Second wave

» Just how far out of touch is Helen Thomas? from AmberGnat
Though her longevity often earns her the accolade "dean of the Washington press corps," it sure seems like Helen Thomas may be so out of touch with reality that it would be an act of kindness to set the old... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 22, 2004 5:23:33 PM

God....
But you have to love that "war broke out". How carefully he treads to avoid saying "The Arabs started a war". Ofcourse, you also have to admire his skill in saying "leaving Arabs with 47 per cent of their land" but not mentioning how it left the Jews and with how much of Their land.

By the way, does this include (Arab) Jordan - part of the very same land, but given to the Arabs a little earlier?

Posted by: alvin at Nov 16, 2004 4:56:06 PM

Yes I also picked up on 'war broke out' as though the Arab side had no hand in it. The 'intifada also broke out'. Nothing is ever their fault. Peace can only be achieved by democracies acting in an adult fashion. Adults accept responsibility for their actions. Until the Palestinians acknowledge the error of their ways by accepting that armed struggle will get them nowhere, there will be no peace.

I sometimes wonder if their apologists really believe what they say, or whether they just defend and excuse Palestinian actions because they are hurtful to Israel and by extension all Jews.

Incidentally terror is never acceptable even in the direst provocation, including poverty and deprivation. Imagine what the world would look like today if Jews had acted in proportion to the Palestinians as a result of 1900 years without their land and with one third of our world wide populaation anihilated.

Posted by: Robert Cowen at Nov 16, 2004 5:33:32 PM

An amazing sidelight to this debate is the fact that Helen Thomas could easily be taken for Arafat's twin sister.

Posted by: AC at Nov 17, 2004 12:28:30 AM

Classic comment AC! You're 100% right, perhaps she really is his sister

Posted by: Steve T at Nov 17, 2004 1:39:28 AM

lol!

Posted by: alvin at Nov 17, 2004 1:48:26 AM

For years now, Hellen (no spelling error) has annoyed me with her insipid questions at press briefings. She really would do everyone a favor if she joined her beloved Yasser.

Posted by: drs at Nov 17, 2004 2:34:59 AM

You guys just don't get it!

Arafat was a great success. Everyone knows he didn't care about the
welfare of ordinary people. Of course he was a terrorist. He invented
modern terrorism. He and his cause have been rewarded over and
over again by the United Nations, the World Court , countless
newpapers and so on. His lies have helped to make Jew hating respectable again. Thanks to him, many more people think that
Israel can be wiped off the face of the earth. His legacy will be
more of the same; death and misery to the so-called Palestinians.
But who cares, as long as they are killing Jews.

Posted by: Michael Zuker at Nov 17, 2004 5:34:54 AM

Looks like not everyone in the Arab world loved him. See this on the BBC website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4016677.stm

Posted by: Robert Cowen at Nov 17, 2004 4:18:32 PM

Well. There is one little piece of information missing here. On the eve of the British mandate in 1918, the Jews made about %8 of the population and their share of land ownership was less than %1. Now can some one explain to me how the land became 'theirs' within 30 years! The Arabs had every right to reject the partition plan of the UN in 1947. Why should they give up the land of their forefathers to strangers who just happened to claim its theirs based on some dodgy text they claim to have. Unfortunately the Zionist led media had created a myth about the creation of Israel over the years and the very same people who fabricated these lies were the first to believe them. There is only one victim in this conflict,the Palestinians, whose land hase been stolen from them and they have been expelled, persecuted and dehumanised and demonised for asking for their rights to be restored.

Posted by: Nidal at Nov 17, 2004 4:56:02 PM

NIDAL

If by some 'dodgey text' you mean the bible then you are way off the mark. Ignore the bible and pick up any decent history book and you'll clearly see that the Kingdom of Israel existed thousands of years ago before the Romans destroyed it (they had a habit of this sort of thing). Unless of course you don't believe the Roman empire existed either. Who or where do you think the name 'Palestine' came from?

Secondly, you said the Arabs had every right ro reject partition in 1947. Well, can you explain why the Arabs didn't reject partition in 1921 when the British created Trans-Jordan by carving out the ENTIRE East bank (FULLY 80% of the land)?

You are right in one thing though. You said the palestinians have been ' dehumanised and demonised'. Well, now that the man responsible for this has gone, their new leader may treat them better. Interestingly, who exactly was the first palestinian leader?

Posted by: SR at Nov 17, 2004 5:32:05 PM

How should we answer Nidal? I am sure there will be many only too ready. Here is my take on his points.

First how did the Jews gain so much land in 30 years (I take your figures as read)? That is easy. They worked hard and they bought the land sometimes three times over from unscrupulous Arab and Turkish landlords.

Yes the Arabs had every right to reject the partition plan, and boy did they do so. They not only rejected the plan but went to war over it, and lost. What they failed to recognise was that Israel was here to stay, so they organised on a guerilla basis and used the Palestinians as their battering ram.

The attachment of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is undeniable, except of course by those who want to believe their own lies. The Kingdom of Israel is a historical fact evidenced in many ways including the remains of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Even building a mosque on top has not eradicated that evidence. Jewish people have looked to Jerusalem throughout the periods of eviction after the destruction of both the first and second temples. There are 80 references to Jerusalem in the Jewish bible, our 'dodgy text', but none in the Koran. Odd that isn't it?

Lastly, I agree with you that the Palestinians have been the losers in all this. However perhaps its time for a new Palestinian leadership to accept responsibility for its actions and deliver a peaceful settlement which both sides can accept. On that I think we can both agree.

Posted by: Robert Cowen at Nov 17, 2004 5:40:32 PM

Guys. As someone who doesnt share your love of your bible, I think I am entitled to dismiss any claim of land owneship based on on some text. However, while there was some purchase of land by the Jewish fund and some rich Jews from Europe in the second half of the 19th century and during the mandate years, this was still a very small proportion to the land of historical Palestine unless of course you claim that every Palestinian had sold his land at the time. Over %85 of the Palestinian population during the mandate years were farmers and lived on the land. I am sure you agree that farmers arent so keen on selling thier only source of income. My own family owned land and not even one centimetre was sold to anybody, yet last time I went there it was all built up and its ownership had passed on to the Israeli state as we were told by the new occcupants.
As for your somewhat absurd reference to why didnt the Palestinains rejec excluding including Trans Jordan in 1921 from the mandate! Well as you know Trans Jordan belonged to the Transjordanians so the Palestinians had no claim to Trans Jordan as such.
As for the comment on dehumanising the Palestinians, Well I dont think it was Arafat who did that as you claim but consecutive Israeli practices aimed at demonising the enemy which is the oldest trick in the book. Now I find it really strange that the very same people who have been at the recieving end of the worst human tragedy in history could have inflicted so much pain and suffering on another people for no crime of their own. Hitler wasnt a Palestinian nor there was any Palestinian/Arab or Muslim ever invloved in the gas chambers as far as I know or took part in any of the many pogroms against Jews in Eastern Europe.
As for the Arabs organising guerilla warfare against the Zionist hagana and other armed groups, well I think everyone has the right to fight for their land and dignity. Every nation that had been under occupation had resisted such an occupation. The right to resist has even been included in the UN covenant. We must also add that the Jewish armed groups werent exactly throwing roses at the Palestinians when they expropriated their land and sent them out of their villages and towns in 1948. It is also noteworthy that the Zionist movement was never interested in accomodating the Arabs in Palestine and always maintained a policy of forced repatriation, expulsion and ethnic cleansing well before the Serbs adopted the same methods. There are even Political parties in Israel today who advocate transferring the Palestinian Arabs across the border including those who nominally have Israeli citizenship but of course treated as third class citizens in Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, as its propoganda machine often claims.
Israell as an exclusively Jewish state has no future of surviving in the Middle East.
I find it really astonishing when Zionists use history and religion to justify their claim while at the same time denying the Palestinians the same privillege! You claim that for 2000 years, the Jews had yearned to Jersualem and yet you expect the Palestinians to forget about it after 50 years! Is this hypocracy or what?

Posted by: Nidal at Nov 17, 2004 7:12:36 PM

Nidal, you ignorant slut

You said:

"I find it really astonishing when Zionists use history and religion to justify their claim while at the same time denying the Palestinians the same privillege! "

But you also said:

"The right to resist has even been included in the UN covenant."

I say: As Israel was created by UN mandate, I find it really astonishing when muslims use the UN to justify their their version of history while at the same time denying the Israelis the same privilege!

By the way, Mark Twain, when visiting the area in the late nineteenth century, described it as a barren wasteland. I say this because if ever there was an objective party, it would be Mark Twain in the nineteenth century.

Another thing: Please do not speak of the evils of zionism on a piece of land occupying less than 1/10th of 1% of a middle-east that tolerates no jews (and, for that matter, no Christians).

I could go on exposing your hypocricies, but I would have no time or space left to expose your lies.

Shalom from Israel, today and always my home.

Posted by: at Nov 17, 2004 8:09:28 PM

What is truly pathetic about this is that the Israeli-Arab conflict and the Middle East, in general, has deteriorated into debates by the ignorant with the ill-informed, facilitated by access to the internet by propagandist and their fanatic followers. Ms. Thomas is well aware there is no historical people called 'Palestenians'. They are simply Arabs and Muslims from the former Ottoman Empire or Africa.

There were no Iraqis, Jordanians, Iranians, Saudis etc. until the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI by the West. To keep them from reorganizing, the entire territory was subdivided into mandates and eventually redivided into the current countries most people know. The truth is, none of these countries are a 100 years old. This makes it extra rediculous when they begin to speak about the ancient Saudis, Iraqis, or 'Palestenians'.

At the same time these subdivisions were made, land was set aside for Jews, many of whom had returned to live in the area of historical Israel under the Ottomans. They purchased the land they lived on with the help of collections from the Jewish people all over the world. Other than a few nomads and the Jews, who had been there for 2000 years, the land was generally unpopulated.

World War II began and these new Arab countries sided with Hitler and Musolini. The Jews, who had still not been given the promised territory, fought with the allies, at least those who had been fortunate to have already immigrated. The Jews of Europe were refused admittance and abandoned to the Nazis while their co-religionists were helping the English to defeat Hitler his Arab/Muslim followers in the Middle East and northern Africa. Talk about ingratitude! Remember, WWII was not fought to protect Jews. Hitler was doing what the anti-Semites of the U.S. and European Allies couldn't do. What other rational reason could there be for preventing Jews from immigrating to safety?

It is one thing to blame 'journalists' like Helen Thomas. She is no more responsible than a public who refuses to find the truths and challenge her. Arafat was a murderer and terrorist, and Egyptian and a master propagandist. HE MAY BE DEAD, BUT HIS LIES WILL LIVE ON AND AFFECT OTHERS UNTIL HONEST PEOPLE BEGIN TO EXPOSE THEM AND DISAVOW THEM EVERY TIME THEY ARE ARTICULATED.

Posted by: whj at Nov 17, 2004 8:13:50 PM

lol Nidal. You really made me laugh.
"Well as you know Trans Jordan belonged to the Transjordanians so the Palestinians had no claim to Trans Jordan as such." LOL! :)))))

There were no Transjordanian nation for it to belong to. This large piece of Palestine (used to go under a different name once when it was part of the land of the Israelites ) was simply carved out and given to Arabs and it's still under their ownership (so to speak) today.

So when you (in your earlier comment) say "Now can some one explain to me how the land became 'theirs' within 30 years!" then you need to be reminded that only a small part of the total land of historical Israel/Palestine is Israeli, and the rest is divided between Jordan (Arab - mostly Palestinian population) and %97 of the rest offered by Barak to Arafat who rejected it and began a war.

Your most hilarious bit (funniest thing I read in a long time) was "Why should they give up the land of their forefathers to strangers who just happened to claim its theirs based on some dodgy text they claim to have". :))))))) lol!!
You're king of the understatement, aren't you?

Keep it up. I'd say you're not ridiculous, but rather, are in a triumphant display of wilful insanity. It's funny and impressive.

Ofcourse "the land of their forefathers" should be rewritten "the land of the Jews' forefathers" but then again, so much needs to be changed in that brilliant sentence of yours and if it were to be done, it would lose all of it's humour.

I suggest you keep it as it is and warn the world that the Jews are strangers and that there's no reason to believe they were ever connected in this land (let alone had soverignity over it for 1500 years before Jesus - another Jew - not Arab - ever opened his eyes). All they have is a 'dodgy text' lol!:)

Posted by: alvin at Nov 17, 2004 8:14:45 PM

For the rest of you, of academic interest, is that the Arabs controlling the Al-Aqsa mosque used to be quite proud of the fact it stands on the remnants of the ancient Jewish temples. That was in pre-Israel days when they didn't think they need to hide its history from anyone - least of all from people like Nidal.

Posted by: alvin at Nov 17, 2004 8:18:13 PM

To the person who doesnt have the courage to give his name and the best he could do to reply to my earlier post was to call me a slut. Well I will not sink to his level since swearing is the language of the intellectually challenged.
As for Alvin, well he is not as thick as the previous person so he tries humour but sadly he failed to even raise a twinkle of a laugh. I know educating a die hard Zionist, who has been fed on a diet of lies and distortion, is a futile exercise, however ,I will try to reply just for the benefit of those who come here to learn something.
The so called Jewish kingdom only surivved for 70 years and not 1500 as the not so bright historian Alvin claims, before it was detroyed through infighting by the various tribes. Furthermore, the so called Jewish Kingdom only covered a tiny portion of historical Palestine and it was doomed to failure right from the start. The area had been inhabited by different tribes which predated Judiasm. Most of them were from the Arabian peninsula. Over the course of the last 3000 years, there have been waves of invaders, Egyptians, phoenicians, Persians, Greek, Romans before the Arab conquest in the 8th century. The reason it was possible for the Arab army from Mecca to conquer the area so easily from the Romans was the cooperation of the Arab tribes already living there who refused to convert to Christianity and were therefore persecuted. Upon his arrival in Jersualem, Caliph Omar I recieved the keys to the city from the Christian patriarch who surrendered the city to the Arabs. Now there was no mention of the Jews there throughout the last 1500 of Arab rule and it was only in the 19th century that some Hassidic Jews started arriving from Eastern Europe fleeing persecution. They werent Zionist and were able to settle in the north mainly in Safad and Tiberias. The big influx of Jews coincided with a series of pogroms in the 19th century at a time the Ottoman Empire was on its final legs and only kept propped up by the super power of the time i.e Britian and Russian who were concerned about creating a vaccum.
Following the Zionist conference of 1890 in Basil/Switzeralnd, a delegation was sent over to inspect the area and they sent a dispatch back to Hertzel saying the 'bride is beautiful but sadly its already married' Which meant there were people living there already which repudate the Zionsit claim that Palestine was a land without people for a people without a land. Palestine had a population of 750.000 living in towns and villages and the Christians made %18 of the local population. Sadly thanks to various Israeli policies their numbers have dwindled to a mere %3 now.
One of the fist things the Zionist did after the 1948 was to destroy over 500 Arab villages in a desperate attempt to erase the Arab character of the country. Moreover, there is no conclusive archaeological evidence that there ever was a Jewish kingdom despite desperate attempts by Israeli historians and archeoligsts to claim otherwise. Even the alleged location of the so called Temple is diputed amongst Jewish archaelogists where some place it under the Noble Sanctuary while others claim it was few miles up the road! The bulk of Jewish history was in Egypt were Moses lived and preached. He never even made it to the promised land so all this talk about Jewish history in Palestine is a load of tosh.

Posted by: Nidal at Nov 17, 2004 8:49:31 PM

Alvin,
Please do us a favour and stop going on about Barak offering %97 of the occupied territories to Arafat in Camp David. If you read Clinton's book My life, you'd find there was no such a thing. What Barak told Clinton that he was prepared to give %82 of the West bank, excluding East Jersualem and the settlements, which in effect means %54 of the occupied territory. Furthermore he demanded a Palestinian recognition of Israeli soverignity over the Al Aqsa Mosque. Now I was never a great fan of Arafat, but he had no choice but to turn it down. No Palestinian would EVER agree to Israeli soverignty over the mosque. By refusing that Arafat knew that he had just writen his own death certificate but he didnt care. He said he would never go down in history as the one who'd sold out and that explains why he was shunned and ostracised by Israel and the US.
As for your claim that the Arabs "proud of the fact it stands on the remnants of the ancient Jewish temples", Well I never came across that or heard any reference to a Jewish temple. What I know is when Omar I arrived in the city, he was shocked to find the place which is holy to Muslims since they believe it was from where Adam had descended to earth and was the venue of the night journey of Muhammad, had been turned into a rubbish depot for the inhabitants of the city. It was suggested that Omar proceeded to clean it up himself in tears and instructed that a mosque should be built there which remained the case until the Crusaders turned in into stables upon their concquest of the city in the 11 th century. Now throughout this period there has been no reference to any temple and the first time anyone heard of it was during the British mandate when all of the sudden the British decided to grant the Jews the right to pray at the western wall of the mosque. Not a wise move since it triggered a wide spread riot that was bloodily quelled by the lovely Brits.

Posted by: Nidal at Nov 17, 2004 9:29:41 PM

lol Nidal. Ofcourse, The Jews only had sovereignty for 70 years or so. 3000 years ago. Way to go, Nidal!:) Or they had sovereignty for longer but the famous kingdoms only existed for 70 years - Then, later, Nidal suddenly claims his own claim is perhaps baseless and there is no "conclusive evidence" that there ever even was a Jewish kingdom. Nice.

"Even the alleged location of the so called Temple is diputed amongst Jewish archaelogists where some place it under the Noble Sanctuary while others claim it was few miles up the road"

I think a tiny minority think it was a few meters further up, but hey - meters, miles - who cares, right? For that matter, the Muslims themselves, at the beginning of the last century weren't hiding the fact that the Al-Aqsa Mosque stands where the Temples used to stand - but times have changed and with the times, the teachings for Nidals changed too. that sort of statement would be very irresponsible for a nationalist Muslim to utter or even to know.

Arafat used to claim the temples stood in Nablus! :) I wonder why he didn't try to pretend they'd been on the moon. If you're going to lie, should his lie still give the Jews a history in this land?
Nidal ought to have spoken to Arafat and warned him about it. He should have explained to him "For Allah's sake, don't even say temples, say 'alleged temples'" :))) lol

Mind you, it's quite common for one religion - when taking over - to build over the holy sites of the previous religion. The Christians did it - building over various Pagan places of worship, the Muslims did it in various places too, including building their Al-Aqsa mosque in the most honorable place for it - right over where the Jewish temples stood.

I really loved Nidal's new world history. It was hugely enjoyable and I'm sure he couldn't be called any nasty names nor should he be purged as an intolerant nationalist only for pushing a new history which just happens to attempt to wash out a people's history. I also liked:
"Now there was no mention of the Jews there throughout the last 1500 of Arab rule...it was only in the 19th century that some Hassidic Jews started arriving...able to settle in the north mainly in Safad..."

If you're interested in the Kabbalah, for example, the Kabbalistic texts composed in Safad in the 16th century are fascinating. Or, following the bizarre story of Shabtai Zvi, you'll be interested in hearing the part of Nathan of Gaza in the 1600's. It would have come as a shock to them to discover they aren't even there :)

But hey, who cares about history? people like Nidal screw history! People like Nidal will conveniently pretend Israel took over all of "Palestine", forgetting that a large part of it is now (Arab) Jordan or the 97% of the West Bank (once known as Judea and Samaria) and of Gaza were offered by Barak to the Palestinians.

For that matter, Nidal will happily invent a nonexistant nation called "the transjordanians" lol :)))) This is news which would have made the residents laugh heartily once upon a time. And, to boot, Nidal will explain to us silly people that if the Jews even had a temple or kingdoms then it was only for some 70 years and never mind bits and pieces of history and testimony that say differently - the Jews are just a bunch of "strangers who just happened to claim its theirs based on some dodgy text they claim to have". Nice one, Nidal!

Nidal represents a triumph of will over truth, of faith over history. Nidal is representative of the way so many of his people continue to preach hatred and intolerance, demand respect but offer only disrespect, demand rights for themselves but negate rights for others.

Doubtless he wants an independent country for the Palestinians (Arabs who gradually came on to the land of the Jews from various nearby Arab lands) but he obviously hates the very existence of an independent country for the Jews.

When the Arabs/Muslims had nothing to fear, they were proud of building Al-Aqsa on the grounds of the Temples. Now that it doesn't suit them, they invent a new song and people like Nidal quickly pick up the tune.

With people like Nidal around, one understands why it is that the Palestinians still don't have a flourishing state of their own living in peace with Israel. Too centered on hatred, too keen to not allow anyone else any room just so they can control all of it for themselves. Preferring endless war in pursuit of destroying others' rights rather than building their own state and living the best they can.

Those people who constantly preach "the Jews are the sons of pigs and apes" who preach "martyrdom" and encourage young men to strap on explosives and murder civilians - these men are natural extensions of Nidal's intolerance.

Nidal, you can do a lot of killing and lying, but you'll never get anywhere with this attitude. (Or do you really think these mass murderers get to heaven after they blow up civilians? If you don't, how about going to the Hamas sites and to the Islamic Jihad sites and to the Fatah sites and condemning their behaviour?)

Posted by: alvin at Nov 17, 2004 9:43:37 PM

"What Barak told Clinton that he was prepared to give %82 of the West bank, excluding East Jersualem and the settlements, which in effect means %54 "

"Now I was never a great fan of Arafat, but he had no choice but to turn it down."

The offer wasn't as you put it (see below). His aides suggested that he say 'yes' - so obviously he did have a choice.

As for the actual offer: you forget Gaza. All in all, the Palestinians were offered some 97% and rejected it.

See this from Dennis Ross on Clinton's proposal, accepted by Barak and rejected by Arafat:
"Ross: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.

On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state.

On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.

And when it came to security, there would be a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.

Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.

Ross: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.

Hume: What was he supposed to give?

Ross: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that. "

He even rejected sovereignty over the Western Wall.

"Furthermore he demanded a Palestinian recognition of Israeli soverignity over the Al Aqsa Mosque"

Well - no!:) He wasn't demanded such a thing. When it comes to the Al-Aqsa mosque which they built over the Temples (some would say this is a rather nasty mean thing to do) - Israel offered to share sovereignty! Arafat - ofcourse - rejected it.
Arafat never really hid his opinions. Israel is - he repeatedly said - to be destroyed. He wouldn't give in on that. Wouldn't grant the Jews any link to the land (rather like Nidal) and wouldn't sign any end-of-the-conflict peace which would leave Israel standing. He wasn't interested in letting the Jews have an independent state. Wasn't interested in even having the Jews there. As Indonesia's former president put it "Arafat told me this is a 100 year old war and that 'we can still push the Jews into the sea - so why sign the peace deal?'".

"sudden the British decided to grant the Jews the right to pray at the western wall of the mosque"

I see. And why do you think the Jews had such a wish to pray there? Just for fun? Or do you suppose it was holy to them. As holy as Mecca and Medina are to you, for example.

"As for your claim that the Arabs 'proud of the fact it stands on the remnants of the ancient Jewish temples', Well I never came across that or heard any reference to a Jewish temple"

I'd take the time to find the evidence and link to it only if I thought you'd then change your mind. Since your opinion has nothing to do with fact, I won't bother unless I have your promise. It is a fact that before Israel's creation, they weren't ashamed to publicly admit their mosque stands on the remnants of the temples.

Meanwhile, I'm looking forward to hearing about the wonderful nation of transjordania and whether you consider that Palestinians go to heaven directly after blowing up a lot of civilians. If you consider that they don't, then we wait to see your going to the sites of the Hamas (and the rest of them) and telling them how you condemn their murders of civilians and how there shall be no glory of heaven waiting for them.

Posted by: alvin at Nov 17, 2004 10:06:41 PM

Well Alvin, Thank you for the reply. I've never promoted hatred or intolerance like you claim. I also never been on the side of sucide bombers and I have writen various articles in Arabic news papers and magazines against it. Yes in Arabic papers as well as English. However, just because I dont agree with you, doesnt make me a bigoted/racist/intolerant person. I have friends everywhere including some dear Jewish friends who I cherish. For your information also I am a fan of Jewish music, food and above all sense of humour. I am also agnostic so all the typical stereotypes of the violent Palestinians/Arab/Muslim dont apply to me. However my support of the Palestinian cause is not based on a narrow nationalistic instinct but rather on a sense of justice and always standing for the truth. I took part in many anti aparthied demonstrations even though I have no physical attachment to South Africa or its people but out of a sense of human belonging and capacity to stand for the truth. I know I dont need to tell you anything about me, however I feel at least you are talking to me instead of pointing a gun at my children and threatening me with deprotation so there is hope.
I am sure you have no idea what its like to have your house taken away from you or feeling helpless while your kids are hungry. I presume you have a nice life somewhere probably in the US and think you have some kind of moral superiority to other people. Throughout my life, I never heard a Palestinian calling any one pig or monkey but heard Shamir call the Palestinians Cockroaches and lizards and Ovadia Yusef calling them scorpions and snakes not to mention other colourful figures like Meir Kahana.
I never preached martyrdom and never killed anyone in my life. In fact I am so Squeamish that I pass out when I see blood. However, I can understand why you dont like my version of history since it doesnt correspond with yours. You are entitled to believe in whatever you want so am I.
As for the murder of civilians, well I am against all forms of murder. I have relatives who have been murdered by the Israeli army but that didnt make me want to become a murderer myself. I still find it deplorable irrespective of who is doing it. You talk about Israelis losing their limbs and other parts of their bodies. Of course it is tragic but do you think that Palestinians who loose arms and legs are happy for it and grateful to the Israeli army for helping them loose weight that a good diet couldnt conquer? I think one of the main tragedies of this conflict that Israelis and their supporters have failed to see the Palestinians as victims and chose to turn a blind eye to their suffering while hiding behind cliches like it was their fault they were made refugees and they should have accepted whatever was thrown at them. Why do you expect the Palestinians to be docile and passive and not stand up for their rights? Are you suggesting you are superior to them therefore they should be happy and rejoice in their slavory? I honestly think that the only way forward is for people like yourself to acknowldge the injustic that has been caused by the creation of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. I am for co existence and peace everywhere and believe its possible but not before there is a a recognition of the injustice inflicted on the Palestinians and a genuine effort to redress the balance. When Arab and Jew could live at the same place and have equal rights before the law and their lives are equally respected we can talk about peace, security and putting an end to the conflict.

Posted by: Nidal at Nov 17, 2004 10:36:27 PM

Nidal

My friend you really do seem confused. You dismiss the Kingdom of Israel as some biblical fantasy and yet claim it existed if only for 70 years. Make up your mind.

Regarding the Trans-jordanians. Can you please provide us with some information on this historic and ancient people? I'll save you some time by telling you there was NO such people and that the British in their colonial wisdom simply descided to carve away this huge amount of land from palestine and gave it to the emir Faisal. Why are you so uninterested in such a loss of 'your' land?

Regarding the land ownership, do some research. The vast majority of the land was owned by absantee landlords. ie, the owners who lived outside of Palestine. When these lands were purchased by the Jews, it was perfectly and 100% legal for the new owners to descide who can and who cannot live on their new property.

I'd like to ask you one other thing though I doubt you have stuck around after the mauling you've been given. You talk of the palestinians and the land that belonged to their forefathers (not quite true as I've pointed out but hey). Arab propogandists claim that the only immigrants into Palestine, somehow, were the Jews. I've always been amazed by this absurdity. If there was indeed no Arab inmigration, please explain why UNRWA saw fit to stipulate that a palestinian refugee need only have lived in Palestine for TWO YEARS before having to flee???

I honestly hate to make you understand this as you no doubt see yourself as a Palestinian but there really was no such distinct nation until the 1967 war. Why else would Arafat be recognised as the father of the Palestinian people? Until you and your fellow Arab brothers accept that the Jews have just as much if not more right to the land than the Arabs there simply will never be peace. Keep in mind that the longer this conflict goes on the less land the palestinians can claim. Despite what Arafat indoctrinated you into believing, time is NOT working on your side.

Posted by: SR at Nov 17, 2004 10:51:20 PM

"however I feel at least you are talking to me instead of pointing a gun at my children and threatening me with deprotation so there is hope"

You don't realize that this so called compliment on your part is actually a nasty smear and signifies demonisation from your part. I wouldn't know what you wrote against Palestinian terrorism but I hope you go on Palestinian sites - especially on Fatah - and tell them that what they're doing is murder and that they shall not go to heaven for it. When Palestinians have told Palestinians to refrain from suicide-bombings they frequently pretend these mass murders are perfectly moral but "not in the national interest at this time". I hope you're not one of those.

"Throughout my life, I never heard a Palestinian calling any one pig or monkey but heard Shamir call the Palestinians Cockroaches and lizards and Ovadia Yusef calling them scorpions and snakes not to mention other colourful figures like Meir Kahana. "

How intersting. Kahana was considered beyond the pale for Israelis and Jews. His fringe party was banned. He was despised. This is in stark contrast to Arab/Palestinian racists.

Ovadia Yusef was referring to the terrorists and not to the general Arab population. He took care to clarify that. Arab/Palestinians clarify the reverse.

Since you pretend that calling Jews the sons of pigs and apes just isn't done - allow me to illuminate you:

---
For example, in a weekly sermon in April 2002, Al-Azhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, the highest-ranking cleric in the Sunni Muslim world, called the Jews "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs."[1]

In one of his sermons, Saudi sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis, imam and preacher at the Al-Haraam mosque – the most important mosque in Mecca – beseeched Allah to annihilate the Jews. He also urged the Arabs to give up peace initiatives with them because they are "the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs."[2]

"Read history," called Al-Sudayyis in another sermon, "and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil fathers of the Jews of today, who are evil offspring, infidels, distorters of [others'] words, calf-worshippers, prophet-murderers, prophecy-deniers... the scum of the human race 'whom Allah cursed and turned into apes and pigs...' These are the Jews, an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption..."[3]

In a sermon at the Said Al-Jandoul mosque in Al-Taif, Saudi sheikh Ba'd bin Abdallah Al-Ajameh Al-Ghamidi explained that "the qualities of the Jews" were present at all times and in all places: "The current behavior of the brothers of apes and pigs, their treachery, violation of agreements, and defiling of holy places... is connected with the deeds of their forefathers during the early period of Islam – which proves the great similarity between all the Jews living today and the Jews who lived at the dawn of Islam."[4]

In an August 2001 sermon, Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi, Palestinian Authority official and imam of the Sheikh Ijlin mosque, Gaza City's main mosque, called on the Palestinian people to forget their internal disagreements and turn all weapons against Jews: "lances must be directed at the Jews, the enemies of Allah, the nation accursed in Allah's book. Allah described [them] as apes and pigs, calf-worshipers, idol-worshippers..."[5]

--- This list goes on and on and on and on and on.

Oddly enough, Palestinians weren't shocked at this racism.

You'll also note that Al-Sudayyis, the disgusting racist, was invited as a guest preacher to a large new Islamic center London on June 11.
The BBC dared to white-wash him as the 'world's most celebrated imam' who delivered a kindly talk promoting 'community cohesion' between Muslims and their neighbors.

So much for your not having heard of Arabs/Palestinians referring to Jews as "sons of pigs and apes". If you didn't hear about it before, you did now. And as I said, the list I gave goes on and on.

"cliches like it was their fault they were made refugees and they should have accepted whatever was thrown at them"

Well, considering that they did start a war against the tiny new-born state of Israel in the hopes of commiting a genocide (a real one) and of killing everyone that they couldn't ethnically cleanse out ("throw the Jews to the sea" was the phrase they enjoyed using - considering that, then it really is there fault that once they failed so many of them became refugees. Then again, they so loved talking as you do, denying other people's rights and wanting rights only to themselves, so it's no surprise that they went for war and for killing at the time and that they still prefer it now over having peace and over having an independent country for them living alongside an independent country for the Jews who are (however much you might hate it) in their homeland. In fact, in just a small part of their homeland.

"Are you suggesting you are superior to them therefore they should be happy and rejoice in their slavory?"

Another lie of yours. Another attempt to demonise the Jews/Israel. What was offered them back in 1947 and also recently - was to respect other people's rights and to have their rights respected. But they didn't like it in 1947 any more than Arafat liked it recently. They prefer to deny rights, to slander, to make up lies, to deligitimize, to wipe out history and to kill civilians. They were not offered slavery and Israel never pretended its citizens are 'superior'. Having said which, the fact we don't celebrate the bombing of civilians does show a moral superiority. The fact that in Israel nobody would dare say all the Arabs are sons of pigs and apes is a sign of moral superiority.

"However, I can understand why you dont like my version of history since it doesnt correspond with yours" - your so called version of history is a nasty piece of idiotic propaganda designed to remove a people's 3000 year old history: pretending the Jews are just "strangers who just happened to claim its theirs based on some dodgy text they claim to have". Making lies (as I showed you) about no Jews living there until 19th century, making lies about the Temples, pretending idiotically that the Jews only had sovereignty for 70 years, making up lies even about the present day about what Arafat was offered, making up lies and inventing a transjordanian nation, etc, etc.

The Palestinians have a choice of having an independent country and to prosper alongside Israel. Two states for two peoples. (Ofcourse, technically, the Palestinians are part of the Great Arab Nation which already has rather a lot of countries and land). Since you support your people in war then obviously war is what your people will have. In that war, your people will continue trying to murder as many civilians as possible. They'll lie as you do and strap bombs on themselves and go into public places and try to kill everyone around them. Your people will rejoice and dance in the streets in your thousands at all this human carnage (pictures of such celebrations are available) and you'll doubtless say that your side is right.

Posted by: alvin at Nov 17, 2004 11:21:41 PM

Hey Alvin, I have a sneaking feeling that you've lost your temper and decided to respond with a rant that demonstrate beyond doubt that you have been rattled. You see the problem with you and those who believe in decades of Zionsit propoganda is that you cant handle the truth. All the rubbish you have been peddling has done nothing to convince me that you have even started to think about anything I said. You sound like a broken record full of years of brainwashing and self delusion. Now Kahana who became a member of the Kenneset and was elected by thousands of demented fanatics was in your words "was considered beyond the pale for Israelis and Jews" yet your civilised democracy alllowed him to enjoy his seat and spread his venom which was taken up by another lunatic Baruch Goldstien who massacred over 30 worshipers in the mosque in Hebron. while Ovadia Yusef, another demnted fanatic who happened to be the spiritual leader of a main stream political party "Ovadia Yusef was referring to the terrorists and not to the general Arab population. He took care to clarify that". I dont recall him apologising or issuing such clarification. What about Shamir who you chose to ignore. After all the murderer became your prime minister didnt he? We are talkign about the same person who was wanted by the Britihs for murder and was sentenced to death in absentia along with the other icon, peace loving Noble prize winner Menachim Begin who was persoannly responsible for massacaring hundreds of civilians in the village in Dir Yassin. What about Ariel Sharon? What about Mofaz? What about Raful? the list goes on and on. I find it rich someone like you talking about killing civilisans when you should be ashamed of your leaders who have given others lessons in mass murder, terrorism and all acts of criminal activity.
You mention some obscure names I never heard of who sound more like lunatics in a mental institution to show that the Arabs are racists! well I am sure we have our own mad men but at least they are tucked away and never been anywhere near a government post or an army. I am also sure that no one if there is any, ever take them seriously.
As for your obsession with Trans Jordan, yes there are indigenous people in trans jordan who can trace theri ancestors to hundreds of years ago. Jordan was not part of Palestine and the British gave it to Abdullah not Faisal as you seem to think in your confusion as a reward for his father's support during WW1 after they tricked him while promising the Jews a national home in Palestine and the French Syria and Lebanon. Jordan was carved out of Iraq, Syria and Suadi Arabia not Palestine. the river has alwasy been the border line even under the Ottomans when it was governed by the Wali of Damascus while Palestine and the modern day south Lebanon where governed by a Wali whose seat was in Jersualem. Stop deluding yourself that Jordan is Palestine because it was never part of Palestine. Go and do your research and you will find out. The British refused to include it in the Balfour declaration not out of th ekindness of their heart but because it was a separate entity.

Posted by: Nidal at Nov 18, 2004 12:10:18 AM

nidal

Please please stop delluding yourself about Jordan. Simply take a look at any reputable map of Palestine before 1920 and you will clearly see that the borders incorporate what is now Jordan. I can understand why you don't want to believe this but for your own credibility you should acknowledge this fact. Otherwise you clearly paint yourself as an anti-Semite - ie, its ok to lose land if it is for another Arab state but not for a Jewish state.

I am glad you have found this website as reading likeminded views is not too interesting. Feel free to post as much propoganda as you wish, it is more than welcome and you will quickly find you can do this (contrary to what one of your friends said on another thread)but I do hope you move away from simplistic propoganda to more intelligent debate.

What are your ideas for peace? Do you stand by the maximalistic demands of Arafat? How do you view Abbas? Would you prefer a supposed moderate to represent the palestinians or the Hamas?

Or do you simply want to spew unsubstantiated propoganda before returning to Miftah?

Posted by: SR at Nov 18, 2004 12:55:49 AM