• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Peace in the middle east.

Manny

Illuminator
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
3,290
Ahmed Ismail Khatib, a Palestinian, was 13 years old. In the kind of horror which accompanies war, he was killed by IDF soldiers who mistook his toy gun for a real one. Ariel Sharon has offered to apologize personally to the boy's parents, and they've agreed to meet with him.

But there's more. The Khatib family has decided to donate Ahmed's organs to Israelis. His heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys will go to other patients. Israeli patients. (article)

Could this be the spark that leads to peace? Maybe not -- the disagreements are so large and maybe this is just a drop of water in the ocean of war. But maybe. It's against the odds, but just maybe. Sometimes the smallest of things can have an enormous impact.

If you're in a position to speak to leaders on either side of this terrible conflict, speak to them. Tell them of what the Khatibs did. Tell them that all the pieces of a peace are in place and that all it takes is for the leaders to show the humanity of the Khatibs and both Palestine and Israel can exist in peace and prosper. Tell them that neither country will prosper alone. But they can grow together.
 
More real than nameless, faceless lists of victims

manny asks:
"If you're in a position to speak to leaders on either side of this terrible conflict, speak to them. Tell them of what the Khatibs did."

I am reminded of another youth, who became the "poster boy" of the Intifada.
His death galvanized the Palestinians to years of violence (even today, the name of Muhammad al-Durrah is invoked when speaking about Israeli 'atrocities')

Will Ahmed's name be recalled years from now for his contribution to peace in helping both sides to recognize the senselessness of their war?

I doubt it, call me skeptical, but what eveidence is there that the Palestinians are specifically concerned about the participation of their children in clashes with armed IDF troops? Or that the IDF needs to change their rules of engagement and hold fire when threatened (or a threat is perceived) from a teenager? (see: RPG kids, Lebanon)
http://www.freeman.org/m_online/oct98/winston5.htm
(excuse the link to the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies, it is offered here merely as a reference to the term 'RPG Kids' and I know the source is not neutral, but it does present valid information about the use of kids by islamic fanatics in the violent conflicts raging over the past decades throughout the Mid-East).
 
But there's more. The Khatib family has decided to donate Ahmed's organs to Israelis. His heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys will go to other patients. Israeli patients. (article)

The nobility of that action is breathtaking. To lose a child and then in the moment of grief to be able make such a gesture of generosity towards the very people who might be considered your “enemy” is inspiring.

It makes me angry when I read stories like that (and there are other stories like that) to consider those who purport to support the Palestinian cause but take for granted that mindless violence is the only response Palestinians are capable of . It’s an outright denial of their humanity.
 
It makes me angry when I read stories like that (and there are other stories like that) to consider those who purport to support the Palestinian cause but take for granted that mindless violence is the only response Palestinians are capable of . It’s an outright denial of their humanity.
You see a story like this and for you it's an excuse for you to rave about the defects of your imaginary idiotic straw men.

If you really don't disgust yourself, stick a finger down your throat and learn how I feel right now.
 
You see a story like this and for you it's an excuse for you to rave about the defects of your imaginary idiotic straw men.

If you really don't disgust yourself, stick a finger down your throat and learn how I feel right now.

Some comments of yours from another current thread that got a laugh out of me

You are clearly either lying or halfwitted.
You are a liar. I explained why it was dumb in my first post…
You are an incredibly stupid liar.
You are a stupid and petulant liar.
Try not to talk gibberish and be patronizing simultaneously
You are a halfwitted liar.
You are a liar. Your halfwitted gibberish about…
You are a halfwitted liar living in an insane fantasy world
Now wipe the drool of your chin,

This seems like fun... let me try... you, Dr, Adequate, are an arrogant, condescending jerk who substitutes insults for argument.
Really though, however amusing it might be, if you were able to support your arguments, you wouldn't have to resort to this vitriol and childish name-calling... would you?
 
Several posts in this thread are in breach of your Membership Agreement, if it continues I will take further action.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat
 
Mycroft;1261554 It makes me angry when I read stories like that (and there are other stories like that) to consider those who purport to support the Palestinian cause but take for granted that mindless violence is the only response Palestinians are capable of . It’s an outright denial of their humanity.[/quote said:
You make all this up, Mycroft.
 
This is a wonderful gesture and shows great humanity. I think it proves that there are Palestinians held hostage by the extremists in Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades.

Israel has tried many times to foster goodwill between it and the Palestinians via humanitarian gestures and unfortunately the Palestinian extremists take advantage of these instances everytime and ruin it for everyone.

One such incident happened in June.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4113538.stm

Palestinian 'targeted hospital' - Tuesday, 21 June, 2005, 07:40 GMT

Israel says a 21-year-old Palestinian woman arrested carrying explosives at a Gaza checkpoint planned to blow herself up in an Israeli hospital. Wafa al-Bis was stopped on her way on her way to Beersheba hospital where she was to receive treatment for burns.

The Israeli military said Ms Bis was stopped by suspicious soldiers at the Erez crossing point between Gaza and Israel. The army said she had tried to blow herself up there but the explosives did not detonate.

She said she was recruited by the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades - an off-shoot of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction.
(emphasis mine)

The point is there could be peace in the Middle East if only the Palestinian Authority would disarm and dismantle the terror groups - especially the ones connected to the ruling party of the Palestinian Authority.
 
Some comments of yours from another current thread that got a laugh out of me
I notice that for some reason you neglected to tell everyone just where this thread is, so allow me.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46271

I'm afraid that this makes the following bilious trash rather implausible...
This seems like fun... let me try... you, Dr, Adequate, are an arrogant, condescending jerk who substitutes insults for argument.
Really though, however amusing it might be, if you were able to support your arguments, you wouldn't have to resort to this vitriol and childish name-calling... would you?
... since everyone can see that I have in fact supported my arguments.

Perhaps I should explain to you, as I had to explain to Art Vandelay, that it is pathetic and pointless to lie about the content of other people's posts.
 
Last edited:
The claim was "those who purport to support the Palestinian cause but take for granted that mindless violence is the only response Palestinians are capable of".

Thats simply wrong and purely an invention of Mycroft's mind.

You know, AUP, it's simply breathtaking to see how brazenly you try to make everything all about you. Or what people think about you. Or how you feel about things. You're a complete drama queen.
 
Sharon will meet the Khatibs, but he won't sit down with Abbas. Peace in the Middle East will only follow negotiations in which Israel actually wants to achieve a settlement. The only time that's been tried was by Rabin, who was killed and replaced by Netenyahu, who was loudly committed to not achieving a settlement with the Palestinians. A settlement will require Israel to put a cap on its territorial ambitions, and Sharon shows no sign of doing that. It would mean admitting that the Land of Israel was no longer to be identified with Israel, the country. Which would in turn mean, for many, that zionism had failed. Could Israel deal with that? Does it have the necessary cohesion as a society? I very much doubt it, and I think Sharon does too.
 
Originally posted by CapelDodger.
The only time that's been tried was by Rabin
What about Barak?

Peace in the Middle East will only follow negotiations in which the Palestinain leadersip actually wants to achieve a settlement. The only time that's been tried was by .... Um... Hmm... Well, it's never been tried.

CBL
 
What about Barak?

Peace in the Middle East will only follow negotiations in which the Palestinain leadersip actually wants to achieve a settlement. The only time that's been tried was by .... Um... Hmm... Well, it's never been tried.

CBL
Arafat tried to achieve a settlement. Arafat and the PLO are prepared to accept a Palestinian State in part of Palestine. The mass of the Palestinian people will accept a Palestinian State in part of Palestine. Barak didn't give them the option. He presented a fait accompli which Arafat was not actually empowered to accept without reference back to the PA. The PA had accepted the Oslo agreement, and the Israeli demand was something entirely different. The Israelis then walked out, and claimed they had no-one they could talk to because Arafat did not act like a dictator. Barak could do nothing else, and it still didn't save his job. That went to Sharon, vocal rejectionist and dependably murderous.

All the while land was stolen and settlements expanded. It's still happening.

Any excuse is grasped at by the Israelis for not talking, because talks might lead to negotiations and negotiations might lead to a settlement. Until Israel actually wants a settlement and an end to war, there will be no peace in Palestine.
 
Originally posted by CapelDodger
Arafat tried to achieve a settlement. Arafat and the PLO are prepared to accept a Palestinian State in part of Palestine.
Arafat and the PA have never offered any formal peace plan. To pretend Arafat wanted peace and Barak did not is disingenuous to put it nicely. If Arafat wanted peace and was presented with a fait accompli as you alleged, he could have made a counter offer but he did make any offers ever.

The Israelis then walked out, and claimed they had no-one they could talk to because Arafat did not act like a dictator.
Somehow Barak, who was not a dictator, was able to make an offer. But somehow the Arafat and the PA, which did not have to answer to the people, was not. Could it be the man not the system?

And the "walkout" included continuing talks with PA negotiators who were never, ever, ever allowed to make an offer.

If the PA ever wanted or wants peace, they could make a serious public offer and put the pressure on Israel.

CBL
 
Arafat tried to achieve a settlement. Arafat and the PLO are prepared to accept a Palestinian State in part of Palestine.
Sunday, April 21, 2002 - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html

ROSS: Let me give you the sequence, because I think it puts all this in perspective. Number one, at Camp David we did not put a comprehensive set of ideas on the table. We put ideas on the table that would have affected the borders and would have affected Jerusalem.

Arafat could not accept any of that. In fact, during the 15 days there, he never himself raised a single idea. His negotiators did, to be fair to them, but he didn't. The only new idea he raised at Camp David was that the temple didn't exist in Jerusalem, it existed in Nablus.

{snip}

ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.

On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state. On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.

And when it came to security, there would be a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley. These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched very far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment as to what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate, discussion with each side.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.

ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.

HUME: What was he supposed to give?

ROSS: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that.

HUME: He rejected their being able to have that?

ROSS: He rejected that.

He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent. He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace. You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can't -- there's no space through otherwise. He rejected that.

So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.

HUME: Now, let's take a look at the map. Now, this is what -- how the Israelis had created a map based on the president's ideas. And...

ROSS: Right.

HUME: ... what can we -- that situation shows that the territory at least is contiguous. What about Gaza on that map?

ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza.

ROSS: And what you see also in this line, they show an area of temporary Israeli control along the border.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented. But we presented something that did point out that it would take six years before the Israelis would be totally out of the Jordan Valley.

So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.

HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect...

ROSS: Right.

HUME: ... that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state.

ROSS: Completely untrue.

And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage.

HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no?

ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.

Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.

The Israelis then walked out, and claimed they had no-one they could talk to because Arafat did not act like a dictator.

July 29, 2000 - http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/kdv2.htm

The last moment came when Mr. Arafat sent Saeb Erekat, a trusted aide, and Mohammed Dahlan, the Palestinian chief of security, to Mr. Clinton's cabin, with grim faces and a brief letter, handwritten in Arabic on the official stationery of the Palestinians. Mr. Erakat slowly read the letter aloud, translating for Mr. Clinton and advisers who were with him, including Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Samuel R. Berger, the national security adviser.

"I can't go further than I've gone," a senior administration official paraphrased Mr. Arafat as saying. "The suggestions I have heard do not take us in the direction I find acceptable."

After the emissaries left, Mr. Clinton told his aides, "I don't like to fail, particularly at this."
So who's not telling the truth sceptics?.. Former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross - who was actually at Camp David - or CapelDodger?
 

Back
Top Bottom