Abbas: no to settlement of refugees in Lebanon

I apologize for my mis-attribution in the previous post. The quote which begins "Here's a contemporary Israeli's background:" is from a post I made.

alphaomega2012 wrote:

When the Jews defend themselves, then it's ethnic cleansing! But, when those PLO and the rest slaughter Jews, then they are defending thier rights against the barbaric and cowardly Jews!!! Palestinian want a piece treaty alright, they really want the Jewish state in pieces.

When the Israelis forcibly evict Palestinians from land to make way for Israeli settlers it's ethnic cleansing. What do you call it?

I don't defend Palestinian violence and think it is counterproductive to their goals. Israel will have to make peace with the Palestinians and the settlement enterprise is going to make it much more painful.

alphaomega2012 wrote:

The United Nations are a group of prune eating old Euro-farts. That group of misfits has no authority and no credibility. Fancy flock of peaceniks, that pretend to hammer out universal truth. Please do not even mention those idiots and their impotent resolutions. The only resolution I want to hear is the one that permanently closes that hall of nightmares. New York City could better use that real estate for purposes that serve the tax payers of that great city.

It is the United Nations that created Israel in case you forgot. If it were not for the Stalwart support of America Israel would face substantive action from the UN.

alphaomega2012 wrote:

Hey, Marc you are a wikpedia genius...You do what ever it takes to prove your biased views as facts..

Let me know if you need some pointers on how to include factual information in support of a rational argument. I bet you could use some help in that department :-).

Wait... maybe you're saying that the online encyclopedia project is inherently biased towards Israel. Is that it?

Marc wrote:

<quoted text>
So he's a citizen of a state that no longer exists? His family is from the territory today controlled by Israel. He's a Palestinian.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
WTF! No. You had the gall to query whether Yasser Arafat was a Palestinian by questioning his background. Why did my Shimon Peres parallel get you so fired up? Let me make it simple for you. Yasser Arafat is a Palestinian. Shimon Peres is an Israeli. I'm good with the preceding two sentences. How about you?

Shimon Peres moved to palestine in 1934 two years after his father did. 14 years before israel came into being.......does that make him more a palestinian than Arafat who did not arrive until fighting for Egypt as an egyptian citizen in 1948-9? Whilst he(Arafat) prevented Arab Palestine from being a state, the forces he fought for namely Egyptian, militarily occupied Gaza from 1948-9 until 1967. As the Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese and Iraq prevented the palestinian state from getting of the ground, i.e rejected the notion of a palestinian state.
Palestinians in Lebanon can thank Lebanon for not letting their state get of the ground in 1948.
Israel accepts the two state solution then and now.

popular front of judea wrote:

Shimon Peres moved to palestine in 1934 two years after his father did. 14 years before israel came into being.......does that make him more a palestinian than Arafat who did not arrive until fighting for Egypt as an egyptian citizen in 1948-9? Whilst he(Arafat) prevented Arab Palestine from being a state, the forces he fought for namely Egyptian, militarily occupied Gaza from 1948-9 until 1967. As the Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese and Iraq prevented the palestinian state from getting of the ground, i.e rejected the notion of a palestinian state. Palestinians in Lebanon can thank Lebanon for not letting their state get of the ground in 1948. Israel accepts the two state solution then and now.

Backtracking from claiming I've got "gall?" Do you accept that Arafat is Palestinian and Peres is Israeli? It seemed like a simple question.

If Israel is so accepting of the two state solution why are they undermining its potential with settlements?

The_Captain wrote:

<quoted text>
You haven't challenged any of my opinions! All you've done is set up a bunch of straw man arguments, and spewed insults.
My "opinion" was that people (you included) on both sides who view people, be it Palestinian, muslim, jew, refugee, ONLY as belonging to a group, not deserving of individual rights, and the those rights being determined by what long dead ancestors may or may not have done, are the biggest obstacle toward peace. I also said that the refugees in any other context would be demanded to be allowed to return to their homeland by the world community, if they where any other group than "Palestinian". Those where the only two points I made, and you never challenged either one them.(although I think your general tone helped prove the 1st point).

Not here to challenge your opinions, just your bias towards the Jewish state. Actually, your general tone is one of desperation backed up by transparent foundation.

Marc wrote:

<quoted text>
Let me know if you need some pointers on how to include factual information in support of a rational argument. I bet you could use some help in that department :-).
Wait... maybe you're saying that the online encyclopedia project is inherently biased towards Israel. Is that it?

No thanks! I know enough not to attempt to impress pompous moron like you. Perhaps you are inherently biased towards the jews and seek out any source to give legitamacy to your fiction..........Respectfully!

alphaomega2012 wrote:

No thanks! I know enough not to attempt to impress pompous moron like you. Perhaps you are inherently biased towards the jews and seek out any source to give legitamacy to your fiction..........Respectfully!

Ignore everything I've posted and go for the personal attacks. Nice. What have I posted that's inherently "biased towards the jews?" What have I posted that's fiction? Is posting anything negative about the actions of Israel "biased towards the jews" in your cramped little mind?

Marc wrote:

<quoted text>
Ignore everything I've posted and go for the personal attacks. Nice. What have I posted that's inherently "biased towards the jews?" What have I posted that's fiction? Is posting anything negative about the actions of Israel "biased towards the jews" in your cramped little mind?

Marc, Arafat was Egyptian. People who lived in the territories who moved to the Israeli portion became Israeli, as did my Christian parents when they moved from Bethlehem (forced out because they were not pro-Islam and terror and out of their house and business). People who lived in some areas became Jordanian...it was TransJordan before it became Jordan when they received the biggest portion of the territory.

Please don't forget these issues when defending the poor Palestinians because some made choices and some choices were to go to War with Israel along with their Muslim brothers...they have a commonality. Like the Jews they were of one religion Islam.

Jews of many nations came together to unite and if these so called Palestinians, which included Jews chose War, please don't blame the Jews. That is what Hitler and the KKK did. And, that is what the Muslims like to do now.

Please face the whole picture and the truth that underlies why Israel needs to exist and why Islamics couldn't let it be. Muslims were allied with the Nazis before Israel was a nation...they don't want Jews any more than Hitler did.

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/

rezasantorini wrote:

Marc, Arafat was Egyptian. People who lived in the territories who moved to the Israeli portion became Israeli, as did my Christian parents when they moved from Bethlehem (forced out because they were not pro-Islam and terror and out of their house and business). People who lived in some areas became Jordanian...it was TransJordan before it became Jordan when they received the biggest portion of the territory.

You say Arafat was Egyptian and I say Peres is Polish. It's foolish. Arafat was Palestinian and Peres is Israeli. The West Bank was part of Jordan from 1948-1967 and its inhabitants were Jordanian citizens. Jordan has given up its claim to the territory and its inhabitants. Israel should either naturalize the inhabitants or give up the territory and the inhabitants. Israel's actions have shown that they want to keep choice portions of the territory and none of the inhabitants. The Palestinians will not accept less than they were offered and turned down at Taba in 2001. Transjordan was split into Jordan and Palestine by the British in 1922 and I'm not clear on what that has to do with the current conflict. Are you saying that Jordan is the Palestinian state? If so that's pretty funny :-).

rezasantorini wrote:

Please don't forget these issues when defending the poor Palestinians because some made choices and some choices were to go to War with Israel along with their Muslim brothers...they have a commonality. Like the Jews they were of one religion Islam. Jews of many nations came together to unite and if these so called Palestinians, which included Jews chose War, please don't blame the Jews. That is what Hitler and the KKK did. And, that is what the Muslims like to do now. Please face the whole picture and the truth that underlies why Israel needs to exist and why Islamics couldn't let it be. Muslims were allied with the Nazis before Israel was a nation...they don't want Jews any more than Hitler did. http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/

You shouldn't forget history but you also have to live in the present. Nazi Germany was defeated more than 60 years ago and the Nazi movement is not a world force today. Could you please stop re-posting this link? Nobody in their right mind trusts a site whose publisher pays for anonymity by using www.domainsbyproxy.com . Standard fare for spammers and hate speech mongers. You probably know the registrant given your exuberant posting of links to the site. Care to fill us in?

Marc wrote:

<quoted text>
Could you please stop re-posting this link? Nobody in their right mind trusts a site whose publisher pays for anonymity by using www.domainsbyproxy.com . Standard fare for spammers and hate speech mongers. You probably know the registrant given your exuberant posting of links to the site. Care to fill us in?

The site can be evaluated, even though it's publisher wishes for anonymity, as they post links and references (most "hate site" do not post their academic references - as I pointed out to you before). By simply assuming, since you do not like the content as it seems to offend you, it is similar to the propaganda site, such as the one you had listed, is a sad lack of effort and insight by you. I do not object to legitimate contrarian sites, I look, listen and try to absorb the message and see what it means to my perspective. I evaluate based on the references provided not on my opinion of the material, pro or con to my opinion, maybe you should try doing the same. I have no vested interest in any site or publisher, but do support the dissemination of links for sites which present legitimate reference material, as this site does.

Marc wrote:

<quoted text>
The Palestinians will not accept less than they were offered and turned down at Taba in 2001. Transjordan was split into Jordan and Palestine by the British in 1922 and I'm not clear on what that has to do with the current conflict. Are you saying that Jordan is the Palestinian state? If so that's pretty funny :-).

The fact is, that each time the Pals have walked away from an agreement, they should not expect to later get a better deal without offering more, both sides need to make compromises for a deal.

Both sides need to act to increase the others "confidence" in the other, but I only hear of Israel releasing criminal Palestinians or risking security to ease the convenience for the Palestinians. What has been done to increase Israel's confidence.

Since you think it is OK for the Pals to come into existence in 1967 (later if you go by the date they declared their support for a 2 state solution - 1981?) and in direct opposition to their previously stated position as part of the HSJ, then, since most of the "settlers" in the West Bank, reject the Israeli Government, they can declare themselves a separate people and demand a State of their own as well? They have rejected Israel since 1948, a lot longer than the Pals have rejected Jordan.

What the splitting of Transjorn has to do with the issue is related to how much and whose land. Jews, who were at least 50% of the transjordanian population had as much right to the "mandate" which included Israel, West Bank and Jordan. The British divide the Mandate to placate the Arabs and basically eliminated half of the land promised to the Jews from consideration, even though the land was historically part of the lands in question. It is simply to provide equity for all involved that this history need to be respected and included in the conversation.

Marc wrote:

<quoted text>
Transjordan was split into Jordan and Palestine by the British in 1922 and I'm not clear on what that has to do with the current conflict. Are you saying that Jordan is the Palestinian state? If so that's pretty funny :-).
<quoted text>

From: http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNA2.html

Article 2: Palestine, with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate, is a indivisible territorial unit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BritishMan...
Transjordan merely an administrative district of mandate Palestine.

Article 18: The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate System, and all that has been based on them are considered null and void. The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of history or with the true basis of sound statehood. Judaism, because it is a divine religion, is not a nationality with independent existence. Furthermore, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are citizens to their states.

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.

*Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference

popular front of judea wrote:

From: http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNA2.html
Article 2: Palestine, with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate, is a indivisible territorial unit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BritishMan...
Transjordan merely an administrative district of mandate Palestine.

I think that the restoration of Transjordan would not be supported by Israel. Are you trying to argue that since Transjordan is "indivisible" in this charter that Jordan should be the Palestinian state? That seems like cherry picking to me.

popular front of judea wrote:

Article 18: The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate System, and all that has been based on them are considered null and void. The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of history or with the true basis of sound statehood. Judaism, because it is a divine religion, is not a nationality with independent existence. Furthermore, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are citizens to their states.
Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.
*Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference

Are you aware that the PLO's mission has changed since 1964 and they have agreed to amend their charter? How is this outdated information relevant to the current conflict? Israel accepted the Partition Plan borders. Do you think framing a solution based on the Partition Plan would work?

Realist wrote:

The site can be evaluated, even though it's publisher wishes for anonymity, as they post links and references (most "hate site" do not post their academic references - as I pointed out to you before). By simply assuming, since you do not like the content as it seems to offend you, it is similar to the propaganda site, such as the one you had listed, is a sad lack of effort and insight by you. I do not object to legitimate contrarian sites, I look, listen and try to absorb the message and see what it means to my perspective. I evaluate based on the references provided not on my opinion of the material, pro or con to my opinion, maybe you should try doing the same. I have no vested interest in any site or publisher, but do support the dissemination of links for sites which present legitimate reference material, as this site does.

I have evaluated the site. The publisher wants anonymity because any association with this material would make them a pariah. The Palestinians have a land conflict with Israel that has nothing to do with the Nazis. Israel was created on land where they lived. That's the root of the conflict.

Realist wrote:

The fact is, that each time the Pals have walked away from an agreement, they should not expect to later get a better deal without offering more, both sides need to make compromises for a deal.

The Palestinians have compromised. They have agreed to a two state solution in which they get 22% of the land and Israel gets 78%. How is Israel offering a compromise?

Realist wrote:

Both sides need to act to increase the others "confidence" in the other, but I only hear of Israel releasing criminal Palestinians or risking security to ease the convenience for the Palestinians. What has been done to increase Israel's confidence.

I don't think the Palestinian leadership has the power to increase Israel's confidence. What can they do?

Realist wrote:

Since you think it is OK for the Pals to come into existence in 1967 (later if you go by the date they declared their support for a 2 state solution - 1981?) and in direct opposition to their previously stated position as part of the HSJ, then, since most of the "settlers" in the West Bank, reject the Israeli Government, they can declare themselves a separate people and demand a State of their own as well? They have rejected Israel since 1948, a lot longer than the Pals have rejected Jordan. What the splitting of Transjorn has to do with the issue is related to how much and whose land. Jews, who were at least 50% of the transjordanian population had as much right to the "mandate" which included Israel, West Bank and Jordan. The British divide the Mandate to placate the Arabs and basically eliminated half of the land promised to the Jews from consideration, even though the land was historically part of the lands in question. It is simply to provide equity for all involved that this history need to be respected and included in the conversation.

Could you please provide a reference for your "Jews, who were at least 50% of the transjordanian population" statistic. I've never seen demographics that are even close to your assertion. The Jewish population of Palestine at the time of the Partition plan was less than 32% of the total population.(http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Palestine#Demograph ics_in_the_late_Ottoman_and_Br itish_Mandate_periods) I have no idea how you could get your figures given these demographic facts.

Marc wrote:

<quoted text>
The Palestinians have compromised. They have agreed to a two state solution in which they get 22% of the land and Israel gets 78%. How is Israel offering a compromise?
<quoted text>
I don't think the Palestinian leadership has the power to increase Israel's confidence. What can they do?
<quoted text>
Could you please provide a reference for your "Jews, who were at least 50% of the transjordanian population" statistic. I've never seen demographics that are even close to your assertion. The Jewish population of Palestine at the time of the Partition plan was less than 32% of the total population.(http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Palestine#Demograph ics_in_the_late_Ottoman_and_Br itish_Mandate_periods) I have no idea how you could get your figures given these demographic facts.

I will find the stats, yours are based on a census that included both Nomad Arabs as well as non-resident landowners.

That "compromise" you talk about is simply including the West Bank, Gaza and Israel proper, I contend that you cannot discount the legitimate claim of Israel on Jordanian territory if you accept the Palestinian claim on Israel. What is fair is to look only at the West Bank and Gaza, and the Pals are getting 93% in the last Israeli proposal.

As to what the poor Pals could do, how about stop rocket and mortar fire and arrest those responsible, how abut close the illegal tunnel system how about arresting, as they agrred to in Oslo, terrorist identified by Israel to reduce Israel's need to enter Pal territory, or at a minimum, produce and ratify the PROMISED PRECONDITION for NEGOTIATIONS, a NEW CHARTER ELIMINATING the DESTRUCTION OF ISRALE CLAUSES.

Marc wrote:

<quoted text>
I think that the restoration of Transjordan would not be supported by Israel. Are you trying to argue that since Transjordan is "indivisible" in this charter that Jordan should be the Palestinian state? That seems like cherry picking to me.
<quoted text>
Are you aware that the PLO's mission has changed since 1964 and they have agreed to amend their charter? How is this outdated information relevant to the current conflict? Israel accepted the Partition Plan borders. Do you think framing a solution based on the Partition Plan would work?

1st point: you seem to think that Palestine was created out of us Brits splitting Transjordan in two. it is actually the other way round.Palestine was split in two by the brits to create tranjordan and palestine.

Your 2nd point. Have they amended them? Despite sending letters to say they have amended them it needed a 2/3rds majority to do so. Their rep at the UN says nothing has changed.
"From: http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/2ee946874755... !OpenDocumen

"In May 1996, PNC Chairman Selim Zaanoun asserted that the Covenant had been amended but added that no specific articles were cancelled, and in an interview on 22 January 1998 the head of the PNC's legal committee, Faisal Hamdi Husseini, stated that the changes had not been carried out. Israel pointed out that Chairman Arafat had committed himself to the Note for the Record of the Hebron Protocol, an agreement which included the principle of reciprocity: Israel would not be expected to implement its commitments if the PLO did not fulfil its pledges, including its pledge to revise the Covenant".

The operative words "the changes have not been carried out".

Tell the press and the world they changed the covenant but don`t actually do it. Privately and in house the covenant still stands.

Realist wrote:

I will find the stats, yours are based on a census that included both Nomad Arabs as well as non-resident landowners.

I won't be holding my breath. I'm sure the source will be well respected :-).

Realist wrote:

That "compromise" you talk about is simply including the West Bank, Gaza and Israel proper, I contend that you cannot discount the legitimate claim of Israel on Jordanian territory if you accept the Palestinian claim on Israel.

Show me the money (your source).

Realist wrote:

What is fair is to look only at the West Bank and Gaza, and the Pals are getting 93% in the last Israeli proposal.

Even the Israeli state realizes that 100% of the West Bank and Gaza territory is what is expected. Why do you think they came up with the Negev Desert land swap?

Realist wrote:

As to what the poor Pals could do, how about stop rocket and mortar fire and arrest those responsible, how abut close the illegal tunnel system how about arresting, as they agrred to in Oslo, terrorist identified by Israel to reduce Israel's need to enter Pal territory, or at a minimum, produce and ratify the PROMISED PRECONDITION for NEGOTIATIONS, a NEW CHARTER ELIMINATING the DESTRUCTION OF ISRALE CLAUSES.

The Israelis don't seem that interested in the charter changes you're yelling about: "Like President Clinton, Israel and the Likud party now formally agreed that the objectionable clauses of the charter had been abrogated, in official statements and statements by Prime Minister Netanyahu, Foreign Minister Sharon, Defense Minister Mordechai and Trade and Industry Minister Sharansky.[15][16][17][18] With official Israeli objections to the Charter disappearing henceforward from lists of Palestinian violations of agreements[19], the international legal controversy ended." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Palestinian_National_Covenant# Events_of_1998_and_after)

I don't think the Palestinian leadership is capable of stopping rocket and mortar fire or arresting those responsible under current circumstances. They're already in a civil war. There would have to be a cooling off period that included an end to Israeli actions against Palestinians to make such steps possible.