative with authority at that time. He was also quite popular and he considered Palestine as part of Syria.


"After the 1918 armistice of World War I, the Allies organized the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration to provide an interim government for Palestine, Syria, and Iraq. In July 1919, the General Syrian Congress convened in Damascus and called for Allied recognition of an independent Syria, including Palestine, with Faisal as its king. When no action was taken on the proposal, the congress in March 1920 unilaterally proclaimed Syria independent and confirmed Faisal as King."
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_arab_result.php

Can you name a more recognized (by the powers at that time) leader who was better representative of the Palestinians, or more popular than Faisal, when the Faisal Weizmann agreement was signed?

[kayecy]

70. Which was more relevant to justice - Faisal's opinion or that of 500,000 Palestinian locals?.....

It doesn't matter what Faisal thought of Palestinians.

I guess if you really think that the wishes of half a million Palestinians are as nothing compared to those of an autocrat then that could account for your strange views on right and wrong.

Can you name a more recognized (by the powers at that time) leader who was better representative of the Palestinians

Nope, there was no single representative of the Palestinians in 1920, but it was obvious to all that the nationalsists agitating for self-determination had the support of most Palestinians.

Are you trying to claim that Zionists did not know that the 1920 Palestinians did not want mass alien immigration?

[shira]

71. Faisal was the popular, recognized leader of Palestine at that time

One could argue that he no more represented Palestinian interests than Hamas does now (for at least half of Palestinians). But what do you about that?

[kayecy]

72. Give me one example of a 1920 Palestinian wanting to be swamped by Zionist immigration......

Faisal was the popular, recognized leader of Palestine at that time

Whether he was popular or not is irrelevant. The fact is that the majority of 1920 Palestinians did not want to be swamped by Zionist immigrants.

Can you give me one example of a 1920 Palestinian wanting to have his right of self-determination 'stolen' by the incoming Zionists?

Be honest with yourself -Would you have wanted aliens to pile into your land until they were in sufficient number to rule over you?

[shira]

73. you get more than one: look for the sharp spike in arab immigration into Palestine at that time

why was there so much arab immigration into Palestine at that time, if not for the sole reason that there was more opportunity there - more jobs? This was a major part of the reason for the Faisal Weizmann agreement. To develop the land, bring more opportunity, bring the people of that region into the modern age after centuries of backwards Ottoman rule.

Toss the Jews out, or no longer allow Jewish immigration - and the motivation for arabs to migrate into Palestine no longer exists. Arabs decided to go there precisely because of the Jewish ingathering of the exiles. And there were plenty of Arabs already living there well before 1920 who had no problem cooperating with their new neighbors. Live the poor life under repressive dictators or look for a better life and move to Palestine with the Jews? Hmm, what will it be? What would you choose? Would you riot to toss the Jewish "colonizers" out, despite the opportunity they brought to the land?

[kayecy]

75. You seem to be confused between economics and politics ....

....why was there so much arab immigration into Palestine at that time, if not for the sole reason that there was more opportunity there - more jobs?

As you are no doubt aware, the size your Arab immigration into Palestine is disputed. However, taking your statement at face value, you seem to be confused between economics and politics. Everyone needs to work, but you have yet to show me a single Palestinian who wanted to have his Political rights 'stolen' from him by massive incoming Zionist immigration.

And there were plenty of Arabs already living there well before 1920 who had no problem cooperating with their new neighbors.

You are quite correct. If the Zionists had not tried to engineer an artificial majority so they could rule Palestine, the Palestinians would probably have continued to cooperate with them.

[shira]

76. going along with this line of argument

the fact is that there was a Jewish majority in Jerusalem as early as 1844 (when a census was taken then). In 1948, Jews agreed to parts of Palestine that had Jewish majorities already there. What's the problem, then, with that?

[kayecy]

78. You are losing me!..........Try again ......

the fact is that there was a Jewish majority in Jerusalem as early as 1844 (when a census was taken then).

You are correct - so?

In 1948, Jews agreed to parts of Palestine that had Jewish majorities already there.

You are losing me! ".....agreeing to parts of Palestine that had Jewish majorities".....doesn't make sense..... Jews agreed to what?

Have you missed out a word or something?

[shira]

79. jews made up the majority in jerusalem and other areas prior to 1920

so should they have been entitled to self-rule in those areas?

[kayecy]

81. Where do you get this "..entitled to self-rule in those areas." from? ....

jews made up the majority in jerusalem and other areas prior to 1920
so should they have been entitled to self-rule in those areas?

It is true that the minority Jewish population of Palestine were a majority in Jerusalem and possibly one or two other places but:

1. Where do you get this "..entitled to self-rule in those areas." from?.. Wasn't secession what the American civil war was designed to prevent?

2. Let us suppose that minorities in clear geographic areas should have the right to self-rule...The 1920 Palestinians might have accepted Zionist immigration to these small areas. Of course, in that event, Israel would now consist of Jerusalem and a few other small areas and we would probably have avoided all the suffering in 1948, 55, 60, 73 and Gaza.

Quite a thought isn't it?

[shira]

82. the partition plan was designed to give jews areas where they were majorities

question:

Had the Ottomans worked out the Palestine Mandate and Balfour declaration with Jews instead of Britain - with or without the local Arab consent - would you view it differently?

[kayecy]

83. No power had the right to engineer an alien majority in Palestine.....

Had the Ottomans worked out the Palestine Mandate and Balfour declaration with Jews instead of Britain - with or without the local Arab consent - would you view it differently?

I suppose you are saying that if a similar declaration to 'Balfour' had been declared by the Ottomans in say 1900s would it have made any difference to my view?

To answer your question - No...It doesn't matter which power made the 'Balfour' declaration...Unless the Palestinians specifically gave their consent to being swamped by immigrants, specifically waived their right to self-determination, it would have been immoral.

No power had the right to engineer an alien majority in Palestine. They did so and the Palestinians resisted in the only way they could. The result has been suffering and constant wars.

[shira]

84. okay thanks......and one more question about engineering alien immigration

do you consider all Palestinians and their descendents who are in refugee camps outside of Israel and the OT "aliens"?

[kayecy]

85. If the refugee-camp residents want to return to the villages of their fathers or grandfathers ......

do you consider all Palestinians and their descendants who are in refugee camps outside of Israel and the OT "aliens"?

I am primarily concerned at the way the Zionists planned to produce a Jewish-majority state by means of population transfer...In 1920, the incoming Jews clearly had no claim to be returning to the land of their fathers or grandfathers or even great-grandfathers, they were in fact true aliens.

Where one should draw the line at claiming land rights because of ancestral association is debateable...Anyone with connections going back a few generations clearly has a strong claim - Going back two thousand years is ridiculous.

I have no opinion as to whether Palestinians in refugee camps are 'aliens' or not, but common humanity would demand that they have the right to live somewhere...If the refugee-camp residents want to return to the villages where their fathers and grandfathers were born, I would say they had a strong case for being allowed to do so.

I have answered your questions in good faith and explained my reasons...Can you now explain to me why you think Palestinian resistance was not justified? Are you basing your belief solely on the Faisal-Weizmann document or have you some other reason why the Palestinians, alone amongst colonized peoples, had no right to resist the colonizers of their land?
.

[shira]

86. you say Palestinian refugees have the right to live somewhere, how about Jews?

Jews had nowhere else to go around 1920, did they?

And to answer your question, no. Palestinian resistance was not justified.

Do you really believe Jews around 1920 were ruthless, colonialist expansionist aggressors? It appears you do. It's understandable that many people in that part of the world who live in closed societies brainwash themselves to believe this but educated, intelligent people like yourself with access to multiple sources? European colonialism was primarily motivated by economics. You really think economics was the main incentive for "colonialist" European Jews from 80-90 years ago? At one time Jews were notoriously rejected in most of Europe as members of the various European nations. This attitude was one of the causes of the Holocaust or at least one of the causes of its acceptance or tolerance in so much of Europe. So how all of a sudden did the Jews become “European” after the Holocaust? They were never "European" before. Now, isn’t there something wrong when those who viewed the Jews in Europe as alien now view the Jews in Israel as alien to the Middle East???

Do you realize that, at best, you are justifying Augustine’s role for the Jew — stateless, homeless, barely protected in degradation? And at worst, you serve the forces of massacre and genocide which led to events of 70 years ago?

Realize what you are apparently supporting had you lived 70 years ago. The “Arab Higher Committee for Palestine” demanded that the British stop Jewish immigration into what was then recognized as the internationally designated Jewish National Home. The British government gladly complied, basically shutting off the possibility of Jews finding a refuge in their national home when they most needed a home and refuge. This policy was the “White Paper on Palestine” of 1939, which was found in violation of international law by the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations. So knowing what you know now, if you had the power and could go back 70 years and make the deciding vote for/against the White Paper - knowing what was in store for Jews shortly afterwards - would you vote for it? I don't see how any moral person can possibly answer with anything other than a very loud "NO", and therefore your decision would bring about the Palestinian resistance you believe is justified. If you had voted against the White Paper on Palestine in 1939, you would essentially be conceding that there is justice to the Zionist cause.

Back to your question WRT Palestinian resistance being justified. No, it's not. There was no Palestinian sovereignty at the time in that land. The Arabs of that time in that land considered themselves Arabs of southern Syria. What existed there was just a feudal system within an imperial one. That was soon ending. No rights were taken away from any Arabs of that region when a Jewish national home was recognized internationally. Also recognized internationally was Jordan. Jordan represented the Palestinian national home. No one was being displaced. Jews had always lived in that part of the world just as Arabs had. Just because they were a minority doesn't mean they didn't deserve their own self- determination. And had there been no aggressive wars initiated by Arabs, not one bit of Arab land would have been confiscated or "stolen" by Zionists.

[kayecy]

89. Jews were not let in to the USA, Argentina, Australia..... why did Palestinians have to let them in?

Jews had nowhere else to go around 1920, did they?

What you are actually saying is that everywhere except Palestine had a government which both decided that they would not let Jews in in the 1920s (The USA, Argentina, Australia etc) and had the military force to ensure they didn't come...Palestine on the other hand was occupied by the British who 'generously' said the Jews could immigrate there (but not to England)...The Jews, not surprisingly, grabbed the hands of the Brits and piled into Palestine...All very convenient for the Jews but what had all this to do with the Palestinians?...If they had been consulted, and if they had the military force to prevent Jewish immigrants from coming, then Palestine would also have been closed to Jewish immigration.

I don't blame Jewish immigrants for taking the opportunity offered by Britain, but at least admit that Zionists, and the governments of Britain, USA, Argentina and Australia etc share the blame for this conflict.

There was no Palestinian sovereignty at the time in that land.

True, but that was hardly the fault of the Palestinian residents...Are they to lose their right to self-determination simply because they were under Ottoman or British rule?

No rights were taken away from any Arabs of that region when a Jewish national home was recognized internationally.

By "recognised internationally" do you include those states neighbouring Israel/Palestine?
Be serious, the 1920s were the dying days of the Empires and Great Powers...No-one was the least bit interested in whether the Palestinians achieved self-rule ot not...At least admit that taking advantage of the situation as the Zionists (and the great Powers) did was immoral.

No one was being displaced.

Rubbish - Tell that to the Palestinian peasants who were kicked off their land by the Zionists when they bought it from absentee landlords. The Sursock land purchase alone resulted in 8,000 tenant farmers being evicted with compensation of US$17 per head...By 1935 about 30% of the Palestinian peasantry were landless.
.

Do you still believe no-one was being displaced?

[kayecy]

92. In your last message, you made several serious charges against my integrity...Allow me to rebut them

In your last message, you made several serious charges against my integrity......I have considered them and reject them absolutely for the following reasons:

Do you really believe Jews around 1920 were ruthless, colonialist expansionist aggressors? It appears you do. It's understandable that many people in that part of the world who live in closed societies brainwash themselves to believe this but educated, intelligent people like yourself with access to multiple sources?

Jews - NO...Zionist leaders – YES, although they are your words, not mine...Look what Zionist leaders have said:

“We must expel Arabs and take their places” – Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, University Press, 1985.

“There is no such thing as a Palestinian people...It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn’t exist.” - Golda Meir statement to the Sunday Times, 15 June, 1969.

Brainwashed or not, I prefer not to look at history through rose-tinted spectacles.

European colonialism was primarily motivated by economics. You really think economics was the main incentive for "colonialist" European Jews from 80-90 years ago?

No...When have I ever claimed economics was the Zionists primary motive?

At one time Jews were notoriously rejected in most of Europe as members of the various European nations. This attitude was one of the causes of the Holocaust or at least one of the causes of its acceptance or tolerance in so much of Europe. So how all of a sudden did the Jews become “European” after the Holocaust? They were never "European" before.

I agree ‘this attitude’ was one of the causes of the Holocaust but that doesn’t suddenly make European Jews Palestinians...The immigrants were ‘European’ because that is where they were born and where their fathers were born.

Do you realize that, at best, you are justifying Augustine’s role for the Jew — stateless, homeless, barely protected in degradation? And at worst, you serve the forces of massacre and genocide which led to events of 70 years ago? .

That is a serious charge which I must ask you to substantiate...Have I perhaps manufactured some historical facts?

The British government gladly complied, basically shutting off the possibility of Jews finding a refuge in their national home when they most needed a home and refuge. This policy was the “White Paper on Palestine” of 1939, which was found in violation of international law by the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations. So knowing what you know now, if you had the power and could go back 70 years and make the deciding vote for/against the White Paper - knowing what was in store for Jews shortly afterwards - would you vote for it? I don't see how any moral person can possibly answer with anything other than a very loud "NO", and therefore your decision would bring about the Palestinian resistance you believe is justified. If you had voted against the White Paper on Palestine in 1939, you would essentially be conceding that there is justice to the Zionist cause.

I presume you are referring to the following passage in the paper:
“....the Peel Commission Report of 1937, was abandoned in favor of creating an independent Palestine governed by Palestinian Arabs and Jews in proportion to their numbers in the population by 1949 (section I). A limit of 75,000 Jewish immigrants was set for the five-year period 1940-1944, consisting of a regular yearly quota of 10,000, and a supplementary quota of 25,000, spread out over the same period, to cover refugee emergencies. After this cut-off date, further immigration would depend on the permission of the Arab majority (section II). Restrictions were also placed on the rights of Jews to buy land from Arabs (section III).”

I believe that at the time, that was the minimum the MacDonald White Paper could propose...Something had to be done to stop Zionist immigrants swamping the local residents...You ask “...knowing what was in store for Jews...”...Unfortunately neither I, nor MacDonald could foresee the future, but for the sake of arguement let us say we could...In that case, I would have demanded that the Great Powers, particularly the USA, Argentina and Australia rescue Jews from the coming holocoast by opening their borders.

Failure to do so was a crime against humanity....The Great Powers ignored the Jewish predicament but that despicable action did not place the Palestinians under an obligation to take in the Jewish refugees, particularly when much more educated and powerful nations had refused to do so.


I trust this explanation will go some way towards persuading you to aquit me of your very hurtful charges.
.

[Taitertots]

66. The land of their grandfathers, but not great-great grandfathers

It was the Jewish holy land for a thousand years before Islam even existed.

[Taitertots]

65. All those evil Jew aliens moved in, they had to start a war

So the impetuous of your argument is that Palestinians are justified because Jews tried to move into the area. Antisemitism is essentially the reason the arab neighbors have launched numerous wars with genocidal intentions. It is the reason just as many Jews were forced from arab lands as Palestinians voluntarily left Israel. What happens to Palestinians who sell their land to Jews now?



So they stole the land bought pre-48. They stole the land abandoned during the exodus. They stole the land ceded to them after defeating genocidal neighbors. :sarcasm:

[kayecy]

67. Evil Jews?.....Read the words of Weizmann.......

Evil Jews, Taitertots?

All those evil Jew aliens moved in, they had to start a war

Evil Jews? - Your sarcasm is misplaced. That is exactly my point. The Zionist were no different to other colonial settlers.

Can you show me any other people that would not have resisted such a massive immigration?. The Algerians resisted the French settlers (pieds-noirs) as did the Aztecs with the Spanish.. No people on earth would simply lie down and accept domination by incoming aliens.

I've already asked Shira the above question several times but he seems strangely reluctant to answer. Perhaps you can help him out (avoiding sarcasm if you can). Were the Palestinians not like other people?...Perhaps they merely had a right to resist "ordinary" invaders but not Zionist invaders?

After all, Weizmann is on record as calling Palestinians "....treacherous, arrogant, uneducated, and greedy". He complained to the British that the system in Palestine did "not take into account the fact that there is a fundamental qualitative difference between Jew and Arab.

If an Arab leader made a similar statement about Jews you would call him anti-semitic wouldn't you?

[Taitertots]

68. The Palestinians are just like everyone else.

They have no right to ethnically discriminate against Jews. They have no justification for violence based on Jewish migration. They can't use violence to ethinically cleanse the area of Jews.


So why don't you answer, what land did they steal?
The land bought, the land abandoned due to arab aggression, or the land ceded to them following multiple failed genocide attempts.

[kayecy]

74. Isn't that a rather racist view?......

The Palestinians are just like everyone else.

Well I'm glad you accept that at least.

They have no justification for violence based on Jewish migration

Now you have me. Where is your logic? You admit Palestinians are just like anyone else but apparently you don't think they had the same right to resist colonial settlers as did Algerians, Aztecs etc. Isn't that a rather racist view?

So why don't you answer, what land did they steal?

In order for me to answer this question we need to agree on who has the rights to 'common' or 'unregistered' land in a community. In many parts of the Middle East, even today, unregistered, wilderness or forestry land is available for any member of the community or village to use. No-one 'owns' it but also no-one has the right to take sole possesion of it without the villagers' permission.

Can we agree that most, if not all 'unregistered' land in 1920 Palestine could be considered as 'common' land available for use by the 1920 Palestinian community?

[Taitertots]

77. I would say the same thing about your views

Jews immigrating to Israel are refugees, not colonial settlers. Palestinians don't have a right to resist legal immigrants with violence any more than Europeans have a right to murder Muslims entering their country, or Americans have a right to murder Mexican immigrants.



So again what land did they steal?
The land they legally immigrated to, the land they bought, the land abandoned by Palestinians, or the land ceded to them after failed agression.

[kayecy]

80. What did the 1920s Zionists call it?.......surprise, surprise.....COLONIZATION!...

Jews immigrating to Israel are refugees, not colonial settlers

You are entitled to your opinion, but don't you think what the 1920s Zionists wrote is more likely to be the reality?
"Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs."

Palestinians don't have a right to resist legal immigrants with violence any more than Europeans have a right to murder Muslims entering their country,

Mmmmmm - As far as I am aware, the Muslims immigrating to Europe are insignificant in percentage terms compared to the Zionists that entered Palestine 1920-1938. Most Europeans don't think they are about to be disenfranchised by Moslem immigrants - If they did, there would be parliamentary questions, votes and protests until the immigration was stopped. Contrast that with the Zionists flooding into Palestine and the Palestinians having no way to stop them other than resorting to violence.

Not very moral of the Zionists was it?

So again what land did they steal?

See the last part of my previous answer. I am still waiting for your agreement or counter-arguement.

[Taitertots]

87. Please attribute that quote to someone

It really doesn't help when there is no information about who said that, when, and in what context.


Muslims are a dramatic immigration shift for Europe and there are millions of Mexicans illegally in America. What is the difference between Mexican immigration culturally converting much of America and Jews moving into Palestine. Ethnocentric violence isn't acceptable for anyone. No one has the justification to use violence to preserve ethnic, racial, or religious dominance over a region. The "but they are different from us" argument belongs on Storm Front.

Not very moral of those Zionists to force the Palestinians to attack them for being Jews.


As far as your previous argument that all the land was communal. You mean all the land was arab only. Which is what it means if it is alright for arab immigrants to use but not Jewish immigrants to use.

[kayecy]

90. I apologise, I should have given you the reference:

Please attribute that quote to someone
It really doesn't help when there is no information about who said that, when, and in what context.

I apologise, I should have given you the reference:

Vladimir Jabotinsky, The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs) 1923

Ethnocentric violence isn't acceptable for anyone. No one has the justification to use violence to preserve ethnic, racial, or religious dominance over a region.

You haven't said whether you include the Algerian resistance to French settlers or the Aztec resistance to the Spaniards etc in your condemnation of violence...In the 1920s, Jews were banned from immigrating to the USA...Force was then used by the US in 1939 to turn away the SS St Louis with 960 Jewish refugees on board...Was that not violence?...If the Palestinians had had a navy in 1920 they, too, could have turned away Zionist immigrant ships.

You mean all the land was arab only Which is what it means if it is alright for arab immigrants to use but not Jewish immigrants to use.

No, you have it wrong...The pre-1920 communal land belonged to the local residents - Arab, Jew and Christian. If they chose not to object to Arab immigrants from Syria squatting on their common land, that was their choice...They clearly did not want Zionist immigrants from Europe squatting on there common land, but Israel simply stole it anyway.
.

[cali]

88. Of course the Zionists were different from other colonial settlers

I'm certainly not saying that the Palestinians didn't have the right to resist, but the Jews who bought property were certainly different from colonial powers. They were an oppressed and dispossessed people, both before and after WWII.

[kayecy]

91. And that gives them the right to make another people oppressed and dispossessed does it?...

They were an oppressed and dispossessed people, both before and after WWII.

And that gives them the right to make another people oppressed and dispossessed does it?

[Idealism]

22. I believe the EU over anyone who had a hand in this seperately

considering the Morantinos Report was agreed upon by EVERYONE there at the time and corroborated with both sides.

[shira]

27. yep, just ignore what Erekat said about Arafat WRT 2000-01 at Camp David/Taba

and the Moratinos report is NOT an official report. Nor is it accepted as some great, accurate accounting of Taba by both sides. It's at best described as fairly adequate by both sides - not a really ringing endorsement. The Moratinos report doesn't even go into the Clinton parameters - why those parameters were never written down, why they were pulled by Clinton, how they were viewed as the ceiling or roof, how they were rejected by Arafat, etc.

But it's nice to know you think Clinton, Barak, Ross, and ben-Ami.....all left of center....are all liars WRT their accounts on the Clinton parameters and Taba.

[Idealism]

28. Erekat made comments about Camp David, NOT TABA. They are two different events. Understand?

[shira]

29. lol....what makes you think Arafat changed b/w Camp David and Taba?

And when you find any report refuting Clinton,Barak,ben-Ami, and Ross then let me know, okay?

[Idealism]

37. Because he realized he would have to come with something other than hope to the table.

Everyone there was surprised by the change in the tone, hence everyone said they were the closest they have ever been to peace. But, the Israeli elections changed the game and caused the talks to end abruptly.

The Morantino's Document refutes your fantasy that it was Arafat's doing to scuttle Taba, and you have been shown this document at least two dozen times, yet to my dismay, you keep repeating fairy tales.

[shira]

39. be honest, okay?

Arafat rejected the Clinton parameters offered PRIOR to Taba. The only reason for Taba as far as the USA and Israel were concerned was to IMPLEMENT the Clinton parameters that Israel agreed to. The Clinton parameters were NOT to be used as a basis or FLOOR for further concessions by Israel. Do you at least understand this? That Arafat and his team thought they could REJECT the parameters and use them as a FLOOR for further Israeli concessions reeks of ill-intent by the PA. The Israeli elections meant NOTHING as Barak thought going to Taba in the first place was a waste of time since he knew IMPLENTING the parameters that Arafat already rejected was NOT going to happen. It was CLINTON who pulled the offer and it was Clinton's end of term that was the cause for rushing the Taba talks.

The Morantinos document says nothing that disputes this and neither does ANY other report or statement by anyone else who was there.

Again, when you have ANYTHING that disputes these facts articulated by Clinton, Ross, ben-Ami, and Barak do let me know. Otherwise you're the one repeating fairy tales.

------------

ETA:

You're probably thinking that Arafat's negotiating team made great strides and that his team spoke for him at Taba. And this is where you're dead wrong. Here's Barak with Benny Morris in reference to the Malley/Agha letter:

"Regarding Camp David and the subsequent negotiations, readers should note that Malley and Agha invariably refer to what "Arafat's negotiators" said or accepted or proposed—never to Arafat's own views and actions. And this is no accident. Arafat himself has never affirmed Israel's right to exist or its legitimacy, and has never waived the Palestinian refugees' "right of return"—and what his underlings "offer" or "accept" can always be denied or repudiated. This is the Arafat method, and Malley/Agha enter the game with gusto, while pretending to their readers that what "Arafat's negotiators" said or did carried the old man's imprimatur. They apparently forget that in their original article <"Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors," NYR, August 9, 2001> they stated: "...The Palestinians' principal failing is that from the beginning of the Camp David summit onward they were unable either to say yes to the American ideas or to present a cogent and specific counterproposal of their own." So Clinton had "stormed out" and said: "This is a fraud. I won't have the United States covering for negotiations in bad faith." The Palestinians went "through the motions rather than go for a deal," Malley and Agha then concluded.

The new Malley and Agha are busy watering this down. Arafat, they now say, did not reject Clinton's December 23, 2000, proposals; he merely "took his time" in responding. And both Barak and the Palestinians wanted to "renegotiate" the parameters, they say. This smooth, false symmetry is vintage Malley/Agha. They fail to tell their readers that the Israeli cabinet immediately and formally accepted the parameters as a basis for negotiation and that Arafat, on the other hand, according to both Clinton and Ambassador Dennis Ross, flatly rejected the parameters and slammed the door shut. "

To summarize the above, it doesn't matter how far Arafat's negotiating team got. In fact, some of them told Arafat this was the best deal, he should take it, etc... the FACT is that Arafat wanted no part in ending the conflict and it was Arafat (forget his negotiators as they don't matter) who did NOT want peace and wasn't ready for it. He didn't change one bit from Camp David to Taba. Rejecting the Clinton parameters is proof of this.

[Idealism]

40. How long did Taba last, shira?

How many days did it take for the Israeli government to withdraw from the talks, out of what 90% of the world says due to the elections- but you and some in denial blame on the Palestinians? How few days did it take for Barak to lose "his patience?"

Answer: Not even a full week. Less than 7 days and Barak pulled the plug. You think it was because that "there was no progress?" Funny because everyone there said they were "days away from peace" and other hopeful statements, yet to you that is insignificant.

The Morantinos Document clearly states that the reason for the ending of final status talks was due to the Israeli elections, which definitively refutes your silly narrative.

[shira]

41. did you read the last part of the last post? Arafat's negotiators do not speak for Arafat himself

Arafat rejected everything and was NOWHERE close on negotiations.

He rejected the Clinton Parameters; the implementation of which was the basis for the Taba talks. Do you understand that on right of return, Jerusalem, etc... Arafat was nowhere close to the parameters? It doesn't matter what his negotiators said, Arafat wasn't on board.

[Idealism]

42. Wrong, the Palestinians brought maps and counterproposals

You think they invented them, without tacit approval from Arafat himself? Quite delusional.

Your story is now: Forget what the negotiators said, because Arafat didn't want peace.

Sure, shira. Whatever helps you sleep at night. At least admit that Barak ended Taba. You surely can at least comprehend that, right?

[shira]

43. you're hopeless, and the Moratinos report does not contradict Barak, Ross, ben Ami, or Clinton

I'm not claiming anything different than what they reported. You're the one dishonestly grasping at straws here.

[Idealism]

44. So why did Barak declare that the new Israeli government will not be bound by any agreement?

Why did Barak give free reign to Bibi for denying the peace process?

Why did both sides issue a joint statement saying Taba was suspended due to the elections?

It had nothing to do with Clinton leaving office, nothing to do with Barak running for re-election in a race where Bibi was gaining popularity based around rejecting ANY peace proposal made... nothing at all, right? :eyes:

You buy that propaganda hook,line, and sinker and it really is a sad sight.

[shira]

45. please read Clinton's concluding remarks on his parameters

http://www.peacelobby.org/clinton_parameters.htm

"This is the best that I can do. Brief your leaders and tell me if they are prepared to come for discussions based on these ideas. If so, I would meet them next week separately. If not, I have taken this as far as I can. These are my ideas. If they are not accepted, they are not just off the table, they also go with me when I leave office."

=====================

Again, there's a REASON these parameters weren't written down. Do you know what it is? It's the same reason they were pulled off the table if Arafat rejected.

Your continued denial is pathetic.

[Idealism]

46. Shira, Taba started after Clinton was officially out of office...

Just an "FYI" for you. He wasn't there. This was him talking about Camp David, which were the basis of talks but did not go into the detail that Taba did. The Palestinians brought maps to counter Clinton's parameters and Israel largely accepted them.

[shira]

47. you don't know why the parameters weren't written down, do you? or are you pretending not to?

[Idealism]

48. They were not followed at Taba, were they? And guess what

they had the most progress in any peace negotiation. Clinton did more harm than good, to be honest.

[shira]

49. sigh....Israel went to Taba in order to IMPLEMENT the clinton parameters

The Moratinos report shows that the PA was so committed to strict pre-1967 borders that they rejected Israeli annexation of existing settlements (even the ones surrounding Jerusalem). Look it up for yourself.

Note from this video how far the 2 sides were on Jerusalem and the Temple Mount:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2074.htm

If you do some research of your own, you'll find the PA at Taba wouldn't even allow Israel sovereignty over the Western Wall.

At Taba, the PA was clear they would not accept a demilitarized state or some Israeli security force deployments initially agreed upon earlier.

At Taba, the PA was clear that they wanted a right of return TO ISRAEL for all refugees who wanted it. They crapped all over a $30 billion settlement for refugees.

Recall that the PA lied after Taba and still claimed that only "cantons" and "bantustans" were offered.

I challenge you to dispute the above facts and then come back claiming that if only Barak didn't leave 2 days earlier, maybe....

[Idealism]

51. Barak said Jerusalem would not be split. Everyone knows this

but you.

[shira]

52. Barak agreed to Clinton parameters that split Jerusalem, nice try

Fact is at Taba, Arafat still wanted full right of return, no Israeli sovereignty at Western Wall, no recognition of any Jewish holy places, strict June 4, 1967 borders, a militarized Palestine, etc. Things were so bad the PA had to lie after Taba and claim falsely they were only offered isolated bantustans and cantons.

Your fairy tale about Barak ending the conference 2 days early as though he was the barrier to peace is a joke. Arafat never backed off from his maximalist demands.

The narrative you swallowed WRT Taba is nothing but propaganda. If you had integrity, you'd distance yourself as far as possible from the bullshit you've been peddling.

[Idealism]

53. Wrong, his own negotiators were told to not split Jerusalem before they left for Egypt.

Shlomo's account even says that, as did Barak's own statements to newspapers.

[shira]

54. Read the Moratinos report on Jerusalem......you're wrong

Seriously, do you still believe Barak leaving 2 days early was a main reason the talks failed? Do you now realize how maximalist Arafat's demands were - and do you still believe that by not budging, the PA was serious about closing a deal at Taba?

[Idealism]

55. There was a joint memo saying the talks were concluding because of the elections

Both sides agreed to it.

[shira]

56. so? with 2 days left, Arafat was miles apart on all major issues with his maximalist demands

Consider that on Jerusalem alone, Arafat wanted all settlements surrounding the city abandoned so that the 1948 armistice lines would be the border. It's insane to believe that Israel would EVER go along with that. And worse, Arafat had absolutely NO respect whatsoever for Jewish ties to the Temple Mount, Western Wall, holy basin, etc. The peace process was all a big "F.U." by Arafat. There's NO WAY he could possibly expect Israel to ever accept such conditions, including full right of return.

At least be honest enough to come to grips with this.

[Idealism]

57. Quds was supposed to be the capital for Palestine, by all accounts

But Barak was unwilling to do so. Arafat wanted East Jerusalem but it was too much for Barak to do.

The full right of return nonsense is a myth the Israeli RW made up, it is patently false. The number that the Palestinians were willing to accept was approximately less than 10k returning to Israeli citizenship. Not the "millions" that the RW'ers claim.

Both sides agreed Taba was called off because of Israeli elections, you just admit it, then you say "So?" Who are you, Dick Cheney? Thanks for admitting that Israel ended Taba FINALLY.

[shira]

58. pathetic display defending Arafat's maximalist demands and then claiming you're for peace

Now we're done.

It takes quite a bit of nerve for you to pop into threads about CD/Taba accusing me of dishonesty.

Again, the Morantinos report disputes your claim about Barak's stance on Jerusalem.

It's a complete waste of time discussing I/P with you, but I now know more than ever before where you stand.

Pretty pathetic for a "progressive" to claim to be an advocate of peace and justice defending Arafat's maximalist demands that only ensure the conflict is extended and Palestinian suffering is maximized. No progressive who claims to care for Palestinians could possibly defend Arafat's decisions and actions in 2000-01 that turned what should have been a lasting and peaceful 2 state solution into more war and suffering. Worse - you blame this intransigence on Barak for ending the summit 2 days early, as though by some miracle something could have been achieved in another 48 hours that would have bridged the ENORMOUS gap between the 2 sides.

[Idealism]

60. God forbid the pathetic Palestinians are allowed East Jerusalem for a capital! Oh the humanity!

Can't split even an acre of Israel, eh Shira? Everyone here knows you are against peace, but thanks for outing yourself officially.

[shira]

61. Clinton Parameters split Jerusalem / Arab control of Arab sections and Israel control of Jewish sect

The Morantinos report also makes this clear and Israel agreed to it.

Barak leaving 2 days before the summit ended had nothing to do with the summit's failure.

Why are you defending the PA's maximalist demands that will never result in peace? Do you loathe Palestinians so much that you don't mind seeing their leadership do all it can to extend and maximize Palestinian suffering?