Supporters of Israeli terror, listen up!

gue_barium

Pearler wrote:

read the last 10 pages of this thread and all there is is you and your monkey brother byrnzie chest poking each other about whos right and wrong.


ya both just a pair of wankers.

That is hardly the case. I only got on this thread tonight.

And, I dont' go for the right or wrong approach. Yet. There must be good or bad.

Ed's never said anything more true.

What have you contributed? Other than being a bystander?

Pearler

gue_barium wrote:

What have you contributed? Other than being a bystander?

I have contributed the deepest, most well thought out post in the thread by calling you and byrnzie wankers.

Byrnzie

Pearler wrote:

read the last 10 pages of this thread and all there is is you and your monkey brother byrnzie chest poking each other about whos right and wrong.


ya both just a pair of wankers.

Flattery will get you nowhere!

dayan

gue_barium wrote:

I have a good question here. What Muslim could gain a thing by dropping a nuke on Israel? Everything that is sacred and cherished to Muslims historically, in Israel, particualrly Jerusalem, is sacred to Jews as well...I mean...what would be the point then, of turning all those religious and historical monuments to dust?

There is nothing sacred to Muslims in Tel Aviv. If they nuked Tel Aviv it would pretty much be the end of Israel and they wouldn't be destroying any of their holy sites.

dayan

Byrnzie wrote:

I'm glad we've arrived at a consensus here. The only problem I still have is with your belief that Israel should control the Golan heights. This is where the water in the area comes from. And as we all know, if you control the water then you pretty much control everything. Does Israel really need the Golan heights for security reasons? I'm not so sure.

Sorry, I didn't mean the Golan heights. I meant the heights that lie right next to the Green Line in the West Bank. Although I happen not to think that Israel should give back the Golan, again for a number of reasons which for now I'll refrain from getting into.

fuck

dayan wrote:

There is nothing sacred to Muslims in Tel Aviv. If they nuked Tel Aviv it would pretty much be the end of Israel and they wouldn't be destroying any of their holy sites.

dropping a NUKE on tel aviv would pretty much affect the entire nation, as it's really a very small country. muslims aren't retarded and wouldn't do that.

dayan

Byrnzie wrote:

I believe it's a constructive way to begin a discussion because it immediately tilts the board of inbuilt bias common in many people who are exposed to the mainstream media in the west that Israel is defending itself against terrorists.
The truth, as we all know, is somewhat different. So I used the phrase 'Israeli terror' as a way of attempting to create a more level, and honest playing field upon which to encourage a debate.

I'm sorry for putting it like this, but your statement is patently ridiculous. You may believe that the media is biased in favor of Israel, but I for example happen to believe just the opposite. Leaving that aside, it is not honest to premise a debate on the "fact" of Israeli terror, since that is the very issue being debated. A honest and fair place to start would be with an entirely clean slate.

dayan

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

dropping a NUKE on tel aviv would pretty much affect the entire nation, as it's really a very small country. muslims aren't retarded and wouldn't do that.

Perhaps, but then again I think it is undeniable that a certain breed of Islamic extremist has no problem killing himself and others to achieve his goal and do what he percieves to be his religious duty, so who knows?

Abookamongstthemany

dayan wrote:

Perhaps, but then again I think it is undeniable that a certain breed of Islamic extremist has no problem killing himself and others to achieve his goal and do what he percieves to be his religious duty, so who knows?

People need to stop living in fear as to what someone 'might' do and own up to their own actions on both sides. Just because one side is committing wrongs, it still doesn't excuse you to go on making more wrongs in their place and calling it justified.

fuck

dayan wrote:

I'm not sure I want to get into an argument over the opinions you assert as fact.

sorry dude. not opinions. they're facts. all i stated were death tolls and number of innocent people in jails given from sources like bbcnews, etc.

Suffice it to say that I don't think that you can decide on the justice of a situation solely based on numbers since they entirely ignore intent.

...it's not solely based on numbers. it's based on history of israeli treatment of the palestinian people. and ignore intent? PLEEEEASE. what? the israelis just happened to 'accidently' kill 6000 innocent people and 'accidently' threw thousands of innocent people in jail?

come on. you can't be that ignorant.

I would also say that (and here I don't know who you are so forgive me if I'm wrong) I assume that you have never been to Israel and the Palestinian territories, but having lived there extensively myself the situation is much more complicated then you allow for.

most people haven't been there, so i understand you assuming I haven't. unfortunately for you though, i have been there and seen things through my own eyes. it is more complicated. i wasn't really trying to simplify it, but at the same time people still do make it more complicated than it already is (sorry if that doesnt make sense. it does in my head but i just dont know how to say it correctly.) still though, when you see the difference between israel and palestine, you can really see the difference and see for yourself who is really being oppressed.

Finally I don't think it really matters who is more justified (although I have my own opinion). What matters is that people are able to find some day to day security. Once we get there we can start talking about peace.

well, true. peace does need to be talked about, but how can that happen when you have israeli supporters running about complaining of things like "palestine teaches its kids how to die for allah!!" and suicide bombings and such (which is all filled with pure propaganda) and at the same time want peace? and not only that but they completely ignore the fact that palestinians are the ones being oppressed.

you see the media all the time. you saw this video with george galloway. he proved to you just how biased the media is. the media helps control people's minds and alter's people's opinions in the US. how are the people in the US supposed to want peace between the two people when the media just shows palestinian suicide bombers all the time but never israeli attacks on palestinians?

fuck

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

People need to stop living in fear as to what someone 'might' do and own up to their own actions on both sides. Just because one side is committing wrongs, it still doesn't excuse you to go on making more wrongs in their place and calling it justified.

yeah of course. suicide bombings and stuff killing innocent israeli civilans isn't completely justified...

dayan

Byrnzie wrote:

O.k then. Please explain how you think that Israel does not, and never has, engaged in terrorism.
In fact, whilst keeping at the forefront of your mind the fact that Israel is still currently engaged in a brutal 40 year military occupation, please explain how you think that Israel is exempt from being labeled a terrorist state.

Without making any apologies for the occupation itself, Israel tried in good faith to end the occupation in 2000 but was rebuffed. They then tried to unilaterally end the occupation in Gaza with the aim of continuing the process in the West Bank, but in light of what Gaza has become have refrained from the continuation. I think that it is dishonest to continue to fault Israel for an occupation that the majority of Israelis vehemently wish to end and have attempted to end but can't because of the violence and rejection they have encountered from the Palestinians. As for Israeli "terror," Israel has no policy that seeks to randomly cause harm to innocent Palestinians. Innocents have certainly been harmed, but this was not the gov't's intention. In certain instances, such as the cutting down of orchards and the razing of houses, I think that Israel has enacted a terrible policy, however to call it terror is unjust since however flawed such actions are they did not occur in a vacuum but are the result of specific security concerns. The difference between these actions and those of Palestinian terrorists is that it is the policy of groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad to kill innocents, and in light of Israel's attempt at ending the occupation in 2000 I really see no justification for their actions at all (and there is never a justification for intentionally harming civilians).

dayan

_FiveAgainstOne_ wrote:

sorry dude. not opinions. they're facts. all i stated were death tolls and number of innocent people in jails given from sources like bbcnews, etc.



...it's not solely based on numbers. it's based on history of israeli treatment of the palestinian people. and ignore intent? PLEEEEASE. what? the israelis just happened to 'accidently' kill 6000 innocent people and 'accidently' threw thousands of innocent people in jail?

come on. you can't be that ignorant.



most people haven't been there, so i understand you assuming I haven't. unfortunately for you though, i have been there and seen things through my own eyes. it is more complicated. i wasn't really trying to simplify it, but at the same time people still do make it more complicated than it already is (sorry if that doesnt make sense. it does in my head but i just dont know how to say it correctly.) still though, when you see the difference between israel and palestine, you can really see the difference and see for yourself who is really being oppressed.



well, true. peace does need to be talked about, but how can that happen when you have israeli supporters running about complaining of things like "palestine teaches its kids how to die for allah!!" and suicide bombings and such (which is all filled with pure propaganda) and at the same time want peace? and not only that but they completely ignore the fact that palestinians are the ones being oppressed.

you see the media all the time. you saw this video with george galloway. he proved to you just how biased the media is. the media helps control people's minds and alter's people's opinions in the US. how are the people in the US supposed to want peace between the two people when the media just shows palestinian suicide bombers all the time but never israeli attacks on palestinians?

I don't quite know what to say. The numbers are the result of an assymetrical conflict. Israel is in the position of fighting a war in civilian areas. The fact that so many more Palestinians have been killed is the result of this. Your right that the Palestinians are being oppressed, and if this discussion were occuring in 1999 it would be entirely different, but again, in 2000 Israel tried to end the occupation so at this point your argument holds very little water with me. As for the media, I see it very differently, and I could give you links to videos that do as good a job of exposing media bias against Israel. Finally, your right that there is a propaganda element to the "Palestinians teach their children hate," but then again the videos you see are real. Sometimes the best propoganda is the truth. (By the way I don't think all Palestinian children are brought up this way. Its hopefully very few, but there certainly has developed a culture of violence among the Palestinians which I've commented on more extensively in another thread).

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

I'm sorry for putting it like this, but your statement is patently ridiculous. You may believe that the media is biased in favor of Israel, but I for example happen to believe just the opposite. Leaving that aside, it is not honest to premise a debate on the "fact" of Israeli terror, since that is the very issue being debated. A honest and fair place to start would be with an entirely clean slate.

So you don't think that Israel has committed any acts of terrorism? I listed about 5 obvious examples earlier in the thread.

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

Without making any apologies for the occupation itself, Israel tried in good faith to end the occupation in 2000 but was rebuffed...I think that it is dishonest to continue to fault Israel for an occupation that the majority of Israelis vehemently wish to end and have attempted to end but can't because of the violence and rejection they have encountered from the Palestinians.

So Israel attempted to end the occupation in 2000 but was rebuffed? And why was it rebuffed? Would you like me to explain to people on here why it was rebuffed, seeing as you have declined to do so yourself?
O.k then:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14120.htm

Chomsky: The Barak proposal in Camp David, the Barak-Clinton proposal, in the United States, I didn't check the Canadian media, in the United States you cannot find a map, which is the most important thing of course, check in Canada, see if you can find a map. You go to Israel, you can find a map, you go to scholarly sources, you can find a map. Here's what you find when you look at a map: You find that this generous, magnanimous proposal provided Israel with a salient east of Jerusalem, which was established primarily by the Labor government, in order to bisect the West Bank. That salient goes almost to Jericho, breaks the West Bank into two cantons, then there's a second salient to the North, going to the Israeli settlement of Ariel, which bisects the Northern part into two cantons.

So, we've got three cantons in the West Bank, virtually separated. All three of them are separated from a small area of East Jerusalem which is the center of Palestinian commercial and cultural life and of communications. So you have four cantons, all separated from the West, from Gaza, so that's five cantons, all surrounded by Israeli settlements, infrastructure, development and so on, which also incidentally guarantee Israel control of the water resources.

This does not rise to the level of South Africa 40 years ago when South Africa established the Bantustans. That's the generous, magnanimous offer. And there's a good reason why maps weren't shown. Because as soon as you look at a map, you see it.

Solomon: All right, but let me just say, Arafat didn't even bother putting a counter-proposal on the table.

Chomsky: Oh, that's not true.

Solomon: They negotiated that afterwards.

Chomsky: That's not true.

Solomon: I guess my question is, if they don't continue to negotiate -

Chomsky: They did. That's false.

Solomon: That's false?

Chomsky: Not only is it false, but not a single participant in the meetings says it. That's a media fabrication . . .

Solomon: That Arafat didn't put a counter-proposal . . .

Chomsky: Yeah, they had a proposal. They proposed the international consensus, which has been accepted by the entire world, the Arab states, the PLO. They proposed a settlement which is in accordance with an overwhelming international consensus, and is blocked by the United States.

Solomon: If you don't talk -

Chomsky: Yeah, they did talk. They talked. They proposed that.

Solomon: Once they walked out of Camp David,

Chomsky: They didn't walk out of Camp David . . .

Solomon: Both camps . . .

Chomsky: No, no, both sides walked out of Camp David.

Solomon: All right, once Camp David disbands, the radicals take over the process, my question is, how do . . .

Chomsky: No, no, the radicals didn't take over the process.

Solomon: You don't think that the Sharon, the right-wing Israeli . . .

Chomsky: No, Barak stayed in power for months. Barak cancelled it. That's how it ended.

Solomon: OK. The problem that people look at now in the Middle East is they say it's spun out of control because the radicals are on both sides now.

Chomsky: No, there's three sides. You're forgetting the United States. The radicals in the United States who have blocked this proposal for 25 years, continue to block it.

Solomon: How do we get back, now, there's so much distrust?

Chomsky: The first way we get back is by trying the experiment of minimal honesty. If we try that experiment of minimal honesty, we look at our own position and we discover what I just described. That for 25 years, the United States has blocked the political settlement, which is supported by the majority of the American population and by the entire world, except for Israel.

The first thing we do is accept the honesty and look at it. We take a look at Camp David and we see how it's the same. The United States was still demanding a Bantustans style settlement and rejecting the overwhelming international consensus and the position of the American people.

We then discovered the United States immediately moved to enhance terror in the region. So, let's continue. On September 29th, Ehud Barak put a massive military presence outside the Al Aqsa Mosque, very provocative, when people came out of the Mosque, young people started throwing stones, the Israeli army started shooting, half a dozen people were killed, and it escalated.

The next couple of days -- there was no Palestinian fire at this time -- Israel used U.S. helicopters (Israel produces no helicopters) to attack civilian complexes, killing about a dozen people and wounding several dozen.

Clinton reacted to that on October 3, 2000 by making the biggest deal in a decade -- to send Israel new military helicopters which had just been used for the purpose I described and of course would continue to be.

The U.S. press co-operated with that by refusing to publish the story. To this day, they have not published the fact.

It continued when Bush came in. One of his first acts was to send Israel a new shipment of one of the most advanced military helicopters in the arsenal. That continues right up to a couple of weeks ago with new shipments. You take a look at the reports, from say Jenin, by British correspondents like Peter Beaumont for the London Observer. He says the worst atrocity was the Apache helicopters buzzing around, destroying and demolishing everything.

Now, this is enhancing terror, and we may easily continue. On December 14th, the Security Council tried to pass a resolution calling for what everyone recognized to be the obvious means for reducing terror, namely sending international monitors. That's a way of reducing terror.

This happened to be in the middle of a quiet period, which lasted for about three weeks. The U.S. vetoed it. 10 days before that, there was a meeting at Geneva of the high-contracting parties of the 4th-Geneva convention, which has unanimously held for 35 years that it applies to Israel. The meeting condemned the Israeli settlements as illegal, condemned the list of atrocities -- willful destruction of property, murder, trials, torture.

What happened in that meeting? I'll tell you what happened in that meeting. The U.S. boycotted it. Therefore, the media refused to publish it.

Therefore, no one here knows that the United States once again enhanced terror by refusing to recognize the applicability of conventions which make virtually everything the United States and Israel are doing there a grave breech of the Geneva convention, which is a war crime.

These conventions were established in 1949 in order to criminalize the atrocities of the Nazis in occupied territory. They are customary international law. The United States is obligated, as a high-contracting party, to prosecute violations of those conventions. That means to prosecute its own leadership for the last 25 years. They won't do it unless the population forces them to. And the population won't force them to as long as they don't know it's a fact. And they won't know it's a fact as long as the media and loyal intellectuals keep it secret.

http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2002/znet_chomsky.html

The goal of the Oslo process was accurately described in 1998 by Israeli academic Shlomo Ben-Ami just before he joined the Barak government, going on to become Barak's chief negotiator at Camp David in summer 2000. Ben-Ami observed that "in practice, the Oslo agreements were founded on a neo-colonialist basis, on a life of dependence of one on the other forever." With these goals, the Clinton-Rabin-Peres agreements were designed to impose on the Palestinians "almost total dependence on Israel," creating "an extended colonial situation," which is expected to be the "permanent basis" for "a situation of dependence." The function of the Palestinian Authority (PA) was to control the domestic population of the Israeli-run neocolonial dependency. That is the way the process unfolded, step by step, including the Camp David suggestions. The Clinton-Barak stand (left vague and unambiguous) was hailed here as "remarkable" and "magnanimous," but a look at the facts made it clear that it was -- as commonly described in Israel -- a Bantustan proposal; that is presumably the reason why maps were carefully avoided in the US mainstream. It is true that Clinton-Barak advanced a few steps towards a Bantustan-style settlement of the kind that South Africa instituted in the darkest days of Apartheid. Just prior to Camp David, West Bank Palestinians were confined to over 200 scattered areas, and Clinton-Barak did propose an improvement: consolidation to three cantons, under Israeli control, virtually separated from one another and from the fourth canton, a small area of East Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian life and of communications in the region. And of course separated from Gaza, where the outcome was left unclear.

But now that plan has apparently been shelved in favor of demolition of the PA. That means destruction of the institutions of the potential Bantustan that was planned by Clinton and his Israeli partners; in the last few days, even a human rights center. The Palestinian figures who were designated to be the counterpart of the Black leaders of the Bantustans are also under attack, though not killed, presumably because of the international consequences. The prominent Israeli scholar Ze'ev Sternhell writes that the government "is no longer ashamed to speak of war when what they are really engaged in is colonial policing, which recalls the takeover by the white police of the poor neighborhoods of the blacks in South Africa during the apartheid era." This new policy is a regression below the Bantustan model of South Africa 40 years ago to which Clinton-Rabin-Peres-Barak and their associates aspired in the Oslo "peace process."

None of this will come as a surprise to those who have been reading critical analyses for the past 10 years, including plenty of material posted regularly on Znet, reviewing developments as they proceeded.

Exactly how the Israeli leadership intends to implement these programs is unclear -- to them too, I presume.

It is convenient in the US, and the West, to blame Israel and particularly Sharon, but that is unfair and hardly honest. Many of Sharon's worst atrocities were carried out under Labor governments. Peres comes close to Sharon as a war criminal. Furthermore, the prime responsibility lies in Washington, and has for 30 years. That is true of the general diplomatic framework, and also of particular actions. Israel can act within the limits established by the master in Washington, rarely beyond.

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

I don't quite know what to say. The numbers are the result of an assymetrical conflict. Israel is in the position of fighting a war in civilian areas. The fact that so many more Palestinians have been killed is the result of this.

Why don't you just say it like it is?
Israel is a modern army supported 100% by the worlds only superpower and is in the position of fighting a war as an illegal occupying army. The fact that so many more Palestinians have been killed is the result of this.

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

I think that it is dishonest to continue to fault Israel for an occupation that the majority of Israelis vehemently wish to end and have attempted to end but can't because of the violence and rejection they have encountered from the Palestinians.

dayan wrote:

I don't quite know what to say. The numbers are the result of an assymetrical conflict. Israel is in the position of fighting a war in civilian areas. The fact that so many more Palestinians have been killed is the result of this. Your right that the Palestinians are being oppressed, and if this discussion were occuring in 1999 it would be entirely different, but again, in 2000 Israel tried to end the occupation so at this point your argument holds very little water with me. As for the media, I see it very differently, and I could give you links to videos that do as good a job of exposing media bias against Israel. Finally, your right that there is a propaganda element to the "Palestinians teach their children hate," but then again the videos you see are real. Sometimes the best propoganda is the truth. (By the way I don't think all Palestinian children are brought up this way. Its hopefully very few, but there certainly has developed a culture of violence among the Palestinians which I've commented on more extensively in another thread).

These comments above say everything anyone needs to know about the mindset of those who support Israeli terror.
It's all right here in a nutshell.

dayan

In a May 23, 2007 article titled "We Are Sowing Thorns" on the Elaph website, Egyptian liberal author Kamal Gabriel [1] decried what he termed "the psychology and the culture of violence and hatred" in the Palestinian territories and in the Middle East in general. He wrote that those who had encouraged this phenomenon had intended to use it against Israel and the West, but that once it took root it became impossible to control, and has led to domestic infighting in the Gaza Strip and in Iraq.

The following are excerpts: [2]

"The All-Against-All Infighting… [Has] Become the Mental and Psychological Makeup of the Palestinian People"

"What is going on now in the Gaza Strip, since Israel withdrew from it, is a clear example that exposes the faults of what we have done. The domestic infighting among brothers of the same homeland, wretched from the occupation and wretched from the yielding of their culture, is too great and too dangerous to be [just] the result of differences of opinion among the factions, or the absence of a strong central government, or even of what they call the weapons anarchy.

"It is definitely all of this. But the most dangerous thing about this, and that which the bilateral meetings between the sides, or meetings under the auspices of a third party… or even the folkloric Arab League summits have been unable to overcome, is that the all-against-all infighting and its basic code have become the mental and psychological makeup of the Palestinian people, as a natural result of the predominant discourse of hostility and incitement. [This discourse] has been adopted by Palestinians of all persuasions and in all the factions - religious, pan-Arab revolutionary, and leftist. It is a discourse whose aim was sowing hatred, having recourse to violence, and enjoying spilling blood.

"At first it was directed against the so-called the Israeli enemy, and it uprooted any possibility of or tendency towards rational mutual comprehension or of recourse to discussion, dialogue, and negotiation - what is known as peaceful resolution - and it raised the slogan of 'clinging to the choice of resistance.' But one clings to goals, not methods, and resistance (meaning armed resistance) cannot, psychologically and culturally, be the only choice for peoples to achieve their goals, without there being any alternative…

"Perhaps this is [an example of] the only [psychological] state in which the goal and the means are seen to become united in the choice of violence. This occurs when someone is overcome with the spirit of vengeance…

"The culture and psychology of violence has been able to take possession of the Palestinian people for two reasons. The first is that the discourse of violence had already managed to be the only one on the scene, which was emptied of any counter-discourse when the rational thinkers fled or were forced to keep out of sight - [either] out of desperation or in order to preserve the wellbeing of themselves and their families amidst the vast flood of feelings of violence that began to sweep away everything in its path.

"The second reason is that the predominant discourse of violence, most of which was formed by the religious discourse, was not the discourse of a means that attempts to achieve a goal - for instance, the liberation of the homeland - but rather was a discourse of violence and sacred killing in the name of jihad, which the literature of violence considered to be a duty that had been neglected and which needed to be carried out by every believer. [This was written,] for instance, in 'Abd Al-Salam Farag's book The Neglected Duty, which has been an authoritative source for the jurisprudence of jihad since the 1970s."

"The Hatred was Transformed from Hatred of Zionism to Hatred of Jews, the Sons Of Apes and Pigs"

"This was translated into political language in the slogan that the Arab-Israeli struggle is an existential struggle, and not a struggle over borders, and its implementation in practice was the so-called martyrdom-seeking operations for killing Israeli civilians. The hatred was transformed from hatred of Zionism to hatred of Jews, the sons of apes and pigs.

"Perhaps no one has noticed - for where are we to find someone to notice, in the absence of reason and rationality? - that when you take an individual or a group away from the culture of using reason and peaceful dialogue, and replace it with the culture of violence and of killing those who are different, you cannot then afterwards control it and direct it to be used against one single side.

"This is what we said: It starts with the Zionist enemy who is occupying the Holy Land, and then the violence and the hatred spread dangerously, like fire, in the psyche of the one over which they have gained mastery. They consume everything around them - and the first thing they consume is the light of reason. The individual loses his natural balance, which is based on the balance between peaceful tendencies [that encourage] peace, and angry tendencies that incite to violence…

"Thus we observed, and gave our blessing to, the conflagrations of violence and hatred, and they extended from [being aimed at] the Zionist enemy to [being aimed at] anyone who befriended it or helped it - even if they helped us as well, and even if it was someone on whom we depended for medicine, food, and everything.

"Our violence and hatred extended to America, England, and the other Western countries, and there is a BBC journalist who is still a prisoner of our jihad-fighting organizations…"

"The Natural Consequence of… the Culture and Psychology of Violence… is the Fraternal Violence We See [Today]"

"The natural consequence of the rule of the culture and psychology of violence and its expansion is the fraternal violence we see [today], which has defied and will [continue to] defy all attempts to contain it - [violence among brothers] whom we all agree are miserable by any standard.

"The state of the Palestinian territories is perhaps the most critical in this respect… but we can give similar examples from all corners of what is called the greater Middle East - among them what is happening in Iraq among the Sunnis, the Shi'ites, and the Ba'thists as a result of the influence of the Ba'thist-Saddamist discourse…

"There are thousands of other examples, which seem at first sight less important and less acute in their level of violence, but that we assess as more serious because they indicate the expansion of the culture and psychology of violence and the rejection of discussion… This is among regular people in their daily lives…

"Violence naturally exists at all times and in every place. But we are in the midst of a striking growth in violence, not to say an increase at a catastrophic rate. In my estimation, this is the fruit that we are harvesting because we sowed thorns for over half a century.

"Thus, the crisis in the region is not the amount of disagreements in points of view or differences in interests [between ourselves] and our neighbors or the world. In both of these [cases], reason and dialogue can find solutions, whether comprehensive or partial, that are completely satisfactory, acceptable, or at least can be borne.

"Rather, the true crisis in the region is that the peoples of the region need psychological and cultural reeducation - which must necessarily be preceded by halting the discourse of violence, incitement, and hatred, in all its colors and classifications.

"But can this come about when the fires of hatred have already broken out [everywhere]?"

(me now)
I don't think this guy has any sympathy for Israel's occupation, which should make what he has to say about the Palestinians all the more forceful. I simply can't understand Byrnzie why you can't accept that the situation is simply for complicated than you present it. Israel isn't perfect. The Palestinians aren't perfect. If I can accept this why can't you? Oh and by the way Chomsky is full of shit. The map he is talking about didn't reflect Israels final offer (rejected by Arafat) which was about 97% of the West Bank (contiguous) East Jerusalem, all of Gaza, and the Temple Mount, and a highway connecting the West Bank and Gaza. This is what Israeli leaders privy the the talks say. This is what American leaders privy to the talks say. Hell, even other Arab diplomats have publicly stated that Arafat practically committed a crime by walking away from that deal.

fuck

Chomsky is full of shit?

But this gabriel guy isn't?

Ok...

Byrnzie

dayan wrote:

In a May 23, 2007 article titled "We Are Sowing Thorns" on the Elaph website, Egyptian liberal author Kamal Gabriel [1] decried what he termed "the psychology and the culture of violence and hatred" in the Palestinian territories and in the Middle East in general. He wrote that those who had encouraged this phenomenon had intended to use it against Israel and the West, but that once it took root it became impossible to control, and has led to domestic infighting in the Gaza Strip and in Iraq.


"The culture and psychology of violence has been able to take possession of the Palestinian people for two reasons. The first is that the discourse of violence had already managed to be the only one on the scene, which was emptied of any counter-discourse when the rational thinkers fled or were forced to keep out of sight - [either] out of desperation or in order to preserve the wellbeing of themselves and their families amidst the vast flood of feelings of violence that began to sweep away everything in its path.

"Perhaps no one has noticed - for where are we to find someone to notice, in the absence of reason and rationality? - that when you take an individual or a group away from the culture of using reason and peaceful dialogue, and replace it with the culture of violence and of killing those who are different, you cannot then afterwards control it and direct it to be used against one single side.


"Rather, the true crisis in the region is that the peoples of the region need psychological and cultural reeducation - which must necessarily be preceded by halting the discourse of violence, incitement, and hatred, in all its colors and classifications.

(me now)
I don't think this guy has any sympathy for Israel's occupation, which should make what he has to say about the Palestinians all the more forceful. I simply can't understand Byrnzie why you can't accept that the situation is simply for complicated than you present it. Israel isn't perfect. The Palestinians aren't perfect. If I can accept this why can't you? Oh and by the way Chomsky is full of shit. The map he is talking about didn't reflect Israels final offer (rejected by Arafat) which was about 97% of the West Bank (contiguous) East Jerusalem, all of Gaza, and the Temple Mount, and a highway connecting the West Bank and Gaza. This is what Israeli leaders privy the the talks say. This is what American leaders privy to the talks say. Hell, even other Arab diplomats have publicly stated that Arafat practically committed a crime by walking away from that deal.

Please provide your 'real map' then. Please explain what was on offer to the Palestinians at Camp David.
And as for the piece you copied and pasted above? What a joke! I won't waste my time commenting any more on it. The parts I've highlighted speak for themselves. I can see you must have really struggled to dig up that piece of obvious nonsense. Well done!