|
|
Blog Feeds
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
|
Why I have trouble trusting Palestinians national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Thursday May 30, 2002 11:13 by Ophir
 I'm a left wing Israeli. During all the time that I voted , I have chosen Meretz, a left wing party which supports the right of Palestinian to a state and Israel returning back to the lines of 1949. Even today, I still believe in this ideas. However, if once I thought there were moral and practical reasons for this , today I'm only left with practical ones. I'm a left wing Israeli. During all the time that I voted , I have chosen Meretz, a left wing party which supports the right of Palestinian to a state and Israel returning back to the lines of 1949. Even today, I still believe in this ideas. However, if once I thought there were moral and practical reasons for this , today I'm only left with practical ones. The amount of hate I see in this site shows me that indeed there is I'm a left wing Israeli. During all the time that I voted , I have chosen Meretz, a left wing party which supports the right of Palestinian to a state and Israel returning back to the lines of 1949. Even today, I still believe in this ideas. However, if once I thought there were moral and practical reasons for this , today I'm only left with practical ones. I'm a left wing Israeli. Even today, I still believe in this ideas. The amount of hate I see in this site shows me that indeed there is litle hope for help in the world. All the nice people that are coming to defend the Palestinian would never come and help us if we were under attack after we move out of the territories. They want all the jwes killed ( as you can read in many articles) and our state to go away. I think Egypt,Lebanon, Syria and the other countries have a right to exist. The answer is very clear and simple and it is amazing to see you all ignore it. The basic of the Oslo agreement was that 2 sides can sit down and talk to solve problems without violence. In may 2000 Ehud Barak was the PM in Israel , he made the best offers the Palestinians ever got and the most every Israeli would ever be willing to give up. Lets assume for a minute that still the Palestinians didn't think such offers are good enough. The choice the Palestinians had and have is to continue the Oslo agreement and work for better offers. Instead they chose terror as a strategic choice instead of talk and peace. Where did it get them ? Nowhere but 1700 people are dead now . 5B$ are lost . At this time today there could have been a Palestinian state on 95% of the area with Arafat as president and Jerusalem as a capital. 1700 more people were alive and 25000 were not wounded. Remember, Arafat didn't choose terror when Ariel Sharon was in power . He is the sole reason Sharon was elected by the Israelis. Sharon was an outcast for 18 years in Israel. Even after Sharon was elected Israel tried the talking approach for some 10 times : In oslo the Palestinians promised free elections. We can never trust , or at least not for a very long time. Take lebanon for example. When we occupied part of Lebanon ( just 5 miles by the way ), thw whole world said we are wrong to be there and that once we go out there will be peace. Today we see that the Hizbulla keep trying to kill us without any regard to the fact we left every inch of lebanon according to U.N resolution. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (5 of 5)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5Just one problem with this analysis (actually many but ill just mention this one): wasnt it Shimon Peres who ordered the assault on Lebanon in 1996 which included the deliberate massacre of 100 civilians in a refugee camp? Doesnt this present a slight problem for anyone who wants to argue that the Israelis are just helpless victims of Palestinian aggression? Doesnt the fact that "peacemaker" Peres could be responsible for this sort of terrorism help explain why Palestinians are reluctant to trust any Israeli offers?
Ophir,
Not only do you feel the need to copy-paste your comments three times in a row, but you also insist on printing lies on this page.
You say that at Camp David Barak made an offer which could have made a "Palestinian state on 95% of the area with Arafat as president and Jerusalem as a capital". Where do you get your information you leftist-wannabe? The 95% that you are talking about is a perverse trick of statistics that the Israeli government uses to make its so-called "offer" look good. What Barak "offered" Arafat was 18% of Palestine, which included 95% of the West Bank (separated by army blocks and settlements) and the Gaza strip. To compensate for not giving the Palestinians the whole of the West Bank, Israel "offered" Arafat a garbage dump site in the middle of the desert near Gaza in exchange. So, Ophir, take your offer and stick it up your **s! It's about time you started treating the Palestinians with a little more respect...or keep wondering why many of them hate you.
For detailed information about the Camp David "offer" I've provided this link:
http://www.mideastweb.org/CampDavid2.htm
You can read it in English, Arabic and Hebrew.
In addition to Layla's comments...
Under the Camp David deal, Israel would still have complete control of the border between Jordan and the West Bank, it would still control all the good roads in the West Bank (the ones that join the settlements) and leave the dirt tracks to the Palestinians, it would still control the entire fresh water supply in the West Bank, the vast majority of which is distributed to the illegal settlements.
Also, Arafat would not be allowed to build a Palestinian army with heavy weapons, Israel would only have to readmit 100,000 Palestinian refugees, and the area of the West Bank to be handed over was just 73% (and 100% of Gaza Strip).
This is possibly also another "personal opinion of a concerned individual" troll/spam about the middle east, as with a few other posts to the newswire over the past few days. If nothing else, this conclusion would seem to be supported by the fact that nobody who posts these accounts ever subsequently comes back to try to defend them or discuss them.
Just for the record, all "peace" offers made to the Palestinians since 1967 (or, for that matter, since the foundation of Israel) essentially differ over the modalities of the occupation of Palestinian land by Israel; most offer a "state" along the lines of the South African Bantustan proposal, that is, a statelet within or near Israel over which Israel controls access, resources, policies, finance and almost everything else that matters. This is why so many commentators in the mainstream press are so approvingly urging a "two-state solution".
The author of the above posting referred to hatred. I fully support the right of the Palestinian people to their own state, I fully support the right of the Jewish people to their own state. I do not hate Jewish people or any people for that matter. I am revolted by the Nazi genocide directed against the Jewish people in Europe during WW11. I am also revolted by the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people in 1948. The crimes committed at Deir Yassin, Sabra-Shatila and Qana do not compare to the Nazi crimes in scale but they do in character. To utilise the Holocaust to justify these crimes is a gross insult to the millions of Jewish people murdered by the Nazis. I do not support suicide bombings,since I believe that the drive the working people of Israel into supporting Sharon.
Of course, if I lived in Jenin and found my family murdered by the IDF bulldozers, perhaps I would not be so rational. The Oslo accords simply created a series of South African Bantustans and were doomed to failure. There will never be peace until there is a complete withdrawal from all occupied land and the illegal are totally dismantled.