Told you so

[B. Max]

I can't imagine how the left will spin this.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45877

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45859

[crazymf]

If the Pals don't works toward peace now, Isreal would have every right to nuke those radicals into oblivion. This is their chance.

[Melanie_]

The first link is pretty weak; is there anything further you can post on it? As for the second, certainly Hamas has made it clear that they want all of the land that was Palestinian before 1967, including all of the West Bank. They are the most militant faction of the Palestinians, though, and do not speak for everyone there.

The hardliners on both sides are undermining any chance of true peace in Isreal/Palestine, while pointing to each other's atrocities and shouting "I told you so!" Sometimes I think they are hoping for an attack, so they can claim the moral high ground and justify any action they take, no matter how brutal it is. There is no compassion for the innocents caught in the crossfire; each side will say there are no innocents on the other side, just rabid killers. Nothing can be resolved until some recognition for the humanity of both nations is given, and both sides are so entrenched in their own righteousness they can't seem to do it. I have hope that Ariel Sharon has made a sincere step in the direction of peace with the pullout; lets see how it plays out.

[theloniusfleabag]

Considering the fact that HAMAS was created by Israel (to split support for Arafat and the PLO), this is one of those cases of 'oops, we created a monster'. No one doubted they would take credit for the pullout, and these claims of credit should be ignored by everyone. Sharon has taken an incredibly courageous step, hopefully it is towards peace and not the abyss. I expect him to be knocked from power at the earliest opportunity by the hardliners shooting for 'Eretz Y'Israel', though.

[Black Dog]

All I can say is: consider the source.

[B. Max]

Considering the fact that HAMAS was created by Israel (to split support for Arafat and the PLO), this is one of those cases of 'oops, we created a monster'.  No one doubted they would take credit for the pullout, and these claims of credit should be ignored by everyone.  Sharon has taken an incredibly courageous step, hopefully it is towards peace and not the abyss. I expect him to be knocked from power at the earliest opportunity by the hardliners shooting for 'Eretz Y'Israel', though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That israel created hamas is disputed. http://www.emperors-clothes.com/letters/cia.htm

Hezbollah was created by iran.

It doesn't matter now, the PLO, Hezbollah, and HAMAS are all dedicated to the destruction of israel and make no secret of it. Sharon has taken an incredibly stupid step. Israel has been following the wrong policy for a long time now. Their policy should have been clear, that every attack on israel will result in the taking back of more of our land and expelling arabs from it. At that point the price for their killing and murdering becomes significant enough to be a deterrent.

[Black Dog]

It doesn't matter now, the PLO, Hezbollah, and HAMAS are all dedicated to the destruction of israel and make no secret of it. Sharon has taken an incredibly stupid step. Israel has been following the wrong policy for a long time now. Their policy should have been clear, that every attack on israel will result in the taking back of more of our land and expelling arabs from it. At that point the price for their killing and murdering becomes significant enough to be a deterrent.

Heh. Of course, the surrender of Gaza is a strategic step for Sharon, one that allows him to escalate Israel's expansion into the West Bank. Gaza will be a camp for the Palestinians. Terrorism, Hamas, Hizbullah, have nothing to do witrh it. The issue is, as it has been from Day One, Israel's expansionism (as the above poster let's slip).

[B. Max]

It doesn't matter now, the PLO, Hezbollah, and HAMAS are all dedicated to the destruction of israel and make no secret of it. Sharon has taken an incredibly stupid step. Israel has been following the wrong policy for a long time now. Their policy should have been clear, that every attack on israel will result in the taking back of more of our land and expelling arabs from it. At that point the price for their killing and murdering becomes significant enough to be a deterrent.

Heh. Of course, the surrender of Gaza is a strategic step for Sharon, one that allows him to escalate Israel's expansion into the West Bank. Gaza will be a camp for the Palestinians. Terrorism, Hamas, Hizbullah, have nothing to do witrh it. The issue is, as it has been from Day One, Israel's expansionism (as the above poster let's slip).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No the issue is as it has always been. The destruction of israel. Gaza will become a terrorist play ground from which to launch more attacks on israel.

[Black Dog]

No the issue is as it has always been. The destruction of israel. Gaza will become a terrorist play ground from which to launch more attacks on israel.

It's difficult to see how that could come to pass, given the fact Israel will retain control of Gaza's borders, airspace, sea access, and economy.

By giving up gaza, Sharon wasn't giving up much. Only 7,300 settlers lived there, while the West Bank settlements that Israel would keep “in exchange” for its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza house tens of thousands of colonists and stretch many miles into Occupied Palestinian Territory. The withdrawl from Gaza will allow Israel to demographically, and permanently, entrench its presence in the West Bank. Therefore, the Gaza withdrawal plan has less to do with what Israel is giving up in Gaza and more to do with what Israel plans on taking from the West Bank. What Israel is doing is ensuring that the conflict will continue and perhaps intensify, which is precisely what the religious zealots and Zionist idealogues running the show have planned.

[BHS]

No the issue is as it has always been. The destruction of israel. Gaza will become a terrorist play ground from which to launch more attacks on israel.

It's difficult to see how that could come to pass, given the fact Israel will retain control of Gaza's borders, airspace, sea access, and economy.

By giving up gaza, Sharon wasn't giving up much. Only 7,300 settlers lived there, while the West Bank settlements that Israel would keep “in exchange” for its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza house tens of thousands of colonists and stretch many miles into Occupied Palestinian Territory. The withdrawl from Gaza will allow Israel to demographically, and permanently, entrench its presence in the West Bank. Therefore, the Gaza withdrawal plan has less to do with what Israel is giving up in Gaza and more to do with what Israel plans on taking from the West Bank. What Israel is doing is ensuring that the conflict will continue and perhaps intensify, which is precisely what the religious zealots and Zionist idealogues running the show have planned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you figure it will intensify?

[Black Dog]

How do you figure it will intensify?

Because they'll be dumping 1.3 million Palestinans into what amounts to a giant internment camp controlled by Israel. Not a recipe for good will. In the meantime, Israel's voracious apppetetie for land in the West Bank will ensure continued friction between Palestinians and settlers.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear B. Max,

That israel created hamas is disputed. http://www.emperors-clothes.com/letters/cia.htm

It is only disputed by the lunatic fringe.

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ZER403A.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to the Mossad, Israel's "Institute for Intelligence and Special Tasks", the Hamas was allowed to reinforce its presence in the occupied territories. Meanwhile, Arafat's Fatah Movement for National Liberation as well as the Palestinian Left were subjected to the most brutal form of repression and intimidation

Let us not forget that it was Israel, which in fact created Hamas. According to Zeev Sternell, historian at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "Israel thought that it was a smart ploy to push the Islamists against the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)".

Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of the Islamist movement in Palestine, returning from Cairo in the seventies, established an Islamic charity association. Prime Minister Golda Meir, saw this as a an opportunity to counterbalance the rise of Arafat’s Fatah movement. .According to the Israeli weekly Koteret Rashit (October 1987), "The Islamic associations as well as the university had been supported and encouraged by the Israeli military authority" in charge of the (civilian) administration of the West Bank and Gaza. "They [the Islamic associations and the university] were authorized to receive money payments from abroad."

[BHS]

How do you figure it will intensify?

Because they'll be dumping 1.3 million Palestinans into what amounts to a giant internment camp controlled by Israel. Not a recipe for good will. In the meantime, Israel's voracious apppetetie for land in the West Bank will ensure continued friction between Palestinians and settlers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought the 1.3 million were already there of their own accord, with the "support" of their fellow Arabs. (Support, as in "Stay off of our land".) My mistake.

The Palestinians, as you would call them, would drive the Jews into the sea if they could and take all of Israel. It's interesting that you characterize Jewish restraint againts doing the same as a "voracious appetite for land".

[BHS]

Dear B. Max,

That israel created hamas is disputed. http://www.emperors-clothes.com/letters/cia.htm

It is only disputed by the lunatic fringe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's interesting - using one fringe site as a foil for the other. Doesn't really prove much though.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

That's interesting - using one fringe site as a foil for the other. Doesn't really prove much though.

No, it doesn't, that's why I don't like the internet for info too much. I first read about Israel funding HAMAS in Victor Ostrovsky's book "By Way Of Deception', and can't quote it right now as a friend has it. Victor was a Mossad agent who quit, moved to the states and became an artist. I have debated the point with a woman on another forum, (she had a Jewish husband and could readily find links and info to disprove or confirm most of what I said) and she did some research and came back to me in agreement, 'Yes, Israel did fund (and help create) Hamas to undercut Arafat's support".

Unfortunately, the internet contains about 10% truth, 80% entertainment, and 10% garbage.

[Black Dog]

The Palestinians, as you would call them, would drive the Jews into the sea if they could and take all of Israel. It's interesting that you characterize Jewish restraint againts doing the same as a "voracious appetite for land".

Typical hysterical and ahistorical claptrap. Given that Israeli was founded by the Jews' driving tens of thousands of Arabs out of their homes and off of their land (the initial ethnic cleansing of Palestine, which left between 700,000 and 800,000 Arabs refugees), and the subsequent colonization of the West Bank and Gaza which has left millions politically disenfranchised and economically destitute, the Zionist experiment has been anything but "restrained".

[BHS]

The Palestinians, as you would call them, would drive the Jews into the sea if they could and take all of Israel. It's interesting that you characterize Jewish restraint againts doing the same as a "voracious appetite for land".

Typical hysterical and ahistorical claptrap. Given that Israeli was founded by the Jews' driving tens of thousands of Arabs out of their homes and off of their land (the initial ethnic cleansing of Palestine, which left between 700,000 and 800,000 Arabs refugees), and the subsequent colonization of the West Bank and Gaza which has left millions politically disenfranchised and economically destitute, the Zionist experiment has been anything but "restrained".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not hysterical. I'm perfectly serene. So, where are the refugees now? What country took them in? What are the Palestinians disenfranchised from? Why have their brother Arabs not come to their rescue?

[Black Dog]

I'm not hysterical. I'm perfectly serene. So, where are the refugees now? What country took them in? What are the Palestinians disenfranchised from? Why have their brother Arabs not come to their rescue?

Hysterical, if you'll read the quote, was directed at B. Max.

As for your question, millions of Palestinians have moved elsewhere. That aside, I've yet to see a reason why any Arab country should take in the Palestinians. After all, the majority of the Palestinians can trace their roots back to the land now called Israel. Very few Israelis can do the same. Furthermore, can you imagine the costs associated with absorbing more than 8.5 million people (many of whom with nothing to their name)? If it's easy for the host Arab countries to integrate Palestinian refugees into their economic and social structure, then why after three decades of Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, has Israel been unable to improve the lives of the Palestinian refugees under its direct control? If it's easy for other Arab countries to integrate the refugees (despite their limited resources), then surely it should be much easier for Israel to do so (of course such a solution, the "one-state" solution is directly opposed to the Zionist frameowk and wil never be accepted). In conclusion, I don't see why Arab states should be responsible for solving a problem Israel created.

[B. Max]

Dear BHS,

That's interesting - using one fringe site as a foil for the other. Doesn't really prove much though.

No, it doesn't, that's why I don't like the internet for info too much. I first read about Israel funding HAMAS in Victor Ostrovsky's book "By Way Of Deception', and can't quote it right now as a friend has it. Victor was a Mossad agent who quit, moved to the states and became an artist. I have debated the point with a woman on another forum, (she had a Jewish husband and could readily find links and info to disprove or confirm most of what I said) and she did some research and came back to me in agreement, 'Yes, Israel did fund (and help create) Hamas to undercut Arafat's support".

Unfortunately, the internet contains about 10% truth, 80% entertainment, and 10% garbage.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most likely it is only the first ten 10% that you can find that agrees with what you've been told to believe by arab propoganda.

[BHS]

Hysterical, if you'll read the quote, was directed at NewsMax, er...B. Max.

As for your question, millions of Palestinians have moved elsewhere. That aside, I've yet to see a reason why any Arab country should take in the Palestinians. After all, the majority of the Palestinians can trace their roots back to the land now called Israel. Very few Israelis can do the same. Furthermore, can you imagine the costs associated with absorbing more than 8.5 million people (many of whom with nothing to their name)? If it's easy for the host Arab countries to integrate Palestinian refugees into their economic and social structure, then why after three decades of Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, has Israel been unable to improve the lives of the Palestinian refugees under its direct control? If it's easy for other Arab countries to integrate the refugees (despite their limited resources), then surely it should be much easier for Israel to do so (of course such a solution, the "one-state" solution is directly opposed to the Zionist frameowk and wil never be accepted). In conclusion, I don't see why Arab states should be responsible for solving a problem Israel created.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's interesting. I wrote the portion of text you quoted in your response, though you didn't attribute it to me.

Correction. The majority of Palestinians can trace their roots to the land the British referred to as the Mandate of Palestine, consisting of present day Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan. 70% of the population of Jordan are "Palestinian" Arabs.

That very few of the Jews currently inhabiting Israel are directly related to the Jews who lived in the Mandate of Palestine is irrelevant. None of the European descended peoples living in North America can trace their ancestry here to before colonial times, but it doesn't make their claim on the land any less valid. If you'd care to argue that point you'd better start another thread though.

As to Israel having "direct control" over the lives of Palestinians living in the occupied territories: the Palestinian authority has been the official governing body overseeing the territories since 1996. Furthermore, the UN has been running the "refugee" camps (small, permanent cities, actually) since 1949. True, Israel physically controls the international borders of the occupied territories for security reasons, and it therefore controls the airspace and international borders of the Palestinian Authority. But it has never had political or economic control over the Palestinians in general (except to curtail their participation in the Israeli economy during the intifadas).

After the war in 1991, Kuwait expelled 450 000 "Palestinian" Arabs who had been living and working in the country on visas. Somehow the Kuwaitis could afford to have half a million Palestinians living and working in country before the war, but refused to grant them citizenship. The same story repeats itself across the Middle East. The countries that you say "don't have the resources" to absorb the refugee Palestinians absolutely do have the resources, but refuse to do so because that would solve the Palestinian dilemma without the destruction of the hated Zionist entity.

If there is any intransigence regarding the "one state" solution it is on the part of Hamas et al. There is today such a thing as an Israeli Arab. There is no longer such a thing as a Palestinian Jew.

The British/League of Nations created and partitioned the Mandate of Palestine, with the intention of reserving Transjordan for the Palestinian Arabs and the remainder for Palestinian Jews. (Originally the entire Mandate was to be used for the creation of a Jewish homeland. You can feel free to look all of this up.) The ensuing dogs breakfast of conflicting rights and interests was resolved by the 1948 UN declaration creating the modern nation of Israel. Blame the Jews for all of this if you wish. I blame the British for not forcefully carrying out their original plan.

[Melanie_]

What country took them in? What are the Palestinians disenfranchised from? Why have their brother Arabs not come to their rescue?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You say "their brother Arabs" as if they were homogenous, as if one were exactly the same as the other. "They all look the same", "I can't tell them apart", etc. We are more likely in North America to recognize differences between Ireland and Scotland than differences between Palestine and Saudi Arabia, for example (or between Morocco and Mozambique, but that is for another thread). You are passing judgment while completely ignoring the social and economic implications of any one nation simply absorbing that many displaced people all at once.

Which "brothers" does Canada have an obligation to rescue, if they were all displaced at once? Anyone who is Christian? Anyone who is white? What are your criteria for other Arab nations having an obligation to take in the Palestinian refugees?

[Black Dog]

That's interesting. I wrote the portion of text you quoted in your response, though you didn't attribute it to me.

So you did: I thought it was B. Max. Alright.

That very few of the Jews currently inhabiting Israel are directly related to the Jews who lived in the Mandate of Palestine is irrelevant. None of the European descended peoples living in North America can trace their ancestry here to before colonial times, but it doesn't make their claim on the land any less valid. If you'd care to argue that point you'd better start another thread though.

It's relevant in the context of the Zionist claim to the land, which they say was given to them by God several millenia ago.

As to Israel having "direct control" over the lives of Palestinians living in the occupied territories: the Palestinian authority has been the official governing body overseeing the territories since 1996. Furthermore, the UN has been running the "refugee" camps (small, permanent cities, actually) since 1949. True, Israel physically controls the international borders of the occupied territories for security reasons, and it therefore controls the airspace and international borders of the Palestinian Authority. But it has never had political or economic control over the Palestinians in general (except to curtail their participation in the Israeli economy during the intifadas).

If the United States controlled all of Canada's borders, airspace, oceans, water, electricity, gas and fuel, could one reasonably argue that we were a pltically and economically independent entity?

After the war in 1991, Kuwait expelled 450 000 "Palestinian" Arabs who had been living and working in the country on visas. Somehow the Kuwaitis could afford to have half a million Palestinians living and working in country before the war, but refused to grant them citizenship. The same story repeats itself across the Middle East. The countries that you say "don't have the resources" to absorb the refugee Palestinians absolutely do have the resources, but refuse to do so because that would solve the Palestinian dilemma without the destruction of the hated Zionist entity.

Which doesn't answer the original question of why they should. Again: its Irael's problem, Israel's responsibility.

If there is any intransigence regarding the "one state" solution it is on the part of Hamas et al. There is today such a thing as an Israeli Arab. There is no longer such a thing as a Palestinian Jew.

Nonsense. An end to the occupation and the extension to the Palestinian and Arab populations of the same rights enjoyed by Israel's Jews would, according to the Zionist interpretation, be tantamount to the destruction of Israel. Israel is, by nature, a country where one class of citizens enjoys more rights and privileges than the rest.

The British/League of Nations created and partitioned the Mandate of Palestine, with the intention of reserving Transjordan for the Palestinian Arabs and the remainder for Palestinian Jews. (Originally the entire Mandate was to be used for the creation of a Jewish homeland. You can feel free to look all of this up.) The ensuing dogs breakfast of conflicting rights and interests was resolved by the 1948 UN declaration creating the modern nation of Israel. Blame the Jews for all of this if you wish. I blame the British for not forcefully carrying out their original plan.

Which plan was that? The one that gave the Jews a homeland or the one that promised the Arabs independence for a united Arab country covering most of the Arab Middle East?

By the way, I'm well aware of the history of the region, thanks, even the little details like the fact that jews made up less than 12 per cent of the population of the Brituish Mandate at the time of partition.

[BHS]

What country took them in? What are the Palestinians disenfranchised from? Why have their brother Arabs not come to their rescue?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You say "their brother Arabs" as if they were homogenous, as if one were exactly the same as the other. "They all look the same", "I can't tell them apart", etc. We are more likely in North America to recognize differences between Ireland and Scotland than differences between Palestine and Saudi Arabia, for example (or between Morocco and Mozambique, but that is for another thread). You are passing judgment while completely ignoring the social and economic implications of any one nation simply absorbing that many displaced people all at once.

Which "brothers" does Canada have an obligation to rescue, if they were all displaced at once? Anyone who is Christian? Anyone who is white? What are your criteria for other Arab nations having an obligation to take in the Palestinian refugees?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can you really tell the difference between Irish and Scots? Just by a look? My heritage is English/Scots, and I can't tell the difference.

I didn't mean to suggest that all Arabs are the same, and I'm a little surprised and taken aback by your statement that I'm passing judgement. You seem to be passing some judgements yourself. I did not suggest that any one nation absorb all of the refugees.

When 911 struck in the US Canadians responded with open and genuine generosity and an innate sense of kinship. Since then we've fallen back into our old habits of exaggerating the minor differences, but if a nuclear bomb went off in a major American city we'd be there with everything we had.

Indeed, we in Canada have overcome (for the most part) the racism and ethnicism that mark the vast majority of human history. We have done, do and will do good acts to help people of all races and religions around the world.

So forgive me if it's a little foreign (no pun intended) to me to think that Arabs would turn their backs on other Arabs for political gain and refuse to take in refugees, while using their plight as a political tool in global politics. If refusing to lay all of the blame on the Jews while ignoring Arab complicity in the plight of the Palestinian Arabs, then I guess I am passing judgement.

[newbie]

There is no longer such a thing as a Palestinian Jew.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell that to these folks.

http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/extra/d1024ks.htm

http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/edavidsson.htm

[BHS]

It's relevant in the context of the Zionist claim to the land, which they say was given to them by God several millenia ago.

Which is irrelevant to my argument.

If the United States controlled all of Canada's borders, airspace, oceans, water, electricity, gas and fuel, could one reasonably argue that we were a pltically and economically independent entity?

I could point out (again) that the UN has been administering the refugee camps without Israeli interference, and how this resembles the Berlin Airlift.

I guess that it won't be a problem after the settlements are evacuated and the wall is finished.

Which doesn't answer the original question of why they should. Again: its Irael's problem, Israel's responsibility.

Until people who don't live with suicide bombings want to complain about Israel's solutions. Nonsense.

Nonsense. An end to the occupation and the extension to the Palestinian and Arab populations of the same rights enjoyed by Israel's Jews would, according to the Zionist interpretation, be tantamount to the destruction of Israel. Israel is, by nature, a country where one class of citizens enjoys more rights and privileges than the rest

Got me there. I'm not particularly in favour of state religions, though to be fair Israel isn't the only country in the world, or even the Middle East, to have one.

Which plan was that? The one that gave the Jews a homeland or the one that promised the Arabs independence for a united Arab country covering most of the Arab Middle East?

Rhetorical. Yummy.

By the way, I'm well aware of the history of the region, thanks, even the little details like the fact that jews made up less than 12 per cent of the population of the Brituish Mandate at the time of partition.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then you are also aware that the entire point of the exercise was to give European Jews a homeland to move to, and that the population at the time of the partition was therefore irrelevant.