Hamas shut off the power to Palestine

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

LuckyStrike: You are great at avoiding. I asked you few simple questions and yet you avoid answering them. You can answer 'yes' or 'no.' It should be very simple. I have answered what you asked me:

My questions to you are:

1. Do you think Israeli occupation of Arab lands is a problem?

2. Do you think Israeli should continue expanding settlement (Bush's Road map, international law clearly ask to stop settlement activities) in the occupied land?

3. Do you think British were right when leaders like Shamir and Begin were wanted for terrorist activities?

I did answer you that I don't support firing rockets and any terrorist activities no matter who does it (Arab, Israeli, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc).

None of your questions have anything to do with the terrorists know as Hamas and the people that voted for them.

a. Do you support Hamas? I support Israel.

b. Should Israel exist?

1. No. The Arabs have huge amounts of land in the Middle east, surround and hate anything Jewish. Boy the Arabs are greedy. Besides, the Jew have more of a claim to the land than the Palestinians.

2. They should keep what they have but not expand territory.

3. What does that matter now? They are dead. We have living terrorists to deal with.

The Palestinians will not be happy with anything that is given to them. They will continue their terrorist activities.

See that little blue slice? That's little ole Israel. See the see of green (the red too) around it? That's Arabs that want the blue to go away.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

just for the record... they didnt start "defending themselves" until the israelies started attacking them......TO EVERY ACTION THERES A REACTION.... would love to see what wd u do if someone bashed into ur house pulled u from your hair out side and calls u a terrorist when u try to claim whats originally urs back?!??! hmmmm yessss never thought of it that way have u!!!! lol

Launching unguided rockets at civilian targets is defending yourself? What do you call a Hamas suicide bomber blowing himself up in a Jewish market? People like you are the problem. Do you pass out candy and LOL after a suicide attack?

[simple_male 1]

LuckyStrike: You are great at avoiding. I asked you few simple questions and yet you avoid answering them. You can answer 'yes' or 'no.' It should be very simple. I have answered what you asked me:

My questions to you are:

1. Do you think Israeli occupation of Arab lands is a problem?

2. Do you think Israeli should continue expanding settlement (Bush's Road map, international law clearly ask to stop settlement activities) in the occupied land?

3. Do you think British were right when leaders like Shamir and Begin were wanted for terrorist activities?

I did answer you that I don't support firing rockets and any terrorist activities no matter who does it (Arab, Israeli, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc).

None of your questions have anything to do with the terrorists know as Hamas and the people that voted for them.

a. Do you support Hamas? I support Israel.

b. Should Israel exist?

1. No. The Arabs have huge amounts of land in the Middle east, surround and hate anything Jewish. Boy the Arabs are greedy. Besides, the Jew have more of a claim to the land than the Palestinians.

2. They should keep what they have but not expand territory.

3. What does that matter now? They are dead. We have living terrorists to deal with.

The Palestinians will not be happy with anything that is given to them. They will continue their terrorist activities.

See that little blue slice? That's little ole Israel. See the see of green (the red too) around it? That's Arabs that want the blue to go away.

I knew, what your first answer be. So all Palestinians should move to Arab land, what a nice solution! Jews ran to Arab and Muslims lands when they were persecuting by the Christians. I always said I never support any terrorist activities regardless of who does it. I support Bush's Road Map, Arab League Peace Plan 2002, and Unofficial geneva Accord.

[simple_male 1]

LuckyStrike: You are great at avoiding. I asked you few simple questions and yet you avoid answering them. You can answer 'yes' or 'no.' It should be very simple. I have answered what you asked me:

My questions to you are:

1. Do you think Israeli occupation of Arab lands is a problem?

2. Do you think Israeli should continue expanding settlement (Bush's Road map, international law clearly ask to stop settlement activities) in the occupied land?

3. Do you think British were right when leaders like Shamir and Begin were wanted for terrorist activities?

I did answer you that I don't support firing rockets and any terrorist activities no matter who does it (Arab, Israeli, Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc).

None of your questions have anything to do with the terrorists know as Hamas and the people that voted for them.

a. Do you support Hamas? I support Israel.

b. Should Israel exist?

1. No. The Arabs have huge amounts of land in the Middle east, surround and hate anything Jewish. Boy the Arabs are greedy. Besides, the Jew have more of a claim to the land than the Palestinians.

2. They should keep what they have but not expand territory.

3. What does that matter now? They are dead. We have living terrorists to deal with.

The Palestinians will not be happy with anything that is given to them. They will continue their terrorist activities.

See that little blue slice? That's little ole Israel. See the see of green (the red too) around it? That's Arabs that want the blue to go away.

LuckyStrike, I have to reply you again, I forgot to add something in my last reply. You are being very evasive and one sided person, who can only see one side. Perhaps, Jesus Christ indicated people like you when he said in the Bible in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 13, verse 13, "seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand." (Revised Standard Version).

1. First of all, you implied that Palestinians should move to Arab land, since Arabs have huge amount of land in the Middle East. Then you said again regarding settlement that they (Israel) should keep what they have but not to expand territory. So how come Israel should not expand territory, if Palestinians will move to Arab land (as you implied)? If Palestinians can move to Arab Lands, what would prevent Israel from expanding its territory to West Bank and Gaza? Your answers are very much contradictory.

You must remember that Jews ran to Arab/Muslim lands when they were persecuting by Christians. Can you deny it? Jews were kicked out by the Romans, not by Arabs or Muslims. You must remember that both Jews and Arabs are the children of Abraham.

2. Then you said they (Shamir and Begin) are dead. But wasn't it true that Begin and Shamir were wanted by British for terrorism? Can you deny that?

Below is what ArchBishop Desmond Tutu, a very respected person said about Israel's policy. I am sure, you know he is neither an Arab nor a Muslim. He won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1984 (I think). I request you to read it.

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

Apartheid in the Holy Land

Desmond Tutu

Monday April 29, 2002

The Guardian

In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders.

What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about.

On one of my visits to the Holy Land I drove to a church with the Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. I could hear tears in his voice as he pointed to Jewish settlements. I thought of the desire of Israelis for security. But what of the Palestinians who have lost their land and homes?

I have experienced Palestinians pointing to what were their homes, now occupied by Jewish Israelis. I was walking with Canon Naim Ateek (the head of the Sabeel Ecumenical Centre) in Jerusalem. He pointed and said: "Our home was over there. We were driven out of our home; it is now occupied by Israeli Jews."

My heart aches. I say why are our memories so short. Have our Jewish sisters and brothers forgotten their humiliation? Have they forgotten the collective punishment, the home demolitions, in their own history so soon? Have they turned their backs on their profound and noble religious traditions? Have they forgotten that God cares deeply about the downtrodden?

Israel will never get true security and safety through oppressing another people. A true peace can ultimately be built only on justice. We condemn the violence of suicide bombers, and we condemn the corruption of young minds taught hatred; but we also condemn the violence of military incursions in the occupied lands, and the inhumanity that won't let ambulances reach the injured.

The military action of recent days, I predict with certainty, will not provide the security and peace Israelis want; it will only intensify the hatred.

Israel has three options: revert to the previous stalemated situation; exterminate all Palestinians; or - I hope - to strive for peace based on justice, based on withdrawal from all the occupied territories, and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state on those territories side by side with Israel, both with secure borders.

We in South Africa had a relatively peaceful transition. If our madness could end as it did, it must be possible to do the same everywhere else in the world. If peace could come to South Africa, surely it can come to the Holy Land?

My brother Naim Ateek has said what we used to say: "I am not pro- this people or that. I am pro-justice, pro-freedom. I am anti- injustice, anti-oppression."

But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-semitic, as if the Palestinians were not semitic. I am not even anti-white, despite the madness of that group. And how did it come about that Israel was collaborating with the apartheid government on security measures?

People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God's world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.

Injustice and oppression will never prevail. Those who are powerful have to remember the litmus test that God gives to the powerful: what is your treatment of the poor, the hungry, the voiceless? And on the basis of that, God passes judgment.

We should put out a clarion call to the government of the people of Israel, to the Palestinian people and say: peace is possible, peace based on justice is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God's dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers.

Desmond Tutu is the former Archbishop of Cape Town and chairman of South Africa's truth and reconciliation commission. This address was given at a conference on Ending the Occupation held in Boston, Massachusetts, earlier this month. A longer version appears in the current edition of Church Times.

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

The link about Desmond Tutu's lecture is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0...,706911,00.html

Edited February 9, 2008 by simple_male

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Also, if anyone thinks that by Palestine deciding not to fire anymore rockets the situation will suddenly get better, I'm afraid to say you're nieve. The Israeli government will continue to take advantage of the situation and make life even worse for Palestinians than it is now.

I don't think so. I was in Palestine (both West Bank and Gaza) in 2000 and things

were looking pretty damn good. No rockets were being fired and Israel didn't

try to "make life worse" for them. The Palestinian economy was booming,

hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had work permits to work in Israel, the

unemployment rate was low, the per capita income was one of the highest in the

Arab world. Then came the "Intifada"...

You sound like a wistful Scarlett O'Hara thinking back on how absolutely lovely life used to be on the plantation, and how happy the "darkies" were serving their masters. And then some meanie had to come and ruin all the fun. Boohoo.

Yes life was oh-so-wonderful -- well, at least for Israelis. Israel had about 45 years living the life of Riley -- grabbing land, appropriating homes and orchards and farms, while those awful Palestinians hardly even fought back – in fact, hundreds of thousands of them fled when Zionist terrorists started wiping out entire villages (like at Deir Yassin in 1948.)

Yeahhhh but it made stealing the land sooooo easy --- perpetrate a few massacres, panic much of the rest of the population into running for their lives, and then simply refuse to allow them to return. It's all illegal under international law of course, but apparently international law doesn't apply to Zionists.

Shall we discuss the “Absentee Property Law” that Israel rushed to legislate in 1950 ? This law purportedly gives Israel the “right” to seize any property it wants by declaring the landowner “absent,” so it can then be handed over to Jewish settlers. Israel can apply this law to Palestinians almost any time they dare to leave their homes – if they leave for a year or two, or a few months, or even a day or two... they may come back and find their house surrounded by Israeli soldiers and full of settlers who have moved in.

Shall we discuss the shamelessly ironic double standard of such a law being wielded by a people who by all accounts had been overwhelmingly “absent” themselves, for nearly 2000 years, but claim they still have property rights ?

Zio-logic. It never makes any sense.

Here's what life was really like in the West Bank and Gaza, if you had bothered to step outside the illegal settlements:

After launching their 1967 war of aggression, the Israelis entrenched themselves as overlords of the territory they illegally occupied in the West Bank and Gaza, and they turned the Palestinians still living there (many of them impoverished refugees from the initial Zionist invasion) into their serfs -- a built-in low-cost labor force of peasants... ah those were the days…

Here are the actual FACTS about what it was like for Palestinians working in Israel before the Second Intifada, and it ain't your rosy little fairy tale:

Since the beginning of the occupation following the 1967 war, Palestinian labor played a role in the Israeli economy roughly similar to that played by Mexican labor in California. Palestinian territories provided a supply of low-wage labor for Israeli employers. Like many Mexican immigrant workers in the United States, Palestinians who work in Israel lacked basic rights and government protections once they crossed the border. They constituted the most easily exploited and expendable segment of the Israeli labor force.

On and off throughout these decades, prior to the closure of the border three years ago, thousands of Palestinians would spend up to five hours a day in checkpoints in order to find work as day laborers in Israel in construction, agriculture, and service industries. Before 2000, 40% of all employed Palestinians worked in Israel. Work was usually temporary, with a high dismissal rate. Palestinians working in Israel were taxed up to 20% of their salary, despite being ineligible for most Israeli government benefits. Exorbitant court fees prevented most Palestinians from bringing charges against their employers.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2003/0503aruri.html

What Israel has done since then to replace the Palestinian workforce by importing new cheap workers from Thailand, Romania and the Philippines – and how Israel treats them -- is a disgusting story in its own right.

Not even mentioned are the partial or frequently total closures of Israeli borders to Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. This didn’t start with the Second Intifada – it was going on all through the 80s and 90s.

But then those wacky Palestinians inexplicably started to fight back for what was theirs. Why oh whyyyy couldn't they accept their status as stateless non-persons??? Why oh whyyyyyyy did they have to rise up and demand their rights when everything was going so great for Israel's little colonial empire ???

You sure you want to discuss the Intifada ??? Fine by me.

People don't have an "uprising" (this is what "intifada" means -- literally, "shaking off") when they're happy and life is great (except in your cartoon world.)

The First Intifada was marked by non-violent protests, but they were met with ruthless brutality by Israel. Palestinians would go to the streets to non-violently protest Israel’s killing of a child, only to have to carry home another dead child, shot by Israeli soldiers who opened fire on protesters.

What led up to the Second Intifada was specifically the growing feelings of helplessness, resentment and anger at the stagnation of the Oslo peace process, the increasing viciousness of the continuing occupation, and the stepped-up expansion of Israel’s illegal settlements to an unprecedented pace. More settlements were built under Oslo's Ehud Barak than ever before, and Palestinians continued to be forced off their land so that Jewish settlers might take their place.

The final straw was of course the insult of war criminal Ariel Sharon (the Butcher of Sabra and Shatila) bullying his way into al Aqsa complex, accompanied by 1000 Israeli riot police and armed bodyguards. Palestinian demonstrations broke out the next day, demanding the immediate end to the occupation. Israel's response was exceptionally brutal -- violent repression that killed more than 200 Palestinians in just the first month, a third of them children.

So that's how the Second Intifada became militarized. The next year, with the election of Ariel Sharon as Israel's Prime Minister (in February 2001) the violence and repression intensified even more. Sharon institutionalized the "policy of extermination" of *suspected* Palestinian activists through extra-judicial killings and increased incursions and raids into autonomous Palestinian zones. (Another Zio-irony -- targeted assassinations by a country whose own laws don't even allow the death penalty as a punishment for any crime at all.) Militants from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al-Aqsa Brigades responded in kind, launching suicide bombings throughout Israeli cities, and the cycle of violence escalated further.

It's the same dreadful scenario repeated incessantly. Israel murders many innocent civilians; the international community hears nothing, sees nothing, and does nothing ... in anger and desperation, a Palestinian blows himself up in a crowd of Israelis ... the Western world is utterly overcome with a wave of condemnations of 'Palestinian terrorism,' 'the enemies of peace.'

-- Ramzy Baroud

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

thanks for the bump

[simple_male 1]

thanks for the bump

LuckyStrike, what do you think about Desmond Tutu Article? I am sure, you don't agree with it and I am sure, you don't want to comment on my rebuttal to your contradicting answers.

[mawilson 2,133]

Here are the actual FACTS about what it was like for Palestinians working in Israel before the Second Intifada, and it ain't your rosy little fairy tale:

Since the beginning of the occupation following the 1967 war, Palestinian labor played a role in the Israeli economy roughly similar to that played by Mexican labor in California. Palestinian territories provided a supply of low-wage labor for Israeli employers. Like many Mexican immigrant workers in the United States, Palestinians who work in Israel lacked basic rights and government protections once they crossed the border. They constituted the most easily exploited and expendable segment of the Israeli labor force.

On and off throughout these decades, prior to the closure of the border three years ago, thousands of Palestinians would spend up to five hours a day in checkpoints in order to find work as day laborers in Israel in construction, agriculture, and service industries. Before 2000, 40% of all employed Palestinians worked in Israel. Work was usually temporary, with a high dismissal rate. Palestinians working in Israel were taxed up to 20% of their salary, despite being ineligible for most Israeli government benefits. Exorbitant court fees prevented most Palestinians from bringing charges against their employers.

So bloody what? Yes, they were a source of cheap labor. You don't see Mexicans complaining and starting an intifada, do you?

I never said things were perfect. Things were better, even you can't deny that.

But then those wacky Palestinians inexplicably started to fight back for what was theirs. Why oh whyyyy couldn't they accept their status as stateless non-persons??? Why oh whyyyyyyy did they have to rise up and demand their rights when everything was going so great for Israel's little colonial empire ???

Everything is still going great for Israel's empire. They are doing alright - better than us, anyway. Just take a look at the Dollar-Shekel exchange rate - see how the Israeli shekel rose to a ten-year high against the dollar? All thanks to capital inflows into a strong economy. Even the Lebanese conflict barely dented their GDP growth.

Palestinians are the only losers of the whole Intifada fiasco. They took their chances and lost. Such is the game, deal with it.

P.S. And simple_male - who gives a damn about Tutu or Jimmy Carter?

[Sand 5]

thanks for the bump

LuckyStrike, what do you think about Desmond Tutu Article? I am sure, you don't agree with it and I am sure, you don't want to comment on my rebuttal to your contradicting answers.

'simple_male'

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Israel gives up all occupied Arab lands and goes back to pre 1967 border.

Sorry, another newsflash (from 2000):

Yasser Arafat rejects the terms offered at Camp David

Not only did the Palestinians want a reversion to the lines of 1967, they also wanted

recognition of the "right of return" of Palestinian refugees to what now is Israel.

Greedy much?

The right of the return issue should be negotiated between the parties. Even President Bush said that a fair solution should be agreed between the parties for this particular issue. As for the Camp David deal, according to the the Palestinian negotiators, it was not fair to them and it was not same as going back to pre 1967 border. Greedy? Interesting! The people were kinked out of their homeland (no fault of their own) and they are greedy as they want a just solution? Even Arab American institute (75% of the Arab American Christians) said the Camp David deal was not fair to the Palestinians. Someone more knowledgeable about this (why it was not fair to the Palestinians) can explain better. Maybe Wife of Mahmud can explain.

Mawilson and I have already had this discussion over Barak's offer, and why it was such a crappy offer that no Palestinian could accept it. (I may still have a copy of my response -- if so, I'll post it again.)

Basically, Mawilson tried to portray it as a great and wonderfully fair opportunity for peace which Arafat insanely threw away. When confronted with the dismal facts about what Israel had actually offered (which wasn't even put in writing) Mawilson's response was essentially -- "Well that ####### offer is all Palestinians can expect."

Here are some of the pertinent points:

Why did the Palestinians reject the Camp David Peace Proposal?

For a true and lasting peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples, there must be two viable and independent states living as equal neighbors. Israel's Camp David proposal, which was never set forth in writing, denied the Palestinian state viability and independence by dividing Palestinian territory into four separate cantons entirely surrounded, and therefore controlled, by Israel. The Camp David proposal also denied Palestinians control over their own borders, airspace and water resources while legitimizing and expanding illegal Israeli colonies in Palestinian territory. Israel's Camp David proposal presented a 're-packaging' of military occupation, not an end to military occupation.

Didn't Israel's proposal give the Palestinians almost all of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967?

No. Israel sought to annex almost 9 percent of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in exchange offered only 1 percent of Israel's own territory. In addition, Israel sought control over an additional 10 percent of the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the form of a "long-term lease". However, the issue is not one of percentages—the issue is one of viability and independence. In a prison for example, 95 percent of the prison compound is ostensibly for the prisoners—cells, cafeterias, gym and medical facilities—but the remaining 5 percent is all that is needed for the prison guards to maintain control over the prisoner population.

Similarly, the Camp David proposal, while admittedly making Palestinian prison cells larger, failed to end Israeli control over the Palestinian population.

Did the Palestinians accept the idea of a land swap?

The Palestinians were (and are) prepared to consider any idea that is consistent with a fair peace based on international law and equality of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. The Palestinians did consider the idea of a land swap but proposed that such land swap must be based on a one-to-one ratio, with land of equal value and in areas adjacent to the border with Palestine and in the same vicinity as the lands to be annexed by Israel. However, Israel's Camp David proposal of a nine-to-one land swap (in Israel's favor) was viewed as so unfair as to seriously undermine belief in Israel's commitment to a fair territorial compromise.

How did Israel's proposal envision the territory of a Palestinian state?

Israel's proposal divided Palestine into four separate cantons surrounded by Israel: the Northern West Bank, the Central West Bank, the Southern West Bank and Gaza. Going from any one area to another would require crossing Israeli sovereign territory and consequently subject movement of Palestinians within their own country to Israeli control. Not only would such restrictions apply to the movement of people, but also to the movement of goods, in effect subjecting the Palestinian economy to Israeli control. Lastly, the Camp David proposal would have left Israel in control over all Palestinian borders thereby allowing Israel to control not only internal movement of people and goods but international movement as well. Such a Palestinian state would have had less sovereignty and viability than the Bantustans created by the South African apartheid government.

How did Israel's proposal address Palestinian East Jerusalem?

The Camp David Proposal required Palestinians to give up any claim to the occupied portion of Jerusalem. The proposal would have forced recognition of Israel's annexation of all of Arab East Jerusalem. Talks after Camp David suggested that Israel was prepared to allow Palestinians sovereignty over isolated Palestinian neighborhoods in the heart of East Jerusalem, however such neighborhoods would remain surrounded by illegal Israeli colonies and separated not only from each other but also from the rest of the Palestinian state. In effect, such a proposal would create Palestinian ghettos in the heart of Jerusalem.

Why didn't the Palestinians ever present a comprehensive permanent settlement proposal of their own in response to Barak's proposals?

The comprehensive settlement to the conflict is embodied in United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, as was accepted by both sides at the Madrid Summit in 1991 and later in the Oslo Accords of 1993. The purpose of the negotiations is to implement these UN resolutions (which call for an Israeli withdrawal from land occupied by force by Israel in 1967) and reach agreement on final status issues. On a number of occasions since Camp David—especially at the Taba talks—the Palestinian negotiating team presented its concept for the resolution of the key permanent status issues. It is important to keep in mind, however, that Israel and the Palestinians are differently situated.

Israel seeks broad concessions from the Palestinians: it wants to annex Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem; obtain rights to Palestinian water resources in the West Bank; maintain military locations on Palestinian soil; and deny the Palestinian refugees' their right of return. Israel has not offered a single concession involving its own territory and rights. The Palestinians, on the other hand, seek to establish a viable, sovereign State on their own territory, to provide for the withdrawal of Israeli military forces and colonies (which are universally recognized as illegal), and to secure the right of Palestinian refugees to return to the homes they were forced to flee in 1948. Although Palestinian negotiators have been willing to accommodate legitimate Israeli needs within that context, particularly with respect to security and refugees, it is up to Israel to define these needs and to suggest the narrowest possible means of addressing them.

Why did the peace process fall apart just as it was making real progress toward a permanent agreement?

Palestinians entered the peace process on the understanding that (1) it would deliver concrete improvements to their lives during the interim period, (2) that the interim period would be relatively short in duration—i.e., five years, and (3) that a permanent agreement would implement United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338. But the peace process delivered none of these things. Instead, Palestinians suffered more burdensome restrictions on their movement and a serious decline in their economic situation. Israeli colonies expanded at an unprecedented pace and the West Bank and Gaza Strip became more fragmented with the construction of settler "by-pass" roads and the proliferation of Israeli military checkpoints. Deadlines were repeatedly missed in the implementation of agreements. In sum, Palestinians simply did not experience any "progress" in terms of their daily lives.

However, what decisively undermined Palestinian support for the peace process was the way Israel presented its proposal. Prior to entering into the first negotiations on permanent status issues, Prime Minister Barak publicly and repeatedly threatened Palestinians that his "offer" would be Israel's best and final offer and if not accepted, Israel would seriously consider "unilateral separation" (a euphemism for imposing a settlement rather than negotiating one). Palestinians felt that they had been betrayed by Israel who had committed itself at the beginning of the Oslo process to ending its occupation of Palestinian lands in accordance with UN Resolutions 242 and 338.

Doesn't the violence which erupted following Camp David prove that Palestinians do not really want to live in peace with Israel?

Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist in 1988 and re-iterated this recognition on several occasions including Madrid in 1991 and the Oslo Accords in September, 1993. Nevertheless, Israel has yet to explicitly and formally recognize Palestine's right to exist. The Palestinian people waited patiently since the Madrid Conference in 1991 for their freedom and independence despite Israel's incessant policy of creating facts on the ground by building colonies in occupied territory (Israeli housing units in Occupied Palestinian Territory—not including East Jerusalem—increased by 52 percent since the signing of the Oslo Accords and the settler population, including those in East Jerusalem, more than doubled). The Palestinians do indeed wish to live at peace with Israel but peace with Israel must be a fair peace—not an unfair peace imposed by a stronger party over a weaker party.

Doesn't the failure of Camp David prove that the Palestinians are just not prepared to compromise?

The Palestinians have indeed compromised. In the Oslo Accords, the Palestinians recognized Israeli sovereignty over 78 percent of historic Palestine (23 percent more than Israel was granted pursuant to the 1947 UN partition plan) on the assumption that the Palestinians would be able to exercise sovereignty over the remaining 22 percent. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians accepted this compromise but this extremely generous compromise was ignored at Camp David and the Palestinians were asked to "compromise the compromise" and make further concessions in favor of Israel. Though the Palestinians can continue to make compromises, no people can be expected to compromise fundamental rights or the viability of their state.

Have the Palestinians abandoned the two-state solution and do they now insist on all of historic Palestine?

The current situation has undoubtedly hardened positions on both sides, with extremists in both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories claiming all of historic Palestine. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the PA or the majority of Palestinians have abandoned the two-state solution. The two-state solution however is most seriously threatened by the on-going construction of Israeli colonies and by-pass roads aimed at incorporating the Occupied Palestinian Territories into Israel. Without a halt to such construction, a two-state solution may simply be impossible to implement—already prompting a number of Palestinian academics and intellectuals to argue that Israel will never allow the Palestinians to have a viable state and Palestinians should instead focus their efforts on obtaining equal rights as Israeli citizens.

Isn't it unreasonable for the Palestinians to demand the unlimited right of return to Israel of all Palestinian refugees?

The refugees were never seriously discussed at Camp David because Prime Minister Barak declared that Israel bore no responsibility for the refugee problem or its solution. Obviously, there can be no comprehensive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without resolving one of its key components: the plight of the Palestinian refugees. There is a clearly recognized right under international law that non-combatants who flee during a conflict have the right to return after the conflict is over. But an Israeli recognition of the Palestinian right of return does not mean that all refugees will exercise that right. What is needed in addition to such recognition is the concept of choice. Many refugees may opt for (i) resettlement in third countries, (ii) resettlement in a newly independent Palestine (though they originate from that part of Palestine which became Israel) or (iii) normalization of their legal status in the host country where they currently reside. In addition, the right of return may be implemented in phases so as to address Israel's demographic concerns.

http://www.wrmea.com/html/faq.htm

The facts make it obvious who is actually being greedy.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

In this article, Dr. Zogby explains why the so called generous offer by Ehub Barak in Camp David was not even the minimum that the Palestinians were asking for.

Fair or not, Barak's deal was the best Israel could offer. Israel will never, ever offer anything better.

The way I see it, the Palestinians have two choices now, either to continue their downward spiral

of self-destruction, or to come to their senses and re-negotiate Barak's deal with Israel, however

unfair it may seem to them.

Short of nuking Israel into oblivion, there's NOTHING they can do to make Israel accept the right

of return of Palestinian refugees. It will NEVER happen, as long as Israel remains a Jewish state.

More bully talk, and detached from reality. The Apartheid regime in South Africa used to say the same kinds of things... and look what happened....

[simple_male 1]

Here are the actual FACTS about what it was like for Palestinians working in Israel before the Second Intifada, and it ain't your rosy little fairy tale:

Since the beginning of the occupation following the 1967 war, Palestinian labor played a role in the Israeli economy roughly similar to that played by Mexican labor in California. Palestinian territories provided a supply of low-wage labor for Israeli employers. Like many Mexican immigrant workers in the United States, Palestinians who work in Israel lacked basic rights and government protections once they crossed the border. They constituted the most easily exploited and expendable segment of the Israeli labor force.

On and off throughout these decades, prior to the closure of the border three years ago, thousands of Palestinians would spend up to five hours a day in checkpoints in order to find work as day laborers in Israel in construction, agriculture, and service industries. Before 2000, 40% of all employed Palestinians worked in Israel. Work was usually temporary, with a high dismissal rate. Palestinians working in Israel were taxed up to 20% of their salary, despite being ineligible for most Israeli government benefits. Exorbitant court fees prevented most Palestinians from bringing charges against their employers.

So bloody what? Yes, they were a source of cheap labor. You don't see Mexicans complaining and starting an intifada, do you?

I never said things were perfect. Things were better, even you can't deny that.

But then those wacky Palestinians inexplicably started to fight back for what was theirs. Why oh whyyyy couldn't they accept their status as stateless non-persons??? Why oh whyyyyyyy did they have to rise up and demand their rights when everything was going so great for Israel's little colonial empire ???

Everything is still going great for Israel's empire. They are doing alright - better than us, anyway. Just take a look at the Dollar-Shekel exchange rate - see how the Israeli shekel rose to a ten-year high against the dollar? All thanks to capital inflows into a strong economy. Even the Lebanese conflict barely dented their GDP growth.

Palestinians are the only losers of the whole Intifada fiasco. They took their chances and lost. Such is the game, deal with it.

P.S. And simple_male - who gives a damn about Tutu or Jimmy Carter?

Sure, only one sided person like you does not give any damn to great human beings like Desmond Tutu and Jimmt Carter. But most of reasonable people give damn about them. They both won the nobel prize for peace which are not flukes! Who gives damn to your one sided analysis?

Edited February 9, 2008 by simple_male

[Ban Hammer 13,443]

Sure, only one sided person like you does not give any damn to great human beings like Desmond Tutu and Jimmt Carter. But most of reasonable people give damn about them. They both won the nobel prize for peace which are not flukes! Who gives damn to your one sided analysis?

when desmond tutu or jimmy carter has to deal with suicide bombers in real life, let me know. then we can attach some pertinence to your post.

[mawilson 2,133]

Sure, only one sided person like you does not give any damn to great human beings like Desmond Tutu and Jimmt Carter. But most of reasonable people give damn about them. They both won the nobel prize for peace which are not flukes! Who gives damn to your one sided analysis?

Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize too, and he was an actual terrorist. What a joke. Your point?

Israelites was a good reggae song though......oh, wait, it was Desmond Dekker who wrote it, not Tutu. Never mind

Edited February 9, 2008 by mawilson

[mawilson 2,133]

Mawilson and I have already had this discussion over Barak's offer, and why it was such a crappy offer that no Palestinian could accept it. (I may still have a copy of my response -- if so, I'll post it again.)

Basically, Mawilson tried to portray it as a great and wonderfully fair opportunity for peace which Arafat insanely threw away. When confronted with the dismal facts about what Israel had actually offered (which wasn't even put in writing) Mawilson's response was essentially -- "Well that ####### offer is all Palestinians can expect."

I had all the facts before you "opened my eyes to the truth". My response was the same then and it remains the same.

Israel will never offer anything better. 1967 borders? Keep dreamin'.