2/7: Man vs tank

[tw]

Originally posted by sycamore

I don't know if you've already been there tw, but you might be interested in checking out Amnesty International's website. They have extensive documentation on Israel.

http://www.amnesty.org

The highlighted report covers last year. Previously, the petty theif Netanyahu was Prime Minister. As a result, the report makes what happened obvious in its 1st paragraph:

Official permission for torture and ill-treatment ended in September when the High Court ruled that various interrogation techniques used by the General Security Service (GSS) were unlawful. Scores of Palestinian administrative detainees were released during 1999,...

Under a decent man [Barak], scores of illegally held Palestinian prisioners were released and the intafada stopped and the High Courts could operate responsibily. Since then, the dic head brillantly restarted an intafada and them became Prime Minister by blaming others for the problems - easy to do in country whose international news broadcasts even only report half truths. When will the Israeli press acknowledge the current contruction of Warsaw ghettos?

Most reader probably don't remember days of VietNam. However they should have read Pentagon Papers. In those days, the US public was routinely lied to by routine ommission and half truths; especially by Nixon and his aides. Remember '4 shot in Ohio' - and the coverup that followed? Live ammo in riot conditions should have benn a felony murder conviction - in the US or Israel. Time Magazine's publisher so disliked honest news reports from his Hong Kong based reporters in VietNam that he had their stories completely rewritten in NYC and Washington only with information from government sources. Read Halbersham's famous book "The Powers that Be" to appreciate what happens when the government - Nixon or Sharon - are the enemy of the country.

The NY Times properly reported the VietNam disaster and was instead domestically declared a communist newspaper by right wing conservatives. You probably don't remember much about VietNam and therefore don't appreciate how much lying was executed routinely by those 'Powers that Be' to coverup who was the real enemy. "We have met the enemy and he is us."

In Israel, news stories were censored by the military. At one point, all American reporters would add that little footnote at the end of their report - until Israeli government officals realized that it was exposing how corrupt the Israeli government had become. There is no NY Times equivalent in Israel to report the whole story - thanks to 'powers that be' such as Likud. Like Nam, the people of Israel read only half truths. Then insist that the US and UK press are anti-Israeli and antiSemitic only because the rest of the story - such as Warsaw ghettos - are not reported.

The resulting violence is inevitable when the government conspires even to violate basic human rights of their own Israeli, but non-Jewish, citizens. Why is that not reported in domestic Israeli news? Clearly US and UK news stories are biased against Israel for reporting this? Go figure. No wonder Israel elected someone more criminal than the crook Richard Nixon. Even their own press does not report the whole story - including the newly constructed Warsaw Ghettoes.

Who mentions that glaring ommission from Radio Jerusalem news reports. Someone who speaks in the better interests of Israel. Notice that some Jews forget (or don't know) that Warsaw ghettos are under construction - nor appreciate the irony of the event. Looking forward to http://www.amnesty.org 's report for this year. Some will have to declare Amnesty International as antiSemitic.

[adamzion]

Originally posted by sycamore
I don't know if you've already been there tw, but you might be interested in checking out Amnesty International's website. They have extensive documentation on Israel.
[/b]

I would only note that, while Israel is roundly condemned in the US and UK media for human rights violations, the PA and the surrounding Arab regimes- dictatorships, every one- seem to get off scot free in most of the media's eyes. Ain't no angels here, sadly enough.

Note that Tom gets almost all of his information from the aforementioned US and UK media.

Consider the media source at all times- all media is biased in some way or another,
Z

[tw]

Originally posted by adamzion
Note that Tom gets almost all of his information from the aforementioned US and UK media.

Consider the media source at all times- all media is biased in some way or another,

I guess I did not hear the same news story from Swiss Radio International? It must have been my imagination. The Swiss said the same thing. It is only Israel that is not telling the whole story. Are you denying the newly constructed Warsaw ghettos - or just ignoring them?

Amnesty Intl also noted human rights abuses among Palestinians. But they not have a special red hyperlink for a problem worse than Kosovo. It's called Israel.

So is Amnesty International also as biased as CNN? Of course not. The bias is in the Likud party line - and those not of the party who don't call the dic head by his proper four letter word descriptions.

Are the US and UK press guilty because they elected a mass murders as Prime Minister? Come on Adam. You support one of the world's greatest enemies by your silence. He advocated the murder of a great man, Rabin. Why do you spit on the grave of Rabin - by not calling Israel's Prime Minister the ass wiper that he is? At least have the decency to acknowledge a strong similarity between 1930 Hitler and today's Ariel Sharon. You can't even do that, so instead you must blame the media?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by adamzion
I would only note that, while Israel is roundly condemned in the US and UK media for human rights violations, the PA and the surrounding Arab regimes- dictatorships, every one- seem to get off scot free in most of the media's eyes. Ain't no angels here, sadly enough.

Note that Tom gets almost all of his information from the aforementioned US and UK media.

Consider the media source at all times- all media is biased in some way or another,
Z

That was the first thing that came to mind when I read AI's report--"A little biased against Israel." The one thing that concerned me was that I saw nothing about Palestine against Israel, but Palestine against their OWN people. And quite frankly, no one can tell me that Palestine (or other Arab countries) have not committed atrocities against Israel during the past 53 years.

Don't worry, Adam. I just happened to read that info and thought of Tom first. If I find some ammo for you, I'll send it along. :-)

Also, how ironic that Israel is attacked by media in the US (Israel's banking specialist) and the UK (Israel's former colonial power). Although, it seemed like the US was pro-Israel for the longest. Only recently has the balance shifted against Israel...at least from what I've seen.

Not that there should be bias anyway...

[Edited by sycamore on 03-13-2001 at 06:56 PM]

[adamzion]

Originally posted by sycamore
Also, how ironic that Israel is attacked by media in the US (Israel's banking specialist) and the UK (Israel's former colonial power). Although, it seemed like the US was pro-Israel for the longest. Only recently has the balance shifted against Israel...at least from what I've seen.
[/b]

I've read that the US media's view of Israel changed dramatically after it won the Six Day War in 1967, which culminated in Israel recapturing the Old City of Jerusalem (which was, contrary to what the media says today, traditionally the <b>Jewish</b> quarter). After that, Israel ceased, in the eyes of the media, to be the "dogged underdog," and was replaced in that role by the Palestinians.

So, even though the Palestinians are members of a group of nations which, collectively, control millions of square miles of territory and billions of dollars of oil; and while Israel is the <b>only</b> Jewish state in the past 2000 years, is roughly the size of New Jersey, and has few natural resources other than its people, the Israelis are the oppressors and the Palestinians are the underdogs. Go fig.

Guh,
Z

[Dagnabit]

I don't take sides on the Middle East much but the Palestinians are clearly the underdog. Look at the picture that started this thread.

[tw]

Originally posted by adamzion
I've read that the US media's view of Israel changed dramatically after it won the Six Day War in 1967 ... After that, Israel ceased, in the eyes of the media, to be the "dogged underdog," and was replaced in that role by the Palestinians.

So, even though the Palestinians are members of a group of nations which, collectively, control millions of square miles of territory and billions of dollars of oil; ...

Everyone is Israel's enemy? The Saudi's are really Palestinians in disguise? Egyptians are only Palestinians in disguise? Jordanians are only Palestinians in disguise? Turks are only Palestinians in disguise? Get real - or at least stop being paranoid.

America should have attacked Israel in 1967 because the Israeli government *intentionally* attacked the USS Liberty killing thirty some US service men and a few American civilians with the obvious intention of sinking USS Liberty. USS Liberty attacked was for reasons that officially are not clear. However (and also repeated by retired Fort Meade employees), USS Liberty was close to and monitoring a Israeli massacre of their Egyptian prisoners (retire employess say the massacre definitely happened - no doubt). Why did Israeli planes, then later Israeli PT boats attack a US ship for under 2 hours when they all knew it to be American? America still remained supportive of Israel.

American pro-Israeli attitudes were so strong that US press even dismissed Sadat's 1973 claims that war would occur if Israel continued to refuse to negotiate. Sadat said he would attack. An extremely pro-Israeli press called it a surprise attack - even though Sadat announced the attack in advance. Why? Israel had no better friends before, during and after 1967 - despite Adam's inaccurate statements. Only a paranoid, "everyone is my enemy" Likud mentality would believe that the Americans had turned anti-Israeli. Even in 1973, Americans were very pro-Israeli when the world was tiring of Israel's refusal to negotiate with Egypt, et al.

Even when no country would permit Israel arms shipped through their country - even then the US rebuilt the entire Israeli Air Force in the emergency resupply that dwarfed the Berlin airlift. Is that a country that was turning anti-Israeli? Of course not.

Adam thinks the US was anti-Israel when even US warships were fully involved in peripheral combat - in Israel's defense.

Adam also forgets Munich. He forgets history (which he was too young to remember). Adam lumps all others as his enemies. This is paranoia we call Likud. This is the paranoia that now makes Israel an international pariah. IOW, I now suspect, Adam is a "closet Likud".

Adam cannot even mention UN Resolution 242 - just like Likud. Not once does he even respond to posts on UN 242. He cannot even quote a post with UN242 - as if UN242 were Ebola. UN 242 **IS** a fundamental principal for Middle East peace - in the Oslo accords - to everyone except Likud. All but the "everyone is against us" Likud acknowledges the existance of UN 242. All but Adam.

Adam reports half truths - then accuses all other responsible news sources - from the Swiss to Japan - as being anti-Israeli. Paranoia just like Likud.

Adam not once acknowledges that Israeli dic head leader 1) repeatedly was insuborinate, 2) violated a cease fire bringing the world closer to nuclear war than the Cuban Missile Crisis, 3) setup the massacre of Palestinian women and children in Lebanon, 4) attacked another soveign nation in a surprise attack without even a declaration of war from his own government, 5) created the Lebanon morass while lying directly in the face of his Prime Minister, and 6) advocated the murder of Rabin. The murder of Rabin. Adam not once even dares to touch a single one of these accurate facts - because he is a "closet Likud"? The murder of Rabin.

Adam. Be a man. Acknowledge that Sharon advocated the murder of Rabin. Acknowledge the existance of UN Resolution 242. Be a man - not a fan of the dic head.

Likud - just another word for a racist, murdering, self righteous enemy of all human rights. Review previous posts. Not once does Adam ever separate himself from Likud. He even regards all others - even the US and UK - as enemies of Israel. Curious. Just like Ariel Sharon and Likud.

With Likud in power, Adam's enemies list has now grown to all other countries in the Middle East! That is paranoia. That is also Likud. That is what Adam is thinking? That is scary.

[adamzion]

Originally posted by Dagnabit
I don't take sides on the Middle East much but the Palestinians are clearly the underdog. Look at the picture that started this thread.

I say again: look at the Middle East <b>as a whole.</b> See all that land? 99+% of it is Arab-controlled. See the little piece of land the size of New Jersey alongside the Medeterranean Sea and crammed in among Transjordan (the actual Palestinian state, if you take even a cursory glance at a history textbook), Egypt, Lebanon, and Syria? That's Israel- all of it. There ain't no more- they're not hiding some millions of square miles of desert containing billions of barrels of oil wealth.

Now, tell me again why the Palestininans, given that they are part of this huge and powerful people are an underdog. Because their own people are fucking them? That's the issue, when it comes right down to it- of all the millions of refugee people since WWII, one group has not been resettled in lands where their own people live- the Palestinian Arabs.
They want restitution for lost land and property? Sure... how 'bout the Arab nations pay the thousands of Jews who were living in Arab nations in 1949, and were expelled when Israel came into being. Right of return? Sure... have the Arab nations grant it to the Jews they kicked out.

Hell, for that matter, every single one of us should probably get on the phone <b>right now</b> and call up a Native American and invite them to move right into our home, since the entire US is built on land which was, in effect, taken from them with a brutality which makes Israel look like the very model of civility.

Again, glass houses and stones,
Z

[tw]

Originally posted by adamzion
...
Now, tell me again why the Palestininans, given that they are part of this huge and powerful people are an underdog. Because their own people are fucking them? That's the issue, when it comes right down to it- of all the millions of refugee people since WWII, one group has not been resettled in lands where their own people live- the Palestinian Arabs.
They want restitution for lost land and property? Sure... how 'bout the Arab nations pay the thousands of Jews who were living in Arab nations in 1949, and were expelled when Israel came into being. Right of return? Sure... have the Arab nations grant it to the Jews they kicked out. ...

No doubt about it. If you kill an Liberian citizen, then you are attacking an American citizen - since Liberians are the same people; just as Iranians are Palestinians. The argument is silly and is part of the process to advocate racial hate. However lets take a different tact.

Adam, from your perspective, what do the Palestinians want? What should they have expected from the Oslo Accords and international agreements such as UN 242? What is it that they are not satisfied with in negotiations?

[tw]

This time Radio Netherlands International chimes in with real world reports. (Add Netherlands to the list of anti Israeli countries because they report more than half truths.) In "Good Life", they visited Gaza strip where the farmer just had 2/3rd of his farmer destroyed only because two Israeli settlements (illegal settlements according to the UN) were located nearby. RNI made a rather disturbing suggestion. These crops and trees are not being chopped because of threats to road traffic. The idea is to make farmers financially destitude; just another program to force Palestinians off their land.

For example, it takes as much as 15 years to establish productive Olive trees. Israeli army is quick to attack olive trees especially on the more futile lands. They note the neighbor, an old lady whose entire strawberry farm was cut down - just sitting there almost comatose. Curiously, no shootings had ever been attempted from any of these farms.

BTW, notice that Jewish Israeli fields are never cleared? Terrorists could attack just as easily from Jewish fields as from Palestinian fields. But when the government is racist, only then does the field's owner make a difference. After all, a Jew would have to be compensated for his loss. Radio Netherlands International was quite explicit when they repeated - no Palestinian will be compensated for the losses incurred by the Israeli government. Ahh but some here will stay quiet rather than admit those Palestinian human rights are violated.

Once there was an honorable country called Israel. Then they elected a dic head. Now boys must stand up to Jewish SS tanks. Interesting and ironic how history repeats itself.

[adamzion]

Originally posted by tw
Adam, from your perspective, what do the Palestinians want? What should they have expected from the Oslo Accords and international agreements such as UN 242? What is it that they are not satisfied with in negotiations?
[/b]

My perspective on what the PLO wants is irrelevant, since what I think about what they want makes no difference.

However, as I have said before, former Israeli PM Ehud Barak made an offer to Yassir Arafat which included virtually all of the Gaza Strip, 90+% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, <b>and</b> PA control of the Temple Mount- the holiest single site in Judaism (as compared to its being the third holiest in Islam). Arafat turned this down.

Rewind to 1948-49. The original partition plan for the British colony of Palestine included three pieces: the independent country of Jordan (aka Transjordan- that part of Palestine which was east of the Jordan river), a Jewish state, and a Palestinian Arab one.

Here is a map of the original partition plan: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/partmap.html

Immediately upon the partition agreement, Israel declared statehood. This was followed immediately by its being attacked by all of the surrounding Arab states. The Palestinians were encouraged by these Arab states to leave their homes in Palestine so as to not be in the way when the Arabs, in their minds inevitably, destroyed the Jewish state. History tells what happened next- not only did the Arab states not destroy Israel, but each time they launched a war against Israel they wound up with less land.

Fast forward to the '70s. Israeli PM Menachem Begin established the principle of land for peace when he agreed to return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in return for the first peace treaty it signed with an Arab state. Put this in context: has <b>any</b> European state returned land which it captured in a war unless it was lost in yet another war? Did the US return Florida, Cuba, or the Phillipines to Spain after capturing those territories? No. Israel did so, and was demonstrably willing to do so again in the case of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.

In the case of East Jerusalem, Israel had agreed to sign over part of its <b>capital city</b>. Would England ever sign over control over part of London? Would the US ever sign over control of part of DC (except to drug dealers, natch)? I dare say no.

And Barak's offer included control of the Temple Mount- the single holiest place in the world to Jews. Would the Catholic Church ever cede control over Vatican City? Would Islam ever cede control over Mecca or Medina? Again, I dare say no.

But, clearly, the Israelis are being unreasonable here. All of these offers were <b>not</b> what Arafat wanted, because all would still include the state of Israel's continued existance. The PLO's track record and charter are crystal clear about one thing: the PLO's aim is to destroy the Jewish state. It's pretty tough to negotiate peace with someone whose sole aim is to see you disappear. And Israel isn't likely to negotiate itself out of existance, as inconvenient as this might be to the rest of the world.

We're still here, get over it,
Z

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by tw
Actually, I hoped that Adam would not worship the fucking scum bag, shit faced, cunt licking, anti everyone else extremist...
[/b]

Darn. You say "cunt-licking" like it's a bad thing. :-)

I know, I know...I still occasionally say "cock-sucker" as a oath too. I'll take one of each, please.

Sorry guys, I'm not diving into this one. I swung by to check on the action and it turns out here's where all the energy is going.

Same old Cellar...new and improved and faster than 2400 baud :-)

[tw]

Originally posted by adamzion

My perspective on what the PLO wants is irrelevant, since what I think about what they want makes no difference.

However, as I have said before, former Israeli PM Ehud Barak made an offer to Yassir Arafat which included virtually all of the Gaza Strip, 90+% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, <b>and</b> PA control of the Temple Mount- the holiest single site in Judaism (as compared to its being the third holiest in Islam). Arafat turned this down.
...

And, as you forgot to say before, Barak also refused to commit to any details. Again you forget that one critical sentence that defines on which side failure resides. As in all previous agreements, those details, without a firm commitment, will only be withdrawn later by Likud. Adam again forgets to tell the whole truth in a hope that others will believe a 'lying by half truth' story. {point 1}

A need to avoid is telling. I posted again UN Resolution 242. UN 242 is fundamental to the peace process. Adam will not discuss it ...Why? {point 2}

Anyone who can understand and appreciate the other's opinions knows that "what I think about what they want makes [every] difference." Only a racist extremist would not be able nor willing to discuss what the other side wants. {point 3}

Adam posted an interesting but totally irrelevant map of the 1947 partitioning followed by much irrelevant notes from history. IOW avoid the most relevant parts of history: Oslo Accords and UN Resolution 242. Adam, you cannot even admit what is required for peace. Again you forget to mention THE fundamental reason why the peace talks broke down? You conveniently blame Palestinians because Barak would not commit to any details. This is nonsense. You know it. So again you post a half truth to put all blame on the Palestinians. {again point 1}

Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice - even the Palestinians are not that dumb. Just watching Ted Koppel's town meeting in Israel tells us that Israel has too many racists in political power - therefore all details rquire full committed up front. Likud previously reneged on previous uncommitted details. The only way to settle with a right wing Israeli government; a commitment to every detail in detail.

Adam, silence on key points suggest you are a closet Likud. Your statements that Iranians, Syrian, Jordanians, Saudis, Tunisians, Egyptians, etc are really Palestinians implies paranoia. Your refusal to correct or even deny such silly posts suggests a racist mentality. Saudis are not Palestinians to those without racial bias. Racists have the 'them all is our enemy' hatred. {point 4}

Adam never acknowledges nor discusses these facts. Likud racist extremists fear these facts because they demand a fair settlement with those Likud regards as dogs. A 'closet' Likud also will not discuss facts in this paragraph: {point 5}

Ariel Sharon is a insuborinate, mass murderer, the father of the Lebanon nightmare, has violated international cease fires almost bringing the world to nuclear war, has a long history of blatant insuborination, and advocated the murder of Rabin. UN Resolution 242 and the Oslo Accords are the fundamental principals to all Middle East peace settlements. Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza are in direct violation of international law and should be removed as part of a peaceful settlement.

Will we ever see UN Resolution 242 discussed in any post from Adam? Israelis interested in peace have no problem discussing UN 242 that defines a fair and equitable settlement. Will Adam? Points 1 thru 5 demonstrates that Adam has an entrenched, "screw them all", attitude. He cannot see the other side's position, does not care to even try, considers every non-Jew as an enemy or persective enemy (as he does the US, UK, Swiss, Netherland, and Japanese press), and denies by silence the fundamental principals for peace. What I first thought was a moderate may indeed be racist Likud who finds peace only murder and stealing of other's property.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by adamzion
However, as I have said before, former Israeli PM Ehud Barak made an offer to Yassir Arafat which included virtually all of the Gaza Strip, 90+% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, <b>and</b> PA control of the Temple Mount- the holiest single site in Judaism (as compared to its being the third holiest in Islam). Arafat turned this down.

Adam, you've mentioned this before. Now, was this actually documented by a major news source, or by the Israeli government or the Palestinian Authority? Or, is this just the word around the campfire?

Rewind to 1948-49. The original partition plan for the British colony of Palestine included three pieces: the independent country of Jordan (aka Transjordan- that part of Palestine which was east of the Jordan river), a Jewish state, and a Palestinian Arab one.

I don't see the Sinai on there though...

Immediately upon the partition agreement, Israel declared statehood.

Actually, didn't Israel declare statehood on the day that Britain's mandate over Palestine expired? Was this partition agreement part of the 1947 UN Resolution?

Fast forward to the '70s. Israeli PM Menachem Begin established the principle of land for peace when he agreed to return the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in return for the first peace treaty it signed with an Arab state. Put this in context: has <b>any</b> European state returned land which it captured in a war unless it was lost in yet another war? Did the US return Florida, Cuba, or the Phillipines to Spain after capturing those territories? No. Israel did so, and was demonstrably willing to do so again in the case of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.

But the Sinai wasn't Israel's to begin with. Nor was Jerusalem (which was an international city) or the West Bank.

In the case of East Jerusalem, Israel had agreed to sign over part of its <b>capital city</b>.

See previous mention of Jerusalem...

The PLO's track record and charter are crystal clear about one thing: the PLO's aim is to destroy the Jewish state. It's pretty tough to negotiate peace with someone whose sole aim is to see you disappear. And Israel isn't likely to negotiate itself out of existance, as inconvenient as this might be to the rest of the world.

The PLO and other Arabs have markedly moved away from this stance during the 1990s, particularly since the Oslo accords. After all, Israel is now at peace with Jordan.

We're still here, get over it

Adam, I can respect the fact that you are proud of your Jewish heritage and your ancestors that have fought so valiantly for their own state. However, this last line you left is what makes it hard for both sides to get along. Arrogance. That, and the PLO talking about an end to a Jewish state. Arrogance on their end too. The Arabs are still here too though. It is obvious that the area of Palestine itself is very sacred to the Jews. However, given that others occupied it for 2000 years previous to the State of Israel, shouldn't it be obvious that the Arabs may have some serious attachment too? Considering it was ruled by the Ottomans for the previous 400 years...

Now shake hands and play nicely...

Still working on getting my casino or discount smoke shop,
Syc



[/b][/quote]

[Edited by sycamore on 03-17-2001 at 03:00 PM]

[adamzion]

[quote]Originally posted by sycamore
[b]

Originally posted by adamzion
However, as I have said before, former Israeli PM Ehud Barak made an offer to Yassir Arafat which included virtually all of the Gaza Strip, 90+% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, <b>and</b> PA control of the Temple Mount- the holiest single site in Judaism (as compared to its being the third holiest in Islam). Arafat turned this down.

Adam, you've mentioned this before. Now, was this actually documented by a major news source, or by the Israeli government or the Palestinian Authority? Or, is this just the word around the campfire?

Not word around the campfire. Hold on...

OK, a quick search turned out the following quote from an article in the <u>New Republic</u> by David Feith dated 9/5/2000:

At Camp David last month, Arafat showed how costly a "final settlement" agreement would be. It is hard to overstate how extraordinary the concessions Barak offered were. According to the most credible reports, they included approximately 90 percent of the West Bank, recognition of a new sovereign Palestinian state therein, the absorption into Israel of 100,000 Palestinian refugees, the abandonment of various Jewish settlements, and, most astonishingly, the division of Jerusalem, with the Palestinians to have sovereignty over the Arab neighborhoods outside the Old City walls and more limited "control" over Muslim and Christian sections of the Old City--including the Temple Mount."

Rewind to 1948-49. The original partition plan for the British colony of Palestine included three pieces: the independent country of Jordan (aka Transjordan- that part of Palestine which was east of the Jordan river), a Jewish state, and a Palestinian Arab one.

I don't see the Sinai on there though...

True enough. The Sinai was captured from Egypt in a war, and returned to Egypt in the peace treaty of '77 (I believe) signed by then Israeli PM Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

Immediately upon the partition agreement, Israel declared statehood.

Actually, didn't Israel declare statehood on the day that Britain's mandate over Palestine expired? Was this partition agreement part of the 1947 UN Resolution?

So I believe.

But the Sinai wasn't Israel's to begin with. Nor was Jerusalem (which was an international city) or the West Bank.

Again, agreed. Israel captured all of the above territory after defeating surrounding Arab nations in wars, most of which were initiated by the Arab nations (one began with an Israeli pre-emptive strike on Egyptian forces which were massing for their own attack).

In the case of East Jerusalem, Israel had agreed to sign over part of its <b>capital city</b>.

See previous mention of Jerusalem...

Jerusalem, however, has been the Jewish capital city for millennia. Think about that. <b>Millennia</b>. That's a long time. Was it under Arab rule for most of the time since 70 AD (and the fall of the Second Temple)? Yes. But were there any attempts to make it an Arab capital in all that time? Not one, until now.

Meanwhile, Jerusalem has been present in every Jewish religious service for, again, millennia. Is this "fair" to the Arabs who lived in Jerusalem prior to the declaration of the Jewish state? No, probably not, and I'm sorry about that. But, again, neither was it fair for the surrounding Arab states to drive out their hundreds of thousands of Jewish citizens following the declaration of Israeli statehood.

The PLO's track record and charter are crystal clear about one thing: the PLO's aim is to destroy the Jewish state. It's pretty tough to negotiate peace with someone whose sole aim is to see you disappear. And Israel isn't likely to negotiate itself out of existance, as inconvenient as this might be to the rest of the world.

The PLO and other Arabs have markedly moved away from this stance during the 1990s, particularly since the Oslo accords. After all, Israel is now at peace with Jordan.

True enough, Israel is at peace with Jordan. But the PLO charter <b>still</b> calls for the destruction of Israel. PA textbooks show a map of Israel, described in its entirity as Palestine, and call for the destruction of the Jewish state. And don't try to convince me that Syria or Iran suddenly want to be all buddy-buddy with Israel.

There's plenty of blame to go around here, fellows. As I said before: everyone seems to be desperate to find the simple, easy-to-understand, <b>wrong</b> answer to this complicated problem.

Sigh,
Z