Gaza pullout is terror’s victory, say Arabs

Senior “Palestinian” figures Tuesday said Israel’s planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was a victory for the four-year terrorist campaign against the nation’s Jewish population.

They also said the Israeli retreat would not result in a cessation of attacks emanating from the coastal strip, and in fact would probably lead to an increase in violence.

Right wing legislators, army commanders and analysts have long warned that a full-scale evacuation of Gaza would provide the Palestinian Arabs with a great deal of motivation to continue their efforts to annihilate the Jewish state.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s intention to surrender the Gaza Strip in the face of unrelenting Islamic terror means the Oslo War has resulted in triumph for the Palestinian Arabs, jailed Fatah terror boss Marwan Barghouti said Monday.

http://www.jnewswire.com/library/article.php?articleid=393

..................................................................


Attacks to continue??...so much for 'we just want our land'.

I stand by hamas covenant.....they just want Israel.....DEAD.

Israel is an apartheid nation built upon oppression of the Palestinians, whose land and homes they seized in the first place. Israel still has a long way to go toward achieving social justice with Palestine. Israelis should not expect peace until they dismantle their institutionalized oppression of Palestinians. The right of return should be an appropriate threshold, IMO. When Palestinians reoccupy their land, they can become full partners with Israelis and make their struggle an internal political one. Until then, they have few options other than abject surrender or continued fighting.

you think the ROR is still a talking point.

It just ain't going to happen but don't let me interrupt your fantasy.

...without justice. The ROR isn't a "talking point." It's part of a just resolution. Even South Africa eventually realized that the only way to heal the injustices of racial apartheid is to accept the oppressed group as a full partner in determining their collective future, even if that means loss of control over that future by the former rulers. Otherwise the cycle of violence will continue.

they already realized and have conceded the point of ROR during oslo...So for those who keep harping on it, well it appears that your out of step with reality.

How soon we forget:

PA says will never give up right of return

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=82410&mesg_id=82410

that's what sharon says :shrug:

anyways, i believe that's something the palestinians get to decide not the thugs who are demanding it and oppressing them.

peace

,,,(place your expletive here) Nation....

Heard em all before (even Nazi/.....:mad: ) yada yada yada...

Apartheid died in 1994 with the coming of democracy to South Africa. But the word is still with us: Israel is increasingly accused of being the new apartheid. Together with this, Israel's founding ideology, Zionism, is attacked as racism. But how true are these accusations? Mere repetition, however frequent, widespread and fervent, do not in themselves give them validity.

and

In Israel there was little emotional identification with Afrikaners even though some did support their minority white rule. Israel voted against apartheid in international forums until pressure from South Africa's Jewish community caused it to abstain. The dominant influence in Israel was self-interest stemming from the shared international status as pariahs and a sense of threat. Strong ties were created, especially in the military and security fields.

and

The past lives on in concepts and words - between the old South Africa and the current Israel - in the apartheid and racist charges. The description of Israel as an "emerging apartheid" began to build perhaps around 2000. It gathered force in the run-up to the UN Anti-racism conference in Durban in August/September 2001 and was given full and aggressive expression at the conference there of NGOs. However, after much pressure by democratic countries, the subsequent official conference of governments belatedly expunged virtually every attack on Israel. South Africa's Deputy Foreign Minister Aziz Pahad later spoke of the 'disgraceful events' surrounding the NGO conference and said: "I wish to make it unequivocally clear that the South African Government recognises that part of that component was hijacked and used by some with an anti-Israeli agenda to turn it into an anti-Semitic event." And putting the NGO conference into perspective, he added: "Recognition of this, however, was precisely the reason for the refusal of the world's governments to accept the final statement of NGO proceedings into the final document of the Conference.

and

Nor does Zionism is racism stand up to scrutiny. This charge is not new but is an attempt to resuscitate a discredited and rescinded 1975 UN General Assembly resolution (it was thrown out in 1991) which said that 'Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.' Much earlier, on 29 November 1947, the General Assembly voted for partition of the then Palestine with the aim of creating a state for the Jewish people and a state for the native Arabs. For Jews it was Zionism come true – the return of Jews to their ancestral home and the creation of a place of refuge. They accepted partition but Arabs did not. How we can dream of what might have been had Palestinian Arabs and the surrounding countries accepted the UN decision! Israel now has a Jewish majority and they have the right to decide how to order the society, including defining citizenship. If the majority wish to restrict immigration and citizenship to Jews that might be undesirable in any universalist outlook but it is the right of the majority. Just as it is the right of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states not to allow Christians as citizens, or the right of Ghana and other African states to reject or restrict whites as citizens, or the right of South Africa to have a nonracial citizenship policy. It's the norm for countries to have citizenship laws and immigration practices which are non-universalist but which are based on their perceptions of colour or religion or economic class or whatever. Europe demonstrates that every day in dealing with would-be economic migrants.


http://www.jewschool.com/israpartheid.htm

For the people of Arab Palestine to both "make their struggle an internal political one" and to "become full partners with the Israelis" suggests a chimerical creature along the lines of a lion-headed fish. The usage "full partners" generally denotes a lack of conflict and an attitude of co-operation; the usage "struggle" generally suggests a continued conflict in which disputants are striving for victory over the other. Contradiction of this magnitude induces giddiness in the beholder, and suggests it in its author as well.

It is well to be clear about these things, Sir. To "make their struggle an internal political one" means that you feel the struggle between the peoples would continue even after wholesale repatriation. As the demographic consequences of wholesale repatriation on the polity of Israel are easily predictable, this formula suggests you are looking forward to the day when that state ceases to be a majority Jewish nation, and the Jews there become one more minority in a Moslem country.

It must be obvious to you, on calm reflection, that this is not going to happen. The sole reason the state of Israel exists is the determination of a great majority of the world's Jews that there be a state in which, owing to their majority status, state disfavor towards Jews is a practical impossibility. The military might of Israel is dedicated to ensuring Israel continues to be that state, and in order to alter the condition of Israel into something else, that military might will have to be broken. This is not going to happen, and given the likelihood of nuclear armament at that military's disposal, even should its defeat loom, the victory is certain to be phyrric in the extreme.

What you are basically asking for here, Sir, is to have all the benefits of victory in war, without having gone to the bother of actually achieving victory in war. The world, for better or worse, does not work that way....

and the outcome is by no means decided...

peace

...for real cooperation between Israelis and Palestinians, but my point was simply that absent the destruction of one side or the other, cessation of violence will only happen when both sides either exhaust one another or begin to find some common cause to work toward. The former solution will be attended by even greater suffering than the participants are experiencing now, so the latter is greatly preferred, even if unrealistically hopeful.

Your point about the rationale for founding the state of Israel is well taken, but events have shown that rationale to express itself as self-protection by oppression and subjegation of others, who have themselves been made victims by Israelis seeking to maintain a majority in the land they took-- and continue to take-- from Palestine. I think the analogy with arguments for maintaining white supremacy in the U.S. and in South Africa by keeping separation and racial purity is an accurate one, despite the protestations of those who argue that apartheid was solely an Afrikans phenomenon-- by any name Israeli treatment of Palestinians is nonetheless state and social oppression based upon racial, national, and religious background. Perhaps it is simply human nature to mistreat one another so, but then it is also human nature to respond to violence with further violence. The violence will not cease until the struggle exhausts both parties, or until justice prevails over self-interest.

if you would quit spouting popular expressions and read what you write, you might discover how pathetic it looks from over here...and people wonder why we ignore all those resolutions:

by any name Israeli treatment of Palestinians is nonetheless state and social oppression based upon racial, national, and religious background

racial?....

religious?...

however you attempt to redefine and twist the english language to justify the above....it will remain what it is...a pathetic attempt to demonize israel.


national?....as an enemy society, they certainly are oppressed: better them, then us....

...those resolutions because you have utter contempt for the notions of social justice and human rights except as they pertain to Israelis' sense of entitlement. I say you because you chose to speak for Israel in your reply, of course-- not because I have any particular animosity for you personally. I do wish my government would stop supporting state sponsored ethnic oppression in Palestine, however.


I presume then that you approve of continuing the cycle of violence until one side or the other is either obliterated or you're both too exhausted to go on. You might find it overly "populist," but I still think you're deluding yourself if you believe there can ever be peace with the Palestinians without justice for the Palestinians.

Finally, I have no need to demonize Israel-- the Israelis are doing quite a good enough job of that themselves.

Honorable Mike_C

Violence is necessary for the removal of the natives from the holy land. Without hatred, the natives cannot be removed. Without hatred and violence the native people will be the cultural majority of Israel.

Unfortunately, Palestinians understand that they will be removed regardless of what they do to defend themselves and need international assistance to encourage the practice of democracy, equality and citizenship for everyone.

Your humble servant
King Mongo

Honorable Pelsar

>>a pathetic attempt to demonize israel.

Israel is responsible for its own actions. Blaming the critics of problems will not cause the problems to go away.

>>as an enemy society

Palestinians are not an enemy society. Palestinians are a part of the Isaelis society. Israelis live with them and around Palestinians. Palestinians are the indigenous people of Israel. Slowly, more people of Israel will to learn to respect and love the native people of the land.

Your humble servant
King Mongo

He agrees with the fact that the hamas covenant states Israel needs to be wiped off the face of the earth.

But he said he stands by that covenant.

Clearly, he wrote that in a hurry ............ you know he does not stand by that covenant. He probably had to run do something unimportant, yanno, like save someone's life?

:yourock:

:yourock:

confusion reigns supreme. Hope it's vacation time, or else a hangnail just might get an arm amputated.

I was trying to say something else...my bad.

That will teach me to post with my eyes half closed.

even back during "biblical" times.

As to your source, here is another gem from Jerusalem Newswire that shows how much they are part of the Dark Side. They make Sharon look like a raging liberal:

The grassroots battle to save Gaza's Jewish community from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's policy of ethnic cleansing escalated Monday, as Sharon inched closer to forging an alliance with Shimon Pers's Labor that would allow implementation of this plan.

http://www.jnewswire.com/library/article.php?articleid=389

>>Gaza has never been part of the land of Israel

Well, Israelis are still debating when Eretz Israel should stop growing.

The state media sows disinformation as if there is no historic Jewish connection to Gaza. The time has come to shatter these lies and to explain to the public that we must stay in Gaza , not only for security reasons -anybody with common sense understands that withdrawing from Gaza would turn the area into a haven for terrorists who would threaten the entire south of Israel- but mainly because Gaza is part of Biblical Israel.
http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ViewsPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article^l3281&enZone=Views&enVersion=0&

This is the same disease that led America to commit genocide against its native peoples, and led the Spaniards to wipe out entire civilizations as they imposed their religion by the point of the sword. Manifest Destiny is based on the irrational belief that there is a Supreme Being that has granted a special mission to a unique race of individuals to rule over all others. What was that thing that Marx said about religion being like a drug?