Had the proof a loooooong time ago Klip, it's you who are doing the wriggling. You didn't know that the PL:O broke the UN Ceasefire so then attempted to fabricate another tall tale to show they were following some other ceasefire but couldn't show us what the terms of it were and when pressed, lowered it's standing to not be a ceasefire but an 'understanding.' Wriggle away Klip, you boxed yourself into this one with your own sources and no matter how you try to say it was an 'understanding' it still has terms that you can't show are different then the UN Ceasefire terms. Don't need much against your stuff Klip. the PLO was determined to observe strictly the cease-fire called for by the Security Council
Drew, regarding your orders to me to provide you with the wording of the Habib ceasefire, have you forgotten that in August you tried to use this as your last possible excuse to shore up the MYTH that the PLO was the aggressor? "The Habib ceasfire didn't exist". Have you forgotten your own post? Allow me to refresh your memory: It really is a very slender thread that your defence is hanging on, isn't it, Drew? I mean, your instance that the lack of documentation of a verbal agreement achieved via negotiations using third parties means that the Habib ceasefire did not exist. Quite an astonishing last-gasp defence, isn't it, Drew. And HBendor loves it. I will next look at your defence against the vast amount of evidence from key players at the time that it in fact DID exist and that they were all clear as to the strengths and weaknesses of Habib's ceasefire ..... (to be continued) ......
Seems I was well aware there as a Habib Ceasefire Klip, it is the clause to that effect or, any clause whatsoever for that matter that we are waiting for you to provide. But, don't worry, I understand that you cannot as it is beyond you and is the same for your implied contention that individual ownership of land meant something as you also don't have a clue as to how much land individual Palestinians owned yet seemed very nterested in how much Jews did. Ini short, you are long on pretension and short on facts. Childers would be very angry with you Klip as you didn't even p;ass his criteria for being a Zionist m uch less a non Zionist..
…. (continued) …. Readers, Here we have the sum total of Drew’s evidence against the mountain of evidence that all the major players, participants, commentators, historians and analysts in 1981/1982 knew exactly that there was a Habib ceasefire, and knew exactly that it was that verbal agreement obtained by Mr Habib that the PLO was stubbornly following to the letter, and knew exactly that it involved a cessation of hostilities between Israel and the PLO across the Lebanese border: OOOOO …. Now that is a strong and loaded word. And it is the only defence that he has left. EVERYONE was aware that the Habib ceasefire was the game in town …. except Drew. And he is trying to suggest that they were all wrong because there was no official and formal documentation of that ceasefire. # Reagan announced that Habib achieved a ceasefire between Israel and the PLO. # Kurt Waldheim, the UN Secretary General, had participated in the negotiations. He announced that Habib had achieved a ceasefire. # Sharon is unhappy with Habib’s ceasefire. His son, Gilad wrote in Ariel’s biography “In a meeting my father had with Alexander Haig and Philip Habib on May 25, 1982, Habib repeated what he had already said many times before: “Terrorist attacks against Israelis and Jews in Europe are not included in the cease-fire agreement.””. So now we know what the details were - Drew's "clause to that effect". Drew was shown this. He scrupulously continues to ignore it and to insist that he wants to be shown formal documentation.. # We also know therefore that Alexander Haig was aware of what the Habib ceasefire entailed. All of these players were aware of what had been negotiated. According to Drew they couldn't have been. # The UNIFIL observers are monitoring compliance with that cross-border ceasefire. # Israeli historian Porath was watching reaction to the Habib ceasefire – “the decision to invade flowed from the very fact that the cease-fire had been observed by the PLO, a veritable catastrophe for the Israeli government because it endangered the policy of evading a political settlement”. # Habib commented on progress and content of his own ceasefire. # Zeef Moaz, professor of Political Science and graduate from Tel-Aviv University – “the Habib agreement had to be broken. Israel, however, could not be made complicit of violating it; therefore it needed to incite the PLO”. It failed to provoke the PLO into initiating the cross-border attacks, as the UNIFIL reports all show, and thereby confirm that Porath was correct in his analysis # The Israeli media all knew that Habib had negotiated a ceasefire that prohibited attacks by the PLO and Israel across the Lebanese border. Drew says they were wrong. # International think-tanks like the Rand Corporation knew what was involved in the Habib ceasefire. And I produced reams of impeccably referenced evidence to show that each one of the above was the case. But now Drew wants "a clause to that effect"!! They all knew exactly what was involved ….. except Drew (oh, and HBendor). They knew so well in fact that Begin was frantic in trying to find a way to make it look as though the PLO had broken Habib’s ceasefire. Drew says it was a July 1981 incident only hours after the agreement had been reached. Begin never even mentioned that as reason for his invasion …. 11 months later!! According to Drew, Begin was mistaken.
No terms of this ceasefire Klip? Seems you have a knack for taking your eye off the ball because as usual, lots of hubris, but few facts as to what the matter actually is.
Then why on earth did you post ..... "the PLO was determined to observe strictly the cease-fire called for by the Security Council" Like shooting fish in a barrel.
You have a terribly short memory, Drew. It causes you to shoot fish in an imaginary barrel. You have been shown all of this before. But it was convenient for you not to remember because it destroys your last (nonexistant) wriggle-space. The reason that I wrote what you quote is because it corresponds to the factual developments at the time - you were shown this before. President Reagan via United States Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, and with Kurt Walheim's agreement and participation [Waldheim was the Secretary General of the UN], sent Philip Habib to try to put into effect the UN resolution. The problems that he encountered were shown to you in the quote that I posted from Kameel B. Nasr's book "Arab and Israeli Terrorism: The Causes and Effects of Political Violence". I will repeat it here again: You should really remember because I caught you out quoting from an agreement that was never written down. In fact you had quoted from the UN Resolution and pretended, without any evidence, that the resolution terms were what Habib had managed to negotiate. From that point on you started to insist that I should be the one to provide YOU with the formal documented terms of the Habib ceasefire. You refuse to understand that Habib was not able to negotiate those UN resolution terms. He told Alexander Haig so. He told Ariel Sharon. And Sharon did not like it. Waldheim knew it and was satisfied with what Habib had achieved. The UN was OK with it!! So in fact what you trumpet with pulsating graphics as your triumph is no such thing. Habib negotiated a truce arrangement having been sent by Reagan to try to implement that UN resolution. He was unable to comply fully with the resolution; it was the best that he could do given the difficulties. Now here comes the critical kicker. Waldheim was fully aware of all proceedings. It was he, the Secretary General of the UN, who proclaimed Habib's ceasefire to the world. Walhiem accepted the shortcomings. And so did the Israelis and the PLO because they both accepted the truce resulting from the UN-initiated negotiations by Habib. Drew, I have explained all of this to you before, but you chose "Isaiah 42:20" instead of the facts. That is not my fault. I suggest that in future you pay more attention to detail and not be lulled into a sense of accomplishment by HBendor's praise. That is fatal. I have fully answered your question ... on two occasions now. The problem is ... will you read it. And more importantly ... will you remember it. I have nothing further to say on this topic because it is crystal clear. Israel launched thousands of cross-border violations of Habib's ceasefire between July 1981 and June 1982, some of them of considerable magnitude. According to eye-witness reports by UNIFIL (all shown to you) the only time that the PLO responded with cross-border attacks on Israel was after some of the more serious Israeli aggressions. Neither you nor HBendor have been able to refute that. As the historians and the media observed, the PLO was stubbornly adhering to the Habib ceasefire. The invasion and subsequent slaughter of some 20 000 people was a direct result of Israeli aggression in the face of the PLO's refusal to be drawn into re-initiating attacks on Israel. That is why Lebanon 1882 is on the list of fourteen major conflicts initiated by Israel. And those are the well documented and fully referenced facts. Thank you for this opportunity to once again show just how predatory an aggressor Israel is; yet the apologists blame the Palestinians. 'Nuff said. Next!!
Still no terms for your Habib Ceasefire/Understanding/Agreement/Huddle/Kitchen Talk/Jive or whatever you are referring to it as today? Let us all know when you do as a ceasefire without terms is a pretty silly thing n'est pas? "the PLO was determined to observe strictly the cease-fire called for by the Security Council"
I copied your post here so that it would remain remembered and on-topic, HB. Hope you are progressing in finding evidence for your claim. Best regards, KK.
I'm sure that he is not hunting as furiously as you are trying to find the terms to the Habib Ceasefire as we both know he also has you beat. In any case, I bet he also has more info on individual Palestinian land ownership as well as Jewish land ownership than you do even though this was at one time a big issue for you and you still can't come up with a figure. Go back to bed Klip, you were getting more done there than you are here.
Thanks I like that... did you notice the <smug you have been shown> and the <condescending I told you so. from this walking talking encyclopedia?> I came to the conclusion that only defective chromosomes make one act so.
Facts will set you free, Drew. As you can see above, you are severely short on them. Have faith in them; they will help you not to have to resort to fiddling the facts in future Unfortunately your record is now blemished by that and a few other untruths, as is HBendor's. Tata, Nice helping you. KK
I wonder what the reason was for so many retaliatory Arab reactions. Perhaps this list may provide some answers - the major Israeli aggressions of the past 65 years: 1) Israel embarked on a land-grab (driven by the Zionist “Transfer policy” in both Israeli and non-Israeli territory in early-1948 in a gruesome ethnic cleansing fest. 2) In 1954 Israel was thwarted in a plan to attack US and British-owned civilian targets in Egypt in order to undermine confidence in the Egyptian regime and to place the blame on the Muslim Brotherhood. It was called the Lavon “affair”!!! 3) Israel invaded Egypt in October 1956 4) Israel invaded Jordan on 13 November 1966; the battalion strength cross-border operation with fighter-jet support was called "an incident" 5) In April 1967 Israel invaded Syria. Dayan admitted it was caused for 80% by Israeli provocations. The IDF statistics confirm this, as did UN Observers. 6) In June 1967 Israel invaded Egypt, having rejected Saddat’s offer to take the legality of the main Israeli ‘casus belli’ [the stopping and inspection of ships navigating through Egyptian territorial water] to the International Court of Justice for a legal opinion. 7) Israeli forces still occupied Egyptian and Syrian territory in October 1973 despite having received 2 offers for peace negotiations to negotiate "242". Egyptian and Syrian forces therefore attempted to liberate their territories. Israel proper was never attacked (= the Yom Kippur war) 8 ) Israel invaded Lebanon in 1980 and in 1981 (thanks to Face, Yours for helping to point this one out) 9) Israel conducted a massive invasion of Lebanon in June 1982 based on false justifications. Some 20 000 people were slaughtered 10) In July 2006 Hezbollah fired rockets at Israeli border towns as a diversion for an anti-tank missile attack on two armoured Humvees patrolling the Israeli side of the border fence. This was done in retribution for Israel’s reneging on her side of a previous prisoner swap agreement. Zionist were asked who was to blame for this conflict. No answer so far. 11) Israel broke an internationally-brokered ceasefire on 4 November 2008, rejected an offer to reinstate that ceasefire, and then in Late-December 2008 invaded Gaza (Operation Cast Lead) massacring some 1400 Gazans 12) Israel’s assassination of Hamas leaders was the main trigger for the Hamas rocket attacks in 2012 and not vice versa. It was Israel who attacked first; Hamas who retaliated. 13) On five occasions Israeli air force jets bombed trucks carrying Syrian missiles bound for Hizbullah's warehouses in Lebanon during August 2013. 14) The Qibya massacre - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre Sixty-nine Palestinian Arabs, two thirds of them women and children, were killed by the Israelis on the West Bank in October 1953. Example 15: The Sabra and Shantila massacre This gross Israeli disregard for human life was the subject of an adjacent thread and is therefore easily referenced: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=322721&page=7&p=1063146225#post1063146225 Remember, this was a war started by Israel when it broke the Habib ceasefire innumerable times while the PLO was stubbornly observing it http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/v...sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=#search="massacres lebanon" Other references: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War#Immediate_causes 2) Sharon: The Life of a Leader (by his son) - by Gilad Sharon (august 2011) 3) http://books.google.es/books?id=jLq...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false 4) Existential Threats and Civil-security Relations - edited by Oren Barak, Gabriel Sheffer http://books.google.es/books?id=pE5...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false P. 204 ZEEV MAOZ 5) http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...ths-about-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/7/ 6) http://www.un.org/en/documents/ S/14295 – UNIFIL reports 7) http://www.un.org/en/documents/ S/14537 – UNIFIL reports 8 ) http://www.un.org/en/documents/ S/14789 – UNIFIL reports
You must have been speaking to yourself when you stated <Tata, Nice helping you. KK> I think I would reserve the right to counterpoint some of the inadequate statements you made picked from some anti-Israel revisionists and some anti Jews with an axe to grind... so let us go da capo. A FEW POINTERS IN RELATION TO THE UNITED NATIONS HBendor The readers at large make it appear as if the United Nations has EVER supported Israel after November 29, 1947, and that, therefore, as if Israel OWES its member-nations something in return. The UN ignored the May/June 1967 crisis, in which Nasser, as head of the Egypt-Syria United Arab Republic, challenged Israel to war by blockading its shipping. The UN (U-Thant), in mid-May '67, released its unit, which served in the Sinai post as a buffer between Egypt and Israel, in effect signaling an "all clear" to Nasser. The UN, to this day, has found no way to allow Israel to serve on its Security Council. In 1967, Syria lost the Golan as a member of the aggressor U.A.R. Alliance. In 1973, after attacking and making some gains initially, Syria lost this territory yet once more. (One has to remember that a great part of the Golan Heights of today were "Part & Parcel" of the territory of the Mandate before 1923.) Keeping the fruits of aggression? Israel fought these two wars against Syria as the aggrieved party - not the aggressor nation, as Arab revised history evidently notes. In 1948/49, Israel had to fight the armies of several Arab nations to secure its U.N.-approved independence - also with the vaunted UN membership standing by. The Golan is Israeli until another agreement supersedes the cease-fire with Syria - namely a negotiated Peace Pact as is now being attempted. Any referendum law passed by the Knesset will hold, as did the Golan's annexation by the Begin government back in 1981 - its so-called 'legality' notwithstanding, ESPECIALLY not concerning anything the UN has to say. to be continued to counter other points.
When you state that Drew is short on facts you probably imagine that your end is full of facts. Who broke the cease fire??? Israel or Gaza??? A) You said between 2005 to 2008 not between June and November of 2008. B) Is this the ceasefire you are referring too? June 23, 2008 A single mortar shell was also fired from Gaza late Monday night and landed on the Israeli side of the border fence.[52][53] No organization claimed responsibility for the attack.[54] June 24, 2008 Three Qassam rockets fired from Gaza on Tuesday struck the Israeli border town of Sderot and its environs, causing no serious injuries but constituting the first serious breach of a five-day-old truce between Israel and Hamas.[55] Islamic Jihad rocket exploding in the distance, breaking the 5-day truce One rocket landed in a backyard garden of a house while another landed in open ground. Two people were treated for shock.[56] Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack and said it had been a response to an Israeli military raid in the West Bank city of Nablus at dawn on Tuesday, in which a senior Islamic Jihad operative Tareq Abu Ghali, 24 and another Palestinian university student Iyad Khanfar, 21 were killed. An Israeli Army spokesman said that Abu Ghali had been involved in terrorism and that he was "killed in an exchange of fire." The man killed with him was armed, the spokesman said. The rocket attack occurred hours after Olmert met President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el Sheik to discuss the next steps in the tenuous Egyptian-mediated truce and the renewal of efforts to resolve the case of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli corporal held by Hamas in Gaza since June 25, 2006. Israeli Defense Ministry decided that Israel would keep the Gaza border crossings closed Thursday, except for special humanitarian cases, in response to Tuesday's Qassam rocket attacks[57] June 26, 2008 A rocket hit an open area of the industrial zone outside Sderot. There were no reports of injuries or damage, according to army sources. The Fatah-affiliated Aksa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack. In a text message sent to reporters, it said "the truce must include the West Bank and all sorts of aggression must stop." On Thursday morning, Hamas accused Israel of violating the terms of the Gaza cease-fire a day after Israeli Defense Ministry decided that Israel would keep the Gaza border crossings closed Thursday, except for special humanitarian cases, in response to Tuesday's Qassam rocket attacks - "If the crossings remain closed, the truce will collapse", Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said Thursday morning.[58] June 27, 2008 Early on Friday, two mortar shells were fired at Israel from the northern Gaza Strip. One landed near Kibbutz Kfar Aza in the Sha'ar Hanegev Regional Council, and the second one hit an open area. There were no reports of injuries or damage in the latest violation of the fragile ceasefire. Following yesterday's rocket attack by Aksa Martyrs Brigade a spokesman for the Hamas government, Taher al-Nunu, called Fatah's actions "unpatriotic". He said Hamas was considering the possibility of taking action against those perpetrating the attacks against Israel. Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh called Friday on Palestinian factions to adhere to the Gaza Strip lull agreement with Israel. "The factions and the people accepted the lull in order to secure two interests – an end to aggression and the lifting of the siege. Therefore, we hope that everyone honors this national agreement", he said following Friday prayers.[59] June 28, 2008 Mortar shells were fired at the Karni crossing. No one claims responsibility for the attacks. Israel blocks all shipments into Gaza except fuel, in response to the rocket and mortar attacks.[60] June 30, 2008 A rocket falls near the town of Mefalsim. Nobody claims responsibility for the attack. In response Israel once again closes the crossings that had previously been reopened on June 29, 2008.[54] [edit] July July 2, 2008 There were no rocket or mortar attacks so Israel reopens the four Gaza crossings on Wednesday July 2. Since a truce began June 19, Israel has closed the passages a total of six days in retaliation for rocket attacks.[61] July 3, 2008 A rocket lands in an open area north of Sderot. A previously unknown organization calling itself the "Badr Forces" claims responsibility for the attack. In response Israel temporarily closes the crossings on July 4, 2008.[54] July 7, 2008 A mortar shell is fired at Israel from Gaza on Monday and lands near the Karni crossing.[62] July 8, 2008 Two mortar attacks from Gaza were aimed at the Sufa crossing. One fell just inside Gaza and the other at the crossing. Hours later, militants fired another shell into Israel, causing no casualties or damage, the Israeli military said. No Palestinian group immediately claimed responsibility.[62] July 10, 2008 Two Qassam rockets were fired at Israel, but caused no damage, after an unarmed Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades infiltrator was killed at the Kissufim crossing. An Israeli Army spokesman said they fired warning shots and when the man did not stop they killed him. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades vowed revenge and claimed responsibility for the rocket attack.[63] July 12, 2008 A rocket lands in an open area in Sha'ar Hanegev regional council. Nobody claims responsibility for the attack.[54] July 13, 2008 Two mortar shells are misfired and they land on the Gaza side of the border security fence in the Nahal Oz region. Nobody claims responsibility for the attack. Israel responds by only closing the Nahal Oz and Sufa crossings.[54] July 15, 2008 A mortar hit is identified.[54] July 25, 2008 A rocket misfires and lands in Gaza near the Kissufim crossing.[54] July 29, 2008 Another rocket is launched from Gaza and mistakenly lands in Gaza.[54] July 31, 2008 Again, a rocket misfires and lands in Gaza.[54] [edit] August August 1-31st In the month of August 7 rockets and 12 mortars were fired from Gaza into Israel.[64] [edit] September September 1-30th The month of September represented a considerable lull in the number of rocket and mortar attacks. In this month, 3 rockets and 2 mortars were fired from Gaza into Israel. They caused no injuries or deaths.[65] [edit] October October 11 A single rocket was launched from Gaza into Israel resulting in no injuries or deaths.[65] [edit] November November 4 Hamas fires 30 Qassam rockets at Israel[66] after an Israeli operation on 4 November to close a 250 meter cross-border abduction tunnel in Gaza. During this operation, 7 Hamas militants were killed.[67] To be continued to counter some other points.
Klipklap, HBendor, et al, Reference: Political Forum Posting 338, as well as, Posting 340. (COMMENT) We could make lists and counter-lists, pointing fingers at both sides, and it would not make a difference. This is purely "He said - She said" debating. If we were to be honest, we would recognize that neither side has totally clean hands in the last 94 years (nearly a century) that the Israel-Arab conflict has been evolving. Yes, we can argue over who has the dirtiest hands, but what is the point? (Rhetorical) It solves nothing. The whole premise of the Thread (Who did the invading, Borat?) is a huge finger-pointing exercise. It is not a constructive debate on the resolution of claims, restitution, reparation, or equitable settlement of outstanding issues. It just aggravates the millennium old open wound which is "Palestine and Jerusalem." (QUESTION) Is there a constructive dialog to be made? Or, do we just fall back to the Jihadist and Feday'een rhetoric; promoting the continued cycle of conflict? What purpose does it serve? Are the people of Israel better served? Are the people of the West Bank and Gaza better served? Does it serve the positive development of either culture? Does it serve the greater glory of the Supreme Being in Jerusalem? (Note: I'm agnostic. I look at all the religious indignation as equally ridiculous. Neither side deserves it.) Most Respectfully, R
I thought that the UN was massively magnanimous to allow Israel UN membership just based on that country's promise to abide by UNGA 194. Of course Israel never complied with that promise, and yet you are surprised that member States marked Israel down as being unreliable and not keeping its word once it had got what it wanted. Why are you surprised at that? Do you think they should have viewed it as just the ways of a mischievous sport? Absolute drivel!! Ignored? Have you read ANYTHING about Israeli history? If you have, then you have a massively selective (cherry-picking) memory, because you will have read that U-Thant went on an intense merry-go-round of consultations and negotiations to try to defuse the situation. Is that what you call it when someone abides by an agreement giving the all clear? Well, perhaps you WOULD pay agreements scant ethical importance, since we just saw above that the Zionists are prone to do this type of reneging and find it normal. But if UNEF presence was so critically important, HBneder, tell me one thing . Why did Israel then reject U-Thants offer to station them on the Israeli side of the border. Please speak up, we cant hear anything. As I thought, just a false excuse for aggression. Look at the list that is the theme of this thread. Are you surprised? See the next point below also. Israel has no ethical cdibility. And after 1923 it wasnt right? Syria lost Golan? Rubbish!! Golan is still subject to UN SC resolution 242. Have you forgotten that? Israel has rejected 4 offers to negotiate that resolution, exploiting a cynical loophole which the US veto has thereby allowed her to hang onto control of the conquered territories. Did you know that makes nutters fly into tall buildings. I am sure you saw the smoke. MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!! MYTH ALERT!!! The aggrieved party!!! Then why did you not provide your evidence for this on this thread and others when this very issue was being debated. You sneak in through the back door weeks later and dump your I say so POVs. In doing so you generate zero credibility, HB. Nada. Exactly which numbers on the list do you have delusions of having countered?
RoccoR I respect your point of view, I respect the way you explain things in this Forum, but I am a pragmatist and hope with all my heart that things come to a head and make these pretender surrender then there will be peace!
Oh, I agree fully with you that there is no contribution to righting the injustices that exist. EXCEPT in so far as to highlight the fragility of the MYTH that the Israelis are the aggrieved faction and therefore deserve lots of world sympathy in negotiations yet to happen. It is exactly the other way around.
klipkap, et al, Well ... ... ... This is not exactly correct either. (COMMENT) This is grounded in the concept that the resolution of claims, restitution, reparation, or equitable settlement of outstanding issues (Peace Talk Considerations), ARE somewhat either dependent on time, and the relative scale you assign events in the order of magnitude under consideration for restitution, reparation, or equitable settlement. (COMMENT) World Sympathy for the plight of the Jewish Culture, was the primary driving force behind the Allied Powers to envision a "Jewish National Home." Animosity and conflict on the part of the Ottoman Arab (the defeated enemy empire population in the region of the point of origin) towards the cultural population of the Jewish People, where seen by both the Arab and the Allied Powers as instigated by the Arab in defiance of the decisions made by the Allied Powers. In fact, the HAMAS Covenant states: Of course the venerated Sheikh Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, (founder of the Palestinian Black Hand), as everyone knows, was killed in 1935 by British Police. While we don't know exactly why HAMAS used the date 1939, many believe that it was an unintentional error, and meant 1929 (coinciding with the Western Wall Uprising) when the inspiration for the Black Hand emerged. It was then that Sheikh al-Qassam began advocating Jihad against Jewish Settlers and promoting the formation of anti-Zionist and anti-British Mandate programs. By following year, the Black Hand was in full operation conducting orchestrated attacks. It was movements such as these, that accentuated greater sympathy and the understanding that Arab Oppression was the aggressor faction. By early 1948, before the establishment of the Jewish State, the Arab definance was made perfectly clear, and was the principle theme for the Arab Invasion later that year: This solemn legacy proclamation is carried on today in the HAMAS Covenant and the Palestine Nation Charter; through the legacy Jihadist and Feday'een. THE POINT: There is a very good argument to be made as to where sympathy should lay. Most Respectfully, R
HBendor, et al, Thanks for the kind words. Every dialog needs a pragmatist, especially in the cause of peace. (COMMENT) Someone who sees success of peace, as a critically important aspect to the relationship between the Arab World and the Jewish State. Most Respectfully, R
Rocco, please keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the supporters of Israel want peace and some form of a two state solution. The overwhelming majority of Israel haters (specifically on this forum) want Israel removed from the map one way or another and that's been the case since Israel was born. Why do you think people like KK start thousands of anti-Israel threads here, flooding this forum with ridiculous anti-Israel nonsense and absurd psedo-historical lies that would make even most rabid anti-Israel historians cringe? Their agenda is quite obvious - they are trying to demonize and delegitimize Israel. Do you think they do it because they are seeking peace with Israel? I don't think so, do you?
Have you actually followed the FACTS that I provided, HB? Can you refute any of them? Like, Fatah, Israel’s favourites to win the 2006 elections, continued to fire rockets at Israel after the June 2008 ceasefire. Were you able to refute that or internalise it? They did this to try to embarrass Hamas who had won the elections but were prevented from exercising their democratic right to governance by Israel. Apparently one of those Fatah rockets scared a passing goat, which caused the owners to be treated for shock. To summarise your list of rocket attacks from Gaza, they decreased by 97% Israel was meant to restore commercial access to Gaza as the counter part. Did you get that bit? How much progress did Israel make? Did they restore 97%? 75%? 66 3/3rds%? 50%. No. They barely restored 25%. Who was most in compliance HB? WAIT!!! Please have the Chutzpah to at least TRY to answer the question. Can you say that a 97% decrease in rocket attacks, marred only by Israel’s buddies (your list) was a fabulous achievement by Hamas? Can you agree that Israel’s restoring of only 25% of the freight traffic was pathetic in comparison? Yet you claim that Hamas was breaking the ceasefire. No, HBendor, what was happening was that Hamas was complying and that Israel 1) failed by a long way to implement her side of the pact, and then 2) lauched an attack on Gaza on 4th November 2008. Those are the FACTS. Now refute them
Correct. In other words, for the layman such as us Forum users, they can easily become extremely subjective. That is why clarity regarding the historical facts is so critical. The Arabs would like to lay stress on the irregular procedures followed during the lead-up to “181” and the Zionists would prefer to ignore them altogether. The Arabs would like to point out that the first major attack after the adoption of “181” was perpetrated by the Zionists, while the latter would point to the earlier sniping by Arabs on Jewish settlements. In fact this is just selecting an arbitrary “starting point”. So, while you point to the fact that with time, issues might become sanitised, the Arab-Zionist tit-for-tat goes back to at least 1897 and not by any means to 1939. I disagree that there was “World Sympathy”. And I question whether criticism of the Ottoman polict adequately reflects the 500 000 to (some) 25 000 ratio between Palestinians and Jews at the time. You provide a very confusing mix of time periods in your comment which dilutes its value considerably … Ottoman period (turn of 20th C) -- Allied powers (1919-1923) – World Sympathy for plight (1945) – Hamas covenant (1988 ). It makes your message almost impossible to divine. From there you make an unrelated leap to Sheikh al-Qassam without any theme link or explanation, starting with a ‘non-sequitur’ “Of course …”. Your message has now been interrupted by a concept chasm. Your quote from the 16 February 1948 (you don’t say whom it was from – I presume the Palestine Commission) succinctly outlines the Arab opposition to the “181” recommendation. Many thanks for that. Here we have an understandable connection to the Arab discontent. If you don’t mind, since I think your post is more pertinent to the “Why should the Arabs have accepted 181”, I will copy it there. My apologies for the criticism of style but your posts, and more particularly the goals of their sub-contents, are very difficult to understand and to thread together into a meaningful whole. I apologise for my failure in appreciation of your logic process.
Then why did Israel reject Arab offers to negotiate a land and peace solution based on UN SC resolutions 194, 242 and 338 which were clearly made by the Arabs in 1971, in 1973, in 2002 and again in 2007? Those refusals make your claim that Israel wants peace and some form of a two-state solution dubious at best. Or is it that Israel as a series of regimes does not follow the desires of the "overwhelming majority of the supporters of Israel"? I think you may have hit on something important here. Thank you.
