Only In Israel

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Corrie's parents and the ISM time machine.

Last week, the parents of Pancake Corrie had to endure an attempted hijacking in Gaza. That's what the news told us.
GAZA (Reuters) - Palestinian gunmen briefly seized the parents of slain U.S. activist Rachel Corrie as they visited the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, but relented after being confronted by a member of the security forces, witnesses said.

They said Craig and Cindy Corrie, whose daughter was fatally run down by an Israeli bulldozer as she tried to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian building in 2003, were at the home of a friend in the Gaza town of Rafah when the gunmen arrived.

The gunmen appeared set on kidnapping the two Americans, the witnesses said. Gaza has seen a rash of foreigner abductions since Israel withdrew from the territory in September after 38 years of occupation.

But a local security officer intervened and the gunmen beat a retreat.

"A neighbor known to be a member of the security forces told the gunmen to leave," a witness said.

Now you can imgine what implications a story like that has. The parents of a "Palestinian martyr" threatened by gunman. Very bad publicity for them. Something has to be done. And indeed, the WAFA agency whitewashes the whole thing on January 6th, two days after the incident.
But even that isn't enough for the ISM. Something must be done, the media must somehow be responsible. They invent a time machine. Their report comes January 4th. Apparently on the day of the hijacking. The original report is here, complete with a map of Israel with all the Jewish towns wiped off.
Misterously enough, although January 4th was Wednesday, the post prior to the release cites "Thursday Morning" in past tense.
See for yourself:


The post from the blog.

The report itself is simply a series of insults to the intellegence of the person reading it. I'm genuinely insulted the ISM believs people who read their press releases are that stupid.
News reports stating that the parents of slain American human rights activist Rachel Corrie were the intended targets of an attempted kidnapping Wednesday in Gaza are incorrect. According to Craig and Cindy Corrie, contrary to news reports, the Corries were never threatened with kidnapping, nor did gunmen burst into the house where the Corries were staying.

...

Five people from Olympia, friends of Rachel, arrived two months ago in Rafah to work toward that goal. Three of them — Rochelle Gause, Will Hewitt and Serena Becker — were in the apartment when the men arrived at 1:30 a.m.. One of the two men was carrying a weapon. The men arrived in two cars with other passengers who remained inside the vehicles.
Ahh. Ofcourse. They didn't burst into the house, they just came to visit them at 1:30 AM. Could happen to anyone. I, for one, always have gunmen knocking on my door, with an escape car waitining for them outside at 1:30AM. It's all perfectly normal.

The three Americans in the apartment remained inside when the two men knocked on their door at 1:30 am, and called Dr. Nasrallah to tell him what was happening.

Dr. Nasrallah came and talked to the men and invited them to come down to his apartment. He learned that they, and the others in the two vehicles outside, were members of the family of Alaa al-Hamm, who had been arrested by the Palestinian police that evening on charges of involvement in previous kidnapping.
Such a weird coincidence, family members of a jailed hijacker come visit you at 1:30AM, with guns in their hands.

The Corries, who were staying at Dr. Nasrallah's home, got up and met the two men in the living room where they all drank tea together and discussed what they and the group of ORSCP participants were doing in Rafah. A neighbor, a Palestinian Authority security officer, also came over and joined the group. After a brief conversation with the security officer, the two men shook Craig and Cindy Corrie's hands, and, according to Cindy Corrie, told the Corries that they had "great respect for our daughter and for us" and then left.
They had a "cup of tea" with the lovely hijackers (Having cups of tea with terrorists seems like a custom with the ISM), when the security men neighbour misterously showed up and joined the conversation. Did he arrest the people who came to hijack foreigners? hell no. He talked with them.

Over the next few hours, ORSCP members from Olympia met with their Rafah partners to discuss the situation. "We weren't just concerned for our own safety," the ORSCP group said. "We were also concerned about being a burden on the people here who have put so much work into this project."
Now why would you be concerned over your own safety? Just a few paragraphs back there, you've said "you were never threatened". Could it be you misunderstood that friendly chat over tea you had with the nice gunmen?

"We will continue to support the Palestinian struggle for freedom and human rights,” the ORSCP participants said in a group statement. "The Israeli occupation has led to the militarization of a portion of Palestinian society and the continued Israeli occupation undermines the ability of Palestinians to have a free society."
What occupation? There are no Israelis in Gaza, soldiers or settlers. Just Palestinians. I guess we're underminind their ability to have a free society by mind controlling them.

So, what do we have here... ISM doctors reports and dates, and then whitewashes armed hijackers who endangered their own people, simply to improve the Palestinian PR. Pathetic.

59 Comments:

  • Excellent blog mate. One gets profoundly tired of standard-line blethering from puerile, self-serving Palestine 'activists' whose political views colour their reality so much that dissembling is preferable to being refuted by the facts. They strain credibility.

    I for one - and almost anyone with a clear-eyed acquaintance with the history of the middle east - respects the way in which Israel has conducted herself over the years. Make no mistake - I sympathise with the Palestinian plight (one which incidentally, was brought about in large part by themselves and their Arab allies). But they and their enablers only do themselves a disservice when they engage in infantilisms and hysterics when confronting what they perceive as the iniquity of their situation. What chance a responsible, sincere and realist Palestinian leadership emerging, rather than Hizbollah? Slim to none I think, for as long as silly organisations like this 'ISM' legitimises terrorism.

    Keep safe,
    s.

    By Anonymous sal veritate, at 4:15 PM, January 17, 2006  

  • The Rafah Olympia Sister City Project press release tells exactly what the Corries explained happened. No one tried to kidnap them or threatened them.

    However, the press release does explain that three other Americans in another nearby building were threatened with abduction. You left this out because it did not support the story you wished to tell.

    As for the dates and all the other information, so someone made a small error or got confused. It is not very important. What is important is the Corrie's version of what happened.

    By the way, hundreds of ISMers, Israeli activists and Palestinians will be voting for Only in Israel in the blog contest.

    This is because we believe that the soldier/blogger and the other right-wingers who respond on this blog accurately represent the deluded nature of a significant portion of the Israeli public to the rest of the world.

    This blog is an excellent tool for educating the rest of the world as to why a boycott of Israel is necessary. It is also a good recruitment tool for ISM. We are finding that when people read your right-wing views they are horrified and want to join us. Manker also helps us by finding valuable articles from the old website that we don't have time to locate.

    Thanks, and keep up the good work for our cause. Just keep being yourself. We hope you win and gain a wider international audience. You are doing very valuable Hasbara for us!

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:33 PM, January 17, 2006  

  • By the way, hundreds of ISMers, Israeli activists and Palestinians will be voting for Only in Israel in the blog contest.

    I think the bold section says it all.

    Manker also helps us by finding valuable articles from the old website that we don't have time to locate.

    And yet amazingly you have STILL not explained why the ISM advocates that it's members not ride Israeli busses.

    Also it's pretty pathetic that you are trying to say that I am 'helping' you find lost webpages.

    This either means two things,

    1. Your concerned about these old webpages and worried about what else I or others will find if we keep digging. And now your attempting (very feebely) to do reverse psycology.

    or

    2. Your admitting that you and other members of the ISM have been over inflating intelligence and resources. Because quite honestly it's hard for me to believe that someone either can't press 'save' or just burn information onto a CD/DVD or transfer the info to an external hard drive.



    P.S. You still haven't explained why the press release was released on Jan. 4 yet it says Thursday morning as the first words.

    By Anonymous Manker, at 6:07 PM, January 17, 2006  

  • Oh yes one more thing.

    Could you please tell me what kind of computer do you use.

    I figure since you are so pro-boycott you'll want to know what computer products to avoid. Because it would be hypocritical of you and the ISM to use Israeli developed technology.

    By Anonymous Manker, at 6:10 PM, January 17, 2006  

  • Mistake in my last post - I meant to write 'Hamas' rather than Hizbollah.

    As for 'ISMer', you're sadly deluded. I'm from Singapore (part of 'the rest of the world'?), so I like to think I'm for the most part above the partisan fray that polarises so much of Western politics. From my quasi-neutral point of view I should say that organisations like yours appear to me to be more self-interestedly partisan hacksters than anything else.

    Reading back I came across an argument here some time ago on the boundaries that the Israeli fence traversed that is a case in point. (See here http://onlyinisrael.blogspot.com/2005/04/response-for-ismer.html)

    Dissimulation on the part of ISMer is refuted, and quite convincingly.

    It therefore strikes me as ... strange (infantile would be a better word actually) ... that protestors like ISMer would continue to use activist phraseology ('we'll vote for OII to encourage a boycott' etc) even as they purport to address 'the rest of the world'. It's childish, vindictive, echo-chamber stuff really.

    And the sad thing is, despite demonstrable instances of ISMer's dissimulation, he remains convinced - self-righteous even - that he's convincing anyone but himself.

    To be brutally honest, the Palestinian cause is better served without your kind.

    By Anonymous sal veritate, at 9:20 PM, January 17, 2006  

  • For our troubled reader from Singapore, if you'd like to see a detailed map of the wall and where it has been or is being built (mostly on Palestinian land), please view this map:

    http://www.btselem.org/Download/Separation_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf

    If you choose not to believe this, what can I say? You are not interested in considering evidence which does not support your preconceptions.

    To Manker, I really don't know why the Rafah Olympia Sister City Project posted their press releases in the order that they did or became confused about the days of the week, nor is it important.

    The press release was completed on January 4th after discussion with the Corries, and sent to the media on January 4th, the same day as the events transpired in Gaza. What is important is the day the press release was sent to international media, not the day it was posted on anyone's website. Nonetheless, the press release was also posted on the ISM website on Jnauary 4:
    http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/2006/01/04/no-attempt-to-kidnap-rachel-corries-parents/

    What is your point?

    Finally, Manker, I previously responded to your question re not traveling on Israeli buses. That suggestion was once on the ISM websight quite a while back. Why should ISM volunteers have unncessarily increased their risk of injury from an attack by traveling on Israeli buses? Many Israelis and tourists also stopped traveling on buses. ISMers would not have accomplished anything by traveling on Israeli buses. Nonetheless, some did anyway.

    I do travel on Israeli buses when I am there, though I greatly dislike being in the presence of large numbers of soldiers from any country. You may be aware, by the way, that more Israelis die from traffic accidents than die from Palestinian attacks. In reality, Israeli drivers are a greater threat to the security of Israelis.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:10 PM, January 17, 2006  

  • I really don't know why the Rafah I really don't know why the Rafah Olympia Sister City Project posted their press releases in the order that they did or became confused about the days of the week, nor is it important.

    Confused? so know people working with the ISM are confused about the days of the week, what the operating system the ISM uses doesn't have a calender? A serious press corp that ISM has in it's offices wouldn't have a calender in the office?

    Also why are post then not in chronological order if I may ask?

    The press release was completed on January 4th after discussion with the Corries, and sent to the media on January 4th, the same day as the events transpired in Gaza. What is important is the day the press release was sent to international media, not the day it was posted on anyone's website. Nonetheless, the press release was also posted on the ISM website on Jnauary 4:

    What is your point?


    That there are so many freaken holes in that arguement that this cannot simply be because of 'confusion'.

    Why the hell is the "immediate" press release, directly after an article that starts with "thursday morning". Especially since the previous article (the one before the press release) specifically states.

    Look here for the official press release in the next hour or so.

    With the specific time saying Posted
    by: Ron on Jan 04, 06 | 3:40 pm

    and then the time of the press release


    Posted by: Ron on Jan 04, 06 | 3:55 pm


    And then looking at next article the one after the press release the time posted specifically states.

    Posted by: Serena on Jan 06, 06 | 4:51 am

    This article contains some very interesting prospects.

    Firstly it's about the corries leaving gaza? Why is it if they leave wednesday morning do they only post on friday about reaching Jerusalem, which if they left gaza and traveled through Israel would mean at lastest they'd get there at late afternoon.

    It's literally like thursday dissappeared, coincidentally the same day the pre-press release starts off stating as if it's that day.

    However at this article

    http://www.orscp.org/comments.php?id=147_0_1_0_C

    Yet again I REPEAT THE ONE AFTER THE ARTICLE THAT THE ISM STATES SPECIFICALLY THAT THE CORRIES WERE NOT ALMOST KIDNAPPED.

    THE PERSON WHO ACCOMPANYING THE CORRIES, WRITES THIS:

    By now you may be aware that I am in Jerusalem with the four other delegates from the Olympia-Rafah Sister City Project, and Cindy and Craig Corrie. We chose to leave Gaza Wednesday morning after two men came to our apartment late Tuesday night asking us to go with them under the false pretense that we would be safer staying in their home. Our host in Rafah recognized this as an attempt to kidnap us and cautiously navigated the situation resulting in the bizarre scenario of the men shaking each of our hands and leaving. Though this experience was nerve-wracking at no point did I feel I was in any physical danger.

    DIRECTLY after an article specifically stating that was exactly what did not happen! Written two days after that event transpired!

    The only way that this article could in essence make sense (to you that is) if it was written on wednesday, but it specifically states that it was written AFTER the people left gaza.

    Someones LYING, and thanks for helping me uncover the falsity of these posts.

    This is truly an insult to anyones intellect.



    That suggestion was once on the ISM websight quite a while back. Why should ISM volunteers have unncessarily increased their risk of injury from an attack by traveling on Israeli buses?

    Ah, so you only act as shields to terrorists. I guess the statements of stopping attacks on civilians only count for palestinians.

    It's also nice that you admit that the terrorists are specifically targetting civilian sites, and that it represents such a risk that your organization even advised it's members to not ride busses because of this.

    But hey theres no outrage over this is there? No mass protests, no noise, no nothing.

    The desipicable double game and double standard of the ISM.

    Human rights only for what is considered human in the eyes of the ISM.

    Many Israelis and tourists also stopped traveling on buses.

    Yes but they are not filled with self righteousness on the fact that they champion a twisted view of 'human rights'.

    ISMers would not have accomplished anything by traveling on Israeli buses.

    BS, they would have showed that they aren't twisted bastards who support terrorism

    Nonetheless, some did anyway.

    Convient attempt at slipping something in, but they did they do this for compasion of Israeli lives or simply because they had no option?

    I do travel on Israeli buses when I am there, though I greatly dislike being in the presence of large numbers of soldiers from any country.

    Oh, mommy and daddy didn't give you enough money for a taxi?

    You may be aware, by the way, that more Israelis die from traffic accidents than die from Palestinian attacks.

    Deceptive again.

    This statistic holds true if you only account for attacks that have happened.

    HOWEVER, if you also take into account the mass of attacks that were stopped by Israeli security forces than the terrorism would have far exceeded the total amount of accidents.

    This further proves the importance of Israeli security measures and the fence in itself.

    In reality, Israeli drivers are a greater threat to the security of Israelis.

    This statement is only (sadly) true because of men like the soldier/blogger. Who go out and defend the state and protect it from the terrorists stopping I believe somewhere around 90% of attacks.

    By Anonymous Manker, at 11:48 PM, January 17, 2006  

  • ISMer, the map you cited CLEARLY shows the wall being built on the green line with respect to Budrus. The nearest place it deviates is north of Qibya. (I wish I could attach a blow up of the relevant area but I don't think comments allows pictures, so readers should just look at the PDF file at around the midpoint - Budrus is on the same latitude as Lod.)

    Your original claim (amongst others) was: "The original path of the wall from 2003 in Budrus would have taken 20% of the village's land...".

    Yet the map you link here refutes you - it shows the wall construction to be on the green line in the area around Budrus, consistent with the MFA map that Only in Israel links to, contrary to what you claim. What are you trying to pull here?

    "[N]ot interested in considering evidence which does not support your preconceptions" indeed. Your preconceptions seem to be causing you severe myopia. Who are you kidding really.

    Needless to say you did not address the rest of that post, and even on the one point that you chose to address, the map you link to doesn't support what you say. This serial dishonesty on your part is not encouraging. Why not just admit you got it wrong?

    By Anonymous sal veritate, at 12:01 AM, January 18, 2006  

  • ISMer, another thing, if you are going to claim that the *original* path took 20%, and that this map shows the amended path of the wall which no longer takes that 20% - then how does citing this map support your position at all?

    Either way, the map either doesn't support what you say about Budrus, or else flat-out contradicts your position.

    Again, who are you trying to kid?

    By Anonymous sal veritate, at 12:12 AM, January 18, 2006  

  • Dear Manker and confused resident of Singapore,

    I did not realize that you wanted to return to the specific question of Budrus. I posted that map earlier today in order to support the general reality that the Wall is being built largely on Palestinian land.

    However, yes I will post below an earlier map from August, 2004 that shows that the Wall was to be built on Budrus' land:

    http://www.btselem.org/Download/Separation_Barrier_and_Settlements_Map_Eng.PDF

    Really, it is simple enough for me to document this further if you'd like. It is all a matter of public record. Budrus' protests against the Wall were covered extensively by the Israeli and international media. You all are the only people who choose not to believe this because of your odd delusions.


    As for the confusion on the website of the Rafah Olympa Sister City project website, I really am not going to investigate this. It is not important. More people follow the ISM website anyway, and as I noted according to the previous link the press release was posted on the ISM website on January 4 and then picked up by google news from the ISM website on January 4, the same day as the event in Gaza. ISM sent out the press release by email on January 4 to over 2000 news media outlets. You can also read the Jerusalem Post's account here:
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361016016&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


    Finally, Manker, the source of the violence against Israelis is Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and dispossession of Palestinians from their land and homes. ISM addresses the root causes of the violence, Israeli oppression, as opposed to attempting to deal with one of its many symptoms, attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinians. Ending Israeli oppression of Palestinians will stop the violence, not sitting on Israeli buses in an ill-conceived and fruitless effort to somehow stop a random suicide bomber.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:22 AM, January 18, 2006  

  • Further detail on Budrus wall construction and Budrus' protests:

    Amira Hass in Ha'aretz:
    http://www.israelblog.org/Articles/The%20village%20against%20the%20fence.html

    Gideon Levy in Ha'aretz:http://www.israelblog.org/Articles/The_peaceful_way_works_best.html

    James Bennett in the New York Times: http://middleeastinfo.net/article.php?sid=3982

    etc., etc..

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:43 AM, January 18, 2006  

  • Some of you might learn something from this video (one of many):

    http://closedmilitaryzone.org/english.html

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:26 AM, January 18, 2006  

  • As for the confusion on the website of the Rafah Olympa Sister City project website, I really am not going to investigate this.

    I guess accuracy isn't really important?

    It is not important.

    Why is it not important?

    More people follow the ISM website anyway, and as I noted according to the previous link the press release was posted on the ISM website on January 4 and then picked up by google news from the ISM website on January 4, the same day as the event in Gaza. ISM sent out the press release by email on January 4 to over 2000 news media outlets. You can also read the Jerusalem Post's account here:

    However amazingly you do like to ignore and most hoping that I would too would ignore the other main point in my previous response to you.

    ANd that is why the site is itself contradicting the press release. A girl who is with the corries and has posting rights to that site has specifically contradicted the entire press release.

    This discrepancy is even worse than the time discrepancy. So please explain me was their a kidnapping attempt or not?

    Is the press release lying or the girl who was with the corries and directly taking the story from them lying?

    Please explain why their two contradictory statements that are one after another? With one being posted (as you say) the day of the event, and another two days after, clearly written from that time frame.

    Finally, Manker, the source of the violence against Israelis is Israel's occupation of Palestinian land and dispossession of Palestinians from their land and homes.

    No if this was the case, then the violence would have already stopped for two reasons.

    1. During the time of Oslo there was no Israeli presence, no road blocks, no nothing. Yet 256 Israeli's were killed in terror attacks.

    2. The Barak deal at camp david would have been the end all. But 97% was not enough with further possibility of future negeotiations and other territory being handed over instead of that 3%.

    ISM addresses the root causes of the violence, Israeli oppression,

    False again, the actual root cause is the fact palestinians teach there kids that I'm a cross between a pig and a monkey, and that one day they will drive the Jews to the sea.

    The fact was that if this was entirely about "Israeli oppression". Then this conflict would have ended before it started in during the time of 1948-1967, where Israel had no control over those territories.

    as opposed to attempting to deal with one of its many symptoms, attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinians.

    You've got it backwards, if Israeli civilians were not attacked, then their would be no need for an Israeli presence. The fact is that the day Israel lets up attacks quadruple, the day Israel comes down hard the attacks shrink.

    But it's nice to know that the ISM thinks that Israeli civilians 'have it coming', because terrorists blowing us up is the 'symptom'. This is amazing because this 'symptom' doesn't show up in the Basque lands, Tibet, spanish sahara, and etc. This is the only place where this 'symptom' was fully embodied in this method. Non have ever gone to the mass extremes of the palestinian terrorists.


    Ending Israeli oppression of Palestinians will stop the violence,

    So please explain why during Oslo 256 Israeli were slaughtered?

    not sitting on Israeli buses in an ill-conceived and fruitless effort to somehow stop a random suicide bomber.

    But jumping in front of terrorists to stop anti-terror operations will. The sick twisted hypocracy coming from you is something else.

    By Anonymous Manker, at 2:51 PM, January 18, 2006  

  • And what about all the Kassam rockets being fired from Gaza even now that Israel is out of Gaza? Please explain that one to me. Go on.

    You ISM numbnuts are really a piece of work. Dedicating your lives to helping people who refuse to help themselves. People who would rather kill innocent Israelis than take all the aid money being practically rammed down their throats and build themselves a normal society.

    If you honestly think that the Pals will suddenly stop the violence if Israel gets out of the West Bank, you people are even more pathetic and deluded than we all thought.

    How ironic that you are so disgusted by the soldiers, when they are the ones protecting you during your unwelcome stays in Israel. If not for them, you'd have a much greater chance of being blown up in a mall or a bus by one of those terrorists you care so much about.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:25 PM, January 18, 2006  

  • Hi Manker,

    I am again not going to attempt to learn about what the Olympia Rafah Sister City Project (ORSCP), a distinct organization, did on their website. All the original assertions you and the soldier/blogger made were about ISM. You are fixated with ISM. Everyone pays attention to ISM. I responded to all those questions clearly providing you with evidence from ISM, about press releases and news stories from January 4.

    Regarding your points about the period before 1967, you seem to have forgotten the little point about Israel expelling over 700,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1948 and destroying around 400 Palestinian villages. That did not exactly make Palestinians love you.

    I wrote previously about the dispossession of Palestinians from their lands and homes. Israeli actions from 1967 onwards have simply been a continuation of that process of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that began even before 1948.

    Re Israelis killed during Oslo, Let's see, for a two and half year period from September 1997 September 2000, about 15 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, all within the Occupied Territories and none within Israel: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Suicide%20and%20Other%20Bombing%20Attacks%20in%20Israel%20

    What did Palestinians get in return? Well, the settlements doubled in population from 1993-2000. And then Barak made a "generous offer" of 92%, 88%, 95% ?? ... of the West Bank.

    First of all, Barak's "generous offer" would have allowed Israel to keep most settlements, settlement roads, strategic water resources, etc. and maintain effective control of the West Bank. All this is illegal under international law, which does not permit the acquisition of territory by war. This "offer" would not have allowed the creation of a viable Palestinian state. No Palestinian leader could have accepted it.

    Secondly, it is not "generous" for a thief to offer to give back what he has stolen. And in this case, the thief, Israel, was even only offering to give back part of what he stole!

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:22 PM, January 18, 2006  

  • I am again not going to attempt to learn about what the Olympia Rafah Sister City Project (ORSCP), a distinct organization, did on their website. All the original assertions you and the soldier/blogger made were about ISM. You are fixated with ISM. Everyone pays attention to ISM. I responded to all those questions clearly providing you with evidence from ISM, about press releases and news stories from January 4.

    Well you still have yet to explain why their are contradictory articles? The fact is that it's fairly obvious to anyone that the orscp and the ism work together and have connections.

    You have also yet to explain about the contradictory statements made by the press release and the girl with the corries. Please explain me why their are these contradictory statements, since your so knowlegable with the press release and the entire incident.

    Regarding your points about the period before 1967, you seem to have forgotten the little point about Israel expelling over 700,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1948 and destroying around 400 Palestinian villages. That did not exactly make Palestinians love you.

    Ah yes re writing history, the fact of the matter was that the arab nations told the palestinians to leave. Israel neither had the capabilities to expel, considering that everyone was too busy fighting off about 5 invading armies. And secondly is readily disproved by the fact that Israel still has arabs in the country and was even willing to allow palestinians to return if they signed to be loyal to the state.

    However if you really want to look at a scenario of mass expulsion, just look at the close to million sepharadic and mezrahi Jews that expelled from arab countries. There's nothing left of a Jewish population except for a small island off tunisia, I think a few in morrocco, and maybe about 40 in baghdad. Compare that to the over 1 million arabs in Israel.

    Obviously logic is not strong suit with you.

    I wrote previously about the dispossession of Palestinians from their lands and homes. Israeli actions from 1967 onwards have simply been a continuation of that process of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that began even before 1948.

    Copy pasting noam chomsky doesn't count,

    And please tell me how many palestinians have been killed with fighting with since 1948?

    Re Israelis killed during Oslo, Let's see, for a two and half year period from September 1997 September 2000, about 15 Israelis were killed by Palestinians, all within the Occupied Territories and none within Israel: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Suicide%20and%20Other%20Bombing%20Attacks%20in%20Israel%20

    Even though that link didn't, this one does

    http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+before+2000/Fatal+Terrorist+Attacks+in+Israel+Since+the+DOP+-S.htm

    Straight from the same source you tried to pull a shtick with me. And it shows that your EXPLICITLY LYING, but wait, your gonna now say that the MFA is uncontrollably biased, you got confused, and that I should now ignore the link you posted and mine aswell.

    Also it plenty more than 15 AND many were killed well within the green line, but I guess of all Israel 'occupied' to you.

    I know you probably felt really smug trying to deceptively use the MFA, but it backfired on you badly.

    What did Palestinians get in return? Well, the settlements doubled in population from 1993-2000. And then Barak made a "generous offer" of 92%, 88%, 95% ?? ... of the West Bank.

    First of all, Barak's "generous offer" would have allowed Israel to keep most settlements, settlement roads, strategic water resources, etc. and maintain effective control of the West Bank. All this is illegal under international law, which does not permit the acquisition of territory by war. This "offer" would not have allowed the creation of a viable Palestinian state. No Palestinian leader could have accepted it.


    Thats amazing because saudi prince bandar thought it was an amazing deal. All this ADMITTED in a very revealing interview in the New Yorker magazine.

    http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/international-relations/prince-bandar.html]


    Some choice parts.

    Clinton, who continued to apply his considerable energy to finding a Middle East solution, came to believe, in December of 2000, that he had finally found a formula for peace; he asked once more for Bandar's help. Bandar's first reaction was not to get involved; the Syrian summit had failed, and talks between Barak and Arafat at Camp David, in July, had collapsed. But when Dennis Ross showed Bandar the President's talking papers Bandar recognized that in its newest iteration the peace plan was a remarkable development. It gave Arafat almost everything he wanted, including the return of about ninety-seven per cent of the land of the occupied territories; all of Jerusalem except the Jewish and Armenian quarters, with Jews preserving the right to worship at the Temple Mount; and a thirty-billion-dollar compensation fund.

    Keep reading more, and it's basically down hill for you there. So your statements about water resources, settlements, stragetic hold, no viable state, IS ALL A LIE!

    And this information if you need reminding is probably coming from one of the most anti-Israel people on the face of the earth.

    Also please show me where in international law it SPECIFICALLY STATES THAT TAKING TERRITORY IN DEFENSIVE WARS ARE ILLEGAL.

    Secondly, it is not "generous" for a thief to offer to give back what he has stolen. And in this case, the thief, Israel, was even only offering to give back part of what he stole!

    Actually it was generous, after a group of people who have done nothing, but kill, maim, and basically make there existence based on being the anti-Israel with it's whole purpose to destroy Israel, and launch countless attacks of which can ONLY be described as pure aggression, to not have to pay for their crimes but to have the chutzpah to expect that launching wars be free expect everything for nothing is simply mind boggling.

    Literally a new definition of insanity is being created.

    By Anonymous Manker, at 9:05 PM, January 18, 2006  

  • Manker,

    You are so predictable and convinced that I am trying to trick people, it is funny.

    Thanks for including that link, it is indeed one I was looking at and referring to implicitly, and is helpful to my case:

    http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+before+2000/Fatal+Terrorist+Attacks+in+Israel+Since+the+DOP+-S.htm

    If you look at the deaths after September 4, 1997 (and until September 2000, a period of three years) you will count 15 Israelis killed, the number I was referring to. I see in looking at this one more time more carefully, that two of these 15 Israelis killed over a period of three years were killed in Megiddo. I made a mistake and had missed that. As far as I can tell, all the others were killed in the Occupied Territories.

    Thanks for proving my point by including the other link I had been looking at. 15 Israelis killed over a three year period, only two within Israel, as documented by the Israeli government. I ask again, what did Palestinians get in return? Rapidly expanding settlements and Barak's generous offer, which was not generous at all.

    I have to do something else, so another few quick responses:

    Regarding the expulsion of 700,000 Palestinian refugees in 1947-49 and Israel's responsibility for that explulsion, please refer to, for one example, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949" by Israeli historian Benny Morris. For one example, refer to Morris' tables on pages xiv-xx where he reviews village by village why residents of each village fled their hime (hint, "orders by Arab governments" were a minor factor. It was mostly a result of Israeli actions).

    Regarding Barak's "generous offer". Clinton did not make his proposal that you refer to (which appears to have been better than Barak's offer, and which Barak never offered) until December 2000, well after Camp David. Negotiations resumed at Taba on that basis, and some progress was made. However, Israel, and Barak specifically, ended the negotations due to upcoming Israeli elections. Sharon won the elections and ended all negotiations.

    See New York Times reporter Deborah Sontag in the New York Times: http://home.mindspring.com/~fontenelles/DSontag1.htm

    See US negotiator Robert Malley in the New York Review of Books:
    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380

    So, first of all you confused what happened at the negotiations. That was Clinton's proposal in December 2000 and not Israel's offer at Camp David. Barak ended the negotiations that were based on Clinton's proposal. Anyway, Prince Bandar does not negotiate for the Palestinians, nor does he know the facts on the ground well in any case.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:09 PM, January 18, 2006  

  • If you look at the deaths after September 4, 1997 (and until September 2000, a period of three years) you will count 15 Israelis killed, the number I was referring to. I see in looking at this one more time more carefully, that two of these 15 Israelis killed over a period of three years were killed in Megiddo. I made a mistake and had missed that. As far as I can tell, all the others were killed in the Occupied Territories.

    Thanks for proving my point by including the other link I had been looking at. 15 Israelis killed over a three year period, only two within Israel, as documented by the Israeli government.


    I must ask why the hell you are looking at such a restrictive time period, because I specifically stated the time of Oslo. Meaning from 1993-2000.

    What are you saying that the people who die before 1997 sept. 4 don't count?

    Hell the previous date BEFORE sept. 4 1997, on June 30 1997 16 people were killed? Why are you trying to hide these?

    Do you not understand that when I say Oslo I mean the time from the oslo accords to 1993-2000? Or is the fact that from another four year period from 1993-1997 241 Israelis were murdered?

    "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949" by Israeli historian Benny Morris. For one example, refer to Morris' tables on pages xiv-xx where he reviews village by village why residents of each village fled their hime (hint, "orders by Arab governments" were a minor factor. It was mostly a result of Israeli actions).

    Big deal Efraim Karsh completely disproves Benny Morris in his book "Fabricating Israeli History; The 'New Historians'". In the book and through other papers he shows how Morris literally butchers sources to just make them say what he wants. (Hint someone altering sources to make a point, isn't a good source) But now your gonna say that he's a dore gold puppet, even though I doubt he's even met or even talked with dore gold.

    So, first of all you confused what happened at the negotiations. That was Clinton's proposal in December 2000 and not Israel's offer at Camp David. Barak ended the negotiations that were based on Clinton's proposal.

    You are right I did confuse the camp david offer and the taba. However this still does not change the fact that this was still offered to the palestinians.

    As stated here


    "Congratulations," Bandar said, loudly and sarcastically, for he knew by then that the talks had failed. On what? Berger asked. "Arafat is telling me you guys have a deal." Not true, Berger said, adding that he and Clinton had made it clear to Arafat that this was his last chance. Please, Berger said, tell Arafat that this is it. "It's too late," Bandar recalls saying. "That should have happened with the White House, not with me." (A spokesman for Clinton recalled, "At one point, Clinton said, 'It's five minutes to twelve, Mr. Chairman, and you are going to lose the best and maybe the only opportunity that your people will have to solve this problem on satisfactory grounds by not being able to make a decision.' . . . The Israelis accepted. They said they had reservations and Arafat never accepted.")

    Obviously as stated there were reservations by Israel but the overall plan was accepted! The palestinians rejected the plan, not the Israeli reservations, outright. I don't see how that deal could have gotten any better, and considering that it was already accepted by Israel I don't see why the hell they didn't go onto further negeotiations.

    Anyway, Prince Bandar does not negotiate for the Palestinians, nor does he know the facts on the ground well in any case.

    It's fairly obvious you don't have reading comprehension skills. This man was literally sitting and was an integral part of the freaken negeotiations. It's not whether he negeotiates for the palestinians, but the fact that he knew what the deal was and what were the terms. And was that the terms of the deal were good for the palestinians. And they rejected them outright. Bandar knows what went in those rooms definitely better than you or I, and probably as much as clinton.

    By Anonymous Manker, at 10:58 PM, January 18, 2006  

  • One more thing,

    I have to admit you are very good at changing the subject and dodging questions.

    You still have yet to explain why on the website, that you state is seperate organization, yet the ism still uses the osrcp as a major source, has conflicting reports?

    Please explain why the press release says that the corries were not in a kidnap attempt yet the article directly after the press release written after the press release says the exact opposite?

    Please explain this contradiction, and stop dodging this question.

    By Anonymous Manker, at 11:05 PM, January 18, 2006  

  • Dear Manker,

    You are not reading carefully the information re the Corrie's etc..

    The press release says there was no attempt to kidnap the Corries, but it affirms that there was an apparent attempt to kidnap three members of ORSCP in the early morning of January 4. The Corries were sleeping in the Nasrallah's home next door to where the three ORSCP members were staying when this happened. The men, who originally came to take away the three members of ORSCP, came over to the Nasrallah's house and talked with Nasrallah, the Corries and an official from PA security. The Corries were never threatened by the men.

    The Corries and the three ORSCP members then left Gaza together the morning/afternoon of Wednesday January 4th.

    When they arrived in Jerusalem the afternoon/evening of the 4th, the press release was prepared and issued.

    Apparently on January 6th, Serena, one of the 3 ORSCP members, wrote her account of what happened. In her account Serena said the same thing as was in the press release, that there was an attempt to kidnap the three ORSCP members, but no attempt to kidnap the Corries.

    There is no mystery in any of that.

    The only point that is confusing is that Ron, who seems to have posted information on the ORSCP website, must have gotten confused as to whether January 4 was Wednesday or Thursday when he posted this on Wednesday January 4:

    "Thursday morning, following a kidnapping attempt of three ORSCP delegates, the entire delegation of five from Olympia, plus Craig and Cindy Corrie left Rafah for Jerusalem."

    None of this is very complicated. One simple error. I don't know where you see the grand conspiracy.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:48 AM, January 19, 2006  

  • For Manker,

    The inadmissability of acquisition of territory by war is stated in UN resolution 242.

    The same principle has been restated many times, and was restated by the ICJ in it's ruling on the Wall based on the following elements of international law:

    (note that this is three paragraphs)

    The Court first recalls Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter, which provides that: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations,”

    and General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), entitled “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co?operation among States” (hereinafter “resolution 2625 (XXV)”), in which the Assembly emphasized that “No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.” As stated in the Court’s Judgment in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), the principles as to the use of force incorporated in the Charter reflect customary international law (see I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 98?101, paras. 187?190); the same is true, it observes, of its corollary entailing the illegality of territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force.

    As to the principle of self?determination of peoples, the Court points out that it has been enshrined in the United Nations Charter and reaffirmed by the General Assembly in resolution 2625 (XXV) cited above, pursuant to which “Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to [in that resolution] . . . of their right to self?determination.” Article 1 common to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reaffirms the right of all peoples to self?determination, and lays upon the States parties the obligation to promote the realization of that right and to respect it, in conformity with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. The Court recalls its previous case law, which emphasized that current developments in “international law in regard to non?self?governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self?determination applicable to all [such territories]”, and that the right of peoples to self?determination is today a right erga omnes.


    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:25 AM, January 19, 2006  

  • The Corries were sleeping in the Nasrallah's home next door to where the three ORSCP members were staying when this happened. The men, who originally came to take away the three members of ORSCP, came over to the Nasrallah's house and talked with Nasrallah, the Corries and an official from PA security. The Corries were never threatened by the men.

    Do you honestly expect anyone to believe that a guy who comes to kidnap people will just suddenly change his mind unless he somehow deterred in a significant manner?

    Apparently on January 6th, Serena, one of the 3 ORSCP members, wrote her account of what happened. In her account Serena said the same thing as was in the press release, that there was an attempt to kidnap the three ORSCP members, but no attempt to kidnap the Corries.

    No she doesn't she simply states that their was a kidnapping ATTEMPT, but she does not state who specifically was attempted to be kidnapped.

    As for the your post on "international law", using the UN is crap. The UN is NOT INTERNATIONAL LAW. Take it from the Geneva convention. The UN charter has little weight, because any member can leave the UN at will. The UN is not the one world government.

    Secondly all the things that you have pointed too are from the general assembly, chapter 6 resolutions. Therefore these are reccommendations, they do not even have the weight of a chapter 7 resolution such as from the security council.

    So anyways, these aren't even laws, just reccommendations. The ICJ is just another part of the UN so it's rulings are again non binding and have no weight because as you have shown are based on UN laws (which are worthless), in themselves.

    Now bring it from actual international law, not something that you hope is international law.

    By Anonymous Manker, at 11:08 AM, January 19, 2006  

  • Hi Manker,

    I am indeed not an expert on international law, so I asked an Israeli friend who is. This was her response:

    "GA resolutions are indeed not internation law, they are
    recommendations. this is according to the charter. the charter though IS international law, it is a binding treaty. so are SC council resolutions, not only those adopted under chapter 7, but all of them. chapter 6 is SC, not GA. the UN IS international law. like i said the charter is binding. and anyway, israel also violates the geneva conventions. and finally, if he thinks the UN is not international law and not important, b/c GA resolutions are not binding, so then the partition plan can be ignored, too. it was a GA
    resolution."


    Regarding the Corries, I suspect that you will never be satisfied. You are right, Serena never explicitly said that there was no attempt to kidnap the Corries. I had misremembered what Serena wrote. However, the Corries did say there was no attempt to kidnap them.

    Serena wrote this: "We chose to leave Gaza Wednesday morning after two men came to our apartment late Tuesday night asking us to go with them under the false pretense that we would be safer staying in their home. Our host in Rafah recognized this as an attempt to kidnap us and cautiously navigated the situation resulting in the bizarre scenario of the men shaking each of our hands and leaving."

    Serena notes that the men came to "our apartment" and attempted "to kidnap us". The Corries were staying in the nearby house of the Nasrallah's, not in the apartment. So Serena never contradicts what the Corries have said.

    Regarding the negotiations, neither Bandar not Clinton were in Taba. Clinton actually delayed making his proposal from August until December 2000 because of the US elections. By December violence had broken out and Israeli elections were imminent. had Clinton made his proposal in August rather than waiting on US domestic political considerations, perhaps there would have been more time and a better environment for successful negotiations.

    This is from Deborah Sontag in the New York Times article cited above:

    "Mr. Arafat did eventually authorize his negotiators to engage in talks in Taba that used the Clinton proposal as a foundation. Despite reports to the contrary in Israel, however, Mr. Arafat never turned down "97 percent of the West Bank" at Taba, as many Israelis hold. The negotiations were suspended by Israel because elections were imminent and "the pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, who was Israel's foreign minister at the time."

    And this:

    "The negotiations at Taba were interrupted by Mr. Barak after two Israelis were killed in the West Bank. The talks resumed and then halted again with the agreement to pick up after the elections. They never did."

    Furthermore, you misunderstand the nature of the negotiations when you suggest that Prince Bandar knows what a good deal is. Palestinians are looking for a viable state, not one controlled by Israeli settlements and settlement roads. One of the mistakes that the Palestinian leadership coming from outside made in negotiating Oslo was that they did not know the maps and details on the ground and conceded on many important points as a result. Prince Bandar certainly would not have done better.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:53 PM, January 19, 2006  

  • Rat Corrie is being roasted in hell as we speak. Hopefully, the ISMer joins her soon together with his younger family members.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:59 AM, January 20, 2006  

  • I am indeed not an expert on international law, so I asked an Israeli friend who is. This was her response:

    Could name her credentials and which organization she works for?

    "GA resolutions are indeed not internation law, they are
    recommendations. this is according to the charter. the charter though IS international law, it is a binding treaty.


    This is if you interepret the UN as a one world gov't. The fact is this is exactly what the UN is not. The UN is probably closest to a confederation.

    so are SC council resolutions, not only those adopted under chapter 7, but all of them. chapter 6 is SC, not GA. the UN IS international law.

    Considering that all the resolutions you posted were GA, it's daft.

    like i said the charter is binding. and anyway, israel also violates the geneva conventions.

    Like, which like part of the like geneva like convention?

    Or it just is because she says so?

    and finally, if he thinks the UN is not international law and not important, b/c GA resolutions are not binding, so then the partition plan can be ignored, too. it was a GA
    resolution."


    I really don't have a problem with this. Because then all the territory is then once again up for grabs ;)

    Serena notes that the men came to "our apartment" and attempted "to kidnap us". The Corries were staying in the nearby house of the Nasrallah's, not in the apartment. So Serena never contradicts what the Corries have said.


    Yet ofcourse the same guy who was trying to kidnap one group of people, would suddenly change his mind and then just walk a steps down the block at 1:30 am to shake hands.

    Regarding the negotiations, neither Bandar not Clinton were in Taba. Clinton actually delayed making his proposal from August until December 2000 because of the US elections. By December violence had broken out and Israeli elections were imminent. had Clinton made his proposal in August rather than waiting on US domestic political considerations, perhaps there would have been more time and a better environment for successful negotiations.

    This is from Deborah Sontag in the New York Times article cited above:

    "Mr. Arafat did eventually authorize his negotiators to engage in talks in Taba that used the Clinton proposal as a foundation. Despite reports to the contrary in Israel, however, Mr. Arafat never turned down "97 percent of the West Bank" at Taba, as many Israelis hold. The negotiations were suspended by Israel because elections were imminent and "the pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, who was Israel's foreign minister at the time."


    One last time

    "Congratulations," Bandar said, loudly and sarcastically, for he knew by then that the talks had failed. On what? Berger asked. "Arafat is telling me you guys have a deal." Not true, Berger said, adding that he and Clinton had made it clear to Arafat that this was his last chance. Please, Berger said, tell Arafat that this is it. "It's too late," Bandar recalls saying. "That should have happened with the White House, not with me." (A spokesman for Clinton recalled, "At one point, Clinton said, 'It's five minutes to twelve, Mr. Chairman, and you are going to lose the best and maybe the only opportunity that your people will have to solve this problem on satisfactory grounds by not being able to make a decision.' . . . The Israelis accepted. They said they had reservations and Arafat never accepted.")

    Bandar believed that the White House had hurt its cause by not pressing an ultimatum. Arafat, though, was committing a crime against the Palestinians-in fact, against the entire region. If it weren't so serious, Bandar thought, it would be a comedy. He returned to Arafat's room and sat down, trying to remember: "Make your words soft and sweet." Bandar began, "Mr. President, I want to be sure now. You're telling me you struck a deal?" When Arafat said it was so, Bandar, still hiding his fury, offered his congratulations. His wife and children were waiting for him in Aspen, he said, and he wanted to go. Bandar could see the life draining out of Arafat. He started to leave, then turned around. "I hope you remember, sir, what I told you. If we lose this opportunity, it is not going to be a tragedy. This is going to be a crime." When Bandar looked at Arafat's staff, their faces showed incredulity.

    The next evening, a White House spokesman said that Arafat had agreed to accept Clinton's proposals, with reservations, only as the basis for new talks. Arafat said later that he had not been offered as much as had been described. When Bandar told all this to the Crown Prince, Abdullah was surprised, particularly about the offer on Jerusalem. A few months later, Abdullah asked Clinton, who was visiting Saudi Arabia, whether Bandar's description of the offer was correct. Clinton confirmed Bandar's details, and said that the failure of these last negotiations had broken his heart. Later still, the Crown Prince told Bandar he was shocked that Arafat had wasted such an opportunity, and that he had lied to him about the American offer. Bandar told associates that it was an open secret within the Arab world that Arafat was not truthful. But Arafat had them trapped: they couldn't separate the cause from the man, because if you attacked the man you attacked the cause. "Clinton, the bastard, really tried his best," Bandar told me last week when we met at his house in McLean. "And Barak's position was so avant-garde that it was equal to Prime Minister Rabin"-Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated in November, 1995. "It broke my heart that Arafat did not take that offer."



    I believe the fact even saudi princes found the deal good speaks volumes. The only way you can argue that the deal was not good, is if you are willing to say that the saudi's are pro-Israel cheerleaders.

    This is literally coming from the men who lived these moments.

    Furthermore, you misunderstand the nature of the negotiations when you suggest that Prince Bandar knows what a good deal is. Palestinians are looking for a viable state, not one controlled by Israeli settlements and settlement roads. One of the mistakes that the Palestinian leadership coming from outside made in negotiating Oslo was that they did not know the maps and details on the ground and conceded on many important points as a result. Prince Bandar certainly would not have done better.

    So your saying that none of them could have afforded to have bought a map and looked at it. You know it's certainly possible to go and look at map understand the terrain and important places without actually being there.

    The fact is that your arguement on bandar is based on the fact that he is some naive guy who was no political expeirence or has some sort of hatred for the palestinians. The fact is that what he says in that interview could have easily get him killed in the arab world.

    97% is 97%

    By Anonymous Manker, at 5:39 PM, January 20, 2006  

  • Hi Manker,

    You are missing the point re Clinton's proposal, Bandar and Arafat. Clinton's proposal was made on December 23, 2000 as the parameters for talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. Both Israelis and Palestinian accepted Clinton's proposal as the basis for talks "with reservations". The New Yorker article that you quote indicates that Arafat accepted them with reservations in Washington, DC around January 2, 2001. The Taba Negotations then occurred from January 21-27, 2001 based on Clinton's proposal. Negotiations did not end, as you are trying to suggest, with Arafat's discission with Bandar and Clinton in DC. Furthermore, Israel, like Arafat, accepted Clinton's proposal, with reservations.

    The Taba talks began a few weeks later on this basis. Again, after substantial progress, Taba ended on January 27, 2001 because of Barak and the upcoming Israeli elections. Arafat did not end the negoations in early January, 2001 in DC. Again, also recall what I wrote earlier. Clinton delayed making his proposal from August 2000 until December 23, 2000. At that point little time was left. Why don't you blame Clinton?

    I did not say Bandar was naive or hates Palestinians. What I said is that the final deal needed to be negotiated by people who knew the details. Bandar doesn't. Maybe he has a sense of the broad parameters. Israeli control of 3% of the West Bank can potentially lead to effective Israeli control of the entire West Bank, depending on where that 3% is located.

    In any case, that was the plan from the beginning. Clinton's proposal provided parameters, and the negotiators needed to negotiate the details, not Bandar.

    No, I am not going to give my friend's credentials on a blog. Let's have yours on this blog?

    The UN Charter, as she said, is international law. Security Council Resolutions are, as she said, international law. Resolution 242 is a Security Council resolution.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:08 PM, January 20, 2006  

  • You are missing the point re Clinton's proposal, Bandar and Arafat. Clinton's proposal was made on December 23, 2000 as the parameters for talks between the Israelis and Palestinians. Both Israelis and Palestinian accepted Clinton's proposal as the basis for talks "with reservations". The New Yorker article that you quote indicates that Arafat accepted them with reservations in Washington, DC around January 2, 2001. The Taba Negotations then occurred from January 21-27, 2001 based on Clinton's proposal. Negotiations did not end, as you are trying to suggest, with Arafat's discission with Bandar and Clinton in DC. Furthermore, Israel, like Arafat, accepted Clinton's proposal, with reservations.

    Thats exactly what the article is not saying, Arafat rejected it out of hand.

    This is exactly why Bandar, Clinton, and Arafats staff are in shock, and why Clinton says to him

    "At one point, Clinton said, 'It's five minutes to twelve, Mr. Chairman, and you are going to lose the best and maybe the only opportunity that your people will have to solve this problem on satisfactory grounds by not being able to make a decision.' . . .

    Why Bandar says it's a crime

    Bandar believed that the White House had hurt its cause by not pressing an ultimatum. Arafat, though, was committing a crime against the Palestinians-in fact, against the entire region.

    Why Arafats staff has a look increduility on it's face,

    And why Crown prince abdullah even asks clinton about the deal!

    And is freaken in shock about him not accepting it, and WHY HE EVEN EXPLICITLY CALLS ARAFAT A LIAR!!

    ARAFAT WAS LYING about any acceptance of the deal. This is what added to Bandars anger. And why sarcastically congradulates Arafat.

    I did not say Bandar was naive or hates Palestinians. What I said is that the final deal needed to be negotiated by people who knew the details. Bandar doesn't. Maybe he has a sense of the broad parameters. Israeli control of 3% of the West Bank can potentially lead to effective Israeli control of the entire West Bank, depending on where that 3% is located.

    Pfft, the only place that this 3% would have given complete control, was if Israel gotten the area directly behind Jerusalem and I doubt even then thats enough to have 'complete control'. The fact was that Barak was eyeing areas in northern samaria close to netanya, because of it being the narrowest section.

    In any case, that was the plan from the beginning. Clinton's proposal provided parameters, and the negotiators needed to negotiate the details, not Bandar.

    Bandars entire purpose was to pressure for the palestinian side, and to give cover for arafat


    No, I am not going to give my friend's credentials on a blog.


    Alright, so that means all her statements are complete crap and null and void.

    The fact is that this person could easily be fictional, and some poor attempt by you to bullshit me.

    Someone is not expert, because 'you say so!'.

    Unless were in 3rd grade.

    Let's have yours on this blog?

    The fact that you had to go to an "expert"

    The UN Charter, as she said, is international law. Security Council Resolutions are, as she said, international law.

    Until proven that she is an actual expert (assuming that she does exists), then what she say's (or possibly you) have no weight in the arguement over international law. Or how how binding the UN Charter is.

    As stated before the UN is like confederation. No country gives the UN authority over it's laws. The fact was if this was true, the United States being part of the UN would be illegal by US law, because as stated in the US constitution, the American president is the highest authority in the land and same way that the Supreme court is the highest court in the land. So by in large that arguement is out the window.


    Resolution 242 is a Security Council resolution.

    Well then we can look at in two different ways.

    And we quote your 'expert'.

    ...b/c GA resolutions are not binding, so then the partition plan can be ignored, too. it was a GA
    resolution."


    1. By this standard I can say that since that territorial lines are not in reality and have basis, 242 has no explicitness to it, and therefore has base to tell what territory is which.

    2. From the resolution
    "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"

    Considering that it does not specify a specific amount, and the recent gaza withdrawal, Israel has fufilled it part of resolution 242.

    Such a shame that the palestinians and other arab nations haven't done theres

    "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

    By Anonymous Manker, at 9:41 PM, January 20, 2006  

  • Dear Manker,

    Nobody is claiming Arafat is perfect or without blame, but I'm not sure why you insist on ending the story with edited parts of an interview with Prince Bandar in DC in early January 2001 as if this is the comprehensive and decisive bit of information on the negotiations. That was not the end or the sole element of the story.

    Again, more from Deborah Sontag's quite comprehensive 2001 New York Times article based on interviews with Palestinian and Israeli negotators:

    http://home.mindspring.com/~fontenelles/DSontag1.htm

    Both sides, in recent interviews, wondered aloud why Mr. Clinton could not have presented his peace proposal at Camp David or immediately afterward. In late December, when he finally did so, the timing was very tight. Mr. Clinton was due to leave the presidency on Jan. 20, and Mr. Barak faced elections on Feb. 6. The proposal offered more to the Palestinians than what was on the table at Camp David, but they initially responded with skepticism. The plan was too vague, they said. In the midst once more of a violent relationship with Israel, they were not emotionally poised to abide by the political timetables of others and to rush into a fuzzy deal, they said. A European diplomat said the Palestinians did not understand the imminence and implications of a victory by Mr. Sharon; another said they did not want to waste their time with Mr. Barak, who was predicted to lose.

    Still, in early January, Mr. Arafat visited Mr. Clinton at the White House. In a subsequent interview, he said he had suggested that the president summon Israeli and Palestinian negotiators immediately for marathon talks. Mr. Arafat said he had told Mr. Clinton that he believed a deal was possible in 14 days. Instead, the negotiators met later that month without the Americans and without their leaders at the Taba Hilton on the Red Sea. With the exception of Mr. Sher, who said Taba was little more than "good ambience," most of the Israelis and Palestinians who took part felt that it was a very successful session. "Peace seemed very possible at Taba," Mr. Ben-Ami said. And Mr. Abu Ala said, "In Taba, we achieved real tangible steps toward a final agreement."


    On your questions re international law, I think there is not much more to say. The acquisition of territory by warfare is viewed as a clear violation of international law by the vast majority of legal experts and by the world. However, you are simply going to reject this and cite the ten Israeli legal scholars who say this is not the case. So whatever I cite will not be enough for you.

    You are welcome to remain in your deluded world.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:48 PM, January 20, 2006  

  • ISMer,

    May you rest in hell next to Rat Corrie and on the graves of your younger family members!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:56 PM, January 21, 2006  

  • Boy did this post send ISMer into overdrive!

    Now, ISMer, can I use your time machine to get back to my "diluded world"? :-)

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 12:02 AM, January 22, 2006  

  • Yeah, but Manker deserves a good amount of the responsibility at well.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:05 AM, January 22, 2006  

  • Nobody is claiming Arafat is perfect or without blame, but I'm not sure why you insist on ending the story with edited parts of an interview with Prince Bandar in DC in early January 2001 as if this is the comprehensive and decisive bit of information on the negotiations. That was not the end or the sole element of the story.

    1. This story was published in 2003,

    2. The interview was done well after 2001. Such as how if you keep going its clearly written from events, after 2001.

    3. Bandar is doing this interview from recollection and looking back at the events. Not while the events are occurring. This is why he talks about sharon getting elected in past tense, Yep, the time machine at work again.

    The proposal offered more to the Palestinians than what was on the table at Camp David, but they initially responded with skepticism. The plan was too vague, they said. In the midst once more of a violent relationship with Israel, they were not emotionally poised to abide by the political timetables of others and to rush into a fuzzy deal, they said. A European diplomat said the Palestinians did not understand the imminence and implications of a victory by Mr. Sharon; another said they did not want to waste their time with Mr. Barak, who was predicted to lose.

    I think this speaks for itself, this was written from a sympahetic position to the palestinians. And it shows that they rejected it out of hand. They did not inquire, they just simply thought they have the world coming to them.

    On your questions re international law, I think there is not much more to say. The acquisition of territory by warfare is viewed as a clear violation of international law by the vast majority of legal experts and by the world. However, you are simply going to reject this and cite the ten Israeli legal scholars who say this is not the case.

    Ah yes, your continued self-rightous attitude. You are always right, because... well you say soo. So of course you must be write.

    You are saying that an international law expert told you this. So what makes this person an expert on International law? What are their credentials and experience?

    Seriously you must not even have a college education.

    Anyways your immediate statement that

    ten Israeli legal scholars who say this is not the case.

    Is quite telling of how highly you think of yourself and how lowly you think of Israeli's.

    The fact is that in your previous arguement that you stated that the UN is international law. You have done nothing to prove that, except saying that it is so, because you say so (which will from now on be referred to as the 3rd grader arguement).

    Your 'legal expert' also said that the UN charter is a legally binding contract. But what you did not and legal expert did not mention is how the UN is violating the terms of agreement, by not allowing Israel full membership into the UN. The UN has grouping for those who do not know, and Israel is not allowed into any of these groupings, therefore it does not the same voting rights as any other UN member state. This violates terms of agreement, and makes the this 'binding treaty' garbage on the basis that not all terms have been fufilled.

    So whatever I cite will not be enough for you.

    If you actually cited something instead of GA resolutions, and nameless legal experts, this statement might actually have some weight.

    You are welcome to remain in your deluded world.

    I shall stay in the place where slaughtering Israeli's isn't considered a 'symptom'. I'm apologize to your 'normal world view', that I do not accept the view that I am some virus.

    Yeah, but Manker deserves a good amount of the responsibility at well.

    Makes me feel all tingly inside ;)

    By Anonymous Manker, at 12:34 PM, January 22, 2006  

  • Just for my own curiousity

    How many people are lurking this posting section?

    By Anonymous Manker, at 12:36 PM, January 22, 2006  

  • Lurking.

    Excellent work, Manker, though it doesn't take much to reveal ISM'er for the butcher supporter that he/she is.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:09 AM, January 23, 2006  

  • ISMer, you said - "So whatever I cite will not be enough for you."

    That's because all you do is quote palsolidarity.org, haaretz.com and various legitimate sources when you need to pull stuff out of context. Still on the same topic, I feel I can be honest with you here - I don't read what you quote or what you say for the most part because reading it would cause me great mental pain and my natural reaction would be to rebutt every single point you have. The problem is, your posts are always so long and you are way too zealous for arguing with(I mean come on, you're a member of the ISM! You're out of reach!). It's simply just not worth it to read your posts. I have tried it and it always yields no substantial evidence or support of any arguments you might have presented, other than ridiculing your political beliefs. No, you see, what I do is: I read the posts of people who does bother to drag themselves through this time-consuming process of proving you wrong. I normally have no problems with discussing, but with you, it always have to be so complicated because you are so zealous in your beliefs that you are actually w... someone please stop me from carrying on! :-(

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 11:02 AM, January 23, 2006  

  • Yes Nemesis,

    I imagine it must be really hard for you to take in information from the awful, anti-Israeli propaganda websites that I have linked to and quoted from over the last days, like:

    -the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (re Israeli deaths)
    -Jerusalem Post (re the Corries)
    -The New York Times (re Camp David and Taba)
    -The New York Review of Books (re Camp David and Taba)
    -The International Court of Justice (re international law)

    Let's face it, it's not just those awful Israeli "leftist" sources Ha'aretz and B'Tselem that you can't face, but even center, right and Israeli sources can be too much for you to take in.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:10 PM, January 23, 2006  

  • I wasn't refering to what you quoted this time, just what you usually do - palsolidarity.org and haaretz.com. Seriously, what's up with Haaretz? Why always Haaretz?

    FYI: The New York Times is far, far, far from being a neutral source. The International Court of Justice, well... the name says it all, and I believe I mentioned examples like it in my post above: Taking things out of context.

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 9:28 PM, January 23, 2006  

  • Nemesis, if you really have problems with the conservative, establishment New York Times that facilitated the US' disastrous war in Iraq, what can I say. Maybe you should read the neo-con Wall Street Journal. Bibi and Dore, among others, regularly write opeds for them. Perhaps that would be more to your liking. Maybe you are a fan of Carolyn Glick at the JPost as well? I very rarely have actually cited palsolidarity on this blog.

    Re Haaretz:

    1) Ha'aretz is in english. JPost occasionally has some decent stuff as well. I am not in the habit of reading YNet.

    2) Ha'aretz reporters like Amira Hass, Gideon Levy, Akiva Eldar and Meron Rappoport actually talk with real Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza, and they report on that. To me this seems to be different from and better journalism than reporting on events there without ever talking with actual Palestinians.

    Don't you think it makes sense to report on what is happening by listening to both Israeli and Palestinians perspectives?

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:57 PM, January 23, 2006  

  • why do people like ISMer continually point to a conveniently cropped and pruned resolution 242?

    they try to use it as a statement that says "Israel must leave territories no matter what, regardless of what the other side is doing"

    for these territories (which could be, would be, and in many cases were used as ground from which to attack israel)to be returned, as I read it, the resolution requires a peace agreement in return. this makes sense. if you hit me with a club, and i take it from you while defending myself (think of the territories siezed in the defensive war as a weapon, since they aided the assault), it would be utterly moronic to expect me to give it back before i had some kind of assurance you wouldn't hit me in.


    sadly, this kind of aggressive cropping of information to leave only scraps that benefit his argument (another example is when ISMer tried to counter the fact that even without the "aggressive evil occupation," hundreds of Israelis were killed by terrorists. he tried to shove this under the rug by carefully choosing one 3-year period in which there were just 15 deaths. yuck)seems to be popping up everywhere.

    I am disgusted. can't we argue like adults?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:56 PM, January 23, 2006  

  • whoops. . . that weapon analogy didn't really work there because it doesn't match what happened with the territories so well

    but i think the point still holds that it makes sense to that some kind of peace agreement should be required before giving land in the heart of your country back to people who want to kill you.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:01 PM, January 23, 2006  

  • "I very rarely have actually cited palsolidarity on this blog."

    You post links to it all the time.

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 9:18 AM, January 24, 2006  

  • OK Nemesis, let's see you prove that I post from palsolidarity "all the time". Find those many examples.

    This story was one of the rare times that I did use palsolidarity, and it is only one of about eight links that I provided that are from other sources.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:40 AM, January 24, 2006  

  • http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_qdr=all&q=palsolidarity+site%3Aonlyinisrael.blogspot.com&btnG=S%C3%B8g&meta=

    Actually, you're right - You don't link to it all the time... or, well, I can't know that since you've probably posted many articles without linking to them. Goes to prove that I actually do not read much of your posts! Man, and I thought I was gonna lose this one, but in the end, I end up supporting my own argument. I mean what are the chances of that? Interesting...

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 9:30 AM, January 25, 2006  

  • First of all, WOW, did this post get ISMer mad. I must be doing something right, and we should all continue watching the ISMs site and expose their various lies.

    The reason the date and time are important ISMer, is because the ISM and ORSCP have deliberately changed the dates and time of the posts so that the press release will look authetntic, while in fact being a cover up, written a few days after the press dealt with the story. This way ISM will be able to claim media bias, and get even more publicity and attention from the entire thing.
    If you're suggesting ISMers don't know the days of the week, while running well tuned propaganda machine, you're underestimating the people on this blog. We're too smart for that.

    As for Clinton's proposal, I believe the best source out there to quote about it would be Dennis Ross, who actually HAVE BEEN on the scene when Clinton made the offer (unlike Bandar), and who sheds light on the nature of Arafat's "reservations" in this interview he gave to Brit Hume:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,50830,00.html

    ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.
    On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state.
    On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.
    And when it came to security, there would be a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.

    FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.

    ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.

    You can read the entire interview to get the full picture, including Arafat denying the very existance of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and on and on.
    Any claim you raise by someone who wasn't on the scene is ridiculous. Both Israelis and Americans have the exact same version to what happened in Camp David and Taba. And most Palestinians agree too. It's easy to see who are the liars.

    And to the anonymous poster wishing death on ISMer and his family members. This is not our way. We're better than that, way better. I'm leaving your posts, because like I said, I don't believe in censorship, but I want to make it clear how much I resent those kinds of comments.

    By Blogger OnlyInIsrael, at 4:08 PM, January 28, 2006  

  • Soldier/Blogger,

    This is a nice trick on your part and a convenient place for you to end the story, in Washington with Dennis Ross, Prince Bandar, Clinton, Arafat, etc., on January 2, 2001. Dennis Ross, by the way, has come out of his supposedly neutral US government negotiator role and is now shamelessly pro-Israeli. Additionally, Ross is attempting to deflect the blame for his own many errors.

    Soldier/blogger, you have neglected a few essential questions, which I suggest you respond to.

    1) If Arafat ended the negotiations on January 2, 2001, why then did the negotiations continue in Taba from January 20-27, 2001 with both sides saying substantial progress was made?

    2) Who ended the Taba negotiations in lae January, 2001 ? (hint, correct answer Ehud Barak)

    3) Why did the Clinton administration delay between August, 2000 and December 23, 2000 to make this proposal, leaving little time before they left office and before Israeli elections? (hint: US election year politics)


    Finally, soldier/blogger, ISM changed nothing on the press release, this is a silly claim. Do yo think ISM can manipulate the date and time it is listed as posted on google news?
    (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Craig+and+Cindy+Corrie%22)

    You are right to criticize the people on the blog who wish death on me, my family, etc.. I will note, however, that you have set this tone by using ugly, violent language.

    You call Rachel Corrie, for example, "Pancake Corrie". By doing so, you are reveling in the death of a person, a civilian. Is it so far from calling Rachel "Pancake Corrie" to wishing death on me? You should not be surprised that you attract violent people to your blog when you use a term like "Pancake Corrie" that delights in the death of someone, and when you also use violence against ciivilian protesters.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:17 PM, January 28, 2006  

  • Regarding Dennis Ross:
    Dennis Ross is the only man cited in this entire comment thread who has actually INSIDE THE ROOM. Prince Bandar was never there. The only eyewitness we have quoted so far, supports my claim. Painting him as pro-Israeli is foolish. The guy's an American negotiator, he speaks the truth.

    Now, I'll answer your questions.
    1. Because after the intifadeh broke out (september 2000) negotiations continued in the background, hence the progress made. The biggest difference between camp david and taba proposals is the temporary Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley (in Camp David) turned into an international presence (in Taba).
    2. Wrong answer, Dennis Ross answers that question clearly and says "Arafat". Barak has under no point walked out. He accepted the offer, with reservations, arafat rejected it.
    3. It was a last effort, to stop the violence, they didn't delay, they worked as quickly as they could.

    I didn't wish for Pancake Corrie's death, but it was well expected by the simple principle of Darwinism. Nature wouldn't allow someone stupid enough to throw himself in front of a running bulldozer and expect to stop it to continue living, reproduce, and (god forbid) pollute the gene pool with her stupidity.
    It was expected she will die, and she died as a fool, defending terrorism, women-trade and drug trafficing, which are the exact goals of the tunnels she died defending.
    Wishing death upon someone's family members and pointing out how stupid one was to get himself killed are two different things.

    By Blogger OnlyInIsrael, at 9:07 PM, January 28, 2006  

  • Soldier/blogger,

    Sorry, I can't figure out if you are really dumb, or are trying to be deceptive.

    Taba occurred from Jan 20-27, 2001, after the January 2 Dennis Ross discussions. Dennis Ross was not in Taba.

    I will post this now the 3rd time. I can only conclude that you are clearly trying to avoid dealing with this factual information.

    This is from Deborah Sontag in the New York Times article cited above:
    http://home.mindspring.com/~fontenelles/DSontag1.htm


    "Mr. Arafat did eventually authorize his negotiators to engage in talks in Taba that used the Clinton proposal as a foundation. Despite reports to the contrary in Israel, however, Mr. Arafat never turned down "97 percent of the West Bank" at Taba, as many Israelis hold. The negotiations were suspended by Israel because elections were imminent and "the pressure of Israeli public opinion against the talks could not be resisted," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, who was Israel's foreign minister at the time."

    And this:

    "The negotiations at Taba were interrupted by Mr. Barak after two Israelis were killed in the West Bank. The talks resumed and then halted again with the agreement to pick up after the elections. They never did."


    Arafat authorized the negotiations to continue in Taba. Barak then ended them.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:21 PM, January 28, 2006  

  • 1. You've lied. AGAIN. Dennis Ross was indeed in Taba, he resigned a week after the Taba summit has ended.
    http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/01/18/mideast.03/
    Ross, who steps down as Clinton's Mideast envoy this week, said there were times during the 12 years he has been a peace broker "when I felt that the gaps were definitely bridgeable."

    2. The point remains, Arafat was indeed offered a 97% deal in Camp David (with provisional Israeli presence on the Jordanian border), and then the same deal, before Taba (without the Israeli presence) and he turned it down.
    Arafat turned down a 97% deal, twice.
    This is an undisputable fact, brought to you by the people who negotiated the agreement. Anything else you may say is a lie.

    Another point regarding the NYT article and your earlier reference to Amira Hass, Gideon Levy and others as "reporters". They're not reporters, they once were, but not anymore, they're columnists, and an editorial isn't the same as a news story, treating them as such is ridiculous and decieving.
    Most of the crap you post on my blog comes from editorials, or opinion sections and you attempt to present it as facts. They aren't, they're just someone's opinion.

    By Blogger OnlyInIsrael, at 9:43 PM, January 28, 2006  

  • Soldier/blogger,

    Again, you are either dumb, or deliberately deceptive.

    The Taba talks were held from January 20-27, 2001. Hence it is clear that talks continued after January 2, 2001. You and Manker have repeatedly tried to claim that Arafat ended the talks in Washington on January 2, 2001.

    A secondary point, which has no real bearing on this primary point, is whether Ross was at Taba or not. I was responding to Ross' comments about January 2, 2001, not any comments that he made about Taba. Still, I am relatively certain that Ross did not attend the Taba talks from January 20-27, 2001.

    To prove that I am a "liar" and that Ross was in Taba, you have linked to a CNN article from January 18, 2001. This is bizarre.

    The article says Ross steps down from his role as envoy "this week", that is the week of January 18, 2001. The barticle does not say on what day exactly, but the article indicates that Clinton's term ends "Saturday", that is Saturday January 20, 2001, two days later. US presidential terms typically end on January 20. It is pretty safe to assume that Ross resigned on January 20th as well, with the rest of Clinton administration.

    Even if Ross somehow stayed on past January 20, which is highly unlikely, this does not prove that he would have been present at Taba. He might not have attended.

    And in the CNN article that you linked to, it never says that Ross was going to be at Taba! Even more bizarre.

    Note what your CNN article does say:

    JERUSALEM -- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's inner "peace" cabinet is expected to accept Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat's proposal for marathon peace talks, Reuters reported.

    "Most of the members of the peace cabinet support such a decision and ... Barak does not intend to prevent such a decision, but he thinks there is almost no chance of reaching an agreement before the Israeli election," Reuters quoted an Israeli source as saying.


    So Araft proposed talks, and Barak reluctantly accepted them. Later, as I've said, Barak ended the talks because of the elections.

    You claim your article proves I am a liar, but actually, it doesn't even support your case, it supports my case. I really can't even explain what you are trying to do. This makes no sense. I thought you were a bit smarter than this.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:13 PM, January 28, 2006  

  • By the way, there was no 97% offer at Camp David. Clinton was the first one to go up to a 97% in December, 2000 before Taba. Clinton would not have made a new proposal of 97% in December 2000 if that same proposal had been made at Camp David months earlier. They were negotiating on the basis of that 97% offer at Taba.

    The New York Time article I've cited by Deborah Sontag was an extensive, very long news article, by a reporter, not an opinion piece.

    Amira Hass, Meron Rapoport and Akiva Eldar's writing sometimes appears under News and sometimes under Editorial & Oped in Ha'aretz. If you were to look right now you would find a Hass article under News:
    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/PrintEdition.jhtml

    Sometimes they serve as reporters, and sometimes as columnists. This depends on what and how they are writing.

    I think you are probably correct that Gideon Levy generally appears only as a columnist. Nonetheless, writing as a columnist does not mean that Ha'aretz is not responsible for ensuring that the basis for their arguments is factual, and that columnists can just make things up. You've misunedrstood how newspapers function.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:52 AM, January 29, 2006  

  • Here is the joint declaration by the Palestinian and Israeli negotiators at the end of the Taba talks on January 27, 2001, after six days of negotiations:

    http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/badaa58661cc084f85256e37006fc44d?OpenDocument

    You all need to learn some facts.

    ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:28 AM, January 29, 2006  

  • Question to self - Read something from the U.N. or chew on glass?



    .....



    My mouth is going to be bloody! :-(

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 2:21 AM, January 30, 2006  

  • "sadly, this kind of aggressive cropping of information to leave only scraps that benefit his argument (another example is when ISMer tried to counter the fact that even without the "aggressive evil occupation," hundreds of Israelis were killed by terrorists. he tried to shove this under the rug by carefully choosing one 3-year period in which there were just 15 deaths. yuck)seems to be popping up everywhere. "

    Let's look at another period where there were fewer Israeli deaths due to terrorism: according to CAMERA, there were 40 such deaths from 1957-1967. In 1967, the occupation started. What can we conclude from this?

    -Jewish ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:04 AM, January 30, 2006  

  • To Jewish ISMer

    Again, being highly selective

    1. Could you actually link to that site?

    2. Why only from 1957-1967?, why not mention time before that?

    3. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+before+2000/Which+Came+First-+Terrorism+or+Occupation+-+Major.htm

    Heres the site for major attacks. Note that one of the main reasons for the 'low' number of deaths is not because of lack of attempts. Just a lot of luck that more attacks were not more successful.

    4. It seems to be a common ISM ploy to state the number of people killed in attacks, in a highly restricted time frame to ensure it's lowest possibly time frame (well when talking about Israeli's). And also to be sure not to mention ATTEMPTED attacks.

    Or are going to say those don't count because 'no harm no foul'?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:52 AM, February 04, 2006  

  • All attacks count. You're not getting my point, which you didn't answer. I read that statistic because Yossi Belin quoted it as 20 fatalities, and then CAMERA corrected it as 40. Either way, the fact that it was so low in the decade before the occupation started seems to suggest a correlation in the vulnerability to terrorism. As I look at the stats you supplied, it was reducing leading up to the beginning of the occupation. So it seems logical it could very well have been heading for further reduction.

    http://blog.camera.org/archives/2005/06/beilins_100_mar_1.html

    The 57-67# is piddling compared to the Oslo Period and the Intifada. Why anyone wouldn't conclude from that that trying to settle the territories didn't engender violent resistance, I find very confusing. what would you do, if you were an Arab, and Jewish settlements were springing up all around you, taking your land for "security purposes." Did we really think they would just take it lying down? Is this really so controversial?

    -Jewish ISMer

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:10 AM, February 05, 2006  

  • "You're not getting my point"

    WOOHOO!

    By Blogger Nemesis6, at 8:16 PM, February 07, 2006  

  • All attacks count.

    And what about attempted attacks?

    Or do you plan on protesting to world govenrments to make this not a crime?

    You're not getting my point, which you didn't answer.

    I did you're just not getting the general point, and being very ignorant (or yet again hiding historical fact)

    I read that statistic because Yossi Belin quoted it as 20 fatalities,

    Ahh yes Belien a man who acts as if he is prime minister and goes off signing intiatives,which he no authority to do because his party has less than I believe a 20% mandate.

    and then CAMERA corrected it as 40.

    Then I corrected it again

    Either way, the fact that it was so low in the decade before the occupation started seems to suggest a correlation in the vulnerability to terrorism.

    This would be true if you looked at it, from the completely historically ignorant view that you have. Yep lets head straight back to the vaccuum.

    You seem to be ignoring the fact that from 1948-1967 there WAS ANOTHER WAR, the 1956 war. This was also a major factor in reducing terror attacks. The IDF had fought through gaza, and in the process destroyed many terror bases. This war also forced out many terrorists and militias into the open leading to them fighting the IDF.

    Also if you read some books, instead of just taking with the ISM and belien hand to you, you would know that their were quite a few military operations in the pre-67 time, in responce to terrorists attacks originating from Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. This was also a major reducing factor, because unlike today where the army is held to strongly by political ropes, it actually at that time went after terrorists, and tried to destroy them after an attempted or successful attack. This also another reason why attacks increased after 67 because of a new military doctrine.

    As I look at the stats you supplied, it was reducing leading up to the beginning of the occupation.

    And the vaccuum keeps sucking facts.

    You like to ignore that before the okupayshun, there was a WAR. Ofcourse attacks lessen before a war, you want to know why?.... Because people are preparing for a larger assualt instead of small guerilla style warfare. Also you have to take into account that after a constant stream of attacks for 11 years, with little success the terrorists need time to regroup and rearm, which they usually did through a 'cease-fire'.

    So it seems logical it could very well have been heading for further reduction.

    Actually it was more like the quiet before the storm.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:39 PM, February 08, 2006  

  • Part II

    Why anyone wouldn't conclude from that that trying to settle the territories didn't engender violent resistance, I find very confusing. what would you do, if you were an Arab, and Jewish settlements were springing up all around you, taking your land for "security purposes." Did we really think they would just take it lying down? Is this really so controversial?

    I don't know, let's just ask some tibetans about how they feel about Chinese settlers?

    The Kurds on the way Iraqi's and Turks do the same to them?

    The Basque when the Spanish and French give them an old school lesson on colonialization?

    The morroccans on the way spain enjoys the views of ceuta?

    Lets see the logical explanantion for spanish saharans to take this lying down?

    Or Koreans and Chinese with old time issues with Japan?

    Yes ofcourse I wonder why logic dictates that something is very wrong... when you look at the exception as the rule.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:58 PM, February 08, 2006  

  • I am baffled when I read the oozing hatred directed at Rachel Corrie after her death, by calling her "pancake Corrie." She was one person who is now dead. What ghoulish and perverted delight can these people gain by continually degrading a dead person, and verbally tormenting her parents?

    It does not matter at this point who was right or wrong. Rachel injured no one, killed no one, tortured no one, and did not rape anyone or delierately murder anyone's children. Yet the venom directed at her could be better spent directed at those on BOTH sides who have.

    Neither side is innocent. We know how many people were killed to prove that the land was uninhabited, if we have the common sense to read census reports from the last hundred years.

    We know how many Isrealis were killed.

    All of these killings include women and children. There is enough evidence against both sides to see them as heartless when it comes to their own interests, and I spare no one here.

    So why this "pancake Corrie" mentality? It isn't funny, and it isn't necessary, and it does nothing to further any cause except perhaps to entertain closet sadists.h

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:18 PM, November 20, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home