Those riots in Umm el-Fahm which broke out today (between Jewish ultra-nationalists and local Arab citizens) does indeed have a lot similarities with the Irish conflict ...
@FreeDuck,
I had not seen those letters on Wiki and will have to agree that Arafat at that time did recognize Israel's right to peace and did denounce terrorism. In looking for a source confirming them in addition to Wiki I found also this:
Before formally signing the Oslo Declaration of Principles, Yasser Arafat, head of the PLO and Yitzhak Rabin, Prime Minister of Israel, agreed to exchange letters concerning specific commitments to the peace process. Arafat's letter stipulated that the PLO recognized Israel, agreed to solve the conflict by peaceful means, recognized UN Resolution 242, and agreed to amend the PLO Charter to remove those paragraphs that were inconsistent with those undertakings. The PLO Charter calls for "liberation" of all Palestine and destruction of Israel. Rabin's letter stipulated that Israel would undertake the peace process to normalize relations between the two peoples. Arafat also sent a separate letter to Jorgen Holst, the Norwegian foreign minister, reiterating the undertaking to stop violent resistance, but omitting any mention of the PLO Charter. Norway was instrumental in mediating the talks between the PLO and Israel that led to the Oslo agreements.
The letters were vague. Arafat's letter did not specify which paragraphs of the charter would be amended, and Rabin's letter did not go into details of withdrawal and normalization. The commitment to amend the charter was not specified in the Oslo Declaration of Principles. The PNC did hold sessions subsequently to amend the charter, however, it is not clear that the changes are viewed as binding by all Palestinians.
The Fatah is the major constituent group of the PLO, and its constitution, which also calls for destruction of Israel, was not amended.
I think essentially all objective reports on that period would agree that Arafat did go through some visibly public motions of keeping his part of the Oslo accord while doing different deeds behind the scenes. For instance he made a show of rounding up and arresting some 1500 terrorists and made sure the western press was aware of that. Then quietly, behind the scenes, he released all but a very few. By 1994, the Palestinians had violated essentially every agreement in the initial Oslo Accord.
And then moving on. . . .
Excerpt:
Quote: Arafat's monopoly on power began to erode in the final years of his life as the dissolution of the peace process made him increasingly a non-factor. The Camp David peace talks in the summer of 2000, brokered by President Clinton, were the beginning of Arafat's unraveling. Negotiators for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Arafat's representatives a proposal, effectively to create a Palestinian state, on terms more generous than any Israeli had offered before. Arafat, aides say, found himself unwilling to consider the tough compromises that any final deal with Israel would have entailed"limitations on Palestinian control in traditionally Arab East Jerusalem, giving up on the U.N.-endorsed right of Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war to return to what is now Israel. Arafat not only turned down Israel's offer; he failed to make his own. When the summit collapsed, Clinton publicly blamed him.
Two months later, Palestinian riots in Jerusalem grew into a new uprising against Israel, the main feature of which would be a new wave of suicide bombings aimed at Israeli civilians. This time, Arafat did nothing to rein in Palestinian militants; his own Fatah organization was responsible for much of the violence. Responding to the uprising, the Israeli army reinvaded Palestinian cities, and when it withdrew it kept soldiers posted on the outskirts to restrict the movement of residents. The Israelis demolished the headquarters of Arafat's security services, compromising his ability to rule, and periodically besieged his compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah, pinning Arafat inside. Eventually, the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a superhawk whom the Israelis had elected to confront the uprising, told Arafat he could leave, but only for abroad, and with no guarantee he could return. The Israelis only lifted that condition last month, so that Arafat could travel to Paris for medical treatment. In the event, they would not have to face the question of whether to honor their promise that he could return. Arafat died in Paris on Nov. 10.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,781566,00.html
Excerpt
Quote:This la-la-land thinking ignores two wee problems. One concerns the Palestinians’ widespread intent to destroy Israel, as shown by the outpouring of grief for arch-terrorist Arafat at his funeral, the consistent results of opinion research, and the steady supply of would-be jihadists. The Palestinians’ discovery of their inner moderation, to put it mildly, has yet to commence.
The other problem is blaming the past decade’s violence and tyranny exclusively on Arafat, and erroneously assuming that, now freed of him, the Palestinians are eager to reform. Mahmoud Abbas, the new leader, has indeed called for ending terrorism against Israel, but he did so for transparently tactical reasons (it is the wrong thing to do now), not for strategic reasons (it is permanently to be given up), much less for moral ones (it is inherently evil).
Abbas is not a moderate but a pragmatist. Unlike Arafat, consumed by his biography and his demons, Abbas offers a more reasonable figure, one who can more rationally pursue Arafat’s goal of destroying Israel. In this spirit, he has quickly apologized to the Kuwaitis and made up with the Syrians; compared to this, reaching out to the Americans is easy.
But, no less than his mentor Arafat, Abbas remains intent on eliminating Israel. This is evident, for example, from his recent comments insisting that millions of Palestinian “refugees” be permitted to enter Israel so as to overwhelm it demographically; or from his keeping the virulent content of the Palestinian Authority’s media in place.
To give additional money to the Palestinians now, ahead of their undergoing a change of heart and accepting the permanent existence of the Jewish state of Israel, is a terrible mistake, one that numbingly replicates the errors of the 1990s’ Oslo diplomacy. Prematurely rewarding the Palestinians will again delay the timetable of conciliation.
As I have argued for years, money, arms, diplomacy, and recognition for the Palestinians should follow on their having accepted Israel. One sign that this will have happened: when Jews living in Hebron (on the West Bank) need no more security than Arabs living in Nazareth (within Israel).
Until that day of harmony " which I predict is about 30 years off " the outside world should focus not on showering money or other benefits on the Palestinians, but on pushing them relentlessly to accept Israel’s existence.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=60A062AD-DA89-40CB-A434-7B51168A7E30
@cicerone imposter,
So stupid! What Israel does is in self-defense, and what any other country would do were it able to.
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre, this from the Zuckerman, January 15, 2009 article deserves more emphasis:
Quote:
"Would America sit back if, over three years, 7,000 rockets and missiles were launched at our citizens from Mexico or Canada? We would attack these missile sites and wipe them out. End of story. The "disproportionate" criticism is a cop-out. Hamas sought this battle. It was Hamas that broke the six-month truce organized by Egypt. Both Fatah and Egypt urged its continuance; the current violence would have been avoided, as Abbas stated, had Hamas not fired its missiles."
And so does this:
Quote:
"Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya has made it clear what kind of state his Palestine would be. Hamas seeks nothing less than an Islamic state as its covenant describes: "To raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine." To that end, Hamas has turned Gaza into a home for every brand of radical Islamist engaged in a holy war that sanctifies bloodshed, glorifies murder, and educates children to die as shahids "martyrs. There was to be no Israel alongside a Palestinian state. Over and over again Haniya has said that Hamas will never recognize Israel nor honor ."
@ican711nm,
Yup I know, Ican. But so far only one pro-Palestinian advocate here had admitted to even reading Zuckerman's essay and she read it with a 'grain of salt' and was not inspired to agree or disagree with any of it which I generally interpret to be that she blew it off as irrelevant or at least not worthy of comment.
I doubt any of the others bothered to read it.
To those of us who see it as Zuckerman sees it, of course he is preaching to the choir.
@Foxfyre,
I inadvertently failed to provide a source for two paragraphs in my immediately preceding post responding to Freeduck.
Here is the link:
http://www.mideastweb.org/osloletters.htm
@Advocate,
Advocate, This is not self-defense by any definition of those words:
Quote:The testimonies form the basis of three Guardian films which add weight to calls this week for a full inquiry into the events surrounding Operation Cast Lead, which was aimed at Hamas but left about 1,400 Palestinians dead, including more than 300 children.
That's called murder in any other country.
@cicerone imposter,
The fact that only 1400 Pals were killed is a miracle, an outcome from the humane Israeli army. I doubt that 300 children were killed -- this is probably info from lying Pals. But if that many were killed, Hamas is at fault for operating among them.
@Advocate,
For you it's a miracle; for everybody else who sees what Israel is doing to Palestinians is murder.
@cicerone imposter,
But the fact of the matter is that the Israeli military is secular, and is the most humane (by far) in the world.
In all the battles between Israel and the Pals, only a relatively tiny number of Pals have been killed. In Nam, a country of 8 M at tht time, we killed over 3 M.
@Advocate,
Quote:In Nam, a country of 8 M at tht time, we killed over 3 M.
Yup, the USA always has the best of intentions. Saved 3 million men, women and children for democracy.
@JTT,
I guess it was better dead than red.
@Advocate,
Much of the
Guardian's material, linked above, is taken from the testimony of Israeli soldiers and published in
H'aretz .
I recommend it for your closer attention.
Sometimes a reference is made to Haaretz. It seems to have a German origin, and today is 25% owned by a publisher based in Cologne. It is liberal, and left of center, if I understand the Wikipedia article. In my opinion it may be like reading the NY Times for Israelis, in my opinion. Too liberal and left for me to think it reflects the thinking of the average Israeli that believes in the concept of a Zionist State, especially post WWII.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaretz
The paper's name sounds Israeli (aka, Hebrew); however, it seems to be for the upper crust of Israel. Those are not the people that usually die in its wars, or go to the frontlines in a military operation.
Here is the truth of the matter regarding the Guardian.
Mar 25, 2009 3:44 | Updated Mar 25, 2009 9:25
'Guardian' slammed for 'Hamas propaganda'
By JONNY PAUL, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
LONDON
Jewish groups have accused the Guardian newspaper of marketing Hamas propaganda and constructing falsehoods, after three stories over two days accused Israel of perpetrating war crimes in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead.
In an article in Tuesday's Guardian, entitled "'Guardian' investigation uncovers evidence of alleged Israeli war crimes in Gaza," the newspaper claimed to have evidence that Israel had committed war crimes during the 22-day operation. The newspaper's Web site showed a video clip with file photos from 2007 depicting Israeli forces using human shields, and had three Gazan teenagers recounting how they had allegedly been used as human shields by the IDF during Operation Cast Lead.
"This is the newspaper that reported the massacre at Jenin, which turned out to be false, and said also that Israel was high in an international league table for its murder of journalists and then failed to properly correct this patent falsehood," said Jonathan Hoffman, co-vice chairman of the Zionist Federation of the UK. "It is the paper that tolerates anti-Semitic content in its blog 'Comment Is Free,' and indeed encourages it by its choice of contributors."
Of course, he added, "the IDF will carefully investigate this outrageous claim, and by the time it issues the denial, people will only remember the original allegation, and the Guardian will have moved on to the next carefully constructed falsehood. It's a pas de deux of truth versus mendacity, with apparently no end."
"Now we are supposed to believe... that the IDF has an 'internal' magazine which all soldiers get, but which none of them must divulge, but which was left behind by a careless soldier in Gaza," he said.
The pro-Israel Web site ZioNation accused the newspaper of "marketing Pallywood propaganda."
"The Guardian has regrettably thrown all professional journalistic ethics and pretensions to balance and objectivity to the four winds, and has gleefully annexed itself to the cause of Hamas," said Ami Isseroff, chief editor of ZioNation.
In two articles on Monday, the Guardian accused Israel of deliberately firing on Palestinian medical staff and indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians with unmanned aerial vehicles.
"Medical staff and ambulance drivers who attempted to assist casualties of the Israeli invasion of Gaza have told the Guardian that they were attacked by Israeli forces while trying to carry out their job," the article said.
The story included a video clip in which Palestinian medical staff recounted their experiences. The clip noted that Israel was a "pioneer in precision weapons and a world leader in advanced optics," then asked why 38 medical workers were killed or wounded by Israeli forces during the Gaza conflict "when they had the technology to see exactly who they were hitting."
The second article said that Israeli drones killed a family of six, a group of girls in an empty street, two children in a field and "many others." It also claimed that an investigation the paper had carried out revealed that Israel had used a variety of weapons in "illegal ways."
"Indiscriminate munitions, including shells packed with white phosphorus, were fired into densely populated areas, while precision missiles and tank shells were fired into civilian homes. But it is the use of drones in the killing of at least 48 civilians that appears most reprehensible," the article said.
The reports were written by Clancy Chassay, a Guardian correspondent in Beirut. Chassay has produced eight video reports this month accusing Israel of war crimes.
The film clips were produced by Guardian Films, which says its aim is to "produce the kind of unique work that other broadcasters no longer have the network or resources to do."
In a letter the paper sent out to blog and Web site owners, calling for them to support its work, the Guardian said the Gaza film clips were meant to "add weight to calls this week for a full inquiry into the events surrounding Operation Cast Lead, which was aimed at Hamas, but which left over 1,400 Palestinians dead - around 300 known to be children."
"Whatever happened in Gaza, it ought not to be the business of the Guardian to appoint itself judge and juror and promote itself in this way," Isseroff said.
In response, the newspaper said that "we robustly reject the suggestion that the Guardian is being used as a mouthpiece for Hamas. Indeed, anyone who reads our front page story and our leader today will see that we make it clear that a case exists against them."
Regarding Chassay's report, the paper said he had "spent weeks on his investigation, and in the interests of fair reporting we gave the IDF every opportunity to reject these claims, and at the conclusion of the video we reported in full the written the statement they supplied."
The Israeli Embassy in London said it would issue a response on Wednesday.
-- Jpost.com
@Advocate,
Advocate, Look at this issue another way; Israel has not and will not report their own violence against innocent Palestinians. The only way this report will ever come out is by an independent organization such as the Guardian.
As with the US when our government said "we don't do body counts on Iraqis," it's the same with Israel. But, somebody "must" investigate any wrong doing by the powers that be whether in Iraq or Israel. As we well know, the estimates of Iraqi casualties are only estimates that differ by tens of thousands depending on whos doing the counting. Each one is a human life that should have more care. Are you so brazen as to think they are all expendible?
When the Israeli soldiers themselves speak of these atrocities, what are you so against this being reported?
@cicerone imposter,
The piece shows, correctly in my opinion, that the Guardian's reporting is sloppy at best. It used Pal hearsay to condemn Israel not only with respect to Gaza, but also Jenin (some time ago).
It is just so surreal that Israel receives so much undeserved condemnation. Here the country, especially its civilians, has been ceaselessly attacked by the Pals for many years, including killing little children in pizza parlors. And somehow bombing Israel for three years is not a big deal, and doesn't justify an invasion. This certainly smacks of anti-semitism.
@Advocate,
That's not true, and you know it; many international organizations have condemned Israel for their mistreatment of Palestinians. It's not "only" the Guardian.
