Israel & Palestine-Real Story

[Ken King]

Vraiblonde,

Yeah, I knew you wouldn't speak to just the current post, but you want everyone else to. I guess as the owner of the ball we have to play by your rules, NOT. I am not being deliberately obtuse and I don’t give a damn if you get angry or not. I think my position has been very clear throughout. It is you that have the problem and not me.

You are getting a little too hypocritical even for me and talk about putting words into someone else's mouth (or keyboard). Show me anywhere were I have said, "You've said all along that what the Israelis should do is give back all the land, then sit there and do nothing while the Arabs bomb their civilians." You can't do it because I have never said that. Additionally, I have never said I love the Arabs, I just don't think of them as the monsters that your bigoted mind does. I also have seen and read about some of the illegal things the Israelis have done but you fail to see it as being relevant. Even though we fund over 10% of their entire budget. How can anyone discuss something with a closed mind like yours? I am surprised NASA hasn’t contacted you for experiments dealing with that vacuum you call your mind.

The only thing overshadowing your bigotry is your ignorance of International Law and the fact that any gains through conflict are illegal. Why can’t you just get that? It is after all extremely simple. You also fail to see the expansion and colonization by Israel as being contrary to existing International Agreements that they have entered into, but to you that’s okay because you like them more then you like Arabs. That really is an intellectual position you have there, as it seems it is based on nothing other then your emotions.

I used to think you were somewhat intelligent, I guess I will have to re-evaluate my position on that.

 

[vraiblonde]

See? This is typical of you, Ken. When you have nothing intelligent to say, you resort to insults. But you're going to have to work a little harder to offend me and get me to back off. In order for an insult to be effective, it must be based on truth. I know I'm not a bigot and I know I'm not stupid so you're going to have to try something else. Get creative. Impress me.

I also know I've never used my unique position in these forums to squelch someone else - so that won't fly, either.


Maybe you're right - maybe my understanding of the situation is all wet. Maybe Barak didn't really offer a Palestinian statehood in 2000. Maybe Arafat didn't really turn that down, along with an Israeli return to 1967 borders and joint control of Jerusalem. Maybe Arafat was right in saying that not letting Palestinian refugees back into Israel was a deal-breaker.

Because, Ken and Jimmy, those are the facts of the 2000 summit at Camp David. Unless the news guys were all lying and you two were there and know what really happened. According to those stupid, lying news people, Arafat was handed basically everything he was asking for - and STILL thumbed his nose.

Arafat keeps saying he'll control the violence and he wants to reach a settlement, yet there is no evidence of him taking steps in that direction.

 

[vraiblonde]

Oops! Let me correct myself:

Strike Shimon Peres in that other post - make that PM Yitzak Rabin instead. You know, the guys who won the Nobel Peace Prize for their part in the Oslo accords? Along with Arafat, of course. But do you also remember that Rabin gave away so much Israeli sovreignty that he was assassinated by a hard-line Israeli? Do you also remember the riots that ensued when Sharon made a visit to Temple Mount in 2000? Or is that more lying news guys?

 

[jimmy]

I'm gonna get back to the Camp David thing in a minute but quickly, the Sharon Temple Mount "visit" in 2000 was a direct show of power on his part designed to both envoke feelings of superiority in his people and as a slap in the face to Palestinians. That's all that accomplished...no wonder riots ensued...

 

[vraiblonde]

For the record, here's what Sharon had to say about his Temple Mount visit, compliments of CNN :

"I believe that we can live together with the Palestinians. I came here to the holiest place of the Jewish people in order to see what happens here and really to have the feeling of how we need to move forward. There was no provocation here."

So Jimmy, I'm not sure what you're basing your statement on, unless it's just pure conjecture and wishful thinking.

 

[jimmy]

Well instead of go off on a big tirade (again) I found a great article that speaks to the failures of the Camp David meetings...they were doomed from the get-go with Israel's intent on not bending on ANY issues...it's a bit of a read but not THAT long and certainly addresses the half-truths spouted off by Vrai as fact....Vrai, the issue was HARDLY left to JUST the refugee issue...please read this.

http://mondediplo.com/2000/09/08campdavid

 

[Kyle]

So only Muslims are allowed onto the Temple Mount now? Not Jews! Not Christians! No visiting Buddists, Druids or anyone else!

I'm not much on religion so my knowledge of the particulars aren't complete but this site is significant to Jews, Christians and Muslims from everything I've heard!

After Camp David Arafart, Hammas, Al-Aqsa and company were looking for something to start trouble over and they picked that. If it wasn't Sharons visit it would have been something else.

BTW earlier reference was made to Arafat actually locking up some of the trouble makers from the Palistinian factions....It might have been more convincing had he kept them locked up. Not held for a few days to weeks and then let them slip out into the night.

 

[jimmy]

Vrai,

Youre great. You keep giving me excuses to go and look things up and pull out real info to back up my statements...I actually am really enjoying this.

Ok here goes. From CNN.com (this is an excerpt from an article in sept of 2000 right before Sharon went).

"Likud leader Ariel Sharon plans to enter the hill early Thursday morning to reinforce Israel's claim of sovereignty there. In Israel-Palestinian negotiations, both sides claim the hill. Jews call it the Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest place, where the biblical Jewish Temples stood. A Muslim shrine and mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam, are built over the Temple ruins."

Sharon made no bones about taking this "tour" of his as a means of showing their strength and 'reinforcing their claim of sovereignty' there. It was a slap in the face, a flexing of muscle, and certainly a calculated manuver. You dont' have to get into a leader's head always, Vrai, if you can understand politics.

But, as I don't really think that you do, here's more definitive proof from one of Sharon's party members (same article):

"Sharon's visit would be a political demonstration, said Likud spokesman Ofir Akounis. "We are visiting the Temple Mount to show that under a Likud government it will remain under Israeli sovereignty," Akounis said. "

This right at the time that Sharon was capitalizing on fears that Barak would concede Israel's supposed sovereignty over the site.

Wow. Imagine a move like this with an upcoming election. Duh, how can I tell what he was thinking?

 

[Ken King]

Vraiblonde,

I have said a lot of things that were intelligent (maybe just beyond you) and none of you Israeli supporters have been able to challenge that. For instance;
1. What authorizes the Israelis to maintain the spoils of war (additional land) that they claim are theirs? Nothing, as it is against International Law, the Charter of the UN and many resolutions passed by that body. As a member of the UN, Israel is bound by those laws and agreements, just as all member states are.
2. The Israelis are receiving assistance from the US of A and are using it to keep an Arab state from being created. We supply better then 10% of their budget and what do we get in return. Intense spying, stealing of property, a haven for criminals, and outright denial of request our government makes of them. There are many more but these are just a few.
3. While the Arab nations are trying to broker peace you have Sharon's party stating that there will never be a Palestine. This is their true feeling and not all the trumped up BS that has been hailed as a major achievement during previous brokered deals, which, by the way, have never addressed the return to the original border agreements, which is a sticking point for the Palestinians.
4. Arafat has come out and met Sharon’s requirements to begin talking of peace and now Sharon says he won’t deal with Arafat. Why would you set requirements and then renege on them once they have been met? They aren’t interested in moving towards peace seems to be the only logical answer.

You keep falling back on making it an ethnical or religious issue when it doesn't have much to do with that at all (there are Arab-Jews and Israeli-Muslims). If you care to re-read my postings you will find that I support neither of these countries. As to their people, I really could care less about what happens to them. What I don’t want is; I don’t want them using nuclear weapons to resolve this, I don’t want our military pulled into this nightmare making them the target of extremists on both sides of the fence, and I don’t want anymore of my tax dollars paying for the systematical colonization of that area by the Israelis. Is this too difficult to understand?

 

[vraiblonde]

Jimmy, the article you cited is an opinion piece, not real news. The language and assumptions by the author are a dead giveaway. I'll be happy to find you an article by George Will that paints it a different way.

The facts I presented are not half-truths. It's what was reported by the US media during and following the summit. You can say it's not true if you want, but everyone who followed the story or even paid the remotest bit of attention to it knows these are the facts as reported. Trying to revise history just makes you look foolish.

 

[jimmy]

Vrai and Monkey,

True the article does have a slant to it and is surely intented to disprove the theory that it was ALL ARAFAT that destroyed the chance for peace at the Camp David summit.

You can't argue with the FACTS presented in the article; we can disagree about the interpretation but:

A. UN resolution 194 DOES call for a right of return for the refugees. You can decide if you think that's "fair" or not but Arafat's right to expect that is in accordance with the UN resolution. Plain and simple.

B. The issue of Jerusalem wasn't resolved. The disputed holy sites were assumed to stay in Israeli control with the Muslims having only control over the outlying areas along with synagogues being put up next to their holy sites.

C. Israel only agreed to return 87% of the West Bank territory and, again, only if all other conditions were met.

Now, you all can bitch and moan about the source, but you can't dispute the facts. Monkey your ignorant reply is the type that always baffles me. Instead of addressing specific issues, you just spout off about the "stupid french" and "they're cowards" etc which has nothing to do with this arguement.

It is, however, an easy way for you to counter a point of view without having to do much thinking on your own so I can see why you did it.

And Vrai, with your blanket statements of "everyone who followed it knows the story", you are being ridiculous. You assume that EVERYONE feels the way you do about this and got YOUR reaction to the Camp David Failures? Oh come on. As if everyone who came down on the opposite side than you clearly "wasn't paying attention". I forget, though, that you've proven youself to be so wise in these matters and such a logical debator with an uncanny knack for drawing out unquestionable facts so far...

 

[jimmy]

And you'll probably find something not to like about this source either but I don't know why.

http://www.mediamonitors.net/pnt1.html

It's calle the "media monitoring network." They have no party affiliation, are NOT headed by someone with an agenda; in fact, their whole postion is to try and "de-spin" a lot of controversial news stories.

The above link is to an FAQ page about the Camp David summit. Now, READ IT, instead of discounting it simply because it was ME who put it up here.

Look at the facts they present (or, fairly, what they present as facts) and tell me where your dispute would lie. Let's bring this back to something resembling intelligent discourse and please EXPLAIN to me what about this position is wrong, what they are missing, and why Arafat still should be held in sole responsiblity.

 

[jimmy]

Monkey,

Yes but by suggesting that my source was irreputible, you are saying that the info contained isn't valid.

I think it's ridiculous how so many people on these threads see a link to an article, decide it's opinon or baised w/o reading it. All you were doing was trying to discount something that I was using to support my position.

Read it and THEN tell me that the source is crap and cite specific examples why. That's all I was saying.

 

[Kyle]

Uhhhhhhh Jimmy!

Mediamonitors.net may not be as impartial as you'd like to think.

Registration Service Provided By: Network Commerce Inc.
Contact: ehost@networkcommerce.com
Visit:

Domain name: MEDIAMONITORS.NET

Registrant :
Media Monitors Network (A McKhan.com Project)
Muhammad Ali Khan (AliKhan@McKhan.com)
186663342638
FAX: 18773759036
P.O Box 9785
Brea, CA 92822
US

http://www.mediamonitors.net/charity1.html


Billing, Administrative :
Media Monitors Network (A McKhan.com Project)
Muhammad Ali Khan (AliKhan@McKhan.com)
186663342638
FAX: 18773759036
P.O Box 9785
Brea, CA 92822
US

 

[vraiblonde]

Good, Ken, this is easy enough. Points and counterpoints in an organized fashion.

To your first paragraph: whatever

1. Rabin AND Barak both offered to give it back - Arafat gave them the finger and walked away.

2. Barak offered to recognize a Palestinian state - Arafat walked away. Yes, we have funded them greatly, but does that mean they have to do exactly what we demand, even if it means the destruction of their own nation?

3. You keep saying the Arab nations are trying to broker peace, yet the end game lies with Arafat, who has made no move toward negotiations of any form. He keeps saying he's going to do these things, but let's not confuse effort with results, especially since there is no evidence that he's doing any such thing. Return to 1967 borders was indeed offered at Camp David in 2000. Look it up if you don't believe me.

4. I can't blame Sharon for not wanting to deal with Arafat anymore. How many times does someone have to sh*t on you before you decide to sh*t back? Our own President should have such principals.

You keep falling back on making it an ethnical or religious issue when it doesn't have much to do with that at all (there are Arab-Jews and Israeli-Muslims).

This is indeed a religious issue with these people. Why do you think they keep fighting over what they consider Holy Land? Why does Jerusalem hold such importance to them? Duh.

I don’t want our military pulled into this nightmare making them the target of extremists on both sides of the fence

Too late. The US is a target by virtue of our prosperity and freedom. The Muslims are fairly outspoken in their hatred of our decadent ways so that's not a secret. Muslim countries are the epitome of backwardness and ignorance. Look at the way they treat their citizenry. The only way to make it worse is to piss off the Israelis as well - then we can get it from both sides.

 

[vraiblonde]

Awright, Kyle!!! Way to do your home work! Some impartial media source, Jimmy.

 

[vraiblonde]

Okay, now that I've read the MediaMonitors FAQ, I can respond to Jimmy's question

Read it and THEN tell me that the source is crap and cite specific examples why.

Answer: Just about all of it is crap. The "points" made are factually incorrect or spun to within an inch of their lives.

The jist of the Palestinian refusal is that they got most of everything they wanted but not ALL that they wanted. Way to compromise!

As far as Palestinian right of return, why would the Israeli government agree to take in hostiles? If a Palestinian state is created, why wouldn't the Palestinian refugees live there instead of Israel? The article says it's a matter of "choice" but how is that fair to the Israelis? Especially since the Palestinians have already proved they will commit suicide to kill a few Israelis in the process.

Not like Clinton (and now Bush) who say, "You've expressed a strong desire to kill Americans! That's great! Now come on over and live here - hell, we'll even teach you how to fly a plane!"

 

[jimmy]

Monkey,

If you put as much effort into developing some sort of position as you did trying to discredit the sources I post here, you might be making some headway.

Muhammad Ali Kahn (my "hero" as you so aptly put it) is not responsible for the content of that FAQ page. Neither in fact is mediamonitors. It's from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Mediamonitors was just posting it there for information purposes. I have yet to dig around about the "WRMEA" but I'm sure they'll end up being a bunch of evil anti-semites who have NO idea what's going on in the world and make it their duty to incorrectly report the news...

Vrai,

You are continuing to miss represent the facts.

1. The camp david summit NEVER included the true vision of a Palestianian state. What was suggested was FOUR seperate regions all surrounded by Israel.

2. Only 87% of the disputed territory from 1967 was to be given back. Along with continued rule of Jerusalem by the Israelis with the Palestinians getting merely a few villages in what they consider to be their capital. That too is unacceptable.

3. Arafat DID NOT offer a counter offer. Why? Because he didnt' have to! Israel's offer already fell way short of the guidelines laid out by the UN. So why would he have to accept an offer that STILL allowed Israel to exist in violation of the UN resolutions?

I'll keep trying to find a source that you all will think is "credible" but I have a feeling that unless it presents your positon exactly, you will find something wrong with it and continue to ignore what it is actually saying.

 

[jimmy]

Israel should accept them, is because it was THEIR fault the problem exists. The palestinians didn't simply "leave" those areas. They were forced out by military incursion which was done to set up civilian settlements which is AGAINST UN REGLUATIONS!!!

What is so hard to understand about that? If Israel broke internatinoal law to get those lands, they can't just keep them. Israel displaces hundreds of thousands of people and created a humanitarian crisis and now they just want to wash their hands and offer nothing more than the political equivilant of "my bad!"

So with that out of the way, what else do you think is "Crap?"

Are the terms of the Israeli proposal crap (87% of land returned, limited control of jerusalem, no right of return, and no true palestinian state but 4 seperate areas?) Which of these do you dispute, Vrai?

Are the guidelines set up by the UN in the resolutions mentioned crap?

Where is the crap, Vrai? Show me the crap!!!

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by jimmy
Israel should accept them, is because it was THEIR fault the problem exists. The palestinians didn't simply "leave" those areas. They were forced out by military incursion which was done to set up civilian settlements which is AGAINST UN REGLUATIONS!!! ....

Actually Jimmy many of the Palistinians were driven out by the Arab armies of Jordan, Syria and Egypt back in the fifties.

They were told to move out until the fighting ended and the "Jews were pushed into the sea" then they could return to a restored "Palistine".

I don't profess that the Jews are blameless of any wrong doing...Just that the weight of blame you and Ken King place on the Israeli side is unfounded.

It still comes down to one tiny Jewish nation at odds with 12-15 Arab Nations who have been trying to destroy it by any means for 54 years.

If it was you against 40 other guys in a fight wouldn't you do everything you could to make certain the ones you manage to knock down don't get back up and come back at you?


If that means making them move out farther then so be it.