cont. - Israel&pals - the first suicide bomber after the gaza withdrawl

College Confidential Community
21

<p>"Now, answer this question-</p>

<p>Why is Israel showing no intention of a West Bank withdrawl????</p>

<p>Why are they showing no interest in Palestinian statehood????????"</p>

<p>Why should they withdraw from the West Bank. It would make more sense if Palestinians went into Jordan than make Israel give up the Gaza Strip.</p>

<p>Here is a statement by Zuheir Mohsein, Member of the Supreme Council of the PLO:</p>

<pre><code>"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity in contrast to Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity

Trouw (Dutch newspaper) March 31, 1977
</code></pre>

<p>I think Zuheir MOhsein, agrees with me.</p>

22

<p>Hardstyle, when an article involves words such as "Zionist fanatic", you can safely say that it isn't very... objective.</p>

23

<p>The Palestinians that live under oppression can trace their roots back before the Jews even came in whatever B.C.</p>

<p>Again, West Bank is occupied territory. You basically just want the Palestinians to emigrate out. Fortunately they decided to put up a fight for the land they originally owned. </p>

<p>Can you make a Palestinian state out of the Gaza Strip????</p>

24

<p>The Palestinians that live under oppression can trace their roots back before the Jews even came in whatever B.C.</p>

<p>Again, West Bank is occupied territory. You basically just want the Palestinians to emigrate out. Fortunately they decided to put up a fight for the land they originally owned.</p>

<p>Can you make a Palestinian state out of the Gaza Strip????</p>

<p>College, Islam started around 700 A.D. How is it occupied territory. I believe that according to your logic, that the original thirteen states are also "occupied" territory by the Americans that really belongs to the British.</p>

<p>As you should know, Arabs again tried to massacre the Jews (in '67). Yhe Jordanians were attacking the Jewish controlled areas of Jerusalem from the east They were repelled, and the city reunited. No body mandated a 'return' of land in this instance. Of course, the U.N. recognized Israel's right to exist, and the Brits had declared (via the Balfour Declaration) that the British Mandate would give way to a 'national Jewish homeland.' Unfortunately, the Arabs couldn't quite get over the idea of Jews residing in less than 10,000 square miles of land (devoid of natural resouces) in the midst of their 5 million.</p>

<p>Considering the land was owned for hundreds of years by the Turks (not Arabs) prior to the League of Nations and then British Mandate, how can you begin to say who does and does not have claim? How can Israel 'quite simply' have no claim? </p>

<p>Incidentally, Jews have been residing in Israel for the past 3000 years, without interruption.
3000 B.C.E. is a whole 2000 years before David established his kingdom in Jerusalem. If, as you imply, there was a 'return' of land inspired by a past ownership, Israel would control land from the Nile to the Euphrates.</p>

25

<p>If you want a fair account of history, read up on palestinefacts.org. Explain how the land is "occupied". Its would be more accurate to say, that the land belongs to Israel because it was taken in self defense when 5 Arab countries simultaneously attacked it. I thought that when you declare war, you risk losing land, true? You do realize that Israel could have conquered up to the Suez canal if the UN didn't SUDDENLY, decide to step in, when the Arabs were losing, doing nothing when Israel was hopelessly overpowered. I'm sorry, but I believe shouting "occupied" without knowing the history behind it is pointless.</p>

26

<p>5 who were killed were involved in terror. today a 14-year-old pal kid was captured with explosives in the Chavara road block - it's the pals who out their kids in danger by using them. the kid obviously isn't hurt, but that's only thanks to Israeli intelligence and checking which could identify that in advance. now what if he would go of un-noticed? would say then it's "teenager"? just to remind you, teenagers commited in the past terror attacks against Israel, the fact that younger kids are involved in the conflict is due to the org's ways of action which involve getting some one who appears innocent (lady with explosives in her underwear, "pregnant lady", teenagers) and make them do the dirty work, not only they put them in danger but also making the Israelies more suspicious towards them.</p>

27

<p>With final-status talks between Israel and the Palestinians underway, Jerusalem is finally in play. At base, the argument here consists of an argument between Jews and Moslems over who has the older, better documented, and deeper ties to the Holy City.</p>

<p>A cursory review of the facts shows that there is not much of a contest.</p>

<p>Jerusalem has a unique importance to Jews. It has a unique place in Jewish law and a pervasive presence in the Jewish religion. Jews pray toward Jerusalem, mourn the destruction of their Temple there, and wishfully repeat the phrase "Next year in Jerusalem." It is the only capital of the Jewish state, ancient or modern.</p>

<p>In contrast, Jerusalem has a distinctly secondary place for Moslems. It is not once mentioned in the Koran or in the liturgy. The Prophet Mohammed never went to the city, nor did he have ties to it. Jerusalem never has served as the capital of any polity, and has never been an Islamic cultural center.</p>

<p>Rather, Mecca is the "Jerusalem" of Islam. That is where Moslems believe that Abraham nearly sacrificed Ishmael; where Mohammed lived most of his life; and where the key events of Islam took place. Moslems pray in its direction five times each day and it is where non-Moslems are forbidden to set foot.</p>

<p>Jerusalem being of minor importance to Islam, why do Moslems nowadays insist that the city is more important to them than to Jews? The answer has to do with politics. Moslems take religious interest in Jerusalem when it serves practical interests. When those concerns lapse, so does the standing of Jerusalem. This pattern has recurred at least five times over 14 centuries.</p>

<p>The Prophet. When Mohammed sought to convert the Jews in the 620s C.E., he adopted several Jewish-style practices - a Yom Kippur-like fast, a synagogue-like place of worship, kosher-style food restrictions - and also tachanun-like prayers while facing Jerusalem. But when most Jews rejected Mohammed's overtures, the Koran changed the prayer direction to Mecca and Jerusalem lost importance for Moslems.</p>

<p>The Umayyad Dynasty. Jerusalem regained stature a few decades later when rulers of the Umayyad dynasty sought ways to enhance the importance of their territories. One way was by building two monumental religious structures in Jerusalem, the Dome of the Rock in 691 and Al-Aqsa Mosque in 715.</p>

<p>Then the Umayyads did something tricky: The Koran states that God took Mohammed "by night from the sacred mosque in Mecca to the furthest (al-aqsa) place of worship." When this passage was revealed (about 621), "furthest place of worship" was a turn of phrase, not a specific place. Decades later, the Umayyads built a mosque in Jerusalem and called it Al-Aqsa. Moslems since then understand the passage about the "furthest place of worship" as referring to Jerusalem.</p>

<p>But when the Umayyads fell in 750, Jerusalem lapsed into near obscurity.</p>

<p>The Crusades. The Crusader conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 evinced little Moslem reaction at first. Then, as a Moslem counter-crusade developed, so did a whole literature extolling the virtues of Jerusalem. As a result, at about this time Jerusalem came to be seen as Islam's third most holy city.</p>

<p>Then, safely back in Moslem hands in 1187, the city lapsed into its usual obscurity. The population declined, even the defensive walls fell.</p>

<p>The British conquest. Only when British troops reached Jerusalem in 1917, did Moslems reawaken to the city's importance. Palestinian leaders made Jerusalem a centerpiece of their campaign against Zionism.</p>

<p>When the Jordanians won the old city in 1948, Moslems predictably lost interest again in Jerusalem. It reverted to a provincial backwater, deliberately degraded by the Jordanians in favor of Amman, their capital.</p>

<p>Taking out a bank loan, subscribing to telephone service, or registering a postal package required a trip to Amman. Jordanian radio transmitted the Friday sermon not from Al-Aqsa but from a minor mosque in Amman. Jerusalem also fell off the Arab diplomatic map: the PLO covenant of 1964 did not mention it. No Arab leader (other than King Hussein, and he rarely) visited there.</p>

<p>The Israeli conquest. When Israel captured the city in June 1967, Moslem interest in Jerusalem again surged. The 1968 PLO covenant mentioned Jerusalem by name. Revolutionary Iran created a Jerusalem Day and placed the city on bank notes. Money flooded into the city to build it up.</p>

<p>Thus have politics, more than religious sentiments, driven Moslem interest in Jerusalem through history.</p>

28

<p>" To see Israeli settlers spit in the faces of Israeli soldiers and call them "Nazis" evokes only disgust."</p>

<p>I love how b (and dumb as college, the vast majority of evangelicals support israel because they dont want it to fall into arab hands) ignores the vast majority of settlers who provided water and supplies to the members of the army who werent allowed to go get them. there was widespread comraderie between the settlers and the soldiers -- even if the settlers protested the soldiers' actions. don't believe me! i wasn't in israel at the time! (just kidding!) see <a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1124938376512%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1124938376512&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
The Palestinians that live under oppression can trace their roots back before the Jews even came in whatever B.C.

[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. hahahahahaha HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. good one!
MYTH</p>

<p>“Palestine was always an Arab country.”
FACT</p>

<p>The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C.E., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what are now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century C.E., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word "Filastin" is derived from this Latin name.3</p>

<p>The Hebrews entered the Land of Israel about 1300 B.C.E., living under a tribal confederation until being united under the first monarch, King Saul. The second king, David, established Jerusalem as the capital around 1000 B.C.E. David's son, Solomon built the Temple soon thereafter and consolidated the military, administrative and religious functions of the kingdom. The nation was divided under Solomon's son, with the northern kingdom (Israel) lasting until 722 B.C.E., when the Assyrians destroyed it, and the southern kingdom (Judah) surviving until the Babylonian conquest in 586 B.C.E. The Jewish people enjoyed brief periods of sovereignty afterward before most Jews were finally driven from their homeland in 135 C.E.</p>

<p>Jewish independence in the Land of Israel lasted for more than 400 years. This is much longer than Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States.4 In fact, if not for foreign conquerors, Israel would be 3,000 years old today.</p>

<p>Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not."5</p>

<p>Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:</p>

<pre><code>We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.6
</code></pre>

<p>In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."7</p>

<p>The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."8</p>

<p>Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.</p>

<p>MYTH</p>

<p>“The Palestinians are descendants of the Canaanites and were in Palestine long before the Jews.”
FACT</p>

<p>Palestinian claims to be related to the Canaanites are a recent phenomenon and contrary to historical evidence. The Canaanites disappeared from the face of the earth three millennia ago, and no one knows if any of their descendants survived or, if they did, who they would be.</p>

<p>Sherif Hussein, the guardian of the Islamic Holy Places in Arabia, said the Palestinians' ancestors had only been in the area for 1,000 years.9 Even the Palestinians themselves have acknowledged their association with the region came long after the Jews. In testimony before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, for example, they claimed a connection to Palestine of more than 1,000 years, dating back no further than the conquest of Muhammad's followers in the 7th century.10 And that claim is also dubious. Over the last 2,000 years, there have been massive invasions that killed off most of the local people (e.g., the Crusades), migrations, the plague, and other manmade or natural disasters. The entire local population was replaced many times over. During the British mandate alone, more than 100,000 Arabs emigrated from neighboring countries and are today considered Palestinians.</p>

<p>By contrast, no serious historian questions the more than 3,000-year-old Jewish connection to the Land of Israel, or the modern Jewish people's relation to the ancient Hebrews.</p>

<p>“...[the Palestinian Arabs'] basic sense of corporate historic identity was, at different levels, Muslim or Arab or - for some - Syrian; it is significant that even by the end of the Mandate in 1948, after thirty years of separate Palestinian political existence, there were virtually no books in Arabic on the history of Palestine..”10a</p>

<p>Do you know what the letters QED mean, college?
do you want me to dig up the quotes from arab leaders about how the palestinians are a contrived tool to get more land?</p>

29

<p>Statement by Zuheir Mohsein, Member of the Supreme Council of the PLO:</p>

<pre><code>"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity in contrast to Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity
</code></pre>

<ul>
<li><p>Trouw (Dutch newspaper) March 31, 1977</p>

<p>One always finds in Palestine Arabs who have been in the country only a few weeks or a few months...Since they are themselves strangers in a strange land, they are the loudest to cry: 'Out with the Jews!...Amongst them are to be found representatives of every Arab country: Arabs from Transjordan, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Egypt, the Sudan and Iraq.</p>

<ul>
<li> (Ladislas Farago, Palestine at the Crossroads (New York: Putnam 1937) p17</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>

<p>The Jordanian Foreign Minister said (Adwa'min pp. 4-5):</p>

<pre><code>Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan, and Jordan hails every Palestinian who seeks to do his duty to his cause and his country
</code></pre>

<p>-Declaration of the 8th Palestinian National Congress</p>

<pre><code>Jordan is linked to Palestine by a national relationship and a national unity forged by history and culture from earliest times. The creation of one political entity in East Jordan and another in Palestine would have no basis either in legality or as to the elements universally accepted as fundamental to a political entity.
</code></pre>

<ul>
<li>(R. Hamid (ed.) Muqararat al-majlis al-watani al-filastini 1964 Resolutions of the PNCs 1964-1974, Beirut, PLO Research Centre, 1975, p178 Declaration of the 8th Palestinian National Congress)</li>
</ul>

30

<p>only those ones, turtle? =p</p>

31

<p>LOL yeah only those</p>

32

<p>Bush Outsources Mideast Policy </p>

<p>by Patrick J. Buchanan
"Speaking of the Palestinians, they were dealt a lethal blow," exulted a jubilant Ariel Sharon, "It will bring their dreams to an end." </p>

<p>Sharon was bragging about his trip to Washington where he bullied Bush into selling out the Palestinians as thoroughly as Neville Chamberlain sold out the Czechs at Munich. </p>

<p>"Sharon Got It All" blared a banner headline in Israel. Indeed, he did. </p>

<p>And Raging Bull celebrated his diplomatic victory by ordering up a Saturday night hit on Abdel Rantisi, the Hamas leader who replaced Sheik Yassin, whom Sharon had assassinated by Apache gunship in March as the crippled sheik was being wheeled out of a mosque after dawn prayers. </p>

<p>As he surely intended, Sharon left the Arab world with the clear impression that the Americans had given a green light to his "extrajudicial" killings. Sharon seeks to make his war on the Palestinians America's war. If Bush lets him succeed, we are finished in the Middle East.</p>

<p>But how did Sharon, under a cloud of scandal and corruption, at the end of his tether, badger Bush into abdicating our role as "honest broker" of Mideast peace, and into signing on to a "Sharon Plan" even a Palestinian quisling would reject? </p>

<p>According to the New York Times, Sharon threatened not to come to Washington unless Bush, in advance and in writing, agreed to capitulate. "In a moment of diplomatic brinkmanship," writes James Bennet, Sharon threatened to cancel his trip if Bush refused to give him "the guarantees he wanted in exchange for his plan to withdraw settlers from the Gaza Strip." </p>

<p>Still, one must marvel at Sharon's savvy in sizing up Bush, and at the man's chutzpah. Look at what he got for giving up less than nothing. </p>

<p>Gaza was captured from Egypt in 1967. Though almost all Israelis wish to be rid of it, 7,500 Jewish squatters have moved into the enclave that is home to 1.2 million Palestinians. Israelis now occupy 20 percent of Gaza, though they are but one-half of 1 percent of the population.</p>

<p>However, under the occupation, Hamas has flourished in Gaza and Israeli troops have been tied down there. About to be forced out of Gaza by Hamas, as Israel was forced out of Lebanon by Hezbollah, Sharon decided to get Bush to reward him for doing what he had to do. </p>

<p>Sharon's ultimatum: In return for giving up Gaza, Bush must give him title to more desirable Palestinian lands on the West Bank. </p>

<p>Bush, who once traded Sammy Sosa away, agreed. Only this time he traded America's reputation for honest dealing for a few words of fatuous praise from Sharon about what a great battler against terrorism he is. All to help Bush and Rove carry the south Florida condos. </p>

<p>But John Kerry is not a man easily out-pandered. </p>

<p>"That Bush's move was good politics," writes Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, "was evidenced by Democratic rival John F. Kerry's quick move not to let Bush outflank him among pro-Israel voters."</p>

<p>"I think that could be a positive step," said Kerry of the Bush sell-out of the Palestinians. Our first presidents were George Washington and John Adams. Now we have on offer George Bush and John Kerry. Does that not tell you something about what has become of the old republic?</p>

<p>What did Bush give up? None of the Palestinians driven out of their homes by the Irgun massacre at Deir Yassin and during the 1948 war will ever be allowed to return. Palestinian rights in that 78 percent of Palestine that is already Israel, and in the sectors of the remaining 22 percent Sharon plans to annex, are forfeit forever. At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered Arafat a more generous peace than Bush, under Sharon's direction, is willing to give the Palestinians.</p>

<p>Second, major Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank, planted by Sharon in violation of international law, which every U.S. president has called "obstacles to peace," are now deeded to Israel. Like Lord Balfour, Bush is surrendering title to Arab lands he does not own and surrendering Palestinian rights that are not his to give up.</p>

<p>As for the Sharon Wall that snakes in and out of the West Bank, incorporating Palestinian fields, olive groves, homes and villages, Bush no longer insists it be confined to Israeli territory. </p>

<p>What does the mini-Munich mean? The great Zionist land thief has gotten America's blessing to keep his stolen goods. George Bush has out-sourced his Mideast policy to Tel Aviv. The custodian of our reputation for decency and honor in an Arab world of 22 nations is now Sharon. As for Palestinians who put their faith and trust in the United States, they have been exposed as fools. </p>

<p>Can anyone in the White House believe that Bush's capitulation is anything but a formula for endless war and enduring hatred of an America that cannot say no to Ariel Sharon? </p>

<p>Any Arab leader who signed on to this Sharon-Bush plan, which cedes huge swatches of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem to Israel and leaves Palestinians in bantustans walled in with Israeli concrete, would be regarded as a traitor to his people, and deservedly so.</p>

<p>.</p>

33

<p>honestly - i don't see how posting articles (opiniotive ones) makes progress to any of the sides, but that's just my opinion.</p>

34

<p>All you do is post biased articles, you are apparently unable to argue for yourself. Boo hoo.</p>