Gaza Agreement ; Hamas prepares for unity government.

Here are his exact words of Arafat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDj7bg0lN44

 

These people did not just come from Europe. They came from the Middle East .Now you describe Jews as "religiously and tribaly (sic) motivated brutalized people".

It is that kind of stereotype that enables you then to justify not seeing Jews as humans treated no differently than Palestinians in your mind.

What is ironic is you are using the exact same description the world uses to stereotype not just Palestinians but all Arabs and your description could describe any identifiable group in the world that fleed persecution.

That is the very point I made. You seem to think its o.k. for Arab peoples or Palestinians to be tribal, motivated by religion,create their own religious states but somehow if a Jew does it, it can't be the same because here's the words you use to justify your double standard:

"they seen it (sic) as justified that since they had been mistreated it was ok for them to do the same to others. "

The above words are a stereotype that assigns the exact same thinking process to all Jews who fled to Israel

Now stop and think, you really think the Jews fleeing to Israel sat around and said,"say I know we just had all our homes stolen, our families massacred, we just walked out of extermination camps, we have no where to go, the UN will not even acknowledge our existence, say I know let's hate Arabs and go pick on them...."

What an absurd stereotype and that is what they are. Stereotypes are based on assumptions and you don't stop to read yours the way some do not stop to read theirs directed at Arabs or Palestinians or anyone else and that is the point I made.

Neither Palestinian or Israelis are monsters. Neither woke up and said say I know I am going to start a war.

I can say this though,. you might want to look at the fact that most Israelis in Israel now were born there and so your needing to go to the past to insult their parents or grandparents for fleeing Europe is no longer relevant as an argument. The law says anyone born where they are has a right to live there.

More to the point you need to stop denying the history of the Muslim world and in particular the tribalism and religious motivation as you refer to it of the Arab peoples and how that resulted not just in dhimmitude but massacres that continue this day between different sects of Muslims.

No Muslims of the Arab world were not innocent little virgins sitting around living in utopia until some European Jews showed up for no other reason then to hurt them. That is a fantasy...a political myth.

The Arab people have waged war on each other and others in the name of their religion since they were started. So before you judge Jews as brutal think about the history of Arabs.Muslims, and the very Christians in Europe the Jews fled from.

Jews did not just become the way we were for no reason. History repeats itself. People are brutalized and they can go on yes to brutalize and the cycle will not be broken until people like you and I stop using hateful stereotypes about one another.

I have listened to the speeches of Arafat in Arabic. I know what he felt about all Jews not just Israelis. I heard it with my own ears. Please do not tell me Mr. Abbas is a moderate when he stood up in his own assembly and cheered a speaker on as he screamed death to Israel.

I lived in Israel and I travelled extensively on the West Bank and I have been in the hell hole known as Gaza. I know the conditions that cause Palestinians' young children to turn to terrorist groups seeking affirmation. I also know Palestinians who are moderates, they choose not to embrace violence no matter how hopeless it seemed or seems to them. I know those moderates. They would no sooner hurt me than I them. They respect the right of Jews to have a country no different than I respect their right to have another state on the West Bank.

No I do not want their children crammed in over-crowded cities with no running water and sewage running down the road. No they do not want me to think they will kill me so I have to leave them in confined spaces to prevent their movement.

On that base level, we bleed the same, and aspire for the same things for our children.

My colleagues who died in the IDF they didn't put on a uniform because they hated Arabs-they put on a uniform so people like me, do not have to fear being a Jew. They didn't ask for the wars they were sent to.My friends sent to patrol the streets of Gaza or West Bank they didn't ask to go there.

You think they want to be there. You today tell me you can accept the fact we Jews are no different then you and you will leave us in Israel to be who we are, I can tell you, the IDF is gone and those extremist Israelis on the West Bank-what do you think happens? What do you think fuels their extremism and hatred? Every time either side uses poison words of hate, it inflates or lights on fire the extremists on the other side.

Hamas exists because you and others embrace the stereotype you do. If you gave up those very words, Hamas would shrivel away and so would all those Jews you think hate you. They don't they are as frightened of you as you are of them.

What I do know is what many of my friends did when I was young both Arab and Jew. We walked the streets together. Many of us came from Canada so we live in this huge country where Arabs and Jews do not have to hate one another. We could take that lack of fear and go to Israel and the
West Bank not as know it alls, not as people who would dare presume to tell either an Israeli or Palestinian what to do, but just to say, look we live in peace you can to, neither of you are to blame-history has forced this conflict on both of you.

That was all our message was to treat both sides as equal humans.

Don't ask me to say to a Palestinian they are a brutal terrorist for wanting a country anymore then I would my own people. Its not fair.

Don't pretend Jews did not escape from dhimmitude of sharia law nations to Israel or are Felashies who had to come to Israel.

Don't pretend all of Israel are European invaders. They are not. They are people who returned whence they came and precisely back to their indigenous land because we would not occupy land we had no indigenous routes to.

Now I do not expect you to ever shed your stereotypes so I will share it like this. If I stand before a man who says to me, his only belief is he will not stop until he wipes out all the Jews of Israel, I have no choice but to pick up a gun and defend. It is not a choice. If that man says to me, you accept me for who I am and I the same with you, I have a choice to put down that gun.

Until Hamas disarms no different than the IRA did in Ireland, there is no possibility of peace. Until people like you realize the Jews of Israel can not just pick up and leave or all get wiped out and be replaced by a Muslim caliphate, the war will continue and you will drag your children into it, and their children into it and it has nothing do with God, religion-it has to do with people, human beings who will not use reason over rage.

 

LOL, those words undermine your case against Arafat. In he describes making peace with the enemy as Mohammed has done even though others refused to.

 

Rubbish, the world does not decribe all arabs so and moreover Palestinians were brutalised after they became refugees.

Its not stereotyping its history. Consider the 20th century history of zionism and the planning that went into it .

Simply using the history of everyone else to justify your own mis deeds.

You dont know much about Arafat. Clearly.

Complete rubbish, if you were scared of the Palestinians you wouldnt be taking and settling on their land more and more on the west bank. You could have had peace years ago, but you wanted land instead.

 

Dusty1000, et al,

BLUF: There are times when the relocation of Hostiles that pose a threat to the defense of a sovereign nation may be required.

(COMMENT)

Under the conditions faced by those leaders, both political and military, --- given the threat --- yes I can see a certain reasonableness to it.

Do I agree that "displacement" is a sound strategy in general: No

I believe you are attempting to apply very late 20th Century Concepts to a set of conditions where 19th and early 20th Century logic was the standard of the day. In analyzing the situation that prevailed at the time, one has to think like the leaders of that day, and not attempt to apply post-WII advanced concepts in International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Remembering that Israel, in its war of independence, was using the very same logic that the Palestinians say is valid for them to use today: "by any and all means." Remembering that the Geneva Convention of 1949 had not even been enacted until the time after the four major Armistice Agreements were made, well after the invasion and displacement took place. None of the advancement in IHL concepts were applicable back then.

(COMMENT)

That's because I wasn't addressing that set. But I have used it in other commentaries. Remembering that NvAP can pose a threat indirectly, by providing material support to the Jihadist and Fedayeen.

(COMMENT)

The suggestion is that more Palestinians support Jihad and Armed Struggle than not.
The suggestion is, that Palestinian Parents indoctrinate there children in Armed Struggle, violence and the ways of Jihad.

(COMMENT)

I was responding to you question of:

"Palestinians who are citizens of Israel" = "Israelis of Palestinian Descent (IoPD)" (Just as "Italians who are citizens of America" = "Americans of Italian Descent.") It is a shift in emphasis with allegiance in the lead. They are Israeli first; heritage is secondary.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Arafat stated:


"This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our Prophet Muhammad and Quraish, and you remember the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and considered it "Sulha Dania" [a despicable truce]. But Muhammad had accepted it and we are accepting now this [Oslo] peace accord."

His words NO MORE THAN are as clear as can be.

He is clearly comparing the Oslo Accords with the Hudaybiyyah peace treaty and saying they b oth were despicable truces.

That peace treaty was a 10-year truce agreed between Islam's Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish Tribe of Mecca.

Muhammed accepted it but you conveniently ignore the next part of history, The reason Arafat referred to it is because two years after signing it, precisely because Muhammed found the treaty despicable, Muhammad ignored the treadt attacked and conquered Mecca.

How you can derive from an historic reference that when you find a peace treaty you sign despicable you can break it whenever youwant and attack the other side as meaning Arafat would honour the Oslo agreement is absurd.

 

creation, et al,

I do not normally respond to pure ad hominem comment (directed against me rather than against my arguments); but, I'll make an exception in this case.

(COMMENT)

The set of ALL Palestinians can be sectioned into a number of valid categories:

• Hostile Arab-Palestinians (HoAP) (Example: Jihadist and Fedayeen)
• Non-violent Arab Palestinians (NvAP) (Example: Supporters of the BDS)
• Unaligned Arab-Palestine (UAP) (Example: The Uncommitted)

There are such things as:

• The Palestinian National Charter: Resolutions of the Palestine National Council July 1-17, 1968
• The Hamas Covenant 1988 The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement 18 August 1988

In the statements challenged, nothing was cited, except the above, that could be construed as presented by an intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views. It is a discussion built on the exchange of ideas. Just because I am not tolerant of Jihadist and Fedayeen, does not make me a "bigot."

The inaccuracies were not pointed out. I can only surmise that your commentary was your version of a person "who refuses to accept different views;" I'm not sure. But if you have a point you feel needs discussed, I am will to exchanges ideas with you.

Regards,
R

 

It's amazing the lengths you go to in order to try to justify the forced displacement of the Palestinians.

Taking into account what Ben Gurion is quoted as having said below, can you answer the question that I have highlighted?

 

The Jews should leave Palestine when the Scots leave Ulster.

 

That is not what I asked. What I am asking is, do you or do you not support the forced displacement of innocent Palestinians families?

It would appear from what you are saying, that you do support the forced displacement of innocent Palestinian families, Muslims, Christians, women and children et al, so I respectfully ask that you clarify your position by directly answering this simple question.

But the concept of armed resistance has been applied since then, and approved by the UN General Assembly.

Out of interest, what do you normally refer to yourself as? Would it be an AoED (American of European Descent), for example?

I suppose you would refer to a Scottish person of Scottish descent as an SoSD?

I have never heard of such terms being used before now, but I presume that people you regularly communicate with where you live must do the same.

- - - Updated - - -

As I haven't suggested that any Jews should leave Palestine, or anywhere else for that matter, this must be one of these strawman arguments.

 

When Israel was faced with trying to enter into a peace agreement with Arafat they had to deal with a man who engaged in a constant litany of lying.

Mr.Abbas inherited that legacy and it most certainly is a primary factor in why Israel does not today trust Abbas and then when Mr.Abbas then endorsed Hamas dissolved any good will that may have been there. I first want to back up and give a list of just some of the lies Arafat was caught saying which to this day Mr.Abbas refuses to admit were lies:

1-early in 2002 Arafat claimed that when the Israeli captured of a ship carrying 50 tons of weapons to the Palestinian Authority the Israelis made it up-the 50 tons were displayed and verified as was their destination - Palestinian Authority headquarters;

2- Arafat claimed that Israel "massacred hundreds of civilians" in Jenin; the allegation was not only proven false, but proven staged by the Palestinian Authority;

3-Arafat claimed that Israel "forged" copies of thousands of documents showing the PA planned and carried outterrorist attacks against Israel (after Oslo)-the original documents were then discovered in Palestinian Authority offices proving Arafat personally approved and paid forterrorist attacks against Israel, including suicide bombings;

5-Yasir Arafat claimed in an interview on Al Jazeera Television on January 13, 2002, that the Israelis and I quote: "murder our kids and use their organs as spare parts." He also stated Israelis were giving poison candy to Palestinian children, giving them cancer and shooting Palestinians with radioactive bullets. He never once provided evidence for this and then denied saying the above but these comments surfaced as articles dissemninated from the PA
after Arafat denied they came from the PA. Even Yasir Arafat's wife got in the act at a press conference with Hillary Clinton, when Bill Clinton was President claiming each day Israel engaged in "daily and intensive use of poisonous gas," causing "cancer and other horrible diseases" among Palestinian Arab women and children and that Israel had "poisoned our air with poisonous gases" and caused Palestinian Arab women and children to suffer "cancer and other horrible diseases." and that Israel has contaminated 80% of Palestinian Arab water sources with "chemical materials." (Reuters, Nov. 11, 1999)


6-Arafat lied and said its own Tourism Minister In an interview with Israel Television, broadcast in three parts on Dec. 7-9, 2001,

7-Arafat claimed Israeli agents massacred the 21 youths in Tel Aviv." In an interview with the New York Times (July 7, 2001) Yasir Arafat in fact claimed the person who drove the suicide bomber to the May 2001 Tel Aviv attack in which 21 youths were slaughtered was "a longtime informant for Israeli intelligence." This was later proven as false.

8-Arafat repeatedly stated in interviews the 9-11 attacks were carried out by Mossad.

9-On Oct. 7, 2001, PA Radio broadcast a report that "U.S. law enforcement officials have nabbed three cadres of Mossad operatives in New York in connection with the September 11 attacks." (Translation courtesy of IRNA.) and this of course was fabricated


10-Arafat claimed to Israelis that the terrorist attack at Beit Lid was done by Shin Bet. The on April 2, 2001, PA Radio broadcast this statement by one of its commentators concerning the Jewish infant Shalhevet Pass, who was murdered by a Palestinian Arab sniper in Hebron: "On the matter of the baby settler who was killed in Hebron a few days ago, we already said that her death was a fishy action and there is information according to which this baby was retarded and it was her mother who killed her in order to get rid of her." (Translation courtesy of IMRA.)

11-Arafat stated, "Israeli agents are carrying out the shooting attacks": to a group of Israeli Knesset Members that the Palestinian Arab terrorists shooting at the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo from the adjacent Arab town of Beit Jala and then stated they were "Palestinians collaborating with Israel."; Ha'aretz , Dec. 19, 2000)

12-Arafat claimed that the Palestinian Arab terrorist bombings in Netanya, which injured 37 Israeli Jews. Bombings were the work of "the Israeli Mafia." (UPI, Nov. 9, 1999)

13-Arafat claimed Israel carried out the Hebron attack on August 3, 1999; PA Radio declared that "the attack was staged by the Israelis." (Jerusalem Post, August 5, 1999)

14- Arafat claimed Israel and the U.S. were involved in the massacre of 70 Japanese tourists in Egypt and then this later resurfaced in an editorial in the PA newspaper Al Hayat Al Jadidah on November 18, 1997


15-Arafat claimed Israelis carried out the Ben-Yehuda Street bombing because the Arab bombers who murdered the 5 Jews and injured another 192 "were assisted by Israeli extremist elements." (Yediot Ahronot, September 7, 1997)

16- Arafat repeatedly claimed Israel armed Hamas; Jerusalem Post, March 22, 1996' no proof was ever provided/

17 Arafat stated Israelis carried out the Beit Lid bombing referring to the Arab terrorist attack in Beit Lid, in which 22 Israelis were killed, and other attacks in 1995, and said "I have evidences that these terrorist activities have been done through coordination between these fanatic Islamic groups and some elements on the Israeli side."; Washington Post, May 2, 1995-no evidence was ever provided.

One has to understand that Arafat lied so many times before and after Oslo no one took him seriously and this is the legacy the PA has inherited and causes Israel to believe negotiations with an organization that has engaged in so many lies is at best something never to be truly trusted.

 

Show me a politician who isn't a liar.

You are evading the elephant in the room, again.

 

Dear Roccoco,

My apologies for any offense given.

Previously in correspondence after a short back and forth you have deigned not to respond to my posts.

You presume to make up terminology rather than spend your time going to the actual detailed history of the conflict.

You presume to make your case with absolutely no background presented whatsoever; as such we see charges laid re the Palestinian National charter without reference to the background of its initial writing and continuing history.

You presume to take certain offending parts of it and presume that this document alone signifies Palestinian efforts and attitudes towards peace.

 

Now in addition to the litany of lies Arafat was responsible for the same continuation of lies is going on with Abbas.


Abbas stated that he was forced to flee as a thirteen-year-old from Tzfat (Safed) in what is now Israel in 1948 and was made to live in a tent city in Syria as a poor refugee. He then altered the story in an interview with Al-Palestinia TV in 2009, Abbas saying his family was not expelled or driven out, but rleft voluntarily out of fear that the Jews might take revenge for the slaughter of 20 Jews in the city during the Arab pogroms of 19 years earlier:

His story changed again. Rather than live in a tent city he would go on later to state he in fact he left by foot from Tzfat, to the Jordan River, where we remained for a month, then we went to Damascus, and then to his relatives in Jordan, and then Damascus.

Keep in mind Arafat claimed he was born in Jerusalem which everyone knew was a lie and in fact was born in Egypt and spoke with a thick Egyptian accent.

Now its also interesting because listening to Mr.Abbas he claimed Israel forced him out. However he also stated in interviews and in particular an article in March 1976 in Falastin al-Thawra, the official journal of the PLO in Beirut that and I quote,

‘The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe.’”

He had also stated earlier in the Jordan Daily Newspaper Falastin 19 February 1949 that the Arab states which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help the Palestinians.

Interestingly the PA denies Palestinians were told by their own people to leave Israel and that is why they did. That is denied. You can see that repeated denial by anti Israelis on this forum saying it was the Jews who forced the Palestinians out but Mr. Abbas said in the Cairo Daily Newspaper Akhbar El-Yom 12 on October 1963: " May 15 1948 arrived; on that very day the Mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead.


In a Memorandum by the Arab National Committee to the Arab League Governments on their refusal to sign a truce 27 April 1948, Mr. Abbas stated: "When the Arab delegation entered the conference room, it proudly refused to sign the truce and asked that the evacuation of the Arab population and their transfer to neighbouring Arab countries be facilitated. The Jewish Representatives expressed their profound regret. The Mayor of Haifa adjourned the meeting with a passionate appeal to the Arab population to reconsider its decision..."

Today Mr. Abbas denies the above.


Mr. Abbas now claims that the Arab armies intervened in 1948 only after the Israelis supposedly expelled the Arab inhabitants en masse. However it is public domain and nowan established fact from documented speeches that the Arab states publicly declared it was their intention to murder every Jew living in Israel even before the UN vote took place.

We are dealing with people who say something then deny it.

 

Dusty1000; et al,

FALSE DILEMMA: (a form of bifurcation) implies that one of two outcomes is inevitable, and both have negative consequences.

(COMMENT)

Do I support the specific displacement under examination (Palestinians prior to Armistice)? NO
Was it illegal? NO
Was it a reasonable decision at the time given the circumstances? Arguable

(COMMENT)

You will notice that 1974 Resolution mention the Palestinians once:

You will also notice that it comes a quarter century after the displacement, and seven (7) years after the occupation. You will also notice that at the time of this Resolution, the West Bank was not Occupied Palestinian Territory, it was Occupied Jordanian Territory. The West Bank was annexed by the Jordanians, with the consent of the Palestinian People, in 1950. This extension of Jordanian Sovereignty remained in place until 1988, when it was abdicated by HM King Hussein. Following the Jordanian disengagement, the Palestinians declared independence; stating:

You will notice that the Palestinians openly acknowledge that they exercised "right to self-determination, political independence and sovereignty" and only then, did it become "occupied Palestinian territory" (oPt).

Similarly, the Gaza Strip was formerly Egyptian Held Occupied Territory.

One more point! The use of A/RES/3246 as a justification for Jihad and Armed Struggle is inappropriate. But that is a topic for another discussion.

(COMMENT)

I am an American of Italian descent.

(COMMENT)

SoSD is redundant. Just like Native Americans are the original American (the Indians), so would a "Scottish Person" be a "Native Scotsman."

(COMMENT)

They are phrases of description in the form of Abbreviations and Short Titles. It is a different style of writing. To be used correctly, the entire phrase must be spelled out at least once with the short title immediately following.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

creation; et al,

First, my name is "Rocco."

(COMMENT)

Accepted.

(COMMENT)

I generally don't respond unless I have something to say. If I have slighted in some way by not responding, please accept my apology.

(COMMENT)

I presume nothing. I understand that you object to phrases like Hostile Arab-Palestinians (HoAP) (Example: Jihadist and Fedayeen) and Non-violent Arab Palestinians (NvAP) (Example: Supporters of the BDS) simply because they are very descriptive of segments of the Palestinian community in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. When I say HoAP, I am directly referring to the hostile elements of the community; just so there is no mistake.

(COMMENT)

I try, to the best of my ability (as limited as you think it is) to stick as closely to the salient points as I can, without writing a mini novel. The Covenant and the Charter speak for themselves. The concepts are often repeated by the leadership. I often give such examples. I don't believe that the basic position of the HoAP has really changed all that much since they rejected Partition.

(COMMENT)

Make no mistake, YES I do. I don't think that the Palestinian People have expressed any policy toward the promotion of Regional Peace and Security in over half a century. In fact, it is my experience that the Palestine has done more in the attempt to justify their use of terrorism than they have in attempting to promote an atmosphere of peace. I don't believe that there is one single once of honesty and good faith in their attempt to reach a settlement with the Israelis. The Palestinian option is always violence. The people openly support violence and the leadership of terrorist regimes.

No, let me make this perfectly clear! While I believe that the Palestinian People at one time, had a set of legitimate positions and claims, their conduct --- on the whole --- makes them a nation that supports terrorist and opposes and reasonable effort to settle their disputes through peaceful means.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

The point was to explain the elaborate history of distrust that has developed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority creating an impasse.

The point was to explain Israel's politicians operate knowing that the people they are dealing with have an entrenched culture of out and out lying.

Its hard to negotiate with someone who just out and out lies. Yes negotiators seek to manipulate what's best for their position but in Arafat's case he wasn't puffing or negotiating when he threw out his lies. His own staff, Arab leaders, neutral world leaders, did not take what he said seriously because of the sheer volume of his falsehoods.

Now Abbas is doing the same.

Its easy to call Israel or Netanyahu unfair, brutal, etc. but how to you hold onto jello exactly. How do you negotiate with a party that says one thing then contradicts it just as quickly? Where is the goodwill?

How does Abbas now pose as a moderate and reasonable man after embracing Hamas.

What we are supposed to pretend because like Hezbollah they have two wings one violent the other alleged politicians it makes them acceptable/ How was that any different than the IRA in Nortehrn Ireland. The IRA had wings one for politicians and one for terrorists. Until the terrorists disarmed no one took the political wing seriously. Why would they have?

How do you sit and negotiate with someone whose position is they will not stop until you are dead. What would you like Israel to negotiate, how they die? That is exactly what Abbas wants. He has stated until Israel takes in anyone calling themselves a Palestinian and offers them citizenship he won't recognize them. In otherwords he has said, become a majority Muslim state then I recognize you. Right-volunteer to die and I will recognize you he says.

That was the point and is the point and you can pretend this is not the case but it is.

We are no further ahead from 1948. Not one Arab leader dare say Israel is a Jewish state. If a Palestinian says that Hamas would kill them.

Hamas killed hundreds of Palestinians claiming they were Israeli collaborators -their crime? They worked in Israel.

That was the point.

 

It's a moral question really. All sorts of atrocities were not illegal in the past, but that would bear no relevance at all to whether or not I would personally support them.

It may have seemed a reasonable decision from the Israeli perspective, but it certainly wasn't from the Palestinian perspective. From my perspective however, I oppose all forced displacements of populations.

Unlike you, I do not believe that anyone should have their negative rights infringed by any government/authority that they did not vote for, and that therefore does not represent them. I believe that people should have the right to take up arms against any such government that acts in a tyrannical way towards them, but I guess this is where you and I differ.

It is no less appropriate to cite UNGA Resolution 3246, as it is to cite UNGA Resolution 181. By citing one while discounting the other as ''inappropriate,'' you appear to be using double standards.

The fact of the matter is that just as the UNGA approved Resolution 181 relating to the creation of Israel, it similarly approved resolution 3246 relating to armed struggle against alien domination, including by the Palestinians against Israel.

It is entirely appropriate for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza to engage in armed struggle against the Israeli occupation. Whether doing so is a good or bad idea is a matter of opinion, but it is ultimately their choice to make. Just as if you were living under a foreign military occupation, you would have the right to take up arms against it if you so chose to do.

If you do not extend to others the same rights that you expect for yourself, then you are using double standards.

You refer to Palestinian Israelis as IoPD (Israelis of Palestinian descent), so why do you not refer to native Palestinians as ''native Palestinians''?

On the one hand you refer to Palestinians who are not Israelis as being of Arab descent, while OTOH you refer to Palestinians who are Israelis as being of Palestinian descent. But they are descended from the same people. So, which is it? Are they descended from Arabs, or from Palestinians?

If you would say Arabs, then the Palestinians who are Israelis and of Arab descent, should be described by the same term. As you have already said that they are Israelis first and Palestinians second, the term ''Palestinian'' would become redundant. Therefore the term that you should use to describe Israelis of Arab descent, would include those who are Muslims, Christians and Jews.

So, what do you reckon? How about IoAD (Israeli of Arab descent), IoED (Israeli of English descent), IoRD (Israeli of Russian descent), and so on?

That would be consistent with describing yourself as an American of Italian descent.

 

But like I said, you continue to evade the elephant in the room.

It's really very simple.

Israel occupies Palestine; Palestine does not occupy Israel.

Israel should have no more right to occupy Palestine, than Palestine should have to occupy Israel.

Israelis should have no more right to expel Palestinians from their homes outwith Israel, than Palestinians should have the right to expel Israelis from their homes within Israel.

It is Israel that is in contravention of international law. It is Israel that attempts to annex land outside of its internationality recognised borders.

Palestine is not in contravention of international law, nor does it attempt annex land in Israel.

This is why the world doesn't have much sympathy, when Israel claims that it cannot negotiate. Israel doesn't need to negotiate with anyone to end the occupation, and abide by international law.

 

In regards to statement 1, you have made it clear you do not believe Jews have the right to take up arms and protect themselves. So go on and read your statement in 3. You are oblivious to the fact that you continue to blatantly contradict yourself by setting one set of standards for Palestinians and one for Israelis.

In regards to statement 2, your comment in my opinion is a not so subtle endorsement of terrorism by using the politically less offensive term "armed struggle".

Your comment in 2 is of course nonsensical. The Arab League of Nations proclaimed a war against the Jews of Palestine and they lost. They have been whining about their loss ever since and to this day did not accept the conequences of their losing a war.

When it was evident they could not defeat and end Israel's existence by conventional military force, they turned to terrorism. You call it armed struggle. How sanitary. The fact is its not conventional war. The terrorists make it clear they expect Israel to follow international law but they do not have to.

Armed struggle? How clean and tidy. Interesting you condone it. Have you seen the consequence of it? How can you sit in such an antiseptic world and use such sanitary words like "armed struggle" to support terrorism?

I have seen directly the consequence of terrorism or what you want to pretty up as armed struggle. It blows people up. It turns them to smelly mush. It splaters their organs on walls and leaves mothers without children and generations of hatred.

You endorse it? That's because you think you speak for Palestinians. You don't. Your presumption they want terrorism and you support it I would argue is elitist tripe. No one who has seen the results of terrorism would ever endorse it.

No you do not speak for Palestinians. More to the point, you will never find one come on here and admit they want terrorism. If there are any they won't admit it. They will also refer to the word "armed struggle". Sounds much more politically appropriate then lets blow up children and terrorize innocent civilians.

Its far more antiseptic then saying attacking defenceless people by surprise and fighting people who can't fight back.

"Armed struggle"? Is that what you call what Hamas does? Is that what it means to attack innocent people?

Interesting.

If Israel defends itself from terrorist attack you no doubt feel they are engaging in terrorism. But Hamas? No right? Only they are involved in armed struggle as you call it. What a neat world where you can have such double standards.

 

All accepted.

Yes and just so there is no mistake you categorisation of the population merely wastes reading time and is irrelevant in any case as the same can be done for any population - especially the Israelis, who have their own hostile elements..

However, though I will ignore it, you of course are free to write this babble as you wish.

And yet we see extended diatribes without reference to anything but re-hashed Israeli propaganda;

The covenants and charter do not speak for themselves at all, but are merely backdrops that have been abrogated by events - eg the PA charter has long been abrogated by events.

Interesting, you have indeed been clear.

You may think that but the thought is without reference to the facts of history. The PA in 1988 gave up claim to 78 % of the Palestine they had lost and since the 90s have been in full cooperation with Israelis across a range of government activities in the West Bank.

The Palestinian option is not always violence, indeed while spectacular violence such as the intifada makes the headlines the West Bank for example sees repeated peaceful protest almost every single day. Meanwhile the PA has supported peaceful diplomacy for over a decade even while belligerent actions have been continuing against them.

Their actions are entirely understandable and often admirable, especially under the conditions which they face and historically which no other people has ever been forced to accept. Moreover their support for terrorism extends no more than the Israelis own support for terror state terror and continued belligerence.

 

My my blaming Israel for terrorism, almost as bad as pretending that Palestinians started committing terrorism when in fact Israelis were bombing market places and buses half a century ago, or that the Palestinians had left Palestine of their own volition. Or that Israel had not developed nuclear weapons, thats just off the top of my head. The list goes on and on.

Shall I go into the litany of lies and deceit carried out by the Israeli government? Or shall a few large scale examples suffice?

After Oslo failed, the Israelis blamed Arafat for the failure. It was an Israeli failure. In fact, Arafat accepted the Clinton parameters with less reservations.

 

Dusty1000; et al,

I'm not sure we actually differ all that much. As in most cases, we each have to pick a side. While I'm sympathetic to many of the issue raised in support of various Palestinian Complaints, their approach to conflict resolution is outside what I consider acceptable as a nation, a culture and the bounds of being civilized.

(COMMENT)

When I evaluate past events, I take into consideration the time period practices, and the overall scenario. I don't evaluate based on moral considerations of the today, but what were the option then.

(COMMENT)

In any dispute, by definition you have varying perspective. I assure you, had the aggressor Arab Armies been triumphant, the Israelis would have a felt morally wronged.

(COMMENT)

AH yes. But then, the Region and all the indigenous populations under the Ottoman Empire never had 'democratic' rights to start with. They lost nothing they nothing until they became violent.

(COMMENT)

UN Resolution 181(II) was intended to be a peaceful settlement device. The outcomes expected were, for those leaders at that time, considered more than just.

UN Resolution 2649 (1970), UN Resolution 3246 (1974), and UN Resolution 33/24 (1978 ), all dealing with the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination in one form or another --- all say (respectively):

• Affirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples under colonial and alien domination recognized as being entitled to the right of self-determination to restore to themselves that right by any means at their disposal;
• Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples' struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;
• Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;

They don't trump the Geneva Code (Article 68 ) which is binding. Remembering that you pay the price under occupation law for attacking the Occupation Force.

In your argument to promote Jihad and Armed Struggle as a means of dispute resolution, I recommend you cite them all.

(COMMENT)

Ah yes, the question of conflict between the intentions of Resolution 181(II) (1947) - versus - Resolution 2649 ('70), 3246 ('74) and 33/24 ('78 ). I don't believe the intention is to promote jihad, insurgency and terrorism. Although the Palestinians seem to spend a lot of time promoting the idea that by "any means" would be endorsed to include: (Article 1(3) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP sets out the meaning of "terrorist act".)

• attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
• attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
• kidnapping or hostage taking;
• causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility;
• seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
• manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives, or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons,
• participating in the activities of a terrorist group, including by supplying information or material resources, or by funding its activities in any way, with knowledge of the fact that such participation will contribute to the criminal activities of the group.​

(COMMENT)

Reference: International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Occupation and Other Forms of Administration of Foreign Territory

I submit to you that "Occupation" (whether belligerent or not - or consensual or not) is not equivalent to "colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation" in the contemporary view.

But in any case, Security Council Resolution 237 (1967), and every one on the topic susequent to that, sees the Israel presence in the Palestinian Territories as an "Occupation" and subject to the Geneva Convention. That makes Article 68 applicable.

(COMMENT)

Yes. Is the double standard justified. In the case of the Palestinian, probably more so than not. The Palestinian is a nation that supports Jihad and Armed Struggle as a means of dispute resolution.

(COMMENT)

I see you are fascinated with this.

I don't normally address citizenship with historical descendent clauses unless it is directly related to the discussion. In this case, it came in the form of your question on: "And, what about the Palestinians who are citizens of Israel?" from Post #342.. I'm not sure of your purpose behind this argument; but I decline to play.

Yes, if it applicable to the issue, all could be correct. [IoAD (Israeli of Arab descent), IoED (Israeli of English descent), IoRD (Israeli of Russian descent)]

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Mr. Abbas has stated publically the Jews never forced him out.He openly stated the Arab League of Nations told Palestinians to leave. This is the head of the Palestinian Authority admitting this and you respond and say, oh no, its the Jews who forced them out.

You were provided a tape that clearly records Mr. Arafat stating that just like Muhammed, just because he signed a peace treaty did not mean he felt bound by it and then you tried to twist that to say he was saying he would follow the agreement.

You live in an interesting world of denial Creation.

Deny this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1AmL9Qoiek

 

It is now public record that Arafat stated after signing Oslo it was just a joke, a tactic in his on-going war: His own bodyguard told why he found lying totally acceptable.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39446327/...der-arafat-urged-attacks-israel/#.U5CJElZOW00


http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/04/0...enouncing-killing-of-israeli-civilians-video/


It is precisely for the above reason and after Arafat again repeated his bad faith bargaining years later a second time with Clinton, Israel will never trust the PA again despite all the back and forth.

Abbas was his right hand man. Abbas wrote a doctorate in Moscow claiming the holocaust was a lie created by Zionists and Nazis. This is the man Israel is supposed to negotiate with?

Well even that charade is over His embracing Hamas exposes his real beliefs.

This is the real Abbas,a man who stands an applauds the destruction of Israel:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...f-his-ministers-calls-for-jihad-on-jerusalem/