A New Palestinian Uprising

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Now you owe me five minutes back for looking through your silly links

Not to mention the one that resizes the browser window to fullscreen. (Maggie resets her preferences to prevent such rudeness in the future.)

Originally posted by Undertoad
Now you owe me five minutes back for looking through your silly links. Do you deny that the timeline goes:

- Arafat rejects Barak offering at Camp David
- Arafat returns and declares intifada
- Sharon elected

Bnig! Your wrogn! Tanksfor playign!

Duh Tnoy, teh timeline is liek thsi:

- Barak makes evil gesture to repres Palestinionas
- Arafat teh omniscient adn Al-vege-mitey rejects it in all its evilnes
- Sharona vists a holy plase for Jews adn strats teh war.

Seriously though, can we get back on topic? Anyone have any logically sound reasons why the method outlined in the first post wouldn't work? Something more than "you're wrong!" maybe?

[jaguar]

Maggie I’m using Moz 1.1a - didn't do it to me, I disabled it from doing that earlier so i never noticed it, apologies.

a: Fuck you dham. That’s never what I said and you know it, ironic you should preach offtopic. Your 'method' would probably attract some worldwide attention, and be completely ignored by the US and Israel.

To argue to that softer Israeli governments have caused a rise in terrorism is in reality, bullshit. Reoccurrences of violence have been due to a complete halt of progress on the Israeli side, the mentality is and was the same, just enough to pacify them, never enough to actually solve the problem - that would involve making real concessions..

I don't deny it at all, ill just expand a couple of your tad-too-brief points.

- Arafat rejects Barak offering at Camp David

An offer no one is never quite sure what it was - because he refused to so much as put it on paper, doesn't that just reek of reliability and trustworthiness.

- Arafat returns and declares intifada

Months later after Sharon visits an extremely contentious holy site for both Muslims and Jews that has been hotly contested, including extensive Israeli excavation all around it which found precisely nothing. Knowing full well that such a visit would create huge amounts of tension. Oh and I don't think he declared it either.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
It would very certainly have an effect, especially on Israelis. Israelis would never have elected Sharon in the first place, except that the reaction of Palestinians to softer (or in tw's terms, "non-extremist") prime ministers was increased terrorism.

How myopic. Sharon got elected because he created the Intafada. Any statement contrary to that fact is an outright lie. The latest PBS (was it Frontline) documentary on Middle East negotiations specifically states that Sharon started the intafada. They also stated that fact explicitly. When honest people were the Israeli leaders, there was virtually no Palestinian attacks.

Last night's BBC interviewed a mother whose daughter was a victim of a Palestinian suicide bomb. She blames Sharon directly. She is the Israeli that would be disturbed by a burning Palestinians. Likud would simply laugh and call it a barbecue. She says, explicitly, her daughter would we alive today if not for Sharon. She also says there is no future in Israel because of Sharon and therefore seeks to emigrate from Israel.

Sharon is the only reason for the intafada. Palestinians are responding as they must to outright Likud terrorism - including the wholesale occupation of the West Bank in direct violation of International law and worldwide condemnation. But then what do mass murders care about a few inconvenient laws when there are dog Palestinians to slaughter. And so the UN conference on racism now labled Israel as a racist nation.

[Tobiasly]

Originally posted by tw
How myopic. Sharon got elected because he created the Intafada. Any statement contrary to that fact is an outright lie. The latest PBS (was it Frontline) documentary on Middle East negotiations specifically states that Sharon started the intafada. They also stated that fact explicitly. When honest people were the Israeli leaders, there was virtually no Palestinian attacks.

You see tw, you have this problem about telling the difference between fact and opinion. Airing an opinion on PBS (was it Frontline?) does not make it fact.

One Israeli woman who dislikes Sharon does not make it a fact. Why do you think they interviewed her? Because her disliking Sharon makes for a good story. Did they also publish a poll stating what percentage of <I>other</I> suicide-bombing Israeli victims (or families) blame Sharon? No? Then that one case means absolutely nothing.

You can always find one person who believes just about anything. If PBS (was it Frontline?) decided that's the story they wanted to put across, then they could have easily gone out and found someone who would back up that story.

So, Sharon got elected because he created the Intafada, you say. This is a fact, you say. Please provide some evidence to your fact. I'm not talking about a story on PBS (was it Frontline?). Perhaps an independent exit poll on Israeli voters as to why they elected Sharon.

[Undertoad]

The true story of Camp David was that for the first time in the history of the conflict the American president put on the table a proposal, based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, very close to the Palestinian demands, and Arafat refused even to accept it as a basis for negotiations, walked out of the room, and deliberately turned to terrorism. That's the real story—all the rest is gossip.

Again, that's Bill Clinton's take on it and I will bow to his greater understanding of the situation.

Bringing up the UN conference on racism is really weird tw. In many cases the UN is like two lions and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner, due to the one-nation one-vote nature of the general assembly. It allows it to take potshots at Israel and this particular pot shot was the most blatant. To even bring it up is to drop any pretense of trying to find the truth.

If for no other reason than Palestinians and Israelis are the same race. This is confirmed by genetic scientists. But even if that weren't true, to look at all the nations of the world and say that Israel is the racist one is truly bizarre. What about Iraq? What about Zimbabwe? The political expedience of leveling potshots only at specific nations ought to at least engage your suspicion of the UN. Why doesn't it?

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
But even if that weren't true, to look at all the nations of the world and say that Israel is the racist one is truly bizarre. What about Iraq? What about Zimbabwe? The political expedience of leveling potshots only at specific nations ought to at least engage your suspicion of the UN. Why doesn't it?

All the world's nations gathered in S Africa on a conference on racism. They did not say Zimbabwe was not racist. They did not say Iraq was not racist. Why do you include irrelevant and ficticious details? They said Israel IS a racist nation. The vote was quite one sided with only Israel and the US in disagreement. Israel has earned the title of a racist nation because of Likud.

Racism is not about genetics. If it were, then explain why so many white men are genetically closer to black men than to other whites. Racism is about hate of those emotinally regarded as different. But then you knew that when you posted irrelevant references to Zimbabwe to confuse the fact that the UN conference on racism decreed Israel as a racist nation. Would not have happened when Rabin was Prime Minister. But Israel is now led by some of the worlds' most racist people - Likud - same people who also advocated the assassination of Rabin.

Racists who lie so often that they will not even admit their ultimate objective - confiscation of the occupied territories in direct violation of international law and will. Ah, but again we return to reality. That is what Likud wants - to steal land. Keep stealing land, tresspass on sacred territory, steal from the dog Palestinians without any due process, and violence is inevitiable. Then get the naive (George Jr) to express the entire conflict only in terms of suicide bombers. No other US president was ever so foolish as to endorese the policies of Likud.

Israeli violence is directly traceable to land theives without judicial protection for victims. But then in a nation dominated by racist Likud, why should dogs have any legal protection. That would only make it more difficult to steal the land. Israel meets the world's definition of a racist nation as defined by the world conference on racism.

It is bizzare to ignore a world's most racist political party - Likud. Racism is endemic in Likud meaning that massacres are also acceptable to that party's faithful. Israel has changed. Israel is now a racist nation.

[tw]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Again, that's Bill Clinton's take on it and I will bow to his greater understanding of the situation.

Now go to details of the Wye River conference as explained in that PBS documentary with interviews from those who were there. Palestinians arrived expecting, based upon a previous meeting, for Israelis to bring a detailed map of how the West Bank was to be arranged. But something happened with extremists on Baraks team. Who was on that team to make sure peace would not happen? Sharon. And so instead of bringing a detailed map as promised, Israelis instead sketched maps on blank sheets of paper.

Palestinians were furious - and rightly so. The conference broke down in blunt exchanges of foul words. Obviously. Again the Israelis would not agree to specifics so that, like in the Oslo agreements, the Israelis could change the agreement over time.

Arafat was very specific. He was ready to settle all details right there and then. But Israel again reneged and refused to sign off on details. Arafat knows from experience. If those details are not stated specifically - not written in detail, then Likud will later take away what was promised in Wye. It was Israel's failure to commit to details that caused the Palestinians to back off.

There were other silly gestures such as Israeli luggage packed and waiting in hallways - like children threatening to run away from home. That too was discussed in the PBS documentary. Curiously those who were able to have the most productive disucssions were security people for both sides. But Wye broke down when Palestinians expected a detailed settlement and Israel refused to agree to those details. Undertoad does not dispute this fact as he did not dispute it previously. Arafat required and was ready to settle details right there and then.

Ironically, in Taba Egypt, during Barak's last days, Israel and Palestinian negoitators, without Sharon present, did discuss and agree on details. Amazing how peace negotiations can be productive when Likud is not present. But then Sharon's actions having always been about racism, massacres, and zionism in its worst form. Therefore Israel under Sharon is now labeled a racist nation.

[jaguar]

If it was such a real move for peace on the ISreali side, if they were so serious about it, i they meant what they *said* why wern't they willing to put it on paper. Would you accept a verbal contract with someone who has a history of breaking wirtten ones?