NationStates Jolt Archive

In a turn of events, Ehud Olmert seems to have backed away from the plan to unilaterally declare Israeli borders. He drafted a proposal for a two-state solution, one that follows the road-map, but it was rejected by Mahmoud Abbas.

This is starting to sound hauntingly like the deal Arafat rejected; the one that caused Arafat to be condemned by the Arab world as a criminal. When Arafat was proposed a similiar deal, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia stated that it was a "remarkable deal" and said, "there's not much I can do unless Arafat is willing to understand this is it." He warned Arafat, "I hope you remember, sir, what I told you. If we lose this opportunity, it is going to be a tragedy, it is going to be a crime." And alas, Arafat rejected it, committing this crime. Arafat was condemned for this by Bill Clinton, the mediator of the negotiations, Dennis Ross, the lead negotiator, Honsi Mubarak, the president of Egypt, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, King of Jordan Abdullah II, and the Arab-Muslim rulers of Morocco and Tunisia, Mohammad IV and Zin Ben Ali respectively. All of the parties put the full blame on Arafat for his crime.

And now it seems as if Abbas is guilty of the same crime. I wonder if the Arab world will condemn him the way it condemned Arafat.

I'll make a poll about it!

Abbas rejects Israel's plan for state with provisional borders (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/726832.html)

Last update - 11:44 14/06/2006
Abbas rejects Israel's plan for state with provisional borders
By Akiva Eldar, Avi Issacharoff and Aluf Ben, Haaretz Correspondent

"Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has rejected an Israeli plan for a Palestinian state with provisional borders, the PLO's chief negotiator Saeb Erekat told the Palestinian daily Al-Ayam on Wednesday.

The new Israeli plan was first revealed by Haaretz on Wednesday.

According to Erekat, the only viable option for peace is Israel's withdrawal to pre-1967 borders and the establishment of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem."

"According to the plan being drafted by the Prime Minister's Office and the Foreign Ministry, Israel would propose to Abbas that they reach an agreement to establish a Palestinian state with provisional borders in Gaza plus about 90 percent of the West Bank. The provisional border in the West Bank would match the route of the separation fence, with one exception: Israel would retain security control over the Jordan Valley.

Olmert referred to the plan to withdraw to the route of the separation fence on Tuesday in a meeting with British parliamentarians in London. He rebuffed those whom he said term his convergence plan a 'Zionist plot' because Israel is not promising to withdraw from the entire West Bank. Even under the preferred option of negotiations and an agreement with the Palestinians, he said, Israel would not agree to withdraw from the entire West Bank, because the pre-1967 borders are not defensible."

"Prior to Hamas's rise to power in the PA, Abbas rejected the idea of a state with provisional borders, demanding immediate talks on a final-status agreement instead. However, Washington backed Israel's stance in favor of a provisional state, and Jerusalem expects that the U.S. will pressure Abbas to change his position.

Meanwhile, Defense Minister Amir Peretz has decided to reexamine the route of the fence, especially around Jerusalem, in order to reduce both damage to Palestinian property and the project's costs."

The provisional border in the West Bank would match the route of the separation fence, with one exception: Israel would retain security control over the Jordan Valley.


...that was Binyamin Netanyahu's main campaign issue that differentiated him from Ollmert.

Whoever though that was extremist and voted for Kadima: PWNED.

...that was Binyamin Netanyahu's main campaign issue that differentiated him from Ollmert.

Whoever though that was extremist and voted for Kadima: PWNED.

Settlements were a pretty big issue between the two as well. Although, I don't think that Olmert came out in the polls so far head of Netanyahu because of party lines, I think it was because everyone was worried about Bibi's corruption. The two were really never that different.

of what crime are you accusing arafat?

i think every nations has as much right to exist as any other, but not that any nation has any right to treat anyone within it's borders any better or worse then anyone else, not convicted and serving time for a felony.

nor do i believe it to be a legitimate right of soverignty for any nation to close its borders to any unarmed civilian wishing to cross them at any time, at any point, in any way, for any reason.

no soverign nation possess the moral right to discriminate for or against anyone on the basis of their beliefs, hieritage, or idiology.

i was all for the isreal that didn't practice the economic fanatacism america's present regeme is trying to force on the rest of the world. back in the kibutz era. i'm all for an israel now that would recognize palastinian representives of whatever parties palestinian districts would choose to elect and seat them in its knesset.

i'm not for shelling civilian population centers on any justification by anyone for any idiology. nor of course am i for blowing up people and other things.

the only right made by two wrongs is a politacl right wing, and that is always wrong, not matter how much might it may command. however intrentched as a fiate accompli it might be.

israel should be turned into an international federal district for the u.n. the way washington d.c. is for the federal u.s. governemnt.

but i don't think this ought nor can be excused, to be done at that point of a gun.

=^^=
.../\...

of what crime are you accusing arafat?

I explained it in the opening post. It was actually the entire Arab world that accused him of a crime - rejecting the peace process and the Palestinian state offered by Barak.

i was all for the isreal that didn't practice the economic fanatacism america's present regeme is trying to force on the rest of the world. back in the kibutz era. i'm all for an israel now that would recognize palastinian representives of whatever parties palestinian districts would choose to elect and seat them in its knesset.

There are actually Arab Knesset members who are pro-Palestinian. But a non-citizen Palestinian can't be elected in the Knesset any more than a non-citizen Palestinian can be elected as President of the United States or the Prime Minister of any other country.

Lets not have a double-standard when it comes to Israel here. No one expects other states to allow the election of foreigners, so we shouldn't expect that of Israel.

israel should be turned into an international federal district for the u.n. the way washington d.c. is for the federal u.s. governemnt.

So you really believe that Israel should be stripped of its soverignity and turned into a property of an abstract political body? Any other states in the world we should strip of their soverignity and give to the UN, or just Israel?

As matter stands, any palestinian head of state who accepts peace will suffer the same fate as a certain president of Egypt.

The Palestinian people don't want peace - they want victory.
This little factor tends to make peacenegotiations utterly pointless.

Seriously, how many Israel/Palestine threads do we needon any given day? Give it a rest for a while will you?

As matter stands, any palestinian head of state who accepts peace will suffer the same fate as a certain president of Egypt.
.
Actually, it a common mistake that he was killed for his detente with Israel.

It was linked to internal clamping down on the Brotherhood (at least i think it was them). The shooter actually cried out as he shot him : "I have killed Pharaoh!" This more or less shows that it was his internal rule that caused his death- his autocratic style angered many.

I agree with Abbas - I wouldn't want to have 10% of my nation's land stolen, my capital stolen, and become an Israeli puppet state either.

If he rejected an offer based on the 1967 borders, it would be different, but Israel has no right to any of the West Bank, just as Hamas has no right to the rest of Israel.

I agree with Abbas - I wouldn't want to have 10% of my nation's land stolen, my capital stolen, and become an Israeli puppet state either.

You do realize that Palestine isn't a nation that actually owns any land, right? It would be one thing if Palestine was a soverign, independent state, but it isn't. No group of people called "Palestinians" nor any political body called Palestine has ever owned any of the land in question. The 10% of the land is privately owned by Jewish citizens of Israel. Do you think that land should be taken away from them? That would be the only case of stealing here, by definition.

Nor does Olmert's plan steal the capital. If Abbas accepted this, it Jerusalem would be split along ethnic lines and East Jerusalem would be under Palestinian soverignity and could be their capital if they so wished. However, historically, Jerusalem has been a Jewish city. The majority of its population has always been Jewish. The majority of Arabs living there today immigrated post-1948.

Not to mention the fact that cities that have always been predominately Jewish, like Hebron, would be given to Palestine in this deal. But I guess its okay to hand over Jewish holy cities, but not Muslim holy cities? Palestinians aren't capable of making the same compromises that Israel is in this situation?

However, historically, Jerusalem has been a Jewish city.
Historically, the Jews had been kicked out of Israel for centuries.

Historically, the Jews had been kicked out of Israel for centuries.

Jews have always been a majority in Jerusalem, and a number of cities in Israel. En masse, the Jews were kicked out. This didn't change the fact that Jews remained the majority in a few major cities, like Jerusalem and Hebron.

You do realize that Palestine isn't a nation that actually owns any land, right? It would be one thing if Palestine was a soverign, independent state, but it isn't. No group of people called "Palestinians" nor any political body called Palestine has ever owned any of the land in question. The 10% of the land is privately owned by Jewish citizens of Israel. Do you think that land should be taken away from them? That would be the only case of stealing here, by definition.

A long time ago, did you know that what is now a part of the USA was run by a country called Great Britain, and at that time there was no such thing as an American either, and there was no such thing as American land?

Then the colonies wrote a document known as the Declaration of Independence, and claimed their own land for themselves, and became the nation it wanted to be.

Get real. Nations are born all the time. And Israeli landholders? Tough. They had no right to buy that land, and should have it retaken without compensation. That land east of the Palestinian border is Palestinian, no exceptions.

Nor does Olmert's plan steal the capital. If Abbas accepted this, it Jerusalem would be split along ethnic lines and East Jerusalem would be under Palestinian soverignity and could be their capital if they so wished. However, historically, Jerusalem has been a Jewish city. The majority of its population has always been Jewish. The majority of Arabs living there today immigrated post-1948.

And Israel created these ethnic lines by mass-migration into Palestinian territory, and illegal colonisation. If we go back through history for every border dispute, we's end up giving all land to a race that lives on the other side of the world. The fact is that in East - not West - Jerusalem is considered Palestinian territory by all except Israel, and should thus remain as such.

Not to mention the fact that cities that have always been predominately Jewish, like Hebron, would be given to Palestine in this deal. But I guess its okay to hand over Jewish holy cities, but not Muslim holy cities? Palestinians aren't capable of making the same compromises that Israel is in this situation?

There is no compramise to be made. The Green Line is the border between the two 'states'. Had the Israelis kept to the law and to Oslo, there would be no Jewish colonies in Palestine, and no 'compramise' to be made. And it is not as if Palestine is claiming all of Jerusalem in any case - only around a third, unlike someone else.

Get real. Nations are born all the time. And Israeli landholders? Tough. They had no right to buy that land, and should have it retaken without compensation. That land east of the Palestinian border is Palestinian, no exceptions.

You seem to be avoiding the fact that there is no such thing as a Palestinian state, there never has been, and thus there is no such thing as a Palestinian border. Jordan stole the land that was going to be a Palestinian state, and then Israel invaded Jordan after Jordan attacked. It was a Jordanian border, not a Palestinian border. And the Israelis did have a right to buy the land. The few illegal settlements that existed were dismantled, the ones where they settled on land they didn't buy, but the ones that exist currently are quite legal.

And Israel created these ethnic lines by mass-migration into Palestinian territory, and illegal colonisation. If we go back through history for every border dispute, we's end up giving all land to a race that lives on the other side of the world. The fact is that in East - not West - Jerusalem is considered Palestinian territory by all except Israel, and should thus remain as such.

Illegal according to whom? There is nothing illegal about mass-migration. Nor was there a Palestinain state to colonize. And no one considers East Jerusalem Palestinian territory, because there is no Palestinian state. Only states can own territory.

There is no compramise to be made. The Green Line is the border between the two 'states'. Had the Israelis kept to the law and to Oslo, there would be no Jewish colonies in Palestine, and no 'compramise' to be made. And it is not as if Palestine is claiming all of Jerusalem in any case - only around a third, unlike someone else.

There are no two states. Thus, there is no border. It was a Jordanian border, but it lost that when it lost the war and renounced claim to the territory. No one believes it is the Israeli border today.

And, according to Clinton, Ross, Bhandar, and there rest of those mentioned in the OP, it was Arafat and the Palestinians who violated Oslo, not Israel.

And why do you keep ignoring the fact that the Israeli offer to Arafat included East Jerusalem for the Palestinain state, as does the offer today? You're arguing something that doesn't even exist, out of your blind bias and hatred for Israel. Perhaps you should go back and check your facts - its Israel that is offering East Jerusalem, the Palestinians are still rejecting the right of Israel to exist at all.

Actually, it a common mistake that he was killed for his detente with Israel.

It was linked to internal clamping down on the Brotherhood (at least i think it was them). The shooter actually cried out as he shot him : "I have killed Pharaoh!" This more or less shows that it was his internal rule that caused his death- his autocratic style angered many.

Er, so Terrorists leave you alone if you leave them alone.
Up to the moment they strike at you for reasons of their own.

*shrug*

I'm sure that neither Abbas nor ex-Arafat fancies the odds much.

You seem to be avoiding the fact that there is no such thing as a Palestinian state, there never has been, and thus there is no such thing as a Palestinian border. Jordan stole the land that was going to be a Palestinian state, and then Israel invaded Jordan after Jordan attacked. It was a Jordanian border, not a Palestinian border. And the Israelis did have a right to buy the land. The few illegal settlements that existed were dismantled, the ones where they settled on land they didn't buy, but the ones that exist currently are quite legal.

Nevertheless: do these people want to be a country? Yes. That fact is inescapable. And the fact is that there is a Palestinian state, albeit one occupied by Israel. These people neither want to be a part of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. And the fact that a '67 based independent state (not an Israeli Puppet State) will bring about peace.

Illegal according to whom? There is nothing illegal about mass-migration. Nor was there a Palestinain state to colonize. And no one considers East Jerusalem Palestinian territory, because there is no Palestinian state. Only states can own territory.

A state has claimed the terrirory: Palestine

There are no two states. Thus, there is no border. It was a Jordanian border, but it lost that when it lost the war and renounced claim to the territory. No one believes it is the Israeli border today.

However, you'd be hard pressed to find a Palestinian, terrorist or not, that would not believe it to be.

And, according to Clinton, Ross, Bhandar, and there rest of those mentioned in the OP, it was Arafat and the Palestinians who violated Oslo, not Israel.

Although Oslo said colonies were to be dismantled, Israel expanded them. So we let them off the hook because America and the leaders you regulary criticise for being anti-Israeli like them, right?

And why do you keep ignoring the fact that the Israeli offer to Arafat included East Jerusalem for the Palestinain state, as does the offer today? You're arguing something that doesn't even exist, out of your blind bias and hatred for Israel. Perhaps you should go back and check your facts - its Israel that is offering East Jerusalem, the Palestinians are still rejecting the right of Israel to exist at all.

The offer to Arafat may have included an offer about East Jerusalem, but was rejected over the right to return. I agree - that was possibly Arafat's most stupid idea.

Second, I can't find a single source that says Israel is offering to draw a new border based on "ethnic lines". However, drawing lines based on ethnicity is outrageous considering Jews are allowed to move into and around Jerusalem when Arabs cannot.

Oh, and i neither have a bias nor a hatred of/against Israel. I don't have a pro or anti arab or Israeli view. As far as I am concerned, neither is deserving any more praise than the other. That is why I believe that Israel does not have the right to use a 'moral high ground' do do what it damn well likes. The state based on the '67 borders (Based on, not exactly) is the best solution for peace, instead of Israeli ego and expansionism.

of what crime are you accusing arafat?


Of rejecting the Clinton Barrack proposals, that gave him 95% of the West Bank and all of Gaza. If he had accepted it (and it was more than reasonable) the war would be over now

I just love it when people claim there is nothing called Palestine, if you check any map before 1947 it's the name palestine that appears on all maps.
It's the agreement of Sykes picot that broke up the ottoman empire and in 1923 the borders were established between different countries in the region 25 years before Israel was created.
Don't kid yourself it is israel that was created on palestinean land and NOT the other way round!

Nevertheless: do these people want to be a country? Yes. That fact is inescapable. And the fact is that there is a Palestinian state, albeit one occupied by Israel. These people neither want to be a part of Jordan, Egypt, and Syria.

Actually, there isn't a Palestinian state. That much is the current political fact. No other nation on Earth recognizes a Palestinian state, nor does the UN. In addition, there has never been an autonomous political body that has had the authority declare Palestinian independence.

While it can be argued that there is a Palestinian nationality, its a fact that there is no Palestinian state. The only times I hear it referred to as such is by people who aren't really familiar with the situation. The current political name of Gaza and the West Bank is the Occupied Territories. This is because they were former territories of Jordan that were occupied by Israel. A state called Palestine still doesn't occur in the equation.

Although Oslo said colonies were to be dismantled, Israel expanded them. So we let them off the hook because America and the leaders you regulary criticise for being anti-Israeli like them, right?

The fact that Arab leaders admitted Arafat was at fault tells all. When Arab leaders, who are generally

The offer to Arafat may have included an offer about East Jerusalem, but was rejected over the right to return. I agree - that was possibly Arafat's most stupid idea.

The current offer includes East Jerusalem. In fact, if Olmert unilaterally declares borders, East Jerusalem will still be given for a future Palestinian state.

Second, I can't find a single source that says Israel is offering to draw a new border based on "ethnic lines". However, drawing lines based on ethnicity is outrageous considering Jews are allowed to move into and around Jerusalem when Arabs cannot.

It isn't strictly on ethnic lines. However, the 10% that will be retained is property currently owned by Israeli citizens, Arab and Jewish. The fact that it is Israeli owned naturally means it should be part of the State of Israel.

If borders were to be drawn over ethnic lines, it would be a mess. Israel would have to take much more land than the 10%, including entire cities like Hebron and Jerusalem, which are ethnically Jewish.

The state based on the '67 borders (Based on, not exactly) is the best solution for peace, instead of Israeli ego and expansionism.

The current plan is based on the '67 borders, but not exactly the same. The big change is that they have been modified to make the borders defensable (as they have a right to do under international law) and to include Israeli owned land. There is nothing unreasonable about that.

What would be unreasonable would be to force near 500,000 Israeli citizens out of small tracts of land that virtually no Palestinains live on.

I just love it when people claim there is nothing called Palestine, if you check any map before 1947 it's name palestine that appears on all maps.
It's the agreement of Sykes picot that broke up the ottoman empire and in 1923 the borders were established between different countries in the region 25 years before Israel was created.
Don't kid yourself it is israel that was created on palestinean land and NOT the other way round!

When you check any map before 1947, it refers to the British Mandate of Palestine. Again, this was not a country named Palestine. It also included all of Jordan and parts of Syria. Yet, we don't see current Palestinians attempting to turn Jordan and parts of Syria into a Palestinian state.

And before 1947, Arabs in the region did not identify themselves as Palestinians. The idea of a Palestinain self-identity is very new, less than a century old. Even Palestinian historains, like Edward Said, admit this much. The term they used for themselves was Balid al-Shem, lower Syrians.

I just love it when people claim there is nothing called Palestine, if you check any map before 1947 it's the name palestine that appears on all maps.
It's the agreement of Sykes picot that broke up the ottoman empire and in 1923 the borders were established between different countries in the region 25 years before Israel was created.
Don't kid yourself it is israel that was created on palestinean land and NOT the other way round!

That conveniently ignores the fact that circa 1923, Palestinian was le term of Jewish Settler....


But, nevertheless, fine by me!
100% of ALL territory discussed under Sykes-Picot to become exclusive property of Jewish settlers.

And before 1947, Arabs in the region did not identify themselves as Palestinians. The idea of a Palestinain self-identity is very new, less than a century old. Even Palestinian historains, like Edward Said, admit this much. The term they used for themselves was Balid al-Shem, lower Syrians.

So wait, because they didnt refer to themselves as Palestinians, the land never existed?

That conveniently ignores the fact that circa 1923, Palestinian was le term of Jewish Settler....


But, nevertheless, fine by me!
100% of ALL territory discussed under Sykes-Picot to become exclusive property of Jewish settlers.

funny people trying to modify history the number of arabs to jews in the area was at least 2 to 1 until the eurpean decided they had to do something b/c of the holocaust and promised the jews to have an exclusively jewish state in Palestine.
But you seem to ignore the fact that most israelis are originally from europe or North Africa!

So wait, because they didnt refer to themselves as Palestinians, the land never existed?

I don't think I ever said the land didn't exist. I said Palestine never existed as a state, and that there was no "Palestinian people" a la national identity in an anthropological sense earlier than a century ago.

Checking my maps, the land seems to be there. It was owned by Jews for thousands of years, Babylonians, Assyrians, Romans, European Christians, Ottomans, and again by Jews. Not mentioning everyone, and not necessarily in that order. But it was never owned by a national group of people who identified as "Palestinians."

funny people trying to modify history the number of arabs to jews in the area was at least 2 to 1 until the eurpean decided they had to do something b/c of the holocaust and promised the jews to have an exclusively jewish state in Palestine.
But you seem to ignore the fact that most israelis are originally from europe or North Africa!

Most Jews are originally from the Middle East, in a large part of land that takes up most of modern day Israel and some of Syria. A Jewish ethnicity, religion, nationality, and race (if we believe in the term) existed before an Arab ethnicity, nationality, race, and before Islam. Certainly long before a group of Arabs began to call themselves "Palestinians", seeing as that was less than a hundred years ago.

So if we're going to talk history, and the origins of ethnic groups, lets be accurate.

Checking my maps, the land seems to be there. It was owned by Jews for thousands of years, Babylonians, Assyrians, Romans, European Christians, Ottomans, and again by Jews. Not mentioning everyone, and not necessarily in that order. But it was never owned by a national group of people who identified as "Palestinians."

That doesnt mean the land was not the people's who lived there. And it still doesnt change the fact that Israel just walks in and starts bulldozing villages. Israel basically raped the land as we did to natives. Only in this case the natives fought back.

Actually, there isn't a Palestinian state. That much is the current political fact. No other nation on Earth recognizes a Palestinian state, nor does the UN. In addition, there has never been an autonomous political body that has had the authority declare Palestinian independence.

While it can be argued that there is a Palestinian nationality, its a fact that there is no Palestinian state. The only times I hear it referred to as such is by people who aren't really familiar with the situation. The current political name of Gaza and the West Bank is the Occupied Territories. This is because they were former territories of Jordan that were occupied by Israel. A state called Palestine still doesn't occur in the equation.

And these territories neither belong to Israel or Jordan/Egypt, thus they belong to themselves. However, there is a fledgling (but nevertheless inadiquate) government, an identity and de facto borders. In short, the trappings of statehood.

The fact that Arab leaders admitted Arafat was at fault tells all. When Arab leaders, who are generally

I'll try not to preempt what yopu want to say, but I do agree that Arafat was at fault too.

The current offer includes East Jerusalem. In fact, if Olmert unilaterally declares borders, East Jerusalem will still be given for a future Palestinian state.

If that's true, it's excellent. However, the link you gave said 'based on the security border' which most certainatly does not go through Jerusalem.

It isn't strictly on ethnic lines. However, the 10% that will be retained is property currently owned by Israeli citizens, Arab and Jewish. The fact that it is Israeli owned naturally means it should be part of the State of Israel.

If borders were to be drawn over ethnic lines, it would be a mess. Israel would have to take much more land than the 10%, including entire cities like Hebron and Jerusalem, which are ethnically Jewish.

So it should be based on ethnic lines...and then it shouldn't.

The current plan is based on the '67 borders, but not exactly the same. The big change is that they have been modified to make the borders defensable (as they have a right to do under international law) and to include Israeli owned land. There is nothing unreasonable about that.

What would be unreasonable would be to force near 500,000 Israeli citizens out of small tracts of land that virtually no Palestinains live on.

Israel has the right to self-defense, and there is nothing unreasonable about that. However, demanding the control of the Jordan Valley and large amounts of land beyond the green land is inacceptable, although of course some may be exchanged to minimise the amount of people displaced.

Do you have perhaps another site with a map of the proposed border, assuming it does not take the route of the fence, as you appear to say.

I just love it when people claim there is nothing called Palestine, if you check any map before 1947 it's the name palestine that appears on all maps.
It's the agreement of Sykes picot that broke up the ottoman empire and in 1923 the borders were established between different countries in the region 25 years before Israel was created.
Don't kid yourself it is israel that was created on palestinean land and NOT the other way round!

Actually, if you look, while there was an area called Palestine, it has never existed as its own political entity.

MYTH

“Palestine was always an Arab country.”

FACT
The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C.E., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what are now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century C.E., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word "Filastin" is derived from this Latin name.3

The Hebrews entered the Land of Israel about 1300 B.C.E., living under a tribal confederation until being united under the first monarch, King Saul. The second king, David, established Jerusalem as the capital around 1000 B.C.E. David's son, Solomon built the Temple soon thereafter and consolidated the military, administrative and religious functions of the kingdom. The nation was divided under Solomon's son, with the northern kingdom (Israel) lasting until 722 B.C.E., when the Assyrians destroyed it, and the southern kingdom (Judah) surviving until the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C.E. The Jewish people enjoyed brief periods of sovereignty afterward before most Jews were finally driven from their homeland in 135 C.E.

Jewish independence in the Land of Israel lasted for more than 400 years. This is much longer than Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States.4 In fact, if not for foreign conquerors, Israel would be 3,000 years old today.

Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."5

Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:

We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.6

In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."7

The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."8

Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank

Checking my maps, the land seems to be there. It was owned by Jews for thousands of years, Babylonians, Assyrians, Romans, European Christians, Ottomans, and again by Jews. Not mentioning everyone, and not necessarily in that order. But it was never owned by a national group of people who identified as "Palestinians."

You forgot Phoenecians, the people whom the western world adopted the idea of a written alphabet from.

funny people trying to modify history the number of arabs to jews in the area was at least 2 to 1 until the eurpean decided they had to do something b/c of the holocaust and promised the jews to have an exclusively jewish state in Palestine.
But you seem to ignore the fact that most israelis are originally from europe or North Africa!

You seem to ignore the fact that each and every Arab who is not confined to the Arab Peninsula exclusively is not where he ought to be...

Please note that this being out of place includes all so-called arab states west of Suez.

Most Jews are originally from the Middle East, in a large part of land that takes up most of modern day Israel and some of Syria. A Jewish ethnicity, religion, nationality, and race (if we believe in the term) existed before an Arab ethnicity, nationality, race, and before Islam. Certainly long before a group of Arabs began to call themselves "Palestinians", seeing as that was less than a hundred years ago.

So if we're going to talk history, and the origins of ethnic groups, lets be accurate.

oh ok so the land was given to the people who used to live there 2000 or 3000 years ago fine with me let's kick out all the white/black/hispanic americans and give the land to its original inhabitants the indians.

Most Jews are originally from the Middle East, in a large part of land that takes up most of modern day Israel and some of Syria.

Okay.

A Jewish ethnicity, religion, nationality, and race (if we believe in the term) existed before an Arab ethnicity, nationality, race, and before Islam.Certainly long before a group of Arabs began to call themselves "Palestinians", seeing as that was less than a hundred years ago.

So if we're going to talk history, and the origins of ethnic groups, lets be accurate.

You are arguing definitions and semantics. The fact of the matter is that people were settled there and then around 1870-1880 the Jews began to move back in. Soon enough Israel takes over.

Basically what you are trying to say is something like this:

People lived on a piece of land
The Jews came in and established a state
The people who originally lived there now identify themselves as Palestinian
The land was never the Palestinians'

That doesnt mean the land was not the people's who lived there. And it still doesnt change the fact that Israel just walks in and starts bulldozing villages. Israel basically raped the land as we did to natives. Only in this case the natives fought back.

Actually, Israel didn't walk in and start bulldozing villages. When Jewish settlers began to immigrate, very few Arabs were displaced. And none were landowners. Benny Morris noted less than 2,000 families were displaced, and these were all felaheen, migrant workers who worked the land of Arab landowners.

None of the land settled by Jews belonged to anyone else. It was either unowned, or purchased.

It wasn't until after the formation of the State of Israel that Arabs began to get displaced, and villages were destroyed. And this was the fault of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan - they attacked Israel, incited Arab villagers to revolt, and thus Israeli citizens (Jewish and Arab) crushed the revolters.

Basically what you are trying to say is something like this:

People lived on a piece of land
The Jews came in and established a state
The people who originally lived there now identify themselves as Palestinian
The land was never the Palestinians'

Not exactly. I was talking about statehood and Palestinian nationality, but on this issue I'll try to clarify:

Arabs lived on a piece of land with tons of room.
Jews came, bought land from Arabs, and settled the unowned land.
Jews developed the land, and the Arab population increased tenfold as a result.
Arabs came from all over the Middle East to prosper as a result of the kibbutzim.
Most of the Arabs by 1948 were immigrants, not historical Arabs of the region.
Israel develops strongly, Arabs get incited by the Grand Mufti to violence.
Israel declares its independence, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt attack.
Arabs are incited to fight against Jews, again.

Only then, after the formation of the State of Israel, do Arabs begin to get displaced. They were displaced as a result of a defensive Israeli war.

oh ok so the land was given to the people who used to live there 2000 or 3000 years ago fine with me let's kick out all the white/black/hispanic americans and give the land to its original inhabitants the indians.

Arabs weren't kicked out as a result of Jewish settlement though. Arabs were only displaced after the State of Israel had formed, as a result of a defensive war against three invading Arab countries.

So whose fault is that?

Israel develops strongly, Arabs get incited by the Grand Mufti to violence.

The same Grand Mufti who raised a division of Muslims to fight in Hitler's SS?

The same Grand Mufti who raised a division of Muslims to fight in Hitler's SS?

Yup, the same Grand Mufti who actually started building gas chambers on Palestinian soil too. Even today, swastikas are common symbols of support in the Occupied Territories.

The same Grand Mufti who raised a division of Muslims to fight in Hitler's SS?

This is the house that Jack built.
This is the bomb that destroyed the house that Jack built.
This is the terrorist that threw the bomb that destroyed the house that Jack built.
This is the Mufti who blessed the terrorist that threw the bomb that destroyed the house that Jack built.
This is the Umma that enabled the Mufti who blessed the terrorist that threw the bomb that destroyed the house that Jack built.

And here is the rope that will hang the Umma that enabled the Mufti who blessed the terrorist that threw the bomb that destroyed the house that Jack built....

You seem to be avoiding the fact that there is no such thing as a Palestinian state, there never has been, and thus there is no such thing as a Palestinian border. Jordan stole the land that was going to be a Palestinian state, and then Israel invaded Jordan after Jordan attacked. It was a Jordanian border, not a Palestinian border..

According to your interpreation of events.....


And the Israelis did have a right to buy the land. The few illegal settlements that existed were dismantled, the ones where they settled on land they didn't buy, but the ones that exist currently are quite legal...

All settlements outside Israels internationally recognised borders are illegal.



Illegal according to whom? There is nothing illegal about mass-migration....

Then how can the US deport mexicans back to Mexico?


Nor was there a Palestinain state to colonize. And no one considers East Jerusalem Palestinian territory, because there is no Palestinian state. Only states can own territory.....

More gibberish. The truth is however that the owhelming majority of the worlds legal opinions (and votes via their Governments) declare quite the opposite of what you are saying. Those votes originate out of law and - not nessecarily out of any love for Palestinians or hate for Israel - but from fear that perhaps they could meet the same fate.


And why do you keep ignoring the fact that the Israeli offer to Arafat included East Jerusalem for the Palestinain state, as does the offer today? ....

I quite doubt it. The 2000 plan was not only not acceptable but is widely know to be an opening position - the layout of the various areas would have meant it was impossible to administer, if accepted as was.


It was owned by Jews for thousands of years, Babylonians, Assyrians, Romans, European Christians, Ottomans, and again by Jews. Not mentioning everyone, and not necessarily in that order. But it was never owned by a national group of people who identified as "Palestinians."

Roughly 6.93% of it was owned by those identified as Jewish in 1946/7. I have not erred with the decimal place


Actually, Israel didn't walk in and start bulldozing villages. When Jewish settlers began to immigrate, very few Arabs were displaced. And none were landowners. Benny Morris noted less than 2,000 families were displaced, and these were all felaheen, migrant workers who worked the land of Arab landowners.."

And that was before the neigbouring Arab states attacked. What did he say occurred between 1947 and 1949?


None of the land settled by Jews belonged to anyone else. It was either unowned, or purchased. .."

Before the Arab-Israeli war. What happened during that time?


they attacked Israel, incited Arab villagers to revolt, and thus Israeli citizens (Jewish and Arab) crushed the revolters..."

Wow - a new realm in fantasy created before my very eyes...

The Arab population had been disarmed and left largely leaderless by the British as a consequence of the 1936 Arab rebellion. Please spare me the nonsense.


Arabs lived on a piece of land with tons of room.
Jews came, bought land from Arabs, and settled the unowned land.
Jews developed the land, and the Arab population increased tenfold as a result.
Arabs came from all over the Middle East to prosper as a result of the kibbutzim.
Most of the Arabs by 1948 were immigrants, not historical Arabs of the region.
..."

And behold yet more crap. Could we have a source for the above please?



Yup, the same Grand Mufti who actually started building gas chambers on Palestinian soil too..."

The grand muffy fled Palestine in 1936 and never set foot in the area again, as far as I'm aware.
Please explain how he managed this history defying feat, which would have to have predated the Nazi chambers, in order to have occurred. And a source as well, if you would.

This is Barak's plan revisited, containing the same flaws, and was no doubt rejected for the same reason - even completely ignoring the right of return, Israeli control over East Jerusalem and the surrounding settlement blocs, not to mention the Jordan Valley, is not conducive to a just solution for the conflict.

A two-state solution should operate from the basis of the Green Line, not the barrier.

According to your interpreation of events.....

That was the chronology given in the Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict. Its actually been used as supplimental reading in universities, too.

But I forgot you've rejected that source in the past, since it was written by a Jew. Going to reject it now, as well?

All settlements outside Israels internationally recognised borders are illegal.

Not according to the Israeli Supreme Court. And, according to international law, the only court that has ever had jurisdiction to decide is the Israeli Supreme Court. You should brush up on what the ICJ charter states.

Then how can the US deport mexicans back to Mexico?

I was waiting for Nodinia's fallacy, as there is often one in every thread. This one is the fallacy of false analogy.

Now, surely we know the difference between the legal immigration of settlers to the British mandate is different than the illegal immigration of Mexicans into a soverign state? I don't think I have to explain this one.

More gibberish. The truth is however that the owhelming majority of the worlds legal opinions (and votes via their Governments) declare quite the opposite of what you are saying. Those votes originate out of law and - not nessecarily out of any love for Palestinians or hate for Israel - but from fear that perhaps they could meet the same fate.

The world's legal opinions. Except for groups like, say, the UN. That is why Palestine doesn't get a UN seat, because it isn't recognized as a soverign state.

I quite doubt it. The 2000 plan was not only not acceptable but is widely know to be an opening position - the layout of the various areas would have meant it was impossible to administer, if accepted as was.

Prince Bandar, Prince Abdullah, King Abdullah, Mubarak, Clinton, Ross, etc. all disagreee with you. Arafat has already been condemned by virtually the entire Arab world for rejecting the 2000 deal. But I'm sure you know more than they do.

Once again, we have a case of trying to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians.

Roughly 6.93% of it was owned by those identified as Jewish in 1946/7. I have not erred with the decimal place

Private land. The vast majority of the land, approx 90%, was Crown Lands. Land that was given to the State of Israel. So, did Israelis own 6.93% or 96.3%? History says the latter.

And that was before the neigbouring Arab states attacked. What did he say occurred between 1947 and 1949?

Before the Arab-Israeli war. What happened during that time?

The Arab-Israeli war happened during that time, not after. The vast majority of the Arabs displaced were a result of that war, and that is why they fall into that time frame given by Morris.

Wow - a new realm in fantasy created before my very eyes...

The Arab population had been disarmed and left largely leaderless by the British as a consequence of the 1936 Arab rebellion. Please spare me the nonsense.

Disarmed, and yet somehow able to commit a number of massacres of Jewish civilians after 1936. Like the Hadassah medical convoy massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadassah_medical_convoy_massacre), when 77 Jewish civilians were killed by Palestinian Arabs.

And behold yet more crap. Could we have a source for the above please?

Again, that is the chronology taken directly out of the Idiot's Guide to the Middle East. The same text you've rejected on the basis of the author being Jewish.

The grand muffy fled Palestine in 1936 and never set foot in the area again, as far as I'm aware.
Please explain how he managed this history defying feat, which would have to have predated the Nazi chambers, in order to have occurred. And a source as well, if you would.

Predated the Nazi gas chambers? Pfft

Never remember (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19624)

"Working from his office in the capital of the Third Reich, al-Husseini devoted himself to a Nazi victory, recruiting spies to serve in the Middle East and raising a Bosnian Muslim division of the Waffen SS. Described at Nuremberg as one of Eichmann’s best friends, the mufti even visited Auschwitz and urged those who ran the gas chambers to "work more diligently.""

Haj Amin El Husseini (http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Haj_Amin_El_Husseini.htm)

""According to testimony by Nazi war criminals, the Mufti's influence was critical to the German decision to annihilate the Jews of Europe. At the Nuremberg Trials in July 1946, Dieter Wisliceny testified:

"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz." "

Dershowitz elabortes further on his attempts to oversee Palestinian-built gas chambers, but I won't elaborate further since he is another Jewish author you reject categorically (wonder why?) and accuse falsely of plagerism; charges that Finkelstein had originally levied but was forced to retract after it was proven in a Harvard investigation that Dershowitz was innocent.

But since you claim that the Mufti "predated" Holocaust gas chambers, I'm not sure how far we can get with any real history at this point. Thats simply Holocaust revisionism and denial.

This is Barak's plan revisited, containing the same flaws, and was no doubt rejected for the same reason - even completely ignoring the right of return, Israeli control over East Jerusalem and the surrounding settlement blocs, not to mention the Jordan Valley, is not conducive to a just solution for the conflict.

A two-state solution should operate from the basis of the Green Line, not the barrier.

All of Olmert's plans, including the possible decision to unilaterally declare borders, gives East Jerusalem to Palestine. That has been all over the Israeli media, as well as on the Israeli govt website, if anyone is interested enough in facts to check it out.

The right to return is gone; its unlikely that issue will ever be raised again. That being said, if Israel is such a big evil police state, why would any sensible Palestinian want to move there anyway? The arguments that Israel is bad, and yet Palestinians want to all return there under the Israeli government with a two-state solution is internally inconsistent. The fact is, the right to return is simply a wedge used by the Palestinian leadership as an excuse to reject peace offers.

Settlement blocs are Jewish and the only ones being kept are contigious to Israel's border. Just like the Jordan valley, they are necessary for a defensible border as well, and Israel as a soverign state has the right to take what actions it deems necessary to make its border defensible. Not to mention that if Israel is giving up entire Jewish-populated cities, ones that serve as huge economic bases (like Hebron) due to their tourist business, then Palestine can give up something as well. Its called compromise. Israel is doing it, Palestine isn't.

What crimes? Not submitting to Israeli rule?

What crimes? Not submitting to Israeli rule?

The crimes that the entire Arab world accused Arafat of.

Surely you don't believe that all of the Arab leaders I cited wanted Arafat to submit to Israeli rule, do you? No, they just realized it was a legitimate peace offer and that Arafat was a vile terrorist who had no desire for peace. Likewise with the deal Abbas is rejecting now.

All of Olmert's plans, including the possible decision to unilaterally declare borders, gives East Jerusalem to Palestine. That has been all over the Israeli media, as well as on the Israeli govt website, if anyone is interested enough in facts to check it out.

In which case it should surely be child's play to prove it. The article said the border would be according to the separation barrier, in which case most of East Jerusalem is on the Israeli side.

Settlement blocs are Jewish and the only ones being kept are contigious to Israel's border. Just like the Jordan valley, they are necessary for a defensible border as well, and Israel as a soverign state has the right to take what actions it deems necessary to make its border defensible.

When Israel's Arab neighbors begin to be serious military threats, that position may become reasonable.

Not to mention that if Israel is giving up entire Jewish-populated cities, ones that serve as huge economic bases (like Hebron) due to their tourist business, then Palestine can give up something as well. Its called compromise. Israel is doing it, Palestine isn't.

It is not "compromise" when a thief says, "hey, I'll give you back some of what I stole."

In which case it should surely be child's play to prove it. The article said the border would be according to the separation barrier, in which case most of East Jerusalem is on the Israeli side.

So let me get this straight. The article linked to in the OP says the fence is to be replanned, and that the new borders would follow the fence. Then, someone concludes that the fence excludes East Jersusaelm because the current fence is on the Israeli side - regardless of the fact there is a portal there. Then, I'm expected to prove that the rumor is false?

Sounds like someone didn't read the article and isn't familiar with the mechanics of the security fence, in addition to having a skewed concept of logic.

When Israel's Arab neighbors begin to be serious military threats, that position may become reasonable.

Serious according to whom? They are serious according to Israel. According to the Institute for Counter-Terrorism, Palestinians kill 50% more civilians than Israelis do of the other side. Sounds like they are pretty serious threats to me. In fact, I don't know of anyone who denies such a thing. Even the Palestinians acknowledge that they are a threat to Israel - their 'eminent victory' is all over the Hamas charter.

It is not "compromise" when a thief says, "hey, I'll give you back some of what I stole."

Theft is a legal concept. And it only works when you care about the Rule of Law. And according to the Rule of Law, Israel didn't steal any land. Do you choose to ignore the Rule of law when it contradicts your anti-Israeli agenda, and only attempt to abide by it when you think it supports a pro-Palestinian cause?

So let me get this straight. The article linked to in the OP says the fence is to be replanned, and that the new borders would follow the fence.

The article stated:

Meanwhile, Defense Minister Amir Peretz has decided to reexamine the route of the fence, especially around Jerusalem, in order to reduce both damage to Palestinian property and the project's costs.

Not that the route was being revised to give East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, as you falsely stated.

Serious according to whom? They are serious according to Israel. According to the Institute for Counter-Terrorism, Palestinians kill 50% more civilians than Israelis do of the other side. Sounds like they are pretty serious threats to me. In fact, I don't know of anyone who denies such a thing. Even the Palestinians acknowledge that they are a threat to Israel - their 'eminent victory' is all over the Hamas charter.

They are a security threat, yes, but that is irrelevant to borders. They are most definitely not a military threat.

Theft is a legal concept. And it only works when you care about the Rule of Law. And according to the Rule of Law, Israel didn't steal any land. Do you choose to ignore the Rule of law when it contradicts your anti-Israeli agenda, and only attempt to abide by it when you think it supports a pro-Palestinian cause?

Israel has no just claim to the West Bank. The Palestinians, however, have a right to self-determination, and that includes the right to a viable, contiguous state, not one subject to whatever conditions Israel chooses to impose.

Not that the route was being revised to give East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, as you falsely stated.

Actually, it did say that. You just havn't been keeping up with Israeli media and current affairs, so you don't have the proper context. Other papers have covered this fact as well, like Arutz Sheva:

Strike Two for Abbas (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=105412)

"Israel is drawing up a new bilateral plan to create an independent PA state with provisional borders in 90 percent of Judea and Samaria as well as all of Gaza. Israel would retain security control in the Jordan Valley.

The provisional borders would run along the line of the Israeli security fence that is currently under construction, a move that former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon insisted was not in the works. Defense Minister Amir Peretz is reviewing the current route of the fence around Jerusalem, according to Haaretz, for financial reasons and to minimize damage to PA Arab property."

Peretz' review and modifications in regards to the fence and Jerusalem were part of the plan.

They are a security threat, yes, but that is irrelevant to borders. They are most definitely not a military threat.

Foreign terror is irrelevant to borders? The fact is, terror has declined in areas where the Israeli fence has been erected. There are also cases of it directly saving lives. It would seem that borders, and the way they are made defensible, play a big part in defense.

Israel has no just claim to the West Bank. The Palestinians, however, have a right to self-determination, and that includes the right to a viable, contiguous state, not one subject to whatever conditions Israel chooses to impose.

Israel has a claim to any contigious private land owned by Israeli settlers. That includes the approx 10% of land, which is private land owned by Israeli settlers, that is contigious to Israel. However, the double standard becocme more evident when the anti-Israeli crowd responds to this - its okay to take Israeli land from Israeli citizens, but it isn't okay to take Israeli land that is in the West Bank. That makes a ton of sense.

Most of the major settlement blocs in these areas, as well as the land surrounding them, were Jewish settlements that predate even the State of Israel. Do you propse that we take the settler's land from them, land that virtually no Palestinians live on, and give it to the Palestinians? Can we get Hebron back then, since it has been predominately Jewish since the Roman occupation some 2000 years ago, and Jerusalem as well, since its predominately Jewish and has been since the Crusades? Why are we giving up the historically Jewish cities if Palestine isn't willing to give us the privately owned land of Jewish settlements?

The fact is, terror has declined in areas where the Israeli fence has been erected.

According to whom?

According to whom?

According to the records. Again, this is the type of stuff that is common knowledge for anyone who keeps up on Israeli affairs:

What Americans can learn from Israel's West Bank secuirty barrier (http://www.slate.com/id/2143104/)

As such, the Israeli fence is very efficient. The number of fatalities from terror attacks within Israel dropped from more than 130 in 2003 to fewer than 25 in 2005. The number of bombings fell from dozens to fewer than 10. The cost for Israel is in money and personnel; the cost for Palestinians is in unemployment, health, frustration, and blood. The demographic benefit—keeping out the Palestinians—is just another positive side effect for the Israelis.

According to the records. Again, this is the type of stuff that is common knowledge for anyone who keeps up on Israeli affairs:

What Americans can learn from Israel's West Bank secuirty barrier (http://www.slate.com/id/2143104/)

Well, according to Shin Bet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4574720.stm) the fence had little to do with it. In fact the reason the numbers were so low in 2005 was

*drumroll*

The main reason for the decline, Shin Bet said, was the informal truce observed by some Palestinian groups.


Shocking. Israel herself says its not the fence/wall. :eek:

Well, according to Shin Bet (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4574720.stm) the fence had little to do with it. In fact the reason the numbers were so low in 2005 was

Shocking. Israel herself says its not the fence/wall. :eek:

This article didn't say anything about the barrier. I wonder how you conclude from a BBC article, where Israeli internal security (rather than border defense sources, like the IDF) says that the main reason for terror decline is the truce that Israel said it isn't the wall.

Making stuff up now, are we?

And just to clarify, this is from the official Israeli Govt Website's article on the fence:

Saving Lives: Israel's anti-terror fence (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/2000_2009/2003/11/saving%20lives-%20israel-s%20anti-terrorist%20fence%20-%20answ#9)

"9. Has the partially completed anti-terrorist fence succeeded in reducing the number of terrorist attacks?

Data reveals a clear correlation between the construction of the fence and a drop in the number of terrorist attacks from those areas adjacent to the parts of the fence that have been completed.

Statistical data indicates a 30% drop in the number of terrorist attacks that took place in 2003 compared to 2002. Similarly, there has been a 50% decrease in the number of victims murdered by terrorists in 2003 compared to the previous year.

Effectiveness of the fence

There were 17 suicide bomber attacks inside Israel that emanated from the northern part (Samaria) of the West Bank during the months April-December 2002. In contrast, since construction began on the anti-terrorist fence, throughout all of 2003 only 5 suicide bomber attacks emanated from the same area.

From that area where construction of the anti-terrorist fence has not yet begun, namely the southern part (Judea) of the West Bank, no decrease in the number of terrorist attacks has been noted.

Once the construction of the anti-terrorist fence will be completed, the overall number of terrorist attacks against Israeli population centers is expected to decrease immensely."

Actually, it did say that. You just havn't been keeping up with Israeli media and current affairs, so you don't have the proper context.

It is true that in recent months I have not been following it very closely. If you can demonstrate that I am wrong, and there is the possibility, then I will change my position. My assessment was based on my recollection of the Labour and Kadima Party's stances back at election time, as well as the material in the article.

However, you are reading a meaning into the article that is clearly not there, and unless you can indeed provide "context" that would indicate that the implication you suggest is in fact the implication (or even better, an actual source for your claim), what I said stands.

Other papers have covered this fact as well, like Arutz Sheva:

Strike Two for Abbas (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=105412)

"Israel is drawing up a new bilateral plan to create an independent PA state with provisional borders in 90 percent of Judea and Samaria as well as all of Gaza. Israel would retain security control in the Jordan Valley.

The provisional borders would run along the line of the Israeli security fence that is currently under construction, a move that former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon insisted was not in the works. Defense Minister Amir Peretz is reviewing the current route of the fence around Jerusalem, according to Haaretz, for financial reasons and to minimize damage to PA Arab property."

Which is exactly what the Haaretz article stated. Note that I did not say that Haaretz was wrong, I said the meaning you derived from it was.

Peretz' review and modifications in regards to the fence and Jerusalem were part of the plan.

Which was not in the article, but I'll take your word for it. Until you can demonstrate, though, that his modifications would in fact give East Jerusalem to the Palestinians, your statement in response to my original statement is false.

Foreign terror is irrelevant to borders? The fact is, terror has declined in areas where the Israeli fence has been erected. There are also cases of it directly saving lives. It would seem that borders, and the way they are made defensible, play a big part in defense.

The barrier itself does indeed make a difference (it's its route that is usually objected to, not its existence), but the dispute is about borders, not the barrier.

Israel has a claim to any contigious private land owned by Israeli settlers. That includes the approx 10% of land, which is private land owned by Israeli settlers, that is contigious to Israel. However, the double standard becocme more evident when the anti-Israeli crowd responds to this - its okay to take Israeli land from Israeli citizens, but it isn't okay to take Israeli land that is in the West Bank. That makes a ton of sense.

Israeli settlers have a claim to it, not Israel. Personally, I would give it to them, and let them live under Palestinian sovereignty if they so chose.

Most of the major settlement blocs in these areas, as well as the land surrounding them, were Jewish settlements that predate even the State of Israel. Do you propse that we take the settler's land from them, land that virtually no Palestinians live on, and give it to the Palestinians?

No, I think it should be put under Palestinian sovereignty.

Can we get Hebron back then, since it has been predominately Jewish since the Roman occupation some 2000 years ago, and Jerusalem as well, since its predominately Jewish and has been since the Crusades? Why are we giving up the historically Jewish cities if Palestine isn't willing to give us the privately owned land of Jewish settlements?

Hebron is not "predominantly Jewish."

This article didn't say anything about the barrier.
You're right. And do you know why it didn't mention the wall? Because the main reason Israeli civilian deaths decreased in 2005 was due to:
the informal truce observed by some Palestinian groups

Not the wall. The truce.

I wonder how you conclude from a BBC article, where Israeli internal security (rather than border defense sources, like the IDF) says that the main reason for terror decline is the truce that Israel said it isn't the wall.
So, Shin Bet doesn't know what it's talking about?
Or is the BBC just lying about what Shin Bet said?

Because if it is the latter, I suspect there would have been quite a nice legal case against the BBC.

Or wait, maybe because it doesn't fit in with your opinion, it must have...*deep booming voice* "an agenda".

I'll trust Shin Bet over you for the facts and figures thank you very much.


Making stuff up now, are we?

Pissy you got caught out in your own thread? ;)

And just to clarify, this is from the official Israeli Govt Website's article on the fence:

Saving Lives: Israel's anti-terror fence (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/2000_2009/2003/11/saving%20lives-%20israel-s%20anti-terrorist%20fence%20-%20answ#9)

You are now using statistics from 2002/2003.

I was using statistics from 2005/2006. :)

You're right. And do you know why it didn't mention the wall? Because the main reason Israeli civilian deaths decreased in 2005 was due to:


Not the wall. The truce.

You used a spurious Shabak quote that said that the reason the number of deaths decreased was due to a cease fire. It said nothing about a wall.

Yet, you tried to insert the fence there. That is a fallacy called 'argument from absence.'

So, Shin Bet doesn't know what it's talking about?
Or is the BBC just lying about what Shin Bet said?

Because if it is the latter, I suspect there would have been quite a nice legal case against the BBC.

Its actually not Shabak's area, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't know what they were talking about. But hey, lets ignore what the MFA says...

I'll trust Shin Bet over you for the facts and figures thank you very much.

You havn't actually shown anything from Shabak. You've shown a BBC article, whereas I've cited the report from the Israeli govt site. If you want something "official", BBC isn't going to cut it. Check the link I posted.

You are now using statistics from 2002/2003.

I was using statistics from 2005/2006. :)

Lets review the statistics, together. The BBC claims a 60% drop.

However, between 2002-2004, there has been a cumulative drop of 60%.

Thus, the 60% drop in 2005 was only 60% left of the number of terror attacks in 2004. More people were actually saved by the wall than by the truce. The percentage is just equal in 2005 because there was a lesser total amount of attacks in 2004 than in 2002.

Familiar with percentages at all?

You used a spurious Shabak quote that said that the reason the number of deaths decreased was due to a cease fire. It said nothing about a wall.

Yet, you tried to insert the fence there. That is a fallacy called 'argument from absence.'



Its actually not Shabak's area, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't know what they were talking about. But hey, lets ignore what the MFA says...



You havn't actually shown anything from Shabak. You've shown a BBC article, whereas I've cited the report from the Israeli govt site. If you want something "official", BBC isn't going to cut it. Check the link I posted.

Spurious? Haven't shown anything?
Check the Shin Bet report released on Jan 1 2006 if you don't believe me.
You got caught. Deal with it.

This is from Haaretz:

Shin Bet: Palestinian truce main cause for reduced terror
By Amos Harel, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service

....

The Shin Bet's statistics on terror attacks confirm the public perception that terrorist activity in 2005 dropped considerably compared to the previous four and a half years. The main reason for the sharp decline is the truce in the territories, the security service said Sunday.

Terrorist attacks claimed the lives of 45 Israelis last year, compared to 117 in 2004, marking a 60 percent reduction.

This is the third year in a row in which the number of terrorist acts has been reduced sharply. At the height of the intifada, in 2002, 450 Israelis were killed by terrorists. An equal number of Israelis were killed in traffic accidents in 2005. In other words, the number of terror fatalities in 2005 is less than one-tenth of the number of traffic accident fatalities.

The Shin Bet and the Israel Defense Forces attribute the reduction mainly to the improvement in their joint capability to foil terrorist attacks and to act against terrorist organizations.

The security fence is no longer mentioned as the major factor in preventing suicide bombings, mainly because the terrorists have found ways to bypass it. The fence does make it harder for them, but the flawed inspection procedures at its checkpoints, the gaps and uncompleted sections enable suicide bombers to enter Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/664959.html

Spurious? Haven't shown anything?
Check the Shin Bet report released on Jan 1 2006 if you don't believe me.
You got caught. Deal with it.

As I pointed out, the actual number of persons saved over 2002-2003 was greater than the number in 2005. It was due the numbers declining that the percentage appeared to rise.

Not to mention that Shabak is only giving us statistics for overall terror decrease, whereas the official document on the Israeli website demonstrates a correlation between specific areas of fencing vs those with no fencing. Really, by citing articles that say "overall terror decrease" you're comparing apples and oranges to the fact that we're talking about specific areas that are fenced compared to those that are not.

And, as the Haaretz article states, the reason the fence is ineffective is due to poor policing. You must have overlooked that part.

If Israel really is ready to give up East Jerusalem, the he should bloody well take it!

And, as the Haaretz article states, the reason the fence is ineffective is due to poor policing. You must have overlooked that part.

No, I saw that (it would be quite logical to assume bombers would be getting past unguarded sections).

You are focusing on the wrong point.

The Israelis themselves say that it was the truce and not the wall that was the main reason for the decrease.

No, I saw that (it would be quite logical to assume bombers would be getting past unguarded sections).

You are focusing on the wrong point.

The Israelis themselves say that it was the truce and not the wall that was the main reason for the decrease.

No, the Israelis say it was the main reason for the decrease in 2005. You're ignoring four years of precedent, and the fact that terror has decreased so substantially between 2002 and 2004 that when you get a 60% figure in 2005 doesn't represent as large a population of victims as a 60% figure in 2002.

Keep in mind, the Israeli govt still endorses the wall. Its still being built for security reasons. There hasn't been any change in Israeli policy regarding it, even if terrorists have found ways past it (which was inevitable) or if the main reason for decrease in 2005 was a truce rather than the wall itself. The wall has a four year history of saving lives, and no one denies this. A paradigm shift in 2005 doesn't change that fact at all.

That was the chronology given in the Idiot's Guide to the Middle East Conflict. Its actually been used as supplimental reading in universities, too
But I forgot you've rejected that source in the past, since it was written by a Jew. Going to reject it now, as well?..

As I've never done any such thing and you have refused to show where this alleged incident occurred the last time you dragged it out, thats a lie on your part.

Not according to the Israeli Supreme Court. And, according to international law, the only court that has ever had jurisdiction to decide is the Israeli Supreme Court. You should brush up on what the ICJ charter states.


The Israeli supreme court has no jurisiction outside Israels borders. Therefore what it says is irrelevant, and politcally motivated.


Now, surely we know the difference between the legal immigration of settlers to the British mandate is different than the illegal immigration of Mexicans into a soverign state? I don't think I have to explain this one.


We were speaking of the illegal migration of settlers outside Israels borders....


The world's legal opinions. Except for groups like, say, the UN. That is why Palestine doesn't get a UN seat, because it isn't recognized as a soverign state.

Getting a bit confused there are you? The UN, based on international law, and the vote of soverign nations, has declared the occupation illegal.


Private land. The vast majority of the land, approx 90%, was Crown Lands. Land that was given to the State of Israel. So, did Israelis own 6.93% or 96.3%? History says the latter..

Could you provide a figure for acreage under Jewish ownership in 1967/47 please? I've asked you numerous times before, but for some reason you havent provided it



The Arab-Israeli war happened during that time, not after. The vast majority of the Arabs displaced were a result of that war, and that is why they fall into that time frame given by Morris...

Yet you rather disengenously try to seperate what happened before the war with what happened during to provide a false figure for those forcibly displaced.

Disarmed, and yet somehow able to commit a number of massacres of Jewish civilians after 1936. Like the Hadassah medical convoy massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadassah_medical_convoy_massacre), when 77 Jewish civilians were killed by Palestinian Arabs....

A massacre of civillians is not inidcative of an armed Arab "revolt" of the type you portrayed. The main attack came from neighboiuring Arab states, not the local population And both sides committed atrocities.


Again, that is the chronology taken directly out of the Idiot's Guide to the Middle East. The same text you've rejected on the basis of the author being Jewish.....

The same incident that you are unable to link to, despite having access to every post I've ever made on the board.


Predated the Nazi gas chambers? Pfft

Never remember (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19624)

"Working from his office in the capital of the Third Reich, al-Husseini devoted himself to a Nazi victory, recruiting spies to serve in the Middle East and raising a Bosnian Muslim division of the Waffen SS. Described at Nuremberg as one of Eichmann’s best friends, the mufti even visited Auschwitz and urged those who ran the gas chambers to "work more diligently.""

Haj Amin El Husseini (http://www.zionism-israel.com/dic/Haj_Amin_El_Husseini.htm)

""According to testimony by Nazi war criminals, the Mufti's influence was critical to the German decision to annihilate the Jews of Europe. At the Nuremberg Trials in July 1946, Dieter Wisliceny testified:

"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures. I heard him say, accompanied by Eichmann, he had visited incognito the gas chambers of Auschwitz." ".....

You said Yup, the same Grand Mufti who actually started building gas chambers on Palestinian soil too. There is nothing above that mentions any such thing. Firstly, he would have had to be in Palestine. As he had not been in Palestine since 1936, he would have had to pre-dated the Nazi decison to use gas chambers.


Dershowitz elabortes further on his attempts to oversee Palestinian-built gas chambers, but I won't elaborate further since he is another Jewish author you reject categorically (wonder why?) and accuse falsely of plagerism; charges that Finkelstein had originally levied but was forced to retract after it was proven in a Harvard investigation that Dershowitz was innocent..

News to me, old fruit. I'd imagine it would be to the good Doctor as well.


But since you claim that the Mufti "predated" Holocaust gas chambers, I'm not sure how far we can get with any real history at this point. Thats simply Holocaust revisionism and denial.

A lie, as is obvious from the timeline. Are you getting tetchy because your false statement has been caught?