Who doesn't want a Palestinian state? Palestinian leaders, that's who

[tw]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
If you could also dig up a link for your source that shows how Sharon forced Palestinian extremists to kill some children, that'd be great too.

The Intafada II and all resulting deaths are directly traceable to Sharon who wanted this instability. Sharon's program has been glaringly obvious starting with his intentional, well publicized, and well staffed desecration of Temple Mount. Every act he has performed has been to annex the occupied territories. Every act in response to any violence has been only to enflame the violence. But then I have posted this in detail in how many posts?

Hamas sends in a suicide bomber. Who does Sharon blame? Palestinian policemen. He attacks police stations with American Cobra helicopters. Why? Easier for suicide bombers to continue. He attacks the Palestinian census bureau. Why? More Palestinian infastructure that could be used to stop suicide bombers. He encouraged attacks on Arab civilians including some that were elected to the Knesset. When anyone else takes responsibility for a bombing, who does Sharon blame? Arafat. Why? Best way to create instability and even incite civilian racism.

Sharon provides no facts connecting Arafat to the bombing. For all his hype and bluster, the one detail missing have always been facts. The American ambassador to Israel for Carter and Reagan noted on a PBS radio interview that Arafat had little ability to stop the bombers and even less so today. This man (name forgotten) is considered one of this countries best experts on the Middle East.

Bombers are in direct response to Sharon's intentional confiscation of land, murder of civilians, and daily attacks on the Palestine people. Simply view above for the latest quote from The Economist. Sharon has made bombing necessary just as King George in 1770s made the American revolution necessary. The facts have been provided previously in spades. Intafada 2 was created by Ariel Sharon - as clearly posted previously.

Was Hilter responsible for the deaths of so many Europeans in WWII - or were Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin equally guilty. Same applied to Sharon - a man, ironically with objectives similar to Hitler's. No matter who pulls the trigger, these are the policies, objectives, and desires of Ariel Sharon. He wants the West Bank. No one can name a single death he really morns since deaths to this man are only collateral damage in a military campaign. His objectives are not even disputable. He advocates and covets the occupied territories knowing full well he does so in direct violation of international law. Even crimes against humanity by his army, now so routine, are never punished. To Sharon, if he is Arab, then he deserves to die. We know from history that this is how Sharon thinks.

All deaths in Intafada 2 are directly traceable to the man who started the violence. There was virtually no violence until Sharon rekindled Intafada 2. Only the naive would say that Sharon did not know his campfire would burn down the woods. All deaths have one man in common - Sharon who intentionally incited Intafada II to destroy Oslo and to reconquer the occupied territories.

One would have to be a mental midget to not see why children are being killed. Sharon has obtained the violence he advocated. Children's deaths are irrelevant to the critical mission of confiscating occupied territories.

If Sharon wanted peace, then he would ban all West Bank and Gaza settlements. Instead he accelerates their numbers. That program alone intentionally means more suicide bombings.

[Undertoad]

I am quoting tw's post from June 2002:

Originally Posted by tw

The Intafada II and all resulting deaths are directly traceable to Sharon who wanted this instability. Sharon's program has been glaringly obvious starting with his intentional, well publicized, and well staffed desecration of Temple Mount. Every act he has performed has been to annex the occupied territories. Every act in response to any violence has been only to enflame the violence. But then I have posted this in detail in how many posts?
...
When anyone else takes responsibility for a bombing, who does Sharon blame? Arafat. Why? Best way to create instability and even incite civilian racism.

Via history, we now have our answer. This turns out to be incorrect.

For the first time, a Hamas leader has publicly revealed that Arafat personally ordered the Second Intifada. Via a Palestinian reporter:

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1582/abbas-...terror-strikes

Mahmoud Zahar, a prominent Hamas leader, has just revealed that Yasser Arafat, when he failed to get what he wanted at the negotiating table, instructed Hamas to launch terror attacks in the heart of Israel. Hamas obviously took Arafat's orders seriously, waging an unprecedented campaign of suicide booming and terror attacks that killed and injured thousands of Jews and Arabs.

When Arafat reportedly unleashed Hamas's terrorists against Israel, both he and the Palestinian Authority were still on the payroll of the international community, first and foremost the Americans and Europeans.

Arafat pretended back then that he was doing his utmost to stop the terror attacks that were launched not only by Hamas, but also by members of his own ruling Fatah faction. It now appears - from what Zahar has to say - that Arafat was bluntly lying to Israel and the Western donors.
...
Zahar made this revelation during a lecture at the Islamic University in Gaza City marking the 10th anniversary of the second intifada, which erupted in September 2000, a few weeks after the failure of the Camp David summit.

This is the first time that a Hamas leader openly admits that his movement carried out terror attacks against Israel on instructions from the Palestinian Authority leader.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I am quoting tw's post from June 2002:
Via history, we now have our answer. This turns out to be incorrect.
For the first time, a Hamas leader has publicly revealed that Arafat personally ordered the Second Intifada. Via a Palestinian reporter:

Palestinians were only doing what they had to do in response to aggressors. After events made Palestinian's reaction inevitable. Even a time line makes that obvious. Why did you ignore history's chronology to endorse lies? Long before Intifada II started, Sharon and the wacko extremists were working to create Intifada II. That timeline is historical fact.

Did Arafat order it? Hearsay from one person says yes. Hudson New York is somehow a responsible fact source? Nonsense. Numerous contradictions in that piece are identified. So many will simply ignore details to believe only what they wanted to hear.

First, *opinion* is not factual source. Second, where is the always required confirmation ? Third, that speculation contradicts history's chronological events. Three reasons demonstrate why some can separate hearsay from responsible news sources.

Point One: Hudson New York entertains any opinion to "Amplify dissident voices worldwide". It does not claim honest, responsible, or credible posts. Publishing even hearsay and lies is its purpose. A forum to entertain urban myths and wild speculation. UT would represent Hudson New York as fact?

To be honest and to possess facts means ignoring hearsay - especially when hearsay violates below points two and three. Hudson New York is where unsubstantiated rumors are advocated and entertained. Wild speculation - same thing that proved Saddam's WMDs.

Point Two: where are the so many responsible news services that confirm those claims? An opinion board is your only source? What kind of logical reasoning is that?

Point Three: One must ignore chronology to believe that lie. Long before Intifada II started - four years before - wacko extremists were aggressively undermining the Oslo Accords. Then publicly encouraging the assassination of Rabin. Intentional opening of a tunnel under Temple Mount to aggravate hate. Sharon even personally desecrating that mosque with 200 of his 'closest friends'. He even said he did so to encourage friendship. Hundreds of intentional actions to create hate long before Intifada II started. Or did you - UT - forget those earlier events to "endorse hearsay as fact"?

Those events were the equivalent of burning Korans to create peace and goodwill. Intentional provocations long before Intifada II started to intentionally undermine the Oslo Accords.

Did Arafat also order Jews to create hate? Sharon and other wacko extremist successfully created hate long before Arafat is *rumored* to have called for Intifada II. How much chronology do you ignore to endorse a Hudson New York accusation?

Responsible source means one can see the difference between facts and an obviously opinionated editorial. Why does the article even include this intentional distortion?

Because of him, thousands of Palestinians were massacred by the Jordanians in the early 1970s.

One starts by asking some damning and relevant questions. Why did wacko extremist Israelis so repeatedly do things that would only create hate ... long before Intifada II started? Why does UT ignore chronology?

Likud remembers what happened in the Sinai. Likud openly defines the West Bank as their land. #1 threat to Likud's objectives was the Oslo Accords. Likud did things necessary to subvert those Accords. Created hate among the Palestinians by doing what is today called 'burning a Koran'. Even encouraged and got the assassination of Rabin. If Arafat ordered Intifada II, well, according to your own sources, it happened after Intifada II had started. And more than four years after wacko extremists Israelis started actions to create so much hate.

So how many responsible news sources are cited to confirm wild speculation in Hudson New York? Zero.

This is not about some blogger who invented speculation. This is about some so easily manipulated and deceived as to promote unconfirmed speculation - a blog - as fact. Same process also proved Saddam's WMDs. This is about why some people do not entertain lies. And why others cannot separate speculation from hard reality - by ignoring three points.

[xoxoxoBruce]

After events made Palestinian's reaction inevitable

Nothing is inevitable, even if it's predictable.

Addressing the point would be easier, and less verbiage, than bouncing around making excuses why you sort of weren't really wrong.