Support The M&S Picket

Why is it illegal trade?

Someone owns the greenhouses, they employ people to grow produce and sell it.

They can sell the produce to who they want, be it M&S or whoever.

Selling vegetables is not illegal.

Export is not illegal.

Buying vegetables is not illegal.

So how is the trade with M&S 'completely illegal' - Do you have a clue what you are talking about.

Also this trade is clearly providing Palestinians with jobs. Maybe we should be encouraging M&S to buy more products from farms which employ Palestinians.

Erm,
M&S trade does not benefit Palestinian people at all. It merely benefits the shareholders of the company, the Israeli government which receives funding from the company, and people employed by the company. (No Palestinian people are employed by or have contracts to sell goods to M&S)
Some of the products that are sold in M&S stores were grown/manufactured in ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS inside the West Bank (Palestinian border). These settlements are illegal according to international law, and so economic activity inside these settlements is illegal AND the resourses used in this economic activity are effectively being STOLEN from the Palestinian people.
Palestinian people also suffer because M&S directly provides funds to the Israeli government, which, as everyone knows is using this money to bomb/shoot/starve/hold prisoner/humiliate etc. the Palestinian people.

Crap article. Basically because she is in a privileged position, doesn't mean that other Palestinians aren't suffering. No, don't tell the kid throwing rocks at tanks to "stay away". They are fighting for freedom, and to become citizens. Rather than mere refugees.

Sarah El Shazly sure knows how to wow the zionist propagandists - she's on loads of their sites - she doesn't seem to have written anything else, and her premise that Palestinians chose to leave their homes in 1948 is flatly contradicted by "Benny the racist" Morris, an Israeli "new historian" turned right wing zionist who shows clearly that the exodus was under duress of rape and murder. Frontpage is a highly unreliable organ, and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if the article wasn't penned by one of the staffers, say Lee Kaplan.

On then to Marks and Spencer - another link - Lord Stone of Blackheath, former Chairman of M+S is now head of a 100 million dollar fund that is seeking to bribe neighbouring states into normalising their relations with Israel.

Read more:  http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=863632&fid=942

Why did the Arab states of Syria, Jordan and Egypt (all of whom had ample opportunity) not create a Palestinian State between 1948 and 1967, rather than actually slaughtering tens of thousands of Palestinians?

If the Arab states can be bribed into making peace - good!

If they will only make peace for money, rather than peace for peace, peace for their children, then so be it!

The central thesis being that Palestinians could have stayed in trhe 400 villages and towns that Israel razed to the ground after the events one side calls the Nakba and the other celebrates now as "Independence Day"?

Erm, perhaps you missed the pojnt - NO THEY COULDN'T!!!!

I'm not surprised that the ruling class in Arabs states are lying, toady powermongers who look after themselves and themselves only.

That doesn't make the expulsion of the Palestinians, or the occupation any better.

And why is America bribing neighbouring states to attempt normalisation with occupation?

Because the populations of the neighbouring states do care about what is happening to Palestinians, and it compromises the leaders who cannot come out and say that they support themselves, and are willing to shaft the Palestinians.

After almost 20 years of no demonstrations in Egypt, there are demos going on now, and they were kickstarted by the Egyptian Popular Committee for Solidarity with the Palesrtinian Uprising.

Whatever FTP!

Three Arab nations had the chance to declare an independant state for the refugees. They did not. Jordan killed over 20,000 Palestinians, nobody batted an eye.

Egypt and Israel enjoy peace together - we visit ech other's countries and trade together extensively, even conducting joint operations in industry.

You have no intention of promoting peace. You want to wipe out Israel. Where should we go?

Back to Poland?

Into the sea?

J & P,

Nobody wants to see Israelis driven inti the sea - most people on this site advocate either a 2 state solution or a secular Palestine where both jews and arabs (who lets not forget are the indigenous population and unlike Israeli jews have no "back" to go to)can live together as equals.

The Israelis don't need to go anywhere. They just need to end the occupation and live together with the Palestinians as equals. Now wouldn't THAT be an example to neighbouring countries.

You know it's inevitable now. The settlement activity is so extensive, and Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza is so complete, that a seperate state is impossible. The Palestinians and Israelis even use the same currency now!!! It is more and more a battle for equal rights in what is one country.

It stands for "freethepeeps".

You could of course stay right where you are and learn to share. Like they did in the other Apartheid state.

Or you could rabbit on about how Arab countries failed the Palestinians before your 37 year long occupation began - which neatly ignores the landgrab going on right now.

After 37 years as colonisers you have responsibilities.

And the bonus is this, when you learn to share, the Americans won't have to bribe people to be your friends.

Egypt, pre-Iraq was the second largest recipient of USAid after Israel. And still the Egyptian people don't like whats going on at all......

Again, we are going to have the same old arguements here!

It will probably go from how other Arab countries fail to support the Palestinians, to the paraniod views of people like J&P (love the alias btw), to what good israel does to the world!!!

Then all those arguments will be countered, and then the arguments that countered those arguments will be countered, and so and so on!

And want has been achieved!

Instead of arguing, how about discussing how we creat peace! be it one state or two! (no offence J&P, BUT i've never seen you argue why and how a two state solution will bring peace and is the best way to go, where as people have defended a one state solution) Is there an ideal solution?

I'll end this with some thing that an Israeli Jew said (or to words of the same effect) to me on line

"Palestine wasn't the best place have a Jewish State"

Sadly, with all the anti-semitism in this world, where would be the best place to have a Jewish State!

I am sure that a one-state solution is the best, for several reasons.

One is that it is practically one state anyway. The number of settlements and settler roads in the West Bank mean that you can be driving on an Isralei settler road one minute, stop, walk off the road and you're in a West Bank Palestinian village.
During Oslo, the Palestinians used to work in Israel. Most of the products in the shops are the same as in Israel. The currency is the same. Unintentionally, through a program of colonisation, Israel has almost annexed completely the West Bank. This is a major reason they are apparently so keen to leave Gaza, incidentally.

The next point is that what is left of the West Bank after being cut up by all these settlements is not a viable state by any stretch of the imagination. Especially if, as Sharon suggests, they don't have control over their own borders and airspace. But even without that, if you look at the maps, the West Bank offered to the Palestinians looks completely ridiculous!!! And how can you have a viable state without a connecting bit of land between the West Bank and Gaza. Unless Israel hands Eilat over to the Palestinians, which I think they would hate to do, seeing as it's quite a popular vacation spot away form all the troubles in the region, with nice dolphins, incidentally.
But to continue on this point, the illusionary state that possibly may have been on the cards, a long time ago, once upon a lifetime, would hardly have been self sufficient, and in fact economically subservient to Israel, a source of cheap labour perhaps. This state has long since passed being possible. What's now on offer probably wouldn't even have adequate water supplies, much of the best farmland and water has been stolen now, thanks to the construction of the wall.

The third point is that a two state solution does not lead to any reconciliation between peoples. Indeed, the conflict would be likely to flare up again at any time. Groups like Hamas support two states because they see it as a stage on the way to, indeed, consolidating their forces, then driving the Jews into the sea. Although that could not happen, two states would simply be a return to the situation in Oslo. Palestinian resentment at having so much land stolen from them would inevitably lead to some sort of attack on Israel, suicide bombing or rocket attack, Israeli complaints that Palestinian security can't control the militants, invasion, reoccupation.
Only joint security operations in a joint state would hold legitimacy with the vast majority of Palestinians who want to live in peace and security, but don't want the IDF riding into town, shooting their children, and demolishing their houses, to provide that 'security'.
Indeed, one state would force those people on both sides who want to live together to work together in stopping attacks by any fundamentalists, on both sides.


BUT, I see a few problems. One is, what if the Palestinians not only want the right to return to the land that was stolen from them, but want, in fact, to return to the exact same villages and houses they were driven from. Certainly, for example Safed, there are neighbourhoods where the Palestinians left, and the Israelis moved straight into the houses.
Many Palestinians carry the keys to their house, within the 1948 borders.
So the first problem is, how do you fairly resolve that situation?

The second is, well, what do you actually call the One-State, and what would be it's flag?
It may seem a silly problem, the people living there can call it what they want, but when it comes to being represented overseas, for example, these things have meaning.

The third is current political inclination towards this solution, on both the Israeli and Palestinian side. I have heard Palestinian speakers from the PA argue for it, but in general the leadership argue for two states, perhaps because they hate the idea of sharing power as much as the Israelis do. I think the reality really needs to sink in, that a Palestinian state at the 1948 borders is a dream long since achievable, and that they need to change the goalposts.

Now what is happening in Israel is a gradual dawning of this reality, hence the Gaza pullout plan. Their worst nightmare would be if the Palestinian leadership stopped asking for two states and began demanding equal rights as citizens in one state. At the same time, they can't maintain the occupation forever. Instead, Israel is gradually maneuveuring towards handing control of Gaza over to Egypt, and perhaps they would like what is left of the West Bank to go to Jordan ( once they've stolen all the best bits, anyway ).

I think without a general reconciliation between the Israelis and Palestinians, which can only be achieved by sharing the land together, there will always be this conflict, though, because at the end of the day, the Palestinians suffered a grave injustice in having their land taken from them, and that won't be rectified by Two-States, Three-states, giving states to Jordan and Egypt. Part of this whole crusade in 'reforming' the Arab world is trying to make the region accept Israel. This is truth. We don't go on huge crusades trying to reform African nations. But resistance to this from the people doesn't come from their innate 'backwardness'...instead, it comes from their sense that a great injustice has been done to them, and that's not just going to go away.

I know Jews and Palestinians who really support this idea, and they are generally the more progressive. I also know Palestinians who don't like it, because they don't want to live in the same country as the enemy, and so there needs to be education on both sides, that in reality, they don't need to be enemies, and if they did live together, in one country which respected the human rights and dignity of people, and wasn't run by corrupt militiary interests...what an example to the rest of the world.

Arab armies have, on several occassions, attempted to wipe us out.

Article 1 of the PLO manifesto is to wipe us out.

Do you not think that there is a major danger that in a single state, Israelis would be attacked on a day to day basis.

If the Arabs lay down their arms we will make peace. If we lay down our arms we will be wiped out.

A single state is a ludicrous and naive idea.

Gaza and the West Bank can be connected by Israel and Egypt surrendering a corridor of land, about 2 miles long each.

There will be no single state, we are not going to allow this. So you carry on wasting your breath.

Two states will eventually be declared and that will be it. If you think that we will gladly form a single state and suffer daily attrocities, you are very wrong.

These people are crazy if they think that Israel will dismantle itself.

Do not bother discussing it with them.

There will never be one state and anyone who thinks that there can be is mad. These people believe that the Palestinian working class and the Israeli working class will get together, overthrow the leaders and dance around holding hands.

They do not understand how idiotic that view is. It is naive and moronic.

Palestinians have been brought up to hate Jews and to want to kill them. They are taught this at school and at mosque.

Two states is the only solution, then Israel can protect its borders and the Palestinians can get on with their lives.

My friend, remember "Masada shall never fall again"

Chazak v'Umatz

J&P, one state does not mean laying down your arms. Again, I point to the example of South Africa. Do the Whites in South Africa face daily atrocities? No they do not, and they are a far smaller minority. But the whites did not lay down their arms. The simply acknowledged the rights of the people they were oppressing, and ended their terrible persecution.

There is a difference between that, and laying down your arms, bowing your head, and saying 'Do with us what you will'.

But your world view is so paranoid, that you don't believe you can let up, not even for an instant, for fear of the terrible Arabs, who's greatest wish is not, of course, to try and live a good, happy life, but to kill all the Jews, because, well, everyone knows what bloodthirsty maniacs the Arabs are. Innately violent, just like the blacks, no?

I'm telling you, you would be far more secure in one state with the Palestinians, which is in any case what you essentially have, than in adopting the two state solution, which will leave a lingering injustice, and the conditions in the later Arab world to try and win back the land that was taken from them.
Remember the Crusades? There was a Crusader State there for about 100 years. At times they made peace with some of their arab neighbours that were divided against each other. And then one day, the Arab world united and kaput...the end of that little exercise.

Anyway, I believe that one state is going to inevitably come. The two state solution, if it actually comes through negotiation with Abbas, will lead merely to a situation like during Oslo, with Palestinians completely economically dependent on Israel, and a source of cheap labour. This will especially true if Israel attempts to keep the farmland and water resources it has stolen with the wall. Palestine as it looks at the moment...I just can't see how it could possibly develop with all the resources that have been stolen from it.
So it will lead to a situation which will be much more akin to what apartheid was like in South Africa, and the unrest will continue. Eventually, it will be seen that the only peaceful solution to the conflict will be the one state solution, where the two peoples will have to live together and share the land.

And you don't accept it now and I don't expect you to. I think we've argued enough times to know we can't change the others mind. But I don't see you putting forward any other solution that leads towards anything other than laying down the pieces for further conflict. You may get a temporary two-state solution where Arab governments accept the existence of Israel and promise not to attack...for a while. But in their hearts, the Arabs will know they were cheated out of their land. The balance of power only needs to slip for an instant and BAM! I will be heading off with the ISM once again, only this time, trying to stop Arab soldiers shooting Israeli children.

So use your head and your foresight. A one state solution does not mean surrender, and does not mean laying down your arms. It means coming to a just, peaceful and sustainable solution. It protects the Jews far more than hiding behind concrete walls surrounded by outraged, angry masses. It gives an example to the rest of the world. It puts an end to the ugly notion that the Jews cannot live with other races, because the world is inherently anti-semitic. It will give some hope to the millions of people who look to that region as the centre of their religious faith, and weep that it is in a state of perpetual war. It offers so much more, and risks so much less, and all that holds you back is your paranoia and fear.

One state should be the ideal out come for both sides. It would represent total and utter exceptence on both sides.

Yes, it would mean re-education ATLEAST 12 million people, but isn't that better than suffering from attacks?

Yes, it would take longer to achieve than a 2 State Solution, or is that worse than suffering from attacks?

If a two state solution happens, then do you think that will protect the people who live in Israel? Do you think that will stop attacks from the Palestinian resistance!

A two state solution is really a quick fix solution! to get a long lasting solution!

Let say Israel was a Christian state, it still would suffer from attacks in the current climate! it's nothing to do with Israel being a Jewish State! It's nothing to do with hatred towards Jews!

What is better! the world excepting everyone, OR groups of people hate for no justifiable reason!

As a human, i hate anytype of discrimination against ANYONE!

J&P, Please justify your ideas of a two state solution and why you believe it will work!

We do not suggest that the Arabs are bloodthirsty - I pointed to the historical fact that the Arab nations have, on several occassions launched brutal wars against Israel (who they vastly outnumbered) with the stated aim of pushing us into the sea.

So your suggestion that Arabs are inately bloodthirsty just like blacks is your predjudice not mine; I hold with neither of those views. But then I stated that you were a vicious twisted racist some time ago Hermes who can only put up with Jews if they are suffering and you can pity us.

Comparing Apartheid S Africa and Israel is typical Josef Goebels big lie theory - tell it enough and we will all believe it. But then you share another Nazi view dont you Hermes?

Israel grants full rights to its Arab citizens, the same as to the Israelis; Arab MKs sit in the Knesset and may sit in Government.

It is other races and nations who, over many abhorent incidents, over many centuries, have proven that they are unprepared to live with Jews. Not the other way round. We have offered our best services and support to any state we have ever lived in and on too many occassions have been slaughtered for no reason but sheer hatred. So we would love to live with our neighbours - but it is those who baselessly hate us who need the education.

Anyway - you carry on calling for the destruction of Israel - it is just not going to happen. However you think we will give it up is ludicrous. Two states are realistic, one state will never occur.

When you go to the West Bank and you see there are settler roads that only Israelis can drive along, through Palestinian territory, that makes me think of South Africa. When you see settlers beating and abusing Palestinian farmers on the own land, that makes me think of South Africa. When you see an indigenous population being driven into smaller and smaller territories by a colonising power, that makes me think of South Africa. The comparison is apt, but you don't accept it because you talk only about the Arab citizens in Israel. They are not the ones being placed under militiary occupation ( though their situation is far from ideal as well ). But actually, I think the comparison to South Africa is not quite correct, because the blacks were wanted in South Africa, as a source of cheap labour, much like the situation in Israel-Palestine during Oslo, with Palestinians bussing in to work in petrol stationsand the like.

Now the Palestinians are simply not wanted full stop, and the situation is more akin to the native americans in US history, with the indigenous people having their land stolen, driven into a smaller area, settlement encroachment stealing their land, being driven into yet a smaller area. That is the current model of the situation.

Finally...Grow up? I guess you think you live in the real world 'guess what, the world is tough, and your ideas of sharing are childish'. No. You live in a paranoia and nationalistic driven delusion, that believes that no one understands you, and could possibly share a land with you. But this delusion becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. If you base all your decisions and actions on the idea that 'noone can possibly accept the Jews, except when they're being oppressed', then you will lead yourself to a situation where you a surrounded by people who hate you, trapped in a tiny piece of land. Ideas such as justice, fairness, compassion are not just childish concepts. They exist to enable us to try and live in this world without killing each other over something that is nothing more than a patch of land the size of Wales. If you don't understand that, then it is you who have not grown up. I got through my dark, moody, selfish phase when I was 19 years old.

I will keep wasting my breath, because maybe someone will listen. Eventually, the logical solution is all that remains after people have done all in their power to avoid it. You can try and perpetuate this conflict forever with empty promises of two states, the second state of which keeps getting smaller and smaller and smaller. But short of exterminating the Palestinians, I don't see any way you can avoid assimilating them. I see the settlements in the West Bank appearing and growing. I don't see the larger ones going anywhere. In a sense, Israel has already undone herself, and it's a matter of whether the fair and just solution can be reached quickly, or whether the middle-east has to put up with another 50 years of bloodshed first.

Well done J&P - a complete inablility to argue for your position, an attempt to deflect a POV by bringing in Mr. Gooballs, and a complete misrepresentation of the position of Israeli Arabs.

Remind us how an Israeli Arab gets a permit to build a house.

On second thoughts, don't bother.......

The comparison to Goebels was the big lie theory.

The comparison with Apartheid is ludicrous. Israeli Arabs enjoy full civil liberties.

I accused Hermes of racism as suggestion that balcks and arabs are bloodthirsty was something in his mind. He tried to put the words in my mouth, whereas I find the comment abhorrent.

The Israeli only roads do not exist. The roads between the fence are military only and are to protect from terrorists.

An Israeli Arab may buy land in exactly the same way as an Israeli, there are many Arab villages or Arab Israelis may live in other villages. There are no restrictions on where they live and buying land is just the same rules and procedures as for an Isreali.

However ask how a Jew buys land in Iran, Saudi, Syria or Lebanon - you can't we are not allowed and I have many freinds in the UK and Israel who had their land taken and were expelled.

No compensation has ever been offered.

Were you on the streets demanding a right to return for the Jews kicked out of Iran when the Shah was deposed. Did you demand equal rights for Jews in Syria who were imprisoned without trial. Did you hell - and I wonder why?

Hmm, it is "a big lie" to compare Israel to Apartheid South Africa, and you didn't bring Goebels in to deflect that point of view.

Your explanation of why it is a lie seems to be missing - would you like to post it again?

In the meantime, I'm afraid I'm going to join in with the "big lie" by arguing that there are valid comparisons to be made, and I'm going to do it by posting a statements by South Africans, who, as it goes, understand a little bit about Apartheid. Handily it also brings into question your astounding claim that:

"An Israeli Arab may buy land in exactly the same way as an Israeli, there are many Arab villages or Arab Israelis may live in other villages. There are no restrictions on where they live and buying land is just the same rules and procedures as for an Isreali."
As I've started dealing with it, I'll do it first:

Can you by any chance explain this EXTREMELY recent report in Haaretz?:  http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/525009.html

"More than 70 percent of the state's Jewish citizens object to allocating lands owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) to Arabs, according to a survey initiated by the JNF. Over the past few days the High Court has been discussing a petition on that issue filed by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI); Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel; and the Arab Center for Alternative Planning.

The petitioners are requesting the annulment of the Israel Land Administration's policy that allocates state lands to the JNF. Arabs cannot participate in tenders in which land owned by the JNF is marketed."

I'm going to be so bold as to suggest that your claim is not actually based on fact at all, and that the last sentence quoted actually proves that.

So, on to my South African friends at  http://tinyurl.com/6rbtx

Heres an excerpt, you can read the rest for yourself at the link.

"Israel is, simply, an Apartheid state. Apartheid laws, such as the pass system and influx control, bantustans, job reservation, bantu education and laws resulting in unequal resource allocation live on. As one South African journalist wrote after visiting Israel: “In both countries [apartheid South Africa and apartheid Israel] ‘subordinate races’ were dispossessed of their land and crowded into marginal, drought-stricken ghettoes; their movement was restricted; access to education and skilled jobs limited so that they inevitably sank into a pool of low wage labour. In both societies, bans on inter-marriage and daily lives segregated by race did little to dispel the fear and ignorance that feeds racial bigotry.”

And heres what they say about Arabs buying land in Israel:

"We acknowledge the theft of the land and realise how today the Jewish National Fund, a member of the World Zionist Organisation, administers 93% of the land of Israel. To live on land, lease it, sharecrop or work on it, one must establish four generations of maternal Jewish descent. In Israel, such a lineage is necessary in order to enjoy elementary rights. We cannot mistake the quintessentially racist character of such a state. Israel is an apartheid state, founded on pillage and predicated on exclusivity. Rights flow from ethnic and religious identity."

Goebels indeed!!!

Your claim about Israeli only roads, are you sticking with that as well? I can provide evidence that says it is another lie. I'm actually wondering if you have any understanding of the thing it is that you seek to defend!!!

Now you want to pull the "they did it" number, right. You want to complain that Jews were expelled from Iran in 1979.

You are right - it was wrong. People should not be discriminated against on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, gender, disability, age, size or looks.

If you can see that it was wrong, why do you defend it when it happens to someone else?

Why not oppose any acts by anybody who picks on someone because they're different?

J&P, either you're lying now, or you just don't know the facts.

There ARE Israeli only roads, the settler roads, that link to the illegal settlements in the West Bank. There are heavy penalties for any Palestinians caught using them. Actually, I have been on them in an Israeli taxi. ( actually, I admit to riding on them in a Palestinian families car, as well, ducking off onto all manner of side roads when neccessary ).

Here is a good link. It has other good comparisons to apartheid as well.  http://www.pchrgaza.org/facts/fact3.htm
Freedom of movement. After the Oslo accords, Israel built “bypass roads” (off-limits to Palestinians) to link settlements to Israel, disrupting the contiguity of Palestinian areas. At intersections with Palestinian roads, the Israeli army sometimes stops all Palestinian traffic for Israeli motorists. Moreover, Palestinian construction is prohibited in a buffer zone along these roads. In the West Bank alone, there are 340.8km of bypass roads, which, with buffer zones, cover 51 square kilometers. Settlers can commute to and from Israel with ease, while Palestinians must encounter checkpoints simply to visit neighbouring communities.

This from  http://www.jfjfp.org/factsheets/arabsinisrael.htm
on how the system of buying land is deeply prejudiced against Arab citizens.

Settling Public Lands
The state has long maintained a policy of continually establishing new settlements for Jews only (often to act as wedges among concentrations of Palestinian Arab communities e.g. in the Galilee). This activity is coordinated principally by the Jewish Agency, rather than by the government. The settlements are established for Jews only (even when they are on public land) and Palestinian Arab citizens are not allowed to move there.

Public land is administered by the Israel Land Authority (ILA). As a public body it has a legal obligation not to discriminate against citizens, yet ILA limits the land available for development for the benefit of the Palestinian Arab community in many ways, for example by:

a) Use of the Jewish National Fund

Jews in the diaspora, who have traditionally collected funds for the JNF, have little idea as to how it is used to discriminate against Arab Israelis. For instance, land adjacent to Palestinian Arab communities is transferred to JNF ownership and then, by the Fund's constitution, can only be used by Jews.

In 2000 in the Ka'adan case, for the very first time the Supreme Court ruled that the Zionist state could not discriminate between Palestinians and Jews in the allocation of land within Israel, whether the agency involved was the Israel Lands Administration (ILA) or the Jewish Agency (JA).

Despite this ruling, the Ka'adans have still not been able to build the home they first planned in 1995. Bureaucratic procedures have been used to block its implementation of the court's decision. As ACRI put it in a press release in 2003 : 'State Agencies openly and intentionally violate Supreme Court ruling'

b) Limiting jurisdiction by

(1) Creating regional councils in Arab areas on which Jews predominate

(2) Restricting the size of Arab towns or areas unreasonably

e.g. Nazareth has been limited to 14,200 dunams for 60,000 people, while the nearby Jewish town of Nazerat Illit has 34,000 dunams for 45,000 people - and a significant proportion of that land was originally Nazareth land.

c) Zoning

Land zoning, already mentioned as a way of sharing money out unfairly, is also used to prevent Palestinian Arab communities from expanding by limiting the land that can be built on, or even by denying some communities' right to exist, as in the case of the unrecognised villages (see below). Rezoning of land for Arab development is virtually unknown.




Finally, your comment about 'Where was I' when the Shah and Syria and Arab countries were acting against their Jewish populations is a bit much to ask of me, since I wasn't even born!!! However, I will make it a priority to build a time machine, go backwards in time, and protest. And I would. I don't believe it is right to discriminate against people on the basis of their race. If the tables completely turned, and suddenly the Arabs had reconquered Israel, and were conducting the same sort of atrocities against the Israelis as Israel is doing to the Palestinians, I would be working and protesting against that. We would even end up on the same demos together, ironically enough.

But finally, actually, I am sorry to put racist words in your mouth, because that's never a good way to argue, and I am glad you find those particular words abominable, because I have heard them from zionist supporters. But I do believe that idea and that fear plays itself out in Israeli, and in fact Western pyschology. That somehow those darker skinned, 'more primitive' people can't be trusted on an equal footing with us. Give them half a chance and they'll kill us all, because of their primitiveness and fanaticism. Even when it's not blatant, it is implicit in your argument against a one state solution. Again, this case was the same in South Africa. It's the case here in Venezuela, actually, where the rich are terrified of the poor becoming more equal, for fear of some dark, uncontrollable, primitive revenge manifesting itself.

You have to ask yourself, just what are you scared of? And is that fear in fact making the position you support more racist, and leading to greater conflict, by not treating the other as an equal partner in this perilous conflict? By in fact, keeping them at a distance, grinding them under your heel, and trying to impose solutions on them that are unjust and undignified? You need to seriously think about those questions.

For not the first time, a post I have put on has been removed.

Independant Media, free speech - about as free as under Lenin or Stalin.

I merely commented that JNF does not own all the land in Israel - though it does own many sites of historical interest and various nature reserves.

Most land has been bought by the people living on it. I own my house and I am free to sell it to whomever I wish; jew or arab.

So J&P was quite correct in his assertions.

I also said I have a S African friend jailed in the anti apartheid struggle by the De Clerk regime and he will agree that your comparisons are untrue and designed to cause hatred only.

If you want to treat everyone equally, then stop singling us out as terrible perpetrators when the abuses carried out by many other nations, Syria , Iran, Iraq, Angola, Rwanda, China, Russia, Somalia, DRC, Sudan are deplorable and face no criticism from you.

Your obsession with the Jewish state, whose actions are to defend herself, is clearly indicative of your twisted vile racist persona.

While we're bringing up famous South Africans and their opinion about Israel.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1957644.stm

South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu has accused Israel of practising apartheid in its policies towards the Palestinians.
The Nobel peace laureate said he was "very deeply distressed" by a visit to the Holy Land, adding that "it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa".
In a speech in the United States, carried in the UK's Guardian newspaper, Archbishop Tutu said he saw "the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about".
The archbishop, who was a leading opponent of apartheid in South Africa, said Israel would "never get true security and safety through oppressing another people".


Israeli, I don't believe your counter to the point about Arabs being discriminated against when buying land is at all sufficient. I posted a great deal of information showing that this discrimination occurs, and if you follow the link, it leads to a Jewish organisation, which has yet more examples of this discrimination. I didn't see the post you say has been removed, though, perhaps you would care to post some facts rather than saying 'well I can sell my house to an Arab'.

Finally, about your point 'singling out Israel'. You'll find a lot of the people fighting on this issue have been active fighting against apartheid in South Africa, have been involved in East Timor Action, I know at least one involved with Free Tibet. Personally, I am actually focusing a great deal on what is happening in Latin America, to the extent I've moved out here. But you cannot deny that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has taken a central role in the world, ever since September 11th.

I want this conflict resolved, personally, because I don't want to be dragged into this hypocritical, greedy, badly thought out 'War on Terror'. We don't support Chinese, Sudanese, Iranian atrocities with our money and weapons, like we do with Israel. We don't find Tibetans flying planes into our buildings because of the unfair, uneven way we have been supporting one side over another. We are not involved with those conflicts in the same way. For example, many people working on Israel-Palestine have also been heavily involved with stopping Indonesian atrocities, by trying to stop the West selling them weapons.

As activists, we're not involved simply because we like sticking our noses into other peoples business. We're involved because, well, our governments have been complicit with what Israel is doing, and ever since September 11th, well now we're all involved whether we like it or not. I'm not going to sit back and watch the US, Britain and Israel pursuing policies that are actually putting OUR OWN LIVES at risk!!!

Peace Process
Milestones in Israel's quest for peace:


In 1918 the early Zionists reached out to the Arabs – Chaim Weizmann led the first of several missions to the area, aimed at explaining the Zionist movement’s aims to the Arabs. In March 1918 he visited Cairo to meet with leading Syrian Arab nationalists, who had been chosen by the British as representatives. Weizmann stressed the Zionists’ desire to live in harmony with the Arabs in Palestine.


In 1947 the Jewish community in Palestine accepted the U.N. Partition Plan of November 29, even though it would have established a truncated, non-contiguous Jewish state without Jerusalem and the Galilee. The Palestinian leadership and Arab governments rejected the plan and opted to use violence.


In 1948 Israel declared Independence despite Arab violence against the Jewish community. Israel’s Declaration of Independence of May 14 included an offer to the Palestinian residents of “full and equal citizenship and due representation.” The Declaration also states: “We extend our hand in peace to all the neighbouring states and their people.”


In 1949 Israel signed Armistice Agreements after winning the War of Independence against five invading Arab armies and the Palestinians. The agreements included territorial concessions to the Arab countries despite their refusal to sign peace treaties with Israel. Israel also offered to repatriate 100,000 Arab refugees, to allow the return of family members separated by war, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks and to pay compensation for abandoned land. The Arab states rejected the offer.


In 1957 Israel pulled out of Egyptian land. After capturing the Gaza Strip and most of the Sinai from Egypt in October 1956, Israel withdrew from these areas in early March in return for U.S. security guarantees.


In 1967 just nine days after the end of the Six-day War, the Israeli cabinet decided to withdraw from the Sinai and the Golan Heights in return for peace. Egypt and Syria both rejected the offer.


In 1968 Israel accepted U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967, which calls on Israel to withdraw “from territories occupied” in the Six-Day War.


In 1974 Israel signed a disengagement agreement with Egypt according to which it is required to withdraw its forces from positions west of the Suez Canal that is captured during the Yom Kippur War in 1973. In a similar agreement with Syria, Israel withdrew its forces from all areas beyond the Golan, as well as from a narrow strip in the eastern Golan, including its capital, Kuneitra. In both agreements Israel accepted the imposition of a U.N. force between it and the two Arab countries.


In 1975 Israel signed a second disengagement agreement with Egypt in September according to which Israel withdrew its forces from the Suez Canal and a large part of the Sinai in return for a three-year non-belligerency pledge.


In 1978 Israel signed the Camp David Accords with Egypt. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat reached this historic agreement at a summit held by US President Jimmy Carter. This agreement is a declaration of principles under which Israel agreed to withdraw from the entire Sinai in return for a peace treaty and to establish autonomy for the Palestinian residents of the West Bank and Gaza.


In 1979 Israel signed a peace treaty with Egypt, the first between Israel and an Arab country, on March 26. Israel completed its withdrawal from Sinai on April 25, 1982.


In 1988 Israel withdrew from Taba and returned it to Egypt on September 29.


In 1991 a conference was convened in Madrid (October) to inaugurate direct peace talks. Bilateral negotiations were conducted between Israel and Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinians, as well as multilateral talks on key regional issues. These negotiations were laid the foundations to the Israel-Jordan peace agreement.


In 1993 Israel signed the Declaration of Principles with the PLO on September 13. Israel recognised the PLO and agreed in principle to re-deploy its forces from various parts of the West bank and Gaza where Palestinian self-government was to be established. In May 1994 Israel agreed to partially implement the Oslo Accords and redeployed from most of Gaza and Jericho. Palestinian leaders and security forces took over the evacuated areas.


In 1994 Israel and Jordan signed a formal peace agreement in October.


In 1995 Under the Interim Agreement, signed with the PLO on September 28, Israel re-deployed its forces from most West Bank cities and villages. Israel handed over 27 percent of the West Bank, including more than 90 percent of the Palestinian population.


In 1997 Israel agreed in January to re-deploy from 80 percent of Hebron, negotiate a safe passage for the Palestinians from the West Bank to Gaza and to open a Palestinian airport in Gaza.


In 1998 Israel signed the Wye agreement on October 23, in which Israel agreed to a phased re-deployment from additional West Bank territory. The result was the total handing of 40 percent over to the Palestinians.


In 1999 Israel signed the Sharm el-Sheik agreement to implement the Wye accord, despite Palestinian violations, and to enter into permanent status negotiations, in which Israel was to make further concessions.


In 2000 Israel offered Syria, through US President Clinton, a full withdrawal from the Golan to the 1923 International border in return for a peace treaty and security arrangements. Syrian President Hafez Assad rejected the offer. In 2000 Israel withdrew unilaterally from southern Lebanon under U.N. Security Resolution 425.


In 2000 Israel presented generous offers to the Palestinians at the Camp David Summit (July). Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat 92 percent of the West Bank, all of Gaza, Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem, a Palestinian state and the dismantling of most settlements. Arafat rejected this offer and opted for violence, resulting in the September 2000 Palestinian uprising. Despite the violence Israel was still willing to negotiate with Arafat. In December Barak and Clinton negotiated a proposal for an Israeli withdrawal from 95 percent of the West Bank. Arafat rejected this offer.


In 2001 Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met at Taba, Egypt. Israel agreed to offer more concessions to the Palestinians, going further than the Clinton proposal of 2000, despite the continuing violence. Arafat, once again, blocked his negotiators from reaching an agreement.


In 2001 Israel accepted the Mitchell Committee report calling for a total settlement freeze following the cessation of Palestinian violence. Israel declared a unilateral cease-fire however the Palestinian violence continued.


In 2002 Israel welcomed US President Bush’s Middle East speech, from June 24, which presented his vision of a Palestinian state beside Israel, subject to reforms in the Palestinian Authority.


In 2003 the Road Map to Middle East peace was presented to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and to the Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen (April 30 2003). The Road Map, drafted by the U.S., Russia, the E.U. and the U.N., is a proposal, designed to establish peace in the Middle East. It sets a series of phases, timelines, target dates and benchmarks aimed at bringing Israelis and Palestinians toward the ultimate goal of a comprehensive and permanent settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by 2005. It calls for a Palestinian state that exists in peace with Israel, with an end to violence and terrorism. It also calls for progress toward regional peace by 2005, with normal relations between Israel and Arab states. The roadmap is performance-based and is aimed at progress through reciprocal steps by the two sides in the political, security, economic, humanitarian and institution-building fields. (please see the BICOM website for more information on the Road Map.)


Israel's quest for peace - overview:

The State of Israel has sought peace with its neighbours through direct negotiations since its establishment in 1948. Efforts to open direct channels of dialogue were not met by similar efforts on the Arab side. Until the 1991 Madrid Conference, only Egypt had accepted Israel's offer to negotiate face-to-face. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat accepted Prime Minister Begin's invitation for dialogue, and the two countries embarked on historic bilateral negotiations, which led to the 1978 Camp David Accords and the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty. Since then, peace has prevailed on the Israeli-Egyptian border and cooperation between the two states has been growing.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the Gulf War produced a change in the basic political order of the Middle East, prompting the Arab world to reassess its attitude toward Israel and to enter into negotiations to build a new future for the Middle East. In May 1989, Israel presented a new peace initiative.

In October 1991, a conference was convened in Madrid to inaugurate direct peace talks. Bilateral negotiations were conducted between Israel and Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinians, as well as multilateral talks on key regional issues. These negotiations have resulted in a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, and a series of interim agreements with the Palestinians.

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process only began after Yasser Arafat agreed to pursue peace and crack down on violence. Since the beginning of the Oslo peace process in 1993, Israel and the Palestinians have negotiated a series of interim agreements that have resulted in mutual recognition; Israeli redeployment from areas of Gaza and the West Bank; the establishment of a Palestinian self-governing authority in these areas; Palestinian commitments to eliminate terrorism and resolve conflicts through peaceful means.

In a letter to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin from September 9, 1993, Arafat pledged to recognize “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security” and committed the PLO to “a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides.” He said that “all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations” and declared that “the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations, and discipline violators.”

After receiving these promises Israel agreed to enter negotiations and to trade land for peace. On September 28, 1995, the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was signed in Washington, D.C. This agreement, which marks the conclusion of the first stage in negotiations between Israel and the PLO, incorporates and supersedes the Gaza-Jericho and early empowerment agreements.

The main object of the Interim Agreement was to broaden Palestinian self-government in the West Bank by means of an elected self-governing authority -- the Palestinian Council. Allowing the Palestinians to conduct their own internal affairs, reduce points of friction between Israelis and Palestinians, and open a new era of cooperation and co-existence based on common interest, dignity and mutual respect. At the same time protecting Israel's vital interests, and in particular its security interests, both with regard to external security as well as the personal security of its citizens in the West Bank.

The Interim Agreement between Israel and the PLO, including its various annexes, comprises over 300 pages. To the main body of the agreement are appended seven annexes dealing with: security arrangements, elections, civil affairs (transfer of powers), legal matters, economic relations, Israeli-Palestinian cooperation, and the release of Palestinian prisoners.


Over the years the regional peace negotiations have been based on two UN Security Council Resolutions – 242 and 338:

U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 - November 22, 1967: Following the June '67, Six-Day War, the situation in the Middle East was discussed by the UN General Assembly, which referred the issue to the Security Council. After lengthy discussion, the British Ambassador, Lord Caradon, presented a final draft for a Security Council resolution on November 22, 1967. It was adopted on the same day. The 242 resolution established provisions and principles, which were hoped, would lead to a solution of the conflict. Resolution 242 was to become the cornerstone of Middle East diplomatic efforts in the coming decades:

"The Security Council, Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East, Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security, emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter, affirms that the fulfilment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East, which should include the application of both the following principles: Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; 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; Affirms further the necessity for guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem; For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area through measures including the establishment of demilitarised zones; Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution; Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible."

U.N. Security Council Resolution 338 - October 22, 1973: In the later stages of the Yom Kippur War -- after Israel thwarted the Syrian attack on the Golan Heights and established a bridgehead on the Egyptian side of the Suez Canal international efforts to stop the fighting were intensified. US Secretary of State Kissinger flew to Moscow on October 20, and, together with the Soviet Government, the US proposed a cease-fire resolution in the UN Security Council. The Council met on 21 October at the urgent request of both the US and the USSR, and by 14 votes to none, adopted the following resolution:

"The Security Council Calls upon all parties to present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, no later than 12 hours after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions after the moment of the adoption of this decision, in the positions they now occupy; Calls upon all parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts; Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire, negotiations start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East."


Arab – Israeli Negotiations and Agreements:

Camp David I Accords – September 17, 1978
The Camp David talk, convened by US President Carter brought together Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to negotiate a framework agreement that led to the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement (signed in 1979). In the framework agreement Israel agreed to commit to a full withdrawal from Sinai and to offer autonomy to the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza (this offer was rejected) in return for a formal peace treaty with Egypt.

Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty – March 26, 1979
This marked the first formal peace treaty between Israel and any Arab country. The agreement was signed in Washington by Begin, Sadat and Carter. The peace treaty led to a full Israeli withdrawal from Sinai by April 1982 in exchange for peaceful and full diplomatic relations.

Madrid Conference – October 30-November 1, 1991
Organised by US President George Bush and US Secretary of State James Baker in collaboration with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, the Madrid Conference was attended by Israel, Syria, Lebanon and a joint Palestinian-Jordanian delegation. This conference was the basis for the Oslo declarations of principles, inaugurating the first direct talks on bilateral and regional issues among the parties.

Israel – PLO Mutual Recognition – September 9, 1993
Yasser Arafat entered into secret and direct negotiations with Israel in Oslo which led to a mutual recognition.

Declaration of Principles – Oslo I – September 13, 1993
This declaration, signed by Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and Arafat in Washington outlined a framework for the transfer of self-governing authority to the Palestinians. Israel agreed to re-deploy troops from Jericho and the Gaza Strip and at a later stage from parts of the West Bank. The agreement included definitions of conflict issues – Jerusalem, settlements, refuges and borders - as permanent status issues, reserved for discussion at a later stage.

Israel – Jordan Peace Treaty – October 26, 1994
Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and Jordanian King Hussein alongside Prime Minister Majali signed a formal peace treaty between Israel and Jordan at the Arava desert border crossing. Provisions were made to engage in joint projects, cooperate in the war against terrorism and conclude economic issues.

Interim Agreement – Oslo II – September 28, 1995
This agreement, signed by Rabin and Arafat, committed Israel to withdrawing from six major West Bank Palestinian cities. The Palestinian Authority assumed responsibility for civil affairs and security, including the commitment to prevent terrorist attacks against Israel. The IDF retained responsibility for the safety of the citizens of Israel. Israel released numerous Palestinian prisoners who had not been involved in killing of Israelis. Israel withdrew from 27 percent of the West Bank.

The Hebron Protocol – January 15, 1997
Israel agreed to withdraw from 80 percent of Hebron while maintaining security control over 20 percent of the city. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to IDF troop redeployment, limited prisoner release, negotiation of a safe Passage between Gaza and the West Bank and the opening of an airport in Gaza. The Palestinians reaffirmed their commitment to cooperate with Israel on security issues and to combat terrorism. Netanyahu and Arafat agreed to restart the permanent-status negotiations.

Wye River Memorandum – October 23, 1998
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu agreed to a phased withdrawal from other West Bank territories in exchange for further specific Palestinian commitment to combat terrorism, including collection of illegal weapons and the nullification of the statement in the PLO charter calling for the destruction of Israel. As result of this agreement Israel withdrew from an additional 13 percent of the West Bank.

Sharam el-Sheikh Agreement – September 5, 1999
US Secretary of State Albright brought Israeli prime Minister Barak and Palestinian leader Arafat to sign a reaffirming of the commitment of both parties to the full implementation of all previous agreements. The parties agreed to discuss difficult permanent-status issues in order to reach a framework agreement within five months and the goal of signing a comprehensive agreement within a year.

The Camp David II Summit – July 11-25, 2000
Israeli Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian leader Arafat met at US president Clinton’s invitation at Camp David to discuss permanent-status issues. No formal agreement was reached. Israel presented unprecedented offers in terms of territorial compromises, Palestinian statehood, settlements, the question of Jerusalem and the refugee issue. Arafat, who did not present any counteroffers to Barak, rejected these offers.

December/January 2001 – The Taba Summit
Talks were held in Washington with Israeli and Palestinian teams hosted by President Clinton from December 19-23, 2000. The Israeli delegation was headed by Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and Prime Minister bureau chief Gilad Sher. President Clinton presented a bridging proposal to the parties. Following a meeting in Cairo between Foreign Minister Ben-Ami and Chairman Arafat, marathon talks between Israeli and Palestinian delegations were held in Taba from January 21-27, 2001, ending in a joint statement.

April/May 2001 – The Mitchell Commission
On May 11, 2001, US Secretary of State Powell declared that the Mitchell Commission Report, made public on May 15, 2001, would form the basis for continued negotiations between Israel and the PLO. In late October, 2000, US president Clinton appointed an international commission to investigate the causes of the rioting in Israel, naming an Arab American and former US Senator, George Mitchell, as its chairman, and a Jewish-American, also a former US senator, Warren Rudman, to the panel, together with three prominent European diplomats. The Mitchell Commission report did not blame Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for instigating the riots in September 2000 during his visit to the Temple Mount. However, the Commission report accepted all of the other specious PLO premises for the current PLO insurrection. The Mitchell commission accepted as a given that the PLO uprising was based on a movement for "independence and genuine self-determination", without giving credence to the clearly stated PLO goal, stated in all PLO publications, maps and media outlets, even during the current Oslo process, which remains "liberation" of all of Palestine.

June 2001 – Tenet Cease-Fire Plan
CIA Director George Tenet was sent to the Middle East in an effort to solidify a cease-fire between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and lay the groundwork for a resumption of peace talks. The security organizations of the Government of Israel (GOI) and of the Palestinian Authority (PA) reaffirm their commitment to the security agreements forged at Sharm al-Sheikh in October 2000 embedded in the Mitchell Report of April 2001. The operational premise of the work plan is that the two sides are committed to a mutual, comprehensive cease-fire, applying to all violent activities, in accordance with the public declaration of both leaders. In addition, the joint security committee referenced in this work plan will resolve issues that may arise during the implementation of this work plan. The security organizations of the GOI and PA agree to initiate the following specific, concrete, and realistic security steps immediately to re-establish security cooperation and the situation on the ground, as they existed prior to 28 September.

April 2003 - Road Map to Middle East Peace
The Road Map, drafted by the U.S., Russia, the E.U. and the U.N., is a proposal, designed to establish peace in the Middle East. It sets a series of phases, timelines, target dates and benchmarks aimed at bringing Israelis and Palestinians toward the ultimate goal of a comprehensive and permanent settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by 2005. It calls for a Palestinian state that exists in peace with Israel, with an end to violence and terrorism. It also calls for progress toward regional peace by 2005, with normal relations between Israel and Arab states. The Road Map is performance-based and is aimed at progress through reciprocal steps by the two sides in the political, security, economic, humanitarian and institution-building fields. (please see the BICOM website for more information on the Road Map.)

All this from  http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html


Regarding the UN partition plan:
Was the partition plan fair to both Arabs and Jews?

"Arab rejection was...based on the fact that, while the population of the Jewish state was to be [only half] Jewish with the Jews owning less than 10% of the Jewish state land area, the Jews were to be established as the ruling body - a settlement which no self-respecting people would accept without protest, to say the least...The action of the United Nations conflicted with the basic principles for which the world organization was established, namely, to uphold the right of all peoples to self-determination. By denying the Palestine Arabs, who formed the two-thirds majority of the country, the right to decide for themselves, the United Nations had violated its own charter." Sami Hadawi, "Bitter Harvest."

Here is a quote by David Ben-Gurion

'in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,' but he urged, 'let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.' The truth was that 'politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside'

"In internal discussion in 1938 [David Ben-Gurion] stated that 'after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine'...In 1948, Menachem Begin declared that: 'The partition of the Homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized. The signature of institutions and individuals of the partition agreement is invalid. It will not bind the Jewish people. Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (the land of Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel, All of it. And forever."

Zionists' disrespect of partition boundaries

"Before the end of the mandate and, therefore before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied...most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948. Tiberias was occupied on April 19, 1948, Haifa on April 22, Jaffa on April 28, the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30, Beisan on May 8, Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14, 1948...In contrast, the Palestine Arabs did not seize any of the territories reserved for the Jewish state under the partition resolution."

J&P

you claim that as a result of Arafat rejection of deal put forward at The Camp David Summit.

"In 2000 Israel presented generous offers to the Palestinians at the Camp David Summit (July). Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat 92 percent of the West Bank, all of Gaza, Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem, a Palestinian state and the dismantling of most settlements. Arafat rejected this offer and opted for violence, resulting in the September 2000 Palestinian uprising. Despite the violence Israel was still willing to negotiate with Arafat. In December Barak and Clinton negotiated a proposal for an Israeli withdrawal from 95 percent of the West Bank. Arafat rejected this offer."

Isn't the truth that it started after Sharon visit to the Al Asqa Mosque in Sept 2000???

Please, tell the truth, instead of rewriting history!

Sharon's visit was certainly provacative but it did not start the Intifada.

To say that is so naive that it borders on idiotic.

It is like saying Gavrillo Princip started the First World War by assassinating Franz Ferdinand, whereas it was actually the huge arms race and international treaties.

Sharon visited Temple Mount on other occassions; no intifada.

After Arafat rejected the offer of a Palestinian State (presumably as he would be unable to continue to siphon off charitable donations if a state was created)consisting of East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza; making no counter offers - and so ending negotiations, he went to President Assad, King Hussain and other Arab leaders who condemned his refusal.

So he went to the Imams and to Hamas who prepared themselves to announce Jihad.

Then Sharon went to Temple Mount.

So if you want to know who started the Intifada and who is responsible for the current leadership - look to ARAFAT!

What took place at Camp David in 2000?
The timeline of the 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum called for final status negotiations to be completed by September 13, 2000. Talks during late 1999 and the first half of 2000 led to President Clinton's invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat for a summit at Camp David, Maryland to be convened July 11, 2000.

Barak requested that Clinton call the meeting, feeling that it was important to show that Israel was committed to the Peace Process and that Israel was ready to make the necessary concessions. Barak also felt that the summit was the best place for this, rather than a public exchange of ideas that might be politically hard to constrain. The objective of the summit was to make enough progress on the final status issues so that an agreement could be put together by the September target date.

The meetings were difficult and almost ended prematurely, but President Clinton kept the parties at the negotiating table. The final status issues were the most difficult to resolve: Jerusalem, security, borders and refugees. Sessions lasted late into the nights. Under intense pressure from President Clinton, in an effort to reach a final agreement, and with promises of American support and security guarantees, Prime Minister Barak offered the most substantial concessions and far reaching proposals, going beyond all the long-standing Israeli "red lines", especially as regards Jerusalem. The US team called Barak "courageous" for these offers. When these terms were later revealed in Israel, people were stunned at the extent of the concessions Barak offered and it is unclear whether the Israeli public were prepared to support the deal. However they were never given the opportunity to endorse or reject the proposals; Arafat rejected them out of hand.

The details were not disclosed formally, but according to media reports Barak's offer included:

Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
"Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967
In return Arafat had to declare the "end of conflict" and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future. Despite the considerable concessions by Israel, Arafat chose not to negotiate, not to make a counter-offer but to just walk out. This was typical of the Palestinian leader's style: offer nothing, just say no and wait for more concessions. In fact, the Palestinian negotiating team did make concessions during the negotiating process, but Arafat himself never agreed. It was not the specific terms that caused the summit to collapse, but rather the lack of a counterproposal. In addition, Arafat continued to insist on the Palestinian demand for a "right of return" of refugees to Israel, a demand that Israel cannot accept under any peace plan since it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

The summit ended on July 25, without an agreement being reached. At its conclusion, a Trilateral Statement was issued defining the agreed principles to guide future negotiations. An optimistic summary of the event would be that difficult issues were attacked for the first time and progress was made. But, what really happened at Camp David is that Barak offered astounding compromises in an effort to close a deal while Arafat stuck to the traditional Palestinian positions. The Israelis and Palestinians both lost faith in the process: if there is no deal in this favorable environment, when could there be?

After the close of the meeting, Barak said:

Israel was ready to reach agreement at a painful price but not at any price.
Arafat made no major statement before leaving the United States, because anything he would say would force him to disagree with Clinton’s assessment that Arafat was at fault for the summit's failure. In the following weeks, the Palestinians, having lost patience with the diplomatic approach, launched the al-Aqsa intifada (September 2000).

During the fall of 2000, with the al-Aqsa intifada raging, there were several more attempts to follow-up on the Camp David negotiations, in Washington and Taba, Egypt in January 2001. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met again in Washington, but there was no progress for the same reason: Arafat and his team said no to the US-brokered Israeli proposals and had no proposals of their own to offer.

President Clinton, and others who participated, put the blame for the failure of hte talks squarely on Arafat and the Palestinian negotiators. In 2001, Clinton told guests at a party at the Manhattan apartment of former UN ambassador Richard Holbrooke that Arafat called to bid him farewell three days before he left office. "You are a great man," Arafat said. "The hell I am," Clinton said he responded. "I'm a colossal failure, and you made me one."