Reserve Generals (Israeli) Back Unilateral Withdrawal

FD Khan:

Israel was very sparsely populated before WWII, and for much of the century pre-WWII was almost empty. There were no cities there, no towns there, just occasional outposts of civilization... That changed when the Jews from Europe got there and actually started building things (the Arabs never felt any need to build anything there, for some reason).

This is one issue that you have completely backwards. In order for a peace without the genocide (ethnic cleansing, rather - the Israelis wouldn't kill them all, just kick them out) of the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must stop sending suicide bombers. If you actually think that the Israelis will withdraw while this violence is going on, then you don't know the Israelis too well. They will not withdraw until the violence subsides. Period.

I will bet money on that.

Spare me the 'give me liberty or give me death' BS. Self preservation is more important.

Why are you so biased against the Israelis? Sometimes I get the idea that you actually want to see them destroyed, because I have yet to see you mention their concerns over existence as a valid concern.

Our media doesn't actually glorify them (although much of the rest of the world's does), but our media does tend to try to legitemize their actions by framing them as freedom-fighters - which they are not. There should be absolutely no way to legitemize intentionally attacking civilians, yet pretty much everyone except for FOX News does it.

Hell, that day that three bombs went off simultaneously, CNN interviewed a f*ing Hamas spokesman before they even bothered talking to any Israelis. I personally thought that was unbelievable...

You can say that again.

 

This is what I have been saying from the beginning. They lived in peace together for almost 1000 years. From the time of Mohammed until the fall of the Ottomans.

It seems like everyone on one side favors one side for the same reasons the other people favor the other side. You're arguing just like they are...who was there first, who has more religious rights, who has more allies, who is playing more unfairly. One side killing the other one way is not any better or worse than the other side killing in a different way. Do you see why this cannot simply be solved?

I am telling you as a fact that both sides have equal claim more or less. Both sides want the same thing. And Arabs and Jews were friends in many cases until 1948 when the war broke out. There are people who testify to this. Sporadic fighting for 20 years is not even in the same universe as what it going on today. There was relative peace until 1948.

 

a) Muslims believe (its in the Quran too) that the Prophet went to heaven one night and he first went to Jerusalem. There he led a prayer with all the prophets behind him (of course this is one of those finer points which can't be 'proven'). In the Quran it mentions this journey and says blessed is the far away mosque (aqsa=far) and blessed is the land surrounding it.

b) Muslim pray towards the Kaba now...however in the early days of Islam the Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem. This was before Islam was anything but a religion of 100 people who were being tortured by the masses and were comparatively poor with a few rich and powerful amongst them. This happened till I believe the migration of the Muslims to Yathrib (Medina). That means during the lifetime of the Prophet he only prayed towards Medina for less then 10 years.

c) In a tradition of the Prophet it is said that there are only three places worth journeying towards. One of them is Mecca, the second Medina, and the third Al-Quds or Jerusalem.

Regardless since throughout the very early days of Islam before there was any even talk of an empire Jerusalem was considered sacred. Hence the argument that Muslims consider it holy so they can have a reason to fight or they had a way to take over Europe is ludicrous.

 

F.D. Khan... I said BASICALLY EMPTY A$$ WIPE.. learn how to read the freaking posts! What kind of a threat do these settlements pose? The fact is that they are JEWISH settlements.. BOTTOM LINE!!! Where is there a law stating that you have to be muslim to live in gaza or west bank?

You might want to rethink your opinion.. Israel WOULD NEVER commit genocide. Stop the suicide bombings and peace will come. Do you expect Jewish Israelis to just let suicide bombers to do as they please without retaliating? think again.

 

Legitimizing anti-Arab racism
By Ori Nir

As the Or Commission rakes over the embers of the October 2000 Arab riots, the next confrontation, which sooner or later will convulse the Israeli Arab community, is being prepared.

Its components are the provocative measures - as they are being viewed - of cabinet ministers, the escalating violence in the territories, and intensifying anti-Arab hostility in Israeli Jewish society.

The outbreak will come - that is a fact beyond question for leaders of the Israeli Arab community, and of experts studying that community. There is just one reason for the restrained quiet in the various Arab communities since October 2000's bloody events - fear.

Arab leaders are afraid to assume responsibility for the consequences of violent demonstrations. Parents are concerned for their children's welfare, and many young Israeli Arabs are concerned for their own future. However, at some point in time, the anger will grow, the rumblings will start, and the grievances steadily being packed into the Arab barrel will overflow. The catalyst to start the next outbreak might be just around the corner - and it might be the recommendation of the ministerial committee on the Shihab Al-Din Mosque in Nazareth.

All the signs point to a decision that will overturn the recommendations of previous committees - under Benjamin Netanyahu's and Ehud Barak's stewardship. It is likely to forbid building a mosque on the disputed site. Any decision on this matter is complex. There are legitimate pros and cons - and there is heavy pressure from the Vatican and the United States.

Nonetheless, it is doubtful if the ministers sitting on this committee - Natan Sharansky, Avigdor Lieberman, Uzi Landau, Matan Vilnai and Meir Sheetrit - are taking into account all the moral and political ramifications of the message that will be broadcast to the Israeli Arab public. The message will say that once again the government is breaking an agreement with its Arab citizens.

The chairman of the Higher Arab Monitoring Committee, Shawki Hatib speaks of a whole "culture of not honoring agreements" with the Arabs that all Israel's governments have developed over the years. The handling of the mosque issue is a prime example of this destructive malady, and of another known malady in the state's attitude to its Arab community - red tape.

The red tape the government used in tying up its decisions to permit the building of the mosque created much Muslim bitterness and ultimately pushed the Waqf (Moslem religious trust) in Nazareth to start building without a permit. The building proceeded for several months and was duly noted by the authorities. They did not, however, bother to enforce the law, thus highlighting yet another malady in the government's treatment of the Arab community. This is an unbalanced, inconsiderate, and callous manner of enforcing the law, one that does not reflect any consistent, coherent government policy.

A study of the testimonies given by senior police officers, politicians, experts and leading figures in the Arab community to the Or Commission creates a grim picture of this combination of inconsistent law enforcement and lack of a coherent policy.

When the law is enforced, it has invariably been done in an arbitrary, cold-hearted manner or through administrative dictates. The past ten days have provided two new examples. The poisoning of the Bedouin fields in the Negev, was a truly wicked act that can be credited to National Infrastructures Minister Avigdor Lieberman, whose ministry does not bother to supply even the most basic amenities for tens of thousands of Bedouin citizens. The second was the administrative order (issued under defense regulations for states of emergency) forbidding Sheikh Raad Salah, leader of the "northern wing" of the Islamic movement, from leaving the country.

Cabinet ministers are conducting racist anti-Arab campaigns, like that of Tourism Minister Rabbi Binyamin Elon advocating a population transfer. Under his gracious patronage, the eyes of Israel's Arab citizens will be insulted "hundreds of huge posters" to be hung throughout the country carrying the slogan "only a population transfer can bring peace" - as the Moledet party web site promises. The web site also makes clear the campaign is to promote "a population transfer for the Arabs of the Holy Land" - no distinction is made between Arab Israelis and Arab Palestinians in the territories.

Other cabinet ministers have made frequent abusive comments about Arab citizens. The Knesset has been offered bills to encourage their emigration, and to circumvent High Court of Justice rulings granting them equal rights. Such comments and initiatives legitimize the ugly wave of anti-Arab racism and hatred that is swelling in Jewish society.

Since October 2000, the government has done nothing to address the serious agitation that has been evident in the Arab community for years. Quite the contrary, the political hierarchy only aggravates a feeling among Israeli Arabs that they are being marginalized. This of course only intensifies the explosive mood that already exists in the Israeli Arab community.

here

 

Oh, please.

Do I have to find a link on the Durban Conference on Racism, in which the Arabs took over the conference and turned it into an Israel-bashing fest?

The Israelis are tired of being attacked, that is all. They have recognized the Palestinians' right to exist, and have offered them a state. The Palestinians (and several Arab states - everyone except for Jordan and Egypt), however, have yet to recognize Israel's right to exist, and continue to try to exterminate them.

These assholes have been literally threatening the Israelis with genocide for over 50 years, but they're not racists? I would tend to believe that the side that has recognized the other side's right to exist is probably a bit less racist than the one that doesn't.

This is right up there with your "Iran is a great democracy" idea, boy.

BTW...

 

That article is from the Haaretz not from Al Jazeera.

 

Yes, I can read, boy. Your point? Were you trying to make the claim that all Israelis agree that Israelis are racist? This seems to be your goal...

Haaretz is fairly neutral, and allows op-eds from all viewpoints. No matter how stupid.

I must say, though, it's good to know that not all of your sources are complete garbage.

 

What sources have I quoted that were garbage?

 

Every non-neutral source you quote is garbage. All of the rabid anti-US and anti-Israel articles you post are garbage.

I think you did find one good article once, though. Can't remember when... But you did it once, I think.

 

very Funny Treeman ! there is no need for a racist state that has been established on moving the people were living there for decades by force , how do you want from us to give israelis the right to exist while a millions of palestinians are scatred around Egypt , leabanon , syria as a refugees after israel kicked them of their homelands .

they are planning to destroy Alaqsa mosque one of the Largest islamic shrines in the world and bulild thier temple instead of it .. what do you expect from the islamic world to do ?

take a look on the israeli flag , the upper line of it indicates to Al-furat river whlie the lower line to al-Nile river , and David's star in the middle and it indicates to The Great state of israel ! and that means isreal will continue to invade the area Between those two rivers ! which means No PEACE

what else ??

we won't forget how these bastards killed and masscared our people since 1948 to this date .

finally , you can't deal with a professional criminal that has ugly crimes record and you know it .

 

Q8 Rocket:

So, you're saying that the Arabs had no right to attack Israel in 1948? I mean, their stated goal was the destruction of Israel - the movement of people who had been living there for decades by force...

Really? They're planning on destroying your most sacred rock?

Why haven't they done it before? If their goal is to destroy your 3rd holiest site, then why have they not done so? A 2,000lb LG bomb would certainly destroy it, and since the Jews have many of those, I must ask: why have they not done so?

(That is possibly THE most ridiculous conspiracy theory I have ever heard)

"Invade" the area? Blame the UN.

Your perception of their flag is far more important to the question of peace than their flag actually is. That is why there will be no peace. That and the minor tidbit that you won't stop attacking them!

Let me remind you, dips*it, that your people have started every single war since 1948.

You have lost them all. You have lost because your social systems suck, and are incapable of producing a competent army. If you ever change that and get a competent army, then you will have your way, and you will get to kill every Jewish man, woman, and child in the Middle East.

Which is, I remind you, your stated goal. Kill all the Jews.

You mean Yassir Arafat? Yes, you are correct - no one can deal with him...

You should let "boy" fight these battles for you. You can't even begin to hide your desire to commit genocide... At least "boy" tries to moderate himself.

 

Actually, both had lived there together for 1,000 years. This land is homeland to both sides. You want the history (although I don't think you do)...read this whole thread.

 

This is somewhat related...


Israel finally faces up to the cost of endless conflict

Sharon's speech last night hints at a change of policy

Martin Woollacott
Friday February 22, 2002
The Guardian

Ariel Sharon "came to the government on a security horse", the Fatah West Bank leader Marwan Barghouti said in an interview last autumn with the Israeli columnist Nahum Barnea, adding "I said, we will break this horse of his." When Barnea objected that if Sharon did eventually fall because of his failure to give Israelis security his likely successor would be the equally rightwing Binyamin Netanyahu, there followed a chilling exchange. "So Netanyahu will return," Barghouti replied. "No problem. In the end you'll understand. How will you understand? Not by talking. You'll understand only when you pay the price."
Israel has had an inkling of the price Barghouti meant this week. Not only has it lost young soldiers in a way that it has managed so far to avoid, but the reaction of the Sharon government in striking out at a range of Palestinian targets which have no obvious connection with the losses has diminished its international credit and could conceivably lead to a new UN initiative that would be less on Israeli terms than previous efforts. Sharon's reiteration, in his confused but perhaps important speech last night, of his old position that complete quiet must precede negotiations was followed by references to the total separation of the two peoples. This could mean that in his own way he is finally coming to terms with the need for a change in policy.

The price to which Barghouti referred was not the repeated carnage which was last year inflicted on Israeli shopping malls, clubs and restaurants. He was one of those who argued for a campaign restricted to soldiers and settlements and the avoidance of suicide bombings or other military action in Israel itself. The distinction between the two ought to be at the centre of any discussion of how the two peoples can escape from the deplorable combat in which they are now trapped. It is between actions that seem to be aimed at Israel's existence and those which are focused on the occupation and imply acceptance of Israel's permanence.

The military impasse is intimately related to the political impasse. In essence, Israeli success, by both political and military means, in inhibiting most "normal" military action by Palestinians in the territories drives Palestinian anger into the morally dubious and politically counterproductive direction of suicide attacks within Israel proper. Those attacks then sustain, or have in the past, a despairing solidarity among Israelis which, given a leader like Sharon, simply prolongs the agony.

But even as Sharon was trying, and failing, to get the Americans to agree to dispense with Yasser Arafat, the military balance seemed to be shifting. The signs of a shift are evident in more successful penetrations into settlements and above all in recent Israeli military casualties in the territories, including the first loss of a tank and culminating in the attack earlier this week on the Ein Ariq checkpoint.

The possibility of a bigger change still was signalled by the interception of the Karine-A, the ship that was bringing Iranian-supplied arms to the Palestinians. The arms aboard that ship would have changed the terms of combat in the territories, at least for a while. That they did not get through is less important than the fact that one day a substantial arms shipment will make it.

If, in order to pre-empt such possibilities, Sharon decides on a thoroughgoing reoccupation, that will bring no salvation - for it would increase the number of situations in which Israeli soldiers face Palestinians, and the more such situations there are, the more risks will arise. All these are reasons why support for Sharon is dropping, with 49% of Israelis believing, in a recent poll, that he has "lost control" of the security situation.

The deaths of soldiers, who are in the main just boys barely out of school, and of settlers are not the only costs that Israelis are now counting. Loss of production amounts to 4% of GNP in the business sector. Construction and tourism have both been much reduced and unemployment has risen. Security costs have slashed the money available for welfare payments, so that under the proposed budget for 2002 pensioners and disabled people will not receive promised increases.

Substantial funds are to be channelled to employers in job creation schemes that are in danger of becoming permanent business subsidies. Inequality in Israeli society, already marked, is increasing. The funds that should be available for social spending are draining away in increased security expenses and in the day-to-day costs of operations in the territories. The US may make up some of the shortfall, but not all of it.

While the senior ranks may be more rightwing now than at any time in the history of the Israeli Defence Force, the views of the experienced reservists, NCOs and junior officers on which the army depends are a different matter. Some have signed public petitions against service in the territories. Others have been quietly refusing such service for many months. The majority remain obedient, but such developments demonstrate the truth of the motto "Yesh Gvul", that "There is a limit", and that the army is not automatically dependable in every use to which the Sharon government might wish to put it.

The discontent among some reservists is one sign of a revival among Israeli groups opposed to present policy and advocating peace or at least withdrawal from the territories. But this change does not seem to have penetrated the Labour party. Yossi Beilin's attempt to get the party to consider pulling out of the ruling coalition last month got nowhere. "The party is ill, incurably so," radical commentator Haim Baram wrote in the magazine Middle East International.

The question of why this war, for that is what it is in spite of the occasional recourse to negotiations, is being fought is truly a rather mysterious one. As an editorial in the centre-right newspaper Ma'ariv put it: "Israel and the Palestinians are locked in a hopeless, pointless conflict - each side accusing the other, like children's 'He started it, you started it.'"

The majority of Israelis do not seem to share Sharon's wish that the occupation should continue in one form or another. Those who voted for Sharon did so not because he promised to fight a war but because he promised to finish one. Sometimes it appears that the war is not about whether Israel will leave the territories but about the terms on which it will depart.

Having made an effort, if not a sufficient one, to leave by agreement, and no longer having a government which can pursue that path, it may be that the only common ground among Israelis is that they should not be seen to be forced out. But is that worth the price - dozens more Ein Ariqs, or worse - that will have to be paid? That is the question which Barghouti asked.

m.woollacott@guardian.co.uk

 

What's with the email link? Someone ought to be mighty pissed that you posted that on a public forum...

BTW, Barghouti is the *even-worse-than-Arafat* candidate for Palestinian leadership. He's all but promised perpetual war until Israel is destroyed.

I'm guessing he's your candidate of choice, boy? Do you want Netanyahu to hold the reigns again? He will give the Palestinians even less than Sharon is prepared to. He will ethnically cleanse them this time.

BTW, the Guardian doesn't qualify as a "neutral" source. Not even close.

 

The email link was on the webpage.

No honsetly I don't know much about him. Who is he? background?

I really don't care if you like The Guardian or The Independent or not. Just like I'm sure you don't value my opinion of GOP's propaganda station eer Fox News.

 

http://www.jrep.com/Palaffairs/Article-0.html

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/07/02/News/News.29539.html

http://www.dhushara.com/book/sakina/isl/islam.htm#anchor1302727

Long skinny on Barghouti. Not a nice guy.

BTW, FOX news is actually pretty neutral. They seem to the right, considering that most other US outlets have a leftist slant. "Centrist" would be the most accurate term.

The Guardian is pretty damn far to the left.

 

glynch-

*I* wouldn't be quoting Edward Said. Sure, he was born in Jerusalem, but he obtained his formal education in America, he is Christian, and he is an extremist. He is very angry at America and their ideas and their media. He writes well and brings up good points, but they're extremely biased.

It doesn't surpirse me that *you* would quote him though.

However, you (and Said) are right that Palestine was an Arab country for a LONG time.

However, what Said fails to mention is that the Ottoman Empire was not made up solely of Muslims. It was made up of Arabs, but Arabs are not a religious group. The Ottoman Empire was made up of Arab Jews, Arab Christians, and Arab Muslims.

 

Princess the Ottoman Empire was made up of Turks.