Anna in the Middle East .com, Anna Baltzer's website about Israeli Apartheid

wwswimming

Banned
Jan 21, 2006
3,695
1
0
Great interview with Ognir at TIU radio.

Anna Baltzer's website -
http://www.annainthemiddleeast.com/

"A Witness in Palestine."

She talks about growing up as a Jewish woman, accepting the status quo, then travelling in Israel & meeting the Palestinians ... the process of realizing that most of what she was taught about Israel in American schools was false.

In the interview with Ognir, she talks about Hampshire College, the first college in the USA to boycott Apartheid South Africa - which has now implemented a boycott of Israel.

She talks about her visits of the Israeli concentration camps where the Palestinians live, and especially about the travel restrictions imposed inside Palestinian territory, which have the effect of making the simplest tasks nearly impossible.

Info about Anna Baltzer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Baltzer

Link to the interview
http://theinfounderground.com/archives/TiU.Radio.25th.Jan.2010.guest.Anna.Baltzer.mp3
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
What exactly is the core complaint that has generated the use of the term "apartheid" in Israel? Voting rights, employment issues, general dislike?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
What Israeli concentration camps?

The Arabs were the ones that set them up and the Palestinians have continued the desire to live in such ghettos while ruining their chances for progress for the past 60 years
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
LOL @ concentration camps. Like the one in Jordan and Lebanon, you mean? Palestinians are the ultimate, eternal refugees. They even have their own UN aid agency, while much worse-off countries have to do with a single aid agency (UNCHR).
Palestinians don't want this resolved, they want to invade Israel, that's why for the foreseeable future they will remain refugees "in concentration camps". This is by choice, mind.

This is no apartheid, they aren't Israeli citizens. Israel is forced to look after them, as they can't really take care of themselves (see Gaza). I'm sure that Israel would have loved to see them going somewhere else, Jordan maybe.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,592
6,715
126
Bush killed Israel when he destroyed the United States. It's just a matter of time.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Great interview with Ognir at TIU radio.

Anna Baltzer's website -
http://www.annainthemiddleeast.com/

"A Witness in Palestine."

She talks about growing up as a Jewish woman, accepting the status quo, then travelling in Israel & meeting the Palestinians ... the process of realizing that most of what she was taught about Israel in American schools was false.

In the interview with Ognir, she talks about Hampshire College, the first college in the USA to boycott Apartheid South Africa - which has now implemented a boycott of Israel.

She talks about her visits of the Israeli concentration camps where the Palestinians live, and especially about the travel restrictions imposed inside Palestinian territory, which have the effect of making the simplest tasks nearly impossible.

Info about Anna Baltzer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Baltzer

Link to the interview
http://theinfounderground.com/archives/TiU.Radio.25th.Jan.2010.guest.Anna.Baltzer.mp3

I have read and am familiar with this "woman" she is way over the deep end, she is a real looney tunes lady!

In fact she was hailed as joining the "Anti - Israeli" movement...
also -- Baltzer has been criticized by organizations such as Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), a pro-Israel media watchdog group[12][13][14][15], which described her as "Chomsky Lite" and condemned Baltzer's "baseless distortion" of "Zionism as a racist movement". Additionally, there have been several statements made by CAMERA claiming that Baltzer has made "false claims about land ownership" prior to 1948, citing UN Security Council Resolution 242 among other references supporting such statements.[16] There have also been writings regarding the organizations that support Baltzer's work, such as the International Women's Peace Service.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1548

October 10, 2008 by Steven Stotsky

Chomsky Lite: Anna Baltzer Joins anti-Israel Campaigns

Extreme anti-Israel groups often feature like-minded Jewish individuals in their campaigns, events and writings. These voices provide a public relations fig leaf for organizations singling out the Jewish state for one-sided condemnation. The logic, obviously, is that if Jews themselves are leveling harsh criticism at Israel, the organization&#8217;s own assault must have merit. But what actually counts in statements about Israel, the Palestinians or any other topic are the facts of the issue &#8211; not the ethnicity, religion or personal psychology of the speaker.

Anna Baltzer is one such Jewish defamer, a relative newcomer who tours US campuses, churches and community venues denigrating Israel with baseless and propagandistic allegations. Her personal story has a familiar ring; she claims to have been raised on the Zionist dream but says "vacations" in Iran, Syria and Lebanon and an extended visit to the West Bank opened her eyes and transformed her into a determined opponent of "the occupation." Those well versed in the history and contemporary reality of the conflict will recognize in Baltzer&#8217;s presentation a re-packaged version of standard accusations against the Zionist state.

Equally predictable are her anecdotal descriptions of Palestinian hardship and alleged Zionist brutality. Likewise familiar is Baltzer&#8217;s invoking of her Jewish roots and grandparents lost to the Holocaust to establish her supposed moral authenticity.

But family aside, Baltzer&#8217;s ideological roots are firmly planted in the anti-Zionist movement. An acolyte of deceased Israeli radical, Tanya Reinhardt and Noam Chomsky, she is affiliated with the International Women&#8217;s Peace Service (IWPS), a group closely associated with the International Solidarity Movement. Her political message closely reflects the official Palestinian line claiming Israel is a foreign occupier guilty of ethnic cleansing and that the wrongs done to the Arabs can only be righted by reverting back to a mythological pre-Zionist Palestinian land.

False claims about land ownership

1) Baltzer builds her argument against Israel on key historical falsehoods. In a tactic of propaganda, she repeatedly asserts the falsehood that the West Bank and much of Israel itself belonged to the Palestinians as though it were commonly accepted truth. She claims Jewish settlements on the West Bank are illegal according to international law and the land "belongs to the Palestinians, [and is] internationally recognized as Palestinian land." None of this is true; in reality, UN Security Council Resolution 242 (and official United States policy) characterizes the West Bank and Gaza as disputed territories subject to negotiation. Many recognized legal experts (including Professors Julius Stone and Eugene Rostow) argue that the settlements are legal, irrespective of any political view about the advisability of building or removing them.

2) Baltzer perpetuates the falsehood that all land not already under Jewish ownership prior to 1948 belongs to the Palestinians. A series of maps on her Web site depict the annexation of Palestinian land by Jews. A map labeled 1947 shows eight percent under Jewish ownership, and incorrectly assigns the remaining 92 percent to the Palestinians. But most of the territory she assigns to the Palestinians was state-owned property under Turkish and subsequent British and Jordanian governments. In 1967, when Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza in the context of a defensive war, state land came under the sovereignty of Israel, which is how it remains until a "final status" settlement is achieved.

3) Baltzer further confuses the land issue in alleging Israeli Arabs are discriminated against because they are barred from owning most of the land. In reality, within Israel itself, only 6.5 percent of the land is privately owned and although Arabs constitute 20 percent of the population they own roughly half of that private property. They have equal access to the remaining roughly 80 percent of land that is government-owned state land. In practice and under new court rulings Arabs also have access to JNF land which accounts for the remaining 14 percent.

4) Baltzer makes other bizarre claims about land in Israel. In her blog she quotes Dr. Salman Abu Sitta, whom she identifies as a former member of the Palestine National Council, who states,

78&#37; of [Jewish Israelis] live in 14% of Israel. The remaining 22% of [Jewish Israelis] live in 86% of Israel's area, which is Palestinian land ...only 200,000 Jews exploit 17,325 sq. km, which is the home and heritage of 5,248,180 refugees, crammed in camps and denied the right to return home. (April 30, 2007)
This absurd assertion denies Jews the right to 86 percent of the land within their own internationally recognized borders. Tellingly, her repetition of Dr. Sitta&#8217;s claims suggests she sees nothing wrong with reducing Israel into densely populated "bantustans;" precisely what she accuses Israel of doing to the Palestinians.

5) Her recapitulation of the events surrounding Israel&#8217;s founding are standard revisionist mythology. She recounts how "the militant Zionist Irgun and Stern Gang systematically murdered more than 100 men, women, and children in Deir Yassin" and describes it as "part of a carefully planned and orchestrated process that would induce the flight of 70% of the native population to make way for an ethnically Jewish state." (Anna&#8217;s blog: April 30, 2007)

And in her DVD, "Life in Occupied Palestine," she asserts:

The majority of the people living on the land the UN designated for a Jewish state were not Jewish. Zionist forces expelled 750,000 Palestinians from their homes.
The charge of an orchestrated plan and process to expel Palestinians has been thoroughly refuted by serious scholars. Professors Efraim Karsh and Benny Morris, for instance, both reject the charge of an orchestrated expulsion, and conclude the overwhelming majority of Arabs who fled did so in the context of war &#8211; one launched by Arab armies and militias against the fledgling Jewish state. Their scholarship is supported by the admissions of Arab officials that the Arab population was urged to flee by its own leadership. According to various UN commission reports, between 472,000 and 726,000 Arabs fled the territory that became Israel. Only a small fraction of these were physically uprooted by Jewish forces, in most cases to insure critical roadways remained open during open hostilities.

Demonizing Zionism and defaming Israelis


1) Predictably, Baltzer casts Zionism as a racist movement. She describes a Zionist as "someone who the idea of an exclusively Jewish state." This is a baseless distortion of mainstream Zionism. Israel is a democratic state that protects the rights of all its citizens to freely and openly practice their religions. According to Freedom House, an organization that rates political, religious and civic freedoms around the world, Israel is the only nation in the Middle East to be rated as "Free." Most of the region&#8217;s states were given the lowest rating of "Not Free." (See the Middle East portion of the Freedom House Map of Freedom reproduced on the left)
One is left to wonder how Baltzer&#8217;s "vacations" in Iran and

Syria, nations controlled by repressive regimes that restrict speech, assembly and the rights of minority groups, somehow convinced her that Israel was the region&#8217;s most serious human rights violator.


2) Her account of the fighting in Jenin in April 2002 repeats the most outrageous propaganda disseminated by the Palestinian Authority in the days immediately after the Israeli incursion. She writes in her blog on November 24, 2003:

Jenin has a reputation for fighting back. Locals say that in April of 2002, it took 12,000 Israeli troops 8 days to capture one small section of the city because so many people fought to the death...
... Soldiers bulldozed homes indiscriminately, without regard to whether any civilians were still inside...

Israel used bulldozers to minimize soldier casualties, but no one knows how many Palestinians died in the attack... Shortly afterward, Israel announced 46 casualties, less than a quarter of their original estimates. Israeli soldiers&#8217; and Palestinian civilians&#8217; testimonies of unarmed men being executed and bodies being crushed suggest that this number is wildly inaccurate. Still, Israel maintains that a massacre never happened at all, and without access to the bodies, nobody can prove that those who went missing were actually killed.
At the time she wrote this entry, even HRW and Amnesty International, as well as the UN &#8212; all fierce critics of Israel &#8212; had repudiated claims that a massacre had occurred, counting 52 to 57 Palestinian dead along with 23 Israeli soldiers. Most of the Palestinian fatalities were identified as combatants. The relatively low Palestinian toll after eight days along with the uncharacteristically high toll of Israeli soldiers contradicts Baltzer&#8217;s narrative. Israel could have limited its own casualties by resorting to artillery and aerial bombardment, but in order to minimize Arab civilian casualties, went in on the ground and suffered notable losses.

3) She criticizes Israel&#8217;s security barrier, "the wall" in her terminology, but avoids any discussion of why it was built. Even Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Ramadan Abdallah Shalah acknowledged the effectiveness of the barrier, stating:
"&#8230; For example, they built a separation fence in the West Bank . We do not deny that it limits the ability of the resistance to arrive deep within [Israeli territory] to carry out suicide bombing attacks, but the resistance has not surrendered or become helpless, and is looking for other ways to cope with the requirements of every stage [of the intifada]&#8230;" (Al-Sharq, March 23, 2008 ).
As an advocate of non-violence, she betrays no ambivalence in her opposition to the barrier despite the fact that it has saved both Israeli and Palestinian lives by reducing opportunities for violence to occur. Baltzer&#8217;s determined opposition to the barrier suggests that promoting the political agenda of "resistance" supercedes any concern for preserving Israeli or Palestinian lives.

Baltzer&#8217;s radicalism and ties to Islamic extremists

1) Baltzer&#8217;s rhetoric and writing are a window on the emerging nexus between the far-left and the Islamic extremists of Hamas. This is exemplified by her association with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), a radical group whose members sheltered two British-born terrorists prior to their carrying out a suicide bombing of an Israeli nightclub in 2003 and who today are working on behalf of Hamas to undermine Western efforts to isolate that radical Islamic organization in Gaza.

In her blog, she reveals her participation in ISM strategy sessions and coordination with its activists. ISM&#8217;s claims to adhere to a non-violent creed are contradicted by the praise its co-founder, Huwaida Arraf, expressed for suicide bombers:

Nonviolent resistance is no less noble than carrying out a suicide operation... The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics &#8212; both nonviolent and violent. But most importantly it must develop a strategy involving both aspects...
2) The relative calm in the West Bank since 2005 and on-going tenuous efforts by responsible governments to foster cooperation between the Abbas government and the Israeli government have reduced opportunities for extremists to instigate "resistance" activities in these areas. Professional agitators like Baltzer have thus migrated to more extreme opponents of compromise, like Hamas in Gaza. In 2007, she wrote:

Recently, perhaps the most paralyzing features of Israel's continued control over Gaza ... is the US and Israeli-led economic embargo against the Palestinian government since Hamas' victory last year....the United States, Europe, and Israel ... say they will only return the Palestinians' lifelines if Hamas agrees to three conditions: (1) renouncing violence, (2) accepting previous agreements, and (3) recognizing Israel. These conditions sound reasonable enough, but are painfully ironic for anyone living on the ground here. True, Hamas has not sworn off violence once and for all, but neither has Israel! In the past year, Palestinians have killed 27 Israelis, most of them soldiers. During that same period of time, Israelis have killed 583 Palestinian civilians (suicide bombers, fighters or others targeted for assassination are not included). Hamas has held fairly consistently to a unilateral ceasefire since January 2005, when they announced their transition from armed struggle to political struggle... Hamas says it reserves the right to resist violently, but has stopped attacking Israelis. Israel claims that all it wants is peace, yet the daily invasions and assassinations continue.

And finally, the last and crucial condition is that Hamas must recognize Israel. The question is, what exactly is meant by "Israel"?... Israel has an artificial Jewish majority that was created and is maintained through various forms of ethnic cleansing. Israel's very existence as a Jewish state is conditional upon the dispossession and either expulsion or bantustanization of the indigenous Palestinian population...
Hamas too has indicated that it would consider peace if Israel withdrew to its internationally recognized 1967 borders leaving Palestinians with just 22% of their historic homeland, but Israel says full withdrawal is out of the question. It is Israel who has yet to recognize Palestine's right to exist, not the other way around. (April 7, 2007)
Baltzer here adheres closely to Hamas&#8217;s narrative of the conflict. These excerpts from a lengthy blog entry are riddled with deceptive manipulation of terms. For instance, while Hamas accepts temporary truces it firmly rejects the right of the Jewish state to exist and refuses to disavow armed struggle. Recently, when an interviewer asked Hamas political chief, Khaled Meshal if Hamas could ever accept Israel. He answered,

No, the question of recognition is out. I have already said we would be able to sign a truce. There are other formulas, but we have already stated that recognition is not among them. (Euronews, July 11, 2008)
Nor has Hamas stopped trying to attack Israel despite Baltzer&#8217;s nonsensical claim that Hamas has adhered to the 2005 ceasefire. From January through August 2008 alone, 1087 rockets and 1218 mortar shells were fired on Israel from Hamas-controlled Gaza and Hamas has taken credit for a number of terrorist incidents inside Israel since 2005.

Her statistics on Palestinian casualties are misleading. Through careful cross-checking of Palestinian sources, CAMERA has demonstrated that the groups Baltzer relies upon for her figures play games with how they classify terrorists and militants as civilians or non-combatants. For example, the pro-Palestinian Israeli group B&#8217;Tselem categorizes known terrorists killed in Israeli air strikes as non-combatants so long as they were not carrying out an attack at the time of their demise. Another CAMERA study combed through the weekly reports of the Gaza-based monitoring group Palestinian Committee for Human Rights (PCHR) and calculated 58 percent of all Palestinian fatalities between April 2006 and April 2008 were identified as militants, resistance activists or members of Palestinian security forces by this partisan group. Israeli tallies indicate that the overwhelming majority of Palestinian fatalities are militants and terrorists.

Curiously Baltzer&#8217;s blog falls silent between April 29, 2005 and Jan 26, 2007, a time during which the main news focused on Israel&#8217;s decision to withdraw from Gaza and the chaotic results within Gaza afterward, including intensified internecine fighting between Hamas and Fatah.
In 2007, in the midst of an extended period of relative calm between Israelis and Palestinians on the West Bank, she exclaimed in her blog:

Injustice is unsustainable. It cannot be normalized, because there will always be resistance. The third intifada will come...If the third intifada does not succeed, there will be a fourth. And then a fifth&#8230; As many as it takes, until justice is served. (April 29, 2007)
Although Baltzer&#8217;s organization IWPS proclaims in its mission statement that it is "non-aligned and non-partisan and does not 'take sides' but supports any individual, group or organization who resist the Military Occupation of the West Bank in a nonviolent manner," she implicitly condones violence by urging endless intifadas. Surely she knows that Palestinian and Israeli blood would inevitably flow during the next and any subsequent intifadas.

Like others who have preceded her as roving agitators against the Zionist state, Baltzer feeds off the continuing conflict. Her agenda promotes resentment and holds out to Palestinians the unrealistic hope of reversing a century of Jewish growth and development of the land. This can only push prospects for a peaceful coexistence further away. With continuing attempts to forge a more cooperative and calm atmosphere in the West Bank, it is no surprise that Baltzer and others who share her agenda increasingly align their views and actions with the most determined opponents of compromise, like Hamas.
 

brownzilla786

Senior member
Dec 18, 2005
904
0
0
What Israeli concentration camps?

The Arabs were the ones that set them up and the Palestinians have continued the desire to live in such ghettos while ruining their chances for progress for the past 60 years

Man your blind if you really believe that its one sided like that. Israel is just as much to blame to stalling peace as the Palestinians are, and I would argue they are/have been the greatest delayers of peace post 1967 simply because they do not need peace to remain the most powerful force in the region.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Retarded retard is retarded. I hope she doesn't go sit in front of a bulldozers.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Man your blind if you really believe that its one sided like that. Israel is just as much to blame to stalling peace as the Palestinians are, and I would argue they are/have been the greatest delayers of peace post 1967 simply because they do not need peace to remain the most powerful force in the region.

You know nothing about this at all...numerous times peace has been offered to various degrees and all those times it has been rejected...why? Because the palestinains want all or nothing. It`s that plain and simple.....
 

brownzilla786

Senior member
Dec 18, 2005
904
0
0
You know nothing about this at all...numerous times peace has been offered to various degrees and all those times it has been rejected...why? Because the palestinains want all or nothing. It`s that plain and simple.....

Could you be more specific? The best deal Israel ever offered the the Palestinians was in 2000 in the Camp David peace talks where Ehud Barak reportedly offered around 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza. While this is certainly the best deal EVER offered to the Palestinians, it was severely lacking in that the Israeli's would encompass ALL Palestinian land, and the Palestinian land would be broken up into chunks with Israeli checkpoints between each chunk(which already proved disastrous for the Palestinian economy). It would never be a fully autonomous, independent state, and was thus declined.

Unfortunately no, its not that plain and simple.
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
Could you be more specific? The best deal Israel ever offered the the Palestinians was in 2000 in the Camp David peace talks where Ehud Barak reportedly offered around 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza. While this is certainly the best deal EVER offered to the Palestinians, it was severely lacking in that the Israeli's would encompass ALL Palestinian land, and the Palestinian land would be broken up into chunks with Israeli checkpoints between each chunk(which already proved disastrous for the Palestinian economy). It would never be a fully autonomous, independent state, and was thus declined.

Unfortunately no, its not that plain and simple.

At what point, if at all, would you personally advise the Palestinians to grab whats on the table and concentrate on building a country instead of fighting Israel?
 

brownzilla786

Senior member
Dec 18, 2005
904
0
0
At what point, if at all, would you personally advise the Palestinians to grab whats on the table and concentrate on building a country instead of fighting Israel?

If it were me personally, if Israel offered anything that was similar to the Beirut Declaration, I would agree.
II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (although if Israel chose not to accept returning refugees I would not have conflict with that, they should be compensated fairly however).

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

As of right now nothing is on the table to my knowledge, and everything previously offered made it impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to build a country (restrictions on trade, border checks, no autonomy, etc), so I can't blame the Palestinians for rejecting previous offers. One might think, well at least something is better than nothing, right? Maybe. I can't really say how it would have turned out.

As an Israeli, would you find those terms acceptable?
 

SamurAchzar

Platinum Member
Feb 15, 2006
2,422
3
76
If it were me personally, if Israel offered anything that was similar to the Beirut Declaration, I would agree.
II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (although if Israel chose not to accept returning refugees I would not have conflict with that, they should be compensated fairly however).

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

As of right now nothing is on the table to my knowledge, and everything previously offered made it impossible, or at least extremely difficult, to build a country (restrictions on trade, border checks, no autonomy, etc), so I can't blame the Palestinians for rejecting previous offers. One might think, well at least something is better than nothing, right? Maybe. I can't really say how it would have turned out.

As an Israeli, would you find those terms acceptable?

Yes, I would. However then arises the problem of keeping the Palestinian territories from deteriorating south-Lebanon style to Iranian controlled terror swamps. Here we probably differ - the only thing holding the Palestinian Authority right now is the limited Israeli presence in the West Bank. If Israel totally pulled out, it'd been just like Gaza. And that can't be good, not for Israelis and even less so for the Palestinians themselves.
 

brownzilla786

Senior member
Dec 18, 2005
904
0
0
Yes, I would. However then arises the problem of keeping the Palestinian territories from deteriorating south-Lebanon style to Iranian controlled terror swamps. Here we probably differ - the only thing holding the Palestinian Authority right now is the limited Israeli presence in the West Bank. If Israel totally pulled out, it'd been just like Gaza. And that can't be good, not for Israelis and even less so for the Palestinians themselves.

Maybe, I can certainly see how a power vacuum could really fudge things up in Palestine. The intricacies of establishing and maintaining Palestine would without a doubt have to be established before any deal is agreed upon. Otherwise, like you said, it wouldn't be good for either side.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
Could you be more specific? The best deal Israel ever offered the the Palestinians was in 2000 in the Camp David peace talks where Ehud Barak reportedly offered around 90% of the West Bank and all of Gaza.

No, the best deal was in 1948 which gave the Arabs of Palestine 100% of Gaza and the West Bank, and parts of the Negav. Israel would be 40% Arab had they not declared war.

While this is certainly the best deal EVER offered to the Palestinians, it was severely lacking in that the Israeli's would encompass ALL Palestinian land

Yes, there would be 2 "settlements" on the corners of Jordan which have existed from the 70s. Palestinians won't have a Jew-free state, it's too late for that.

and the Palestinian land would be broken up into chunks with Israeli checkpoints between each chunk(which already proved disastrous for the Palestinian economy). It would never be a fully autonomous, independent state, and was thus declined.

And why do checkpoints exist? Because of violence. There were no check points, walls, fences, or anything between 1948-1967. But in spite of this, the Palestinians, Jordanians, and Egyptians frequently crossed the armstice line to murder Jews in their sleep.

Even after the 67 war, Israel was reluctant to build check points or any sort of divider for fear of it being seen as a claim to land or symbol of a permanent presence. But after the Arab's rejected UN242, and the concluding 73' war, Israeli government couldn't protect its citizens in an acceptable way.

So, they built check points to capture armed Palestinians and to protect citizens of Israel.

You do know Lebanon has surrounded their Palestinian population with road blocks and check points? Why? Well, take a look at the Lebanese Civil War for answers.

They have a legitimate fear of Palestinian terrorism. And so does Israel. Now in the West Bank, hundreds of check points have been removed because the Palestinians have reduced their violence. Not all of it of course, the occasional suicide bombing plot is foiled and on Christmas Eve and Israeli was killed on highway 422, but still...it's far less than years before.


Unfortunately no, its not that plain and simple.

Overall you've misrepresented the Palestinian leadership and the latest peace deal.

The 2000 Camp David peace talks collapse was overwhelmingly attributed to Arafat from the Palestinians, Israelis, and Americans.

Why?

Easy. Oslo 2 explicitly mandated a negotiated peace. The land-for-peace formula had already been applied, where portions of the West Bank were ceded to the Palestinian Authority in a power-sharing agreement designed to test their competency at government.

Of course, violence didn't end - but it was more manageable. Arafat broke all of his promises, like ending incitement in the elementary schools, selling UN food on the black market, stop pirating Israeli water and selling it back for profit, etc.

Now the Palestinians had to agree to ending their dubious refugee status (only refugees on the planet whose decedents are considered refugees, RIDICULOUS!), and agree to be independent of international welfare and Israeli handouts.

The Palestinians demanded Israel immediately withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza, and only then would Arafat dismantle the terrorist organizations within the Palestinian Authority.

The ridiculous pre-condition made by the Palestinians was done in order for the talks to compromise the talks and fail them.

This is what Shlomo Ben-Ami had to say:

"we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation."

And he'd be right. UN242 explicitly states Israel has a right to secured borders, and until a just peace is secured, it is under no legal obligation to remove itself from any territory captured during the conflict (though it did ultimately give back 95% of all land in exchange for "peace" with Jordan, Egypt, and the Palestinians.)

Israel cannot return to the borders of June 1967. It is an unrealistic goal and the PLO knows this.

This is what Clinton said after Arafat walked out of the room without giving a counter-offer to the Israeli/American deal:

"I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace."

Even within Arafat's own administration fellow Fatah members accused him of sabotaging the deal. During this period some Palestinian leaders "disappeared." Arafat-hardliner Nabil Amr became a vocal critic of his conduct during the summit, going so far as to accuse him of sentencing the Palestinian people to eternal statelessness.

He was later shot at and severely wounded while in his home by "unknown" gunman.

In 2001, as the violence was heating up, Clinton tried to salvage a peace deal in what became known as the "Clinton Parameters." Clinton wrote a proposal to Barak and Arafat, laying down the parameters for future negotiations. Barak accepted the parameters (with some reservations that were within those parameters) by Clinton's deadline. Arafat, after a delay that went beyond the Clinton deadline, declined.
 

brownzilla786

Senior member
Dec 18, 2005
904
0
0
No, the best deal was in 1948 which gave the Arabs of Palestine 100% of Gaza and the West Bank, and parts of the Negav. Israel would be 40% Arab had they not declared war.

I was more talking post 1967, as indicated in my very first post, but I agree with you that was the best deal.





And why do checkpoints exist? Because of violence. There were no check points, walls, fences, or anything between 1948-1967. But in spite of this, the Palestinians, Jordanians, and Egyptians frequently crossed the armstice line to murder Jews in their sleep
.

I am aware that the strongest motivating factor for Palestinians/Jordanians to cross the border was to tend to their crops. I am also aware that a minority of those that crossed the border chose to incite violence, how many actually killed Israeli's I do not know. This violence was met with Israeli disproportionate retaliation, of which can be seen in the Qibya massacre to "murder Palestinians in their sleep". If you wanted to quibble about who started violence first post 1948, then it would be a sound argument to say the Palestinians. But I would also argue the Israeli's reacted in such a way (destroying Palestinian villages for an Israeli death) that fed fuel to the flames and continued extreme animosity between both sides.

Even after the 67 war, Israel was reluctant to build check points or any sort of divider for fear of it being seen as a claim to land or symbol of a permanent presence. But after the Arab's rejected UN242, and the concluding 73' war, Israeli government couldn't protect its citizens in an acceptable way.


So, they built check points to capture armed Palestinians and to protect citizens of Israel.

While destroying the Palestinian economy. This is from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Palestinian_territories
Average unemployment rates during the 1980s were generally under 5%; by the mid-1990s this level had risen to over 20%. After 1997 Israel's use of comprehensive closures decreased and new policies were implemented. In October 1999, Israel permitted the opening of a safe passage between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in accordance with the 1995 Interim Agreement. These changes in the conduct of economic activity fueled a moderate economic recovery in 1998-99.


In December 2006, unemployment had risen from 23% in 2005 to over 50%.[3] As a result of the Israeli blockade, 85 percent of factories were shut or operating at less than 20 percent capacity.

Checkpoints only made Israel LESS safe because it harbored extreme Palestinian resentment and terrorist hotbeds because it's people were in such desperate conditions

You do know Lebanon has surrounded their Palestinian population with road blocks and check points? Why? Well, take a look at the Lebanese Civil War for answers.

To attribute that hell of a mess on one group is insane. Simply take a look at the Sabra and Shatilla massacres for further clarification.


I can't go through the rest of the stuff, got class, I'll try to get back either by PM or another post. Nice post though, made me research and learn a lot :)
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
I was more talking post 1967, as indicated in my very first post, but I agree with you that was the best deal.

You portrayed the Palestinians as victim to Israel's not-doing-enough cliche, when in reality the Palestinians and the Arab states never wanted an independent Palestine and if it weren't for Zionism what is now Israel would be part of Syria and/or Jordan.

I am aware that the strongest motivating factor for Palestinians/Jordanians to cross the border was to tend to their crops. I am also aware that a minority of those that crossed the border chose to incite violence, how many actually killed Israeli's I do not know. This violence was met with Israeli disproportionate retaliation, of which can be seen in the Qibya massacre to "murder Palestinians in their sleep".

Propaganda and gibberish. Not only did "Palestinians" cross the border (they weren't called Palestinian back then), but they routinely attacked and shot at Israeli civilians. And while thousands of Palestinians legally crossed the border because many worked in Israel, many crossed to kill Jews and as I said before, Israel built no check points, walls, or fences.

So what motivated Palestinians to kill Jews?

There is no such thing as Israeli disproportionate relatialation. Disproportionate response is based on military objectives, not body count.

The Palestinians still exist, and their standard of living has gotten progressively better. Disproportionate retaliation would be, say, Soviets carpet bombing Afghan cities and wiping out 200,000 civilians over a weekend.

Attacking a legitimate target, and incurring civilian casualties because the enemy camps among civilians is not disproportionate.

In the end, it is a reaction to an action. You deserve no sympathy if you commit pointless aggression against Jews. They don't mess around, and they shouldn't have to.

If you wanted to quibble about who started violence first post 1948, then it would be a sound argument to say the Palestinians. But I would also argue the Israeli's reacted in such a way (destroying Palestinian villages for an Israeli death) that fed fuel to the flames and continued extreme animosity between both sides.

More gibberish. The Arab's started the violence, and are the aggressor. Israel "reacted." Period.

That's all that matters.

Israel's policy is dependent on Arab belligerence. Israel did not attack Lebanon during the Six Day War because Lebanon decided to be neutral.

Many civil wars occurred in post WWII, the break up of India killed over a million people.

The break up of Palestine killed less than 10,000.



While destroying the Palestinian economy. This is from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Palestinian_territories

This isn't a response. I was talking about how Israel did not build any check points or fences or anything, even after 1967.

The Palestinian economy was destroyed by the Palestinians. Israel can end trade whenever it wants to with the Palestinians. That's what happens when you send child suicide bombers into Jewish elementary schools.

If you didn't know, the first and second intifida occured during an economic boom, so you cant say the violence was some reaction to a receding economy.

Owned.


Checkpoints only made Israel LESS safe because it harbored extreme Palestinian resentment and terrorist hotbeds because it's people were in such desperate conditions

Not according to statistics. Check points saved lives, especially Israel's skill at setting up temporary check points and road blocks to capture criminals.

Palestinian resentment, as proven before, is not dependent on "desperate conditions." By all intents and purposes the Palestinians were not in "desperate conditions" even in the worst of times. They were leaders in humanitarian aid, their economy still grew faster than any Arab state, and their leaders continued to be richer than the Queen of England.

this desperation is the result of brainwashed victimhood and vicious hatred of Israel.

An absence of check points would change nothing. In the end Israel has a moral responsible to protect its citizens, and if that pisses off the Palestinians....TOO BAD.

Where do you think America went to before they invaded Iraq?

Israel. They trained with IDF soldiers in setting up check points and dealing with CQB urban environment where civilians pose as soldiers.

India too has turned to Israel for tips, purchasing over 1 billion in technology and recruiting Mossad to combat their own Islamist thugs.

About 4,000 Hindus died every year in Pakistani-sponsored terror in a similar Palestinian-like campaign. When India allied with Israel, Hindu casualties have decreased immensely.

Only 90 killed in 2009.

Big step up from the 2,000 killed in 2008.


To attribute that hell of a mess on one group is insane. Simply take a look at the Sabra and Shatilla massacres for further clarification.

No it's not.

Palestinians invaded Lebanon. the PLO started the war in Lebanon and created the civil war.

Repeat after me: Palestinians started the Lebanon Civil War. After Jordan booted the Palestinians, they fled to Lebanon. Syria didn't like being so close to the Palestinians, so they sponsored their own organizations to combat their intrusion, and then they invaded Lebanon. Israel showed up formally 7 years after the party started, and ultimately removed the PLO and sent them to Africa. Since then, Lebanon has progressed significantly.

Point is, Palestinian terrorism is not unique to Israel. Arab's hate Palestinians far more than Israel, and they have killed many times more than Israel ever has. And while Palestinians can work and apply for citizenship in Israel, they are denied residency in all arab states excluding Jordan.

Why won't the Arab brethan help out the poor poor Palestinians?

With all that under-populated land, huge oil wealth...cant they give it to the people they love so much?

Why do the Saudis spend more on waxing their bentleys than on the Palestinians, whose economy, as you claim, is strangled by Israel's "disproportionate retaliation?"

Because a disposed and violent Palestinian people benefit the Arab states. It forces Israel in a state of eternal conflict, isolates Israel politically, and protects the Arab states from being attacked for their own wars and genocides.

Ever heard of boycotting the Arab states for their gender apartheids, genocides in Darfur, and exporting terrorism throughout the planet?

Nope, in fact Chomsky considers them to be a victim to Israel's existence.

Seriously.


I can't go through the rest of the stuff, got class, I'll try to get back either by PM or another post. Nice post though, made me research and learn a lot :)

Well, I suggest you research more.

I've visited Israel too many times and spoke with more than enough Israeli soldiers to learn that 90% of all the "criticism" from Europeans and Americans is mostly regurgitated Pallywood propaganda entirely devoid of facts.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
What Israeli concentration camps?

The Arabs were the ones that set them up and the Palestinians have continued the desire to live in such ghettos while ruining their chances for progress for the past 60 years

Man your blind if you really believe that its one sided like that. Israel is just as much to blame to stalling peace as the Palestinians are, and I would argue they are/have been the greatest delayers of peace post 1967 simply because they do not need peace to remain the most powerful force in the region.
The Paelstinians have used those ghettos as a staging ground for attacks on Israel.

They were put into those camps by Egypt and Jordan initially until Israel controlled those areas.

The Palestinians have the ability to improve their lives; yet have chosen not to. It is easier to be on the dole and stand up and admit that they made mistakes and then work to correct them.

Why are the Palestinians that are living in Irael better off than those that live on the West Bank and Gaza?

Why are not the Arab brethen investing in the Palestinian lands?

The Palestinians have stated they want peace; yet refuse to renounce the terrorists that would prevent the peace. Israel is not going to allow their underbelly to be exposed again.
 
Last edited by a moderator: