CaptainCourtesy

Not only is this inaccurate (originally placed in the UN by countries advocating an anti-Israel agenda, and having been removed as racist by said organization), but it is a racist comment in itself. Zionism is not racism, but it is racist to profess that it is.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

Trajan Octavian Titus

Barak got assurances from both Rajoub and Arafat that the visit would go smoothly, Sharon did not go until after he was assured that Jews would have free access.

He only made that after the mass riots erupted and after he made the comment that his visit was peaceful and that he wanted coexistence, under a barrage of Palestinian stonese I might add.


It wasn't justification, it was just the spark that set off all the frustation that had been built up since Oslo with the total lack of progress in establishing a Palestinian state since the Palestinians had agreed to recognise Israel. Just like killing Franz Ferdinand wasn't justification for WW1, it was just what kicked it all off, the causes were a lot deeper.
[/quote]

No progress? At the Camp David Summit the Israelis offered 91% of the west bank, all of Gaza, and a capital in East Jerusalem with custodialship over the temple mount.

You're right but the Clinton propasal at the time had guarantees that Jews would have free access to the Temple Mount.

Again Sharon recieved multiple assurances that the visit would go smoothly.

So long as they resigned themselves to the positions of Dhimmi's.

Slainte

No Sharon would have went anyways. He didn't give a **** about the trouble he was going to stir up. Barak and other Israeli negotiators knew that his visit could destroy everything they were trying to work towards so they went to the top Palestinians and asked them to use their influence to contain any fallout the visit might cause. The Palestinians said they could do that. They certainly didn't happily invite or happily permit Ariel Sharon, the man who facilitated the massacre of thousands of helpless Palestinians two decaeds earlier and the man who had repeatedly said he would never divide Jerusalem or share the temple mount if he were to gain power to the holiest site in what they regard as their country.

No he said that after he walked down from the temple mount and talked to the jounralists, the mass riots didn't break out untill later.

Ye bit there was little progress over the two biggest issues, the legal status of Haram Al Sharif, the temple mount and the right of return to the Palestinian refugees

Final status agreements were supposed to be reached five years after Oslo, we were already seven years later, during the time after Oslo both Israeli settlement building and Palestinian terrorism increased to new all time highs. This built up a lot of frustration on both sides, anything could have pushed it over the edge, Sharon knew this and wnet anyways.

I think the Palestinians were sincere about that, under their control they would have let Jews pray there. Control is what it was all about, Ariel Sharon went there to show that Jews were in control of it and would always be in control.

Barak and other Israelis negotiators received those assurances, whether they simply weren't honoured or were unable to be honoured is harder to tell, probably a bit of both.

__________________
We all live under the same sky, but we don't all have the same horizon

Trajan Octavian Titus

You have no evidence of that and it's irrelevant, he recieved permission and numerous assurances from the PA that it would go smoothly including from Arafat himself.

First of all Sharon did not facilitate any such massacre, that would be the Christian militias in Lebanon after the Palestinians murdered their President elect, what Sharon did is not stop them.

Second of all Sharon recieved permission to enter the temple mount by the PA and Yasser Arafat himself so long as he did not enter any of the Mosques which he didn't.

He said that after the stones started flying.

Ya there was disagreement as to whether or not Israel would continue to exist, what the Palestinians wanted is to destroy the state of Israel through immigration, the Israelis offered a compromise IE that they would recieve compensation and be allowed the right to return to the newly created Palestinian state even though it is clear that the refugee issue was not the fault of the Israelis in the first place, this was rejected, because as anyone who has looked at the matter the Palestinians will accept nothing less than the destruction of the state of Israel. As to the Temple Mount the Israelis offered Palestinian custodialship over it, yet another compromise that was rejected, later at Taba the Israelis would offer them full sovereigny over it and only require that Jews be allowed to worship there, as we all know Arafat accepted everything he was offered at Taba yet rejected everything he was supposed to give.

At Camp David the Israeli's offered the best deal that the Palestinians had been given since the U.N. partition plan and later at Taba they were offered even more. Even Prince Bandar said that the rejection of the offer was a crime against the Palestinians and that Arafat was not truthful on the account of the negotiations.

Ya and they proved that by starting a mass riot.

Sharon clearly said that it was a peaceful visit and that he wanted peaceful coexistence.

I think it's more along the lines of the 2nd intifada being planned in advance, because the negotiations were nothing more than an al-Taqiyya attempt at setting up a Hudna until their position was stronger.

"It [the uprising] had been planned since [PA] Chairman [Yasser] Arafat's return from Camp David, when he turned the tables on the former US president and rejected the American conditions,"

Slainte

What are your sources for this?

My understanding is that when the Palestinians heard Sharon was going to visit the Temple mount they were outraged and asked the Barak and other negotiators to stop him, they explained that they can't control where an opposition politican goes in Israel. The Palestinians although obviously angry and humiliated by this told Barak and his team that they would be able to contain any anger that his visit provoked. The PA had no direct contact with Sharon, they despised him, Sharon certainly didn't care about what the PA were saying, he despised them.

In Sharons mind the Temple Mount belonged to Israel why would he care what the PA said, are you seriously contending that if no security assurances were made by the PA that Sharon would have cancelled his visit? Given in to terrorism? That really wasn't Sharons style. Do you have any evidence that Sharon was even awarre of the security assurances provided by the PA?

Legally those people were under his protection, he allowed the Christian militias in knowing perfectly well what was going through their minds. He made the massacre very easy for them, that's what "facilitated" means. He sure as hell didn't try and stop them.

Source?

I really doubt Arafat gave his old buddy from Beirut a call and said he would be welcome to visit Haram al Sharif during some very delictate peace talks.

Stones were flying the whole time, Sharon knew that would happen. Are you contending if not for a few rocks Sharon would have changed his political positions on the temple mount.

Yes, but it's not that hard to understand why Israel's "Jewish character" isn't overly important to people who have grown up in ****ty refugee camps. Asking those people to give up their homes was always going to be very difficult. IMHO ultimately a nominal number will be allowed to return to Israel proper.


This was hardly a compromise, firslty the idea that the Israeli's could actually deny the new Palestinian state the right to incorporate the refugees from other countries if they so chose, underlines the control complex which the Israeli's have.

Secondly if you think it is clear to any Palestinian that the the refugees are not the fault of the Israelis you are back in your dream world.

Haram Al Sharif was the one thing the Palestinians wouldn't compromise over, to them it was much bigger than just a Palestinian issue, it was a Muslim issue. They couldn't give it up, any leader who would would be signing his own death warrant. This was always going to be the most difficult part of the two state solution.

But Arafat was happy with the offer in reagrds to Haram Al Sharif.

They rejected the first deal they were offered since the UN partition plan!

Taba ended in very contentious circumstances, it certainly wasn't the Palestinians who left.

Prince Bandar? Why the hell would I(or anyone) care about what Prince Bandar said?

You couldn't humour with a link to this statement anyways though?

He may have wanted peaceful co-existance, but he certainly wasn't prepared to do what it took to ensure that peaceful co-existance.

__________________
We all live under the same sky, but we don't all have the same horizon

Jenin

This is ridiculous. I have given you several examples just off the top of my head...you skipped all of them, and then you came to make this one statement. So much for sincere debate...



I dont think so. History will prove you otherwise. I hope you live a long life, and one day when you're sitting on your the porch of your *finally paid for* house sippin a cup o joe reading the paper you'll realize I was right when the declassify terrorist CIA/Military intelligence documents for the public. It has happened over and over again..history has repeated herself. I can see a Sargent in 'nam holding the same positions you do... I bet you they donut any more.


Get it through your thick helmet soldier! You blame everything on Islam, which verbatum has less violent inspiring texsts than christian or jewish ones. But today, it seems it is your job to use these ridiculous arguments.

Understand one thing: Islam is greater than you or anyone who wishes it end. You can kill muslims, but you cant kill Islam.

I have as much criticism for muslims as I do non muslims... I have spoken out repeatedly against muslims, including OBL (your greatest asset).

And again.... You stick to your distorted objective of targeting Islam, twisting and turning the subject around when you cant win a debate. This was about Zionism and Palestine you turned it into an Issue of Islam.

You cannot distort the issues and use Muslim so relatively and generally as you do. WTF does sunni-shia violence have to do with palestine? A nation composed of Christian and Muslim Palestinians?



Scapegoating is blaming a little army slut at abugraib for a greater failed policy of torture and humiliation of prisoners. Scapegoating is attacking the great religeon of Islam when you fail at your policies in Iraq and elsewhere.

THE US MILITARY IS AND WILL CONTINUE TO LOSE THE IRAQ AND AFGHAN WARS. KEEP BLAMING THE MUSLIMS FOR YOUR LOSS OF PRESTIGE IN THE WORLD AND YOUR FAILED POLICY.

9-11 was inpart orchastrated and executed by the pentagon/CIA and other foreign intelligence. It was used to instate the patriot act, homeland security, and invade Afghanistan and capture it's strategic gas reserves. Iraq was the same sham. WTC was rigged with high grade demolition explosives. Bush knew about it. Your greatest enemies are from within.


Yes.

Because he failed at securing palestinian rights, which was the original beef in the first place.


Who called him a traitor? Are you that simple f'ing minded? PEOPLE ARE CALLED TRAITORS ALL THE TIME.

another thing... I am sick of this cheap debauchery where you will use one ore two or three weak examples to get your biased and prejudiced argument accross. Fug arafat. Fug siniora. Fug the butcher sharon and every arab leader.

You are nuts if you think that.

That is a cheapshot. MY RELIGEON? Go read your bible, the talmud and tora and then come talk crap. This is preposterous.

Muslim this and muslim that. So every person that holds this faith is exclusively branded by you just as that...a muslim.

In this case... I can do the same dirty trick and label hitler a Christian leader, Bush a chrisian leader, Mcveigh a christian, Stalin a jew or christian. Thats all they are....

Hitler the nazi was a christian leader. look at the inner turmoil in chrstianity. these Christians are just bloodthirsty nazis... there... Im playing by your simple rules.


Again with the cheap tactics.

TBN did a good job letting you know its a muslim thing, didnt they?
Sudan is a bloody african nation. AFRICA AFRICA. A portion speak arabic. The conflict is an AFRICAN conflict. AFRICANS.

My God. ONE THOUSAND CIVILIANS were killed in one MONTH by Israel. FIFTEEN THOUSAND CIVILIANS were killed in two years by Israel in the 80s.
But its a Muslim problem primairly... right?


200 palestinians killed in clashes between eachother orchastrated by Israel.
4000 palestinians killed by Israel.
20,000 homes destroyed by Israel since '67.
Thousands of acres of farmland scorched and uprooted by Israel.
Millions of refugees banned from their homes by Israel.
1 in every 5 palestinians has been jailed by Israel.
and the list goes on....
But NOOOOOOO.... wait.... muslims did that to muslims... what a cheap argument.

Yes... A portion... another portion is military intelligence terror operations.

Afghans are tribal peoples who follow tribal customs much more rigorously than Islam. Before you blame Islam... learn something about Afghan culture and how deep rooted their customs are with the religion.

AHAHAHA.
Today? What are you talking about? the 12 or so annual cases of 'honor killings'? I can name 50 cases of 'honor killings' yearly in the city of houston alone... perpetrated (to use your style of terminology) by Christians against their cheating partners.

According to your terminology...
most rapes, murder, and violent action in America are chrsitian attacks against their own people.

Did you hear of that gay christian that killed his gay chrsitian lovers and ate them? Christianity is in turmoil... we need to plan a military invasion of america to help these people free themselves from scapegoating us... what a ridiculous argument.

LOL. Yes... so saddam was a muslim? HAHA. He did everything in the name of Islam? He was the CIAs man in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. You gavem chemical technology and watched with pleaure, shook his hand (rummy) after and during his most violent crimes...

conceded. they were an 'islamic' organization. A bunch of wacky nuts.



Perhaps you should swallow a bit of your own people's history instead. Muhammed and his followers suffered persecution from the pagan oligarchy in Mecca, so he moved to Medina (Hijra?). The first jihad saw Muhammed invade Mecca. The Meccan leadership surrendered almost without a fight, and the Meccans.

,
Give me one example during the peaceful capture of mecca where a person was executed due to that quote above...

The earliest known inhabitants of palestine and syria originated from arabian peninsula and mesopotamia. Byzentium was the foreign occupier, not the arabs.

I dare you to find me authentic documentation by anyone in palestine or syria
who wished for the bloody byzentines to stay rather than the arabs...who committed no massacres when they entered, granted immunity from persecution to jews and christians, and established a succesful government that advanced science and literature over the course of centuries that followed. Compare that with what was going on in europe at the time and the bloody bull**** that was happening there. Be honest.

Again, compare muslim ruled spain with inquisition spain... look at the decay in culture and science that occurred with the reconquesta. Islam gave spain a goldenage. It is fact.




The european christian crusades came to conquer the lands of semites with a barbarism only found in Europe at the time. If you are to compare conquest of Palestine by Islam with conquest of Palestine by christianity you will come to understand an important thing... Islam did not massacre and rape and pillage in palestine. Christianity did with a disgusting brabarism only found in europe.



Im sorry...but you dont know much.

Come visit me in Jordan. Ill show you around town... I think it will help you change alot of the prejudice and stereotype you seem to easily project.

__________________
"A child becomes a man when he knows what came before him" -- Anonymous
"Conquerors, my son, consider as true history only what they themselves have fabricated"
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/The%...ut%201948.html

Gardener

My allegiance is to my own values, thank you very much.

Your entire raison d etre here is to promote hatred. Your over the top hyperbole and demonizing rhetoric does not invite any sort of honest and rational debate, but merely more of the same.

A tit for tat response to your cr@p might be to say that the Arabs who started calling themselves Palestinians a few years ago are nothing but blood thirsty savages whose maniacal desire to murder Jews merely masks the fact that they have compared themselves to such and found they so lacking as human beings that they must destroy the people who remind them of their own obvious inferiority. They kill because they are worthless and only their murderousness elevates them in their own eyes to something of value.

See how that works? You vent your hatred. You vomit forth your bile and somebody gives it right back.


You have been afforded a platform to vomit your hatred here. Why the hate speech rules do not apply to you is anybody's guess, but I certainly hope this forum does not apply the same double standards as the world applies to the greater conflict. Palestinians are treated as if children whose out of control outbursts are always justified and tolerated because the expectations placed upon Palestinians are so low, while the expectations for the Israelis are placed extremely high, as if they were almost superhuman parents whose responses must always be measured and mature.

Your opening salvo was nothing but racist ranting, and so it would only be fair that if this forum allows you to vent your hateful little spleen in this fashion ,that others should be allowed to do so, too. Now, my own preference would be to read intellectual arguments instead of the demonizing invective, but since your hate speech has lowered the bar to the gutter, it shouldn't be up to others to elevate it from that point.

__________________
You lack lust; you're so lackluster. Is that all the strength you can muster?

EAGLE1

No Gardener the only person showing consistent hatred here is you, our resident flamer, who refuses to take part in debate and instead chooses to insult fellow members before moving on.

Jenin has offered you fair debate, without rancour, and you dismiss it out of hand before accusing him of all sorts of things.

Its not the first time, and all of us who know your little game will be watching.

Standby for the usual 'eagle you're such a hater too..' response in 1,2,3....

Gardener

Oh, pulleeze.

A bunch of hysterical crap accusing Jews of being nazis is NOT, as you call it, "fair debate".

The humans who post here realize that.

__________________
You lack lust; you're so lackluster. Is that all the strength you can muster?

EAGLE1

Oh puleeze...

Youre free to counter the accusation but choose not to, instead you just call him to hater etc etc.
You even then refer to some on this thread as humans and others as not. More flaming.

Therefore youve continued your flaming strategy.