HeHeHe
efram: Aren’t you offensive.
And just think I am on my best behavior here in GD just think how terribly offensive I could be.
Oh the humanity!
Opus 1:
This, as indicated by the site in question, is patently untrue. On at least three occasions he has publicly, in Arabic, condemned a terrorist act committed in the name of the Intifada. In one of the quoted examples, he states categorically:
This is not only a condemnation of a specific act, but a statement of policy on the part of the Palestinian authority.
At the risk of picking a nit, I have to point out that the claim being debunked on the web page is the commonly accepted myth that Arafat has never publicly condemned suicide bombings in Arabic. This is a myth that I have happily used in numerous debates on the Middle-east situation before, confident that it was a factually correct statement – after all, I’ve even read it here, on the SDMB.
The argument that Arafat hasn’t done enough – that, for example, his public statements have not been systematic in their condemnation, or that his actual policies have not been in sync with his public statements – is a very important one, but doesn’t really address the (apparently false) claims made in mainstream media that he has never publicly condemned such acts – claims which are in fact the basis of the myth this site is debunking.
Loathe as I am to use this phrase, I fear I must:
Cite, please?
I need to see clear-cut examples of Arafat stating, without equivocation, that he fully supports the suicide bombings, or some sort of evidence that supports the claim that “everyone knows” he makes such statements in response to U.S. or Israeli pressure.
I don’t understand this statement. Linked in what way?
Agreed, but the same is true for the Israeli press, at least for the moment.
I’m truly sorry about this, but…cite?
I note that the OP refers to six common Israeli myths. So far, only one has been discussed, sort of, and another referred to, kinda. I note as well a typical debate strategy I often see here on the boards. If I present 5 strong arguments in support of an opinion, and 1 weak one, all too often the response it is to attack the weak argument and ignore the others – as if, by refuting the weakest argument, my opponent feels he has successfully refuted the entire line of reasoning. I’m willing to buy ** tradesilicon**’s take on the site, but also argue that it provides a counterbalance to the all the pro-Israeli reportage one reads in the mainstream press.
In particular, I’d like to hear responses to myth 5, i.e., that the Ehud Barak’s settlement offer was “generous,” which forms such an important basis for many of the criticisms launched against Palastinians, as well as informing much of the public opinion in the US on the conflict there.
I’m sure you don’t need to lie to make your points.
I’ll counter with:
Common Palestinian Myths:
1 - That martyrdom is a wonderful thing, you go right to heaven; and the more Jews you kill, the better, they go right to hell
2 - That all Israelis are subhuman devils (that is, Jews), so killing them is justifiable
3 - That the entire area should be Palestinian, and that Israel has no right to exist at all – all the land of Israel was stolen in 1948 from Palestinians. All those buildings, farms, factories, houses, and cities that were built by Israelis should belong to Palestinians
4 - The nasty Israeli soldiers target Palestinian civilians (women and children) in their military assaults, while the noble Palestinian martyrs target the thieves (women and children) who stole their lands back in 1948
5 - The best way to get all that land and all that wealth would be to kill all the Jews
6 - The second best way to get all that land and all that wealth is to cause enough chaos and murders in shopping centers and on busses, so that the Jews will all flee in terror, and leave the Middle East
7 - Our Arab brothers in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are friends and supporters of the Palestinian people
8 - If Palestinians use the term “occupied territories” in speeches, the Judeao-Christian West will think they mean “occupied in the 1967 war” and will be sympathetic… and will not realize they mean all of Israel, “occupied” since 1948.
9 - If the Palestinians put children on the front lines facing Israeli soldiers, the press coverage and photographs will be way more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. The more we can show Israeli soldiers facing/killing Palestinian children and women, the better the PR.
Oh, wait, I have to apologize. Items 8 and 9 aren’t myths – those are true.
Regarding “Myths” three and four on the page cited in the OP, you may want to consider the emerging evidence that while Arafat did on occasion condemn terrorism, it appears that he personally and as head of state was actively financing and planning terrorist acts,
as discussed here,
reported here,
and which can be viewed in part by going here and clicking on the items in the Appendix at the right.
But of course, you’ll doubt all of that, if it fails to jive with what you want. What is it you want again? Peace? Or is it peace with a side order of destruction of Israel?
Since we cannot trust anything that they promise or say, all we can judge the Palestinians by is what they do. What you see today is their doing.
Mr Svinlesha:
Yes, I admit that Arafat has spoken the words, in Arabic, that condemn suicide bombings. But has he really condemned them? Consider the facts, which I have supported, that most Palestinians support these suicide bombings. Why aren’t there massive protests against Arafat for his position on the matter? Why don’t Palestinians hate Arafat with a passion for opposing a method of warfare they all support? Why aren’t they afraid to death of Palestinian police forces cracking down on every militant organization and arresting scores of people? Because they, unlike many westerners, know what Arafat really means. They know when to believe him and when he is speaking with a metaphorical gun to his head. Does anyone honestly think that Arafat is fuming with rage, bemoaning his own inability to stop these suicide attacks which he hates with a passion and would gladly give his own life to halt? Of course not.
Sofa King has already provided a variety of links showing Arafat’s support of terrorism. As far as the evidence that his condemnations of terrorism were pressured, this was just in the news last week. The U.S. kept pressuring Arafat to condemn suicide attacks as a prerequisite to meeting with Powell. It took Arafat about a week to do so. Does this sound like the actions of someone who truly condemns terrorism, or someone who is doing so begrudgingly in order to achieve other ends, with the full knowledge that the attacks won’t stop anyway?
As far as my comment that terrorism is linked to Arafat, (besides the obvious financial and emotional support of terrorists), consider the leaders of other struggles throughout history. Blacks in the American South, Indians under the British, and Tibetans under China have all fought for freedom using diplomatic means and peaceful protests. The choice of millions of people to eschew violence is clearly tied to the great leaders of these three movements–Martin Luther King Jr., Mohands Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama–all of whom embraced the doctrine of nonviolent resistance even in the face of overwhelming odds. Gandhi himself personally fasted on several occasions in order to encourage an end to violence in India. If Arafat truly opposes suicide bombings, let’s see him try this trick.
Finally, on the Palestinians killed for collaborating with the Israelis, I thought this was common knowledge. A few weeks ago, there were some major TV news stories about 10-12 Palestinian men who had been killed for allegedly collaborating with the Israelis, which the reports implied may have been as little as refusing to support suicide bombings. There was also some footage of two “collaborators” getting their bound bodies dragged through the street and pelted by onlookers, but I don’t recall if this was from the recent conflict or a few years ago. Perhaps someone can dig up a linkable print article for me.
Item 1: The moral equivalence issue. Accepted that Palestinian tactics are reprehensible but Israel is “actually” targetting innocents.
Well grant me that it is impossible to get at people hiding in population centers without hitting the people around them and I will readily grant that Israeli actions in trying to get at he terrorists have an unacceptably high amount of “collateral damage.” I’ll even grant that there are individual Israeli soldiersa who are racist violent pigs who are guilty of abusing basic human rights. They should be found and prosecuted. An analogy could be made to US police forces … individuals abusing rights does not mean that the force as a whole endorses such abuse. Nevertheless, the current government has not done a good job at policing its own and deserves the criticism heaped on it from a variety of sources.
Still, there is no moral equivalency. Palestinian terrorism is a coordinated effort with no end except the death of innocents in order to instill fear in the population. The Israeli government is trying to target the terrorists; it at this point feels that a high amount of “collateral damage” is worth it. While this view is repugnant it is not the same as having such deaths as the objective. A death is not a death. On the issue of moral equivalency intent matters.
Item 2: Israel is not really acting in self -defense. The basis of this claim is that Israel’s motive for the occupation is to steal Palestinian land. Now this one is a bunch of hoo-ha. If that was the case then Israel would’ve annexed it all after 1967. That is the usual operating procedure after you win land in a defensive war. It did not do so because the consensus was that the land should be open to use in future negotiations. This does not mean that there were and are not Israelis who believe in a “greater Israel” that includes Judea and Samaria and that some of them are among the settlers who are there. The rationalization to those who do not believe in such an entity is that the settlements somehow enhanced security. Personally, I think that the settlements were and are a big mistake, that they are a security liability, and an obstacle to developing a lasting solution. But the reason that Israel controls the West Bank is because Jordan lost it in a war, and an acceptable negotiation to give any of it back to any Arab entity has not yet occurred.
None of this addresses that terror originates and continues to originate in these areas, that this has been fostored by the Palestinian authority, and that “some” Israeli action in these areas to stop such terror is needed to defend against it.
Item 3: Arafat’s silence. Okay so he said it on a couple of occassions, under great pressure. The “never” was an overstatement. I really don’t care. As Pierre Joseph Proudhon said
He has not only failed to do anything to attempt to stop the attacks, he has actively encouraged and facilitated them.
Item 4: Arafat’s inaction. If only it was only inaction. See above. There is now ample evidence of Arafat’s direct involvement in terror, as is consistent with his history. Even if there wasn’t, the argument that he is powerless to stop it is specious. If he can’t control Hamas and Islamic Jihad then why should anyone talk to him? If he can’t deliver the security, then what is he offering?
Item 5: The rejection of Barak’s offer.
Was it everything that Arafat wanted? Nope, of course not. Was it more than anyone could have realistically hoped for? You betcha. There was no hope of ever getting more. It was an offer that would have created an autonomous Palestinian region that had the probability of becoming economically self-reliant. Accepting it was the chance to bring a future worth living to “his people.” The alternative was to condemn both Palestinian and Israeli to what we see today for however long it is going to continue. What would we be seeing today if it had been accepted? Jobs coming into Palestine, an economy developing. Adequate schools being formed. The headaches of administering a real government. Probably a bunch of joint venture with Israeli entrepeneurs. And Israelis back to bickering among themselves over how much power the Orthodox should have in government.
Item 6: Sharon is apparently responsible for the Intifada, not Arafat.
Well, Sharon was, with his infamous walk, a foolish grandstanding politician trying to make a point to energize his base of support. “Poorly timed” was an understatement. It was idiotic. But it could have stopped with one riot (have you ever had a gang of people throw boulders off buildings at you?) if Arafat didn’t encourage its spread. Sharon played with matches, Arafat poured the gasoline. He decided to pursue a course of continued violence. Such was his choice and this is where his leadership has got his people.
** C K Dexter Haven**:
Do you have any evidence that the myths you present are commonly accepted by the majority of the Palestinian population?
Hatemongering from both sides of the conflict is to be deplored, but countering one set of myths with another gets us nowhere if we are attempting to replace myth with fact – unless you believe fire best extinguished with gas, that is.
** Sofa King**:
Thanks for the links. Naturally, I’m at least as skeptical regarding claims made by the IDF as I am regarding claims made on the EI, and probably more so. I’ve only skimmed over a couple of the documents presented on the page, and am not quite sure how to interpret them yet. Regarding this:
**What I personally want are the facts of the situation, presented as honestly as possible, with as little distortion as possible. So that I can make an informed opinion on the situation down there without having to change it every other day. Is that too much to ask for, please?
Opus 1:
Can I take the lack of cites in your response to be an admission that you have nothing backing up your claims except a little hot air? You’re simply regurgitation of the situation as it has been presented in the media. All I want to know is this: where are you getting this info? On what do you base such claims as the following:
**As for the rest:
**The evidence presented by those links needs to be evaluated before we can draw any conclusions – especially, considering their source.
**The site in question (the Electronic Intifada) attempts to debunk a set of standard myths about the mid-east conflict that are regularly promulgated in Western media. Quoting the media in question as a means of defending your position is self-contradictory. I’m not in a position myself to speculate on Arafat or his motives. Maybe he doesn’t want to make any statements forced upon him by a Superpower that clearly supports his enemy, no matter what such statements might contain, at the risk of appearing to be the enemy’s lapdog. I have no idea.
Regarding your argument comparing MLK, Gandhi, and so on, to Arafat – well, first off, I’m assuming no one here considers Arafat to be a Mohatma, which is certainly what it would require to successfully pursue a policy of non-violent resistance on a national scale. But does it really seem reasonable to you to claim that the only way Arafat can convincingly display his condemnation of suicide bombings is to go on a hunger strike? I suspect he would starve to death without changing much, me.
**Uh-huh. Media myth, anyone?
Those collaborators were shot because they were actively aided the Israeli army in undermining the PA’s organizational infrastructure. Whether this constitutes an operation against terrorism depends on how you classify the PA.
** DSeid**:
First off, thank you for being the first poster to actually address the substance of the OP.
Regarding Item 1:
**One can with all right question the moral basis of an organization like Hamas; but we still have yet to establish a direct link between Arafat and the acts perpertrated by Hamas.
What nevertheless exists as a possibility is that under the guise of claiming to “target terrorists,” the IDF is in actually waging a war of terror itself. (I define a terrorist act as a an attack launched against a civilian population.) This is really what underlies the argument regarding Item 1. To back up their claims of terrorist activity on the part of the IDF the EI includes reports from a number of heavy-hitting NGOs, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch – two organizations I have a lot of respect for. The Amnesty report cites a statement made by David Holley, a so-called “independent military expert,” who writes:
- Let me pause here to remind you as well of your own Proudhon quote: “When deeds speak, words are nothing.” I take it this goes for both sides of the conflict, yes? Israeli claims that they are not targeting civilians are rather pointless if they are, in fact, doing so, by your own standards.
P.S. The diary of Chris Hedges quoted on the site makes for particularly grim reading.
Regarding Item 2:
**I agree. I can’t see a peaceful solution until those settlements are relinquished. They were the main reason that Arafat rejected Barak’s offer, as well, to my understanding.
**Maybe I’m just dense, but I still can’t find the evidence that the PA “fosters” terrorism. But I wonder what a full Israeli withdrawal from occupied West Bank, including settlements, would accomplish. Anyway, Israel’s position would be on much firmer moral footing if it had tried something along these lines from the beginning, IMHO, and was still subjected to suicide bombing attacks after its withdrawal. As is, Israeli military occupies this entire area, which is in addition extremely poor – a combination that is extraordinarily conducive to extremism.
If you provoke someone by mistreating them, slapping them around, and so forth, can you really blame them when they try to defend themselves? Provoking extremism in the West Bank, cynical though it may sound, provides a pretext for further Israeli military incursions, leading to more provocation, and so forth. Israeli propaganda tries to hide this dynamic behind the claim that the State of Israel is only “defending” itself against terrorists.
Regarding Item 3:
**I’m still waiting for some documentary evidence to back this statement up. The only evidence presented thus far, by Sofa King, needs to be inspected carefully. Even if we had a report from someone who was there, on the street, I’d be willing to buy it. But everyone here is making their claims on the basis of the same media that the site is trying to debunk, as far as I can tell.
Regarding Item 4:
The PA is not the only organization that has been unable to stop the bombings. The IDF itself has proven ineffective. Probably the only way to stop the bombings is to provide for a significant increase in the standard of living for the people there, coupled with education, social infrastructures and services, democratic institutions, and so forth. It strikes me as being a bit unfair to expect Arafat alone to cope with a problem that has been endemic to the region for several decades, and then ruthlessly attack and undermine his political structure when he fails.
This is not to say that the Israelis are completely wrong in their accusations that Arafat is “soft” on “terrorists.”
Regarding Item 5:
The argument you present here is downright scary. If you mean that this was the absolute best offer Arafat could hope to get (for a detailed summary of the offer [including maps], go here), then I don’t blame him for going to war. Replace the West Bank with the continental US, and reverse the roles – what American would accept a foreign invader in our territory, with a number of major settlements, that effectively carve the country up into 4 separate “cantons,” divided by foreign military supply lines? Why should Arafat, as a representative of the Palestinian people, be forced to accept this as the “best offer,” and severely criticized for refusing to accept it? You criticize the settlements yourself, above – but suddenly, Arafat is expected to accept them, because he has “no hope of every getting more?” Ugh.
Anyway, the point is that while the media presents the offer as “generous,” it is in fact not very generous at all. That is the myth being debunked here. Arafat’s decision is a side issue.
I don’t have much of an opinion either way regarding Item 6 – well, except for the fact that it seems fruitless to blame either side categorically. Once the violence got rolling, it certainly developed a momentum all its own. Both sides have contributed to it.
Finally, none of the above should be misconstrued in any sense as a defense for suicide bombings against Israeli citizens.
Unfortunately the people on the other side feel the same way. Nothing is going to change with this attitude on both sides.
If you mean I’ve already up my mind as to whether the Israeli forces have caused more human suffering than necessary by delaying the aid to the people of Jenin you’re damn right I have. If you’re talking about a massacre then you’re wrong. That has no been proven by a long way. As for jury duty I hardly think you’re a good applicant yourself since you seem to be able to make the lear that 100% of Palestinians are guilty and as such deserve no justice/aid/sympathy.
lear should be leap
I’m staring at this map they link to on this EI site that allegedly shows how awful the Barak proposal was. From what I can figure out there are two small areas that Barak insisted on keeping: one set of settlements just south of Kalkiya, and another set around Jerusalem. I don’t see what the authors are alleging: that he wanted to keep the entire Jordan Valley, for instance.
Am I missing something, or are they doing what I think they’re doing: confusing Sharon’s proposal with Barak’s?
As to the question of whether Arafat supported the terror of the last couple of years, I would have thought that question was answered by the capture of the Karine-A ship with all that ordnance. The documents captured in Ramallah with his signature on them are just icing on the cake.
Finally, the idea that the reoccupation of the PA areas hasn’t stopped the suicide bombings is absurd: just before the incursions started there were multiple bombings per day. Now you’re getting one a week, as far as I can tell. Which shows that while you might never be able to stop them, you can certainly slow them down tremendously.
Sometimes Mr. S. when negotiating, you take less than you think than you deserve. In fact unless you want unconditional surrender you always do. You make a pragmatic choice. Am I better off with the deal or can I get a better one later?
As to the offer: Here is what was in CNN as the talks began to break down in July '00:
Arab spin control was not focused on whether or not Israel could continue to have some nominal control of some roads. The talks didn’t break down over border issues. Land exchanges were being worked out. The map was mostly acceptable to Arafat at that point. It broke down over whether or not the presence in Jerusulam was enough. That map is a red herring. (And don’t tell me that CNN is an Israeli mouthpiece.)
Mr S. I suppose that you don’t trust that Osama was behind 9-11 because of the source either. I think that the evidence proferred of Arafat’s complicity in facilitating the violence is quite compelling.
No, you may not. May I take your instant dismissal of my arguments because I did not spend hours searching for a website that verified something I distinctly recall seeing on TV as evidence that you have no interest whatsoever in a serious debate?
I think I’ve made my points. Arafat has done the absolute minimum required to condemn terrorism and suicide bombings. The fact that many think otherwise indicates just how successful he’s been at convincing the West that he’s serious about cracking down on terrorism while simultaneously convincing his own people that he is not.
Well, I just spent about an hour searching through websites for info on the Palestinian treatment of alleged collaborators and here’s what I’ve come up with:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/nwssat03.htm
In kangaroo court trials condemned abroad, the Palestinian authority executes several collaborators.
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/08/arafat-0802-ltr.htm
Human Rights Watch condemns Palestinian treatment of alleged collaborators. The court session for one of them lasted 90 minutes. HRW also urges Arafat to “condemn in clear and unequivocal terms vigilante-type killings of alleged collaborators, and to order the authorities to bring to justice those responsible for such killings,” as he has failed to do in response to the vigilante murders of three men.
http://stumedia.tsp.utexas.edu/webarchive/01-25-01/2001012503_s01_More.html
Another excellent article on Arafat’s treatment of collaborators.
Throughout all this, keep in mind that “collaborators” are those who inform Israelis of terrorist sects and potential suicide bombers.
pantom:
I wonder which map you are looking at – the site links to a few different ones.
Click the link I posted above to find the map I’ve been using during this discussion. It shows a strip of land below Kalkiya, and another large area around Jerusalem, that Barak wanted to appropriate. The second section almost divides the territory in two, and can hardly be characterized as a “small area.” The site claims that 85% of the Israeli settler population lives within those two zones, which constitute a total of 69 settlements. That leaves approximately 15% of the settler population (40,000 settlers) stuck within Palestinian-controlled territory, in 37 settlements. The Israeli government signaled before Camp David that it had no intention of evacuating these settlements, so there was a further need to negotiate for the security of the settlers living there.
Anyway, Israel proposed to compensate the Palestinians for this expropriated land, at a ratio of 9 to 1. This has long been a negotiation stumbling block. The Palestinians have pressed Israel to recognized the so-called “Green Line,” which was the Israel border prior to the Six-day war. They claim that if Israel would be willing to recognize this default line as the border between Israel and Palestinian territory, then they could negotiate land-swaps around it. As far as I can tell, Israel has refused to do so. I don’t know if Barak’s proposals were based on an acceptance of the Green Line or not.
You have 10 marbles and one stone; and I have 10 marbles and an AK-47. I say, “Hey, I have this great idea. You give me 9 of your marbles, and I’ll give you 1 of mine. If you don’t agree to this offer, I’ll shoot you.” Either I wind up with 19 marbles, and you wind up with 2, or you wind up with a bullet in your head. How could this possibly be construed as a “generous” offer?
I don’t know about the Jordan Valley. The fact is, there is no “consensual history” regarding the talks; nobody is really sure, at this point, what was being seriously considered, and what wasn’t. So in that sense, the proposal presented at the site is something of an “after construction.” ( I make this statement on the basis of the FMEP report linked by the site.)
You’re missing something. This was the deal being offered Arafat by Barak at the Camp David talks sponsored by Clinton.
I was not aware that the shipment itself had been linked to Arafat or the PA. I thought it was a Hizbollah shipment.
Sure, as long as the IDF is actively shelling Palestinian villages and bulldozing refugee camps one can expect a slowdown in the bombings. But even one bombing a week is an unacceptably high level of violence, and if that had been the average after Arafat took over the PA post-Oslo he wouldn’t have lasted very long. Once the IDF finishes its operations, the bombings will probably continue at a fairly steady pace.
DSeid:
Do you have anything with which to back up this claim beyond a couple of spun CNN reports? The EI site bases its position on a number of different analysis, including the specific testimony of a American negotiator who was present at the talks, and who claims that this version of events is precisely the myth being presented in the media. CNN (and other major news sources) can take a pro-Israeli slant, by the way, without in any sense being an “Israeli mouthpiece.”
I won’t dignify that statement with a response.
I just can’t see what evidence you are referring to. Do you mean here, in this thread, or do you mean in the media in general?
Anyway, I may have gotten confused myself here, especially when I wrote above about not understanding how the PA “fosters” violence. As I see it, there are two issues involved. One is the extent to which Arafat has actively, or even passively, supported suicide bombings and other “terrorist” activities that have been carried out over the last 18 months. The other is the extent to which Arafat and his followers have “fostered” an environment conducive to violence.
Regarding the first it has proven difficult to provide conclusive evidence that Arafat has been actively aware of, or provided support for, suicide bombings – although it is possible others in the organization around him have been. If Arafat himself has been aware of such attacks, or has provided financial, logistical, or any other sort of practical help for them, this means that he is a war criminal and must be brought before a tribunal to be tried for his crimes, just like Sharon.
Regarding the second, well it’s clear that Sharon has as much to do with the atmosphere of violence that pervades the area as Arafat does. For over 30 years the Israeli government has been building settlements in the Occupied Territories. These settlements are in direct conflict with international law, and specifically with paragraph 6, section 49, of the Fourth Geneva Convention, of which Israel is a signatory. The settlements have served as a pretext for military occupation. Naturally, the natives are going to fight back. I think it is unfair to lay all the blame for these problems exclusively on Arafat’s doorstep.
Opus 1:
No, you may not.
Actually, until you convince me of your correctness, you most assuredly have not made your points, except maybe to yourself, and you’re already convinced, so what was the point? Your supposed to convince me, your debating opponent, remember?
As I pointed out earlier, this is a side issue (although, admittedly, a very important one). The myth being debunked at EI is the oft-repeated claim that Arafat has never condemned the suicide bombings in Arabic – which he clearly has.
Don’t misunderstand me – I’m more than willing to admit that Arafat needs to do more to counter the bombings. It’s just that that wasn’t the point I was arguing.
Regarding your last set of quotes: this is much better. At least I know now where you’re getting your info. You don’t have to spend hours browsing through websites either – I know how painstakingly time-consuming these debates can be. I just wanted to know something about the source of your perspective, and I don’t think that’s too much to ask for, here.
I’ll check out your sites and let you know if I have any critical commentary.
I am sincerely trying to unearth as honest and unbiased a picture of the conflict as I can, without doing injustice to either side of the dispute. If I appear stubborn, its because I really need to see the evidence, instead of relying on second-hand reports or “spun” news stories.
Just another cite as to what happened at those talks from the people who were there.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50863,00.html
DSeid:
I’m inclined to suspicion regarding anything present in Fox News, myself, especially by one of their contributing analysts.
How do you account for the descrepancy between these two versions of the Camp David proposals?
#5 is certainly a myth (generous offer my ass). This is the biggest lie that the Israelis have managed to make Americans and many others to believe.
there is also much sense in #1 and 2
#6 well, I would say that Sharons caused the intifada
good point. Many refeer to Arafat as the Egyptian, but the same people forget that many Israeli PMs was born in Russia and East-Europa. Begin and Itshak Shamir to name a few.
I don’t see how I’m supposed to take seriously a site that says such things as
IOW, Jews visiting a “holy site” is desecration. What, are Jews unclean animals whose very presence desecrates the site? This attitude is disgusting.
And then they say:
Oh, well then. No firearms. I guess the Israelis should have let them run amok then. What right does Israel have to stop a riot, as long as the rioters refrain from using firearms? It’s not like anyone has ever died from having rocks throw at them.