The palestinian state we all want.

[zenith-nadir]

Yet if we go back to the time of Oslo, Hamas was nowhere near the force it is now, for all his faults, Arafat and the PA had effective control of the Paliestinians.

• April 6, 1994 - Afula - 8 Killed Hamas Car Bomb next to Bus.
• April 13, 1994 - Hadera - 5 Killed Hamas Suicide Bomber.
• October 9, 1994 - Jerusalem - 2 Killed, 14 Wounded Hamas 2 Gunmen Open Fire.
• October 19, 1994 - Tel Aviv - 22 Killed, 56 Wounded Hamas Suicide Bomber on Bus.
• December 25, 1994 - Jerusalem - 13 Wounded Hamas Suicide Bomber at Bus Stop.
• April 9, 1995 - Gaza - 8 Killed, 50 Wounded Hamas & Islamic Jihad 2 Suicide Bombers.
• July 24, 1995 - Ramat Gan - 6 Killed, 31 Wounded Hamas Suicide Bomber on Bus.
• February 25, 1996 - Jerusalem - 26 Killed, 80 Wounded Hamas 2 Suicide Bombers on Bus.
• February 25, 1996 - Ashkelon - 2 Killed Hamas 2 Suicide Bomber at Bus Stop.
• March 3, 1996 - Jerusalem - 19 Killed, 6 Wounded Hamas 2 Suicide Bombers on Bus.

Sorry..... could you clarify your posted myth about Hamas being nowhere near the force it is now a_u_p?

There was a drastic fall-off in violence between 1993 and 2000, but the Israeli electorate elected Netenyahu, who emphatically and repeatedly rejected the principle of a Palestinian State and the Oslo Accords in particular.

• April 6, 1994 - Afula - 8 Killed Hamas Car Bomb next to Bus.
• April 13, 1994 - Hadera - 5 Killed Hamas Suicide Bomber.
• October 9, 1994 - Jerusalem - 2 Killed, 14 Wounded Hamas 2 Gunmen Open Fire.
• October 19, 1994 - Tel Aviv - 22 Killed, 56 Wounded Hamas Suicide Bomber on Bus.
• December 25, 1994 - Jerusalem - 13 Wounded Hamas Suicide Bomber at Bus Stop.
• April 9, 1995 - Gaza - 8 Killed, 50 Wounded Hamas & Islamic Jihad 2 Suicide Bombers.
• July 24, 1995 - Ramat Gan - 6 Killed, 31 Wounded Hamas Suicide Bomber on Bus.
• February 25, 1996 - Jerusalem - 26 Killed, 80 Wounded Hamas 2 Suicide Bombers on Bus.
• February 25, 1996 - Ashkelon - 2 Killed Hamas 2 Suicide Bomber at Bus Stop.
• March 3, 1996 - Jerusalem - 19 Killed, 6 Wounded Hamas 2 Suicide Bombers on Bus.
• March 4, 1996 - Tel Aviv - 20 Killed, 75 Wounded Islamic Jihad Suicide Bomber at Mall.
• March 21, 1997 - Tel-Aviv - 3 Killed, 48 Wounded Hamas Bomb at Restaurant.
• July 30, 1997 - Jerusalem - 15 Killed, 178 Wounded Hamas 2 Suicide Bombers at Outdoor Market.
• September 4, 1997 - Jerusalem - 4 Killed, 181 Wounded Hamas 3 Suicide Bombers at Pedestrian Mall.
• etc....

Sorry..... could you clarify your posted myth about this drastic fall-off in violence between 1993 and 2000 Capel?

 

[The Fool]

Re: Re: The palestinian state we all want.

There are several "catches" as far as I can see. The catches do not have anything to do with how well the PA catches terrorists. They have to do simply with what the PA does officially to encourage "armed struggle"...and the declared fact that they will not stop until the last mile of Israel is reclaimed for Palestine.

How about I just chalk you up as a no because palestinians want to "wipe out" Israelis? Therefore no nation until the true feelings of palestinians have been mindread and are no longer genocidal to the satisfaction of......of.....hmmmmm, who exactly would have to be satisfied that they no longer have genocidal intent?



Why don't they?

-z

why don't they what?.... repeal parts of the palestinian charter? They seem to think they have...you don't accept it.

couple of questions for you....Should God be required to repeal his gift of all this land? Would you be happy if Zionists said they don't take that gift bit seriously any more or would you insist it didn't count until the bible had been edited and god had initialed the edits??

the other question is concerning the threat of palestinians to Israel, what do you think thier chances of wiping out israel would be?

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: Re: The palestinian state we all want.

the other question is concerning the threat of palestinians to Israel, what do you think thier chances of wiping out israel would be?

A lot better with a state than without.

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but when Arab nations go to war against Israel, they tend to do it in packs. Syria won't do it alone, for example, but Syria, Jordan and Egypt will.

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The palestinian state we all want.

A lot better with a state than without.

I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but when Arab nations go to war against Israel, they tend to do it in packs. Syria won't do it alone, for example, but Syria, Jordan and Egypt will.

To clarify your post for me (as with my question to z-n), is it your position that there should not be a Palestinian state?

 

[armageddonman]

There's the Palestinian state we'll all get.

So,, there won't be any change? So why oppose the Palestinian state?

 

[zenith-nadir]

Re: Re: Re: The palestinian state we all want.

Notice how the fool ignored your entire post rikzilla regarding the Palestinian National Charter and "countered" with

Should God be required to repeal his gift of all this land? Would you be happy if Zionists said they don't take that gift bit seriously any more or would you insist it didn't count until the bible had been edited and god had initialed the edits??

Also... did anyone notice that both a_u_p and Capel posted myths:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Yet if we go back to the time of Oslo, Hamas was nowhere near the force it is now

Originally posted by CapelDodger
There was a drastic fall-off in violence between 1993 and 2000

... and tried to pass them off as facts?

Such is the Middle East game at JREF...

Originally posted by armageddonman
So,, there won't be any change? So why oppose the Palestinian state?

I don't oppose a Palestinian state, I am just of the opinion that with the PA in its present form and gangs of islamist thugs from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aksa shooting up the place - a status quo that we've witnessed over the past decade - will neither enhance Palestinian rights nor secure lasting peace for Israelis.

 

[rikzilla]

Re: Re: Re: The palestinian state we all want.

How about I just chalk you up as a no because palestinians want to "wipe out" Israelis? Therefore no nation until the true feelings of palestinians have been mindread and are no longer genocidal to the satisfaction of......of.....hmmmmm, who exactly would have to be satisfied that they no longer have genocidal intent?

Okay, chalk me up. Until such time as the PA shows good faith and removes or edits the parts of the charter calling for the destruction of Israel there should be no recognised state. Any state formed under such a charter would be a self-declared terrorist state. Let them become reasonable first before rewards are thrown their way. Otherwise we are just fostering more terrorism by showing the terrorists that their inhuman tactics will be rewarded.

Originally posted by rikzilla

Why don't they?

-z

Originally posted by The Fool
why don't they what?.... repeal parts of the palestinian charter? They seem to think they have...you don't accept it.

Eh? The articles I quoted you are current. They currently are calling for the destruction of Israel! We're not talking Hamas here; this is the official PA Charter! As long as the language stands the PA will be guilty of inciting terrorism by enshrining it in their charter.

What drugs are you on man? "They seem to think they have..." have what!!?? They officially endorse terrorism. Hell, even Saddam had more sense than to write a paeon to terrorism into his national charter!

couple of questions for you....Should God be required to repeal his gift of all this land? Would you be happy if Zionists said they don't take that gift bit seriously any more or would you insist it didn't count until the bible had been edited and god had initialed the edits??

A couple of answers for you;
I don't believe in god. Mythical constructs do not have land (or anything else) to give. There was no God to write the Bible; and there is no God to edit the Bible; nor are there any people left who could do it and still be taken seriously. (Hmm...perhaps if we hadn't been so quick to roast Mr. Koresh....but that's another story)

Hardcore Zionists are part of the problem; but generally they do not blow up innocent people when they are pissed off or bored. Nor is there AFAIK a Zionist charter which calls for the destruction of any peoples or any state.

the other question is concerning the threat of palestinians to Israel, what do you think thier chances of wiping out israel would be?

Very good if the Israelis did not have the edge in technology. Funny isn't it? That Israel could utterly wipe out every Palestinian and likely as well lay waste to every Arab nation; yet they have no desire....and the Palestinians desire officially to wipe out Israel and yet have no ability!

Seriously though this dichtomy won't last. The world turns; times change. The only constant is change. Sooner or later the greater Arab nation's fortunes will change. It's not inconcievable that Palestinian/Arab military ability will increase while Israeli fortunes/alliances may change for the worse. If the charter still says "kill Israelis" then...to a population raised on official reverence for "martyrs" and "the armed struggle"...then it's a dim and at best tenuous future for every Israeli.

The Palestinians could change their charter any time they want. No divine intervention necessary. So why don't they? Why not as a good faith first step towards compromise and peace; or don't they want that?

-z

 

[Mycroft]

To clarify your post for me (as with my question to z-n), is it your position that there should not be a Palestinian state?

My position is a little more complex than a simple yes or no. Yes, I would like to see a Palestinian state living in peace with Israel, but concerns that a Palestinian state would just be a platform for attacking and destroying Israel are legitimate. The Fool, in my opinion, is being disengenuous in claiming that's not a legitimate concern simply because the Palestinians today are no real threat to Israel. Give them their own state where they can import heavy weapons and ally with other hostile states, and they can be.

Frankly, if they say their goal is to destroy Israel and they've been saying thier goal is the destruction of Israel for the past 60 years, then the threat should be takes seriously, and a very minimal requirement to helping them build a state should be to get them to stop saying that.

 

[zenith-nadir]

Frankly, if they say their goal is to destroy Israel and they've been saying thier goal is the destruction of Israel for the past 60 years, then the threat should be takes seriously, and a very minimal requirement to helping them build a state should be to get them to stop saying that.

Official Friday sermon on Palestinian Authority (PA) TV - May 17, 2005

The preacher is Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris, a paid employee of the PA.

"With the establishment of the state of Israel, the entire Islamic nation was lost, because Israel is a cancer spreading through the body of the Islamic nation, and because the Jews are a virus resembling AIDS, from which the entire world suffers.

"You will find that the Jews were behind all the civil strife in this world. The Jews are behind the suffering of the nations.

"We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world – except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history.

That's what the Palestinian Authority allows - and pays for - on their TV. Well on Friday, 20 May, 2005:

Palestinian ban on hate sermons - BBC

The Palestinian Authority has moved to ban anti-Semitic sermons from state television after a cleric described Jews as a "virus resembling Aids". An Israeli spokesman said the broadcast breached a Palestinian commitment to incitement against Jews.

I can go back through every peace treaty and they all oblige the Palestinian Authority to stop incitement against Israel. Even way back in September 9, 1993 in the Exchange of Letters Between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat, Arafat's letter reads:

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security......Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In a letter from Arafat to the Norwegian Foreign Minister Arafat states:

His Excellency
Johan Jorgen Holst
Foreign Minister of Norway

Dear Minister Holst,

I would like top confirm to you that, upon the signing of the Declaration of Principles, the PLO encourages and calls upon the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to take part in the steps leading to the normalization of life, rejecting violence and terrorism, contributing to peace and stability and participating actively in shaping reconstruction, economic develoment and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization

Well 12 years later after hundreds of similar Friday sermons on Palestinian Authority TV AND Arafat's death we still have government-sponsored incitement on Palestinian TV...but now Nabil Shaath "pledges" to end the broadcasts...we'll see...

 

[rikzilla]

Banning radical "kill the Jews" sermons from PA tv would only make sense in the context of a changed national charter. If the national charter calls for the killing of Jews, then a sermon on PA tv saying the same thing is to be expected. They have to change the official rhetoric. Rewrite the charter and leave out the nasty bits about destroying Israel; then it makes sense for the PA to remove such radical sermons from it's official tv stations.

But if the charter says "kill the Jews" how is the notion of destroying Israel even to be considered radical at all?? It's not! It's official friggin policy!

Now Fool, et al can say this and that about how frail the PA government and infrastructure are. How weak and unable to prevent terrorism.....but are we to believe they are too weak to call together their government and start debating how/when/if they will re write the charter? Are they so weak they can't hold a pen? Or is it just that they won't.

-z

 

[demon]

Speaking of terrorism...

Maybe we should be giving a mention to how the disengagement has fueled Jewish terrorism.
Israeli soldiers force "settlers" to move - "settlers" kill Palestinians - weird eh.

A second murderous bus attack by Jewish "settlers" upset by ... err, why are they so upset as to turn to such murderous terrorism and kill Palestinian Arabs? I mean its not the Palestinians that are forcing the "disengagement" on them, well not directly anyway.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/809F2092-9A55-4064-8808-D5EE8CDC33B1.htm

Does this suggest that Jews and non Jews have something in common perhaps, that they are perhaps equal in terms of being human?

I wonder how many Palestinians (both Muslim and Christian on a bus the other day)...
http://www.detnews.com/2005/nation/0508/07/natio-271355.htm

...are going to be murdered by Jewish terrorists if/when the West Bank settlements are disengaged from. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/04/bus.shooting/

And as "settlements" are expanding elsewhere, who is going to secure the Palestinians, they have a right to protect themselves, to take action to prevent these Jewish extremists, I mean if the Israeli governemnt doesn't do it then the Palestinians have the right to, surely.

Are these Jewish terrorists born as terrorists (maybe it`s something they ate or the way they dance?), or is it something they have experienced in life that makes them turn to such terrorist acts. Could it be anything to do with being removed from the land they were living on?

If living in Gaza for a maximum of 38 years and being forcibly removed causes these Jews to turn to murderous terrorism, even though the removal of the "settlers" by the Israeli army does not involve "surprise, protracted mortar barrages, and the use of loudspeakers broadcasting threatening messages"...
http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=2005031116424717&mode=print0

...(although, there has been some looting by Israeli Soldiers), and includes hundreds of thousands of dollars in compensation and a new plot of land elsewhere, just imagine if all these people had been living there all their life, had been forced to move at gun point, shot and killed, with such things "including rapes and mutilations" and "massacres", and had been given no compensation, leaving their possessions behind and herded into refugee camps...
http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/gaza.html

...where they were continually brutalized day in day out year after year after year. I mean its not been a week yet for this "disengagement" and already the Jewish settlers are resorting to murderous terrorism.

Kind of makes you wonder, huh.

I guess we'll soon see America supply attack helicopters to the PLO for aerial attacks on Jewsih terrorist settlements, or maybe the Russians will do it. I mean, no one wants the Palestinians to defend themselves from Jewish terrorists with homemade rockets now, do they?

 

[webfusion]

No, they aren't

I mean its not been a week yet for this "disengagement" and already the Jewish settlers are resorting to murderous terrorism.

Hardly supported by the events.
The single individual who killed his co-workers, refused to explain his motives during the initial investigation after being arrested, but he specifically claimed there was no connection between his action and the disengagement plan.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\
The AWOL soldier who perpetrated the previous incident did so before this current week's beginning of the "disengagement" (why is that in quotes? Isn't it actually a disengagement by definition?) -- in fact, he was not even a settler but an Israeli resident of Rishon Le'Tzion, where his family lived.
It was a murder by one insane Israeli Jew against other innocent Israelis and should not be thought of as anything else.

Demon, I was able to read your posting (as I was not logged-in while browsing the forum). It just reinforces my feeling that keeping you on ignore is completely justified.

==============================

 

[shuize]

Ok, let's fast-forward a few years. Israel has left Gaza and come to some sort of agreement on the West Bank. Something approaching a Palestinian state forms.

According to Hamas' recents statements, that will not be enough and terror attacks will continue. Hamas currently enjoys widespread support.

So, what then?

Others have already posted that a new Palestinian state must bear its responsibilities as every other state. In response to continued terror attacks, Israel declares war on Palestine.* Other Arab states may or not join in the fighting. Israel likely wins, toppling the government and occupying Palestine ... again.

I guess my question is, even if Israel withdraws from Gaza and makes a deal on the West Bank, if the attacks continue, what's the difference?

Does it buy them more international support? I doubt it. At least not the kind that makes them any safer.* Under my made up, but not completely unrealistic scenario above, it appears nothing short of marching itself into the sea will satisfy most of the Hamas supporters to stop the attacks.

To answer the original question though, I'm not opposed to a Palestinian state -- as they say in the South, not being Israeli, Palestinian, Jewish, or Muslim, I don't have a dog in that fight -- But personally, I don't see anything wrong with Israel asking for some kind of security guarantees before handing over territory that was previously used to launch an invasion against it ... more than once.


* My bet is that in the event of a future war most who now say any Palestinian state would have to bear the responsibilities of statehood will conveniently forget ever making such a statement.

 

[demon]

webfusion:
"Demon, I was able to read your posting (as I was not logged-in while browsing the forum). It just reinforces my feeling that keeping you on ignore is completely justified."


You keep reminding me that you have me on ignore...shouldn`t you just be like...ignoring me or something?

 

[Darat]

.....but are we to believe they are too weak to call together their government and start debating how/when/if they will re write the charter? Are they so weak they can't hold a pen? Or is it just that they won't.

-z

I don't think anyone could hold that they couldn't, in the sense of it being possible.

However I don’t believe even if the “destruction of Israel” was removed today it would have any significant positive benefit for either the Palestinian or Israeli populations in the short to mid term (say now to 5 years from now).

I do not see how removing the words would reduce the threat of continuing murder and violence against the Israel population by Palestinian terrorists.

With that in mind I would say that pragmatically it makes no difference to Israel whether a “Palestinian state” has that in its constitution or not. Therefore to make that prerequisite for other changes is self defeating and again it allows the Palestinians to dictate or heavily influence Israel policy.

 

[shuize]

With that in mind I would say that pragmatically it makes no difference to Israel whether a “Palestinian state” has that in its constitution or not. Therefore to make that prerequisite for other changes is self defeating and again it allows the Palestinians to dictate or heavily influence Israel policy.

In light of this statement, I guess I should edit my post above to say I don't see anything wrong with Israel asking for the removal or non-inclusion of anything in the Palestinian Constitution calling for their destruction before handing over territory that was previously used to launch several invasions against it.

Israel: OK, OK. We'll give you Gaza, but you've at least got to stop calling for our death and destruction.

Hamas: No. We will drive you into the sea.

Israel: Well, would you at least pretend? I mean, after all, we're about to give you a big chunk of land.

Hamas: No.

Isreal: Oh, well. OK. Here's Gaza.

--- I'm starting to think Israel might just deserve what it gets for trying to negotiate with those guys.

Israel: Why are you still killing us after we gave you Gaza?

Hamas: We always said we would. It's in our Constitution. Now give us the West Bank and in exchange we'll blow up more school busses.

--- Pesky Constitutions. I mean, really, what good did it ever do to remove all that slavery language from the U.S. Constitution anyway?

 

[Darat]

In light of this statement, I guess I should edit my post above to say I don't see anything wrong with Israel asking for the removal or non-inclusion of anything in the Palestinian Constitution calling for their destruction before handing over territory that was previously used to launch several invasions against it.

Will a change of words stop any attacks? If I thought it would I would be all for agreeing that Israel should have made that a prerequisite for their withdrawal from Gazza. However what we see is that Israel has made a decision that it believes to be in the best interests of Israel, it has not allowed the likes of Hamas to any longer dictate the Israeli policy regarding Gazza.

Israel: OK, OK. We'll give you Gaza, but you've at least got to stop calling for our death and destruction.

Hamas: No. We will drive you into the sea.

Israel: Well, would you at least pretend? I mean, after all, we're about to give you a big chunk of land.

Hamas: No.

Isreal: Oh, well. OK. Here's Gaza.

--- I'm starting to think Israel might just deserve what it gets for trying to negotiate with those guys.

Israel: Why are you still killing us after we gave you Gaza?

Hamas: We always said we would. It's in our Constitution. Now give us the West Bank and in exchange we'll blow up more school busses.

--- Pesky Constitutions. I mean, really, what good did it ever do to remove all that slavery language from the U.S. Constitution anyway?

I like your skit, it explain well why, at the moment it doesn't matter what is in any "constitution" any group of Palestinians has and why Israel shouldn’t let the terrorists dictate its internal policies.

The USA constitution is a very good example of what I am saying, it shows that it is not the words that matter but the will.

 

[Jocko]

I do not see how removing the words would reduce the threat of continuing murder and violence against the Israel population by Palestinian terrorists.

But can you see any potential harm from the removal of those words? I think that's really the question. What does it cost? If it's so politically unpalatable, then I'd say Isarael has good reason to be perpetually distrustful.

I mean, if the general sentiment among Palestinians is such that they wouldn't tolerate the amendment, why on earth would you negotiate in good faith with them?

 

[Mycroft]

Will a change of words stop any attacks?

Not by themselves, no, and we've seen plenty of examples where the Palestinian-Arabs promised something and failed to deliver. In the end, it's actions that make changes that can build trust.

But actions begin with words. Where you have the words but have yet to see the actions, there can be doubt as to overall intent. Where you can't even get the words, there is no doubt, you know for certain their intentions are bad.

 

[Darat]

But can you see any potential harm from the removal of those words? I think that's really the question. What does it cost? If it's so politically unpalatable, then I'd say Isarael has good reason to be perpetually distrustful.

Thinking this through I think given the current situation I can see a potential negative for removing the call for the total destruction of Israel for both Israel and Palestine.

(This is a "thought experiment" I am not stating it as a fact.)

The PA remove the words, Hamas (for example) uses this as a political tool and causes even more unrest and this results in whatever flimsy authority and control the PA does exercise being removed. This means that the potential risk for Israel increases and I would also say it would result in more suffering for the Palestinian population.

So perhaps at the moment since the words themselves being there does not increase the risk to Israel and does not result in more suffering for the Palestinian population it is in fact better for both populations that the words remain?

As for the distrust - in my opinion Israel would show the most rank stupidity if it didn't remain distrustful for decades of the Palestinian population.

I mean, if the general sentiment among Palestinians is such that they wouldn't tolerate the amendment, why on earth would you negotiate in good faith with them?

Again just my opinion but I don’t think Israel should at the moment, I think it should leave the Palestinians to their own devices.