BS: Palestinian 'facts'

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,Albert
Date: 26 May 08 - 01:53 PM

For further news and views about the Palestinian struggle for basic human rights Mudcat readers could do worse than look at the ELECTRONIC INTIFADA website which collects articles about events in Israel and the Middle East.
One recent story concerns the many cancer patients who need urgent medical care outside Gaza but have been denied permission to leave by the Israeli authorities.
One patient , Ahmed El Baghdadi, said that the Israel Security Service told him he could have that permission on condition that he became an informer for Israel.
Albert

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: bobad
Date: 26 May 08 - 01:52 PM

A little detail you overlooked that must have slipped your mind, guest David, is rockets, David, being fired from Gaza at Israel, does that ring a bell, David? Over 830 rockets and 840 mortars fired from Gaza have struck southern Israel since the beginning of the year (January - April 2008).

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,David
Date: 26 May 08 - 01:32 PM

I think former President Carter was refering to the strangling of Gaza and its approx one million population by the Israeli military.
For well over a year the Gaza has been under a kind of lockdown with entry and exit points closely guarded by Israel.
Its power plants have either been destroyed or have run out of fuel and its population is close to starving .In particular its tens of thousands of children are going hungry and lack medicines and basic healthcare .
The sewage system has been made unworkable by the Israelis and a tide of sewage from the million strong city means a very serious health and hygiene has developed.
In addition to the above Israel is continuing shelling Gaza and hundreds of innocent civilians including many children and whole family groups have been wiped out in their cars,on the streets or in their homes by shellfire,sniper fire or by missiles launched from the air.
Last year children playing on the beach were blown up by a shell from an Israeli warships.These warships apparently have also prevented Gazan fishing boats from working thus adding to the food problems in the city.
I think that is what what former President Carter meant when he spoke of the human rights crimes being committed in Gaza.
David

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 May 08 - 01:12 PM

I have just finished a first reading of an on-line article from 'commentarymagazine.com,' "1948, Israel, and the Palestinians: Annotated Text" by Efraim Karsh.

The article is about five pages of text, and about five pages of footnotes. The footnotes cite myriad contemporaneous documents (c1920-1949) from Jewish, Arab, and British documents and sources, as well as some later documents and histories.

I believe there is much to be learned no matter which side of the argument you are on. And best of all, you can verify, if you wish, the author's sources leading to his conclusions.

And for the record, yes, Commentary is a magazine which is primarily aimed at Jews, and is less liberal than most Jewish publications.

PS: I printed the article using Word, because the default text is too small for these old eyes. Using New Times Roman, size 12, the text and footnotes comprise 20 pages.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 26 May 08 - 12:25 PM

Re Carter Quote: This means exactly what?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,David
Date: 26 May 08 - 11:53 AM

Former US president Jimmy Carter has branded the Israeli blockade of Gaza as"One of the greatest human rights crimes existing on earth right now".
He was speaking at the Hay On Wye Literary Festival in Wales this week.
David

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Teribus
Date: 26 May 08 - 11:33 AM

"I had to chuckle at the description by Teribus that Syria had a secret facility near the Turkish border.Since when has any military facility ever been anything other than secret?" - Albert

Try Portsmouth Dockyard, Albert - Currently the military facility that serves as "Home to the Royal Navy" it is also a recognised historic site open to the public and the location of the first mass production assembly line anywhere in the world. There are quite a few others, so please feel free to chuckle on.

I take from your reticence on the subject that the "alarming" prospect of the "possibility of an American attack on Iran" is just one of your own pet "bogey-men" and that your prediction of it happening before Bush leaves office is hogwash, based on nothing except your own biased outlook.

Now the Golan:

In 2005 the Golan Heights had a population of approximately 38,900, including approximately 19,300 Druze, 16,500 Jews, and 2,100 Muslims

The Palestinian organization Fatah began raids into Israeli territory in early 1965, with active support from Syria. At first the guerillas entered via Lebanon or Jordan, but those countries made concerted attempts to stop them and raids directly from Syria increased.

Israel's response was a series of retaliatory raids, of which the largest were an attack on the Jordanian village of Samu in November 1966, and in April 1967, after Syria heavily shelled Israeli villages from the Golan Heights, Israel shot down six of Syria's MiG fighter planes, provided by the Soviet Union. Israel warned Syria against future attacks.

Before the Six-Day War, the strategic heights of the Golan, which are approximately 3,000 feet (1,000 m) above the bordering Hulah Valley in Israel, were used to frequently bombard civilian Israeli farming communities far below them, although Moshe Dayan (Israeli Defense Minister during the 1967 war) would later state that it was often the result of Israeli provocations in the demilitarized zone.

According to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, former Israeli General Mattityahu Peled claimed that more than half of the border clashes before the 1967 war "were a result of our security policy of maximum settlement in the demilitarized area" (Please note it was a demilitarized area - settlement within that area was not prohibited). Syrian attacks killed 140 Israelis and injured many more from 1949 to 1967.

In May 1967 before the Six-Day War of 1967, Hafez Assad, then Syria's Defense Minister declared: "Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse the aggression, but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian Army, with its finger on the trigger, is united... I, as a military man, believe that the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation." ("..the time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation" Eh? By God that's defensive fightin' talk if ever I've heard it - right CarolC?)

In June 2007, approximately 40 years following the Six Day War in which Israel took over the Golan Heights, it was reported that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had sent a secret message to Syrian President, Bashar Assad saying that Israel would return the land in exchange for a comprehensive peace agreement and the severing of Syria's ties with Iran and terror groups in the region. Meanwhile, on the same day, former Prime Minster, Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the former Syrian President, Hafez Assad had promised to give him Mount Hermon in any agreement.

Now here we come the strange part, because with the Golan everybody seems to be talking about different lines:

- The 1967 Line which Syria wants as it allows Syria to keep land it took by force and occupied in 1948.
- The 1923 Line which Israel wants to use but Syria rejects because it was drawn up the League of Nations and does not give them a shore on the Sea of Galilee
- The 1949 Armistice Line which Syria objects to as it does not give Syria water frontage on the Sea of Gallilea

The map shows the differences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GolanHistoricalBorders.svg

For all those who seem to advocate Israeli withdrawal from the Golan to the pre-Six-Day War boundaries on the basis that it is land taken by force of arms. Can you explain why it is therefore perfectly acceptable that Syria is entitled to retain land taken by force of arms?

If the answer has got anything to do with time Israel has occupied the land they took for about twice as long as the Syrians occupied the land they took in 1948.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 26 May 08 - 07:38 AM

Albert seems to know a lot about the future outcome of events unfolding. We thank you for letting us know in advance the intentions of all the countries involved.
Regarding Finklestein and this comment "Association For Human Rights in Israel has condemned his deportation saying that it bore all the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime". No-one has a right to visit any country. You have to have proper visas, documents, permission etc. Hell - I was turned away at the U.S. Canadian boarder by U.S. homeland security for trying to bring in cds for sale- but the association for Human rights didn't condemn my deportation. This is simply a publicity stunt. Run with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Teribus
Date: 26 May 08 - 06:59 AM

"The return of the Golan Heights continues to be the stumbling block between any peace agreement between Syria and Israel." - Albert

Source for that please Albert.

Now let's have a look at Israeli Settlers previous track record with regard to "Peace-For-Land" Deals.

- Egypt/Israel: Israeli settlers moved into Sinai after 1967 - They left and returned to Israel when the whole of the Sinai was returned to Egypt.

- Palestinian Authority/Israel: Israeli settlers left Gaza and returned to Israel as part of a deal between the PA and the Israeli Government. On this occasion the Israeli Government kept its part of the bargain the PA singularly failed to deliver on the undertakings it agreed to - indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians launched from inside Gaza continue to this day.

So going on that the 20,000 Israeli settlers that Albert says are on the Golan will have a choice, return to Israel or stay in Syria, my guess is that they will return to Israel.

"Re Hillary Clinton and Iran
Clinton threatened to obliterate Iran if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
However ,Iran does not have nuclear weapons and has never attacked another country." - Guest David.

Well Guest David if what you state there is correct then Iran is no danger whatsoever is it?

"it was America which encouraged Iraq to attack Iran back in the early 1980s" - Guest David

Do you have any source material to back that statement up Guest David?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,David
Date: 26 May 08 - 06:07 AM

Re Hillary Clinton and Iran
Clinton threatened to obliterate Iran if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.
However ,Iran does not have nuclear weapons and has never attacked another country.
This is in contrast to nuclear armed Israel which has spent some 60 years attacking its neighbours in the Middle East with everything from cluster bombs to high explosives ,phospherous to gunships.
It should also be said that there is an American nuclear fleet stationed just a few miles of the coast of Iran which has in the past shot down an Iranian civilian passenger plane . And it was America which encouraged Iraq to attack Iran back in the early 1980s . That war cost a million casualties so Iran is surely entitled to be alarmed when an American presidential hopeful starts to make nuclear threats .
David

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,albert
Date: 26 May 08 - 05:52 AM

Reply to Teribus
The return of the Golan Heights continues to be the stumbling block between any peace agreement between Syria and Israel.
Therer are now 20000 illegal Israeli settlers who are busy creating facts on the ground to prevent the return of the Golan and a right wing hawkish pumped up Israeli government which is extremely unlikely to agree to any return of Syrian land from Israeli control.

In addition Israel attacked Syria just a few months ago.
Just imagine if the USA had been attacked by ,say,Canada?

I had to chuckle at the description by Teribus that Syria had a secret facility near the Turkish border.Since when has any military facility ever been anything other than secret?

albert

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,David
Date: 26 May 08 - 05:31 AM

The Guardian today carries an account of the arrest and deportation of the Jewish American academic Norman Finkelstein from Israel.
It said that the Association For Human Rights in Israel has condemned his deportation saying that it bore all the hallmarks of a totalitarian regime.
David

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Teribus
Date: 26 May 08 - 02:45 AM

"Although there have been some kind of negotiations between Syria and Israel since then I think they will not amount to much as Syria wants the Golan Heights back and Israel wont give it up.So a further stand off there." - Albert

Oh I don't think the picture is as bleak as you would like to paint it Albert. The Israelis and Syrians have been in negotiations before and came quite close to a settlement that suited both sides. The stumbling block was not return of the Golan which Israel under agreed terms would be only too pleased to return to Syria. The problem the last time was water.

"What is alarming in all this is the possibility of an American attack on Iran which will be Bush's parting gift to the world before he leaves office in November" - Albert

Of course Albert I suppose all things are "possible" but your second doom-and-gloom prediction is hardly "probable" is it. What are you basing this opinion of yours on? I mean, let's see, there remains just over seven months of GWB's Presidency, he does not control the House of Representatives or the Senate, so how on earth is he going to get Congressional approval for a war with Iran?

"...while Hillery Clinton said recently she had no problem with a US attack on Iran." - Albert

OK Albert, tell us in Hillary Clinton's own words the circumstances under which she would have no problem with a US attack on Iran - Or in doing that does that spoil your storyline a bit too much. If you or anyone else reading this thread are unaware of the facts, the circumstances that would call for a US attack on Iran is IF Iran first attacked Israel ("I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran if it attacks Israel" - HRC). Should that (Iranian attack on Israel) happen Albert you could quite accurately have said, "ANY person holding the Office of President of the United States of America, Barak Obama included, would have no problem with a US attack on Iran", because Albert the US is obligated by Treaty to come to the aid of Israel if Israel is attacked.

"Meanwhile,Israel,the one nuclear state in the Middle East continues to attack its neighbours in Lebanon ,Gaza and Syria and is one of the most powerful military force in the world thanks to American military,economic,technological and financial aid." - Albert

- Lebanon Albert? Israel is not attacking anyone in Lebanon. It briefly responded to a border incursion and raid by members of Hezbollah in 2006 in which two Israeli soldiers were kidnapped and a number of others died. Israel responded to some 15,000 rocket attacks based from South Lebanon. Had there been no raid, no kidnapping and no rocket attacks there would have been no Israeli action against Hezbollah.

- Gaza Albert? You mean the place from which rocket attacks are indiscriminately launched against Israeli civilians almost every day?

- Syria Albert? Oh the raid on the secret military facility parked way up there by the Turkish border. The raid that the Syrians and the North Koreans have been extremely quiet about. I must admit, judging by the satellite photographs, the "clean-up" operation mounted by the Syrians at the site in the aftermath of that raid was truly impressive. Now why would that be Albert?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,albert
Date: 26 May 08 - 01:29 AM

Back to Arnie...
Yes the Israelis did attack Syria with warplanes and high explosives just a few weeks ago.
Although there have been some kind of negotiations between Syria and Israel since then I think they will not amount to much as Syria wants the Golan Heights back and Israel wont give it up.So a further stand off there.
What is alarming in all this is the possibility of an American attack on Iran which will be Bush's parting gift to the world before he leaves office in November while Hillery Clinton said recently she had no problem with a US attack on Iran.
Meanwhile,Israel,the one nuclear stae in the Middle East continues to attack its neighbours in Lebanon ,Gaza and Syria and is one of the most powerful military force in the world thanks to American military,economic,technological and financial aid.
albert

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:41 PM

Re: Jewish Voice of Peace: In quoting this organization on May 25th, Emma B refers to it as "one of the largest Jewish American peace organizations." Well, I don't know what that subjective term means, and I had never previously heard of JVP (which of course is neither here nor there) so I visited their web site this evening.

JVP appears to be a group founded about a dozen years ago, which now has nine chapters in the country which includes three in northern California; it is headquartered in Oakland, CA. From the few pictures I found on their website, their rallies seem to draw rather sparse crowds. In fact, their description of one of their rallies mentions a crowd of 200-300 persons, which I would consider pretty small in todays' world of rallies.

One thing that struck me as a positive position is that JVP seems open to the possibility of a two state solution to the Israel/Palestine problem...although this is not their first option. That is a far more open position from that of many individuals and other organizations which blame Israel first.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Peace
Date: 25 May 08 - 07:38 PM

Looked at the numbers, Bobad. Seems like a fair fight to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Peace
Date: 25 May 08 - 07:37 PM

Dayan was a genius, imo. Small point: the French did not give the Mirage to Israel. Agents in France 'purloined' the design.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: bobad
Date: 25 May 08 - 07:32 PM

There is a concise synopsis of the Six Days War at this site http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/9999/6day1967.htm which appears to be a neutral military history site.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Peace
Date: 25 May 08 - 06:40 PM

Would someone besides you know who answer? I'd like to read the response. But not from that.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Peace
Date: 25 May 08 - 06:38 PM

Some anti-Israel person said earlier in the thread that the Six Day War was between Israel and Egypt. Pray tell, WHY were Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Algeria also involved--they sent troops and arms. And all in six days. They are marvels of organization by the looks of it. Wow. In just six days. I am amazed.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 08 - 05:46 PM

"The Israeli government's plan to invade Syria was announced by the chief of staff of the Israeli armed forces." - CarolC

Eh No it was not CarolC. High Ranking Staff Officers do not set Government Policy and have no authority to speak on matters of Government Policy. Immediately after making the remarks that he did make on Israeli Radio Rabin was rebuked by none other than the Prime Minister. Don't know about you CarolC but I reckon to be given a bollocking by a Prime Minister, you've got to have screwed up in a fairly major way.

There was no Israeli Government Plan to invade Syria and topple the Government.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 08 - 05:22 PM

To say that the 1967 six day was fought for the defence of Israeli aggression is the typical pathetic anti-Israeli view of real historical events.

Heh. Here we go with the anti-Israel stuff again.   This is an accusation that has no merit. It is used as a smear tactic in the absence of a legitimate argument.

Israel knew it could win militarily over Egypt only if could could take out a lot of their air force and tanks first in the impending inevitable conflict- otherwise they could just wait for the surrounding storm coming at their small state from all sides leading to their complete doom. Get over it and move on.

Egypt didn't want war with Israel. That's why the government of Egypt had scheduled to meet with the US government for talks and negotiations. Israel stepped up the timetable for its attack so that these talks could not take place. It did so because it wanted war. Syria did not want war, either. And Jordan did not want war. Israel did everything it possibly could, including bombing villages in Jordan and violating the DMZ between Israel and Syria in order to provoke a response from these countries to use as a pretext for war. Watch the video that I posted with the eyewitness account from the UN observer. They all knew that they were not in a position to win a war with Israel. Only Israel wanted war. And they knew they could win it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 08 - 05:09 PM

Thank you CarolC for confirming that no member of the Israeli Government announced any paln on the part of Israel to invade Syria and topple the Government of that country.

Therefore in future do not state that the Israeli Government threatened to invade Syria.

Ok.

The Israeli government's plan to invade Syria was announced by the chief of staff of the Israeli armed forces.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 25 May 08 - 04:00 PM

Albert - I suppose you know why they attacked that area in Syria recently? Just to start a war?- I don't think so. The Syrians were downright embarrased as to what was going on there, and the Israelis figured it out. Some North Koreans were killed in the strike , but the world didn't here much credible defence on their part or the Syrian part as to what they were doing there. As I said they are in peace negotiations with Syria now- something Hamas and Hezbolla don't seem to like too much.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 25 May 08 - 03:46 PM

To say that the 1967 six day was fought for the defence of Israeli aggression is the typical pathetic anti-Israeli view of real historical events. Israel knew it could win militarily over Egypt only if could could take out a lot of their air force and tanks first in the impending inevitable conflict- otherwise they could just wait for the surrounding storm coming at their small state from all sides leading to their complete doom. Get over it and move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,Albert
Date: 25 May 08 - 03:43 PM

Only a few months ago Israeli warplanes attacked Syria with high explosives and of course still occupies the Syrian Golan Height where I understand it has just built its first US style shopping mall.I am sure those Syrian who have been exiled from the Golan must be very impressed with the discounts and bargains!
Albert

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 08 - 03:10 PM

Thank you CarolC for confirming that no member of the Israeli Government announced any paln on the part of Israel to invade Syria and topple the Government of that country.

Therefore in future do not state that the Israeli Government threatened to invade Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 08 - 02:29 PM

GUEST,"Peace-bringer", are you an authority figure here in the Mudcat? If you are, I think you should identify yourself. If not, Joe has instructed us to discuss the subject of the thread and not the other people posting to the thread. Discussing me is pretty much the only thing you have done in this thread. We have been told that that is considered "combative" behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 08 - 01:19 PM

Waaay back you accused me of supporting ethnic cleansing. Of course, I don't. So you dipsy doodle along making stuff up as you go. You are a spiteful individual, and you cry foul when people return your vitriol in kind. In two words, die screaming. Why not, huh? It's what you wish for Isrealis.

Attempting to silence people who are speaking out against ethnic cleansing is a real and active form of support for ethnic cleansing. If you don't intend to support ethnic cleansing, stop trying to silence people who are speaking out against it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 08 - 01:17 PM

How about the fact that Egypt is clearly stating its hostile intent toward Israel? Which is rather at odds with your contention that Egypt's posture was purely defensive. Egypt is clearly under no threat from Israel. Egypt, according to you has massed its troops on Israel's borders in support of Syria, who you say has been threatened by Israel. So I presume that if Israel had attacked Syria, those Egyptian forces would have attacked Israel, in which case their deployment and positions could only have been geared towards the offensive not the defensive.

He did this on May 17th. Israel had already announced its plans to attack Syria and overthrow its government on May 11th. Since Egypt had a mutual defense agreement with Syria, Egypt was obligated to do what it could to assist. This is a defensive posture as is the US' assurances that it will come to Israel's aid if it is attacked.

How about the fact that Egypt had ordered the UN Peacekeepers out of Sinai? Now why would they do that if as you say their posture was defensive? Once more they factually and categorically state their intent to wage total war against Israel.

Egypt was posturing for deterrence purposes. Even the government of Israel took it as such.

The fact that Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran in contravention of international law. In doing so Egypt stood guilty of a belligerent act against a sovereign country recognised by the United Nations - I'd say that that was a pretty important fact wouldn't you CarolC.

This was done in response to Israel's announcement of its plans to attack Syria and overthrow its government. Attacking Syria and overthrowing its government is in contravention of international law. Announcing an intention to attack Syria (a sovereign country recognised by the United Nations), and overthrow its government was a belligerant act by Israel. Syria had a right to defend itself from such an attack, and Egypt had an obligation to assist in its defense.


The facts stated here are that Syria's armed forces are mobilised, in position and ready not only to defend against any Israeli attack but to invade Israel. By the way CarolC why is it right for Assad to state this as a recognised member of the Syrian Government, while it is reprehensible for an Israeli Army Officer (i.e. not a member of any government hence no real authority) to make a similar threat against Syria

This was the announcement by Yitzhak Rabin on May 11. At the time, he was the chief of staff of the Israeli armed forces. Assad was responding to Israel's stated intention to attack his country and overthrow its government. He had a right to defend his country. He also had a right to use whatever deterrents he could employ to prevent Israel from doing so, including verbal threats about what the consequences to Israel if it followed through on its announced plans.

"Yes, I dispute all of that, and they are not facts."

Are you attempting to convince people on this forum that those things did not happen? That those statements were not made? If you are then you must surely be delusional because all are well documented, recorded matters of fact.

Ok, I will rephrase. I dispute the idea that they support beardedbruce's contention, and they are random quotes in which whatever "facts" they are supposed to represent have not been identified by beardedbruce.

Really? Who exactly in the Israeli Government announced that Israel had decided to invade Syria and overthrow its government?

The chief of staff of the Israel armed forces. This from Wikipedia...

"Chiefs of staff typically have no personal or positional power of their own, acting only on behalf and with the authority of their superior."


But Israel didn't make any such announcement did it CarolC?

The chief of staff of the Israeli armed forces made the announcement on behalf of his superiors.


Jan -March 1967 - Over 270 border "incidents" cause rising concern in Israel.

Many of these "border incidents were instigated by Israel.

March 3rd 1967 - Landmine injures tractorist in Kibbutz Shamir. March 12, explosion on train tracks near Kibbutz Lahav.

I'd like to see some references for this incident that don't all come from the same source. When I google "kibbutz shamire" landmine 1967, and "kibbutz lahav" explosion "train tracks", the only references that come up are all with the exact same wording, and all of them from sources that one couldn't really call impartial.

March 26, 1967
2 Palestinians killed trying to demolish a water pump near Arad.

I can only find one reference to this, and it is one of the same sources from which the other events are listed.

April 7, 1967
Israelis respond to intensive Syrian shelling of DMZ and and Israeli villages and kibbutzim with IAF raid. An air battle involving about 130 aircraft developed. Israelis down 6 MiG 21 fighters, 2 over the Golan and 4 over Damascus.

Syria was not shelling the DMZ intensively. Israel was violating the DMZ by plowing it up with armored tractors and bulldozers, and approaching the Syrian border. As the armored tractors and bulldozers approached the Syrian border, Syrian forces fired on them. The UN observer in the video I posted in the other thread witnessed these events. He said that Israel was doing it deliberately to provoke the Syrians into responding so they could use the response as a pretext for attacking Syria.
   
May 11, 1967
Israeli PM Eshkol states, "In view of the 14 incidents in the past month alone it is possible that we will have to adopt measures no less drastic than those of April 7."

Pretexts.

UPI circulated a rumor (May 12) that Israel was trying to topple the Syrian regime. The incidents included shelling, terror attacks and attempted infiltration of a Syrian agent to blow up locations in Jerusalem.

UPI must have heard that Israel was trying to topple the Syrian regime from the chief if staff of the Israeli armed forces, acting on behalf of his superiors. And again, Israel conveniently leaves out the incidents for which it is itself responsible.

Account given by a UN observer who was there at the time...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4144954716305864975

May 12, 1967
Remarks by Yitzhak Rabin interpreted as provocative against Syria. Rabin (Not a member of the Israeli Government) is rebuked by Eshkol (Prime Minister of Israel and as such very much a member of the Israeli Government).

The chief of staff acts on behalf of his superiors, which include the Israeli government.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Peace
Date: 25 May 08 - 12:50 PM

Oh, Carol.

Waaay back you accused me of supporting ethnic cleansing. Of course, I don't. So you dipsy doodle along making stuff up as you go. You are a spiteful individual, and you cry foul when people return your vitriol in kind. In two words, die screaming. Why not, huh? It's what you wish for Isrealis.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 08 - 12:25 PM

Here's a link to the video with the former Israeli soldiers...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37MFa7ZKQWo&feature=related


This is how peace is going to be accomplished... by giving the Palestinians a voice for the first time and opening a window to the world on what is being done to them...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsesMjWkAl8&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 08 - 12:22 PM

Ok, CarolC, let's have a look at them one at a time.

"Do you then dispute ANY of the following facts???" - beardedbruce

May 17: Cairo Radio's Voice of the Arabs: "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."

What "fact" is contained in this quote for me to dispute or not dispute? - CarolC

How about the fact that Egypt is clearly stating its hostile intent toward Israel? Which is rather at odds with your contention that Egypt's posture was purely defensive. Egypt is clearly under no threat from Israel. Egypt, according to you has massed its troops on Israel's borders in support of Syria, who you say has been threatened by Israel. So I presume that if Israel had attacked Syria, those Egyptian forces would have attacked Israel, in which case their deployment and positions could only have been geared towards the offensive not the defensive.

May 18: Voice of the Arabs announces: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

"Again, what "fact" is contained in this quote for me to dispute or not dispute?" - CarolC

How about the fact that Egypt had ordered the UN Peacekeepers out of Sinai? Now why would they do that if as you say their posture was defensive? Once more they factually and categorically state their intent to wage total war against Israel.

May 18: Nasser announces blockade of Straits of Tiran in the Red Sea, severing Israel's southern maritime link to the outside world. Israel considers the closure an act of war. (US President Lyndon Johnson later says: "If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed.")

"What "fact" is beardedbruce stating here? Is it the fact that Nasser made an announcement, or that he blockaded the Straits of Tiran? Or is it that Johnson made that statement? Or that the statement that Johnson made is accurate?" - CarolC

The fact that Egypt blockaded the Straits of Tiran in contravention of international law. In doing so Egypt stood guilty of a belligerent act against a sovereign country recognised by the United Nations - I'd say that that was a pretty important fact wouldn't you CarolC.

May 20: Syria's defence minister (now president) Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..."

"Is the "fact" that el-Assad said what he did, or that that he had the military might to back it up?" - CarolC

The facts stated here are that Syria's armed forces are mobilised, in position and ready not only to defend against any Israeli attack but to invade Israel. By the way CarolC why is it right for Assad to state this as a recognised member of the Syrian Government, while it is reprehensible for an Israeli Army Officer (i.e. not a member of any government hence no real authority) to make a similar threat against Syria

May 27: Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

May 30: Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."

May 30: Jordan's King Hussein signs a five-year mutual defence pact with Egypt and the two set up a joint command, making clear its stance in any future conflict.

May 31: Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reports: "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."

May 31: Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."

June 4: Iraq joins Nasser's military alliance against Israel.

June 5: Six Day War begins: Israeli Airforce attacks airfields in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.

"Again, what is the "fact" in each of these that can either be disputed or not disputed?" - CarolC

Well you must know CarolC because didn't you say this:

"Yes, I dispute all of that, and they are not facts."

Are you attempting to convince people on this forum that those things did not happen? That those statements were not made? If you are then you must surely be delusional because all are well documented, recorded matters of fact.

"Now here is the fly in the ointment CarolC, because it wasn't just Egypt was it? Egypt's rhetoric was extremely belligerent because Nasser had put together a coalition of Arab Armies and had got them drawn up and fully mobilised on Israel's borders. A combined enemy force of some 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft, positioned as it was on your borders poses an undeniable threat CarolC, irrespective of how confident you might be in the capability of your own troops." - Teribus

"Except that Israel had already announced its decision to invade Syria and overthrow its government (documentation in the other thread)." - CarolC

Really? Who exactly in the Israeli Government announced that Israel had decided to invade Syria and overthrow its government?

"Egypt's mobilizing of forces on its border happened after Israel made this announcement." - CarolC

But Israel didn't make any such announcement did it CarolC?

"Egypt and Syria were responding to this announcement from Israel. They were in the defensive posture in response to Israel's announcement that it was going to attack Syria and overthrow its government." - CarolC

Complete and utter bunkum CarolC.

Now how do you explain the following, could this in any way be described as provocation?:

Jan -March 1967 - Over 270 border "incidents" cause rising concern in Israel.

March 3rd 1967 - Landmine injures tractorist in Kibbutz Shamir. March 12, explosion on train tracks near Kibbutz Lahav.

March 26, 1967
2 Palestinians killed trying to demolish a water pump near Arad.

April 7, 1967
Israelis respond to intensive Syrian shelling of DMZ and and Israeli villages and kibbutzim with IAF raid. An air battle involving about 130 aircraft developed. Israelis down 6 MiG 21 fighters, 2 over the Golan and 4 over Damascus.
   
May 11, 1967
Israeli PM Eshkol states, "In view of the 14 incidents in the past month alone it is possible that we will have to adopt measures no less drastic than those of April 7."

UPI circulated a rumor (May 12) that Israel was trying to topple the Syrian regime. The incidents included shelling, terror attacks and attempted infiltration of a Syrian agent to blow up locations in Jerusalem.

May 12, 1967
Remarks by Yitzhak Rabin interpreted as provocative against Syria. Rabin (Not a member of the Israeli Government) is rebuked by Eshkol (Prime Minister of Israel and as such very much a member of the Israeli Government).

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 08 - 12:04 PM

It's a good step, GUEST, but as long as people continue to use the old lies as an excuse to justify the continuation of what is being done to the Palestinians (and there have been many right here in the Mudcat), the problem will not be solved.

Go back and watch the videos I've posted links to. In one of them, former members of the Israeli military are saying that the only way for this situation to be resolved is for people to speak up about it. They are saying that the situation is driven by US public opinion. US public opinion will never change from that of continuing to give Israel unconditional support no matter what it is doing to the Palestinians if people aren't ever exposed to the truth. These former soldiers are saying that Israelis don't know what is being done to the Palestinians in their name, and that if they did know about it, they wouldn't stand for it. I believe them. They are in a position to know. And they are saying that we in the US need to get the word out about the reality in occupied Palestine and to pressure our politicians to stop supporting Israel unconditionally. This is what is needed in order for the problem to be solved.

South African apartheid, and slavery and segregation in the US were eliminated in just this way. Silence about what was being done to Blacks in these situations did not bring about the end to these institutions. It was people speaking up about them that ended them. It is no different with this situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 08 - 11:44 AM

I support the work of all people who are trying to bring humans together, without lines, (1967 or 2008) religions, history, lists of previous wrong doings, occupations, or bombs dropped. This situation will never heal whilst there are those who will not let things settle. The past is past. The people of the present have to heal, so that the people of the future can live their lives in peace. No lines should be drawn in the sand, nor walls built. The land belongs to all.

The past is not the past as long as the lies are still being told and they are still being used as an excuse to withhold any kind of human rights from the Palestinians. The continuing use of these lies to promote the agenda of removing the Palestinians from occupied Palestine drags the past kicking and screaming into the future. The Palestinians of the present cannot heal until Israel stops what it is doing to them and leaves them alone.

We are people, first and foremost, before we are 'religions'. When the day comes that Jew can take the hand of Muslim, and Muslim the hand of Jew, and realise their hands are exactly the same, then we will be getting somewhere.

They could do it now. All of the Arab countries in the region would love to shake the hands of the leaders of Israel over an agreement for Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders. It's not because of hatred of Jews that the problem exists. It's because of Israel's expansionist policies that the problem exists.

Exactly. That is what 'peace' was saying, I believe.

I disagree. Peace has been attacking people who speak out for human rights for Palestinians for a very long time.

This needs "a solution for humans" , as he stated. Remove the word 'Palestinian' or 'Jew' and see how easy the solution becomes.

This is irrelevant to anything I have said, because I don't frame it in terms of Palestinian or Jew. Peace does frame it this way, and that is a big part of why what he is doing is an attack. I frame it in terms of the government of Israel and the Zionist leadership (and their supporters), and the people who do not support the government of Israel and the Zionist leadership. Nevertheless, you show me how removing the word "Palestinian" from the equation stops Israel's expansionist policy.

No, everything will only fall into place once both sides recognise that at different times, both have been wrong, and both have been right. The sooner that is accepted and all the humans involved in this sad story are able to see each other as brothers, not enemies, the better it will be for all.

How can it if Israel is denying the Palestinians any citizenship to any country or any human rights whatever. For you to say this is like saying that the solution to apartheid in South Africa or slavery or segregation in the US south was to see that both sides have been wrong at different times and to be able to see the Whites in those countries as brothers. I tell you what. Watch the videos that I have posted links to in this thread. You tell me how what you are proposing is going to stop the house demolitions, the theft of land, the appropriation of water resources, the denial of movement of goods and people from one part of occupied Palestine to another, the settler attacks, the IDF forces urinating on the roofs of Palestinian houses and on Palestinians who are walking down the street. You tell me how the Palestinians can forget this situation that is crushing the very life out of them and their society as we speak, by seeing the people who are doing this to them as anything other than enemies.

Israel has been wrong, Palestine has been wrong. You can either argue about it, for eternity, or move on, to peace

You talk about it like it's in the past. It isn't. The Palestinians are living under apartheid right now. And this is what is making peace impossible. You can't ethnically cleanse a people and expect them to not react in a way that you don't like. I know you wouldn't put up with what they are being subjected to. Why should they?

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 08 - 11:16 AM

Why do not other Arab states offer citizenship to Palestinians who have lived within their borders for three generations?

Because it is illegal under international law and the UN charter for Israel to not allow these people to return to their homes.

Why disrupt every effort to find a peacefull solution?

All of the Arab countries in the region have said that they will make peace with Israel if Israel will withdraw to the pre-1967 borders. Since the pre-1967 borders are the only legal ones under international law and the UN charter, their position is the reasonable (and legal) one. So in this case, it is Israel that is disrupting every effort to find a peaceful solution.

Keeping the Palestinians confined to tiny bantustans, unable to move from village to village, or to access their orchards or other places where they make their livelihood, or to visit their family in other villages, or to use their own water resources does not produce peace. Sorry, but I know that if someone was doing that to you or your loved ones, you wouldn't stand for it. Why should they?


Why does Israel not withdraw from all those damn settlements as they promised?...

The answer my friend, is blown in the wind!

The answer is because they are in the process of ethnically cleansing all of the Palestinians from occupied Palestine. The reason they need to do this is to preserve their "demographic". If they annex the West Bank and East Jerusalem while there is still a Palestinian majority in those areas, they will lose the Jewish majority in Israel. So they have to coerce the Palestinians into leaving so that they can annex the Palestinians' areas and make them a part of Israel without upsetting their demographic.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: goatfell
Date: 25 May 08 - 11:09 AM

Children please this is how wars are started I mean look at the middle east

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 08 - 11:04 AM

Ok, Teribus, let's have a look at them one at a time.


Do you then dispute ANY of the following facts???

May 17: Cairo Radio's Voice of the Arabs: "All Egypt is now prepared to plunge into total war which will put an end to Israel."

What "fact" is contained in this quote for me to dispute or not dispute?


May 18: Voice of the Arabs announces: "As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

Again, what "fact" is contained in this quote for me to dispute or not dispute?


May 18: Nasser announces blockade of Straits of Tiran in the Red Sea, severing Israel's southern maritime link to the outside world. Israel considers the closure an act of war. (US President Lyndon Johnson later says: "If a single act of folly was more responsible for this explosion than any other it was the arbitrary and dangerous announced decision that the Straits of Tiran would be closed.")

What "fact" is beardedbruce stating here? Is it the fact that Nasser made an announcement, or that he blockaded the Straits of Tiran? Or is it that Johnson made that statement? Or that the statement that Johnson made is accurate?

May 20: Syria's defence minister (now president) Hafez el-Assad says: "Our forces are now ready not only to repulse the aggression but to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united ..."

Is the "fact" that el-Assad said what he did, or that that he had the military might to back it up?

May 27: Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

May 30: Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."

May 30: Jordan's King Hussein signs a five-year mutual defence pact with Egypt and the two set up a joint command, making clear its stance in any future conflict.

May 31: Egyptian newspaper Al Akhbar reports: "Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery, co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria, is in a position to cut Israel in two ..."

May 31: Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."

June 4: Iraq joins Nasser's military alliance against Israel.

June 5: Six Day War begins: Israeli Airforce attacks airfields in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.

Again, what is the "fact" in each of these that can either be disputed or not disputed?


Now here is the fly in the ointment CarolC, because it wasn't just Egypt was it? Egypt's rhetoric was extremely belligerent because Nasser had put together a coalition of Arab Armies and had got them drawn up and fully mobilised on Israel's borders. A combined enemy force of some 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft, positioned as it was on your borders poses an undeniable threat CarolC, irrespective of how confident you might be in the capability of your own troops.

Except that Israel had already announced its decision to invade Syria and overthrow its government (documentation in the other thread). Egypt's mobilizing of forces on its border happened after Israel made this announcement. Egypt and Syria were responding to this announcement from Israel. They were in the defensive posture in response to Israel's announcement that it was going to attack Syria and overthrow its government.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,Peace-bringer
Date: 25 May 08 - 10:58 AM

"Let me ask you this "Peace-bringer"... do you support the idea of Israel withdrawing to the pre-1967 lines?"

I support the work of all people who are trying to bring humans together, without lines, (1967 or 2008) religions, history, lists of previous wrong doings, occupations, or bombs dropped. This situation will never heal whilst there are those who will not let things settle. The past is past. The people of the present have to heal, so that the people of the future can live their lives in peace. No lines should be drawn in the sand, nor walls built. The land belongs to all.

We are people, first and foremost, before we are 'religions'. When the day comes that Jew can take the hand of Muslim, and Muslim the hand of Jew, and realise their hands are exactly the same, then we will be getting somewhere. It is, of course, already happening, but the powers that be choose to focus on the bad, not the good, thus continuing the tragedy on both sides. If the media focussed upon the wonderful things that are happening, then that good feeling would spread far and wide.

"The solution for the Palestinian humans is also the solution for everyone else."

Exactly. That is what 'peace' was saying, I believe. This needs "a solution for humans" , as he stated. Remove the word 'Palestinian' or 'Jew' and see how easy the solution becomes.

However, you then go on to once again, bring in blame.

"Until this problem is addressed, none of the other problems will be solved. This one is the linchpin. The problem is Israel's expansionist policies. These policies are creating instability and wars and violence all throughout the Middle East. This is the problem that needs to be corrected. Once that happens, everything else falls into place."

No, everything will only fall into place once both sides recognise that at different times, both have been wrong, and both have been right. The sooner that is accepted and all the humans involved in this sad story are able to see each other as brothers, not enemies, the better it will be for all.

Israel has been wrong, Palestine has been wrong. You can either argue about it, for eternity, or move on, to peace. You state your words above, I could also state the Palestinian leaders have been training children to hate and kill, and so the 'blame' would go on, ad infinitum. There is much wrong in all of this, on both sides, driven by extremists, who revel in hatred, and in keeping that hatred alive. It is the ordinary people who need to win this war, and they need to win it peacefully.   

It cannot be a 'You stop first' situation. It can only be "We both stop together'

This hatred can only be stopped by love.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 25 May 08 - 10:51 AM

Palestinian suffering has been terrible for far too long but Israel has only been a part of the problem. Other Arab and Persian states in the area have fanned the flames for their own reasons disrupting all peace efforts. Others such as the defunct Soviet Union played the deadly game from a safe distance.
Why do not other Arab states offer citizenship to Palestinians who have lived within their borders for three generations? Why disrupt every effort to find a peacefull solution? Why does Israel not withdraw from all those damn settlements as they promised? Why does any country arm in the middle east?
The answer my friend, is blown in the wind!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Teribus
Date: 25 May 08 - 10:29 AM

So CarolC, from your post of 25 May 08 - 09:14 AM in reply to points posed to you in my post of 25 May 08 - 06:52 AM we can take it then that you were in error when you stated in response to the question

Do you then dispute ANY of the following facts???" - beardedbruce

"Yes, I dispute all of that, and they are not facts." – CarolC

Now as to your contention that in 1967 - "it's a fact that Egypt's military capabilities did not pose a threat to Israel. It's also a fact that the Israeli government and military knew that fact,"

Yes I'd agree with that, and I am sure that most of the IDF Senior Commanders of that time would agree with you. I am totally convinced that in the event of hostilities breaking out the Israeli military would be confident that they could beat Egypt.

Now here is the fly in the ointment CarolC, because it wasn't just Egypt was it? Egypt's rhetoric was extremely belligerent because Nasser had put together a coalition of Arab Armies and had got them drawn up and fully mobilised on Israel's borders. A combined enemy force of some 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft, positioned as it was on your borders poses an undeniable threat CarolC, irrespective of how confident you might be in the capability of your own troops.

In June 1967 the Israelis were faced with the same problem Napoleon had in 1815, he was confident that with his Army he could defeat those who opposed him - but only if he could face them one at a time. To orchestrate that you must ensure that you direct events, you must take and hold the initiative, hence Napoleon's surprise advance through Charleroi on June 14th 1815, and the Israeli Air strikes of June 5th 1967.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:48 AM

My grandfather's entire town's Jewish population was sent to Tremblinka and perished- does that give me some kind of credential too?

Finkelstein is no friend of Israel. Scholarly and in favor of Palestinian terrorist methods to achieve their goals equals not friendly. That's not too hard to figure out. I think Israel should welcome with open arms those who speak of peace methods to resolve the issue, whoever they may be, or whatever happened to their parents.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:29 AM

If Canada, a soverign nation, were to allow a terrorist group to set up camp in southern Ontario, and they used that base to launch rockets at Detroit what would be the response of the USA? If Canada refused or was unable to control them would the USA invade and if so would it be justified? Would they call bombing Detroit an act of war?
This is the basket case that is the middle east.
If your neighbours don't throw rocks at your house, perhaps you won't feel the need to to throw bricks at theirs!

I think this analogy is not very accurate. I think a more accurate analogy would be this: if someone is standing on your neck with a big old boot, you're going to do whatever you can to try to get it off, even if it means jabbing your fountain pen in his leg. The guy with the boot would be Israel and the guy under his foot would be the Palestinians.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,albert
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:19 AM

I would like to add some comments about American academic Norman Finkelstein who has just been deprted from Israel for criticising Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and other neighbbouring countries.

Finkelstein's mother who came from an ultra orthodox background was a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto and also survived the Majdanek Death camp and two other slave camps.

Her first husband who was also in the Ghetto died in the war.Her second husband,father to Norman, survived Auschwitz. All his relatives were killed in the Holocaust.

Finkelstein is hated by the Zionists for many reasons notably his defence of the Palestinian people and their right to resist Israeli attacks and oppression.

He was also the author of a study which demolished claims that Palestine was an empty or near empty land when the Zionists took over....although this mention of his work does no justice to the scholarly book that he published.
Albert

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:14 AM

Teribus, it's a fact that Egypt's military capabilities did not pose a threat to Israel. It's also a fact that the Israeli government and military knew that fact, Egypt's rhetoric notwithstanding. The documentation is in the thread I linked to.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:07 AM

Guest, Peace-bringer, how are you able to post under multiple user names and not have your posts get deleted?

As I stated above, perhaps signing up to one of the Peace Organisations would be a better thing to. You obviously have a great deal of knowledge and passion, as do others. Do not waste or abuse that passion, in making false accusations.

As far as I am concerned, I have not made any false accusations. Your accusation, however, I do consider false.

They did not call you that, Carol. I have looked through every single post above, and nowhere have these posters used the words you have claimed they have, to you, or to anyone else. They have, however, disagreed with you. If I have overlooked the post(s) you are talking about, then perhaps you could put them in for me.

The terminology isn't always exactly the same, but the meaning is...

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Peace - PM
Date: 24 May 08 - 04:36 PM

These anti-Israel folks do NOT care about humans. Only those they think are human. And from their posts, it's obvious they think Jews are not worthy of the same consideration they feel the Palestinians should have. Will they speak against Hezbollah or Hamas? NO! For to do so would not be in their game plan because they would then have to admit that the people representing the Palestinian people are fu#king murderers. If I knew how to do the spit word in writing, it would go here.


Subject: RE: BS: Israel's Next War.
From: Peace - PM
Date: 11 May 08 - 07:07 PM

I'd suggest that the thread be completely abandoned by people who don't hate Israel or Jews. Then the people who do will be able to have reasoned discourse amongst themselves

(This last one implies that anyone who continues to discuss the subject hates Israel and Jews.)

In response to this from me...

"But the fact is, those people went on to become the government of Israel. So should we hold all Israelis responsible for their terrorist government? No, we shouldn't. That would be racist. As is holding all of the Palestinians in Gaza responsible for Hamas."

He posted this...

YOUR racism is showing, lady. Make it parallel."


There were also several on a thread that got deleted and on other threads, but I don't think Joe wants me going back and quoting all of them here in this thread.


I've already said why I am focusing on what Israel is doing and not on what Hamas and Hezbollah are doing. You can see it for yourself right here in this thread. My reason is because focusing on Hamas and Hezbolla won't solve the problem. Their existence is a response to the problem. We can see what the problem is when people say (as has been said in this thread by at least one poster) that they support an independent state for the Palestinians, but when asked if they think Israel should withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, there is no answer. Such people say they support a Palestinian state, but they don't. They are only paying lip service to a Palestinian state. What such people really want is for Israel to continue exactly as it's doing, but they want to be able to claim the moral high ground by saying they "support" an independent state for the Palestinians.

Let me ask you this "Peace-bringer"... do you support the idea of Israel withdrawing to the pre-1967 lines?

It's not peace that you are bringing, "Peace-bringer". It is suppression of the truth. A great libel and a great injustice has been committed against the Palestinians. Until this is addressed and corrected, there won't be any peace in the Middle East. This is why in South Africa, they have a "Truth and Reconciliation" policy. Reconciliation isn't possible as long as the truth is being suppressed.

With regard to this from Peace that you quoted...

And until such time as you demonstrate in your posts that what you seek is a solution for humans, not just Palestinian human

The solution for the Palestinian humans is also the solution for everyone else. Until this problem is addressed, none of the other problems will be solved. This one is the linchpin. The problem is Israel's expansionist policies. These policies are creating instability and wars and violence all throughout the Middle East. This is the problem that needs to be corrected. Once that happens, everything else falls into place.


As I stated above, perhaps signing up to one of the Peace Organisations would be a better thing to.

Not necessarily. There are many ways people can make a difference. Helping to bring the truth to the surface is as valid a way to help as any other. Without people doing this, the problem will never be solved, because the kinds of lies that have been and are being told about the Palestinians and Israel's neighbors spread hatred, and they also are being used to justify Israel continuing to do whatever it wants to whomever it wants.

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 25 May 08 - 08:57 AM

If Canada, a soverign nation, were to allow a terrorist group to set up camp in southern Ontario, and they used that base to launch rockets at Detroit what would be the response of the USA? If Canada refused or was unable to control them would the USA invade and if so would it be justified? Would they call bombing Detroit an act of war?
This is the basket case that is the middle east.
If your neighbours don't throw rocks at your house, perhaps you won't feel the need to to throw bricks at theirs!

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,David
Date: 25 May 08 - 08:51 AM

To hear and see Prof Finkelstein in his own words discuss the situation in Lebanon and Israel go to LIVELEAK and type his name into the search box at the top of the page.
He is a stern and outspoken critic of the attack on Lebanon and a defender of the right to resist such an attack.
David

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: Emma B
Date: 25 May 08 - 08:27 AM

A call from
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), one of the largest American Jewish peace organizations dedicated to promoting an American foreign policy in the Middle East based on democracy, human rights, and respect for international law

'Although Israel supposedly disengaged from Gaza more than two years ago, its 1.5 million residents have been under a near total siege since June 2007. Gaza's borders — land, air and sea — are controlled by Israel. All major entry and exit points have been sealed, making it almost impossible for residents to work. Access to vaccines, dairy products, fresh foods and clean water have been severely limited since June 2006, when Israel shelled Gaza's main electric power generator.

In September of this year (2007), the humanitarian crisis deepened when the Israeli Cabinet authorized further cuts of fuel and electricity. Israel justified this move by saying it was a response to Qassam rockets fired into Israel by militants in Gaza. But Israel's actions amount to collective punishment of civilians — a violation of international law.

In just the past four months, 10 Gazans have died as a direct result of being denied medical attention, a basic human right. As one young Palestinian mother, Laila el-Haddad, wrote in her blog: "We are prisoners constantly waiting and helplessly hoping for decisions to be made that determine whether (we) live or die — both figuratively and literally."

The situation in the West Bank is not much better. Residents there are subject to daily humiliations at hundreds of checkpoints throughout their territory. In addition, Israel continues to build the Separation Wall, which cuts Palestinians off from each other. It also continues to expand settlements on expropriated Palestinian land, despite the supposed freeze on such activity. In September, Israel took over a five-square-mile area in the West Bank, east of Jerusalem, where it plans to build 3,500 houses, a hotel and an industrial park.'


BUT
.. it doesn't have to be this way.

Jews of conscience must speak out against human rights abuses committed by Israel in our name.

As American citizens who end up funding the Israeli occupation through our taxes, we also are obligated to speak up and act.

There are a number of ways to directly help people in Palestine. One can donate to organizations that provide humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, such as Middle East Children's Alliance, or join local groups like Madison Friends of Jewish Voice for Peace or the Madison-Rafah Sister City Project.'

Subject: RE: BS: Palestinian 'facts'
From: GUEST,Arnie
Date: 25 May 08 - 08:26 AM

I have heard Norman Finkelstein. His hatred for Zionism is equal to or exceeds yours Albert except that he publicly states his wishes that the Israeli state lose a future military conflict in a big way and be overthrown and eliminated. He went there to espouse hate speeches, not to live, and as a visiting guest to any country this is not necessarily a right to enter. It was most likely a publicity stunt because he knew he'd be turned away, and now Albert and company can make propaganda of it all, especially because he is Jewish.