Isreali 'war crimes'?
 

Given the tensions in the Middle East ,this made the front page of the National Post.



Federal lawyer cites Israeli 'war crimes'
Refugee board rejects claim by Lebanese spy for Mossad

Stewart Bell
National Post


Thursday, May 15, 2003



TORONTO - A man who spied on the terrorist group Hezbollah for the Israeli secret intelligence agency Mossad has been branded a war criminal by Canadian authorities, who said his actions helped Israel commit "heinous" atrocities.

In a ruling likely to raise diplomatic tensions between Canada and Israel, a lawyer representing the Minister of Immigration intervened in the Lebanese man's refugee case to argue his claim should be rejected for his role in Israeli "war crimes."

The Immigration and Refugee Board agreed and, citing reports by an American human rights group, ruled that the Israeli government was responsible for crimes against humanity in South Lebanon, including torture and murder.

The Israeli embassy in Ottawa called the Canadian assertions false. "Israel did not and has not been involved in any war crimes or crimes against humanity in southern Lebanon or any other place," said Ronen Gil-Or, the deputy head of mission.

Under Canadian law, Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization because of its involvement in car bombings, hijackings and kidnappings. Despite that, Canadian officials condemned the man, identified only as Mr. X, for his work against the group.

"It certainly is curious," said Eric Vernon, director of government relations at the Canadian Jewish Congress, which is drafting a response to the IRB, complaining that its ruling relied on the "distorted" assertions of human rights activists.

Mr. X gave Mossad agents the names of 40 Hezbollah members. He also told Mossad about the centres used by Hezbollah, the places where they prayed and met, the cars they used and the print shops that produced their materials.

He was paid US$800 a month for his services between 1998 and 1999 but fled Lebanon in May, 2000, after the Israelis withdrew from South Lebanon. He filed a refugee claim in December, 2000, because his former superior had turned himself in to the Lebanese security services and identified the informants under his direction.

The IRB said the names Mr. X gave to Mossad were probably handed to the South Lebanon Army (SLA), the pro-Israeli militia that controlled South Lebanon, and that Hezbollah members would have been mistreated as a result.

"According to the documentary evidence, the SLA and Israeli government were responsible for a number of crimes, including civilian displacements, house demolitions, murders, torture as well as heinous crimes committed at Khiam Prison [an SLA jail in Lebanon]," the IRB said.

"The claimant alleged not to be aware of the purpose of the information he was providing, but knew that it was for the Israeli intelligence service.... The panel found it implausible that the claimant, who had worked as an informer for the Mossad for a year, would not be aware of the abuses inflicted by Israel and the SLA on people suspected of being members of the Hezbollah.

"The panel was of the opinion that there were serious reasons for considering that the claimant had been an accomplice, because of his personal and conscious participation in crimes against humanity committed by Israel and the SLA," the IRB said.

The adjudicator went further, suggesting Israeli counter-terrorism measures were on par with the tactics of terrorists. "Those who attempt to eradicate terrorism and fight terrorists must in no way conduct themselves as they do."

Mr. X was excluded from refugee protection on the grounds he had committed crimes against peace, war crimes or crimes against humanity. The adjudicator also said he was not credible.

Israel has been battling allegations it committed war crimes in Lebanon since 1982, when it invaded its northern neighbour to chase out Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization, which was based in Beirut.

Palestinians tried to bring war crimes charges against Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, in Belgium, but an appeals court ruled last year that Mr. Sharon could not be put on trial because he was not on Belgian territory.

Human Rights Watch has documented what it calls "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions by SLA forces, including torture and expulsion of civilians." It said Israel was ultimately responsible for the SLA's abuses because it was an "occupying power."

Mr. Gil-Or said contrary to the Canadian government claims, Israel "is continuing to give humane treatment even under the most difficult conditions as a result of violence directed against it by terrorist organizations."

By contrast, Lebanon and Syria continue to back Hezbollah, even as it regularly fires rockets at villages in northern Israel.

"Hezbollah is a destabilizing force in the region and committed terrorist attacks throughout the world," he said.

sbell@nationalpost.com

These are some serious allegations. Do you think the outcome will have any impact on how people view the Isreali's methods of how they combat terrorism? If so,will this story have the legs to influence the outcome of the 'roadmap'. Or is this just fodder for the anti-Isreali forces at large?

If Israel needs to maltreat members of a terrorist organization, so be it. They cannot afford to follow all legal rules, because they'd have their hands tied behind their backs, while the terrorists can do whatever they want. That will cost Israeli lives. In the Arab-Israeli conflict, it's a matter of "them or us", unfortunately.

The only thing this report will do is highlight the differences of opinion. Pro-Israeli people will dismiss the Canadian claims as insane, while anti-Israeli people will agree that Israel is evil.

So Israel gave the names of Hezbollah terrorists to the Lebanese resistance? Why is Israel being blamed for the crimes of others? It seems racist to me, like "no one expects the arabs to maintain standards of decency, lets blame Israel". That said, the Canadian and the French governments, among others, have definitely showed warm feelings towards Hezbollah. Chirac denied there was anything wrong with this, by citing the fact that Hezbollah does humanitarian work. So does Hamas, for that matter- on the one hand, social welfare, on the other, murder. Hezbollah, BTW is an Iranian proxy group.
It says Israel needs to end its occupation of southern Lebanon- but they pulled out the IDF in 2000. what occupation are they talking about? Maybe they meant the Syrian occupation, that has lasted more than 20 years? You don't hear much protest about that, about the raping and killing of lebanese civilians. No one seems to care about the real human rights abuses in the region, this stuff is all so politicized, it makes me sick. These people have an agenda and it is completely transparent.

i never believed that isreal had it's hands clean.

"The Israeli embassy in Ottawa called the Canadian assertions false. 'Israel did not and has not been involved in any war crimes or crimes against humanity in southern Lebanon or any other place,' "

I suppose that's why their Prime Minister will be tried for war crimes as soon as he is out of office.

EDIT: I realized as soon as I hit "Submit" that that makes me sound anti-Israel. I'm not. I just don't approve of some of their government's actions. I think that both sides have a lot of work to do.

Belgium, the nation responsible for the murder and enslavement of thousands in Congo, now has appointed itself moral conscience of the world. Beyond the ridiculousness of that, do you see anything wrong with them accusing Sharon of war crimes? Do you know what it's about? Sabra and Chatila- while the IDF was operating against the PLO in Lebanon in the 80s, they were allied with the Lebanese christian Phalangists. The Phalangists went into a refugee camp that was a terror center and massacred hundreds of Palestinians. Sharon was the Israeli defense minister at the time- it was ruled in an internal inquiry that he was "indirectly responsible", in that he should have known a massacre could happen, and not let the Phalangists into the camp. Of course, no one else foresaw a massacre either, no media wrote about it, or anyone said anything. So he stepped down. That said, why are they going after Sharon? What about the people who actually carried out the massacre? The phalangists? Why doesn't Europe and the UN expect the same humanity from the arabs as the Israelis? Is that not racist? it's like they assume the arabs are animals, and don't even bother. Its ridiculous. Do you see anyone accusing the US for war crimes? In Afghanistan, do you remember when the Northern Alliance soldiers were executing Taliban prisoners in revenge? No one said anything then. The US certainly wasn't blamed for it, they weren't responsible. That's the same situation as Sharon at Sabra and Chatila. No Israeli soldier or officer either played any part or had foreknowledge of what would happen. This has become the most hypocritical, politicized piece of cr** for people who always look to accuse Israel of anything possible. Again, why the hell does no one care about the 20 year old Syrian occupation of Lebanon, which brutalizes their citizens and denies the Lebanese their freedom? So Israel gave info about Hezbollah to the Lebanese resistance? Good! Hezbollah is an Islamofascist terror group sponsored by Iran, and are responsible for the death of many Americans, as well as Israelis. The US, and every other country for that matter, support resistance against sick regimes and terror groups. The US supported the Kurds in Iraq, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, we're trying to support the reformers in Iran, etc. And sorry to MrSelfdestruct, but to focus on "israeli war crimes" that are BS to begin with, and to turn a blind eye to the real abuses in the region(these terror groups and arab governments do so many sick thing), does very much make you anti-Israel, and seeing reality through a skewed lens.

Crumbbum, how much does being Sharon's publicist pay?

Sharon should be tried for war crimes for good reason. Sharon is being held responsible for the massacres at Sabra and Chatila because he was DIRECTLY involved. Stop painting this murderer as an innocent bystandard. A minister of defence who had no clue what was going on, right? The phalangist death squads were able to carry out their work because the camps were encircled by the IDF. C'mon, the UN immediately passed Resolution 521 condemning the massacres. Of course Sharon was quick to ignore it. Instead he moved forward with his "landscam" deal with the Phalange leaders.

But of course he's totally innocent. Had NO clue what was going on.

You seem to have a very different view of Israel than the rest of the world, save the US and Britain. Yes, the same world that condemned Israel as a racist state at the last UN World Conference on Racism. How you can spin all the attrocities committed by the Israeli's every day amazes me. Trying to make it look like Israel, a huge military power, is on the defensive from a starving and dying population amazes me.

The UN has passed all kinds of nutty resolutions about Israel- part of this has to do with the fact that there are at least 40 Arab/Muslim countries in the general assembly- part of this has to do with the fact that the other countries are all playing to suit their own interests, which usually lie more with oil than truth. Don't use the UN to learn about the reality of the region, the general consencus of the world governments is a not any sort of moral authority, if you look at history, and is dominated by petty squabbling and selfish motive, not the pursuit of real justice and truth. Israel is not only under attack from the Palestinians- it is a proxy war, backed by Syria, Iran, the Saudis, Iraq until recently, and of course the PLO and Palestinians themselves, who have been brainwashed for 55 years first by the Egyptians and Jordanians who ran their camps and coordinated terrorist raids, and then by the PLO. Sharon was NOT directly responsible- Time magazine, as well as another Israeli magazine both had articles that suggested that- he sued them for libel, and won both cases, because it ISN'T TRUE. I am not Sharon's publicist, but at the same time it makes me sick to see the truth distorted to such an extent. And by the way, the Phalangists weren't "death squads", they happened to be the special forces of the LEBANESE PRESIDENT, and therefore the sovereign military power in the region. It was the elite of the Lebanese army, who had been battling the PLO before Israel arrived, which had been brutalizing, killing, stealing, torturing and raping the lebanese civilians and violating their rights, while it set up a terrorist mini-state. I know though, that people like you don't actually, deep down, really give a shit about anyone's human rights, you just hate Israel. Otherwise there wouldn't be this selective attention. The camps were not encircled by the IDF, the area was under IDF control, but the IDF did not sit there watching this happen. There was a war going on, and since the Lebanese and the Israelis were both trying to expel the PLO. The Phalangists were directly responsible, not Sharon. Israel is on the defensive from a starving, dying population- because they are deliberately kept in such squallid conditions, instead of being absorbed into the arab countries 95% of them originally came from, like in every single other conflict in history where land changed hands. Examples- when India and Pakistan split, Germany/Czechoslovakia after WW2, etc. And yes, Israel is on the defensive- in case you didn't notice 1000 jews have been killed since Oslo. And then you're of course going to say- "oh, but more palestinians have been killed!" First of all, when do numbers of casualties reveal anything about the cause of or source of aggression in a conflict? Second, more Israeli CIVILIANS have been killed. After all, the palestinians specifically target civilians, as they are trying to break Israel by demoralization. Israel does not target civilians. Some are killed regardless, when terrorists hide in and operate out of civlian areas, or intentionally use human shields. The world saw these tactics in Iraq. Israel wouldn't be on the defensive, except that the whole world puts huge political pressure on them NOT to kill Arafat, the head of the snake, not to have a permanent military presence in Palestinian areas, not to expel anyone and basically, not to defend themselves to the best of their ability, because it hurts the "peace process", as though there can ever be peace before the renunciation of terrorism as a political bargaining chip. If you are being intellectually honest, which it doesn't seem that you are, go read the thread about the evacuation of settlements, I had an extended dialogue with some people where I gave a lot of history with sources. If you aren't willing to look past the bullshit and consider the facts, then there is no point in debating with you.

Your zionist rhetoric boggles the mind. Next thing your gonna tell me is there's no such thing as a Palestinian people.

Sharon is known as the Butcher of Beirut for good reason. He didn't heroically step down, he was forced to quit the defence ministry in disgrace. He doesn't want peace, he never has. Right wing Israeli journalist Uri Dan put it best when he said, "There is no new Sharon". But according to you the whole world is wrong. They're all corrupt and somehow have more to gain condemning Israel and its US support.

How many Security Council resolutions have been passed condemning Israel? Remember, a majority of Arab countries don't have a say here. How many resolutions have had the full support of all the members of the SC only to be vetoed by the US? You tell me to look through all the bullshit, but the reasoning you give me is that there is some sort of world-wide conspiracy against the Israeli's. Please.

Lebanese Special Forces? More like Lebanese Christian Militiamen. And we all know how much THEY represent the general population. :rolleyes: And yes, they WERE sorrounded by Israeli troops, just ask Jeffrey Heller of Reuters.

Israel doesn't target civilians? You've got to be kidding me. Have you ever even been to the region? Go to a demonstration and try and count how many snipers sorround the teenagers throwing rocks at tanks. If they're not killed by a bullet, it'll be when a bulldozer knocks down their house, or when they're under a 22hr curfew so they can't go out and work. Not that they have the infrustructure to provide themselves with any sort of industry, that was destroyed long ago. Instead they can sit home and look across the street to an Israeli settlement where they water their lawns as Palestinian children go thirsty a hundred yards away.

You need to stop putting the two sides on the same playing field. That's rediculous. It's two completely different worlds right next to each other that are fighting. One first and one third. I don't think you realize that.

If you wouldn't mind seperating your thoughts into paragraphs, I'd really appreciate it.

You are merely spewing propaganda. You haven't stated any facts. I am aware of the UN record on Israel. That proves nothing. When it comes down to helping jews or getting oil contracts, there is usually no hesitation to ignore the truth. Why, to you, has Israel been singled out to the extent that is has been, while its neighbors engage in the most horrific human rights abuses anywhere in the world? And by the way, you say that Reuters said the camps were surrounded. That can mean a lot of things. As I said before, the IDF controlled the area. However, there was not a circle of Israeli soldiers standing in a circle around the village cheering as the massacre was taking place. That is ridiculous. They "surrounded" the village- meaning they controlled the area around it. No IDF soldier or officer participated in, or had foreknowledge of the event. You have conveniently dodged my points, facts that disprove what you are saying, like Sharon's case against Time magazine, which he won. I suppose the American justice system is overrun by a zionist conspiracy, right?
The lebanese forces happened to be the personal forces of the Lebanese president. They were not some rag-tag militia, they were the soverign military force in the region. They were fighting the PLO, which had established a terrorist mini-state within Lebanon, and like I said before, committed horrific crimes against the Lebanese. When the IDF went into Lebanon, the lebanese threw flowers at them and greeted them as liberators. They felt abandoned after the war when Israel pulled out, and Syria moved in.
You say Sharon doesn't want peace? Then what does he want? War? Why? Look at a map- Israel is surrounded by enemies, and takes up less than 1% of the land the arabs have. Since when do they have any choice but peace? Do you consider the palestinians as peace-loving, flexible and open minded liberals? Do you consider someone who straps a bomb to their body, packed with nails, screws, and rat poison, and gets on a bus filled with children and senior citizens, and blows themselves up, killing dozens of innocent people, in the belief that this will take him straight to paradise, where 70 virgins will be waiting for him, desperate? Do you feel sympathy for the bomber? Do you think that it's the settlements that gave him to choice but to do this?
The Israelis do not target civilians. There are curfews, and other forms of military control of palestinians areas when repeated terror attacks come out of those areas. Palestinian gunmen often deliberately fire form inside building with children and other civilians in them, so that when the Israeli troops return fire, innocent people are killed. This, of course, creates more sympathy for the Palestinians.
Oh, and you blame the Israelis for destroying palestinian infrastructure. Well, in case you didn't realize, the palestinians have never had much of an economy to begin with, they mostly rely on employment in Israel. Then you mention the contrast of the settlements, and the poverty in Palestinian areas. But whose fault is this? Are you aware of the billions of dollars that have been poured into those camps? Do you realize the full extent of corruption in the PLO and the PA? That Arafat is stinking rich, and that all their leaders take the money for themselves, while deliberately letting the people suffer as an international eyesore? Why are these people still living in camps? Why haven't better condition been made, why haven't more permanent and sanitary housing projects been undertaken? It is a choice. The arab countries refused to absorb the refugees in 1948, because they weren't willing to recognize the existence of Israel, and the refugees have been used as a human political weapon ever since (a national suicide bomb, if you will). They do indeed suffer- but if you actually cared, you'd place the blame where it is due. These people have been brainwashed and bred on hatred and jealousy, for 55 years. If you need a primer in what is going on now, I suggest you read the thread about the settlements, I was having a very interesting discussion with some people.
I do realize the economic gap, which you claim I overlook. I am saying that it exists, but that you have not dug deep enough into the history and reality of the events over there to understand what these problems really stem from. If you were intellectually honest, and actually knew some history, we could discuss this. But I will not waste my breath indefinitely shooting down ignorant statements, generalizations, false assumptions and lies.

Oh, and you're right, there is no such thing as a Palestinian people (in terms of them being a separate and distinct nation from other arabs). A palestinian, by the UN definition, is any arab that is descended from someone who lived west of the Jordan before 1948 for 2 years or more. That's it. While a very small minority of the palestinians are actually descended from arabs who had been in the land a long time, the vast majority are descended from arab migrant workers and laborers who went to the land seeking employment, after Jewish immigration, and their development of the land, started creating economic opportunity. These people were not native to the land. The palestinians are made up of egyptian, syrian, jordanian, and lebanese arabs. They do not have a unique history, and they never identified themselves as a distinct people until after 1967. They never demanded statehood while Egypt occupied Gaza, or Jordan the West bank. Arafat himself is an egyptian. I will refer to "the palestinians", even though the term originally was used for the jews. They are indeed, however, not a distinct people. Sorry if my "zionist rhetoric" is too much for you, or deflates any beloved fantasies about history.

I belive this is kind of far fetched but since you seem to have a lot of faith in Ariel Sharon: "every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that. I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."

that doesn't justify a response, Sharon never said that. Do you have a source on this?

And anyway, I'm not saying I love Sharon, or agree with everything he's ever done, but he isn't a war criminal. That's a pretty fucked up thing to post, anyway.

FYI... the same Belgian law is being used to bring your US general Tommy Franks to court.

Some leftist group, accompanied by an extreme-right Arab-rights group, on behalf of a bunch of Iraqi citizens, has filed a complaint in Belgium. They say Franks is responsible for war crimes because he used cluster bombs on civilians, amongst other things.

Still think these laws (and the int'l war crimes tribunal) won't be used in international political smear campaigns?

As for Sharon... he's not a nice guy, and he has done some pretty bad things. However, the crimes-against-humanity thing is obviously politically motivated. Nobody seems to care about the other butchers; nobody is charging the founder of Hamas with crimes against humanity; nobody is trying to bring Arafat to justice; nobody is trying to bring the Jordan government to justice after their war against the PLO in 1970, which was equally brutal...

Nobody has clean hands in this war, so either everyone should be put in jail, or nobody should. Just focusing on the acts of one side isn't fair, because the other side is just as guilty.

If I cite UN resolutions you say they're "nutty", if I cite the words of a Reuters correspondant, you twist his thoughts. Then you tell me I have given no facts. Ok, I'll try and be a bit more deliberate.

It is agreed upon by most academics that Sharon authorised the "Lebanese forces" to "mop up" the Palestinian camps during a meeting with Bashir Gemayel on September 12 (Benny Morris, The Righteous Victims, New York, A. Knopf, 1999, p. 540.). Mr. Sharon had already announced, on 9 July 1982, his intention to send the Phalangist forces into West Beirut (Schiff and Ya'ari, Israel’s Lebanon War, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1984, p. 251.). Furthermore, Sharon's autobigraphy confirms that he negotiated the operation during his meeting with Gemayel in Bikfaya (Ariel Sharon, Warrior: An Autobiography, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1989, p. 498.). More? Ok. On September 22, 1982, Sharon said in the Knesset that the decision that the Phalangists should enter the camps was made on Wednesday, September 15 at 3:30pm (Sharon at the Knesset, Annex to the Kahan Commission report, The Beirut Massacre, The Complete Kahan Commission Report, Princeton, Karz Cohl, 1983, p. 124).

So far does this look like the Sharon didn't play a part in these massacres? How many different sources do you need?

When the Phalangists entered the camps, General Drori called Sharon to tell him, "Our friends are advancing into the camps. We have co-ordinated their entry." What did Sharon reply? "Congratulations! Our friends’ operation is approved." (According to Kapeliouk, Sabra et Shatila: Enquête sur un massacre, Paris, Seuil 1982, p. 37).

The nerve of those people to think poor Sharon had anything to do with these slaughterings. It's a good thing we know better.

"Tsahal controls all strategic points in Beirut. The refugee camps, inside which there is a concentration of terrorists, are surrounded and sealed" (Israeli press release as quoted in the Kahan Commission Report, p. 14.). But of course the Israeli army had no clue what was going on.

I can keep going if you'd like.

Take five minutes and learn how to use google and you can pick a source yourself.

Question to some of the guys here (you know who you are): When Sharon says Jews control US politics, do you believe him?

Could this have been a simplification of reality: that the US supports Israel because they need a friendly state in a middle-east full of US-hating Arabs. As a result of this mutual need for support, the Israelis can make some demands of the US, in exchange for all kinds of Israeli support, both visible and secret. Thus, when Sharon says Jews control US policies, he's saying they have influence; perhaps there was a context where this comment was perfectly logical, or perhaps the audience made the comment seem reasonable.

Quotes taken out of context can be very misleading, and perhaps this quote isn't quite as controversial as it seems to be.

(Oh, and my comment still stands: either everyone is put on trial, or nobody. Sharon is a saint compared to some other people in the middle-east, or even on the Palestinian side alone...)

If you are refering to me then read my post. I think I put something about "far fetched" in there.


Fair enough, but we gotta start somewhere don't we? Why not with Sharon?



Edit: Tags

Sharon is not the nicest guy on the planet, but we're talking about the same group that wants to try Tommy Franks. The only thing Franks is guilty of is being an inept commander. I agree with what crumbbum and Dragonlich have stated, cuz they've pretty much said all of what I think. Sure, the Mossad does get it's hands dirty a lot of the time, but they aren't intentionally killing citizens to prove a point, that is the job of organizations like Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Do I think that Sharon is a saint? No, but he's certainly a hell of a lot cleaner than the monsters that surround him. And the fact of the matter is that the Israelis are the only completely free people in that region, that's why the United States backs them. You point out the fact that hey, Israeli snipers have shot kids who were throwing rocks (as well as crude fire bombs) at tanks, hi, rules of engagement here, that's an attack if I ever saw one, and are you gonna stand idly by while you or your friend gets set on fire or maybe a lucky throw strikes his temple and he dies? I don't think so. But I agree with Dragonlich, if ur gonna try Sharon you have to try Arafat, you have to try the leaders of the other terrorist organizations, because if we let them go, then what message are we sending to the world, that it's ok to be a so called "freedom fighter" and blow up a school bus full of kids who don't understand what the hell is going on? That you can committ acts of mass destruction like 9/11 and be exempt from the standards of society? And lastly, the United Nations has about as much real power as the Model United Nations debate club that I participate in does. Hey, the Security Council passed a resolution, well whoopity doo, without enforcement, are they going to get anything done, no. Even with their UN Peacekeeping Forces, they still managed to leave Mohammed Aidid in control of Somalia. Hussein has been violating UN Resolutions for years now, but it took the foresight of the US to actually do something about it. It's like trying to stop a slap shot from the blue line simply by standing near the guy and saying, "Wait, stop, don't, please?" But the real point that we are trying to show you is that Sharon doesn't deserve a War Crimes Trial, it's the guys around him that have been doing this crap for years already and have killed the most civilians in the modern era since Josef Stalin. Show a little common sense here guys.

"The Independent Palestinian Information Network"

This is not a source, this is disinformation. Sharon never said it. Nice try.

You also made abundantly clear that Sharon approved the Phalangists going into the camps at Sabra and Chatila, to "mop them up", of the terrorists imbedded there. So? What does this prove? This has nothing to do with knowledge of or approval of a massacre! Their mission was to clear out the terrorists, and they went nuts and shot everyone! I can't believe you guys can post stuff like this. Are you thinking? Do you have a brain? Oh, and Dragonlich, actually, the Jordanian massacre of Palestinians ("Black September"), killed thousands and thousands. The PLO had tried to topple the Jordanian monarchy, and had set up a state within a state. Jordan was pissed. This was far worse than anything Sharon was ever involved in, it is questionable to even mention them in the same sentence. Sharon was involved in many battles, he was a general, and many military campaigns, and I'm sure some civilians were killed in those campaigns, as the targets(PLO) used the same tactics you saw the Iraqis using. Human shields, armories in hospitals, young kids on the front lines. It is a propaganda war, and they try to use our morality against us. And about that shit that Sharon never said, that is the kind of crap that the nazis spread about Jewish leaders leading up to the Holocaust, and Czarist Russia spread (Protocols of the Elders of Zion) to work up jew-hatred for political purposes. Hope you're proud.

You've totally missed it...again!

The ceasefire, brokered by the US, allowed all the PLO forces to get out BEFORE the massacres occured. The whole point is that those camps were filled with civilian men, women, and children. Sharon's covenient choice of language (labelling civilians "terrorists") had its exact intended effect on you. The whole point is they WERE NOT terrorists, they were civilians. All the fighters had left on the 10th. Sharon and those death squads knew exactly what they were doing going into those camps.

The cease-fire came later when the PLO was holed up in Beirut. The US and UN were TRYING to negotiate a cease-fire all along, but it wasn't working. There wasn't a real cease-fire until later, when the PLO was allowed to evacuate Beirut. The camps were NOT only filled with civilians by any means, they were terrorist centers. There would have been absolutely no reason for anyone to enter them in the first place if that was the case. I will state again, that Sharon has been involved in 2 different lawsuits, one against an Israeli magazine, and one againt Time magazine, in a US court, when they suggested that he had any form of direct responsibility or foreknowledge. He won both cases, because he was able to prove it. You want so badly to believe the worst about Sharon that you are obfuscating and ignoring reality.

I'd like to hear what Nad Adam has to say for himself, by the way.

Que? :confused:

I'm going to sleep, if crumbbum means that I'm a nazi then please explain a bit further in what way and I'll get back to that tomorrow.


PS I have no idea what obfuscating means so it's possible I'm doing that.

I don't understand what you mean by later. The PLO forces were out on September 1, 1982. The multinational forces overseeing it all were gone on the 10th. The massacres occured later in the week. That's reality. You're talking like these acts of genocide occured before the PLO forces left. Where are you coming up with this?

Just for clarifications sake, when Sharon sued Time magazine a jury found that specific Time article defamatory and false, but NOT libelous. Sharon was not "cleared" by any means.

I'm sure crumbbum simply forgot to mention that fact.

Ok, I mixed up the dates a little before- my mistake. Here is the correct information- the massacres took place on the 16th and 17th. The war was basically over, and Israel was trying to transfer military authority back to the Lebanese. The Phalangists were part of the Lebanese Army.
"By June 1982, Israel viewed the Syrian and PLO presence in southern Lebanon as a threat and attacked. Yasser Arafat and PLO followers were forced to evacuate Beirut strongholds and later reestablished their headquarters in Tunisia. With the help of U.S. envoy Philip Habib, the international community in August negotiated the PLO withdrawal agreement and deployed U.S., French, and Italian forces to Beirut to facilitate the move.

Civil war and violence continued to rage in Lebanon and key political figure, president-elect Bachir Gemayel was assassinated before he could even take office. The turmoil and the continued presence of PLO fighters prompted a second Israeli invasion in September 1982. This time Israeli forces moved all the way up to the capital of Beirut, occupying the western half of the city."
That is from PBS- http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...eace_sec2.html
There was still PLO in the country, and the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps were PLO strongholds. Among the 7-800 killed were many PLO terrorists, as well as many innocent civilians. At this stage in the war, Israel was trying to transfer military authority back to the Lebanese Army, as they were trying to pull out. The Phalangists were part of the country of Lebanon's military.
The Israeli commision into this, the Kahan commission, found Sharon, as Defense Minister, indirectly responsible, and he was forced to step down. It was ruled that he should have foreseen that a massacre was a possibility, although no one else in the military, media, or anyone else had suggested that this could happen either. He was forced to step down. He bears no direct responsibility.
And Nad Adam, I am not calling you a nazi, but the fabricated quote you posted, from "The Independent Palestinian Information Network", is not legitimate. This is the type of propaganda that was pushed by the nazis to stir up Jew-hatred, which gave Hitler the public support for his "Final solution". I hope you don't really believe what you have posted. If you do, and fail to acknowledge how sick it is, I would consider you an anti-semite. That "quote" is not from a legitimate source, and jewish conspiracy theories have no place in any intellectually honest discourse. I didn't mean to say you were a nazi- you should just be aware of the significance of believing or posting something like that. I did do a google search, and besides the site you mentioned I also found it on another jew-hating sight, the "American defense league", I believed it was called, filled with anti-semitic hate literature.

"Just for clarifications sake, when Sharon sued Time magazine a jury found that specific Time article defamatory and false, but NOT libelous. Sharon was not "cleared" by any means.

I'm sure crumbbum simply forgot to mention that fact."

The jury found the article suggesting he had foreknowledge/direct responsibilitiy for the massacre defamatory and false. FALSE. What does this mean to you? How would you define libel, if not smearing someone with responsibility for something when it isn't true? That is what libel is- get a dictionary.
And obfuscate means to distort, change, or hide some fact or truth.

I'm unclear about something so any feedback on this is greatly appreciated: Nothing can be taken away from the people that actually do the physical fighting to make things happen throughout human history. Alongside that element of cultural expansion is the vital areas diplomacy with regards to international politics. The UN certainly seems to have fallen apart; if one could consider it to have ever been together in the first place. The rotation of countries into positions of global political authority when the leadership’s actions reflect a contradiction of the areas of their responsibility makes this case all to clear.

This dysfunctional state could have evolved from multiple factors. One that stands out to me is the double standard and situational respect that all countries seem to give it. This dooms it from the start. In regards to this discussion; a ProIsrael perspective disagree will the 90 resolutions Israel is in violation of including transgressed Geneva Convention laws. It’s understandable how the Israeli government would scoff at UN demands of retribution and justice; especially as noted when the community has Arabs in it. The world has Arabs in it who believes they're as right as the Israelis.

Is Israel discounting the very entity that recognized its statehood? With no discredit taken to those that fight; the Jewish diplomats scored an equal great victory by gaining the recognition of the UN. It appeared at that point Israel didn’t have any issues with the UN at all until resolutions were passed that it did not benefit from. It truly is a joke that counties such as Iraq and Cuba held positions dealing with disarmament and human rights; but no more than the 90 resolutions Israel continues to break. If someone disagrees with this they are accused of being anti-Semitic; which is ridiculous and side tracking the issue. When things are desired both ways is it unreasonable to expect the reaction is going to be negative. I think the UN should be disbanded; what could have been a good thing has become a joke.

I think America should go to war with any nation that doesn’t agree to lift the sanctions on Iraq, nuke Mecca, nuke Iran, nuke Syria, give more money and weapons to Israel than already given and let them finish off the Palestinians, Lebanese, and Jordians, hire the remaining Saudis work in the oil fields for cheap labor, laugh at France, tell Russia and China to deal with it, turn North Korea into a giant casino and we will finally have truth, liberty, and justice for all.

Pardon the sarcasm these issues are frustrating to me; as is the rest of the world. It seems like humans could be capable of so much more.

Technological progression with social regression; IMO looking back at our passionate history we haven’t learned a dam thing. That is of course MO.

Has he said that? Could you please provide a link with reasonable credability you saw that.

I found this excerpt interesting from the debka site:

I wonder how far he would like them stretched.
I also agree everyone should be put on trial; but should any that are recieve the same pass as the rest?

I went to a site that truly has me bothered; I need help discrediting the material here and substance that shows it to be inaccurate.

www.indybay.org/news/2003/02/1572736.php

Sun Tzu I read through that, a lot of the quotes are from nutcases, like Ginsburg- people no one, Israelis included, takes seriously. many of the other quotes, when put next to the rest, are taken out of context. It is good to be suspicious when selective quotes are gathered for the specific purpose of saying that the Zionists are racist and evil.
About the supposed Sharon quote, the source he gave, it's above, was the "Independent Palestinian Information Network". When I did a google search I found the quote on that site, which is devoted to attacking US Israel ties, and also on the "American defense league" website, which was basically an anti-Jewish hate site. The quote is fabricated, I couldn't find it anywhere else, and no legitimate source was given to counter what I said above.

The Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs seemed to find the source credible enough. It seems like you're not going to accept any source that is criticle of Israel and/or its policies. Yet you provide Israeli sources as gospel. This double standard is maknig it impossible to have any sort of discussion.

First, what Israeli sources did I provide as gospel? Second, The "Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs" is, from looking at the website, an arab lobby group that's only goal, apparently, is to break US support of the State of Israel. I saw their site, I read what it said. the unreliability of that site as a source is irrelevant however, as it is not the source of the "quote". I have never even heard of the "Independent Palestinian Information Network", and it sounds extremely fishy. You have in no way established it as legitimate.
You have however, succeeded in dodging every fact-based argument I have presented in response to your points. I would appreciate it if you would, if you are able, respond to the legitimate points I have raised.

I have a hard time finding your legitimate points.

You've been saying the same thing over and over again. That an Israeli commision founded Sharon indirectly responsible therefore you believe that implies he as well as everyone else had no clue what was going on. How much faith should I put in a finding put forth by the Israeli government concerning an attoricty alledgedly commited by its own people? It may seem totally impartial to you, but it's far from it to me.

What about my post with all the different sources linking Sharon directly to the two massacres? They indicate that he was an integral part of what occured. You did not address any of those points.

Excuse me if I don't take all of your claims as "facts". You provide no sources but you accuse me of dodging your fact-based arguments? What'd I ignore?

crumbbum thanks for taking the time to look. Im looking through all the Ben Gurion records that I find both on and off the web.

The quote "We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."
It is the first time I've seen anything of such by him. I found in the past he was careful what he said because of the pressure the British were putting on the Zionists to limit immigration and turning ships back. If its found to accurate I dont see how such could be taken out of context, and also shows terrorism goes back further than what is widely thought from directions most dont look in.

I wish the forum had an automatic spell check

Oh man, this will take forever, but I feel like it's too important to leave outstanding. I'm going to go through the quotes, Sun-Tzu.
Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the 'Beasts,"' New Statesman, June 25,1982:

"[The Palestinians] are beasts walking on two legs."
What is unclear is whether or not he was talking about Palestinian terrorists- I personally would indeed consider anyone who commited many of the horrific atrocities by Palestinian terrorists a beast. To give your own life for the sake of murdering as many innocent people as possible is beastly- be it on 9/11, in Israel, in Morocco, in Moscow, anywhere. It is sick, disgusting and inhuman.

David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff.
From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978:

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population."
This is out of context- why did the Galilee need to be rid of its arab population? What is unsaid is the reality, which is that the Galilee was a center of the Fedayeen, that were conducting raids on the nearby kibbutzes and killing people. There were indeed retaliatory strikes and the like before 1948- it was self-defense. Quotes like this must be taken in historical context, and understand what was really going on. At this time the Jews in Palestine were not a military power, but were struggling to defend their fledgling farm communities from raids, and the roads from bandits and murderers.

Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department.

From Israel: an Apartheid State by Uri Davis, p.5:

"Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them."

It is no secret that after the 67 war, there was a drive to build settlements on the hilltops in the territories. The hilltops were chosen for defensive purposes. No Arab land was stolen, the land claimed was ownerless (though some legal scholars would say the Israelis had the most right to it, as they had captured it in a self-defensive war). Once the land came under Israeli control, there was a rush to build settlements in strategically important places, before the high ground was claimed by the arabs (there were and are many arab settlements as well. There are more illegal arab settlements than Jewish ones today, particularly in the Negev- as of yet, Israel has not dismantled any of them).

Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization, speaking of the Arabs of Palestine, "Complete Diaries," June 12, 1895 entry.:

"Spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly."
First of all, herzl only lived to see the first wave of Jewish immigration, he died soon after. Obviously, the early settlers hoped to gain land in the area. As it turned out, they purchased it legally from the arabs, often at ridiculous prices. Herzl's idea here of driving the arabs out by denying them employment- first of all, why was it the Jews' responsibility to employ the arabs? The vast majority of the Palestinians today are descended from arabs who came from surrounding countries seeking employment. Only a small minority of the Palestinians are descended from arabs who actually had lived in the land for any significant length of time. As far as Herzl's statement, I assume he was aware of the population figures, and Arab and Jewish immigration statistics. I assume he was aware of the reality of the situation- that the majority of the arab population in Palestine was arabs who had come seeking employment opportunity, which the jewish settlement had created. Since this was the only thing bringing arabs to the land, he suggested that by denying them employment they would leave. This is perfectly legitimate. The jewish immigrants did not drive anyone out, or steal land, or any other such behavior, in the interest of procuring property. They bought the land fair and square. There is nothing wrong with Herzl's statement- his intent was not to drive out the authentic arab population, but to encourage the arabs who had only come for employment to look elsewhere, freeing up available land.

Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg, head of the Kever Yossev Yeshiva (school of Talmud) in Nablus stated:

"The blood of the Jewish people is loved by the Lord; it is therefore redder and their life is preferable."
Ginsburg is infamously crazy. No one takes him seriously, and he does not speak for the Jewish religion. His statements are deemed irrelevant by other rabbis.

Yitzhak Ginsburg, "Five General Religious Duties Which Lie Behind the Act of the Saintly, Late Rabbi Baruch Goldstein, May his Blood be Avenged":

"The killing by a Jew of a non-Jew, i.e. a Palestinian, is considered essentially a good deed, and Jews should therefore have no compunction about it."
Same as above- this is btw a false statement about the Jewish religion.

In 1923, radical Zionist Ze'ev Jabotinsky-- spiritual father of not only of Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin but of Brooklyn Rabbi Meir Kahane-- wrote:

the "sole way" for Jews to deal with Arabs in Palestine was through "total avoidance of all attempts to arrive at a settlement"-which Jabotinsky euphemistically termed the "iron wall" approach. Not coincidentally, a picture of Jabotinsky graces Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's desk. Source: The Village Voice, "Death Wish in the Holy Land," Dec. 12, 2001.
I don't know about the picture on Sharon's desk. I know that the Village Voice has been virulently pro-palestinian. As far as Jabotinsky- so what? Yasser Arafat, as well as the PM of Pakistan, Musharref, have both referred in speeches to the "Treaty of Hubadiah"- Arafat in reference to agreements with Israelis, and Musharref with the US. It refers to a peace treaty Muhammed made with an enemy city. After ten years, he aquired enough strength to take the city, thus breaking the peace agreement. False agreements, like Oslo (where the PLO was politically resurrected, given an autonomous government west of the Jordan, and armed, in return for nothing but false promises), are a typical strategy used in Arab warfare. The people the Jews in Palestine were dealing with in Jabotinsky's time, were mostly 2 groups- arabs in Palestine who welcomed Jewish immigration and benefited from it, and arabs, led by the Mufti of Jerusalem, who collaborated with the nazis, and had control of many vicious gangs, who harassed the Jews and stirred up Pogroms, like the one in Hebron in 1929, where 133 Jews were killed by an Arab mob, primarily with axes and knives, and nearly 400 wounded. It was wise not to indulge in negotiation with such people at the time, who only seeked the destruction of the Jews in the area. He was right at the time he said it. He realized that the only way there could only be a peaceful settlement once th arab rejectionists had accepted that the Jewish presence in palestine was permanent. This is true today as well.

The influential Israeli Rabbi Ovadia Yosef exclaimed during a sermon preceding the 2001 Passover holiday, :

"May the Holy Name visit retribution on the
Arab heads, and cause their seed to be lost, and annihilate them." He added: "It is forbidden to have pity on them. We must give them missiles with relish, annihilate them. Evil ones, damnable ones." -- Source: Ha'aretz April 12, 2001.
He was undountedly referring to the terrorists, probably, based on his statement about the missiles, leaders of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and other terrorist groups, that the IDF has made a policy of targeting and killing, often with missiles.

Moshe Dayan, address to the Technion, Haifa, reported in Haaretz, April 4, 1969:

"We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, ‘What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said 'Drive them out!'"
A hand gesture that said "drive them out"? That's not really legit. The context is unclear, and this is Dayan's interpretation of a hand gesture- a fairly ambiguous thing. Maybe he meant that, maybe not- the situation and context is unclear from the statement, and there isn't enough to go on here.

David Ben Gurion, quoted in The Jewish Paradox, by Nahum Goldmann, Weidenfeld and Nicolson,
1978, p. 99:

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population."

I don't know much about this guy, but again it is presented out of context. It is true, that there are few places in Israel today where arabs once lived (though the area was only lightly populated). What is not said is that the land was sold completely legitimately to the Jews. There is nothing controversial about saying that before Jewish immigration, the land was inhabited primarily by arabs. It was. There was a Jewish presence there at all times, as well, but it was a small minority in most places, with the exception of Jerusalem. The statement is a bit of an exaggeration- the land was only lightly populated, and mostly barren and empty. There were many places where no one lived. The land itself, however was mostly owned by arabs, if not inhabited.

Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, 'Begin and the "Beasts"', New Statesman, 25 June 1982:

"We must do everything to ensure they [the Palestinian refugees] never do return."

Duh. This would result in the destruction of the State of Israel. This has always been the official Israeli position.

Yitzhak Rabin, leaked censored version of Rabin memoirs, published in the New York Times, 23 October 1979. Rabin's description of the conquest of Lydda, after the completion of Plan Dalet:

"We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters."

" I don't know about this, what does it mean "leaked censored version of Rabin's memoirs"? I don't know whether he said it or not. That said, it should be noted that the Arab population in Palestine before Jewish immigration was almost exclusively poor farmers and peasants, living in squallid condition. They lived in mud huts, and malaria and other diseases were widespread. Most were illiterate. So I don't know exactly what this quote suggests they will be reduced from. Once Jewish immigration was underway, they mostly worked for the Jews. That said, this quote is also out of context- it says it was after a battle? For all I know, maybe he was just pissed after winning the battle. He was a general after all. I don't know what a big deal this quote is, it depends on the context. I wouldn't want to hear what things other soldiers and officers and generals have said after winning battles, about "krauts" or "sand niggers" or "japs" or whatever. Who cares?

David Goldman wrote:

"We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours."

Who is David Goldman?

Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir's infamous quote:

"There is no such thing as a Palestinian."
I have explained this before- what she meant is that the term "Palestinian", in referring to Palestinian arabs, is a misnomer. Before 1948 the Jews were referred to as the Palestinians- the Jerusalem Post was once called the "palestine post". The Palestinians today are the descendants from arabs of various surrounding countries. The Palestinians never identified themselves as a distinct nation until after 1967. Arafat himself, along with Edward Said, the famous Palestinian propagandist, who teaches at Columbia, are Egyptians.

Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998:

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization, or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands."

Duh, again. See above comment on Ben-Gurion's supposed quote.


Israel Koenig, "The Koenig Memorandum":

"If I was an Arab leader I would never make [peace] with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country."

Don't know much about Israel Koenig, but he's wrong- there was never any country in the land that made up Palestine, in 800 years of arab rule. Never. The only country or sovereign entity that ever existed on that land was the Kingdom of Judah, that was destroyed by the Romans, and Israel today. It was never more than a backwater province of the Ottoman empire. Perhaps he was referring to the Palestinians today, who do indeed believe that Israel stole their country. They have been brought up to believe this, by the PA school system and media, among other things. It is a reality to them, even if it isn't based in truth. Perhaps this is what he meant.

And finally:

Michael Ben-Yair, Attorney General of Israel, 1993-1996 (in Ha'aretz):

"The Intifada is the Palestinian's people's war of national liberation. We [Israel] enthusiastically chose to become a colonialist society, ignoring international treaties, expropriating lands, transferring settlers from Israel to the Occupied Territories, engaging in theft and funding justification for all these activities.. we [Israel] established an apartheid regime."

The Israeli left controls the Justice system in Israel. I don't know who this guy was, but he's wrong- no land w

Correction about the Ben-Gurion quote- didn't see that it was from 1948. Same thing applies though- it was a hostile center in the war, that occupied a crucial position and was a launching bad for Arab attacks against the Kibutzes in the area. It was a war!

SLM3, I am not going to respond to you anymore after this. I produced a link to a completely impartial source, PBS, that explained that the PLO had not pulled out of Lebanon at the time of Sabra and Chatila, as you postulated. You have not addressed the fact that in the case against Time magazine, that their assertion that Sharon bore direct responsibility was false. I did not use the Israeli inquiry as my only evidence. Your tone in towards me in your posts has made the discussion very unpleasant.
I did respond to your post with sources supposedly linking Sharon to the massacre. You must have missed it. From the sources you provided it is apparent that Sharon approved the Phalangist operation. I have never asserted or heard otherwise. The massacre was not their mission. Their mission was to clear the PLO out of the camps. Instead, they engaged in a massacre, a revenge killing for the PLO assassination of the newly elected Lebanese president. You didn't respond to my previous post about this.
I will close with a question: Do you see any hypocrisy or political intrigue in the fact that no one has tried ever bring a lawsuit against the Phalangists, the party with direct responsibility, themselves? Why do you think this is? Why, in your perception, haven't investigations or lawsuits been launched against the Jordanian government for it's massacre of thousands of Palestinians in "Black September", or the Syrians for their brutal ocupation of Lebanon? What about Iraq, before the war? How about Yasser Arafat, who is responsible for the murder of more Jews than anyone since Hitler? Goodnight.

Your faith in Sharon means you'll never objectively look at the evidence I'm provided. It's obvious he was kept very well aware of exactly what was happening in those camps as it was happening yet you refuse to believe he had any clue of what was going on. My point is I don't understand how he could have known about everything EXCEPT the massacres. He sent them in only to get PLO terrorists? How would they seperate terrorists from innocents? Do they carry terrorist ID? It just seems painfully obvious that the whole operation was a recipe for disaster.

Don't ask me why, but a later Lebanese internal investigation found Phalangist fighters immune from prosecution for the massacres. Perhaps they decided the man who gave the orders should be most responsible.

To label the Jordanian killing of Palestinians as murder shows a total lack of historical understanding. You make it sound like the Jordanians rounded them all up in a camp, sorrounded it with tanks, and killed everyone inside. I dunno, but something about an attempted overthrow of the government by radicals comes to mind.

Syrian occupation of Lebanon? Yet another historical fallacy. Well, maybe if you ask some of the Christians they'd call it an occupation. I for one would like to see the Syrians out but I don't forget that the French created borders of Lebanon once constituted the Western half of Syria.

What about Iraq before the war? GREAT question. Who would possibly block investigations into Iraq? What about the US and the European countries who gave him all the proper tools and support to carry out his most heinous attrocities?

If you want to prosecute Arafat, go ahead. What does that have to do with Sharon and his crimes? Why does the US attack Iraq claiming a ruthless tyrant needs to be disposed of when it ignores all the other ruthless tyrants in the world? Are you saying Sadaam should be left in power as long as the world isn't willing to attack all dictators?

You said you're not going to respond. That's fine, don't. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

We're all passionate about what we believe and our desire for there to be a just and peaceful world. As with every thread I’ve seen posted in the forum; including the last one the very same pattern has evolved. I’m guilty of contributing to it as well. What I’m referring to is the progression of the discussion. Many things have been said, facts (?), historical accountings (the many versions that exist), and other elements that lend for good debate, with the small hope (I speak for myself) that maybe will help shed light on someone who's misinformed and/ or fallen prey to a successful and strategic disinformation campaign. The truth is the only things I learn from each of the discussions are familiar elements that only strengthen what I believed before. It always seems to be exactly the same for those I debate with.
There are no dummies or drones in the forum, IMO people like don't care what’s going on around them, unconnected in a world they're checked out of. With that said there is enough information in multiple forms out there (including going there) that whatever position they have arrived at did so because that’s how they chosen to interpret what the see, feel, hear, and experience as their reality. I’m not one to say that's right or wrong. The people who are saying its right or wrong are the ones dying from this senseless perpetual greed. Then again that exists everywhere; even within are own borders. crumbbum thanks for interesting conversation its never dull when talking about this issue, but because I find myself sinking into this every time; posting my perceptions and the reason that are so blatantly clear to me I feel almost bound to assist in making them clearer. As with each of the threads with this subject I realize your doing the same thing. Because of time (and maybe not getting anything else done) I'll respectfully bow out of this conversation for now.
I'll leave with maintaining my hope that one day (sooner the better) the two will leave in peace side by side.

Sun Tzu, it has been a pleasure discussing these hairy issues with you- you are a very intelligent, respectful and impressively scholastic poster :). I hope you aren't also bowing out of our other thread, but if so, I understand. It has been very interesting and stimulating for me as well. Best wishes.

SLM3, this could go on forever, but it has only been established that Sharon gave the ok for the Phalangists to go into the camps to carry out their mission, which was to clear out the PLO presence. This was done, by the Israelis all over Lebanon, and is not the paradox you have presented it as. The PLO had a pseudo-army- there were bunkers and weapons caches at Sabra and Chatila, and there were, it was estimated beforehand, between 100-200 PLO fighters holed up there. Sharon gave the ok for the Phalangists to go in- that is not in doubt. But it is a serious allegation to say that he had knowledge of, or even more serious, gave an order for a massacre.
Since in court he has already been found innocent of these things, in his suit against Time magazine (and the Israeli publication), as well as the Kahan commission, the burden of proof is on you if you are trying to prove that despite the findings in these three cases, that they are wrong and he had direct knowledge and/or participation. I don't see how you assume he knew everything that was happening- the Phalangists went in alone, and as Minister of Defense in wartime, I assume he was a pretty busy man- he had many other things going on at the same time as well. If he had been listening on the radio, or somehow in direct contact, that would have been surfaced. The Kahan commision, although you don't take it seriously, was ordered by people who were political enemies of Sharon, and it was meticulous. I am not expecting you to rely on that as the only proof, of course. But you have presented no evidence that would indicate his guilt or direct compliance- at most, he is guilty of poor judgement, as the commission found (he "should have known"). Again, no one else predicted this either, it wasn't obvious before it happened. They did not have orders to carry out a massacre.
And about your trivialization of the Jordanian massacre of Palestinians, yes, the PLO tried to overthrow the government. It was civilians that were killed, in the thousands. You don't care about this? The Phalangists, representatives of the Lebanese, killed Palestinians in a revenge attack for the assassination of their president, and the years of brutalization by the PLO.
The Syrian occupation of Lebanon is not a historical fallacy, that is ridiculous. That is a terrible thing to say. Lebanon is a sovereign country.
Anyway, like I said before, the burden of proof is on you, and you haven't presented any. I understand your suspicion, I had much of it myself on learning about the topic. I didn't make up my mind until I learned the details, and observed the facts. I am not arguing with you to defend Sharon, I'm only trying to defend the truth. Anyway, unless you can post something which proves your point I'm done with the discussion.

Sun Tzu, if you are still reading this, did you get my response to the list of quotes you asked about? You don't have to respond in detail, but I hope you at least got my response to that. Cheers.

If Israel and Sharon truly had no idea what was going to occur then they must be the most ignorant people alive. To think nothing would occur sending in the Phalange to a camp full of Palestinians, whom they'd been fighting for 7 long years, is just preposterous. Furthermore, it was Israel's responsibility, under Geneva conventions as the occupying power, to protect the innocents in those camps. There was a very interesting investigation into the events, including eye witness accounts, provided by the BBC. Entitled, "The Accused", here is a transcript of the show.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...t_17_06_01.txt

Ok, I read through a lot of this, but it has not been established that he knew it would happen. The Phalangists weren't just some random militia, they were the sovereign Lebanese military. The IDF was in the process of pulling out of Lebanon, and the Phalange was the military that would inevitably fill the vacuum.

"To think nothing would occur sending in the Phalange to a camp full of Palestinians, whom they'd been fighting for 7 long years, is just preposterous. "

Israel's civilian population has been under attack by terrorists in a series of brutal massacres now for over 2 years, but there have been no massacres of Palestinians. The Phalange was a professional military force that had trained with the Israelis. The IDF assumed that they would conduct themselves as a military should.
Also, if a massacre was so obvious, then why did no one else think to mention it before it happened either? No one did. The Phalangists had carried out other operations professionally. To assume that they would go crazy and massacre people is racist- like I said above, not expecting the same standards anyone does from anyone else. I am not trivializing the massacre, obviously- but if anyone should be prosecuted, it is the Phalangists themselves!
Sharon does bear indirect responsibility, as the military commander in the area, it did happen under his jurisdiction. But if he had known, why on earth would he have let it happen? He was and is well-aware of the intense scrutiny the world watches Israel with. Why would he allow something to happen that would for a long time destroy his political career, tar his country's reputation and allow innocent people to be killed? Israel had everything to lose from this, and nothing to gain. The IDF has never engaged in massacres, and has a strict purity of arms code. What the legal cases found was that he should have known- it was an error in judgement. It was one that all the journalists, the UN, and everyone else made too. It is wrong to say that he knew this was happening.

You say it was obvious because the Phalangists had been engaged in fighting with the PLO for 7 years. Well in case you didn't notice, there are tons of ongoing conflicts in the middle east- and the only way to assume that it is natural for that to result in a massacre of innocents is if you are racist to begin with, and do not consider arabs to be of the same moral status as the rest of humanity. The Israelis have shown remarkable restraint in their short history, and I don't see why the same shouldn't be expected of everyone else, especially when it's a professional army (as opposed to PLO terrorists, who commited many atrocities as you said), and the legitimate and sovereign military power in Lebanon. It was their country, and Israel was pulling out. The massacre was clearly barbaric, and a disaster. But Sharon did not know it was going to happen- you can attribute this to poor judgement, but there is no reason to believe that it was pre-meditated, when the 3 legal inquiries all found him only indirectly responsible. Again, the burden of proof is on you, if you wish to say that all 3 of these cases, which exhumed the facts far more exhaustively than you or I have, are all wrong. If you assume despite the findings of others based on all the evidence, that Sharon is guilty, then it is only because you want him to be guilty.

I guess it depends on how strictly you define a massacre. Instead of rounding up Palestinians and killing them one by one out in the open, Israel has been operating a brutal occupation. Destroying homes, infrastructure, as well as enforcing harsh curfews which don't allow people to work or go to school. They're killing them slowly, agonizingly.

For someone who denies the very existence of a Palestinian people, you use the word "racist" an awful lot.

I don't paint the world with such broad strokes like you do. It was Sharon's responsibility to look at each situation in its uniqueness and make decisions accordingly. This means rethinking the idea to send in a group of militiamen who's leader had just been assassinated. The Phalangists had been the subject of some horrible acts by Palestinian people; any honest observer would have an easy time describing tensions as extremely high. It's not racist, it's called using your head. I'm not a violent person, but if someone kills a member of my family it's probably not a good idea to stick me in the same room as the murderer and lock the door.

The point is, the evidence shows that it was such a blatantly ignorant choice that it just screams there must have been more going on. Sharon very deliberately sent in the enemies of those people to handle the "mop up" as he so elegantly put it. There's more than just "poor judgement" evident here. Use your head, don't apply broad generalizations of people. Look at each case individually. You're not giving this incident the respect and attention it deserves.

Look, I never said it wasn't poor judgement- that was what the Kahan commission found, and why he was forced to step down. That said, if it was so obvious, then someone else would have spoken up before it happened- as it happened, no one in the press, the US, the UN, or anyone ever pointed out the danger beforehand. He was indirectly responsible, as was found. This does not make him a war criminal. If he was a war criminal, then he would have been proven as such, as this incident has been exhaustively investigated.

Your rant about the oppression of the Palestinians is uncalled for. It cannot be compared to a massacre, as no one is trying to exterminate them. "Destroying homes, infrastructure, as well as enforcing harsh curfews which don't allow people to work or go to school" - first, there was never much infrastructure to begin with, and infrastructure is not targeted. The IDF does a huge amount humanitarian assistance in the territories that you never hear about.

Secondly, and this doesn't even deserve being argued, the "occupation" (it hasn't been once since 1993) is in self-defense- if Israel's civilians weren't constantly being targeted, shot and blown up then Israel would have no need to militarily control Palestinian areas. To argue this point is ludicrous- the Israelis don't want to be in there, but are given no chance, since the well armed security forces of the Palestinian Authority have still not taken any action to prevent terror attacks against innocent Israelis. You tell me that I am paying selective attention, but you don't seem to be particularly outraged about bus bombings, rocket attacks on schoolbuses where children get their legs blown off, shootings, murders of women and children, targeted, the sniping of babies- these are things that have all happened.

Your interest in this is clearly not humanitarian, and you have allied yourself with some of the most deplorable and sick murderers the world has ever known. I am through with this conversation. If you are actually interested in learning a bit before continuing your ranting, read the thread about the Peace plan and the settlements. I have nothing left to say here.

"Sharon very deliberately sent in the enemies of those people to handle the "mop up" as he so elegantly put it."

The Phalangists, again, were the sovereign military force there, and representatives of the Lebanese government. Israel was in the process of pulling out of Lebanon, and was obviously transferring military control back to the sovereign entity in the area, the Lebanese government.

KEANE: But the Israelis also mentioned the possibility of deploying the Phalange in West Beirut. Morris Draper says the Americans were horrified at the suggestion.

DRAPER: We made it very clear, under no circumstances could the United States tolerate this.

KEANE: Why?

DRAPER: Because it would be a massacre, we knew. Couldn't let those people in.

Seems like the Americans had the foresight to see this was a bad idea. The Phalanage were allies of Israel, and both were struggling with a Palestinian conflict. You're hiding the truth by simply referring to the Phalangists as a sovreign Lebanese army. You're ignoring their alliances. Lebanese politics is a complex issue indeed, it's hardly fair to label Lebanon as feeling one way or the other during this time. There was a civil war if you recall.

Protect your Sharon, the Butcher of Beirut. The truth will be revealed, of that I'm sure. The Palestinians deserve better than this brutal, oppressive regime which occupies them and their land.

You are ridiculous. You think you know better than the 3 inquiries into this topic? You haven't seen the evidence, he has never been convicted of it, and a biased BBC documentary about it doesn't prove anything. The Palestinians deserve..... do you think all the Israeli civilians that have been targeted and killed "had it coming"? What about Leon Klinghoffer, who was thrown off a cruise ship in his wheelchair by the PLO? How about Israeli schoolkids who had their legs blown off when Palestinians fired rockets at their schoolbus? How about the girl who watched half her family get murdered in front of her at her Bat Mitzva, or the Holocaust survivors who were killed sitting at a Passover seder?

A further question. If you were the PM of Israel, what would you be doing to protect your citizens? How do you think the US would respond if the Palestinians walked away from peace agreements and launched a terror war against American civilians? What would happen, if proportionally to the population, America had experienced 6 9/11s in 2 years?

You are sick, and I have nothing else to say to you.

You appear as anti-semitic, since you don't care at all about any other massacres in the region, and since you refuse to apply the same standards to any other world leaders, including the US military.

sigh...

I'm not anti-semitic. I'm a semite! My background trails through both Lebanon and Palestine.

I must apologize. I'm sorry if I'm not as comfortable swallowing everything that is force fed to me. I'm sorry if I have a tendency to use my own head and make my own decisions. When I'm ready to base my decisions on Israeli reports, I'm sure we'll see eye to eye.

You see, I don't deny atrocities committed by both sides in this conflict. Do you want me to start listing off instances of Palestinian civilian casualties? Shall we sit here forever comparing stories?

Can you possibly imagine what Palestinian people must have felt after the joke that was offered them in those peace agreements? It was a complete farce as any impartial observer would be glad to admit. I'm not making excuses, but don't you dare claim the Palestinians walked away from peace.

How would anyone in the world feel if they experienced the carnage of a 9/11 constantly for over 50 years?

So now the BBC is biased as well? Is that going to be your answer to everything?

saying that they experienced 9/11 constantly for 50 years trivializes 9/11. The Palestinians danced on 9/11. The term anti-Semitic, despite its literal definition, refers to Jews. The BBC, and the rest of the British press, is biased against Israel- Israel was made a state in spite of British efforts.

There have been many Palestinian civilian casualties. However, Palestinian civilians are not targeted, whereas Israeli civilians are deliberately killed. The Israeli offer at Taba was a more generous offer than the Palestinians will ever get, and Arafat didn't even make a counteroffer- he walked away and launched a terror war against civilians.

"You see, I don't deny atrocities committed by both sides in this conflict."
You have not once acknowledged the barbarity of the Palestinian terror attacks against Israeli civilians, or shown any concern for other massacres in the Middle East, including those against Palestinians that had no connection with the Israelis.

"When I'm ready to base my decisions on Israeli reports, I'm sure we'll see eye to eye."
I have cited 3 different inquiries into the incident, and they were not all Israeli. You have chosen to ignore this fact.

In your opinion, why were the Palestinian refugees left in camps for 55 years? Considering the vast sums of money poured into the camps from the US, EU, UN, and Israel (but not the arab world, incidentally), why haven't living conditions improved?

Why did the Palestinians never demand a state or even autonomy before 1967 when the Egyptians and Jordanians controlled the territories?

If a state next to Israel is what the Palestinians want, then why was the PLO formed in 1964, before Israel controlled the West bank or gaza? What exactly did they plan on liberating?

If there IS a such thing as the Palestinian people, tell me about their history? How far does it go back? Is there a Palestinian language? Is there a unique Palestinian culture? Why is there hero and leader, Arafat, an Egyptian?

In 1948 the State of Israel absorbed nearly 700,000 refugees from the arab world. Why didn't anyone absorb the Palestinian arab refugees?

If the Palestinians have a historical tradition, then why is it that the Jews in Palestine were referred to as "Palestinians" before 1948?

If Israel is evil, and robbed the Palestinians of their homeland, and is an enemy, why do so many Palestinians depend on employment in Israel? Why are 20% of Israelis arabs?

I would like to see truthful answers to these questions.

SLM3: The grass is green!
crumbbum: But cucumbers are green, therefore the grass can't be green!
SLM3: The grass is still green!
crumbbum: Why do you hate the grass?


Just give it up.

Nad Adam, perhaps you can answer some of the questions I presented to him in my last post. If you can't, please don't try and insult my contentions with his claims.

1) The dwellers of those camps are mainly villagers and agricultural workers whos land was taken away from them. On many occasions, they themselves have refused to be moved to more permanent locations. This is because they refuse to give up their right of return and do not look favourably on what would look like a permanent relocation to a host country. Go to a Palestinian refugee camp and ask someone there what they think. They'll explain their attachment to their land. As for the monies you claim to have been poured into the camps. Please know that Israel has not committed one cent to UNRWA despite the fact they took over all the moveable and immoveable possessions of the refugees (lands, houses, furniture, livestock, bank accounts etc). You mention the EU but you don't seem to realize that the EU is a relatively young group that hasn't existed during the bulk of this conflict. I believe you over estimate their contribution. Also, with respect to the UN, much of the UNRWA's budget is contributed to by Arab countries.

2) The Palestinians have been seeking an independant, autonomous, entity since the early 20th Century. To become more knowledgeable, look at all the Palestinian conferences held since the 1920's concerning the subject.

3) The Palestinians had continuously called for a united democratic bi-national Palestinian Jewish state in Palestine. This position was continuously rejected by the Israeli state which defines itself in exclusivist racial terms as a Jewish state. It remained until the conference in Algiers when the Palestinians, at the request of Arab countries and the international powers, adopted the 2 state concept for the Palestinian Israeli conflict. The idea of a unified democratic bi-national state is far superior and far more humane than the notion of a religiously based political entity.

4) To my knowledge, we don’t have a Lebanese language, a Syrian language, an Egyptian language, a Moroccan language, or a Sudanese language. People are not necessarily defined by their language. The Palestinians are the decendants of the Canaanites, Hebrews, Philistine, and Arab residents of Palestine and they assumed their distinct Arab character after the 7th century. The Palestinians have some idiosyncratic cultural traits and other traits that they share with people from the region. Alas, a large portion of the Jewish Israelis have no cultural traits that they share with the region. They are alien and they brought their Russian, Ukranian, Polish, German, and other traits with them to a land that they have no affinity, no history, to. Unlike the Palestinian Jew, who shares everything with the Palestinian people. As for Arafat, you show great ignorance. He is from the Husayni family of Jerusalem, a family that traces its roots through Jerusalem for many centuries.

5) The Palestinians do not want to be absorbed. They want Israel to recognize their right of return. I don’t know what your background is, but wherever your country is, then that’s where you belong and the Palestinians belong in Palestine. Israel did not absorb refugees; they took Jews from inside and outside the Arab world and told them to immigrate to Palestine. They tells Jews that they must not continue to live in countries outside Palestine because humanity will never come to accept them despite the fact that Jews have lived and survived within Arab societies throughout history.

6) That proves my point. They were because they were part and parcel of Palestinian society. Jews in Palestine, prior to the rise of Zionism (1897), were an integral part of the Palestinian society and the land continued to be named Palestine until 1948 when a major portion of it was forcibly transformed into an exclusivist Jewish state.

7) The 20% Arabs in Israel are remnants of Arabs of Palestinian society. They are a small portion. Today, the Palestinians count over 7 million people. 1 million in Israel, 3 million in the occupied territories and 3 million waiting to return to Palestine. If some Palestinians in the occupied territories depend on employment in Israel for their income, it is because they have been deprived of their businesses and lands. Israel is hardly giving back.

You seem to lack sources. If you'd like, I'd be happy to recommend a reading list to you.

Every factual statement I have said I can produce sources for. I am afraid that you have been misinformed about some things. Your post seemed sincere, and not as angry as previous ones, so I will respond civilly. You seem to believe what you are saying, but you may have learned some of these things wrong. I will go through.


1) The dwellers of those camps are mainly villagers and agricultural workers whos land was taken away from them. On many occasions, they themselves have refused to be moved to more permanent locations. This is because they refuse to give up their right of return and do not look favourably on what would look like a permanent relocation to a host country. Go to a Palestinian refugee camp and ask someone there what they think. They'll explain their attachment to their land. As for the monies you claim to have been poured into the camps. Please know that Israel has not committed one cent to UNRWA despite the fact they took over all the moveable and immoveable possessions of the refugees (lands, houses, furniture, livestock, bank accounts etc). You mention the EU but you don't seem to realize that the EU is a relatively young group that hasn't existed during the bulk of this conflict. I believe you over estimate their contribution. Also, with respect to the UN, much of the UNRWA's budget is contributed to by Arab countries.

It must be noted that 67% of the Palestinians left the area before the 1948 war, without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. This was for different reasons- most fled at the urging of Arab leaders, who told them that they could return to their homes after the Jews had been "pushed into the sea". There was also pressure on them to leave, as it was implied that those who didn't leave would be "personas non grata". In addition, rumors were spread, especially by the Mufti of Jerusalem and his gangs(more on him later), that in the villages where battles had taken place, that the Jews had raped arab women, etc, which terrified them and led them to fled. This had never happened, but the rumours were spread by those who wanted the Palestinian arabs to flee. I don't doubt that if I were to ask Palestinians today, that they would tell me how attached they are to their land. The rest were expelled in the course of the war, from villages that served as forward bases for the Arab armies, centers of the Fedayeen, or when the residents were hostile to the Jews, and the village was in a militarily crucial area.
The UN definiton of a Palestinian is any Arab who lived in the area of Palestine and owned some property, for 2 years or more. That is all. If you look at the population and immigration numbers, it becomes clear that the vast majority of Palestinians were only fairly recent immigrants to the land- they had come seeking employment. Before Jewish immigration picked up (there was always a Jewish presence in the land, albeit a small minority, except in Jerusalem), there were approximately 250,000 arabs in the entire area of Palestine. The region was very underpopulated, and the land was barren. There were isolated Arab villages, as well as Bedouins. Primarily though, the land was nearly empty, and almost entire barren and undeveloped. Arabs from surrounding countries came seeking employment as the Jews came. The Jewish immigrants drained the swamps, established infrastructure and created many employment opportunities. The benefits Jewish immigration brought to the area were appreciated by many of the Arabs, and many were openly friendly and appreciative of Jewish settlement, seeing the benefits it brought to all. There has been a great mythology built up, but in reality, only a small minority of the Palestinians today have a legitimate case for reimbursement from Israel. The Palestinians who willingly fled their homes are owed nothing by Israel, it wasn't Israel's fault they fled. They were invited to stay, and become Israeli citizens. 20% of Israelis today are Arab, and they are the descendants of those who stayed. Among the remaining 33%, those who in fact had a family history in the land and were not recent immigrants or migrant workers do deserve reimbursement, or possibly Israeli citizenship, if they were not hostile to the State of Israel. But the vast majority of Palestinians do not come under this category.

"2) The Palestinians have been seeking an independant, autonomous, entity since the early 20th Century. To become more knowledgeable, look at all the Palestinian conferences held since the 1920's concerning the subject."

Palestinian nationalism developed as a reaction to, and out of fears of Jewish immigration. In the 800 years that Palestine was under Arab control (the Ottomans), it was never more than a barren, underpopulated backwater territory. There was never any state, or aspiration to statehood, by it's inhabitants during this time period, at any point.


"3) The Palestinians had continuously called for a united democratic bi-national Palestinian Jewish state in Palestine. This position was continuously rejected by the Israeli state which defines itself in exclusivist racial terms as a Jewish state. It remained until the conference in Algiers when the Palestinians, at the request of Arab countries and the international powers, adopted the 2 state concept for the Palestinian Israeli conflict. The idea of a unified democratic bi-national state is far superior and far more humane than the notion of a religiously based political entity."

Israel, as a Jewish state, was founded as such because of the horrific treatment of Jews throughout history whenever they lived under the power of any other people. As you know, 20% of Israelis are arab- the state is obviously not racially exclusivist. It retains, however, its Jewish character as a homeland for the Jewish people. A unified, bi-national state would destroy Israel, because the Arab birthrates are higher, and because it would result in the same situation Jews were always in under Arab rule- dhimmihood, or 2nd class citizenship. Granted, the experience of the Jewish people in Muslim countries was better than the genocide they experienced in Christian lands, but it was still terrible- there were frequent pogroms, and the tide between coexistence and hatred changed suddenly. Many Jews were killed by Arab mobs. Arab rulership, for the Jews, was in no way Benign, it was simply a lesser evil than that of the Europeans.


"4) To my knowledge, we don’t have a Lebanese language, a Syrian language, an Egyptian language, a Moroccan language, or a Sudanese language. People are not necessarily defined by their language. The Palestinians are the decendants of the Canaanites, Hebrews, Philistine, and Arab residents of Palestine and they assumed their distinct Arab character after the 7th century. The Palestinians have some idiosyncratic cultural traits and other traits that they share with people from the region. Alas, a large portion of the Jewish Israelis have no cultural traits that they share with the region. They are alien and they brought their Russian, Ukranian, Polish, German, and other traits with them to a land that they have no affinity, no history, to. Unlike the Palestinian Jew, who shares everything with the Palestinian people. As for Arafat, you show great ignorance. He is from the Husayni family of Jerusalem, a family that traces its roots through Jerusalem for many centuries. "

First, the Palestinians are NOT descended from the Canaanites. That is a myth. The canaanites were not Arab.
"The Palestinians are the decendants of the Canaanites, Hebrews, Philistine, and Arab residents of Palestine and they assumed their distinct Arab character after the 7th century. The Palestinians have some idiosyncratic cultural traits and other traits that they share with people from the region."- exactly. They are arabs from the surrounding areas in the region, and are culturally indistinguishable as such.

To say the Jews have no history or affinity to the land of Israel is an extremely ignorant statement. The only sovereign political entities that ever existed in the land, until recent times, were Jewish kingdoms. Religious Jews have prayed, for thousands of years, facing Jerusalem, 3 times a day, and the return to Zion is begged for in Jewish prayers. The Jewish people and the Land of Israel are inseparable in any way- the Jews have been in exile for nearly 2000 years, but Israel is their home, and it has always been regarded as such. This needs no further clarification.
Also, Arafat IS Egyptian- his uncle was Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was allied with the Nazis, and was responsible for numerous terror attacks and pogroms against the Jewish settlers. It was him, largly, who destroyed the coexistence that the Arabs and Jews had lived in before his coming to power. Arafat was born in Egypt, but came to Jerusalem as a boy to live with his uncle.

"5) The Palestinians do not want to be absorbed. They want Israel to recognize their right of return. I don’t know what your background is, but wherever your country is, then that’s where you belong and the Palestinians belong in Palestine. Israel did not absorb refugees; they took Jews from inside and outside the Arab world and told them to immigrate to Palestine. They tells Jews that they must not continue to live in countries outside Palestine because humanity will never come to accept them despite the fact that Jews have lived and survived within Arab societies throughout history."

First, Jews have lived and survived through the most persecution any people has ever faced in history. This has nothing to do with the benevolence of their hosts. The refugees from Arab countries were expelled from those countries after the war. There were pogroms and angry mobs, who vented their frustrations about the Arab loss against them. I talked before about the experience of Jews living in Arab countries. The "right of return", which as I said before only a tiny minority of Palestinian could legitimately claim, is now claimed by millions of Palestinians. Their "return" would destroy the State of Israel, and is unrealistic. It is inhuman that they have been left in camps for 55 years- no other refugees in history have been left in camps like that. There has always been a population transfer when territory changed hands in a war.


"6) That proves my point. They were because they were part and parcel of Palestinian society. Jews in Palestine, prior to the rise of Zionism (1897), were an integral part of the Palestinian society and the land continued to be named Palestine until 1948 when a major portion of it was forcibly transformed into an exclusivist Jewish state"

The land was named Palestine, after the name the Romans gave it, Palaestina. This name was given after the Philistines, the ancient enemies of the Israelites, as an insult to the Jews who had been driven from their homeland.


"7) The 20% Arabs in Israel are remnants of Arabs of Palestinian society. They are a small portion. Today, the Palestinians count over 7 million people. 1 million in Israel, 3 million in the occupied territories and 3 million waiting to return to Palestine. If some Palestinians in the occupied territories depend on employment in Israel for their income, it is because they have been deprived of their businesses and lands. Israel is hardly giving back."

The Palestinians have had 55 years to build their own economy and society. It has never happened, due to corrupt leadership. There is no reason camps still exist- more humane living conditions should surely have been established by now, there has certainly been enough money donated for it. The only reason Palestinians depend on Israel for employment is because they do not have their own economy. Palestinian identity and society has been shaped around the idea of their having been robbed, and one day taking it back. This has led them to stagnate instead of building where they are. It has been 55 years, and if Palestinians, and their leaders who have so cruelly misled them for political ends, were working towards life, and not destruction, and had been working to build, and to live, instead of wallowing in victimhood, there would be no humanitarian crisis now, and no economic dependence. The Palestinians could be living in thriving, vibrant and succesful communities, under autonomy. The Palestinians are the best educated of all arabs, and certainly are capable of creating an open, progressive and succesful society. This, sadly, will never happen until they accept the truth that they have been misled, and move on and choose life.

Many Palestinians did leave before the Israeli soldiers got there. Is that really surprising to you? Would you wait for the soldiers to tap their guns on your door before you decided to leave? There was a war going on, what do you expect these people to do? Why does them leaving to avoid an oncoming army deny them any rights to their land? Also, many did in fact choose to stay only to be forced out at gunpoint by the Haganah, the Stern and the Irgun Zionist forces. Why should they stay and become Israeli citizens? The point is, they had no choice. You say a few have a case for reimbursement. What if they want their home back instead?

How can you say this area, so hotly contested for its importance to two religions (one the 2nd largest in the world), was barren and empty? I'm not surprised by your comments, they are common in the Zionist propoganda machine. The area was not underpopulated, it was a religious centre.

The doublestandard you present is remarkable. Bi-nationalism would cause Jews to be relegated to 2nd class citizenship? What about those Arab-Israeli's who live as 2nd class citizens today? In every aspect of life, from education to health care, being an Arab is a hindrance to them in Israel. Islam has always been accepting of Judaism. Mohammed referred to both Jews and Christians as people of the book. When the Spanish Inquisition started, where did the Jews run to? They ran to the Muslims for protection, that is why there's a Jewish population in Morocco. I don't pretend to make excuses for all conflicts, but to label Jews as 2nd class citizens in their history with Muslims is unfounded.

Your post reeks of religious bias. The Jews have been in exile? What about the constant Jewish presence in the region and especially Jerusalem? Israel is their home? According to whom? Are you gonna tell me God works in real estate? If that is your contention then there's really nothing more to say. Jewish prayers are legitimate enough to displace an entire population? According to Arafat himself, he was born in Jerusalem. Others say he was born in Cairo. There is no internationally accepted answer. For you to steadfastly claim one answer is intellectually dishonest. However, we KNOW that his mother and father were Palestinian as well as his family lineage. Is that not good enough for you? Must he be born in Palestine? Tell me, what is Sharon's background?

Palestinian natural growth will of course mean there are larger numbers claiming their right to return. Hell, Sharon thinks it's a good enough reason to expand his settlements. What's good for the goose...

Look at the conditions the Palestinians live in and tell me how they could possibly build a sustainable economy. Are you serious? Curfews, demolitions, destroyed power plants. This is an every day way of life for these people. How can they be expected to thrive under these conditions? Are we not seeing the same slums on tv?

Many Palestinians did leave before the Israeli soldiers got there. Is that really surprising to you? Would you wait for the soldiers to tap their guns on your door before you decided to leave? There was a war going on, what do you expect these people to do? Why does them leaving to avoid an oncoming army deny them any rights to their land? Also, many did in fact choose to stay only to be forced out at gunpoint by the Haganah, the Stern and the Irgun Zionist forces. Why should they stay and become Israeli citizens? The point is, they had no choice. You say a few have a case for reimbursement. What if they want their home back instead?

Like I said, fear was deliberately sown in these people by those in the arab world that wanted them to leave, since anyone staying made the arabs look bad. There was indeed a war going on, but a significant enough number of Arabs stayed in their homes to prove that except in the cases where they were forced to live (33%), they had the choice to stay and live in peace with their neighbors. Why Israeli citizens? Arab-Israelis make the most money, have the best standard of living and enjoy more political rights than in any country in the Arab world. (Turkey is one possible exception). Most Israeli arabs, in polls, would not want to live in the Palestinian state, were it to be created.

"How can you say this area, so hotly contested for its importance to two religions (one the 2nd largest in the world), was barren and empty? I'm not surprised by your comments, they are common in the Zionist propoganda machine. The area was not underpopulated, it was a religious centre."
Those are the numbers, 250,000 arabs in the land before Jewish immigration. I don't know why more people weren't there- I would assume because it was so hard to live there, since there was rampant malaria and the ground was unfertile. It should be noted that the Israelis have always protected and respected the holy sites of other religions, even when it conflicted with their own (like the Temple mount). Israeli holy places, like Joseph's tomb in Nablus/Shechem, have been destroyed. The yeshiva and synagogue on the site of Joseph's tomb were burned to the ground, and a mosque built in its place. Then, more recently, the tomb itself was desecrated. Jerusalem had a majority of Jews before Jewish immigration began.

In every aspect of life, from education to health care, being an Arab is a hindrance to them in Israel.
Arabs in Israel receive the same health care as Jews. As far as education and other public services, the Arab population resembles in a lot of ways the Chareidim is Israel, having many children. Also, statistically Arab-Israelis have failed to pay their taxes as much as Jewish Israelis- as a direct result, the public services in Arab-Israeli areas are underfunded. I am not saying that there is perfect equality, but they are not 2nd class citizens.


"The doublestandard you present is remarkable. Bi-nationalism would cause Jews to be relegated to 2nd class citizenship? What about those Arab-Israeli's who live as 2nd class citizens today? In every aspect of life, from education to health care, being an Arab is a hindrance to them in Israel. Islam has always been accepting of Judaism. Mohammed referred to both Jews and Christians as people of the book. When the Spanish Inquisition started, where did the Jews run to? They ran to the Muslims for protection, that is why there's a Jewish population in Morocco. I don't pretend to make excuses for all conflicts, but to label Jews as 2nd class citizens in their history with Muslims is unfounded."'

Jews often were treated somewhat favorably in Muslim countries, certainly better than in Europe. However, this goodwill often changed overnight, and there were many massacres of Jews by arab mobs as well. Jews were 2nd class citizens- they "dhimmis". There were laws like "A Jew's head must never be higher than an Arab's", Jews had to pay special taxes, to wear special marking, like a yellow patch marking them as a Jew, their testimony did not count in a court, if a Muslim killed a Jew, he was only required to pay "blood money", instead of the death penalty resulting from killing another Muslim. Also, since Jewish testimony wasn't counted in court, even this often was ignored.
Under the most benign rulers, Jews basically had only to mark themselves, pay special taxes, live in ghettos and accept their 2nd class status. But when there were social or economic upheavals in the country, the Jews often paid the price, when angry mobs would go into the Jewish quarters and commit massacres. Jews were also forced sometimes to do the worst jobs, like picking animal carcasses off the street, or cleaning latrines, sometimes on their Sabbath, for no pay.
Basically, Muslim rule was far better than European, but it was still terrible for the Jews.


"Your post reeks of religious bias. The Jews have been in exile? What about the constant Jewish presence in the region and especially Jerusalem? Israel is their home? According to whom? Are you gonna tell me God works in real estate? If that is your contention then there's really nothing more to say. Jewish prayers are legitimate enough to displace an entire population? According to Arafat himself, he was born in Jerusalem. Others say he was born in Cairo. There is no internationally accepted answer. For you to steadfastly claim one answer is intellectually dishonest. However, we KNOW that his mother and father were Palestinian as well as his family lineage. Is that not good enough for you? Must he be born in Palestine? Tell me, what is Sharon's background?"

First, there has been a constant Jewish presence in the land of Israel, but it was small. Most Jews never could have come. Israel is the Jewish homeland because it was where the Jewish kingdoms existed, and where the Jews were exiled from by the Romans. In the Jewish religion, the land was promised to them by G-d. But from a secular perspective, it was simply where they had been a nation. The land is filled with archaelogical evidence of the Jewish kingdoms there. Since the Jewish exile 1900 years ago, religious Jews have prayed facing the Land of Israel, and it is mentioned constantly throughout the Jewish liturgy. I am not saying anything from religious bias, these are just the facts of the matter. I never said that the Jewish religion is reason to expel a population. The only arabs that were expelled by Jews were expelled in 1948, for military purposes. It is important to note that no one would have been expelled if the Arabs hadn't declared war on Israel. There wouldn't have been any fighting, and no one would have been expelled. In fact, under the UN mandate, there would have been a Palestinian state then, which the Jews accepted.
About Arafat, he says he was born in Jerusalem because this is what he would like people to believe, as the founder of the PLO. He was born in Cairo. I don't know about his parents, but I know about his uncle, the Mufti. The Mufti, who I talked about in my last post, met with Hitler and Eichmann, and begged them to bring the"Final Solution" to Palestine. He was also responsible for fomenting hatred and fear in the Palestinian arabs, and for ruining co-existence. He was the head of the Fedayeen. (So that's where Arafat gets it....). He came to Jerusalem to live with his uncle as a boy. As far as his parents being Palestinian, again this means that originally they are from a surrounding country, I don't know for sure which one, although it is probably Egypt. Sharon is a Jew, descended from the Israelites, who were exiled from the land of Israel 1900 years ago.

"Look at the conditions the Palestinians live in and tell me how they could possibly build a sustainable economy. Are you serious? Curfews, demolitions, destroyed power plants. This is an every day way of life for these people. How can they be expected to thrive under these conditions? Are we not seeing the same slums on tv?"
I agree completely. This is why they deserve new leadership not compromised by terror, monetary interest or a political agenda. The only time this development could have happened was after Oslo, when the Palestinians were granted autonomy. Arafat and the PA's corrupt leadership stole money from the people, crashed the Palestinian economy and ruined chances for peace and development. It can't happen as long as Israel has to carry out curfews and raids, etc. The terror needs to stop so that the Palestinians can have their lives back. Without an end of terrorism though, Israel has no choice but to defend it's citizens.

I'd like to end with one point about the Palestinian refugees- there would have been no refugees had there been no war. There would have been no war if the Arab countries hadn't collectively declared it. It is the fault of these countries not only for starting the war, but for urging and intimidating the Palestinian arabs to leave their homes when they didn't have to. There could have been a Palestinian state in 48, and no refugees at all. The primary responsibility for refugees expelled because of military necessity, by Israel in the course of the war, rests with the Arab countries that started the war. The same countries are guilty of ignoring the Palestinians humanitarian needs, and leaving them in refugee camps as a political weapon against Israel. This is a really sick exploitation of human suffering. The same countries also owe reparations to the Jews that were expelled. The reason it is unlikely that the few refugees who do have legitimate claims of disposesion will ever be able to return to their homes, is because it wasn't Israel's fault that they were expelled, it was the fault of the Arab countries, and it is unlikely that Israel will accept that responsibility. These people should, however, be monetarily reimbursed for their losses, and maybe even offered Israeli citizenship, if they were not enemies of the state.

I really don't know why you're sticking to these lies. According to the TARI publication by Phyllis Bennis entitled, "Understanding the Palestnian-Israeli Conflict", she clearly states that a large number of Israeli academics, the "new historians", carefully researched and completely debunked that myth. There were no such broadcasts, ever. They fled because they were being attacked by the Haganah, Palmach and Irgun militias. Others left because they were scared and believed they would eventually come home because international law protects their right to do so. Soldiers would drive through Palestinian villages screaming through their loud-speakers, "Deir Yassin, Deir Yassin!".

Again I am confused. Israel has what are commonly referred to as "nationality rights". This concept in practice favours Jews over non-Jews in such areas as social services, the right to own land, access to bank loans and education, military service, and more. How can you not recognize this vast difference?



Not even looking at the distant historical connection, are you really going to just ignore over 1200 years of direct Muslim rule? Are you so stubborn that you wont recgonize the fact that this area was a cultural and religious centre? That it was an important trading crossroad for several empires? That during this time it was an identifiable region within the larger empire, linked closely with what was then known as Greater Syria? How can you keep denying the existence of these people? My point about Sharon is that his family is Russian. It's ok to link him to a group of people "exiled" 1900 years ago, even if he probably has had no connection to an Israel since then, but you wont offer the same definiton to people that have been there for 1200 straight years? Arafat, like it or not, has family ties to Palestine that date back centuries. Sharon's background is Russian!! But you question Arafat's connection to the region?

Again, according to this latest publication from TARI, the UN estimated that Palestinians lost between $2.4 and $3.2 billion dollars in income due to Israeli border closures from October 2000 to September 2001. Do you realise how much money that is to these people? Occupation of Palestinian cities was matched by a complete division of the West Bank into tiny cantons. Villages are cut off from each other, from main roads, and are sorrounded. Armed checkpoints, destruction of roads, huge berms created by tractors, all had the purpose of preventing Palestinians to move between territories. Truckloads of produce rotted in the sun at checkpoints, milk soured, and workers could not even get to their jobs. Palestinians are also dependant on Israel for permits to pretty much do anything. Most of the time, these permits remain unattainable.

Again, instead of reimbursement, what if these people want to go back to their homes instead? What if they want to accept their right to return home, a right the Israelis even conceded to so that they could achieve their statehood. The majority of Palestinians don't want to become Israelis just like they don't want to become Lebanese or Egyptian or Jordanian. Why must they?

At the time of the UN Partition Plan, Jews comprised just 30% of the population and owned only 6% of the land. The Resolution, however, would have given the Jews 55% of the land and the Arabs, who already controlled 94%, just 45%. The area desginated for the Jews contained 450,000 Palestinian Arabs. Does this seem like a just decision to you? Can you not see why they would have turned down such a concept?

"I really don't know why you're sticking to these lies. According to the TARI publication by Phyllis Bennis entitled, "Understanding the Palestnian-Israeli Conflict"

What is TARI? I don't mean necessarily to say it is invalid, but I am just not familiar with it. The Israeli "new historians" were just that- they rewrote Israeli history. They had a political agenda in their work, and it is not objective. These books can't be used as the only reference to Israeli history, as such.
"There were no such broadcasts, ever. They fled because they were being attacked by the Haganah, Palmach and Irgun militias. Others left because they were scared and believed they would eventually come home because international law protects their right to do so. Soldiers would drive through Palestinian villages screaming through their loud-speakers, "Deir Yassin, Deir Yassin!"

I don't know about broadcasts- I didn't say there were broadcasts in 1948. The events took place over a fairly long amount of time. The arabs in Palestine were still encouraged and intimidated to leave, being promised they could return to their homes once the Jews had all been killed. Like I said, some villagers, in militarily important locations, were attacked and driven out, but this was not the majority, only 33%. "Others left because they were scared"- they were, but this was more from rumors and fear deliberately sown by agents of the Mufti, and other arab leaders. The rumors of Israeli soldiers raping women, in particular, led many to flee, even though this never happened in any instance. These rumors were spread deliberately to terrify the Palestinian Arabs. Internation law does not protect the right of the Palestinians who fled, expecting to return when the Jews were annihilated. Those who were forced out by the Haganah, Palmach or Irgun should be reimbursed if they were expelled only because of their location. If the village was collaborating with the Arab armies, and the refugees had been partners and supporters of the war against Israel, then Israel owes them nothing. Repatriation, however, is unrealistic at this point, since again, there would have been no war had not the Arabs attacked, and therefore the responsibility of the refugees is on the heads of the Arab countries. As far as the speaker saying "deir yassin", they might have done that, I don't know, while evacuating some villages, so as not to have to drive the people out physically. The Jews needed these areas in order to defend themselves from the Arab armies, and this was a way to make taking the area easier, and reduced the chances of blooshed. BTW, please don't accuse me of "lies", I am not lying or trying to spread misinformation here. That is insulting and unnecessary.

"Again I am confused. Israel has what are commonly referred to as "nationality rights". This concept in practice favours Jews over non-Jews in such areas as social services, the right to own land, access to bank loans and education, military service, and more. How can you not recognize this vast difference?"

This isn't true. Arabs, with the exception of the Druze, do not serve in the IDF, for two reasons. One, it would be wrong to force them to do so, since they would be fighting against their own people, and two, because it would be a security risk for Israel, as a sizable percentage of Arab-Israelis sympathize with the Palestinians, and have in recent years become increasingly radicalized. With the exception of army service, Arab-Israelis have equal citizenship rights as Jews. The lesser quality of some of their public services is the result, as I said before, of large families and failed tax payments. Economically, Arabs and Jews are in the same playing field, when the size of families, etc., is taken into account. A Jew with 7 kids does the same economically as an Arab with 7 kids- most Jewish Israelis, however, only have 2 or so children, and therefore have more diposable income. When the financial criteria is the same, they receive the same income for identical work. They are economically equal citizens. As far as bank loans, that is the banks' business, but I imagine that again it has to do with economic criteria, not racial. I was under the impression that Arab-Israelis do own land, but that it must be land ok'd by the government. This isn't surpising, given the reality of the region today. As far as education, Arab-Israelis have their own schools (I doubt arabs would enjoy Jewish history, etc.). They are funded by their own tax dollars, as are the Jewish schools. If the quality is lower, it's because they are underfunded, because of taxes not being paid by Israeli-Arabs. This isn't to say that Israel is some kind of utopian, perfect equality society- it's not. But for the most part, there is indeed at least economic and political equality. I do not mean to say that there aren't instances of discrimination in the country, I'm sure there are, just as there are everywhere, even in America, the most tolerant and diverse society on the planet. But Israeli-Arabs are by no means "2nd class citizens", and most of the claims against the Israeli government in this matter are unjustified, and can be disproven by studying the actual statistics, and economic data.


"Not even looking at the distant historical connection, are you really going to just ignore over 1200 years of direct Muslim rule? Are you so stubborn that you wont recgonize the fact that this area was a cultural and religious centre? That it was an important trading crossroad for several empires? That during this time it was an identifiable region within the larger empire, linked closely with what was then known as Greater Syria? How can you keep denying the existence of these people? My point about Sharon is that his family is Russian. It's ok to link him to a group of people "exiled" 1900 years ago, even if he probably has had no connection to an Israel since then, but you wont offer the same definiton to people that have been there for 1200 straight years? Arafat, like it or not, has family ties to Palestine that date back centuries. Sharon's background is Russian!! But you question Arafat's connection to the region?"

The Arab rule was for approximately 800 years, not 1200. The land has changed hands many times. When it was under Muslim control, it was never more than an underpopulated, backwater province of the Ottoman Empire. Yes, in ancient times it was an important trading route for many kingdoms and empires. Of course it is a religious center, it is arguably the center of world religion. It housed the Jewish Temples- Jesus supposedly preached at the 2nd temple, and Muhammed originally viewed himself as a Jewish prophet. It is the origin point of the world's 3 largest monotheistic religions. Sharon is not a Russian. He is a Jew. He is a Jew whose family comes from Russia. What is your point? Jews today are the bloodline descendants of the Israelites, from the time when the Temples stood (the Western wall is a wall of the 2nd Temple). The Jews were forced, kicking and screaming from their land by the Romans, and they have remembered their homeland ever since. Also in Israel, there is of course the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount. It was originally a church, but was converted by the Ottomans. Arafat, if any of his family is from within the Palestine mandate (though you haven't shown which family members, or any evidence of this), so what? Again, most arabs in the land in 1948 had only come in recent years seeking employment, starting in 1880 or so. There were only 250,000 arabs in the whole place prior to Jewish immigration. If Arafat comes from one of those families, then why was he born in Cairo? What were his parents doing in Egypt?



"Again, according to this latest publication from TARI, the UN estimated that Palestinians lost between $2.4 and $3.2 billion dollars in income due to Israeli border closures from October 2000 to September 2001. Do you realise how much money that is to these people? Occupation of Palestinian cities was matched by a complete division of the West Bank into tiny cantons. Villages are cut off from each other, from main roads, and are sorrounded. Armed checkpoints, destruction of roads, huge berms created by tractors, all had the purpose of preventing Palestinians to move between territories. Truckloads of produce rotted in the sun at checkpoints, milk soured, and workers could not even get to their jobs. Palestinians are also dependant on Israel for permits to pretty much do anything. Most of the time, these permits remain unattainable."

I am aware that the IDF closures, curfews, checkpoints, etc. disrupt the Palestinian economy. However, the Israelis have no choice but to do this when Palestinian terrorists from these territories are constantly attempting to attack Israelis. If the terror stopped there would be no IDF presence in Palestinian areas, and life could resume normally. It is the persistence of terrorism against civilians, which has never been abandoned by the Palestinians as a legitimate tactic that results in this. By not stopping the terrorism, and the elements that breed it withing Palestinian society, the Palestinians (and more specifically, the corrupt and greedy leadership) brings this upon themselves, leaving Israel with little choice.


Again, instead of reimbursement, what if these people want to go back to their homes instead? What if they want to accept their right to return home, a right the Israelis even conceded to so that they could achieve their statehood. The majority of Palestinians don't want to become Israelis just like they don't want to become Lebanese or Egyptian or Jordanian. Why must they?

"At the time of the UN Partition Plan, Jews comprised just 30% of the population and owned only 6% of the land. The Resolution, however, would have given the Jews 55% of the land and the Arabs, who already controlled 94%, just 45%. The area desginated for the Jews contained 450,000 Palestinian Arabs. Does this seem like a just decision to you? Can you not see why they would have turned down such a concept?"

The partition plan was laid out as such that the Jews were the majority in the areas that would have been the Jewish state, and Palestinian arabs the majority in the Arab sections. The arabs did not control 94% of the land in 1948, unless you are counting Jordan, which was also originally part of the Palestine Mandate.
I think that many of the arabs originally would have been happy to live in peace with the Jews- early on in Jewish settlement, there were many examples of coexistence, that drastically improved living conditions for the Arabs, and was mutually appreciated and beneficial to both parties. As I said before, there were Arab leaders, especially the Mufti, who, seeking power for themselves, worked tirelessly to make co-existence impossible, by organizing attacks on Jews, by bullying and threatening Palestinian arabs who "collaborated" with Jews or sold them land, and by speading fear and hatred amongst the mostly poor and illiterate arab population. Then, later, under the shadow of the powerful arab countries, the state, and coexistence, was also rejected. The arab fellaheen had little say in the matter, as loyalty to their people was demanded of them. Besides, the Arabs announced that they would declare war even before the Partition Plan was ratified.

Anyway, this is probably my last post for awhile, since I'm going on a trip. Thank you for challenging me, and giving me the chance to debate with you. I've found it very interesting and stimulating. I might be able to post again, maybe once more, but no guarantees.

Oh sheesh, this is great, but I am now spending entirely too much time reading some rather intelligent arguments about all of this!!! Thanks again to Sun Tzu and Crumbbum and others for providing such strong mind-fodder... I think I need a drink and a really crappy comedy movie to re-numb my mind... I'll try to come up with something witty to say later, as this is all too much to assimilate and address in one night.