a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
zenith-nadir said:
Which makes you wonder why Israel is so intent on clearing out the Arabs from Jerusalem.
Sharon and Abbas and Arafat
- Thread starter hgc
- Start date
Which makes you wonder why Israel is so intent on clearing out the Arabs from Jerusalem.
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
Unique, out of curiosity. From the three religions that argue over Jerusalem which one you think and historically speaking has the less rights over it?
Is Jerusalem more important than Mecca?
Is Jerusalem more important than Bethlehem for the Catholics?
Is Jerusalem more important than Mecca?
Is Jerusalem more important than Bethlehem for the Catholics?
hgc said:
Yes, they're getting along famously. Just like Chamberline and Hitler, bringing us "peace in our time".
Of course, one needs to put this in context: Abbas' continual assurance that the Palestinians will eventually destroy the "zionist enemy".
Abbas might have a better tailor and barber, and a nicer smile than Arafat, but he has been his crony for the last 50 years or so, and even wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on how the holocaust never happened (OK, I exagerrate--he wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on "proving" israel has no right to exist, and only PART of his reasoning was that the holocaust never happened.)
As I said in the past, there is a situation here of "cargo cultism": the naive belief, in israel and the USA, that wide smiles, declarations about "peace and undestanding", etc., etc. mean anything when dealing with the PLO, an organization dedictated to the destrcution of israel which had broken every single previous agreement it ever signed with israel the moment it felt it was for its benefit.
The sole thing Abbas wants is time to rebuild the terrorist infrastructure to re-start the war at the time when he thinks would be the best, nothing more. Remember: Afarat, too, talked a lot about how "peace" is coming any minute now--as long as israel gave him everything he wanted. The moment he felt israel will give no more, he re-started the war.
Same thing here. He will be all peace and undestanding and "new middle east" and "moderate" (e.g., "let's destroy israel later by stages, not right now all at once"), blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, but that will stop the instant:
a). he thinks the terrorist organization that he is "fighting" are strong enough; or
b). he thinks israel will no longer give him more land for empty promises, so the war should be re-started.
It is absurd, indeed almost comical if it weren't for the lives set to be lost due to this, to believe that the "good" terrorists of the PLO will protect the jews from the "bad" terrorists of Hamas and islamic jihad. Yet some people keep making the same mistake again.
Only if the Israelis choose to let it. To insist that any attack will stop negotiations is a gift to rejectionists.
Remember, however, that the settlements ARE an obstacle to peace.
It's simple:
Palestinians only occassionally managing to butcher jewish babies = no obstacle to the "peace process".
jews living on land declared judenrein by the Palestinian-Arabs = an obstacle to peace which must be removed.
After all, we are only comparing meaningless dead jews to all-important Arab feelings of victimhood, and we all know which of those is more important, don't we?
Remember, however, that the settlements ARE an obstacle to peace.
It's simple:
Palestinians only occassionally managing to butcher jewish babies = no obstacle to the "peace process".
jews living on land declared judenrein by the Palestinian-Arabs = an obstacle to peace which must be removed.
After all, we are only comparing meaningless dead jews to all-important Arab feelings of victimhood, and we all know which of those is more important, don't we?
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Skeptic, when you have something to say worth listening to, get back to me.
a_unique_person said:
Yes, here it is:
The Palestinians openly and repeatedly stated goal is israel's destrcution and the killing or expulsion of all jews.
Their openly and repeatedly stated method of achieving this is Arafat's "stage plan" of first getting a Palestinian state and then using it as a terror base to destroy the rest of israel.
This goal was not only never revoked, but continously and openly embraced--including explicitly by Abbas.
Therefore, it is virtually certain that the wide smiles and talks fo "peace" by Abbas are, simply, a continuation of Arafat's fraud, which had the same smiles and talk--and the same goals.
I know you don't consider all that worth listening to, it's only dead jews after all, but perhaps you could fit that in between yoga classes and starbucks coffee?
After all, you seem to be terribly concerned with the rights of every other group of people in the world...
hgc
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,892
What do you know that Sharon doesn't know? Is Sharon a silly, cargo-cultish nincompoop? Or is he just playing along to make it look good? Is he pulling out of West Bank towns just to put on a good show while Abbas builds up terror infrastructure?Skeptic said:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Skeptic said:
Now you're just channeling Daniel Pipes. If you know all this with such certainty, just kill them all and be done with it.
Skeptic, I would like to ask you a few questions.
Suppose Abu Mazen were intelligent enough to realise that he and his people are pawns in the dirty game of Arab power politics.
Suppose he understood that Israel is not going to be destroyed, and that too many Palestinian lives have been wasted in the hopeless cause.
Suppose he had decided to settle for the best deal he can get for his people.
Suppose he wanted (partly out of vanity, perhaps) to be the one to lead the Palestinian people to independence and peace.
Suppose he wanted to prove that he’s better than Arafat (and that he liked being accepted and flattered by world leaders).
What would he do and say? Seems to me it would be pretty well indistinguishable from everything he has actually done and said since taking over as Palestinian leader.
On the other hand, suppose he’s the cunning terrorist you say he is, buying time to ‘rebuild the terrorist infrastructure to re-start the war at the time when he thinks would be the best’. Seems to me he’s made a few mistakes already. Why, for example, did he not persuade Hamas and Islamic Jihad to join the truce, in order to build much more misplaced confidence? Why did he pose as a peacemaker for 30 years and risk losing the Palestinian leadership? Why is he encouraging the Palestinians to hope for a peaceful settlement? (Though I suppose they could all be in on the conspiracy.)
Actually, I trust him less than I would like to. But let’s not be paranoid here. Both sides have to show more trust than they feel in order to make the most of this rare opportunity.
What do you know that Sharon doesn't know? Is Sharon a silly, cargo-cultish nincompoop? Or is he just playing along to make it look good? Is he pulling out of West Bank towns just to put on a good show while Abbas builds up terror infrastructure?
Hopefully you are correct. Hopefully, he DOES have something up his sleeve--one can only speculated as to what.
But, alas, you could have asked the same question about Chamberline: "If Hitler is such a crude fraud, why is Chamberline doing this? What does that annoying Mr. Churchill know that Chamberline doesn't?".
And one need not invoke Hitler in particular--history is full of agreements with tyrants that the other side signed at the time under the delusion they'll keep them, despite the warnings from all quarters that they are mistaken--which they were.
Hopefully you are correct. Hopefully, he DOES have something up his sleeve--one can only speculated as to what.
But, alas, you could have asked the same question about Chamberline: "If Hitler is such a crude fraud, why is Chamberline doing this? What does that annoying Mr. Churchill know that Chamberline doesn't?".
And one need not invoke Hitler in particular--history is full of agreements with tyrants that the other side signed at the time under the delusion they'll keep them, despite the warnings from all quarters that they are mistaken--which they were.
What would he do and say? Seems to me it would be pretty well indistinguishable from everything he has actually done and said since taking over as Palestinian leader.
Well, no.
He would--just possibly--NOT refer to israel as the "zionist enemy", DISMANTLE Hamas and IJ's weapons instead of negotiating with them, NOT re-launch incitement against israel in the Palestinian media a week or so after declaring he "ended incitement", NOT declare that the "right of return" (destryoing israel by forcing it to accept millions of "returning" hostile Palestinians) is involitable and must be the basis of a "real peace" (which shows what he really means by "real peace"), NOT have the Palestinian ambassador to Iran declare that he promises the "monstrous zionist entity will disappear by using the stage plan", and a few other tiny things I could name.
(Thanks to MEMRI and other sources for this information).
Just a suggestion.
P.S.
It would also have helped, somewhat, if the "moderate" Palestinian leader is not a Ph.D. whose thesis was on israel's destruction and holocaust denial. I repeat: this is the MODERATE Palestinian leader, which is the equivalent of letting David Duke or the grand dragon of the KKK head the NAACP since they are "moderate" white people in their view about blacks.
To trust Abbas wanting peace with the "zionist entity that will be destroyed by the stage plan" is like trusting a KKK member moving next door to a black family that they really want peaceful relations, and couldn't POSSIBLY mean them any harm.
Why did he pose as a peacemaker for 30 years and risk losing the Palestinian leadership?
Abbas was a peacemaker for 30 years????
that's a new one.
Why is he encouraging the Palestinians to hope for a peaceful settlement? (Though I suppose they could all be in on the conspiracy.)
They are, in one sense: they know that when Abbas speaks of a "just peace" or a "peaceful solution", he means--as he repeatedly said--the destruction of israel through the "right of return", while the talk about the "armed struggle" mean the destruction of israel by force of arms.
This is the meaning these words have in Arabic--as Abbas himself routinely said and reiterated only a few weeks ago. So the only thing that changed--if that--is the method, not the goal.
Actually, I trust him less than I would like to. But let’s not be paranoid here.
Actually, I think we SHOULD be paranoid here. Strangely enough, I am deeply suspicious of the PLO, which killed thousands of my poeple with the express goal of wiping my country off the map.
Laocon said it best in the "Odyssey", in the bruhaha about the Trojan horse (really the Greek horse, of course): "I fear the Greeks, even when the bear gifts". And I fear the Palestinians, even when they smile broadly to the cameras and talk about a "peaceful solution".
Laocon shot an arrow at the Trojan horse, which enraged Poseidon, who sent sea snakes to kill him. But the Trojans soon wished they'd done as he had demaneded. If I were in the summit, and had the possiblity, I hope I had had the guts to shoot Abbas, and the lot of the Palestinian leadership (deeply implicated for years in planning, executing, and ordering terrorist attacks) dead.
They not only deserve it, as the heads of a criminal terrorist cartel known as the Palestinian authority, but I also feel israel will soon wish this would have been done.
Well, no.
He would--just possibly--NOT refer to israel as the "zionist enemy", DISMANTLE Hamas and IJ's weapons instead of negotiating with them, NOT re-launch incitement against israel in the Palestinian media a week or so after declaring he "ended incitement", NOT declare that the "right of return" (destryoing israel by forcing it to accept millions of "returning" hostile Palestinians) is involitable and must be the basis of a "real peace" (which shows what he really means by "real peace"), NOT have the Palestinian ambassador to Iran declare that he promises the "monstrous zionist entity will disappear by using the stage plan", and a few other tiny things I could name.
(Thanks to MEMRI and other sources for this information).
Just a suggestion.
P.S.
It would also have helped, somewhat, if the "moderate" Palestinian leader is not a Ph.D. whose thesis was on israel's destruction and holocaust denial. I repeat: this is the MODERATE Palestinian leader, which is the equivalent of letting David Duke or the grand dragon of the KKK head the NAACP since they are "moderate" white people in their view about blacks.
To trust Abbas wanting peace with the "zionist entity that will be destroyed by the stage plan" is like trusting a KKK member moving next door to a black family that they really want peaceful relations, and couldn't POSSIBLY mean them any harm.
Why did he pose as a peacemaker for 30 years and risk losing the Palestinian leadership?
Abbas was a peacemaker for 30 years????
that's a new one.
Why is he encouraging the Palestinians to hope for a peaceful settlement? (Though I suppose they could all be in on the conspiracy.)
They are, in one sense: they know that when Abbas speaks of a "just peace" or a "peaceful solution", he means--as he repeatedly said--the destruction of israel through the "right of return", while the talk about the "armed struggle" mean the destruction of israel by force of arms.
This is the meaning these words have in Arabic--as Abbas himself routinely said and reiterated only a few weeks ago. So the only thing that changed--if that--is the method, not the goal.
Actually, I trust him less than I would like to. But let’s not be paranoid here.
Actually, I think we SHOULD be paranoid here. Strangely enough, I am deeply suspicious of the PLO, which killed thousands of my poeple with the express goal of wiping my country off the map.
Laocon said it best in the "Odyssey", in the bruhaha about the Trojan horse (really the Greek horse, of course): "I fear the Greeks, even when the bear gifts". And I fear the Palestinians, even when they smile broadly to the cameras and talk about a "peaceful solution".
Laocon shot an arrow at the Trojan horse, which enraged Poseidon, who sent sea snakes to kill him. But the Trojans soon wished they'd done as he had demaneded. If I were in the summit, and had the possiblity, I hope I had had the guts to shoot Abbas, and the lot of the Palestinian leadership (deeply implicated for years in planning, executing, and ordering terrorist attacks) dead.
They not only deserve it, as the heads of a criminal terrorist cartel known as the Palestinian authority, but I also feel israel will soon wish this would have been done.
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
I tend to avoid this subject these days.
The moment I get involved one of the resident pin-headed low-lifes calls me a Nazi. I'm not terribly choosy about the company I keep, but there's a limit. Who wants to be seen associating with such scum?
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.CapelDodger said:
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
I must just make a note of the amazing shifting of the goal posts here. It was only a few months ago the mantra was 'Arafat, Arafat, Arafat'. He was the constant in this debacle, he was to blame.
Now that he is gone, it's as if he had never been. It has always been the inettion of the Palestinians to destroy Israel anyway. Any indications otherwise are just lies.
So, it was never Arafats fault. Does he get an apology now?
Now that he is gone, it's as if he had never been. It has always been the inettion of the Palestinians to destroy Israel anyway. Any indications otherwise are just lies.
So, it was never Arafats fault. Does he get an apology now?
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
CBL4 said:
The Camp David Agreement would have given Israel security control of the Jordan Valley, the massively extended boundaries of the Jerusalem municipality built on confiscated Palestinian land, and much of the settlements. It was certainly not a case of Israel conceding 90+ per cent as some claimed those five years ago. Yasser Arafat could cast his mind back to how even those Palestinians who departed their homes temporarily during the creation of Israel lost everything as surely as those who fled in expectation of returning with victorious Arab armies. The methods of the PLO were often dubious, but pre-Oslo they had won wide recognition of much of their claims. His greatest failing was to agree to Oslo. Agreeing to Oslo effectively made Arafat responsible for policing the occupation and shifted much of the legal onus away from Israel. He had no moral obligation to give up the dreams of his people. Perhaps the Arabs of Palestinian should have agreed to UN and UK proposals to split the land before the creation of Israel, despite their manifest unfairness. That Count Folke Bernadotte was assassinated might indicate that the Zionist acceptance of UN proposals, often cited by apologists for Israel as proof of Arab war lust, was a bit insincere. Perhaps also Germany could have signalled its repentance by buying out some of the Palestinian land holders - aiding Israel while being just to the Palestinians (simple German aid to Israel has been the approach). Palestinians owe nothing to the Israelis or the Jewish community. Realistically the Abbas approach is more prudent, but this idea of Palestinians needing to prove how good they are, before they get a state, is nauseating.
Someone,
If Arafat had rejected the proposal with a reasonable counter proposal, you would have point. But he never made a counter proposal, made absurd claims (denied the Temple Mount was sacred to Jews) and encourage terrorism. This leads us to present morass.
I agree it would have been better for him to reject Oslo from the beginning rather than at the end.
CBL
If Arafat had rejected the proposal with a reasonable counter proposal, you would have point. But he never made a counter proposal, made absurd claims (denied the Temple Mount was sacred to Jews) and encourage terrorism. This leads us to present morass.
I agree it would have been better for him to reject Oslo from the beginning rather than at the end.
Would you make a peace agreement with a group of people whose majority feel it is proper to murder innocent people including your family? The Palestians approval of murder is nauseating.
CBL
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
CBL4 said:
The whole war is nauseating. More Palestinians have died in it than Israelis. The UK made a peace deal with the IRA. Many didn't approve of it, but many more people are alive now because of it.
The amount of absurd claims from both sides are pretty well equal, but the idea that peace will be achieved always seems to be the most absurd.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Middl...of-the-intifada/2005/02/09/1107890273314.html
Your take on Palestinians is, as most opinions uttered here, simplistic in the extreme.
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
You just don't get it. It has always been the desire of the Arab world to destroy Israel using the Palestinians as surrogates. That is what all the fighting is about these past 60 years, that is why Arafat founded Fateh and that is why Nasser founded the PLO....to destroy Israel. I know that is hard to swallow but it is a fact none the less. We've been over this 1,000,000 times at JREF and you still cannot make that intelectual leap.a_unique_person said:
Your explanation for all the wars and violence is "it was inevitable", yet the reality is far different. The Palestinians never had a say in what happened to them, it was dictators like Haj Amin al-Husseini, Assad, Arafat and Nasser who decided what happened to them - and they chose poorly. Since you live 10,000 miles away and have never set foot in the middle east in your entire life I suggest to you that there may be people who are far more knowledgable on the subject that someone who 's total sum knowledge is comprised of reading articles in "The Age" and from websites on the internet.
{edited to add}
Allow me to illustrate what I am talking about a_u_p:
Hezbollah May Be Threat to Mideast Truce - Wed Feb 9, 4:06 PM ET
There are people pulling strings beyond the conflict and there has been since 1948.