Palestinian standard statement: how do you read it?

[StSanta]

I think Groucho said it first.

Who's Groucho?

Wiat, it's one of those stoog things right?

Other than that, interesting thread. There's some disagreement about who's to blame but there sems to be a general understanding now that with the current leadership in place, nothing can be done. And part of the population in both areas don't want anything to be done.

Barak bent backwards so much he lost his post. The next PM isn't likely to do so. The Palestinians should have gone for the compromise when they had the chance. Hopefully there'll be another one.

[ViFF]

Nope, there will be war, and it will be bloody as hell.

[Thud]

The Palestinianians should have gone for a deal with Barak? Well, they made a deal with Rabin, and as soon he and his temp. replacement Peres were gone Netanyahu immediately reversed all measures taken to comply with Oslo. Don't you think they have the right to be a little suspicious about any and all agreement with the Israelis. Let's face it, if not for the largely Israeli caused demise of Oslo the Palestinian Auth. probably would have accepted the package Barak offered them, though the Israelis did not compromise that much, they did so with Rabin after all.

Sadly any chance of peace has gone since Sharon rose to power and probably will be succeeded by netanyahu, who is probably more of an extremist than Mullah Omar and Saddam rolled into one with a touch of you know who, and Yasser arafat has lost the authority and support needed for forcing through a peace compromise with the Palestinian people. This will roll on for a few decades till anyone will step in (i.e. UN, US or both)

[bounder]

Originally posted by john9001
in the USA, native americans have the same rights as every one else, in some cases they have even more rights.

Shame there are so few of them left to enjoy these lovely rights tho
oh and I almost forgot

Ripsnort & Geography ? ROTFLMFAO

[Nashwan]

That right is about as fuzzy as they come, and not one of the permanent members of the security counsel want to enforce that one.

Here is a short list of reasons why:
China=Tibet
Russia=Tchecnya (have NO idea how to spell that in English)
US=native americans
UK=Northern Ireland
France=French Guyana, Bikini atoll etc

I don't know about the others, but the US has nothing to fear from native American self determination, and Northern Ireland already has self determination. A large majority wish to remain part of the UK.

Water rights
Status of Jerusalem
Right of Palestinian refugees to return
Right of Jewish settlers to live where they live now.>>

I think Barak had offered the PA what they claimed to want on all of these except #3.

Barak offered the Palestinians limited control over some Arab areas of East Jerusalem,  but no sovereignty over the area.

He agreed to the right of return of around 100,000 refugees.

Water rights were to remain with Israel, and the Palestinians get an increased "quota"

Almost all the Jewish settlers would remain in place, with some very odd borders drawn up to encompass them.

Sharon has ruled out negotiations with the Palestinians until some undefined date in the future, and has made great efforts to stiffle any political contacts that did take place.

The new Labor party (2nd largest party in Israel) leader, Mitzna,  is promising immediate negotiations, and a 1 year deadline for them to succeed, before a unilateral Israeli pull-out from most of the West Bank and Gaza.

The only hope for peace is that things can't continue as they are idefinately. Sharon has promised security, but presided over the largest number of attacks in Israel's history. The Israeli economy is in great difficulty, and the cost of keeping the settlements means cuts in the health, education, social security and defence budgets.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nashwan
I don't know about the others, but the US has nothing to fear from native American self determination, and Northern Ireland already has self determination. A large majority wish to remain part of the UK.

Yes, interesting isn't it?

The Irish lose at Kinsale and a few years later the Scots are pouring in to the Ulster "Plantation".

You pump enough Scotsmen into Northern Ireland over a century or three and the next thing you know they're calling it "home".

But hey, it was a long time ago and you stole it fair and square by force of arms, so it's OK now.

Same deal with Native Americans here, right?

The Israelis are just late to the party. Stealing land by force of arms is no longer fashionable. Ask Saddam about Kuwait, for instance. There has to be at least a century or two of age on the act before it's "OK". Just ask Boroda about Chechnya.

[Nashwan]

There has to be at least a century or two of age on the act before it's "OK".

Yes, there does.

Compensating populations who were removed centuries ago, at the expense of those who live there now, isn't right.

You can't solve an ancient injustice with a modern injustice.

[Toad]

So, if the Israelis can get away with their massive land grab all will be forgiven by the rest of the morally superior world in about 2200-2300 right?

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Eagler
score

Finland 2 = support killing children on buses, schools, women at markets, teenagers at dance halls

after all Israel is just like Nazi Germany

I think our Fin friends are alittle confusion as to which side they should compare the Nazis to....

It's quite amazing how far you've made assumptions based on one sentence I gave, where isn't told anything of my personal opinions in the matter.
I only gave another logical assumption to think about.

I suggest you take that back, since it's all made up by yourself alone.

[Staga]

Oh I did left Eaglers post on its own, wasn't worth of replying

[blitz]

Ahoi STSanta

1. Nazi- Germany killed 6 mill jews + forced most others to
    leave europe.

2. The western countries felt guilty after the war because they
    left they jews all alone 1933- 1945.

3. So western countries gave land to the jews to have their
    own country.

4. So far so good. Only problem was that land already
    belonged to someone else- the palastinians.

5.Who can ever tell the difference between a terrorist and a
   freedom fighter?
   If Germany were evaded by Denmark and
   the danish occupants would bring their families over here after a
   fictional war any guerrilla group would target that civilians
   sooner or later because they don't have the force to really
   engage the enemy forces.

6.  Point 1-5 doesn't mean I like the way palestinian groups attack
    israelian civilians but i sure dislike the israelian politics either.

  blitz

[Nashwan]

So, if the Israelis can get away with their massive land grab all will be forgiven by the rest of the morally superior world in about 2200-2300 right?

Yes. Imagine the situation in 2300.

10 million Israelis live in Israel, including the West Bank and Gaza. They haven't stolen any land, they aren't intimidating Arabs off their land, rationing their water, shooting people who break curfew, etc.

Their parents didn't even do that, nor their grandparents, maybe their great grandparents. How can you compensate Palestinians, who have lived for several generations in Jordan and Egypt, by giving them the West Bank and Gaza, when that land is full of Israelis who have done nothing wrong?

The situation now is that the West Bank and Gaza are full of Palestinians who are being driven off their land, denied basic human rights, adequate water, access to medical care etc, in order to make room for Israeli settlers who wish to move in to the area at the expense of the indigenous population.

Almost every country in the world is largely inhabited by an ethnic group who invaded and ethnically cleansed the previous population. It's not right by todays standards, but trying to change things back to the way things were hundreds of years ago would be worse. That doesn't mean it's right to carry on invading and ethnically cleansing countries.

[mrfish]

after the roman conquest of judea, jews were scattered all over the world but thousands of years later never managed to assimilate anywhere - instead trying to maintain their 'nation within a nation' thing until they could get israel back. this was exeplified by baron de rothschild imo who despite his power chose to be "a jew among kings" rather than "a king among jews" as the saying goes.  

this didn't start in 1948- zionism really took hold in the late 1800's. jewish fanatics started advocating any means possible to get zion back. they've been trying to force isreal into being an exclusively jewish state since day one- conning the arabs out of land isn't new it just happened on a grand scal since '48.

WWII just gave them the sympathy spin they needed to make their lobby more effective and to get world powers to back them with force in their conquest. that sad face and the 6 million dead story has kept people quiet and  in line ever since -

if you can't see the creation if israel as an extension of zionist ideology of the late 19th century then i don't know what to tell you other than turn off msnbc and pick up a book.

as for st santa's specific question, "do you not read this as an implicit or even direct support for the terrorists attacks? And, if so, would anything short of a total withdrawal satisfy the PLO? "

i read it as political roadkill from a politician-  but common sense tells me of course they support terrorist attacks and as long as the west bank is occupied they'll at least have some support-

once the israelis backed out they'd have to stop the attacks because what would they argue then? they won't get all their land back but they can at least get out the ghetto and form their own little crappy smelly country. the israeli's likewise should be happy with the land they stole and get over it -

[Thrawn]

Isreal is ignoring UN relolutions, just like Iraq time.  Guess the US and Britain should invade.  

[Toad]

Originally posted by Nashwan
Almost every country in the world is largely inhabited by an ethnic group who invaded and ethnically cleansed the previous population.

[/b]

Oh yes, indeed. I agree. So who shall cast the first stone?

It's not right by todays standards, but trying to change things back to the way things were hundreds of years ago would be worse. That doesn't mean it's right to carry on invading and ethnically cleansing countries.

Oh yes, indeed. I agree. Not only is it not right by today's standards, it wasn't right by any standards at any time.

They just got away with it, that's all. By force of arms. There was no "UN", no "League of Nations" or "international community" to turn to for succor. Either you triumphed by arms or you were enslaved by arms.

It isn't right and it NEVER was right. They just got away with more before WW2.