ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

The racist diatribe above posted originally by Advocate could easily - with some systematic changes in details - have been written by a Nazi propogandist about the Jews in Europe during the 1930s.

Bitter irony there.

The Pals have NEVER indicated that they are willing to live in peace with an Israel.

Palestinians Have Never Been Offered a Viable, Independent State
Did Palestinians refuse a "generous offer" for peace by Israel? Does Israel now have "no peace partner" with whom to negotiate? Maps and eyewitness testimony prove that there was no generous offer in 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat negotiated terms of a peace agreement at Camp David. The talks failed
because Barak offered a vague version of a non-contiguous state on only 61% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Nonetheless, the Palestinians remain willing to negotiate.
Barak’s “offer” at Camp David: Neither generous, nor an offer.
West Bank Final Status Map ♦ The actual proposal only amounted to 61% of the occupied territories, divided into four separate areas: Ehud Barak refused to use maps at Camp David. The map Barak published just before the Camp David talks, however, proposed three completely separate enclaves (see dark areas) for Palestinians in the West Bank and one more in Gaza. "Strategic roads" (for Israeli use only) dividing these areas would remain under Israeli control. This geographic separation of Palestine into four sections would make a functional state unlikely: trade and business; work and school; family, friends, religious sites, and hospitals would all be separated.
♦ Continued Israeli control of Jordan Valley & all border areas: Israel
proposed maintaining long-term "temporary" control of the Jordan Valley and other territory (see striped areas) comprising over 10% of the Occupied
Territories. Israel proposed maintaining complete control of all borders, so
Palestinians would always have to negotiate trade with Jordan, Egypt or other countries through Israel. "This means, then, that if Israel annexes now 10 percent of the land, 'leaving the Palestinian state with 90 percent of the West Bank', 40 percent of their 'state' are areas owned and fully controlled by Israel - areas in which they are not allowed to build, settle, do agriculture, and, in the case of the large military areas in the Jordan valley, they are not even allowed to pass there." (Tanya Reinhart, Israeli scholar and journalist, 12/6/2000)
♦ Large settlement areas, including East Jerusalem, retained by
Israel: Large areas illegally settled by Israelis would also have remained under permanent control of Israel (light areas). This would include 250 square kilometers of land in or adjacent to East Jerusalem, illegally annexed in 1967, Proposed by Israel, May 2000 which has been requisitioned as land for Israeli settlements. Under Barak's plan,
(Foundation for Middle East Peace) only a few small villages and neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would have been left under Palestinian control, cutting off the Palestinian state from most of East Jerusalem, its main commercial and religious center.
♦ No relief for refugees: The fate of the 4-6 million Palestinian refugees from 1948 and 1967 -- half of all Palestinians -- was discussed only in the vaguest way.
The Occupied Territories:
The Palestinian generous offer: The Occupied Territories, composed of Gaza and the West Bank, constitute only 22% of historic Palestine. Under
the 1993 Oslo Agreement, the Palestinians recognized Israeli sovereignty over 78% of what had been Palestine during the British Mandate. This was their generous offer. To give up more land without the exchange of a corresponding amount of territory would have been neither reasonable nor just.
22% of historic Palestine
“The final and largely unnoticed consequence of Barak's approach is that, strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer. ...the Israelis always stopped one, if not several, steps short of a proposal.”
--Robert Malley, Hussein Agha, special assistants to President Clinton and participants in Camp David talks, July 2000. New York Review of Books, Aug. 9, 2001 “Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors”

Your characterization of the article as being racist and similar to Nazi propaganda is an outright and disgusting lie. This seems to be your modus operandi.

Since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank, including Jerusalem and Gaza, it is estimated that Israeli civil and military authorities have destroyed 24,000 Palestinian homes in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT). The rate of house demolitions has risen significantly since the second Intifada began in September 2000 and, as this study shows, house demolitions have become a major cause of forced displacement in the OPT.
[...]
The main findings of the study were:

- House demolitions cause displacement. Fifty-seven percent of 56 families surveyed never returned to their original residences. Those who did return, on average, spent over a year displaced before returning.

- House demolitions are followed by long periods of instability for the family, with over half of the families who responded taking at least two years to find a permanent residence.

- At the time of interviewing, the average monthly income of families surveyed was NIS1,561(USD 355) " well below both the absolute (deep) and relative poverty lines.

- Compared to children of similar demographics living in the same geographical locations, children who have had their home demolished fare significantly worse on a range of mental health indicators, including: withdrawal, somatic complaints, depression/anxiety, social difficulties, higher rates of delusional, obsessive, compulsive and psychotic thoughts, attention difficulties, delinquency, violent behaviour - even six months after the demolition.

- Families also report deterioration in children's educational achievement and ability to study.

- A fundamental factor affecting the child's mental health following demolition is the psychological state of the parents, yet one-third of the parents were in danger of developing mental health disorders and some reported that the demolition precipitated a decline in their physical health also.

- The social support that parents receive and their ability to employ coping strategies for themselves and their children (usually determined by proximity to the original home and the family's cultivated network of resources) may mitigate some of the detrimental effects.

- Maintaining the mother's mental health is particularly crucial for children under 12.

BS! The Nazis cast the Jews (and other nonayrans) as inferior races. There is nothing in the article similar to that. However, it does address the Pal culture that would destroy valuable greenhouses left for their use.

Palestinians Have Never Been Offered a Viable, Independent State

You are a liar. I have never said that the Pals are inferior. I have indicated that their culture and religion have held them back. Do you deny that?

Your characterization of the article as being racist and similar to Nazi propaganda is an outright and disgusting lie. This seems to be your modus operandi.

The report is extremely one-sided. Thus, one would have to question its accuracy. Of course, Israel would never have set foot in the WB and Gaza were it not attacked continually by the Pals since before it became a state. I wonder how many innocent Israelis have been murdered and wounded by the Pals. This would certainly justify efforts by the Jews in the WB to make security changes to the landscape.

Advocate wrote:

Your characterization of the article as being racist and similar to Nazi propaganda is an outright and disgusting lie. This seems to be your modus operandi.

Why is it a lie? The statements in the article conclude that it is 'in the nature' of the Pals to be barbarians. This echoes what you and other Zionists say constantly. And it echoes what the Germans said about your people.

Cycloptichorn

You and other Zionists here continually cast the Palestinians as inferiors. Even your second sentence above does this; the fact that some Pals smashed these greenhouses does not mean their culture is inferior in any way.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You and other Zionists here continually cast the Palestinians as inferiors. Even your second sentence above does this; the fact that some Pals smashed these greenhouses does not mean their culture is inferior in any way.

Cycloptichorn

The word inferior is so lame; inferior in what? I consider your west coast culture is inferior, in my opinion, to the east coast culture.

So, assuming you subscribe in some ways to the west coast culture, I cannot consider you an equal.

And, the word Zionist is lame, since Zionist implies someone who is actively involved in the homeland of the Jews (aka, Israel). I am not involved in Israel. I just have an opinion, based on my awareness of anti-Semitism in this world.