| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2004/4/20 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:13292 Activity:nil |
4/20 Can someone tell me why Araft and the PLO have been yelling about
Israel getting out of the West Bank and Gaza for as long as I can
remember, and now that they're getting it they don't want it?
I must be missing something.
\_ You're missing that Israel isn't really getting out.
\_ Yes, you did. You must've been under a rock for the past five
years. Arafat was offered what essentially amounted to
a Palestinian state following the peace accords that were
signed when Rabin was PM. After he won the Nobel Arafat
basically did a 180 and said the agreement wasn't up to snuff
because it wouldn't allow for repatriation of displaced
Palestinians back into Israel. Essentially he used a small
technicality to sink the deal. Arafat probably felt that if
negotiated peace did come about it would essentially mean the
end of the PLO since I think he's lost a lot of support by
the Palestinians and he most likely wouldn't have won the
leadership of the Palestinians if he had to go through a vote
(or at least he would have a plurality in which he would have
to share power). This is the reason why the international
community has abandoned Arafat and the PLO. It's also why
Sharon (an Israeli hardliner) is in power now.
\_ And don't forget that the only reason "Arabs have a great
hate for America" is because all they hear as "news" is
vile propoganda. Of course, laying out the facts in an
understandable manner isn't exactly big in the American
press either, but it is a HECK of a lot better here.
\_ Right of return wasn't nearly the only issue.
http://csua.org/u/6zd
Why do you insist on holding to stupid justifications?
\_ yawn, how about "you're vastly misinformed by the mainstream
press" instead of "you're a liar".
\_ Well, whatever. When someone spews off a long paragraph
claiming to be an authority, and with an obvious interest
in the subject, it's more than "misinformed by press".
I don't see that in the mainstream press. I'd grant that
he probably just gets his info from one-sided sources,
like any partisan listening to other partisans.
\_ I'm fairly neutral and read a lot of press coverage
from the major sources, and I remember they blame
Arafat for backing off at the last moment because
of the right of return. And that's "vastly
misinformed".
\_ Well it's obviously an oversimplification.
I would imagine that could be true, if Israel was to
recognize right of return then probably Palestinians
would accept a lot of other compromises since after
all that would make most other things moot. Israel
has moved the negotiating away from right of return
altogether but to Palestinians this is a perfectly
reasonable right and was recognized by the U.N.
To them, the right of return is huge because it is
the whole basis of their position, the fact that
millions of Palestinians were expelled would imply
that some form of compensation could be expected
in a peace settlement even if no actual Palestinians
would actually return.
\_ cuz nothing short of death to all jews is not good enuf
\_ Palestinians are angry because the U.S. just traded the right of
return and six blocs of the West Bank for withdrawal from the
other parts of the West Bank and Gaza.
\_ There was no right of return. Anymore than Jews can ever
return to their homes in the Arab countries they were kicked
out of or fled from.
\_ Tell that to the Palestinians
\_ I do believe we just did.
\_ Well, Bush did. Anyway, hopefully this explains
why the Palestinians are angry. Whether or not they
have a good reason to be angry, well, I'm not saying.
The Palestinians sure thought the right of return
was a legitimate point of negotiation, as well as
the return of all the occupied territories.
\_ Two wrongs make a right? Because someone down the street
does me a wrong, makes it okay to do the same thing to
my neighbor? Plus, most Arab countries are welcoming
Joos back these days.
\_ "six blocs" == about 1/3 of the West Bank
\_ thanks, I didn't know that, but it sounds like a lot, and
I've been reading about the non-contiguous nature of the
remaining portions
\_ Actually, I'd first like to see the "right of return" of
Palestinians to the Arab countries they were kicked out of.
After that we can start to talk about Joos.
\_ Nah, Israel / the Palestinian territories is where there is
currently an occupation
\_ I'm not sure if this was sarcastic or not.
\_ It isn't.
\_ Soooo... It's ok for me to implement ethnic
cleansing if... what. I'm confused. All I'm
getting here is Jews can't do it, but Arabs can,
or "Ethnic Cleasers must have been the dominant
racial group for the last 1000 years."
\_ I think you've summarized the position of a large
segment of the world's population quite well.
Arabs are perpetrating a genocide this very moment
in Sudan, and no one seems to care.
\_ Do you think Sudan's a good point of reference?
Hail Israel! At least it's better than Sudan!
\_ Certainly if Sudan is worse than Israel, the
world community should start there. Fix
the biggest problems first. -- ilyas
\_ I'm not sure what you're saying, but
the basic idea is that the West Bank and Gaza
are currently being occupied, whereas
Palestinians aren't saying they are being
occupied in other countries.
\_ What are you talking about? They are from Palestine, not
some other mythical "Arab countries" that is why they
call themselves Palestinians.
\_ JOOS BAD! ARABS GOOD!
\_ L4M3R! ARABS BAD! JOOS GOOD!
\_ YOU SUX0R!
\_ ARABS ARE HYPPOCRITES!
\_ YOU SUCKS AT SPELLING, JEW LOVER!@%@#!!
\_ W00t! |
| 5/25 |
|
| csua.org/u/6zd -> www.palestinemonitor.org/Camp%20David%20Myth/why_arafat_rejected_the_camp_david_accords.htm And as you watched the Israeli tanks and bulldozers crush house and home in Palestinian refugee camps, you were led to believe that had the Palestinian leadership accepted the generous offer made to them at Camp David, the Israeli incursions - indeed, the massacre of Jenin - could have been avoided. But have you noticed that not once were you shown a map of Palestine with the settlements? All those map-meisters, with their maps of Afghanistan and Iraq, and never once a picture of the settlements? If they had shown you the maps of the settlements, you would have understood why the Palestinians rejected Camp David. The Oslo Accord of 1993 granted the Palestinians 22 percent of their historic homeland - they agreed to surrender the remaining 78 percent to Israel as part of the Land-for-Peace that Oslo promised. Camp David offered the Palestinians 91 percent of this 22 percent. In this area, there are 400,000 Israelis living in 200 communities or settlements in the area. The map of the West Bank today, pictured with its settlements, is that of a sieve. At Camp David, Barak and Clinton subjected Arafat to nothing short of a Laurel and Hardy act. Writing in The Guardian, David Clark, who was a special adviser to the British Foreign Office at the time, describes the subterfuge that surrounded the deal. While Barak dangled the trappings of Palestinian sovereignty while perpetuating the subjugation of the Palestinians, writes Mr. Clark, Clinton saw time running out along the hope that he might be remembered in history for something more dignified than blowjobs in the Oval Office. He needed a quick deal rather than a just deal and chose to attempt to bounce Arafat into accepting Israels terms. Clark elucidates the elements of the deal: even the most cursory glance at the map revealed the bad faith inherent in it. It showed the West Bank carved into three chunks, surrounded by Israeli troops and settlers, without direct access to its own international borders. The loss of prime agricultural land in the West Bank merely added insult to injury. The only territory offered to Palestinian negotiators consisted of stretches of desert adjacent to the Gaza Strip that Israel currently uses for toxic waste dumping. An Israeli site, Gush-Salom, ridicules the generous offer that Barak made at Camp David: This is no generous offer. This impossible offer, Baraks imperious attitude, the ongoing massive construction in the settlements, years of Israels delaying tactics and Sharons provocation - all these contributed to the inevitable explosion. The establishment of settlements goes against the very core of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupation force from inhabiting its population on occupied land. They range in sizes, says the Boston Globe, from clusters of trailers to fully articulated citiesattractive modern housing and neatly landscaped community centers, clinics and schools. And once again, it is Sharon, the butcher of Sabra and Chatila in 1982 - and now Jenin in 2002, who is identified as the moving force in perpetuating these settlements. Radin of the Boston Globe, the settlement movement showed signs of flagging, and both times Ariel Sharon, the current Israeli prime minister, played a key role in reenergizing it. In fact, since Sharon has come to power, 34 new settlements have been constructed. Israeli policy, compounded in large measure by the continued establishment of new settlements, has resulted in understandable mistrust of Israels intentions. Ron Pundak, Executive Director of the Economic Cooperation Foundation of Israel, writes of the frustration that the Palestinians have suffered residing in the shadows of the settlements. While they faced water shortages during the summer months as opposed to the abundance of water supply in the Israeli settlements; He writes of their continued humiliation as Israel continued to establish new settlements, to annex territories for new settlements and to expand existing ones. Pundak, interpreted Israels policy as seeking to destroy the very core of the Palestinian national dream. Israeli and American politicians have begun to think of Palestine in terms of American Indian Reservations. Israels Great Yahoo, Benjamin Netanyahu, hopeful prime-minister-in-waiting, talks of Palestinian territories carved out like concentration camps, surrounded by barriers, barbed wire and demilitarized zones. House Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey, more loyal to Israel than Prime Minister Sharon himself, would like to give the entire territory to Israel, and in the television show Hardball with Chris Matthews, virtually called for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the occupied territories. Chris Matthews, astonished, replied, Well, just to repeat, you believe that the Palestinians who are now living on the West Bank should get out of there? Sharons policies, writes former President Jimmy Carter, have all been orchestrated to accomplish his ultimate goals: to establish Israeli settlements as widely as possible throughout occupied territories and to deny Palestinians a cohesive political existence. Will the Americans just let the Israelis build more settlements something the Israelis are doing anyway and abandon the visions and walk away from the Palestinians, leaving them to the mercy of Mr. The Camp David offer was a bad faith effort, concealed within the shimmering trappings of a superb public relations blitz, which Sharon would have you believe is not part of his roadmap for a Greater Israel at the cost of an obliterated Palestinian dream. Yusuf Agha is a historian who also dabbles in Information Technology. He reads extensively and has an interest in the visual and performing arts. He has resided in the United States for over two decades, loves its people and the land, but is still trying to figure out whom the government represents. |