BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 22 Jun 02 - 08:24 PM

check out this site: http://www.hcef.org/news/news/index.cfm/dsp/newsview/itemid/738.htm

This is a story about how the new head of the Presbyterian Church in USA is a Palestinian...but there is a place to register for emails. It has more of a religious than a political focus, but of course politics is there. But it is from the Christian perspective and you do get a fairly good idea of what is going on in the Christian community there..which is highly diverse...including Greek Orthodox, evangelical Christians, Lutherans etc. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jun 02 - 06:10 PM

Like most parables, the fairness one can be applied in different ways. The point it's making is that changing the numbers in a lie doesn't stop it being a lie.

There are a lot of numbers thrown about in the stories about how things got to the state they are now in the Holy Land - numbers like the estimated number of people living in Palestine back in the 1920s, and the number of refugees who fled their homes in 1948, and the numbers who left "voluntarily", and the numbers of civilians killed on both sides over the last few years.

The numbers argued up and down and round and round. But in the last resort, they aren't important.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 02 - 05:56 PM

On the fairness parable, I would just like to say that that one cuts both ways. An untruth is an untruth whether it is uttered by Arabs or by Israelis. Fairness means that we all live by the same standards. We can't hold others to one standard and ourselves to an entirelly different standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 02 - 05:39 PM

Thanks Deda.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: Deda
Date: 22 Jun 02 - 05:37 PM

Carol, I think that you and I come at this subject from extremely different positions, from nearly opposite corners many times, but I do appreciate being able to read your posts and post back, and I don't think we've ever picked at each other personally. Thanks for that. I think that is very valuable, one of the things that I treasure about the general discussion threads Mudcat threads. Because I have an Israeli daughter and grandson and many former in-laws living there, I get the Israeli perspective, and I understand it. It seems crystal clear to me that Israel is defending itself and its right to exist, and we can discuss that, and the history that got us where we are, and whose misbehavoiors or misconceptions are worse. But it is not about you, nor me, nor any of the posters. It behooves us all to remember that, imho.

(Robomatic - I really like the fairness parable!)

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 02 - 03:16 PM

It's pretty obvious to me that I don't stand a chance matching wits with two such towering intellects as yourself, GUEST, and our friend Lawrence here. I concede the playing field to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Jun 02 - 02:45 PM

Good one Lawrence. LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 02 - 02:33 PM

Good night Lawrence.

Subject: A limerick
From: GUEST,Lawrence Lauriate
Date: 22 Jun 02 - 02:24 PM

There was a Mudcat woman named CarolC

To her Israel was a heresy

She posted her links

And now we all thinks

That CarolC and Yassir married will be

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: GUEST,native
Date: 22 Jun 02 - 12:45 PM

I just heard a rumor that U.S. troops were with the Esrailis when then went into Jenin,and blocked theU.N. from going in. I would like info. on this

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 02 - 12:24 PM

Thanks Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jun 02 - 12:03 PM

Anything that makes you happy, Carol. It is retracted.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jun 02 - 09:28 AM

How about a retraction of this...

It appears to me you have locked in on your position, and because your "research as been quite extensive," you are unwilling to listen to the opinions of others.

And then, try to understand that if I don't answer you to the extent that you would like, there's a reason for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 11:44 PM

I said I thought you were right! What more do you want?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 11:05 PM

DougR, I'll lay it out to you in the starkest terms I can think of, so maybe you'll understand and not give me a hard time about it.

In my research, I found a lot of things, many of them from sources no one can question, that I found very disturbing. I decided several weeks ago that I wanted to try to avoid posting links to these things to whatever extent I could, because I don't think it would be very constuctive for me to post them at this time. But it would be necessary for me to post them in order to answer you and robomatic. This information is available to anyone who makes the effort to find it, so you don't need me to do it for you.

If you are a compassionate person as you say you think you are, you won't pressure me to post them. There's a big difference between carrying on a healthy debate and tormenting someone. Am I being clear enough for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 10:53 PM

Good night, CArol? It's not even 8:00 P.M. yet. It appears to me you have locked in on your position, and because your "research as been quite extensive," you are unwilling to listen to the opinions of others.

Okie dokie. You're right. Feel better?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 08:26 PM

All I can say robomatic, is that the "facts" as you understand them are not at all consistant with the documentation that I have seen on the subject. And my research has been quite extensive. Some of the most disturbing things I have seen, and that prove most of the prevailing rhetoric embraced by the government of Israel false, is in the form of de-classified Israeli government documents.

I really am trying to stay out of a back and forth argument over the specifics. I don't see that it would serve any purpose at this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 08:13 PM

Carol:

I suggest you are confusing the word 'truth' with 'opinion'. I do not claim to be 100% right nor to have 100% of the truth. But I have made several assertions of opinion based on my understanding (and interpretation) of some basic facts that we can all agree on. Among these are the facts that Israel has negotiated with nation states where it has been found possible to (Egypt and Jordan). I think you have either misunderstood my posts or simply ignored them as logical arguments. This is okay. I don't claim to have a 100% lock on logic either.

That there have been negotiations between Israel and the putative government of the Palestinians.

That for most of the last 2,000 years the land that was called Palestine, now Israel, was under somebody's boot, be it Babylonian, Roman, Ottoman, or British.

I don't think it's right that so many Jews had to leave Arab lands to be resettled in Israel. But they did and they are there.

I don't think it's right that so many Arabs had to leave Israel and have been refused settlement in Arab lands. Israel has in fact a substantial pre-1967 Arab population of Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

There seems to be a one-sided view on the part of the Arab nations and many Europeans as well that everyone has the right to live in Israel, but Jews don't have a right to live anywhere else in the vicinity.

You are not wrong to advocate basic human rights for the Palestinians. And you are correct that to this day there are Jewish Israelis still advocating for them. I suggest that you broaden your advocacy to end the campaign of hate and slander which is waged in the Arab world with a viciousness that is not matched on the Israeli side.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - My fairness parable:

Almost immediately after 9-11, an incredible fiction began to circulate across the Islamic world (including the U.S.) claiming that the tragedy was the work of Israel, and that 4,000 Jews didn't show up for work on that fatal Tuesday.

This is the extreme response: "That was a total fabrication. It is untrue. It didn't happen and those who assert that it did not happen are liars."

Here is the 'fair' response: "Let's agree to call it 2,000."

My point is that there is a sort of fairness which accepts and propagates lies. That is what we are facing in the Arab world (for the most part) and what we are seeing in Europe. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - It is by accepting untruths that we open the door to the real terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 08:01 PM

Good night, Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 07:52 PM

I think it's a question of what is truth, Carol. You feel very strongly that you are presenting a truthful report based on information you have researched. Your facts, however, are called into question by Warren, who has presented what he considers to be truthful facts.

I have not done the extensive research you have done, but the facts, as Warren has presented them reflect the history of that region as I remember it, and he presented it without seemingly taking one side or the other.

"Palestine is and was the home of the Palestinians for centuries, if not millenia." That is a statement you present as truth. However, isn't the establishment of Palestine as a state part of what this controversy is all about? So how could it have been in existence "for centuries if not millenia?"

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 07:32 PM

One last thing (I hope). It really doesn't make any sense to me that people are attacking me and others who are presenting a different picture of the reality in the middle east than the one that is officially sanctioned by the government of Israel. Do those of you who are attacking me really think I'm all that much of a threat?

The truth is a scary boogyman as long as it's kept under the bed or in a closet. It's in setting the truth free that we set ourselves free. And it's only possible to go so far when we've got one foot planted firmly on the neck of another. If we hold others down, we also hold ourselves down in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 06:25 PM

No, Warren. That's not true. Most of them are by mainstream media outlets and Jewish human rights organizations. I don't think you serve anyone's interests by trying to conduct a smear campaign suggesting anti-Semitism against anyone who disagrees with you. After a while, the charge of anti-Semitism loses it's credibility if it is misused in this way.

And, I would suggest that it is as racist as any other form of racism to suggest that anyone who disagrees with Jews is an anti-Semite. And it's just plain hateful, nasty, and evil-minded as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: GUEST,Warren Webber
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 06:15 PM

From 1948 until 1967, the Palestinian territory of Gaza was part of Egypt. The Palestinian territories on the West Bank were part of Jordan.

During that entire time, there was absolutely no effort by the Arabs to create a Palestinian state. They could have done so at any time until 1967 but did not.

In 1967, in defence against the combined armies of numerous Arab countries, Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria, The West Bank from Jordan and Gaza and the Sinai from Egypt.

Israel and Egypt made peace in the 1970's. Israel gave back the Sinai and dismantled its settlements there. Egypt did not want Gaza back.

Israel and Jordan made peace in the 1990s. Jordan did not want the West Bank back.

Egypt and Jordan could have reclaimed those territories and then created a Palestinian state.

BTW, I've looked at many of CarolC's sites. Most of them are propaganda sites maintained by anti-Zionists, some are blatantly anti-Jewish.

Warren Webber Milwaukee

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 06:10 PM

There has never been a Palestinian state as such

This is using words to make a point that is entirely irrelevant to the issue. Palestine is and was the home of the Palestinians for centuries if not millenia. Just because didn't have an established "state" does not in any way invalidate their rightful claim to the homes and farms they lived in and tended for so long.

A Jewish minority might not be a problem if it weren't in the form of an aparthied state in which the Palestinians are forced into tiny bantustans with most of their water taken by Israel for it's own use, and the use of the settlers, and with high speed access roads (accessible only to the settlers) cutting up the territory and rendering it extremely difficult if not impossible for the Palestinians to have any mobility at all.

And with countless checkpoints where they are subjected to humiliation and even physical harm, and though which they are only allowed to pass at the whim of the guard at the checkpoint. Babies have died because as they were being born, the laboring mother was denied access to hospitals by virtue of being not allowed to pass through the checkpoints. Would you want to have to live like that? I can certainly understand why they wouldn't. I know I wouldn't like it at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 05:57 PM

No, robomatic. I'm not asserting anything without documentation. But I've already posted so much documentation in this forum on this subject, I feel that it would be redundant for me to post it all again. If you want to see the documentation I have provided in other threads, I would suggest doing a search on my name and reading the threads with titles pertaining to this subject.

Suffice it to say, there is a tremendous amount of credible documentation, much of it from Israeli Jews, and even declassified Israeli government documents, all of which proves that you have got your historical facts very, very wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 05:49 PM

CarolC you seem to be wandering all over the place and asserting that anything you say is the truth because you assert it. There has never been a Palestinian state as such, and Jordan contains so many Palestinians that King Hussein had a small war against them to maintain political control of his country. And even if there is to be a Palestinian state of sorts in what is now called the West Bank, why not have it encompass Jews as a minority just the way Israel has Arab Christians and Muslims as a minority.

By the way, I believe the previous government operating in that area as a nation-state, was a Jewish one, incorporating many minorities. It worked okay until invaded by a vastly more powerful empire.

Whatever Palestinian public opinion might be (on the day of polling) the one thing Israel wanted them to KNOW was that Israel would defend herself. I suspect that Israel does not place as much emphasis on their opinion about it. (That of course was my opinion).

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 06:25 AM

Looks like you're twisting the truth a bit there GUEST. According to the polls you mentioned, the recent incursions into the occupied territories actually caused an increase in radicalization among Palestinians. So the survey you cite shows pretty conclusively that the Israeli government's policies toward the Palestinians has caused the increase in terrorism.

Just as I said it would.

Effects of Israeli incursion policy on Palestinian public opinion

* The recent Israeli incursion policy influenced Palestinian public opinion on various levels. The Israeli incursions caused an increase in support for Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, Fateh Movement and Hamas Movement, while causing a decrease in support for the Palestinian Authority, security agencies and negotiations.

In answering a question on how did the incursion raids influence your position of the following,
38.4 percent said it increased their support of President Arafat as opposed to 34.2 percent who said their support of Arafat decreased.
42.7 percent increased their support of Fateh, while 26 percent decreased their support.
58.9 percent increased their support of Hamas, while 13.1 percent decreased their support.
65.6 percent increased their support to suicide operations, while 14.8 percent decreased their support.
16 percent increased their support for the Palestinian Authority, while 49.1 percent decreased their support.
16.7 percent increased their support of the security agencies, while 52.2 decreased their support.
12.3 percent increased their support of negotiations with Israeli, while 60.6 percent decreased their support.

* Those interviewed were divided on their opinions towards the performance of Palestinian Authority institutions during the incursions wherein 44.5 percent considered that within the limited capabilities it was not possible for the institutions to work better, while 43.3 percent considered the performance of these institutions during the incursion disappointing. Only 6.4 percent considered the performance at its best. There was a more positive evaluation of Arafat's performance during the incursion when 27.7 percent said his performance was good and 14.4 percent said it was bad. Meanwhile, 26 percent said Arafat's performance was medium (in between).

http://www.jmcc.org/publicpoll/results/2002/no45.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 12:13 AM

Isn't Jordan the Hashemite Kingdom? They took in many many Palestinians and gave them Jordanian passports.

I think most clear thinking people would agree that the Palestinians right now can not possibly manage a state on their own. There is too much internal as well as external terrorism...the thugs are terrorizing their own people and corruption is rampant. The thugs have to go. The state has to have limits, and a constitution approved by the U.N. The world should be involved in this.

And what exactly have European nations done to make reparations to the Jewish people? Their lands should have been confiscated, not people who had nothing to do with it. I'd have given them a big chunk of Germany and Austria. That would make sense.

And wasn't there a lot of shooting going on against the British forces in Palestine before 1948? Like terrorists shall we say?

mg

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Jun 02 - 12:06 AM

Palestinian apologists, like McGrath and CarolC, assure us that this would never happen

No, GUEST. I assured you that it would happen. I said that Sharon's policies (and Israel's policies) toward, and treatment of the Palestinians is creating a situation that is assuring the continuation of violence. (I was told by a GUEST to "burn in hell with Osama Bin Ladin" for saying that).

But I was right. That is exactly what has happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 11:56 PM

No YMF, I'm sorry. I'm not lying, and you're wrong. I have posted quite a bit of documentation that refutes what you are asserting. But I'm not going to call you a liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 11:03 PM

Don't know about you, Sailor Jack, but our agreeing on two things makes me a bit nervous. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 11:00 PM

Every few days, Palestinians remind the world exactly why they can't yet be trusted with their own country. This week, we got two reminders. On Tuesday, a Palestinian blew up a Jerusalem bus, killing 19 civilians. The next day, another terrorist killed six more of the city's innocents. Just imagine what sort of atrocities these people could pull off from behind the borders of a sovereign Palestine. As William Safire wrote in The New York Times on Monday, a Palestinian state would give Yasser Arafat control of an airport. A plane taking off from the West Bank could hit a Tel Aviv skyscraper within minutes of entering Israeli air space.

Palestinian apologists, like McGrath and CarolC, assure us that this would never happen -- because Arab hatred would be extinguished as soon as the West Bank and Gaza were cleansed of Jews. But that's not true. It's not the Israeli presence in the disputed territories that bothers Palestinians, but the very existence of the Jewish state itself.

This was confirmed by a survey of 1,200 Palestinians conducted a month ago by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre. Like previous polls, this one found that more than two-thirds of Palestinians support suicide attacks against Jewish civilians. But more than half of respondents also said the goal of the current uprising is to conquer every inch of Israel -- not just the West Bank and Gaza. Remember this the next time you see a Palestinian talking head tell the world that it is the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza that causes terrorism, not the other way around.

George W. Bush, the U.S. President, should remember that too. For several days now, there have been signals that the President will soon endorse the creation of an interim Palestinian state as a sop to Arab leaders. The latest bombings have caused him to delay his announcement. Asked about the President's new Middle East policy at a press conference on Wednesday, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "I think in the immediate aftermath of these attacks, it's obvious that [this] is not the right time."

Indeed it's not. And as we see it, it won't be the right time for a while. Terrorism is not a fringe phenomenon among Palestinians: It is a symptom of a mainstream belief among them that Israel can and should be destroyed by force of arms. So long as this view dominates, they should not have a sovereign platform from which to wage their murderous attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 10:49 PM

DougR I'm glad you agreed with me

GUEST mg: If I read your post correctly, you are saying there will not be a Palestinian state. I believe there will be, but as GUEST JTT has pointed out, it will not happen so long as both Israel and the Palestinian terrorists feed off each other's violence against the other, it will not happen.

Again we seem to be agreeing. YES both sides are the terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: GUEST,YMF
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 10:32 PM

According to CarolC, "Israel doesn't even acknowlege the existance of Palestinians as people, or their right to exist as a people."

CarolC, that is an outright, baldfaced lie.

Of course Israel recognizes the Palestinian people. Israel participated in negotiations with the Palestinians aimed at the creation of a Palestinian state. Negotiations that Arafat chose not to continue with; instead unleashing the current Intifada and its terrorist murders by suicide bombers.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 10:09 PM

Your question is over a position of your own making, sometimes called putting up the straw man. I think that Israel has acknowledged the existence of Palestinians all along.

Robomatic, your own words show that this is not the case. You, yourself, have illustrated exactly what I'm talking about with regard to the official stance taken by Israel regarging the Palestinians with this post...

As to the 'right' of Palestinians to have their own country, which would be something new on the scene as the territory now comprising Israel has been 'occupied' by one or another power since biblical times, this has long been a matter which should be negotiated, rather than fought.

Why should it be negotiated if it is being recognized? And there are plenty of other examples, many of them from members of the Israeli government, that clearly show that the Palestinians' rights or legitimate claims to any part of what has always been their home, are not valid. Like the line that the Palesinians' homeland is Jordan. This is simply not true, but it's an important part of the official Israeli doctrine on this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 09:01 PM

Deda: Right on. The missing people in this one sided 'equation' of false fairness are the refugees taken in by Israel from middle eastern lands. On the other side, the Arab states have refused to take on refugees from the losing side of the Israel War of Independence and sustained the war on Israel thereby. I find this as cynical a view as ever there was.

CarolC: Your question is over a position of your own making, sometimes called putting up the straw man. I think that Israel has acknowledged the existence of Palestinians all along. You may have discovered them, but they knew they existed, and Israel knew they existed. The questions are over whether there should be a Palestinian State on the West Bank, and its actual contours and resources and I raised questions as to the viability of same.

There already exists a Palestinian state in the Middle East. It's called Jordan. Check out its population and history.

McGrath: My opening sentence stands on its own. I didn't write it in response to you, and I don't know which columnist you are referring to. I was trying to use your man digging a hole analogy, and I couldn't get it to work, sorry.

Israel has gone to great efforts to make concessions toward a Palestinian State (including right after the Six Day War of 35 years ago) and there are several reports out there by reliable journalists as to who was conceding what, and when.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 08:21 PM

"Why should Israel feel any motivation to withdraw to pre-1967 borders?"

The point I was making was that the columnist to which a link had been given had blithely asserted that Israel did in fact offer to do exactly that. "Two years ago at the Camp David summit, in the presence of the president of the United States, the Palestinians were offered an end to the occupation--a total end, a final end--by the prime minister of Israel."

This wasn't in fact true, and he was therefore clearly not someone to rely on too much as a source of information.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 08:06 PM

I know I said I didn't want to post to this thread any more. And I really don't. But I need to say one thing and ask one question.

Deda, I don't think anyone is quesioning whether or not Jews need a homeland here on this thread. It's how they went, and continue to go about, makeing a homeland for themselves that is in question. And it wasn't the Palestinian Arabs (or Palestinian Christians)who kicked the Jews out of their homes in other places. I don't understand why so many people think the Palestinians should be held responsible for what was done to Jews by other people. This makes no sense to me at all.

Here's my question: Why do people get so righteously indignant if the Palestinians don't accept the state if Israel (which, by the way, many of them do), when Israel doesn't even acknowlege the existance of Palestinians as people, or their right to exist as a people? This seems like one hell of a double standard to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 07:45 PM

Why should Israel feel any motivation to withdraw to pre-1967 borders. Those borders were determined by war and defensive positions from the 1948 cease fire. The taking of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights were also acts of war precipitated by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, aided and abetted by Iraq and other states. The U.N. under U. Thant also helped instigate the war by withdrawing their peacekeeping troops when directed to do so by Gamal Abdul Nasser.

What is in the long term interest of Israel AND the Palestinians is to have well defined and defensible borders, and viable economic systems, which will not come out of a West Bank State with current borders. Pre-1967 borders are not particularly 'lawful'. On the other hand, if the Palestinians were to adopt borders with the full knowledge that there was a substantial Jewish minority therein, it would make an equivalence with an Israel that has long had Muslim and Christian inhabitants. The two states could judge each other by how each treated its minorities.

There is nothing pre-destined about the sufferings of the Palestinian people to necessitate them being driven to suicide bombing. The Kurds, Armenians, Bosnians, and Jews have all suffered far more horrendous fates at the hands of organized governments. Suicide bombing is a conscious policy by well organized and well financed bodies outside of Israel proper. You can call it terror, you can call it war. But the Arab-financed media of the Middle East have fanned flames of anti-semitic hysteria over a wide region, and it has found a resonance in Europe. Israel has done nothing more than defend herself, and has shown quite a lot of forbearance in so doing. Frontline (American Public Broadcasting) did a special on the recent hold-off around the Church of the Nativity. The Israelis brought in a negotiating team, and even after the exit of the Palestinians who were to be deported, they had to use negotiating skills to control the three main Christian groups, each of which wanted to be first back into the structure.

McGrath, I've tried to make the digging a hole analogy work for me, but it hasn't. I see a lot of wall building going on by both sides (and in this thread). To me the greatest tragedy is these two groups which are at loggerheads could potentially be of great benefit to each other, if they weren't ideologically bound. And of the two, I think the Palestinians are by far the greater slaves of their preconceptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 05:25 PM

THere was a letter in the Guardian today which it seems to me eloquently makes a point which is all too often blurred. It was written in the context of a current media "controversy" about an off-the-cuff remark by Cherie Blair, the wife of the Prime Minister:

My sympathy is with Cherie Blair. As a psychologist I have always found that if I offer an explanation as to why a certain injury to the brain leads to severe dementia, I am not accused of being on the side of dementia. Yet if I offer an explanation as to why the conclusions a person drew from certain experiences led that person to become a paedophile, or a thief, or a suicide bomber, I am likely to be accused of promoting paedophilia, or thieving, or suicide bombing. These accusations arise because my accusers cannot make the distinction between an explanation and an excuse.

Cherie Blair quite correctly stated that if people feel that their situation is hopeless, they may choose to make one last gesture to assert that their existence should be acknowl edged. This explains their behaviour. It does not excuse it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 03:59 PM

GUEST mg: If I read your post correctly, you are saying there will not be a Palestinian state. I believe there will be, but as GUEST JTT has pointed out, it will not happen so long as both Israel and the Palestinian terrorists feed off each other's violence against the other, it will not happen.

Again we seem to be agreeing. YES both sides are the terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: Deda
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 03:48 PM

As I have said before, I think there has to be an eventual Palestinian state, as well. However, I think that the following figures and data should just be noted for the record:
The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees FROM Arab countries is estimated to be the same, but they get no air time at all, and no coverage is ever given to the expulsion of Jews from Arab and non-Arab countries, which happened over and over throughout history. Does anyone on this thread know when the Jews were expelled from Spain? from England (oh, yes, they were)? It wasn't recent. We'll just skip the subject of pogroms, because we might have to concede that the Jewish people actually NEED a homeland, and needed one long before Hitler was conceived.
Arab refugees (i.e., Palestinians)were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than Wales, a little bigger than Rhode Island. All the Arab countries combined have a land mass about 1 1/2 times the size of the USA.
The Arabs are represented by at least eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won. (The two intifadas, including the current one, are not included in this count.)

The P.L.O.'s Charter still calls for the destruction of the state of Israel. Every Palestinian letterhead, uniform and national symbol includes a map of "Palestine" in the shape of Israel -- meaning that Israel has to cease to exist. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank and autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, at least until the violence got entirely out of hand, and has supplied them with weapons.
Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. The area around the Western Wall was buried under apartments and alleys, and was inaccessible, even if Jews had been permitted there which they weren't.
Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths -- although Jews are not welcome at the dome of the rock. Anyone is permitted entry to the Western Wall, although they may have to go through a security screening.

Bottom line: Israeli soldiers really don't aim at civilians, they try to avoid civilian casualties when they can, but they are under extreme stress, their lives and those of their fellow citizens (friends, parents, children, family) are on the line and at risk every single minute, and sometimes they fail in that effort. Suicide bombers aim to take out as many civilians as they can, and the more they kill the more they are considered to have succeeded. Somehow this is Israel's fault. I'm sorry, I don't get it. There is no way for Israel to win the world's approval and still survive, and that's extremely clear. So it will have to get by without it, and the world at large will continue to blather on and on about how wicked and vicious Israel is, but it will survive.
Arafat's PA is an autocracy. Much of the misery of the Palestinian people is because they have such a wretched excuse for a government. Where is democracy in the Arab world? Where is good governance? Where is freedom -- of the press, of religion, of expression, of women? What checks and balances are there against corruption? Let them try those things. Let them try to establish a real judiciary, a system of justice, a representative form of government by and for their own people. I would be willing to bet anything (and I have a LOT riding on this, as I've mentioned before) that a well-governed Palestinian people could and would make peace. But Arafat can keep his people (and much of the world) distracted from his own corruption by blaming Israel for everything, and by admitting no responsibility whatsoever, and then he can go on holding power.

I am at work and I really don't have time for this. I've made myself take a break from reading this thread, but I broke my rule here, obviously. Some of this data I've cut & pasted from other sources, some of it is my own.
One last question. Palestinian Arabs live in Jerusalem and all over Israel, they have civil rights, are allowed to vote. They are represented in the Knesset. Is there ANY Arab country where that can be said of Jews?

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: DougR
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 02:42 PM

Wolfgang, I'm with you on everything you said, except ...I do think that it is reasonable to expect liberals to be consistent when they talk about violence. McGrath certainly follows that line, and Carol has too, with a proviso.

GUEST mg: If I read your post correctly, you are saying there will not be a Palestinian state. I believe there will be, but as GUEST JTT has pointed out, it will not happen so long as both Israel and the Palestinian terrorists feed off each other's violence against the other, it will not happen.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 12:35 PM

I think that despite the violence, there needs to be a Palestinian state...very very regulated. No Arafat, no Hamas, etc. A constitution with limits...as in the recognition of Israel, with specific borders, a denouncing of terrorism and spelling out of consequences..part of the fuel for the fire has been the PLO charter as it stands. It has to go. And people around the world have to find a way to talk directly to the Palestinian people and tell them, as they don't seem to understand, that there will be an Israel, there will not be the Palestine they dream of, but there will be an infinitely better situation for all.

mg

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 11:52 AM

Well, by the time you get to the second paragraph he is seriously twisting the truth. "Two years ago at the Camp David summit, in the presence of the president of the United States, the Palestinians were offered an end to the occupation--a total end, a final end--by the prime minister of Israel." That is simply not true, and the man wrote it must know it's not true. At no stage has there ever been an offer by Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders.

The Internet makes it possible to dig behind superficial articles like that, and with a little work get a much clearer understanding of the facts about things like that. That doesn't mean that people can be expected to agree about how to interpret them or about what is desirable or possible; but it does mean we don't have to settle for sound-bite thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: Fadac
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 11:45 AM

More Rambles,

Just another angle to think about. Who gains with all the paranoia about terrorists? If all the terrorisim stopped today, would anyone loose money?

Just suppose the Israelies and Palistines all sat down and made friends. A big garden party.

Would we (as Americans) still send Israel as much money for defense?

I know this is a bit unsetting, but remember Nixon, "Follow the money.".

Somewhere I think there is profit in the terrorism.

Perhaps the way to settle this is to simply close the country. Nothing in or out. No news, food, oil, chewing gum, nothing. Just one phone line, with a sign. "Call us when you have your problems resolved."

Both Palistine and Isreal have demanded that the whole world clean thier dirty dipers for fifty years. Every one has tried to make peace there. None of them has worked. So if they want to blow the crap out of each other, they don't need my money to buy the stuff, and I'm tired of watching it on TV.

Either that, or let the UN with enough troops to simply squash anyone that resists.

Hmmm, there is one other thing...This is not PC, but just suppose we sent all the ileagle alians there. By the time they got about 15 million folks from Mexico and points south, Isreal would just be another little Catholic country, with great tacos and beer. The general IQ would go up, and we would have more room in our schools....Naaaa, but an intresting thought.

Perhaps we should teach them the Hokey Pokey.

:)

Fadac

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 10:40 AM

This guy makes some very valid points.
Blicky

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 09:22 AM

Thank you, GUEST JTT. I've been singing this tune for months now but there are a lot of folks still stuck in the "yeah, but..." mode much like a stuck record. The Saudi proposal offered much of what you have suggested. If the US had gotten behind that proposal, this cycle of unacceptable behavior between these folks would been broken and real progress would be underway. Thank you for your thoughtful post.

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 06:42 AM

The man in a hole analogy applies to everyone in this in of situation. I wasn't specifically directing it at Israel. Terrorism or counter-terroprism, call it what you will, the effect is to make things worse in either case.

And Doug, at no time have I ever said or implied that Palestinian suicide bombers are not terrorists, or that what they do is right. The slaughter of innocent people, including children is horrible, and it is terrorism, an should not be prettied up by words like "freedom fighter." But it is horrible and it is terrorism whoever does it, including governments, and it should not be prettied up by words like "national self defence" or "just retribution".

Subject: RE: Who are the terrorists? Part 113
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Jun 02 - 06:13 AM

My spelling is at least as bad as yours, Carol. I never would have mentioned spelling without the opportunity to make a point about rite-like indignation.

Wolfgang