Terrorists on the Run

[Gamblor]

Has anybody else noticed that not a single suicide bombing has occured in Israel since the death of Abdel Aziz Rantisi?

[nicky g]

Probably more to do with the wall etc rather than the assassinations. If the assassinations had scared Palestinian militants into submission we wouldn;t have seen the murder of the settler family, for example.

[Chris Alger]

Ever notice how Israel continues to murder civilians even when the suicide bombings stop?

Like the 15 Israel killed today (in addition to the 20 killed the day before) "when Israel Defense Forces helicopter gunships and tanks fired missiles and shells into a crowd of protestors in Rafah refugee camp in the southern Gaza Strip. ... Palestinian witnesses said most of those killed were school children." Ha'aretz (http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/429428.html) The article, relying mostly on military sources, doesn't mention any Palestinian violence at all, so we must conclude that Israel shot some 60 non-threatening civilians who's only crime was peaceful protest. This is how Israel persuades the Arab world about America's "good intentions."

Of course, there's Israeli military's convincing version:

"The IDF said in a statement that it had not targeted the crowd; military sources one of the tank shells either passed through a nearby abandoned building or went off course and hit the demonstrators. ... Military sources said that troops had spotted Palestinians [sic] demonstrators, among them armed men, approaching the and asked a helicopter to fire a missile at an open field as a warning. When the crowd continued marching, a tank fired three shells at a nearby abandoned building to ward the protesters off. According to the sources, one of the shells either passed through the building or deviated off course and hit the demonstrators."

So they didn't "target" the crowd, they accidentally hit 60 people with a "warning" missile. The curse of the IDF inevitably cast its pall and bestowed the daily dose of bad luck. Damn.

The Ha'aretz report doesn't ask the obvious question: "warning" of what? The military said it fired four missiles "to "ward protestors off," the obvious implication being that if the peaceful protest didn't stop, Israel would stop it by force. By amazing coincidence, the Israeli military now claims that it did by accident what it was threatening to do deliberately.

These self-contradictory apologetics ("we didn't mean to murder them we only meant to threaten to murder them") are so threadbare that they really amount to inside jokes among the IDF.

Recall that Rafah is where an (American-made) IDF bulldozer killed American protestor Rachel Corrie, clad in an fluroescent orange vest and warning the driver of her presence from about 15 feet with a bullhorn. He "accidentally" ran her down, then "accidentally" failed to lift the shovel while parked on top of her, then "accidentally" backed up over her to make sure the job was done. Rafah is where the IDF "accidentally" shot protestor Tom Hurndall in the head as he tried to rescue small Palestinian children from the Israeli snipers that nailed him instead. He's permanently brain dead. Rafah is where the IDF "accidentally" killed James Miller, British TV cameraman making a documentary about Palestinian children.

As the quote by Prof. Beinin in my post above indicates, "nearly all" of the 3,000+ Palestinians killed by the IDF during the last four years have been civilians. Since the IDF claims it never targets civilians, to accept the IDF version (constantly reiterated on this forum by M, B-Man, Utah, and Gamblor), we must believe that it has killed thousands of people on hundreds of occasions over several years "by accident."

If you consider how America would react if Arafat or Saddam had shot 60 Israeli protestors while trying to colonize Tel Aviv, you'll have a reasonable picture for how depraved this situation and the people that try to justify it have become.

[nicky g]

"Rafah is where the IDF "accidentally" shot protestor Tom Hurndall in the head as he tried to rescue small Palestinian children from the Israeli snipers that nailed him instead. He's permanently brain dead."

After heavy diplomatic pressure , the IDF finally agreed to investigate this killing. Turns out it was deliberate after all and a soldier is up on charge (the fact that they caved in here probably had a lot to do with the fact that the soldier is an ethnic Bedouin). Of course no investigation into thousands of other such deaths, nor indeed into the repeated lies, denials and obstructions into the ivestigation in the first place, nor into the soldier's engagement rules or actions of his commanding officers.

[MMMMMM]

This incident actually concerns me more than the one yesterday.

Yaalon offered an explanation of the incident yesterday which sounded fairly plausible. I am withholding judgment on yesterday's occurrence until more confirmed facts come to light.

Today's occurrence seems less justifiable and the explanation less plausible. I shall await more confirmed information before drawing any final conclusions on either event, however.

[Gamblor]

You must be getting great exercise jumping to all of these conclusions. Under what qualifications are you the judge of who is lying and who is telling the truth?

Nevertheless, I'll humour you:

MK Steinitz, today, in the Knesset:

"Something is definitely wrong, but something is even worse with a Palestinian enemy that skewers its own people in the fighting. The terrorist organizations and the Palestinian administration injure Israeli civilians intentionally using rockets and suicide bombers, and if this operation fails, they will target Israeli civilians using Katyusha rockets, as well.

"Furthermore, they are prepared to place their own people and their children into the eye of the fighting in order that there will be Palestinian civilian casualties.

"I am the last to avoid criticizing the army, sometimes even harshly, but you cannot avoid shooting at armed gunmen just because they are surrounding themselves with innocent civilians. I would even say that placing Israeli soldiers at risk in order to do so would in itself be an illegal order."

"We act just as well as any other army in the same situation would, and we are even more cautious, in these respects.

"(Before labelling the operation) We must remember the left wing labeling of the Jenin fighting as a massacre, which became a blood libel that later on was proven to be fictitious. I would strongly advise everyone to remember who is really instigating war crimes in this region, murdering civilians intentionally and placing their own people in the line of fire, just so that they will be injured and killed for the sake of propaganda."

[Gamblor]

A large procession of several hundreds demonstrators, among them gunmen, organized by the Palestinian Authority, left central Rafah along the main road towards IDF forces in Tel-Sultan.

As the crowd, with the gunmen among them, drew near IDF forces, a warning fire of a single missile was fired from a helicopter into an open area, not towards the demonstrators.

In addition, flares were fired in the air to deter the crowd and to prevent endangering the demonstrators. As this did not deter the crowd and they continued to converge on the troops, machine gun fire was opened towards a wall of an abandoned structure along the side of the road and then four tank shells were fired at this abandoned structure.

It is possible that the causalities were a result of the tank fire on the abandoned structure. The details of the incident continue to be investigated.

It should be mentioned that the scene of the incident is an area of combat and an area of frequent exchanges of fire. The road has been rigged with explosive charges planted by the Palestinians. The IDF has not yet cleared the road of these explosives.

At this stage it is difficult to determine the cause of the civilian casualties. The incident is being investigated thoroughly at this time.

The IDF has approached the Palestinians and offered medical assistance, including the evacuation of the casualties to Israeli hospitals.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Under what qualifications are you the judge of who is lying and who is telling the truth?

[/ QUOTE ]
Before accusing people of "lying," it's customary to point out some disagreement over the facts.

[ QUOTE ]
"they are prepared to place their own people and their children into the eye of the fighting in order that there will be Palestinian civilian casualties"

[/ QUOTE ]
Israel invades Gaza to destroy homes. Those that live in those homes protest. When Israel kills the protesters, its the protesters' fault for being in "the eye of the fighting." Hardly likely that one could find a better illustration of the blame-the-victim mentality.

You forgot to mention the corollary (although it's in your post above): when Israel sends troops and tanks and apaches and APC's into Gaza to create an "eye of the fighting," it's a victim of "terrorism."

[Gamblor]

Israel invades Gaza to destroy homes.

Wrong. The Israeli army (not Israel) invades Rafiach (not Gaza) to destroy arms-smuggling tunnels (not homes) dug so as to exit in the middle of houses.

Those that live in those homes protest.

As I'm sure I would, if I was being paid handsomely to host smugglers.

When Israel kills the protesters, its the protesters' fault for being in "the eye of the fighting."

It is the protesters' organizers fault for hiding gunmen within the protesters, and encouraging children to act as scouts to search up ahead for soldiers.

[Chris Alger]

"The Israeli army (not Israel) invades Rafiach [hee hee -- and when someone accuses someone in the army of lying you call it calumny against "the Jews"] invades Rafiach (not Gaza) [they came from Israel and proceeded to Rafah -- the majority spelling -- at the Southern tip of Gaza] to destroy arms-smuggling tunnels (not homes) [What a liar. "Israeli forces demolished more than 80 houses last week in what n what the Army said was a search for weapons smuggling tunnels" (NY Times, today). Didn't find any tunnels, though. Since 2000 The IDF has destroyed some 2,000 houses in Gaza and found only 80 tunnels (and another 600 in the W. Bank, where they don't even pretend to be looking for tunnels) . "Arms-smuggling" tunnels? "Clothes, cigarettes, alcohol, vehicle parts and prostitutes have been smuggled through the tunnels for many years." (Ha'aretz, today).]

It is the protesters' organizers fault for hiding gunmen within the protesters, and encouraging children to act as scouts to search up ahead for soldiers.

The IDF doesn't even pretend that it was being fired upon or that it was targeting "gunmen." Once again, you're spinning fantasy in a dsick effort to apologize the murder of children (it now appearing that all those killed were children, although some body parts are still being assembled). "A reporter who was present saw two young men with semi-automatic rifles standing on the sidewalk at the rear of the marchers' route, but did not see any guns or other weapons brandished among hundreds of protesters." NY Times, today.

[Gamblor]

hee hee -- and when someone accuses someone in the army of lying you call it calumny against "the Jews"]

No, I don't. When someone accuses Israel as a nation, I call it calumny against "the Jews". To your kind, they are one and the same.

they came from Israel and proceeded to Rafah -- the majority spelling -- at the Southern tip of Gaza

"Rafah" does not equal Gaza.

Didn't find any tunnels, though. Since 2000 The IDF has destroyed some 2,000 houses in Gaza and found only 80 tunnels (and another 600 in the W. Bank, where they don't even pretend to be looking for tunnels) . "Arms-smuggling" tunnels? "Clothes, cigarettes, alcohol, vehicle parts and prostitutes have been smuggled through the tunnels for many years." (Ha'aretz, today).]

Tunnels (http://www1.idf.il/SIP_STORAGE/DOVER/files/0/31230.pdf)

The IDF doesn't even pretend that it was being fired upon or that it was targeting "gunmen."

No it doesn't, and neither did I, here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=694911&page=0&view=co llapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1). I claimed, that gunmen are present in the area as well as within the crowd. Furthermore, I claimed that Palestinian leaders purposefully place civilians in the field of combat, at high risk to their lives, so that reporters will report back about Palestinian civilian deaths and they will elicit world sympathy for their cause. But what did you expect from terrorist organizations? You thought they would abide by some moral code? That they would fight fair? That they would consider lying unethical?

Official Statement from the IDF:

Today's incident in Rafah is a very grave incident and the IDF expresses deep sorrow over the loss of civilian lives.

At no point in this incident was intentional fire opened in the direction of civilians.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/EC7DC9AF-B689-4D71-877B-8FC138A93E7F/0/rafahmay19a.jpg A large procession of several hundreds demonstrators, among them gunmen, organized by the Palestinian Authority, left central Rafah along the main road towards IDF forces in Tel-Sultan.

As the crowd, with the gunmen among them, drew near IDF forces, a warning fire of a single missile was fired from a helicopter into an open area, not towards the demonstrators.

In addition, flares were fired in the air to deter the crowd and to prevent endangering the demonstrators. As this did not deter the crowd and they continued to converge on the troops, machine gun fire was opened towards a wall of an abandoned structure along the side of the road and then four tank shells were fired at this abandoned structure.

It is possible that the causalities were a result of the tank fire on the abandoned structure. The details of the incident continue to be investigated.

It should be mentioned that the scene of the incident is an area of combat and an area of frequent exchanges of fire. The road has been rigged with explosive charges planted by the Palestinians. The IDF has not yet cleared the road of these explosives.

At this stage it is difficult to determine the cause of the civilian casualties. The incident is being investigated thoroughly at this time.

The IDF has approached the Palestinians and offered medical assistance, including the evacuation of the casualties to Israeli hospitals.

[B-Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Probably more to do with the wall etc rather than the assassinations.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case I am sure you have changed your mind and now agree that the fence is justified, since it has saved lives and will continue to do so, right?

[fluff]

[ QUOTE ]
Israel invades Gaza to destroy homes.

Wrong. The Israeli army (not Israel) invades Rafiach

[/ QUOTE ]

I try really hard to read your side of the argument over these issues, but this is just absurd.

It's like after getting a bar fight someone telling a police officer, "No sir, I didn't hit him, my fist did!"

[Chris Alger]

1. I never, ever equate or synonomize Israel or its government with Jews. As for you doing the same, you're weird qualifier "the nation of Israel" is belied by your post of yesterday where you accused me of trashing Jews when I had merely criticized Israel.

2. You're "tunnels" cartoon doesn't support your lie that Israel was in Gaza only to destroy tunnels, "not homes." It doesn't even contradict my statement that homes were destroyed despite the absence of any tunnel.

3. You're very adept at cutting and pasting IDF statements. The argument that one should always accept the IDF at face value while dismissing everything written by ARabs becasue of their cultural/biological propensity to lie about "everything" is about as clever as you get.

[Gamblor]

It's like after getting a bar fight someone telling a police officer, "No sir, I didn't hit him, my fist did!"

I think this view is what makes racists racist.

If a black man shoots you, do you tell the cops that "The Blacks" did it? Or that the guy who did it was black? Obviously the latter because it was not his skin colour that shot you, it was him.

Furthermore,

The IDF and the government work together just like the American government and the US Army work together, but they are not one and the same.

The government gives the army a mandate. In this case, it is to stop the arms smuggling that enables Palestinians to fire rockets at Israeli cities.

The army decides how they will do it. If they can do it from Tel Aviv, then they'll do it from Tel Aviv. The government can allow or prevent certain actions and investigate actions, but it does not tell the army what to do on a day to day basis. Thus, did all of Israel go into Gaza? Well, yes, if this were 1967. But last Thursday, all that went into Gaza was a joint group of Golani brigade and Givati brigade soldiers to

a) destroy a mortar factory in the Gaza City neighbourhood of Zeitoun
b) rescue the body parts of fallen comrades
c) shut down arms tunnels that gave the supposed civilians means to fire a rocket launcher at an APC.

That's what democracy is: the separation of military and government. If I were in Syria, or Egypt, or Jordan, or any Arab dictatorship, you would be right. Any army action is by extension the government's action.

It's semantics, but how do you like me saying America went and slaughtered 10,000 innocent Iraqis? America didn't do that. Their soldiers did.

Semantics perhaps, but I suppose they only apply to you.

[jokerswild]

I agree with you on this point. The Sharon government is not promoting peace.

[fluff]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this view is what makes racists racist.

If a black man shoots you, do you tell the cops that "The Blacks" did it? Or that the guy who did it was black? Obviously the latter because it was not his skin colour that shot you, it was him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, thanks. That was indeed all the proof that I needed to know that you are indeed insane.

Your analogy is completely off. A single black man does not act on behalf (or with mandate) of black people, so clearly you can't say "The Blacks" shot someone. It was a man, acting alone. Yet you yourself said that the Israeli army acts with mandate from the Israeli government.

Anyway, I won't bother with the rest of your rebuttal, nor will I bother with any future posts by you, since clearly that is a waste of time.

[nicky g]

Israel can build all the fences, security areas, buffer zones and kite flying parks it wants, for all I care, but it should do it on its side of the border, not kilometres in to the territories. Same goes for Gaza; if Israel is worried about attacks from Gaza it should build a buffer zone on its side of the border with Gaza, not between Gaza and Egypt. Then it could have all the buffer space it wanted without having to demolish large areas of an already vastly overcrowded densely crowded miserable refugee camp at great human cost to everyone, including IDF soldiers, involved. If the Israelis want to waste billions on such temporary solutions rather than addressing the real issues that's up to them, but they have no right to annexe Palestinian land, separate farmers from their crops and families from each other, demolish Palestinina homes and even fence off the West Bank from Jordan to do so etc. The objection to the wall has always been to its route, not to its existence.

[Gamblor]

How many times do you want to go over this?

The "Green Line" represents a cease-fire line between Jordan and Israel.

The Green Line was specifically, in the agreement, stated NOT to form any sort of political border.

The Oslo accords clearly state that any final border is to be determined through negotiations.

Don't let Palestinian propaganda, claiming that somehow THEY have exclusive right to this land get the best of you.

the objection to the wall has always been its route, not its existence

Is that why you called it an "apartheid" wall?

Flipping and flopping between positions whenever it suits you is not good debating practice.

[nicky g]

"The Green Line was specifically, in the agreement, stated NOT to form any sort of political border. "

So what? Neither Israel not Jordan have the right to detrmine the future or self-determination of the West Bank's population.

" Oslo accords clearly state that any final border is to be determined through negotiations. "

The final border. In the meantime Israel should respect the defacto border, which everyone recognises will be the rough guide for any final border should it ever occur in any case, and not prejudice negotiations by effectively annexing (more) large chunks of the West Bank.
Your position seems to be that Israel can do whatever the hell it likes with the West Bank regardless of the wishes of its population until some final status that it has pretty much zero intention of ever negotiating is implemented. Well if ISrael is to have the right to control the West Bank until then, it should in the mean time give those people legal rights as Israeli citizens.

[nicky g]

"the objection to the wall has always been its route, not its existence

Is that why you called it an "apartheid" wall? "

Wherever they put it I think it is a pretty stupid solution. But that isn't my main objection to it; ultimately, that's their decision. Imposing it on others should not be.

[Gamblor]

Neither Israel not Jordan have the right to detrmine the future or self-determination of the West Bank's population.

Including the population that was evicted in 1948, and could finally return in 1967?

And the Americans who want to live there aren't allowed to because they're JEWISH?

Well if ISrael is to have the right to control the West Bank until then, it should in the mean time give those people legal rights as Israeli citizens.

They have legal rights, such as the right to take action in Israeli courts, but not rights such as health care and education. That they must do for themselves.

[nicky g]

Including the population that was evicted in 1948, and could finally return in 1967?"

Going in cirlces here. Those people and their descendants should be allowed to return as part of a solution. However, their numbers are insignificant compared to the number of Palestinians expelled adn compared to teh Palestinina population of those areas adn would not significanrtly affect any self-determination decision, and most of the settlers are not their descendants.

"And the Americans who want to live there aren't allowed to because they're JEWISH? "

Er, no... because they're Americans, and completely unrelated to the communities that had to leave. I've already said I favour a binational state under which all Israelis and Palestinians could live wherever they choose in Israel/Palestine. At the moment I see no reason why some American and Russian fanatics should be allowed to steal and colonise vastly disproportionate amounts of land and resources in areas they have no real connection to (or, in fact even if they did; either way they are not entitled to special treatment) from people who do live there, while no Palestinians are allowed to return to homes they have a much stronger connection to.

[MMMMMM]

Shortly before the Rafah incident, Arafat is publicly calling for Palestinians to utilize terror and reject any compromise that does not include full right of return.

Nicky, the problem is that no matter what Isaael does, Arafat and the terror orgs will never give up their goal of bringing about the "right of return" through force and terror. No two-state solution will be truly accepted by Arafat or Hamas et al. On Palestinian public television, Arafat calls the "right of return" a "sacred and inalienable right" and calls on Palestinians to ""find what strength you have to terrorize your enemy and the enemy of God." He also says peace is possible, but obviously he means only if Israel accepts the "right of return". No doubt this speech is one reason the King of Jordan recently suggested Arafat should step down.

Article: by Khaled Abu Toameh May. 15, 2004

"Invoking a phrase from the Koran, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat on Saturday called on Palestinians to "terrorize" their enemy.

In a televised speech on the 56th anniversary of the "nakba" (the establishment of Israel), Arafat quoted a phrase from the Koran that tells Muslims to "find what strength you have to terrorize your enemy and the enemy of God."

The phrase in the Koran refers to Muslims' wars against pagans. Arafat, however, also signaled that he was ready for peace when he referred to another phrase reading: "If they want peace, then let's have it."

Addressing the Israeli people, Arafat said: "I tell the Israeli people that our hand is extended to making the peace of the brave on this land."

Arafat said that no one in the entire world has the right to make concessions on the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. He also said that the Palestinians would not accept any plan to resettle the refugees elsewhere.

He said in his speech that the Israeli government could not exonerate itself from its moral, political and international responsibility for the tragedy that befell the Palestinian refugees.

"The right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes is a sacred and inalienable right that is internationally protected and endorsed," he said. "This right is heroically defended by the Palestinian people in the face of the Israeli occupation, colonization and against the Apartheid Wall of annexation and expansion and in defense of our Christian and Islamic sanctuaries."

Arafat concluded that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian land is doomed to failure and accused Israel of waging a war of genocide against the Palestinians. He said the Palestinian struggle would continue until the liberation of Jerusalem.

As Arafat was speaking, thousands of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip took to the streets to mark "Nakba Day" by observing a two-minute silence and staging rallies and demonstrations. Senior PA officials and ministers were among the crowds.

During the rallies, Palestinian refugees raised placards with the names of more than 450 Arab villages that used to exist inside Israel before 1948. Many waved Palestinian flags and carried large keys that have become a symbol of the right to return.

In Ramallah, thousands gathered in the city center, waving flags and chanting, "No peace, No stability without the right of return." Children held up placards bearing the names of Arab villages from which their families originated.

Sakher Habash, a senior Fatah official and close aide to Arafat, told the demonstrators that there would never be peace without the establishment of a Palestinian state and the return of the refugees to their original homes.

In Nablus, some 5,000 demonstrators burned a cardboard model of an IDF tank, along with life-sized effigies of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, US President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "We say 'no' to all plans that deny the right of return," the demonstrators shouted.

Similar demonstrations were held in Kalkilya, Tulkarem, Jenin, Hebron and Bethlehem.

In Gaza City, at least 10,000 demonstrators gathered outside the Palestinian Legislative Council offices, carrying pictures of Arafat and keys to what used to be their homes. "The right of return is holy, we will return to our homeland," they chanted. Arafat's top aide, Tayeb Abdel Rahim, was at the head of the procession."
Article on Arafat Speech (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1084599615784&P=1006688055060)

[nicky g]

As for terrorising your enemy, it depends who he means. The Palestinians have a right to "terrorise" occupation and invasion forces. The Palestinians also do have a legally enshrined right to return; nevertheless it is clear that there will have to be be some sort of compromise on the issue. The Geneva accords which involved PA negotiators pretty much threw the entire right away.

Nonetheless, I also think Arafat should probably step down and has a record of saying incredibly unhelfpul things (not to mention his Israeli counterparts, but nevermind). However, a currently crappy political leadership is not an adequate reason to permanently deny people the right to self-determination or legal rights as citizens of any form of state.
I really have to do some work (he says after going back to add stuff /images/graemlins/tongue.gif).

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Just give it a couple days. The middle east never disappoints in this area. Especially after what...

israel did to the palestinians
the palestinians did to israel
israel did to the palestinians
the palestinians did to israel
israel did to the palestinians
the palestinians did to israel
israel did to the palestinians
the palestinians did to israel
israel did to the palestinians
the palestinians did to israel
israel did to the palestinians
the palestinians did to israel
israel did to the palestinians
the palestinians did to israel

etc etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum. It doesn't even matter what is truth and what is lies. The cycle will not break. That's the way everyone over there is so used to it being, that they simply won't ever choose to break the cycle by taking steps themselves to end it.

You may or may not to individually try and argue that I am wrong here, but no doubt the events of the middle east today will prove me right once again.

al

[Gamblor]

Those people and their descendants should be allowed to return as part of a solution. However, their numbers are insignificant compared to the number of Palestinians expelled adn compared to teh Palestinina population of those areas adn would not significanrtly affect any self-determination decision, and most of the settlers are not their descendants.

Those people want no more to return to a Palestinian state than the Arabs want to return to a Jewish State.

We all saw what happens to Jews in Arab states between 1900 and 1948.

The right of return has always been a pretext for elimination of the Jewish state. If you support the right of return, you deny the right of Jews to a refuge-homeland and deny the millenia of persecution they faced.

Would you accept a solution whereby the IDF pulled out of Gaza but the settlers remained? What do you think the outcome of that would be?

[Gamblor]

That's the way everyone over there is so used to it being, that they simply won't ever choose to break the cycle by taking steps themselves to end it

Such as Sharon's disengagement plan?

[nicky g]

Such as Sharon's plan to hold on to the areas he wants and dump the Palestinians in the areas he doesn't want.

[nicky g]

Listen. If those people don't want to live there as par toof an independent Palestinina state, and don;t want to live there as part of a binational state, tehn they don't get to live there. That's up to them.

"We all saw what happens to Jews in Arab states between 1900 and 1948."

Yeah and we saw what happened to Palestinians in Israel in 1948, how Israeli Arabs have been treated ever since and how Palestinians have been treateed by Israel in the territories, Lebanon and elsewhere. The point of a solution is that it gets past this. Given the nature of the problem if noone can get past this and move on there will be no solution, and that if there is no solution noone can get passed this.

[Gamblor]

Such as Sharon's plan to hold on to the areas he wants and dump the Palestinians in the areas he doesn't want.

The Israeli government can't do any right, can it?

[nicky g]

"The right of return has always been a pretext for elimination of the Jewish state. If you support the right of return, you deny the right of Jews to a refuge-homeland and deny the millenia of persecution they faced. "

Don't you think those people would want to go home regardless of whether there was a Jewish state there? That would arguably be a consequence of that happening (depending on how many came back; there is zero chance of a total right of return ever ebing eliminated and the Palestinians have tacitly recognised this) but for the refugees, it clearly isn't their pretext. Maybe it is for some others.

"Would you accept a solution whereby the IDF pulled out of Gaza but the settlers remained? What do you think the outcome of that would be? "

Obviously it would be mayhem. My point is that such matters, such as rights to return on both sides (by the people actually affected and their descndants, not any old lunatic that thinks God gave him that land) should be implemented as part of a final settlement, assuming that settlement isn't a binational state (in which case such agreemetns wouldn't be necessary). Obviously such solutions aren't going to take place overnight. The settlers should not have been put there in the first place; implementations of "rights to return", which are completely bogus for most of the current settlers, should not be the unilateral preserve of Israel.

[nicky g]

C'mon, that is exactly what is happening. Sharon is "leaving" (but imprisoning) areas that have no real value and are becoming security headaches and holding on to blocks and resources that he regards as useful. It's an extremely mild improvement on the current situation but Israel does not have the right to unilaterlally decide who gets what and impose its will on others.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I really dont care to debate it, particularly not with you, because you are obviously bias towards one side, and I have no stake in either side. The fact is, the news will prove me right again today, and tommorow too, and everything else is just hot air (esp. "peace plans").

al

[Gamblor]

Don't you think those people would want to go home regardless of whether there was a Jewish state there?

I think that if the Arab states had accepted the refugees as Canada and the US accepts refugees, there wouldn't be any problem. But the Palestinian Arab population was left there to fester as their anger boiled over. They only want to go home because they have been denied any chance to improve their lives by the Arab states, who indeed can only imagine Arab self-determination in "Arabia".

The settlers should not have been put there in the first place;

They were never put there. They chose to go there. From what I understand, chose isn't a word that comes up often in the Arab world, and the Palestinian refusal to understand this is widely disseminated to the media.

In Israel, it is virtually impossible for the government to force anyone to do anything.

[nicky g]

"I think that if the Arab states had accepted the refugees as Canada and the US accepts refugees, there wouldn't be any problem. "

Refugees are supposed to go back eventually. Kosovan refugees went back to Kosovo, Bosinain refugees went back to Bosnia, Rwandan refugees went back to Rwanda etc. Some will inevitably integrate and stay but to ask that of hundreds of thousands of people is ridiculous. Neither the US or Canada ever had to accept influxes of refugees proportionately as big as what Lebanon had to deal with, for example.

[Gamblor]

Israel does not have the right to unilaterlally decide who gets what and impose its will on others.

Of course, the Arabs should get it all, right?

After all, it's an occupation, right? No need for negotiations?

Either way, think about this:

If the entire West Bank of Yehuda and Shomron were handed over to the Arabs, how long do you think it would take them to build an army, and who would have the strategic advantage, Arabs or Israelis, in a situation where a full Arab Army is in the heart of another nation?

If the Palestinians allowed Jordan, Iraq, Syria, etc. to station troops on their land, how long do you think it would take until Tel Aviv was flattened? 5, maybe 6 minutes?

[nicky g]

About forever. Israel has an overwhelming military advantage over the Arabs, and it would reinvade instantly if that ever started to take place. It is simply not going to happen. Furthermore, nearly all Arab countries have signalled their willingness to abide by an agreed negotiated settlement.

[nicky g]

"Of course, the Arabs should get it all, right?

After all, it's an occupation, right? No need for negotiations? "

That is exactly the opposite of what I have said about a thousand times recently. I think it should be shared, based on negotiations. It is you and Sharon that thinks Israel should get what it chooses, without negotiations.

[Gamblor]

It is you and Sharon that thinks Israel should get what it chooses, without negotiations.

I think Israel gets what it needs to protect itself from Arab invaders.

All the money and military equipment in the world isn't going to help if you're enemy is already in the house.

[Gamblor]

Israel has an overwhelming military advantage over the Arabs, and it would reinvade instantly if that ever started to take place.

How long does it take to mobilize an army? It takes the IDF 72 hours to call up full reserves. It takes about three minutes for a missile to travel from Jenin to Tel Aviv.

Furthermore, nearly all Arab countries have signalled their willingness to abide by an agreed negotiated settlement.

hehehahahahawhawhaw.... hehe... he... Whew. Good one.

Suppose this beautiful world of sunshine and lollipops and rainbows exists? What do we do about the ones that don't?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Arafat is publicly calling for Palestinians to utilize terror

[/ QUOTE ]
Where did he say "utilize terror?"

Why are you trying to use a quotation from 1300-year-old scripture to evoke suicide bombings against civilians?

[ QUOTE ]
and reject any compromise that does not include full right of return.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't find this in your article. Where is it?

[MMMMMM]

"Where did he say "utilize terror?""

excerpt: In a televised speech on the 56th anniversary of the "nakba" (the establishment of Israel), Arafat quoted a phrase from the Koran that tells Muslims to "find what strength you have to terrorize your enemy and the enemy of God.""

Chris, are you seriously trying to claim the above phrase by Arafat is not an enjoinment for Palestinians to utilize terror?

"Why are you trying to use a quotation from 1300-year-old scripture to evoke suicide bombings against civilians?"


I'm not; Arafat was. See above, see the posted article.


[ QUOTE ]
"...and reject any compromise that does not include full right of return."

"I can't find this in your article. Where is it?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I said that's obviously what Arafat meant. And the Palestinian crowd apparently interpreted Arafat's statements exactly the same way I do, as their their quoted responses near the bottom of the articly clearly indicate.

Stop playing legalistic word games, Chris: you, I, and the Palestinian crowd all know damn well exactly what Arafat meant. And this time he was so explicit that nobody--not even you--can play word games to deny his meaning.

[Chris Alger]

The passage from the Qu'ran to which you refer of course says nothing about "suicide bombings" or Israel or Palestinians or attacking civilians but finding the strength to fight back against one's "enemies." It's a quotation it's ancient scripture that's "frequently invoked by Islamic leaders today to encourage strength in times of conflict." Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/136/world/Israeli_air_force_fires_missil:.shtml). There are similarly dozens of references to "terror" and "terrorize" in the Bible, including many uses of the term by God Himself. {"I will send My terror ahead of you, and throw into confusion all the people among whom you come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you." Exodus 23:27).

Since Arafat didn't actually use the words you falsely imparted to him, which is it:

1. God and any that quote the phrase above have endorsed suicide bombing? Or

2. Arafat speaks to you in a secret code that only the two of you understand?

[ QUOTE ]
"I said that's obviously what Arafat meant." [Arafat rejecting any compromise that does not include full right of return]

[/ QUOTE ]
Fine. Which words make it "obvious" that Arafat will reject any compromise on right of return, or is he speaking to you in secret code again?

[MMMMMM]

Look, why don't you forget about my words if you have such a goddamn problem with them, and instead focus on ARAFAT'S WORDS in his speech which are posted in the article, OK? Then come back with your BS about how Arafat's words aren't advocating terror.

[Gamblor]

You don't see the difference between a God telling you to terrorize your enemy, and a God telling you that you should let him do it for you?

[MMMMMM]

And how about a political leader quoting that passage: clearly, it is a BLATANT incitement to terrorism by Yasser Terrorfat.

[Chris Alger]

If it was "blatant" you wouldn't have seen the need to alter it by pretending that "terrorize your enemies" means "terrorize everyone" and that the Qu'ran endorses suicide bombing.

[Cyrus]

Saw Dubya the other night on TV pleading with Sharon to "exercise restraint" -- what a pathetic and shameful sight!

This is the man that was supposed to deliver peace to the area, with his much-lauded Roadmap ? Why is he not bringing up the issue of even that wretched plan? Where is the indignation of the United States when Sharon ethnically cleanses (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/20/mideast/index.html) the villages and the refugee camps, characterizing any Palestinian who dares raise a gun to stop his house been demolished a "terrorist"? Where is the leader of the Free World and where is his leadership? Where is the oft-invoked "assertiveness" of American power?

But I might be on the wrong track completely. Perhaps American credibility is currently reaching new heights around the world. Those other nations, such as Europe's or the Arab world's, or the world's in general, sure look up to the U.S. now. Excuse me for troubling your TV slumber, fellas.

[MMMMMM]

I didn't try to alter anything: I just thought I was summarizing things rather neatly. Jeez, picky picky picky. Are you actually trying to claim Arafat was NOT trying to incite terror attacks with that remark?

Arafat quotes a passage to Palestinians enjoining them to "terrorize your enemies"...and you quibble over the exact words? What the hell do you think he is urging them to do, quoting to them that injunction? Sing Kumbaya?

[nicky g]

Who are your enemies? Enemy soldiers or "enemy" civilians? It's an important distinction.

[ACPlayer]

Does anyone know that the recent major spate of terrorist attacks started after Sharon took office?

Quite calm before that. Perhaps Sharon should ....

[ACPlayer]

To be more accurate, the Sharon government is actively avoiding peace. Peace means the difficult political process of figuring out what to do with the people. Continued murdering of children and perhaps the stupid, disgusting Arab Snots will swim across the river and an ethnically (OK, religiously) pure State of Israel can exist all the way to the Jordan river.

[ACPlayer]

The Israeli government can't do any right, can it?

By jove he's got it!!

[ACPlayer]

All muslims. They are coming to pour hot oil down his throat!

[nicky g]

"How long does it take to mobilize an army? It takes the IDF 72 hours to call up full reserves. It takes about three minutes for a missile to travel from Jenin to Tel Aviv. "

Plenty of Arab states could hit Israel with a missile already; Syria, Jordan or Egypt for example. Why they would want to provoke a nuclear response that would destory them is beyond me. The West Bank would be an ineffective buffer to a massively unlikely invasion, but regardless, Israel does not have the right to deprive people of sovereign rights for the purposes of using them as a security buffer against attack. ALso, what about the settlers? Isn't a bit callous to be using an area you've filled with your own people as such a buffer? What's the point of putting up a buffer zone between you and you're enemies if you;'re going to move into it?

[Gamblor]

Does anyone know that the recent major spate of terrorist attacks started after Sharon took office?

They in fact did. As the common media distortion goes, it took Likud leader Ariel Sharon's visit (http://edition.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/09/28/jerusalem.violence.02/) to the holiest site in Judaism to start the terrorism.

Ehud Barak was in power, and Sharon was MK in the opposition.

This of course, ignores the fact that the intifada had been planned for weeks prior to the visit.

Arafat had begun to plan it when he walked away from the Camp David peace talks.

[Gamblor]

ALso, what about the settlers? Isn't a bit callous to be using an area you've filled with your own people as such a buffer? What's the point of putting up a buffer zone between you and you're enemies if you;'re going to move into it?

The settlers are separate from any military installations.

The military positions are controlled by the department of Defense, and the settlers basically control themselves through the Yesha council.

[nicky g]

Actually the major terror attacks did start after Sharon became Prime Minister. The intifada started under Barak but the bombing campaign inside Israel, and the return of the suicide bomber, came after Sharon returned to office. Not to say that Barak didn't bear an enormous amount of responsibility.

[nicky g]

Yes but they're still in the area that's meant to act as a buffer. They're as close to Jordan as a Palestinian state would be to Israel. So the buffer idea makes no sense.

[Gamblor]

Of course Barak did: he was the one that offered to surrender at Camp David.

The terrorists caught the scent of blood after the withdrawal from Lebanon, and it turned into a piranha feeding frenzy.

[Gamblor]

It's the river, stupid.

It's very difficult for tanks to cross a raging Jordan.

It's a fun river to kayak though. Not that anyone gets to anymore.

[nicky g]

Actually he never made any offer. The commonly held belief that the Israelis tabled an offer and Arafat rejected it is a myth.

Anyway, I have no sympathy for Barak and I'm not trying to defend him, although obviously our mutual dislike of the man stems from contrasting reasons.

[nicky g]

"It's the river, stupid."

Hmmm. Yesterday you were talking about missiles aimed at Tel Aviv. Can missiles not swim?

The Jordan is hardly raging.

Israel would repel an Arab tank attack in about thirty seconds.

[nicky g]

Here's an idea; instead of wasting all that money on the wall, why doesn't Israel build a canal along the green line.

[Gamblor]

The Jordan is hardly raging.

In the north it is.

Israel would repel an Arab tank attack in about thirty seconds.

How many Israelis would die in those 30 seconds?

From 1948-1982, whenever Israel showed any weakness, Arabs attacked. Israel must show that it's stronger than the Arabs are, or else we'll descend right back to 1973.

[Gamblor]

Actually he never made any offer. The commonly held belief that the Israelis tabled an offer and Arafat rejected it is a myth.

What's it like to be insane?

President Clinton, and others who participated, put the blame for the failure of hte talks squarely on Arafat and the Palestinian negotiators. In 2001, Clinton told guests at a party at the Manhattan apartment of former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke that Arafat called to bid him farewell three days before he left office. "You are a great man," Arafat said. "The hell I am," Clinton said he responded. "I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one."

camp david, 2000 (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php)

[Gamblor]

Here's an idea; instead of wasting all that money on the wall, why doesn't Israel build a canal along the green line.



Way more expensive.

The "wall (http://www.idf.il/newsite/english/fence-eng.wmv)" is a chain link fence.

[nicky g]

From memory: Tanya Reinhardt's book on the conflict quotes US diplomats who were present at the talks saying that there was no formal offer at Camp David. At Taba an unoffical offer was put forward but then withdrawn before the Palestinians had made a decision. Clinton's anger was that the Palestinians would not agree on a range of negotiating positions that would have allowed the Israelis to come out with an "offer". I'll try to type out the relevant section when I get home

If Bill Clinton thinks forcing the Palestinians to accept a series of Bantustans with no sovereignty over borders, air, resources or any part of Jerusalem would have made hima great man, that's his problem.

[nicky g]

"The "wall" is a chain link fence"

Sure looks like it:


http://www.mediamonitors.net/images/bigisraelswall2.jpg

[nicky g]

"Way more expensive."

Maybe, but much more useful in the long run.

[Gamblor]

If Bill Clinton thinks forcing the Palestinians to accept a series of Bantustans with no sovereignty over borders, air, resources or any part of Jerusalem would have made hima great man, that's his problem.

Just like Israel's destruction by Arafat was supposed to come in stages, so too must peace.

[Gamblor]

Less than 5% of the fence's path is actually cement wall (only around Jerusalem and Kfar Sava), and only in places that have been the targets of regular sniper fire on civilians in the last 4 years.

But I know that next time this comes up, you'll be calling it a wall again, so I don't see the point.

[nicky g]

This was supposed to be a final settlement. If the Palestinians had have asked for more down the road they'd probably have been refused it, and certainly have no say in it, and told they were negotiating in bad faith.

[nicky g]

The point of the barrier is that people can't go through it, whether it's a wall or a fence. It will still be militarised, with a military secuirty road running down the middle, and snipers to prevent people corssing it. otherwise there's be no point in buildign it. It will still separate Palestinain families from each other, people from their work etc etc.

[Gamblor]

It will still separate Palestinain families from each other, people from their work etc etc.

You forgot the biggest and most important etc. of them all:

Palestinian terrorists from their targets.

[nicky g]

So would a barrier on the green line; more effectively in fact.

[Gamblor]

How exactly would a Green Line barrier protect Ariel?

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
Nicky: "Actually he never made any offer. The commonly held belief that the Israelis tabled an offer and Arafat rejected it is a myth."

Gamblor: "What's it like to be insane?"

[/ QUOTE ]
You source for Barak's alleged "offer", an Israeli propaganda website, admits that no "details" have been "made public." In fact, there exists no text or map of any offer Barak made at Camp David because Barak never made any offer, hardly surprising given Barak's refusal to negotiate directly or even meet with Arafat after the photographers went away (they sat at the same table during one dinner but Barak refused to speak to him). In other words, the government of Israel refuses to confirm any of the widespread propaganda claims that it offered any of the commonly described "beathtaking" or "stunning" concessions at Camp David, a circumstance with few if any precedents in international diplomacy.

You propaganda site instead sets forth a list of purported terms that it claims to have gleaned from anonymous "media reports" that it fails to cite and are therefore impossible to verfify, but which you apparently accept as gospel. You therefore contend that it is "insane" for anyone to use common standards of evidence and verifiability when faced with pro-Israel propaganda.

What a surprise.

Your source's omissions, however, prove that it can't be taken seriously. Instead of describing the specific objections of the Palestinian negotiators to Israel's non-negotiable terms, your source simply neglects to mention either these terms or Palestinian objections to them altogether.

Israel's demands at Camp David included: (1) any "Palestinian state" would be subject to Israeli military occupation for up to 25 years; (2) any "Palestinian state" would leave Israel in control over Palestine's right of self-defense, diplomacy, water, airspace or borders; (3) the West Bank portion of any "Palestinian state" would be cut into three pieces with Israel retaining ultimate control over access and movements between them; (4) purported "Palestinian control" in illegally occupied East Jerusalem (your site is careful not to say sovereignty) would remain subject to Israeli sovereignty over all of East Jerusalem except small outlying villages; (5) all major settlement blocks in the West Bank would be annexed to Israel, limiting the "Palestinian state" to about 73% of the West Bank until Israel decided at some unspecified time to cede additional territory (this is how your site gets away with saying "95% of the West Bank"); and (6) Israel would retain political sovereignty over all Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem, leaving the Palestinians with only nominal administrative powers (which your site calls "religious sovereignty"); (7) limiting any "right of return" of refugees to "family reunification," even though virtually all such families have been reunited, therefore effectively destroying an inalienable right under international law, reiterated cognized annually by the UN for more than 50 years.

These are what Israel's defenders variously describe as miraculous, courageous, breathtaking, etc. "concessions" from which the ungrateful bloodthirsty Palestinians simply "walked away."

[Gamblor]

You source for Barak's alleged "offer", an Israeli propaganda website, admits that no "details" have been "made public."

And I'm supposed to take your electronicintifada links seriously? Throwing out "propaganda" when independent, non-government-affiliated Californian historians conceived and created the website makes you look fairly foolish. Especially their inclusion of non-partisan factual links on every assertion they make. At the same time, accusation that full details on this topic have not been disclosed is minor compared to the outright libel that accompanies anti-Zionist websites.

You therefore contend that it is "insane" for anyone to use common standards of evidence and verifiability when faced with pro-Israel propaganda.

According to Ha'aretz of Mar 29, 2003, you're a total liar, and even a staunch Arabist as Prince Bandar bin Sultan thinks so too:

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, does not mention the right of return in an interview with Elsa Walsh in The New Yorker (March 24, 2003). In the interview, the ambassador attacks Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat in the sharpest tone. He refers to a meeting between Arafat and president Bill Clinton in January 2001, at which Bandar was pressuring the Palestinian leader to accept Clinton's proposals. This offer, Bandar says, gave the Palestinians 97 percent of the territories, all of Jerusalem - excluding the Jewish and Armenian quarters and the right of Jews to pray at the Temple Mount - and $30 billion in a "compensation fund."

Pressuring Arafat, Bandar tells him: You won't get anything better. Bandar asks whether the PA chairman would prefer Ariel Sharon to Barak - in light of the upcoming elections in Israel - and then he presents Arafat with an ultimatum: If you do not accept the Clinton offer, this means "we go to war"; no Arab state will rally to support you.

When Arafat does not contact Bandar after his meeting with Clinton - contrary to their agreement - the ambassador waits for three hours and goes to Arafat's hotel to meet him. Arafat lies through his teeth and does not tell the Saudi ambassador that he refused the Clinton offer, but Bandar recognizes the look on the faces of the Palestinian aides and knows the truth. Despite his promises to Bandar, Arafat refused the generous offer of the president, and Bandar unloaded his rage. But he did not make his knowledge public, fearing that he would look like "Barak's defense attorney."

In Clinton's own words (http://www.state.gov/www/regions/nea/000727_clinton_tv.html)

This offer is still an offer by the victorious to the conquered, something virtually unprecedented in the history of warfare.

Just because it does not satisfy Palestinian demands fully, does not make it any less generous. Arafat remained at Square One throughout negotiations - it is not a rejection of an offer that was charged of Arafat, it was the refusal to negotiate in the first place!

Nevertheless, to negotiate with the defeated enemy of a war is generous enough. What is so "breathtaking" is the fact that Israel dealt with the terrorists at all.

Would you care to postulate what the Arab offer to the Israelis might have been had they won any of the previous wars?

[nicky g]

Ariel is an illegal settlement that should never have been built in the first place. If it wants a wall, it should build one around itself (I imagine it has), not around the Palestinians.

[MMMMMM]

The Palestinian terrorists consider their "enemies" to be every Jew in Israel. They have previously announced that they will make no distinction as to age, sex, civilian status, etc.

Why do you ask?

[nicky g]

Is that who Arafat meant in his statement? Maybe it is, but it's not a "nit-picking" distinction; it's fundamental. If Sharon said Israel should terrorise its enemies would you assume he meant all Palestinians or just militants?

[Gamblor]

Considering Sharon endorses reparations to innocent Arabs whose houses have been demolished (as opposed to willful conspirators in terror) I'd say the answer is plainly obvious.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
He refers to a meeting between Arafat and president Bill Clinton in January 2001, at which Bandar was pressuring the Palestinian leader to accept Clinton's proposals. This offer, Bandar says, gave the Palestinians 97 percent of the territories, all of Jerusalem - excluding the Jewish and Armenian quarters and the right of Jews to pray at the Temple Mount - and $30 billion in a "compensation fund."

[/ QUOTE ]
You apparently don't even read what you write. This article refers to the Clinton proposal of January 2001, not a "Barak offer" at Camp David six months earlier, as you claimed above. Both sides sought to clarify the Clinton proposal, which was delivered orally with key particualrs left to be negotiated. The PA requested clarifications which were never forthcoming because Israel unilaterally broke off all negotiatins. Arafat later made clear his acceptance of Clinton's basic outline. Both sides negotiated it at Taba the following month, signing a joint declaration that they were making progress. Barak, however, nullified any Israeli offer or acceptance of any plan on his way out of office in letters to heads of state worldwide. Sharon refused to consider any proposal and has refused all negotiations with Palestinians. This is what the Zionist propaganda machine defines as "Arafat refusing to negotiate" or "make counteroffers." Further, Prince Bandar's characterization of the Clinton proposal is erroneous.

[Gamblor]

Sharon refused to consider any proposal and has refused all negotiations with Palestinians.

... until the terrorism stopped. To negotiate under terrorist fire is to appease the terrorists, which violates any and all principles upon which the country (and yours) was founded.

This is what the Zionist propaganda machine defines as "Arafat refusing to negotiate" or "make counteroffers." Further, Prince Bandar's characterization of the Clinton proposal is erroneous.

Oh, the Zionist propaganda machine? I get it. There is great incentive for American Jews to make up lies about Israel and risk raising the ire of Jew-haters like yourself, alienating themselves from the rest of their country (and the world at large), and somehow make all of the cemetery desecrations, school bombings, and Jew-beatings somehow justified. Seems to me American Jews would be best served if they bought into the Palestinian propaganda machine.

You forget, Israel has everything to lose, and the Arabs everything to gain.

Nonetheless, the January 2001 talks served as a reminder, at least for Clinton, of who really is making efforts at appeasing the terrorists.

That the Palestinians can keep declaring war, continue to lose, and then demand concessions in exchange for a temporary peace, which amounts to suing for peace, which is exactly what the Al-Aqsa Intifada was intended to be: only this time, they would convince the world (and people such as yourself) to join their side by encouraging the martyrdom of thousands of children.