Dave Kersting: Peeling Away Layers of Zionist Lies and Racism

up to the top

Think Again: Yasir Arafat
( July/August 2002 )

In 1974, Yasir Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), declared before the United Nations that he came “bearing an olive branch and a freedom-fighter’s gun.” Nearly 20 years later, the world still does not know if Arafat is a statesman dedicated to peaceful coexistence with Israel or a resistance leader dedicated to armed struggle. As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict enters a tenuous new phase of peace negotiations, understanding Arafat’s true motives will be essential to fostering a lasting agreement.

By Dennis B. Ross

Want to Know More?
Suggested Readings


“Arafat’s Goal Is a Lasting Peace With the State of Israel”

I doubt it. Throughout the Oslo peace process, everyone involved—Palestinians, Israelis, Americans, Egyptians, Saudis, and other Arab leaders—shared the belief that Arafat wanted peace with Israel. It seemed logical. After all, Arafat had crossed the threshold and recognized Israel, incurring the wrath of secular and religious rejectionists. And he had authorized five limited or interim agreements with the Israelis. Although Arafat held out until the last possible minute and strived for the best deal, he eventually made the compromises necessary to reach those interim agreements.

Unfortunately, such short-term progress masked some disquieting signals about the Palestinian leader’s intentions. Every agreement he made was limited and contained nothing he regarded as irrevocable. He was not, in his eyes, required to surrender any claims. Worse, notwithstanding his commitment to renounce violence, he has never relinquished the terror card. Moreover, he is always quick to exaggerate his achievements, even while maintaining an ongoing sense of grievance. During the Oslo peace process, he never prepared his public for compromise. Instead, he led the Palestinians to believe the peace process would produce everything they ever wanted—and he implicitly suggested a return to armed struggle if negotiations fell short of those unattainable goals. Even in good times, Arafat spoke to Palestinian groups about how the struggle, the jihad, would lead them to Jerusalem. Too often his partners in the peace process dismissed this behavior as Arafat being caught up in rhetorical flourishes in front of his “party” faithful. I myself pressed him when his language went too far or provoked an angry Israeli response, but his stock answer was that he was just talking about the importance of struggling for rights through the negotiation process.

But from the start of the Oslo negotiations in 1993, Arafat focused only on what he was going to receive, not what he had to give. He found it difficult to live without a cause, a struggle, a grievance, and a conflict to define him. Arafat never faced up to what he would have to do—even though we tried repeatedly to condition him. As a result, when he was finally put to the test with former President Bill Clinton’s proposal in December 2000, Arafat failed miserably.

Is there any sign that Arafat has changed and is ready to make historic decisions for peace? I see no indication of it. Even his sudden readiness to seize the mantle of reform is the result of intense pressure from Palestinians and the international community. He is maneuvering now to avoid real reform, not to implement it. And on peace, he does not appear ready to acknowledge the opportunity that existed with Clinton’s plan, nor does he seem willing to confront the myths of the Palestinian movement.


“Arafat Missed a Historic Opportunity When He Turned Down the Clinton Proposal”

Yes. It is true that Arafat did not “reject” the ideas the Clinton administration offered in December 2000. Instead, he pulled a classic Arafat: He did not say yes or no. He wanted it both ways. He wanted to keep talking as if the Clinton proposal was the opening gambit in a negotiation, but he knew otherwise. Arafat knew Clinton’s plan represented the culmination of the American effort. He also knew these ideas were offered as the best judgment of what each side could live with and that the proposal would be withdrawn if not accepted.

To this day, Arafat has never honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians—a deal that would have resulted in a Palestinian state, with territory in over 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem; with Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of that state (including the holy place of the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary); with an international presence in place of the Israeli Defense Force in the Jordan Valley; and with the unlimited right of return for Palestinian refugees to their state but not to Israel. Nonetheless, Arafat continues to hide behind the canard that he was offered Bantustans—a reference to the geographically isolated black homelands created by the apartheid-era South African government. Yet with 97 percent of the territory in Palestinian hands, there would have been no cantons. Palestinian areas would not have been isolated or surrounded. There would have been territorial integrity and contiguity in both the West Bank and Gaza, and there would have been independent borders with Egypt and Jordan.

“The offer was never written” is a refrain uttered time and again by apologists for Chairman Arafat as a way of suggesting that no real offer existed and that therefore Arafat did not miss a historic opportunity. Nothing could be more ridiculous or misleading. President Clinton himself presented both sides with his proposal word by word. I stayed behind to be certain both sides had recorded each word accurately. Given Arafat’s negotiating style, Clinton was not about to formalize the proposal, making it easier for Arafat to use the final offer as just a jumping-off point for more ceaseless bargaining in the future.

However, it is worth pondering how Palestinians would have reacted to a public presentation of Clinton’s plan. Had Palestinians honestly known what Arafat was unwilling to accept, would they have supported violence against the Israelis, particularly given the suffering imposed on them? Would Arafat have remained the “only Palestinian” capable of making peace? Perhaps such domestic pressure would have convinced Arafat, the quintessential survivor, that the political costs of intransigence would be higher than the costs of making difficult concessions to Israel.


“Arab Leaders Stand Behind Arafat”

Reluctantly. I have never met an Arab leader who trusts Arafat or has anything good to say about him in private. Almost all Arab leaders have stories about how he has misled or betrayed them. Most simply wave their hands dismissively when examples of his betrayal of commitments are cited—almost as if they are saying, “We know, we know.” The Saudis, in particular, saw his alignment with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 1991 as proof of his perfidy.

But no Arab leader is prepared to challenge him. All acknowledge him as the symbol of the Palestinian movement, and no one sees an alternative to him. But no one is prepared to go out on a limb for him, either.

Many suggest that in the absence of broad Arab support, Clinton’s proposal was too hard for Arafat to accept. Furthermore, some argue, since the United States failed to secure the support Arafat needed, it bears some responsibility for his inability to say yes. That argument is more myth than reality. First, if Clinton’s offer was so hard to accept, why has Arafat never honestly portrayed it? Why not say he was offered 97 percent, instead of Bantustans or cantons? Why not admit he would have had Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of the state, instead of denying that?

Second, we did line up the support of five key Arab leaders for Clinton’s plan. On December 23, 2000, the same day that President Clinton presented his ideas to Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, he called Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, and Jordanian King Abdullah ii to convey the comprehensive proposal he had just presented to the parties. Shortly thereafter, he also transmitted the ideas to King Mohammed IV of Morocco and President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia. All these Arab leaders made clear they thought Clinton’s ideas were historic, and they pledged to press Arafat to accept the plan. However, when Arafat told Arab leaders he had questions, they backed off and assumed the position they had adopted throughout the Oslo peace process. They would support whatever Chairman Arafat accepted. They were not about to put themselves in a position in which Arafat might claim that President Mubarak or Crown Prince Abdullah or King Abdullah was trying to pressure him to surrender Palestinian rights.

There is a lesson here for today: Getting Arab leaders to fulfill their responsibilities—to be participants and not just observers—is essential. On existential questions in which concessions on the Palestinian side are required, Arab leaders will likely restrict their pressure to private entreaties. But that is not where real leverage is to be found. Pressure in public would be pressure as Arafat defines it. Arafat’s great achievement for the Palestinians has been putting them on the map, producing recognition, giving them standing on the world stage. He embodies the cause, and that is why Arab leaders find it so hard to criticize him in public. Yet he cannot afford the imagery that he and the Palestinian cause are separate. If Arab leaders would say that his being only a symbol and not a leader threatens Palestinian interests, then Arafat’s very identity would be called into question. That would move him.


“The World Must Deal With Arafat Since He Is the Palestinians’ Elected Leader”

Not necessarily. The United States, Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations have adopted this position. An election in the territories in 1996 made Arafat the chairman of the Palestinian Authority. But the international community does the Palestinians no favor when it emphasizes Arafat’s popular election as justification for dealing with him. It is important to remember that anger on Palestinian streets before the eruption of the Al-Aqsa Intifada was directed against Israel and also against the corruption and ineptitude of the Palestinian Authority. Now that the dust is settling after Israeli military operations and massive reconstruction is needed in the West Bank,
Palestinians are demanding reform. They are demanding elections, rule of law, an independent judiciary, transparency, accountability, streamlined security services governed by standards (not by Arafat’s whims), and an end to corruption.

Palestinians are not looking to oust Chairman Arafat. They simply want to limit his arbitrary use of power. Given the pressure he is under (from within, from among Arabs to stop manipulating violence and to assume responsibility, and from the international community), it is not hard to see why Arafat is trying to seize the mantle of reform. Yet he cannot be permitted to speak of reform and at the same time avoid its consequences. Otherwise, the momentum will be lost. True reform is an essential part of any political process designed to promote peace. The more serious the reform, the more the Israeli public will see that Palestinian behavior is changing—and the more likely Israel will accept the possibility of partnership again. If Arafat is allowed to escape pressure for genuine reform, the Israeli government will be under no pressure to resume political negotiations.

One could argue that the world must deal with Arafat because he is the symbol of the Palestinian movement, because he is the only address available, and because he is the only one who can be held responsible for Palestinian behavior. That would be a more honest explanation than saying he is the popularly elected leader of the Palestinians. However, Arafat’s role as a symbol is not the reason the U.S. government recognized him in the first place. The United States made the decision to deal directly with Arafat in September 1993 when, as part of the Oslo documents, he formally agreed to renounce terror, to discipline and punish any Palestinian violators of that pledge, and to settle all disputes peacefully. Suffice to say, Arafat has not abided by those commitments.

No one but the Palestinians can choose the Palestinian leader. But the rest of the world can choose not to deal with a leader who fails to fulfill obligations. Governments can tell the Palestinian public they recognize it has legitimate aspirations that must be addressed and that those aspirations can only be addressed politically, not militarily. But those aspirations will not be satisfied until Palestinians have a leadership—whether it is Arafat, a successor, or a collective body that limits the chairman’s power—that will fulfill its responsibilities on security and declare that suicide bombers are enemies of the Palestinian cause. When a Palestinian leadership lives up to those commitments, the Palestinians and the Arab world will have an American partner determined to help ensure that Palestinian needs are met.


“Arafat Can’t Control the Militants in the Palestinian Authority”

He can, but he won’t. Arafat has demonstrated in the past that he can prevent violence—most notably in the spring of 1996 when he cracked down on Hamas and also in the first year of former Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s administration, when Israel, for the only time in its history, had a year in which it did not suffer a single fatality from terror.

Yet from the beginning of the peace process, Arafat made clear he prefers to co-opt, not confront, extremist groups. This approach reflects his leadership style: He never closes doors. He never forecloses options. He never knows when he might want to have a particular group, no matter what its ideology or purpose, on his side. This strategy has certainly been true of his dealings with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In 1996, he suppressed extremists because they were threatening his power, not because they carried out four suicide bombings in Israel in nine days. Even then, the crackdown, while real, was limited. Arafat did not completely shut the door on either group.

In the past, whenever Arafat cracked down or threatened to do so, the militants backed down. But that stopped in September 2000 with the eruption of the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Those who say Arafat cannot carry out his security responsibilities because Israeli military incursions have devastated his capabilities fail to recognize that Arafat didn’t act even before Israelis destroyed his infrastructure. In the 20 months leading up to May 2002, he never gave unequivocal orders to arrest, much less stop, those who were planning, organizing, recruiting, financing, or implementing terror attacks against Israelis. Whether one thinks—as the Israelis believe recently captured documents demonstrate—Arafat directs the violence or that he simply acquiesces to it, the unmistakable fact is that he has made no serious or sustained effort to stop the violence.

If nothing else, it is time for Arafat to use his moral authority to make clear that armed struggle only threatens the Palestinian cause—that those who persist in the violence are not martyrs but enemies of Palestinian interests and needs. Let him make such declarations consistently, rather than repeating the pattern of the past as when he called for a cease-fire on December 16, 2001, only to call for a million martyrs to march on Jerusalem shortly thereafter. Pressing Arafat to speak out consistently does not relieve him of the need to act. Nor does it relieve the Israelis of finding a way to meet their legitimate security needs without making the Palestinians suffer. Ultimately, keeping the territories under siege is self-defeating. This approach only fosters anger and a desire to make Israelis feel comparable pain. The Israeli military has succeeded in creating a necessary respite from terrorist attacks. Now Israel should seek a political path that builds on that respite and gives Palestinians an interest in making it more enduring.


“The Time Has Come to Impose a Peace Deal on Arafat and Sharon”

Absolutely not. Nearly two years of conflict, the spiraling violence, the deepening sense of gloom, and the seeming inability of the two sides to do anything on their own give credence to the argument that now is the time to impose a solution. If an imposed solution were possible and would hold, I would be prepared to support it. But an imposed solution is an illusion.

No Israeli government (not Ariel Sharon’s, not Ehud Barak’s, not Benjamin Netanyahu’s, not Shimon Peres’s) has accepted or will accept an imposed outcome. It goes against the Israeli ethos that a partner for peace must prove its commitment by directly negotiating an agreement. Paradoxically, the very terms Israeli governments might find difficult to accept if imposed would probably be acceptable if Israelis believed they had a real partner for peace. Those who argue for an imposed solution claim no Israeli leader can make the hard decisions, such as giving up settlements, most of the West Bank and Gaza, and the Arab part of East Jerusalem. Yet Barak was prepared to do so; and before the Al-Aqsa Intifada, the Israeli public was ready to support him. In a recent trip to Israel, I found a far-reaching consensus—encompassing the left and the right in Israel—for acceptance of a Clinton-like solution, provided the Palestinians are truly prepared to forsake terror, violence, and the right of return to Israel.

Trying to impose a solution that the Israeli government will not accept—and the Sharon government will surely not accept Clintonesque ideas in the current environment—will only result in strong resistance. Even if the United States could pressure the Israelis to reluctantly accept an imposed outcome, would it endure? I doubt it.

Arafat would certainly go along with an imposed outcome. He has always preferred such an option. It would relieve him of the responsibility to make a decision. He can outwardly acquiesce, saying he has no choice. But inevitably, Palestinians will oppose at least part of an imposed outcome. Will new issues—what we might call Palestinian “Sheba farms”—suddenly emerge? Recall that Israel withdrew from Lebanon in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 425 and that the U.N. secretary-general certified this withdrawal. Yet Hezbollah now claims that the Sheba farms area of the Golan Heights is Lebanese and that lasting “Israeli occupation” justifies continued armed resistance, including Katyusha rocket attacks. Will there not be a Palestinian equivalent of this situation after an imposed solution? And given Arafat’s poor track record, how can anyone expect he would defend the existing peace agreement against such newly discovered grievances?

If one overriding lesson from the past persists, it is that the Palestinians must make decisions and bear the responsibility of those decisions. No enduring peace can be reached until the Palestinian leadership levels with its public, resists the temptation to blame every ill on the Israelis or the outside world, assumes responsibility for controversial decisions, and stands by its decision in the face of opposition.

An imposed solution will only delay the day when all sides, but especially the Palestinians, have to assume real responsibilities. Consequently, an imposed solution would be no solution at all.



Ambassador Dennis B. Ross is director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He was the lead negotiator on the Middle East peace process in the first Bush and both Clinton administrations.

Dennis Ross, who was actually, you know, _there_ at the negotiations: "To this day, Arafat has never honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians—a deal that would have resulted in a Palestinian state, with territory in over 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem; with Arab East Jerusalem as the capital of that state (including the holy place of the Haram al-Sharif, the Noble Sanctuary); with an international presence in place of the Israeli Defense Force in the Jordan Valley; and with the unlimited right of return for Palestinian refugees to their state but not to Israel. Nonetheless, Arafat continues to hide behind the canard that he was offered Bantustans—a reference to the geographically isolated black homelands created by the apartheid-era South African government. Yet with 97 percent of the territory in Palestinian hands, there would have been no cantons. Palestinian areas would not have been isolated or surrounded. There would have been territorial integrity and contiguity in both the West Bank and Gaza, and there would have been independent borders with Egypt and Jordan."

The historical record is very simple. Arafat was offered a comprehensive peace, and an independent state, and was too small a man to take it. If Arafat weren't such a dirtbag, there would now be -- as Dennis Ross points out -- a Palestinian state with territorial integrity, contiguity, and independent borders with other states besides just Israel. And all the Arab autocracies would have to find some other way of distracting their populace from their own corruption.

But Arafat was just too fond of the Arafat lifestyle, and the Arafat grip on power, to let something like peace and a Palestinian state interfere with it.

And have you noticed how many people here think they can erase Arafat's tragic failure at Taba simply by chanting the word "bantustan"? Without explaining how that could even be geometrically _possible_ if the Palestinian state was 97 percent of the West Bank?

@%<

Someone (we actually know who he is) has come on here already twice and would rather have us all believe that it's no big deal that Arafat is *very* corrupt and such an asshole, and tries to make us all think instead of the crimes - the real ones and the many ones dreamed up in his own mind - that Israel has committed against Palestinians.

That's a straw man. What I *actually* said is that whether or not Arafat is corrupt is irrelevent to the issue of the very real, and on going, crimes against the Palestinians committed by Zionists.

B"H__oggetto: Invito-ORGEcomunicato SHIMON PERES ASSASSINO' Yitzhàk Rabìn presentazione libro di Barry Chamish, giornalista Israeliano,MART 18nov2003 h 11 CircoStampaMILANOdiSottoCsoVenezia 16 sperando Vs preannunci,presenza,resoconti,GRAZIE!!! FOR OTHER LANGUAGES PSE CONTACT Author in Israèl, Barry Chamish chamish@netvision.net.il Sperando Vs preannunci, presenza, resoconti-For immediate release GRAZIE ! INVITO-COMUNICATO URGE La Comunità Ebraica MOLCHITA Transnazionale invita Cittadinanza e Stampa: Circo della Stampa - Martedì 18 NOV 2.003-23 Cheshvàn 5764 h 11 Sala LANFRANCHI C.so Venezia 16 I 20121 MilanoDiSopra- Presentiamo, anche in I TAL YAno, libro di Barry Chamish, giornalista Israeliano,” CHI HA UCCISO Yitzhàk Rabìn“ Shimon Peres ! Innocente matto all' ergastolo in Israèl, Amìr sparò a salve x esercitazione. Editrice Nuovi Autori , ENA, 400 pagg €uro 18 diciotto via Gaudenzio Ferrari 14 ( Guglielmina Aglieri) I 20123 MilanoDiSopra ph+39 0289409338 fàkkes 0258107048 faglier@tin.it www.arteinitaly.com - www.paginegialle.it/ednuoviaut Shimon PERES e i PERESITI –SabbATEISMO, l’ Ebraismo capovolto – CFR GLOBALmafia 33° livello, CFR comunisti fascisti razzisti –HALTERnativa: O i “militanti” menagrami “ILLUMINATI”, oppure LEVItabile fine del Mondo ---Nato in America nel 1956, reporter e scrittore precoce di successo, Barry Chamish nel 1973 vide sui giornali le foto degl’ Israeliani uccisi e catturati nella “Guerra del Kippùr”. Salì a vivere in Israèl, pubblicando libri, e la Newsletter “I I “ , Inside Israèl. Per l’ I TAL YA è proprio un nuovo Autore. Ma “Chi ha ucciso Yitzhàk Rabìn” e altre opere di B. C. stanno uscendo in decine di Paesi: in Ebràico (Ivrìth), in Inglese, in Russo, in Tedesco… Il film girato da un “dilettante” ( dilettante non è, poi sparisce, ma non girò lui il “film”, Kempler lo manipolò dopo e basta) dimostra, corroborato da testimoni oculari, che Yitzhàk Rabìn era illeso dopo gli “spari” di Yigàl Amìr al famigerato “Comizio per la Pace” di Tel Avìv il 4 Novembre 1995, nella Piazza “I Re di Israèl”, poi “Piazza Yitzhàk Rabìn”. °La stessa registrazione, per quanto manipolata, chiaramente mostra la porta posteriore della “vuota” Cadillac di Rabìn mentre viene chiusa dall’ interno prima che il Primo Ministro Israeliano venga spinto a bordo. Chi c’ era a aspettarlo? E che accadde durante la “corsa” verso l’ Ospedale Ichilov, che durò almeno nove minuti anziché uno come poteva e doveva? °Il certificato di morte affermava: Rabìn fu colpito mortalmente al torace, e la spina dorsale fu frantumata. Perché i medici poi modificarono il documento, facendolo quagliare con la versione ufficiale, che racconta: “Rabìn fu colpito a morte alla schiena da una certa distanza” ? Falsità smascherate; verità dimostrate: in questo libro-inchiesta Barry Chamish, mai querelato, dimostra, al di là di ogni possibile dubbio, l’ esistenza di una cupola mafiosa, che va sconvolgendo il corso delle vicende umane. Nel Globo. In Israèl e in I TAL YA soprattutto. In sala operatoria Eitan Haber, il suo segretario generale, sparò a Rabìn al torace la terza pallottola, fatale. Su ordine del KKKKlan dei SaudiMarsigliesi, il tentacolo Francese del CFR, CouncilOnForeignRelations, ComunistiFascistiRazzisti. CarnegieFordRockefeller. “Nessuna persona sinceramente objettiva può negarlo: Barry Chamish fa a pezzi il falso, sancìto dal Governo Israeliano, secondo il quale Yitzhàk Rabìn fu ucciso da un matto solitario, Yigàl Amìr. Il volume di prove messo insieme da B.C. è sbalorditivo. Chamish ora ha incisa la sua traccia nella Storia”. ---Joel Bainerman, autore di “Crimes of a President ” (Clinton) GENERALE INDICE --p 5 Da Pirandello a Barry Chamish presentazione, di Mario Costa Cardòl -p 8 Gli antisemiti si leccano i baffi ma tacciono, e Shimon Peres non querela -p 11 LEVItàbile fine del Mondo -p 25 UNA COSPIRAZIONE DA BALORDI : CHI HA UCCISO Y. Rabìn di Barry Chamish -p 225 LA GUERRA SEGRETA CONTRO GLI EBREI -p 228 Distruttori “Ebrei” dell’ INTER-no - Il Rabbino Antelman colpisce ancora … -p 233 CFR e NWO-NOM, NEW WORLD ORDER: SABBatei-ILLUMINATI-COMUSCISTI -p236 EBREI FIFONI OGGI COME ALLORA –GUERRA MONDIALE -p238 I SANTI SLOVACCHI -p 240 I DIRIGENTI “EBRAICI” AMERICANI -p 245 DOMANDA FINALE -p 246 FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT: FDR IL DOPPIOGIUOCHISTA , & Co -p 253 BUSINESS COI NAZISTI -p 257 “EBREI SEGRETI ” CONTRO LE GUERRE-NUOVISSIMO ORDINE SIONISTICO MONDIALE-ESPERANTO & ARTSENU CONGIURE SIONISTICHE: ARTSENU, TERRA NOSTRA:sberla RaSDIcalsionistica alle Nazioni UNTE vunciune: basta onanismo W ONUNISMO -p 259 SHIMON PERES & I SUOI CAMERAGNI NAZISTI EUROPEI di Barry Chamish -p 261 LA GLOBALMAFIA E I NAZIMAOISTI OGGI – PERESITI E KLAN DEI MARSIGLIESI- MolotovRibbentrop firmato prima del 1939, patto mai archiviato. -p 268 TRADITORI ISRAELIANI PERESITI TORTORATORI -p 270 Altri sconvolgimenti in Europa. FU “INCIDENTE” AL PIRELLONE ? -p 273 Appendice sull’ I TAL YA – COSTOLETTA ALLA MILANESA -p 275 PUTIN, NARCOS & PUTINIERI NOSTRANI e globali -p 279 AVVOCATO NAZISTA, PORTINAJE, CAMERIERINE, FALSI EBREI LEGULEI -p 280 GIACOMO MATTEOTTI E CFR- SINCLAIR SCANDOLO DEL PETROLIO 1924 -p 283 TORTORATURA DELLA COMUNITA’ EBRAICA DI MILANO E DI ERICA LEHRER GREGO, SUA EXVICEPRESIDENTE –TORTORATI PURE I MERCANTI DI VENEXIA- EURONOREVOLE NINI’ ANTONIO DI PIETRO SECRETATO- SCEICCO SHAKESPEARE E MUAMMAR GHADAFY- RIFIUTO DEL PETROLIO, E REFLUOPETROLIO ANDREA ROSSI -p 287 ULIPOLPO, TELEKOM SERBIA, LODO MONDADORI, ENRON BECHTEL CFR-LE SORELLE E LE SETTE –LIBERAZIONI INCOMPIUTE- L’ ARDUO LODO SPADOLINI-STORIOGRAFI TUTTI IN VILLEGGIATURA: A USTICA O A VENTOTENE A LAMPEDUSA, A SIGONELLA O A LOCKERBIE? CASTELLI DI CARTE E LE CARTE DI CASTELLI -p 290 LE KEFIAH DELLA RAI: POVERO GIUSEPPE MAZZINI CHE VIALE – PIRELLONE 2002 COME TWINS 11 SETTEMBRE 2001 – MILIONI DI UCCISI E PROFUGHI IN SUDAN -p 294 STAR WAR HOLY WAR: SATELLITI E BIN LADEN – MEDIOBANCA DOPOCUCCIA MEDIASETTICEMIA –ARCORIAD,SEGRATE CELESTI: PianoAntiMarshall TERRA SANTA -p 304 I TAL YA REGNO SAUDITA-DI PELO MAZIA NEL SANGUE-da Panorama -p 311 ARABO? GEROGLIFICO? UN TRIBUNALE DI LONDRA SU BERLUSCONI -p 362 UNA DENUNCIA AI CARABINIERI DI GRATOSOGLIO -p 365 INDICE PARTICOLARE : UNA COSPIRAZIONE DA BALORDI di Barry Chamish -p 369 PAPA LUCIANI AVVELENATO-MESSIA O CAOS? EBREI, CATTOLICI, EVANGELICI… MA DONDE VIENE LA VIOLENZA? LEVItàbile FINIMONDO ULTIMORA SETTEMBRE 2.003: GRATOSOGLIO-VATICANO-GERUSALEMME : UNA RISPOSTA TRES CATHOLIQUE A BARRY “SHAMISH” In fondo al libro, QUALCHE DISEGNINO ---___Sberla RaSDIcalsionistica alle Nazioni UNTE vunciune, ARTSENU, basta onanismo evviva nòbile ONUNISMO ! Ciaolòm !!! AJUTACI A FARE RINASCERE LE NAZIONI UNITE E LE COMUNITA’ EBRAICHE, DISTRUTTE DALLE COMUNISTA’-davàr scelanu Trad8 e curato dal nonno di Barry Chamish, il giornalista profesSIONISTA I TAL YAno Franco JAL Joseph Arturo LEVI, MOLCA, via Fratelli Fraschini 7 I 20142 MilanoDiSottoGRATOSOGLIO levi.franco@tiscali.it ph+39 0289301262 Fàkkes 0289306182 cellul 3492218113 3492217868 cf LVE FNC 44E09 A794J Comunità Ebraica MOLCHITA TRANSNAZIONALE Berìth Ivrìth INTERìth Lega Ebraica INTERISTA –ARTSENU Associazione Radicale Transnazionale per la Sufficienza Economica delle Nazioni UNTE VUNCIUNE MOLCA --Movimento lotta contro antisemitismo-Muòviti,o Levi colpirà ancora-Movimento Legalizzazione Civile Atomico-Meglio oggi Lèggere Chamish, Altrimenti… MOLCA COMUNITA’ EBRAICA MOLCHITA TRANSNAZIONALE

No, it isn't a straw man. It's an accurate description of what you have done.
First off, you ~admitted~ Arafat is corrupt. Shall I quote? Here goes: "Arafat is corrupt. So what?..."
Secondly, the ongoing crimes of the Palestinians against the "Zionists" outweigh those committed by the "Zionists" against the Palestinians by a ratio of about 100 to 15.

You like to try and divert attention away from any wrongdoings of Palestinian and Arab leaders and laypeople alike.

This is the third time I've had this photo submitted to the Board under my name since yesterday.

It's totally beyond belief.

How do you know they are Hamas members? They could be IDF in disguise, going off to slaughter another seven year old rock-throwing 'terrorist".

When there are THREE forgeries dealing with one photo, man, someone out there will, I hope, get the help he/she needs.

>You like to try and divert attention away from any wrongdoings of Palestinian and Arab leaders and laypeople alike.



The topic here is Zionist crimes. Whether or not other people commit crimes is irrelevant and off topic. If you want to talk about Palestinian crimes, go to a Zionist website. SF-IMC is here to provide a counter balance for the vast, overwhelming majority of Western media which supports Zionism, excuses its crimes and edits out anything negative about Israel or positive about Palestinians. No, you can't do that here, too. That's not what this space is for. This space is for counter balance.

Harvard's President, in the 1920's: "We won't raise the Jewish quota, because Jewish students cheat."

Advisor: "But other students cheat too."

Harvard's President: "Don't change the subject. We're talking about Jews."

@%<

"Anti-zionist" says it is here for counter-balance.

QUESTION: does counter-balance mean being DISHONEST? Exaggerating? Apoligizing for terrorism? Lying about why zionism even was thought of and why it came to be? Lying and claiming that the bulk of jews involved in zionism were in it because of "superiority" reasons (bullshit) and not for reasons of wanting a homeland like everyone else so they could control their own destinies instead of being subject to progrom after pogrom after pogrom?

This is Barak's Generous offer:

What appears to be territorial continuity is actually split up by settlement blocs, bypass roads and roadblocks. The Palestinians have to relinquish land reserves essential for their development and absorption of refugees. They also have to accept Israeli supervision of borders crossings together with many other restrictions.

This is no generous offer. It is a humiliating demand for surrender!

Barak's offer gives Israel control over all the border crossings of the Palestinian State.
No country in the world would accept that.
The words "territorial continuity" are deceptive -
No Israeli would agree to travel 50 miles from one town to another,
if the real distance between them is only 5 miles.

This impossible offer, Barak's imperious attitude, the ongoing massive construction in the settlements, Years of Israel's Delaying tactics and Sharon's provocation - all these contributed to the inevitable explosion.
In December, no maps of the Gaza Strip were shown, so we cannot illustrate Barak's intentions there.
At Taba, January 2001, Barak presented a much-improved map.
The Palestinians consider it a basis for negotiation.

Why Oslo failed: An excellent article by Dr.Ron Pundak (One of "Oslo's" architects)
http://www.gush-shalom.org/generous/generous.html

Why the Western media refused to show us the maps of the so-called "generous" offer.

I'd like to know...

November 15, 2003:
=========
Four former chiefs of Israel's Shin Bet security service launched an extraordinary attack on Ariel Sharon yesterday, saying his policies were catastrophic and endangered Israel's future as a Jewish state.

The four men gave a joint interview to the mass circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth, in which they called for Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories and evacuate Jewish settlements there.
[...]

Ami Ayalon, the Shin Bet director from 1996 to 2000 ...
Yaakov Peri, the director of Shin Bet from 1988 to 1995...
Avraham Shalom, director from 1980 to 1986...
... and Carmi Gillon, director from 1995 to 1996

.....accused Mr Sharon of a strategic mistake in refusing to deal with Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian President. "WE will not determine who is relevant and who isn't," said Mr Shalom. "Nothing can happen without Arafat."
=====================
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=463886

Here are the maps..

http://www.fmep.org/maps/v11n4_Barak_Sharon_map.jpg
vs
http://www.fmep.org/maps/2001/abu.jpg

> No Israeli would agree to travel 50 miles from one town to another, if the real distance between them is only 5 miles.

what is the distane between Aireal and Dfarim (etc etc)? if you have a non straight line boarder it is NOT STRAIGHT on both sides.

>> This impossible offer.

The palistinians are offering the israellis "peace" in exchange for land. Unfortunatly you cannot give away peace you can only "temporarily take back war" so in reality the palistinians get stuff by giving nothing. In a couple of years the palistinians could say.. we dont like these boarders "sorry we are at war with you now" or in palistinian speak "woops we cant control all the holy rightious militants". Sounds like a perfect opportunity for renegotiation later.

Anyway what is all this fuss over amount of land owned? I thought it was percentage of your population governed that mattered not whether you owned one piece of dirt or another piece of dirt.

It is this attachment to land that is the whole problem here.. dont encourage it.

Because it's up to you to substantiate your unsubstantiated allegations.

Because it's up to you to substantiate your unsubstantiated allegations.

Dennis B. Ross: "To this day, Arafat has never honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians"

quote:
===============
Dr. Ron Pundak
June 2001


“From Oslo to Taba: What Went Wrong?”
[...]

The uprising, which began the morning after the visit of the then opposition leader and now Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount/ Harem-ash-Sharif, on September 28th 2000, did NOT begin with the first rock thrown by a Palestinian youth, or shooting by a “Tanzim” activist. The rock and the rifle, and in particular the demonstrations and clashes of Palestinians with IDF forces, are tied to the events of the past seven years since the signing of the Oslo Agreement. Sharon’s visit, and the killing of worshippers on the plazas of Jerusalem’s mosques on the following day, was the match that ignited the powder keg, which had threatened to explode for years.
The tenure of former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (1996-1999), made it clear to the Palestinians that an elected Israeli Government might actually not be interested in reaching a peace agreement on the basis of the principle of United Nations Security Council Resolution UNSCR 242 (land for peace). This, together with the immense gap between the expectations raised by his successor Ehud Barak’s Government and the grim reality (the continuation of settlements, lives in the shadow of checkpoints, an unstable economic situation and other elements which will be described below) had an unmitigated effect on Palestinian public opinion. The Palestinian public and the “street” leadership – which originally was an enthusiastic supporter of the peace process and of the need to reach reconciliation with Israel – came to the conclusion that Israel did not in fact want to reach a fair agreement to end the occupation and grant the Palestinian people “legitimate rights”.
http://www.gush-shalom.org/archives/pundak.doc
- Dr Ron Pundak - one of the Olso architects
=====================================

Now, "pippy" -can you please answer MY question before asking your own?

Let me try again:


quote:
=================
To this day, the Western media hasn't honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians in the so-called "Generous Offer".

Why did the Western media ply us with the term "Generous Offer" while refusing to show us the map, Dennis?

Why did the Western media ply us with the term "Generous Offer" while refusing to show us the map, gehrig?

Why did the Western media ply us with the term "Generous Offer" while refusing to show us the map, scottie?
====================


Why did the Western media ply us with the term "Generous Offer" while refusing to show us the map, pippie?

> To this day, the Western media hasn't honestly admitted what was offered to the Palestinians in the so-called "Generous Offer".

No offer, besides mass suicide, would be generous to you. So clearly Israel is not trying to impress you when it makes an offer.

>> Why did the Western media ply us with the term "Generous Offer" while refusing to show us the map, scottie?

- Count, why are you failing to address the distribution of people and instead focusing on some arbitrary boarder decided by some old british guy a few decades ago? are the British really THAT important that they get to decide all the boarders of all the countries for the rest of eternity?
Probably it is because it suits your prejudices.
you can arbitrarily declare a group of israelis in palestine illegitimate because you actually think the israelis in israel are ilegitimate anyway. Meeting your demands would be a waste of time.

However to get into more detail...
One of the problems wiht israelis giving land to palestine is that the people in the land handed over can expect a HUGE drop in their standard of living.would you like to trade citizenship of whatever your country is for lets say Ethiopia? even if you were ethiopian?
Frankly I would arrange to have some of those settlements removed but that is pretty damn hard to do in a democratic state (of course the converse would be that israel would be allowed to send some arabs "home" to palestine not sure how that would go down particularly with the arabs that would be "sent").

Now screw all the previous boarders that some British guys drew.
here is the ethnic locations of people

http://www.poica.org/maps/westbank.jpg

now if you had a referendum in all of those areas you could expect the blue ones to vote to be with israel and the yellow brown ones to vote to be with palestine (in general) So all you have to do is remove all the small dots and draw a best line between the others to seperate blue on one side and the rest on the other side.

quote:
===================
No offer, besides mass suicide, would be generous to you. So clearly Israel is not trying to impress you when it makes an offer.
==================

Name That Fallacy, scottie - then try answering the question, re: WHY the Western Media Refused To Show Us THE MAP.

'kay?

Value Projections

What happens here is that people who already disagree with a policy or person project the most hateworthy motives onto that person inorder to justify their hate for them scottie, Saturday November 15, 2003 at 11:41 AM

"IF I sought you out and THREW ROCKS AT YOU when you have a gun [then] YOU WILL SHOOT ME JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PERSON WOULD." scottie, Saturday November 15, 2003 at 02:50 PM

THIS IS A PERFICT EXAMPLE OF HOW PALESTINIAN
TERRORISTS HIDE BEHIND CHILDREN ON A DAILY
BASIS! THIS IS HOW LOW THEY WILL STOOP!

COWARDLY PEOPLE

Value Projections

What happens here is that people who already disagree with a policy or person project the most hateworthy motives onto that person inorder to justify their hate for them scottie, Saturday November 15, 2003 at 11:41 AM

"IF I sought you out and THREW ROCKS AT YOU when you have a gun [then] YOU WILL SHOOT ME JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PERSON WOULD." scottie, Saturday November 15, 2003 at 02:50 PM

WHY did the Western media refuse to show us THE MAP?