Israel Independence Day!....Whats your thought?

Manic Moran

wes wrote: »

That a myth simply put. No such offer was ever made.

Not being familiar with the details of the plan, I've just been bouncing around different sites trying to look it up, and it seems that such an offer was indeed made. In fact, Arafat accepted it: Almost two years later, after Sharon had replaced Barak, and for whatever reason, Sharon was less willing to compromise, so the opportunity was missed.

Apparently one of the main contentions was that under the Clinton plan, Israeli forces would not fully withdraw for about three years, whilst the Palestinians wanted them out immediately. The fundamental comments of "100% Gaza, over 90% West Bank (plus bits of Jerusalem), in an independent state" seem to be borne out by pretty much any article I can find on the subject.

NTM

Chakar

The reasons for the lack of progress in the Middle East process is largely down to the religious beliefs and foreign policies of President Bush. You see Bush is an evangelical Christian and their beliefs follow the lines along that of the Zionists. The portrayal of the Arab-Israeli War in religious terms was quite prominient in evangelical Christian and Zionist religious beliefs and ideology. Bush fully supports the Israeli state in its current territories and sees it as a part of chain of events leading to the fulfilment of a religous prophesy of Jesus coming to Earth.

Bush's policy is also undoubtedly influenced by his political priorities as fundamental Christians and Zionists would vehemently oppose the coercion of a Israeli Prime Minister into accepting a deal with the Palestinian Authority. He also saw Yasser Arafat as nothing more than a terrorist and insisted that he would have nothing to do with him.

Indeed if the Bush administration put as much effort as they did with the invasion of Iraq, we would probably see progress in the Middle East. However with the instability of the ME caused by the invasion of Iraq, it has actually gone backward.

wes

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not being familiar with the details of the plan, I've just been bouncing around different sites trying to look it up, and it seems that such an offer was indeed made. In fact, Arafat accepted it: Almost two years later, after Sharon had replaced Barak, and for whatever reason, Sharon was less willing to compromise, so the opportunity was missed.

Apparently one of the main contentions was that under the Clinton plan, Israeli forces would not fully withdraw for about three years, whilst the Palestinians wanted them out immediately. The fundamental comments of "100% Gaza, over 90% West Bank (plus bits of Jerusalem), in an independent state" seem to be borne out by pretty much any article I can find on the subject.

NTM

The article provided goes through the details, what was offered wasn't a proper state. It was a state in name. Sharon came and offered even less, the details are laid out here:

The real deal

Barak offers didn't include colonies already taken. The 95% offered excluded existing colonies. The whole point of the article I provide is to show that the story often presented leaves out the details. The Israeli government has never actually been genuine with offers of peace. We can even see it now with more colonies being built in the West Bank.

What your saying is technically correct, but when you take a look at the small print, what was being offered doesn't amount to state, but isolated Bantustans.

Chakar

This article provides greater detail with the nuances of the negotiations teased out. It appears that it was ultimately doomed by the antics going on in both sides.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380

wes

Chakar wrote: »

This article provides greater detail with the nuances of the negotiations teased out. It appears that it was ultimately doomed by the antics going on in both sides.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380

Cheers for that, there is so much conflicting info on the deal and the article (i skimmed it, will give it a proper read later), looks to go through most of the details.

humberklog

Jeeeze....you girls still at it? Ye's have stamina! I'm not even half way through the week of celebration and I'm feeling ropey and running outta Israel related T-shirts to wear to the pub. Had my IDF yellow and green one in Sin E last night. Looked very smart too. More booze...dada,dedede,dada.

Gobán Saor

Chakar wrote: »

This article provides greater detail with the nuances of the negotiations teased out. It appears that it was ultimately doomed by the antics going on in both sides.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380

Good find, Chakar. About as close to a neutral account as you'll get. Fault on both sides as distinct from the usual Israelis-as-fount-of-all-evil stuff that passes for informed debate on Palestinian issues in this country. Essentially the 2000 negotiations were riddled with mistrust and badly handled on both sides. The final effort came from Clinton in the final days of his presidency and is described in the article as:

Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank and it would as well have land belonging to pre-1967 Israel equivalent to another 1 to 3 percent of West Bank territory. Palestinian refugees would have the right to return to their homeland in historic Palestine, a right that would guarantee their unrestricted ability to live in Palestine while subjecting their absorption into Israel to Israel's sovereign decision. In Jerusalem, all that is Arab would be Palestinian, all that is Jewish would be Israeli. Palestine would exercise sovereignty over the Haram and Israel over the Western Wall, through which it would preserve a connection to the location of the ancient Jewish Temple.

Note (for Wes;)) this proposal was neither a "myth" nor a "bantustan"; it fulfilled the basic Palestinian demands for a homeland and a (negotiated) right of return. Copious EU and US aid was available to the nascent Palestinian state. Yet the tragedy is that Arafat rejected it, as the article says: "more through miscalculation than through mischief."

Chakar

wes wrote: »

Cheers for that, there is so much conflicting info on the deal and the article (i skimmed it, will give it a proper read later), looks to go through most of the details.

That's true specifically regarding the deal but there are so many prejudices and misinformation regarding the Middle East under various questions and issues. The question of whether Islam/Muslim is compatible with democracy, regarding the rights and treatment of women except in Saudi Arabia, the values of the Middle East and of Muslims.

I suppose it's the same with immigration, rhetoric apparently is king. As least the burning rhetoric at the moment with the whole Chinese staging of the Olympics is mostly correct.

wes

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Note (for Wes;)) this proposal was neither a "myth" nor a "bantustan"; it fulfilled the basic Palestinian demands for a homeland and a (negotiated) right of return. Copious EU and US aid was available to the nascent Palestinian state. Yet the tragedy is that Arafat rejected it, as the article says: "more through miscalculation than through mischief."

I stand by what I said. I provided another account and it backs up what I said. The offer isn't what it was being made out to be and you ignore this from the article:

The final and largely unnoticed consequence of Barak's approach is that, strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer.

As I stated before the offer was a myth, it never materialized.

I never said the Palestinians weren't at fault in some way as well, but the offer was never really there.

Then there is the articles conclusion:

Had there been, in hindsight, a generous Israeli offer? Ask a member of the American team, and an honest answer might be that there was a moving target of ideas, fluctuating impressions of the deal the US could sell to the two sides, a work in progress that reacted (and therefore was vulnerable) to the pressures and persuasion of both. Ask Barak, and he might volunteer that there was no Israeli offer and, besides, Arafat rejected it. Ask Arafat, and the response you might hear is that there was no offer; besides, it was unacceptable; that said, it had better remain on the table.

Offer or no offer, the negotiations that took place between July 2000 and February 2001 make up an indelible chapter in the history of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. This may be hard to discern today, amid the continuing violence and accumulated mistrust. But taboos were shattered, the unspoken got spoken, and, during that period, Israelis and Palestinians reached an unprecedented level of understanding of what it will take to end their struggle. When the two sides resume their path toward a permanent agreement—and eventually, they will—they will come to it with the memory of those remarkable eight months, the experience of how far they had come and how far they had yet to go, and with the sobering wisdom of an opportunity that was missed by all, less by design than by mistake, more through miscalculation than through mischief.

Yes, a lot of stuff was discussed, and there was potential there for peace, but sadly no offer was ever made, some stuff was considered certainly, but it never actually happened. There was no offer, the article makes that clear. Was there blame on both side, yes there was, but still at the end of the day the great Israeli offer never actually happened.

**EDIT**

From the Guardian:

A Palestinian this week, spotting for the first time new Jewish houses on the outskirts of Jerusalem, said: "It is like a magic wand. You go away for a few weeks and then suddenly there is a whole new place." The Israeli government, supposedly committed to no new settlements, announced this week a further 700 new houses. The Israeli government finds it easy to keep to its commitment to build no new settlements: because there are so many already on the West Bank, all it has to do is just keep expanding existing ones.

It is against this background that Barak's "generous" deal should be seen. The Israelis portrayed it as the Palestinians receiving 96% of the West Bank. But the figure is misleading. The Israelis did not include parts of the West Bank they had already appropriated.

The Palestine that would have emerged from such a settlement would not have been viable. It would have been in about half-a-dozen chunks, with huge Jewish settlements in between - a Middle East Bantustan. The Israeli army would also have retained the proposed Palestinian state's eastern border, the Jordan valley, for six to 10 years and, more significantly, another strip along the Dead Sea coast for an unspecified period: so much for being an independent state.

The article from the New York books review is good, but its conclusion was a bit off on what was on offer imho. The Guardian article highlights what was being proposed and the details that are missing. Btw both article state Israel would keep it main West Bank colonies.

Either way nothing was ever on offer in the end.

Chakar

I was watching an episode of 'Big Bang Theory' on Channel 4 last night. The episode was entitled 'The Jerusalem Duality'. One of the gags was that one of the genuises lost his chance of winning a Nobel Prize in Physics and he thought he might win a Nobel Peace Prize by building an exact replica of Jerusalem with a copy of the 'Wailing Wall' in the middle of Mexico in the desert. It was hilarious, he said they will come and force out the Mexicans.

wes

I saw that episode last night. It was pretty funny all round.

OK-Cancel-Apply

Chakar wrote: »

The reasons for the lack of progress in the Middle East process is largely down to the religious beliefs and foreign policies of President Bush. You see Bush is an evangelical Christian and their beliefs follow the lines along that of the Zionists. The portrayal of the Arab-Israeli War in religious terms was quite prominient in evangelical Christian and Zionist religious beliefs and ideology. Bush fully supports the Israeli state in its current territories and sees it as a part of chain of events leading to the fulfilment of a religous prophesy of Jesus coming to Earth.

Bush's policy is also undoubtedly influenced by his political priorities as fundamental Christians and Zionists would vehemently oppose the coercion of a Israeli Prime Minister into accepting a deal with the Palestinian Authority. He also saw Yasser Arafat as nothing more than a terrorist and insisted that he would have nothing to do with him.

Indeed if the Bush administration put as much effort as they did with the invasion of Iraq, we would probably see progress in the Middle East. However with the instability of the ME caused by the invasion of Iraq, it has actually gone backward.

Great point. A huge number of Zionists in the U.S. are Fundamentalist Christians praying for the End Times. I wish that could be sarcasm, but sadly it's true.

Gobán Saor

wes wrote: »

I stand by what I said... The offer isn't what it was being made out to be ..... As I stated before the offer was a myth, it never materialized.......I never said the Palestinians weren't at fault in some way as well, but the offer was never really there.
......
Yes, a lot of stuff was discussed, and there was potential there for peace, but sadly no offer was ever made, some stuff was considered certainly, but it never actually happened. There was no offer, the article makes that clear. Was there blame on both side, yes there was, but still at the end of the day the great Israeli offer never actually happened.
.......
Either way nothing was ever on offer in the end.

Yes, technically, there never was a formal Israeli offer. (Btw that's not unusual in mediated negotiations.) BUT there WAS an offer from Clinton as described in the NY books review. Israel confirmed the Clinton proposal was acceptable to it - Arafat rejected it. It was a real offer, not a myth and it was certainly not a Bantustan.

BTW, I find the Guardian to be incredibly selective in its coverage of Israeli/Palestinian affairs (whilst being careful to avoid untruthfulness) and it never veers too far from the Robert Fisk style party line so beloved of Irish "liberals."

wes

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Yes, technically, there never was a formal Israeli offer. (Btw that's not unusual in mediated negotiations.) BUT there WAS an offer from Clinton as described in the NY books review. Israel confirmed the Clinton proposal was acceptable to it - Arafat rejected it. It was a real offer, not a myth and it was certainly not a Bantustan.

Keeping the colonies would have resulted in a Bantustan. Thats my conclusion and the conclusion in the article I provided. You seem to be ignoring the point where i point out that Israel would keep its colonies and thats what I base my conclusion on.

The New York review comes to a different conclusion, one that I don't agree with, when it talk about what Barak was discussing. However, the article is still very good and exposes that no offer was made. Thats the important part and many people say (including you) there was an offer, there wasn't. You can argue that Israel may have been willing to make an offer, maybe they were, but they didn't make one. This is a fact and calling it a myth is accurate.

Gobán Saor wrote: »

BTW, I find the Guardian to be incredibly selective in its coverage of Israeli/Palestinian affairs (whilst being careful to avoid untruthfulness) and it never veers too far from the Robert Fisk style party line so beloved of Irish "liberals."

There pretty fair to Israel imho. Publishing things that are negative about Israel, tends to get that accusation thrown about. Apologists for Israel throw such accusations (and worse), against anyone who doesn't support Israel.

Reshaping History By Noam Chomsky

.........................................

Miller carries the story on in the same vein, leading to the standard denouement: at Camp David, Arafat "walked away" from the magnanimous Clinton-Barak offer of peace, and even afterwards refused to join Barak in accepting Clinton's December 2000 "parameters", thus proving conclusively that he insists on violence, a depressing truth with which the peace-loving states, the US and Israel, must somehow come to terms.

Turning to actual history, the Camp David proposals divided the West Bank into virtually separated cantons, and could not possibly be accepted by any Palestinian leader. That is evident from a look at the maps that were easily available, but not in the NYT, or apparently anywhere in the US mainstream, perhaps for that reason. After the collapse of these negotiations, Clinton recognised that Arafat's reservations made sense, as demonstrated by the famous "parameters", which, though vague, went much further towards a possible settlement -- thus undermining the official story, but that's only logic, therefore as unacceptable as history. Clinton gave his own version of the reaction to his "parameters" in a talk to the Israeli Policy Forum on 7 January 2001: "Both Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat have now accepted these parameters as the basis for further efforts. Both have expressed some reservations."

One can learn this from such obscure sources as the prestigious Harvard-MIT journal International Security (Fall 2003), along with the conclusion that "the Palestinian narrative of the 2000-01 peace talks is significantly more accurate than the Israeli narrative" -- the US-NYT "narrative".

Click here for the rest

Just another example of what I am talking about. I am not the only one who comes to the conclusion that Israel offer wasn't up to snuff.

I would also recommend "Freedom Next time" By John Pilger, which (in the 2nd chapter) also goes over the so called Camp David offer, as well as other issue concerning the conflict.

Gobán Saor

wes wrote: »

Keeping the colonies would have resulted in a Bantustan. Thats my conclusion and the conclusion in the article I provided. You seem to be ignoring the point where i point out that Israel would keep its colonies and thats what I base my conclusion on.

The New York review comes to a different conclusion, one that I don't agree with, when it talk about what Barak was discussing. However, the article is still very good and exposes that no offer was made. Thats the important part and many people say (including you) there was an offer, there wasn't. You can argue that Israel may have been willing to make an offer, maybe they were, but they didn't make one. This is a fact and calling it a myth is accurate.

OK, like I said there was no formal Israeli offer. However there was an offer from Clinton, for which he had secured Israeli assent. That's no myth. The Clinton offer went much further towards the Palestinians than Barak had been prepared to offer at Camp David. So, to be clear, I'm talking about the Clinton offer, not Barak's position at Camp David. A real offer, no myth, no Bantustan.

wes wrote: »

There pretty fair to Israel imho. Publishing things that are negative about Israel, tends to get that accusation thrown about. Apologists for Israel throw such accusations (and worse), against anyone who doesn't support Israel.

Well publishing only negative things about Israel is a legitimate cause for criticism. There is much to be positive about Israel and much to be negative about on the other side. And vice versa. But the standard Fisk/Chomsky/Pilger/Guardian/RTE/Irish Times line is uniquely critical of Israel and incredibly lenient towards its opponents

wes wrote: »

I would also recommend "Freedom Next time" By John Pilger, which (in the 2nd chapter) also goes over the so called Camp David offer, as well as other issue concerning the conflict.

Again, I'm not talking about the Camp David "offer" - I'm referring to the Clinton offer which went much further to the Palestinian position.

wes

Gobán Saor wrote: »

OK, like I said there was no formal Israeli offer. However there was an offer from Clinton, for which he had secured Israeli assent. That's no myth. The Clinton offer went much further towards the Palestinians than Barak had been prepared to offer at Camp David. So, to be clear, I'm talking about the Clinton offer, not Barak's position at Camp David. A real offer, no myth, no Bantustan.
.

You say there was no formal offer. So it wasn't exactly real now was it. The article clearly state there was no offer, there were proposals nothing more.

Reshaping History by Noam Chomsky

......................
After that, high-level Israeli-Palestinian negotiators proceeded to take the Clinton parameters as "the basis for further efforts," and addressed their "reservations" at meetings in Taba through January. These produced a tentative agreement, meeting some of the Palestinian concerns -- and thus again undermining the official story. Problems remained, but the Taba agreements went much further towards a possible settlement than anything that had preceded. The negotiations were called off by Barak, so their possible outcome is unknown. A detailed report by EU envoy Miguel Moratinos was accepted as accurate by both sides, and prominently reported in Israel. But I doubt that it has ever been mentioned here in the mainstream.

Click here for the rest

As can be seen here, the Clinton offer was no such thing. It amounted to nothing. No offer was made. What you call an offer was nothing at all. It meant nothing.

It could have gone somewhere. It did address some of there concerns. It, however went no where and Barak called off negotiations. As such no offer at all.

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Well publishing only negative things about Israel is a legitimate cause for criticism. There is much to be positive about Israel and much to be negative about on the other side. And vice versa. But the standard Fisk/Chomsky/Pilger/Guardian/RTE/Irish Times line is uniquely critical of Israel and incredibly lenient towards its opponents.

I see nothing positive about an apartheid state. I see no reason why media outlets should find positive aspects about Apartheid. However, there is plenty of positive spin in the media about Israel from other sources, its just gotten harder as the truth about Apartheid has started to come out.

I don't see much from those source positive about say Myanmar, Zimbabwe or other countries. Why should Israel be accorded special status? Should we criticize the Guardian etc about not printing positive stories about those nations. Of course not. News tends to be negative, when dealing with everything. Remember if it bleeds it leads.

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Again, I'm not talking about the Camp David "offer" - I'm referring to the Clinton offer which went much further to the Palestinian position.

Apologies, I got confused.

Chomsky article which I link addresses the entire affair including Clintons offer. It all amounted to nothing sadly.

wes

Johann Hari (Independent Columnist) posted some interesting quotes from the first Israeli Prime Minister. It clearly show his intent towards the Palestinians and helps put the Ethnic cleansing and the creation of Israel in context.

False denunciations and unwelcome facts: part 2

By Johann Hari

Phillips and Honest Reporting choose Benny Morris as their follow-this-link example of a historian you can trust, a reasonable arbiter of what actually happened. So let’s just look at the Ben Gurion quotes we know he accepts because he draws on them in his own work. In a letter to his son Amos on 5 October 1937, Ben Gurion wrote: “We could not tolerate vast areas of Palestine that would not be colonized by us. We will expel the Arabs, the Arabs would have to go... If we have to use force, we will use force. The appropriate moment would come if not now, later...We can wait for great revolutions to come.' [Ben-Gurion Archives, the Correspondence Section, doc. 19-22]

In a letter to the Executive on 13 July 1937, Ben Gurion wrote: “There is one point which is more important than any achievements of the Jewish people, even during the first and second Temples when the Jews were independent, and this [is] the concept of enforced transfer...With the enforced transfer we can envisage a real Jewish state....Enforced transfer is more important than a state, a sovereignty. It is the only way to ensure our national settlement in the land...The uprooting of hundreds of thousands of Arabs from their homes, is this something Britain would dare to do? No, we have to push it to do it...and if not we will have to do it...We should release ourselves from the feebleness of thought that enforced transfer is not possible.” [source, ibid, doc. 63-67]

Towards the end of his life, Ben Gurion wrote: “Why should the Arabs make peace? . . . We have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them?” [As quoted in this week’s New Yorker profile of Benny Morris.]

Click here for the rest

Ben Gurion words, make his intent very clear and shows what the creation of Israel meant for the Palestinians and what the intent of the Zionist was.

It also shows the absurdity to deny that Ethnic cleansing was a policy of the Zionists who founded Israel.

LordSutch

Ah yes, Pontification, what a great feeling of Power it is to look down on the opinions & arguments of other less mortals, and Pontificate on their opinions & 'put down' all around you ........

Someone thinks that 'they alone' are Judge, Jury & Executioner, I wonder who

wes

ArthurF wrote: »

Ah yes, Pontification, what a great feeling of Power it is to look down on the opinions & arguments of other less mortals, and Pontificate on their opinions & 'put down' all around you ........

Someone thinks that 'they alone' are Judge, Jury & Executioner, I wonder who

The quotes are damning I know. So once again instead of trying to argue anything, you insist on posting complete nonsense.

I am saying those who deny ethnic cleansing are factually incorrect. This has nothing to do with opinions, but has everything to do with facts.

LordSutch

Jasus ~ Can nobody say anything Pro-Israel? or even argue against the Anti-Israel Oracle, without a total Put-Down .......?

Has it really come to that sorry stage?

Me thinks this Thread might be nearing its sorry end.

Oh No ~ Not ethnic cleansing again ........................ :eek:

wes

ArthurF wrote: »

Jasus ~ Can nobody say anything Pro-Israel? or even argue against the Anti-Israel Oracle, without a total Put-Down .......?

I am dealing in facts here. I have presented a case that says people where ethnically cleansed, I have provided the definition of the term and backed up my argument.

You say I am dismissing other people opinions. I am just pointing out that they are factually incorrect.

Having said that the whole point of a message board is to discuss things, hence why I am doing so.

ArthurF wrote: »

Has it really come to that sorry stage?

What? Pointing out facts? Thats all I am doing. I am not putting anyone down.

ArthurF wrote: »

Me thinks this Thread might be nearing its sorry end.

I think thats up to the moderators and not you or me.

ArthurF wrote: »

Oh No ~ Not ethnic cleansing again ........................ :eek:

I have said this several times. The creation of the state of Israel, resulted in the Ethnic cleansing of thousands of Palestinians and I personally think this should be pointed out to provide the Palestinian side of the story.

The op asked what people taught of Israels independence, all I am doing is discussing the topic. Its the whole point of a message board.

If you don't want to discuss the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, well no one is making you discuss it. You have a choice to not engage in the discussion.

I on the other hand wish to discuss it and am not forcing anyone to engage in the discussion with me.

LordSutch

wes wrote: »

I am dealing in facts here. I have presented a case that says people where ethnically cleansed, I have provided the definition of the term and backed up my argument.

You say I am dismissing other people opinions. I am just pointing out that they are factually incorrect.

Having said that the whole point of a message board is to discuss things, hence why I am doing so.

What? Pointing out facts? Thats all I am doing. I am not putting anyone down.

I think thats up to the moderators and not you or me.

I have said this several times. The creation of the state of Israel, resulted in the Ethnic cleansing of thousands of Palestinians and I personally think this should be pointed out to provide the Palestinian side of the story.

The op asked what people taught of Israels independence, all I am doing is discussing the topic. Its the whole point of a message board.

If you don't want to discuss the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, well no one is making you discuss it. You have a choice to not engage in the discussion.

I on the other hand wish to discuss it and am not forcing anyone to engage in the discussion with me.

My goodness, is that the time ~ Good night (again), no doubt we will cross swords again tomorrow.

wes

ArthurF wrote: »

My goodness, is that the time ~ Good night (again), no doubt we will cross swords again tomorrow.

I hardly see how this is relevant at all to the discussion. Which is par for course with your posts.

Anyway, I will go back to discussing the topic and using the correct term Ethnic cleansing to describe what was done to the Palestinians in 1948. To provide a counter point to the creation of Israel, to show that there were victims of its creation.

You don't like the term, well thats your problem. The usage is correct for the events of 1948. Your continually trying to say otherwise, despite several of your claims being proven incorrect earlier in this thread. Your attempts to get me to stop using this accurate term, are not going to work. Simply put, the term "Ethnic cleansing" is an appropriate description of the events of 1948. The more times you try and question this, the more I will use the term and bring it up. The simple fact of the matter is you can't change the meaning of the term, its is well defined at this point.

Your argument thus far have been wanting, so this "crossing swords" you speak of is not happening. Its just me, continually pointing out that the term Ethnic cleansing, is an appropriate term to describe what was done to the Palestinians in 1948, as per the definitions myself and other posters have provided.

The term Ethnic cleansing, which you find so objectionable is not being used for it emotive context (you made such claims earlier), but rather as it is the best term to describe what was done to the Palestinians in 1948, by the Zionists who created Israel.

LordSutch

This thread could have been soooo different, informative, interesting, & relating to real life in Israel in a positive way (had it not taken the sorry & depressing direction that it has). so I will attempt to steer it back on track & see what happens

My first visit to the Holy Land was in 1987, I was very young & it was an experience I will never forget, from the language to the culture to the food, to the climate, it was fascinating just to be in Israel, which is also surprisingly a very 'European' country when compared to Egypt for example.

Working on a farm, I have never seen so much water irrigation pipe in my life, & full credit to those industrious Israeli's fellas, for they really can turn a very dry & arid desert into an Oasis or Apple orchard as I can personally testify to, seeing as I spent backbreaking months cotton picking & climbing ladders picking apples & jaffa Oranges where only desert had been just twenty years previously!

I have many fond memories of various Israeli Religious & non Religious Celebrations which mostly involved copious amounts of wine & chicken for some reason, but one of my enduring memories was working on a Mellon farm down South near 'Eilat' when Sly Stallone & his entorage came into Town to film 'Rambo III' in the Israeli desert (was meant to resemble Afghanistan):) this 'film extra' work was paid much better than the old Mellon Job, so I stuck with it for a while & actually met Stallone in the process! we were just beside the Jordanian border which was also quite fascinating for the amount of security & the Jordanian Airforce very visible through the barbed wire fence!

Many years later I lived in Tel Aviv which is a very hard working industrious City & I could go-on for ever about how Great it is too, but I wont ........... Jerusalem (the old City) on the other hand is like stepping back into history, I mean it really is like what you would imagine a scene from the Bible to be & I can highly recommend a visit for those interested in History, I also found the people to be very hospitable & welcomimg, specially to other Europeans.

I have always found Israeli's to be very Hard working, Proud, Industrious people on the whole, but with a strong sence of militarism about them (because of the constant threat) & that always takes a bit of getting used to . . . oh, and I remember well one incident in Tel Aviv I think it was, when I went to cross a road without waiting for the 'Green Man' & I was swiftly taken to the road side & given a grilling by the Israeli Police ~ 'ouch' but thats the way it is there & they dont mess about, they are always on guard & always ready to pounce, and God help you if you leave your ruck sack on a bus!

Anyway, I am just trying to inject some personal memories of Israel & her people into a Thread which could & should have been a 'Celebration' on the anniversary of the foundation of the State of Israel . . . . .

And thats it really ~ just a few personal observations & interesting occourances from somebody who actually lived & worked in Israel, oh yeah, & Jaffa Oranges really are the best

fly_agaric

ArthurF wrote: »

This thread could have been soooo different, informative, interesting, & relating to real life in Israel in a positive way (had it not taken the sorry & depressing direction that it has). so I will attempt to steer it back on track & see what happens

To repeat, why don't you take yourself off and start a new thread then? You know how don't you? The OP said (rather sarcastically) that Israel's Independance Day should be called "Occupation Day". Hardly very positive IMO so if you are looking for paeons to Israel you would seem to be in the wrong place and are actually steering the thread in a different direction from how it began.

ArthurF wrote: »

was fascinating just to be in Israel, which is also surprisingly a very 'European' country when compared to Egypt for example.

How is that surprising? The state was created by European emigres wasn't it?
It is sort of Europe's final colonial effort, isn't it?

ArthurF wrote: »

apples & jaffa Oranges where only desert had been just twenty years previously!

Ah Yes.
All that "deserts blooming" stuff you love sort of reminds me of...

"the settler and the pioneer have at bottom had justice on their side; this great continent could not have been kept as nothing but a game preserve for squalid savages"

wes

ArthurF wrote: »

This thread could have been soooo different, informative, interesting, & relating to real life in Israel in a positive way (had it not taken the sorry & depressing direction that it has). so I will attempt to steer it back on track & see what happens

Nonsense. I have already shown you were wrong on the purpose of this thread. I will quote the op again.

Suff wrote: »

Israel Independence Day
Today marks Israel's "independence day" celebrations in Mount Hertzel in Jerusalem.

imho it should be called "Occupation Day"...

I would like to know whats your thoughts on this.

The thread was never about being positive about Israel. What you saying is pure fantasy.

ArthurF wrote: »

My first visit to the Holy Land was in 1987, I was very young & it was an experience I will never forget, from the language to the culture to the food, to the climate, it was fascinating just to be in Israel, which is also surprisingly a very 'European' country when compared to Egypt for example.

Its also an apartheid state.

ArthurF wrote: »

Working on a farm, I have never seen so much water irrigation pipe in my life, & full credit to those industrious Israeli's fellas, for they really can turn a very dry & arid desert into an Oasis or Apple orchard as I can personally testify to, seeing as I spent backbreaking months cotton picking & climbing ladders picking apples & jaffa Oranges where only desert had been just twenty years previously!

Palestinians use to farm the land just fine before. More fantasy.

Also this quote from earlier:

Johann Hari: Israel is suppressing a secret it must face

..............
But I can't do it. Whenever I try to mouth these words, a remembered smell fills my nostrils. It is the smell of ****. Across the occupied West Bank, raw untreated sewage is pumped every day out of the Jewish settlements, along large metal pipes, straight onto Palestinian land. From there, it can enter the groundwater and the reservoirs, and become a poison.

Standing near one of these long, stinking brown-and-yellow rivers of waste recently, the local chief medical officer, Dr Bassam Said Nadi, explained to me: "Recently there were very heavy rains, and the **** started to flow into the reservoir that provides water for this whole area. I knew that if we didn't act, people would die. We had to alert everyone not to drink the water for over a week, and distribute bottles. We were lucky it was spotted. Next time..." He shook his head in fear. This is no freak: a 2004 report by Friends of the Earth found that only six per cent of Israeli settlements adequately treat their sewage.

Click here for the rest

Of course you leave out the fact that Israel pumps raw sewage into Palestinian land. Kinda puts those irrigation schemes in proper perspective. It also put the desert bloom nonsense in perspective as well.

Honestly, it amazing that Israel does this, but it goes to show how racist Zionists colonists are.

ArthurF wrote: »

I have many fond memories of various Israeli Religious & non Religious Celebrations which mostly involved copious amounts of wine & chicken for some reason, but one of my enduring memories was working on a Mellon farm down South near 'Eilat' when Sly Stallone & his entorage came into Town to film 'Rambo III' in the Israeli desert (was meant to resemble Afghanistan):) this 'film extra' work was paid much better than the old Mellon Job, so I stuck with it for a while & actually met Stallone in the process! we were just beside the Jordanian border which was also quite fascinating for the amount of security & the Jordanian Airforce very visible through the barbed wire fence!

Of course there were Palestinian living in misery due to Zionists stealing there nation. This needs to be mentioned to provide the other side.

ArthurF wrote: »

Many years later I lived in Tel Aviv which is a very hard working industrious City & I could go-on for ever about how Great it is too, but I wont ........... Jerusalem (the old City) on the other hand is like stepping back into history, I mean it really is like what you would imagine a scene from the Bible to be & I can highly recommend a visit for those interested in History, I also found the people to be very hospitable & welcomimg, specially to other Europeans.

Occupied East Jerusalem. You forgot to mention the occupation and the misery its causes for Palestinians due the racist policies of Israel.

ArthurF wrote: »

I have always found Israeli's to be very Hard working, Proud, Industrious people on the whole, but with a strong sence of militarism about them (because of the constant threat) & that always takes a bit of getting used to . . . oh, and I remember well one incident in Tel Aviv I think it was, when I went to cross a road without waiting for the 'Green Man' & I was swiftly taken to the road side & given a grilling by the Israeli Police ~ 'ouch' but thats the way it is there & they dont mess about, they are always on guard & always ready to pounce, and God help you if you leave your ruck sack on a bus!

The constant threat is due to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian natives.

Even Ben Gurion knew the natives would pissed:

Ben Gurion

“Why should the Arabs make peace? . . . We have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it’s true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them?” [As quoted in this week’s New Yorker profile of Benny Morris.]

Perhaps Israeli's should heed the words of there first Prime Minister, as he shows some rare common sense.

ArthurF wrote: »

Anyway, I am just trying to inject some personal memories of Israel & her people into a Thread which could & should have been a 'Celebration' on the anniversary of the foundation of the State of Israel . . . . .

I already pointed out that this is a fantasy. That a celebration of Israel was never the intent of the OP.

The foundation of Israel resulted in the ethnic cleansing of 1000's of Palestinians, for the crime of being the wrong race. This is Israel legacy, something no one should ever forget.

ArthurF wrote: »

And thats it really ~ just a few personal observations & interesting occourances from somebody who actually lived & worked in Israel, oh yeah, & Jaffa Oranges really are the best

You never lived in the Occupied territories. Things are very different there. For one as pointed out earlier, Israel pumps its sewage onto Palestinian land. See there is a very different experience for Palestinians, who suffer due to Israel.

The whole point btw of a message board is to discuss thing and not be positive about anything. If you want to be positive about Israel, you should make a blog, as any message board thread will have both negative and positive view on Israel.

LordSutch

I really did try in Post#115, what more can I say .................

Thats me bowing out of this thread.

Gobán Saor

wes wrote: »

as pointed out earlier, Israel pumps its sewage onto Palestinian land. See there is a very different experience for Palestinians, who suffer due to Israel.

Oh ffs!:cool: Get a grip. It is patently obvious that most sewage in the West Bank will be produced by Palestinians rather than Israelis - they being in a huge majority in the area. And in fact, most of this sewage will flow, through Israel, into the sea. Both Israel and the occupied territories have severe water/sewage/environmental problems due to the arid nature and highish population density of the area. The idea that Israel deliberately dumps sewage on the Palestinians is too stupid almost for words. Firstly, it has to go somewhere; the West Bank is a very small area and polluted Palestinian West Bank groundwater will inevitably spread to and pollute Israeli groundwater. So if the Israelis were doing what you suggest as a piece of deliberate anti-Palestinian malice, it would be an act of monumental stupidity as it would be harming themselves as well as the Palestinians. In fact both the Palestinians and the Israelis realise that their environmental issues are inseperable (sewage in the groundwater does not respect political boundaries!:cool:) and a surprising degree of co-operation has broken out to try and solve this. Much recent effort has focussed on the Alexander River which flows from the Nablus area of the West Bank through Israel to the Mediterranean Sea. Municipal sewers and industrial waste are directly discharged into the river and is only treated by a downstream plant in Israel. Similarly with the Basur river which flows from Hebron, through Israel and Gaza to the sea. Raw sewage is discharged in Hebron, a treatment plant in Israel cleans it up before it enters Gaza, but its effectiveness is limited by the fact that groundwater pollution has spread downstream of the treatment plant and further pollutes the river. The reality is that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have been negligent of their fragile environment. But it is physically a joint problem and neither side can solve their problem by pumping sewage on to the the other side's land.

The article by Hari ignores physical geographic reality and is an appalling example of his bias. Your willingness to take it at face value speaks volumes.

OK-Cancel-Apply

There's a page in the Weekend Review supplement in today's Irish Independent about this very subject, and it reads almost exactly like one of ArthurF's posts. In fact, the first words are, "The vitriol. The hate." The article then speaks about how modern and friendly Tel Aviv is, how warm the welcome is for visitors and how so many people are focused on the 'negative', and as with Arthur's post, completely ignores the real issues.

wes

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Oh ffs!:cool: Get a grip. It is patently obvious that most sewage in the West Bank will be produced by Palestinians rather than Israelis - they being in a huge majority in the area. And in fact, most of this sewage will flow, through Israel, into the sea. Both Israel and the occupied territories have severe water/sewage/environmental problems due to the arid nature and highish population density of the area. The idea that Israel deliberately dumps sewage on the Palestinians is too stupid almost for words.

Nonsense. The article is factually accurate. They are pumping sewage from colonies on to Palestinians land. I pointed this out as a counter point the irrigation schemes. The fact is Israel has the money and tech to make sure this didn't happen in the first place.

Of course i never suggested Israel did so on purpose, thats a straw man of your own concoction, so you accusation of "stupidity" is baseless. What I do suggests is that Israel never considered the effect of there colonies on Palestinians. After all, why would they? They are stealing it from them.

You see the problem is Israel and there colonies and it is there fault. Your defense is pointless as Israel caused the problem, due to there illegal colonies.

Btw, I don't need to get a grip. You on the other hand should perhaps look at the effect Israel illegal colonies have on Palestinians, this is just one effect on them. You can defend Israel Apartheid all you want, but the problem will always be there Apartheid and colonies.

Gobán Saor wrote: »

Firstly, it has to go somewhere; the West Bank is a very small area and polluted Palestinian West Bank groundwater will inevitably spread to and pollute Israeli groundwater. So if the Israelis were doing what you suggest as a piece of deliberate anti-Palestinian malice, it would be an act of monumental stupidity as it would be harming themselves as well as the Palestinians. In fact both the Palestinians and the Israelis realise that their environmental issues are inseperable (sewage in the groundwater does not respect political boundaries!:cool:) and a surprising degree of co-operation has broken out to try and solve this. Much recent effort has focussed on the Alexander River which flows from the Nablus area of the West Bank through Israel to the Mediterranean Sea. Municipal sewers and industrial waste are directly discharged into the river and is only treated by a downstream plant in Israel. Similarly with the Basur river which flows from Hebron, through Israel and Gaza to the sea. Raw sewage is discharged in Hebron, a treatment plant in Israel cleans it up before it enters Gaza, but its effectiveness is limited by the fact that groundwater pollution has spread downstream of the treatment plant and further pollutes the river. The reality is that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have been negligent of their fragile environment. But it is physically a joint problem and neither side can solve their problem by pumping sewage on to the the other side's land.

Israel colonialism is the cause of the mess of the first place. Israel colonies are a deliberate act of malice to Palestinians. The Palestinians have no control over anything. Your suggestion that they do is again absurd. Israel made this mess, they know there sewage is being pumped into Palestinian land.

Then there is the fact that Israel is blocking (this is in the article) pipes etc to fix the sewage system in Gaza. This is a deliberate act of collective punishment (state terrorism) on the people of Gaza.

You can ignore the fact all you like, there all there for everyone to see. Israel has shown it doesn't give a rats ass about Palestinians, there colonies and there racist laws prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The fact remains, colonies are pouring there sewage onto Palestinian land. The colonies are illegal. The fact Israel did not build proper sewage systems is Israel fault. For you to say there is no malice involved with Israel colonies, is insane. There existence is proof of malice.

Its amazing you would even defend Israel disgusting colonial project.

Gobán Saor wrote: »

The article by Hari ignores physical geographic reality and is an appalling example of his bias. Your willingness to take it at face value speaks volumes.

The fact you defend this speak volumes. Hari article is factually correct. Of course facts are biased against Israel and you accusation of bias to anyone who reports bad things about Israel, is very telling. You don't like criticism of Israel, well the problem is that there is a lot to criticize.

You talk about Hari, ignoring "geographic reality", well its Israel who are guilty, with there colonies and the fact they didn't bother to build proper sewage systems. This is the fault of Israel, the fact this situation even happened in the first place, shows how little Israel really cares about Palestinians. Of course you can defend there colonialism and make excuse all you want. Israel own actions show them up. Your defense is completely wrong, as Israels own actions have caused the problem.