European Union Condemns Israel - 50,000 Turks Demonstrate

It's good to see people outraged and having the courage to speak out against the terrorist state of Israel.

How absolutely revolting and one-sided these denunciations of Israel are. with Qassam rockets coming into Israeli towns and villages each day, with a spate of suicide bombings in Israel's near history, and with
solitary hitch-hikers receiving a bullet in the head, simply because they are Israeli, the roar of the double-standatd is deafening. there are no democracies in the Middle East, save that of one nation: Israel.
Referring to Israel prjoratively, such as a terrorist state, leads all clear-thinking people to question the sanity of such authors. Israel has both the right and the duty to protect her population from the thugocracy that is the Palestinian govenment today and the likes of the mental midget Ahmadinejad of Iran, a second Hitler if there ever was one.

What a lop-sided article. If any of these writers cared theuy would invite the "palestinians" to come and live with them and give the whole of Israel back to the Jews. It belongs to them and anyone who wishes to argue with that needs to speak to the Almighty God, after all He gave the land to Israel. Fatah and Hamas needs to be called to account for their continued atrocities against Israel.

Isn't true that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East? Maybe if more countries as democratic as Israel, peace might happen in no time
(this is the typical right wing/pro-israel/pro-war myth)

There is no denying of the fact that the Middle East is mostly ruled by autocratic, oppressive, and undemocratic regimes. On the other hand, the majority of these repressive regimes were mostly founded and funded based on Israeli and American wishes. It should be noted that the most popular revolts in the Middle East have been ruthlessly crushed by American puppet regimes (whom the West often refer to by "Moderate regimes") in the area. The regimes in Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Hashemite Kingdom, Lebanon (before the civil war), Arab Gulf States, Morocco, Iran (prior to the Islamic revolution), Turkey, ... etc., were all funded and directed by the United States of America; the land of the free and the home of the brave. Sadly, many of the so called "moderate regimes" are ten times more accountable to Uncle Sam than to their own public. Ironically, if democracy truly shall serve Israel's national interests in the region, then maybe it should direct its powerful lobby in Washington, AIPAC, to start lobbying on behalf of the oppressed in the Middle East; after all promoting "democracy is the key" to a lasting peace in the Middle East?

It's worth noting that soon after the 1948 war, the undemocratic Arab regimes were the central factor in protecting the newly emerging "Jewish state". And any forms of organized local resistance against Israel, similar to Hizbullah's in southern Lebanon, was ruthlessly dealt with in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Actually, many of Israel's "moderate" Arab neighbors transplanted most Palestinian refugee camps inland away from the Israeli borders, to curb the so called Palestinian "infiltration" [ or return] back to their homes in Israel. The so called "Infiltration Problem", which faced Israel between 1949-1955, had become the most pressing and expensive challenge to face the newly emerging "Jewish state". In other words, it's not the presence, but the absence of democracy that greatly serves the Israeli interests in the region, and based on that the United States has systematically shored up these unpopular regimes against the wishes of the people (i.e. the Hashemite Kings in Jordan, the Saudi Kings in Arabia, Mubarak of Egypt, Saddam Hussein in Iraq prior to the Gulf War, and the Emirates in the Gulf States), and undermined the popularly elected governments (i.e. toppling Musadiq in Iran in the early 1950s, invading Lebanon in the late 1950s, shoring up the Hashemites in Jordan in the late 1950s, and undermining Nasser in Egypt).

It's rarely questioned, by many Israelis and Zionists, how the Jewish minority in Palestine became a majority within few months in 1948. Since the inception of Zionism, its leaders have been keen on creating a "Jewish state" based on a "Jewish majority" by mass immigration of Jews to Palestine, primarily European Jews fleeing from anti-Semitic Tsarist Russia and Nazi Germany. When a "Jewish majority" was impossible to achieve, based on Jewish immigration and natural growth, Zionist leaders (such as Ben Gurion, Moshe Sharett, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, and Chaim Weizmann) concluded that "population transfer" was the only solution to what they referred to as the "Arab Problem." Year after year, the plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous people became known as the "transfer solution". David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, eloquently articulated the "transfer solution" as the following:

In a joint meeting between the Jewish Agency Executive and Zionist Action Committee on June 12th, 1938:

"With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] .... I support compulsory transfer. I don't see anything immoral in it." (Righteous Victims p. 144).

In a speech addressing the Central Committee of the Histadrut on December 30, 1947:

"In the area allocated to the Jewish State there are not more than 520,000 Jews and about 350,000 non-Jews, mostly Arabs. Together with the Jews of Jerusalem, the total population of the Jewish State at the time of its establishment, will be about one million, including almost 40% non-Jews. such a [population] composition does not provide a stable basis for a Jewish State. This [demographic] fact must be viewed in all its clarity and acuteness. With such a [population] composition, there cannot even be absolute certainty that control will remain in the hands of the Jewish majority .... There can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a Jewish majority of only 60%." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 176 & Benny Morris p. 28)

And on February 8th, 1948 Ben-Gurion also stated to the Mapai Council:

"From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arabs. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180-181)

In a speech addressing the Zionist Action Committee on April 6th, 1948:

"We will not be able to win the war if we do not, during the war, populate upper and lower, eastern and western Galilee, the Negev and Jerusalem area ..... I believe that war will also bring in its wake a great change in the distribution of Arab population." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 181)

Click here for more "Transfer" (Ethnic Cleansing) quotes from Zionist leaders.
It's not only that the Zionists deemed it necessary to practice ETHNIC CLEANSING to build their vision of "Jewish Democracy", they have also opted to keep many Israelis in the dark by directly censoring what they read, hear, and see in the Israeli media. Martin Van Creveld (the renowned Israeli military strategist, and historian) eloquently described Israeli controlled censorship as follows:

"The [Israeli military] censor exercises draconian power over the content in the media, licenses newspapers, and fines and suspends newspapers if, in his view, they have violated secrecy. He does not have to explain the reasons for his decision; indeed one paragraph in the law obliges newspapers to publish free ads by military censor denying or correcting information that papers themselves published. . . . Thus one of the [Israeli military] censor's main functions is to keep Israelis ignorant of what everybody else knows." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 110)

"By this time [referring to the period prior to the October war in 1973] Israel's system of media self-censorship had begun to backfire. .... the media, voluntarily refraining from publishing the news, helped the IDF in its own assessment [that Arabs are incapable of going to war] and put the public to sleep." (The Sword And The Olive, p. 223)

Click here to view a Real Movie depicting Israeli censorship on newspapers, radio, and TV networks.
For the moment, let's assume that the above facts, arguments, and quotes are nonsense to the average Israeli and Zionist, and let's ask the following questions:

Are you aware that 95% of Israel's lands are open for development for "Jewish people" only?
Are you aware that the Israeli-Palestinian minority (who are close to a quarter of Israel's citizens) are restricted to 3% of land?
The implementation of these apartheid policies resulted in disenfranchising a quarter of the Israeli population, who mostly continue to live in segregate, gated, and over crowded ghettos that are plagued with high unemployment rate and suffers from lack of basic services. In fact, there are over forty plus unrecognized Palestinian-Israeli villages (within the "Green Line") that receives no public services whatsoever , such as roads, sanitation, electricity, schools, ...etc.

Finally, it's worth emphasizing that "Israeli democracy" is an incarnation of Apartheid South Africa's democracy. It also could be argued that Apartheid South Africa was for a very long time the only democracy in Africa, however, it was a democracy for the White race only. Similarly, Zionist democracy in Israel was and still is designed to empower Jews only based on their religion. At one point, Israel has to choose between being a "Democratic Jewish State" or a "Democratic State" to all of its citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike. Eventually, such a facade to democracy will self-destruct, and until it changes, the talk about "Israeli democracy" is nothing but a propaganda that makes good sound bytes in the Western and Israeli medias.

The above is a crock ! Lets go lie by lie;

1. “On the other hand, the majority of these repressive regimes were mostly founded and funded based on Israeli and American wishes.”

No that’s a simple lie. Some of these countries are traditional monarchies, i.e. Saudi Arabia and Morrocco, some were revolutionary regimes i.,e. Egypt, Iran and Turkey. None of these were “founded” by Israel or on Israeli wishes. Of course, the US funds all sorts of countries for many reasons. Each of the countries listed had a different position during the Cold War and a different relationship with the US. Its pointless to make simplistic, misleading statements like the above.

2. “It's worth noting that soon after the 1948 war, the undemocratic Arab regimes were the central factor in protecting the newly emerging "Jewish state". And any forms of organized local resistance against Israel, similar to Hizbullah's in southern Lebanon, was ruthlessly dealt with in Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.”

Actually, many of Israel's "moderate" Arab neighbors harbored and supported Palestinian “Feyadeen” guerilla raids during Israel’s early years.

3. " Year after year, the plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its indigenous people became known as the "transfer solution".

That’s actually two lies. The second lie is that the Palestinians, themselves relatively recent immigrants of their descendants, are in anyway the”indigenous” people. The first lie is that the early Zionists all encouraged the idea of transfer. A plethora of evidence exists demonstrating that Palestinians were encouraged in 1948 to leave their homes to make way for the invading Arab armies of five Arab nations.

The Economist, a frequent critic of the Zionists, reported on October 2, 1948: "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

Time's report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) was similar: "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city....By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."

Benny Morris, the historian who documented instances where Palestinians were expelled, also found that Arab leaders encouraged their brethren to leave. The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: "Any opposition to this order...is an obstacle to the holy war...and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts" (Middle Eastern Studies, January 1986).

Morris also said that in early May units of the Arab Legion reportedly ordered the evacuation of all women and children from the town of Beisan. The Arab Liberation Army was also reported to have ordered the evacuation of another village south of Haifa. The departure of the women and children, Morris says, "tended to sap the morale of the menfolk who were left behind to guard the homes and fields, contributing ultimately to the final evacuation of villages. Such two-tier evacuation — women and children first, the men following weeks later — occurred in Qumiya in the Jezreel Valley, among the Awarna bedouin in Haifa Bay and in various other places."

Who gave such orders? Leaders like Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, who declared: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."

The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah, wrote in his book, The Arabs: "This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to reenter and retake possession of their country."

In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:
“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.”

"The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two," Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada al-Janub (August 16, 1948). "Their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile."

On April 3, 1949, the Near East Broadcasting Station (Cyprus) said: "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem."

"The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies," according to the Jordanian newspaper Filastin (February 19, 1949).

One refugee quoted in the Jordan newspaper, Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954), said: "The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in."

"The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade," said Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951). "He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down."

The Arabs' fear was naturally exacerbated by fabricated stories of Jewish atrocities following the attack on Deir Yassin. The native population lacked leaders who could calm them; their spokesmen, such as the Arab Higher Committee, were operating from the safety of neighboring states and did more to arouse their fears than to pacify them. Local military leaders were of little or no comfort. In one instance the commander of Arab troops in Safed went to Damascus. The following day, his troops withdrew from the town. When the residents realized they were defenseless, they fled in panic.

According to Dr. Walid al-Qamhawi, a former member of the Executive Committee of the PLO, "it was collective fear, moral disintegration and chaos in every field that exiled the Arabs of Tiberias, Haifa and dozens of towns and villages."

As panic spread throughout Palestine, the early trickle of refugees became a flood, numbering more than 200,000 by the time the provisional government declared the independence of the State of Israel.


4. “Are you aware that 95% of Israel's lands are open for development for "Jewish people" only?”

Simply a lie. What’s referred to is that 95% of Israelis available for lease only to any Israeli citizen, regardless of religion.

5"Are you aware that the Israeli-Palestinian minority (who are close to a quarter of Israel's citizens) are restricted to 3% of land?”

Once again, simply a lie. Israel’s Arab citizens serve as judges, in Knesset etc. There are no such restrictions.

Webster's New World Dictionary defines democracy as, among other things, “the principle of equality of rights, opportunity and treatment, or the practice of this principle”. Keep this in mind, as we'll be coming back to it shortly.

Now, imagine that the United States abolished its constitution, or perhaps had never had one to begin with. No Bill of Rights. No guarantees of things like free speech, freedom of assembly and due process of law.

And imagine if Congress passed a law stating that the US was from this point forward to be legally defined as a “Christian nation”. As such, Christians would be given special privileges for jobs, loans and land ownership, and Christians from anywhere in the world would be given preference in immigration, extended automatic citizenship upon coming to America.

Furthermore, imagine if political candidates espousing certain beliefs — especially those who might argue that the US should be a nation with equal rights for all, and not a “Christian nation” — were no longer allowed to hold office, or even run for election.

Imagine that laws were passed that had the effect of restricting certain ethnic and religious groups from acquiring land in particular parts of the country, and made it virtually impossible for members of ethnic minorities to live in particular communities.

And imagine that in response to perceived threats to America's internal security, new laws sailed through Congress, providing for torture of those detained for suspected subversion. This, on top of still other laws providing for the detention of such suspects for long periods of time without trial or even a formal charge against them.

In such a scenario, would anyone with an appreciation of the English language, and with the above definition in mind, dare suggest that we would be justified in calling America a democracy?

Jewish state
Of course not: and yet the term is repeatedly used to describe Israel — as in “the only democracy in the Middle East”. This, despite the fact that Israel has no constitution; despite the fact that Israel is defined as the state of the Jewish people, providing special rights and privileges to anyone in the world who is Jewish and seeks to live there, over and above longtime Arab residents. This, despite the fact that Israel bars any candidate from holding office who thinks the country should be a secular, democratic state with equal rights for all. This, despite the fact that non-Jews are restricted in terms of how much land they can own, and in which places they can own land at all, thanks to laws granting preferential treatment to Jewish residents. This, despite that fact that even the Israeli Supreme Court has acknowledged the use of torture against suspected “terrorists” and other “enemies” of the Jewish state.

For some, it is apparently sufficient that Israel has an electoral system, and that Arabs have the right to vote in those elections (though just how equally this right is protected is of course a different matter). The fact that one can't vote for a candidate who questions the special Jewish nature of the state, because such candidates can't run for or hold office, strikes most as irrelevant — hardly enough for them to call into question Israel's democratic credentials.

If what we see in Israel is indeed democracy, then what does fascism look like?

I'm sorry, but I am over it. As a Jew, I am over it. And if my language seems too harsh here, that's tough. Because it's nothing compared to the sickening things said by Israeli leaders throughout the years. Like former prime minister Menachem Begin, who told the Knesset in 1982 that the Palestinians were “beasts walking on two legs”. Or former PM Ehud Barak, who offered a more precise form of dehumanisation when he referred to the Palestinians as “crocodiles”.

Speaking of Barak, in his April 14 op-ed in the New York Times, he insisted that democracy in Israel could be “maintained”, so long as the Jewish state was willing to set up security fences to separate itself from the Palestinians, and keep the Palestinians in their place. Calling the process “unilateral disengagement”, Barak opined that limiting access by Arabs to Israel is the key to maintaining a Jewish majority, and thus the Jewish nature of the state. That the Jewish nature of the state is inimical to democracy as defined by every dictionary in the world matters not, one supposes.

Barak even went so far as to warn that in the absence of such security fences, Israel might actually become an apartheid state. Imagine that — unless they institute separation they might become an apartheid state. The irony of such a statement is nearly perfect, and once again signals that words no longer have meaning.

Barak's `generous offer'
Interestingly, amidst the subterfuge, other elements of Barak's essay struck me as surprisingly honest — much more honest, in fact, than anything he had said while he was prime minister, during which time he supposedly made that “generous offer” to Yasser Arafat about which we keep hearing. You know, the one that would have allowed the maintenance of most Jewish settlements in the territories, and would have restricted the Palestinian state to the worst land, devoid of its own water supply, and cut off at numerous choke points by Israeli security. Yeah, that one. The one that has been described variously (without any acknowledgement of the inconsistency) as having offered the Palestinians either 93%, or is it 95% or maybe 96% or perhaps 98% of the West Bank and Gaza.

In the Times piece, Barak finally came clean, admitting that Israel would need to erect the fences in such a manner as to incorporate at least one-quarter of the territories into Israel, so as to subsume the settlements. So not 93%, or 96 or 98, but at best 75%, and still on the worst land. Furthermore, the fences would slice up Jerusalem and restrict Arab access to the Holy Basin and the Old City — a direct swipe at Muslims who seek access on a par with their fellow descendants of Abraham.

That this was Barak's idea all along should surprise no-one. And that such a “solution” would mean the final loss for the Palestinians of all but 17% of their pre-Israel territory will likely not strike many in the US media or political elite as being terribly unfair. If anything, we will continue to hear about the intransigence of the Arabs, and their unwillingness to accept these “generous offers”, which can only be seen as generous to a people who have become so inured to human suffering that their very souls are in jeopardy.

Or to those who have never consulted a dictionary — which defines generous as, “willing to give or share; unselfish; large; ample; rich in yield; fertile”. In a world such as this, where words have lost all meaning, we might as well just burn all the dictionaries.

Sometimes, the linguistic obfuscation goes beyond single words and begins to encompass entire phrases. One such example is the oft-repeated statement to the effect that “Jews should be able to live anywhere in the world, and to say otherwise is to endorse anti-Semitism”. Thus, it is asked, why shouldn't Jews be able to settle in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem?

Whoever says such a thing must know of its absurdity beforehand. The right to live wherever one chooses has never included the right to live in someone else's house, after taking it by force or fraud. Nor does it include the right to set up house in territories that are conquered and occupied as the result of military conflict. Indeed, international law expressly forbids such a thing. And furthermore, those who insist on the right of Jews to live wherever they choose, by definition deny the same right to Palestinians, who cannot live in the place of their choosing, or even in the homes that were once theirs.

Needless to say, many Palestinians would like to live inside Israel's pre-1948 borders, and exercise a right of return in order to do so. But don't expect those who demand the right for Jews to plant stakes anywhere we choose to offer the same right to Arabs. Many of these are among the voices that insist Jordan is “the Palestinian state”, and thus, Palestinians should be perfectly happy living there.

Since Palestinians are Semites, one could properly call such an attitude “anti-Semitic” — seeing as how it limits the rights of Semitic peoples to live wherever they wish — but given the transmogrification of the term “anti-Semitism” into something that can only apply to Jew-hatred, such a usage would seem bizarre to many.

Terrorism
The rhetorical shenanigans even extend to the world of statistics. Witness the full-page advertisement in the New York Times placed by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which ran the same day as the Barak op-ed. Therein, these supposed spokespeople for American Judaism stated their unyielding support for Israel, and claimed that the 450 Israeli deaths caused by terrorism since the beginning of the second intifada, were equal to 21,000 deaths in the US from terrorism, as a comparable percentage of each nation's overall population.

Playing upon fears and outrage over the attacks of September 11, the intent was quite transparent — get US readers to envision September 11 all over again, only with seven times more casualties!

Of course, if one were at all concerned with honesty, one might point out that the number of Palestinian non-combatant (that is to say civilian) deaths, at the hands of Israel in that same time period, is much higher, and indeed would be “equal to” far more than 21,000 in the US, as a comparable share of respective populations.

To be honest to a fault would be to note that the 900 or so Palestinians slaughtered with Israeli support in the Sabra and Shatilla camps during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, would be equal to more than 40,000 Americans. Even more, the 17,500 Arabs killed overall by Israel during that invasion would be roughly equivalent to some 800,000 Americans today — the size of many large cities.

In a world where words still had meaning, such things might even be considered “terrorism”.

Ariel Sharon once said, “A lie should be tried in a place where it will attract the attention of the world”. And so it has been — throughout the media and the US political scene, on CNN in the personage of Benjamin Netanyahu, and in the pages of the New York Times.

And in my Hebrew School, where we were taught that Jews were to be “a light unto the nations”, instead of this dim bulb, this flickering nightlight, this barely visible spark whose radiance is only sufficient to make visible the death-rattle of the more noble aspects of the Jewish tradition.

Unless we who are Jews insist on a return to honest language, and an end to the hijacking of our culture and faith by madmen, racists and liars, I fear that the light may be extinguished forever.

Here are some links that provide insight that you don't get in the mianstream pro-israel media:
http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/h022602.html
or
http://www.ifamericansknew.org

Please review these maps and let us know what you think of the proposals that the Palestinians have actually had in front of them and subsequently chosen to reject.

http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm
http://umcp.org/index.php/DennisRossMap8

http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm

Hint: No Israel page.

But I'll debunk your lies anyway
Why did Arafat reject Barak's 'generous' offer at Camp David? (here's the lie)

At the failed Camp David summit, Arafat was clearly ambushed by Clinton and Barak, when both presented him a deal that was much more favorable to Israel than to Palestine. Because of domestic U.S. political reasons, a sitting U.S. president could never propose a deal that is unfavorable to Israel. What was fundamentally wrong at Camp David that Arafat was negotiating in miles while Barak was negotiating in inches. It's worth taking a note that it's the Palestinian people who owned and operated 93% of Palestine's land as of 1948, click here for a breakdown of Palestinian vs. Zionist land ownership as of 1946. In a nutshell, Arafat was presented with "a take it or leave it deal" either Palestinians had to give up their claims to most of East Jerusalem and forfeit their Right of Return, and in return Palestinians would "gain" a non-contiguous state on parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or the whole Clinton-Barak offer had to be rejected outright; which he did.

One CENTRAL FACT, which is usually suppressed in the Western media, is that the Israeli government has previously offered most of the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip to King Hussein (with the exception of occupied East Jerusalem). However, the king of Jordan rejected the "generous" offer outright. In an interview with H.M. King Hussein, he stated:

"... I was offered the return of something like 90 plus percent of the territories, 98 percent even, excluding [occupied East] Jerusalem, but I couldn't accept. As far as I am concerned, it was either every single inch that I was responsible for or nothing." (Iron Wall, p. 264)

So to claim that:

"Barak went further than any other Israeli leaders for peace"

is a BIG LIE because other Israeli leaders were willing to handover more occupied lands and sovereignty to King Hussein in return for the Israeli version of "peace".

All Israelis, Zionists, and Americans must understand that no Arab leader could entertain the thought of such an offer, not even King Hussein himself when he was alive. From our point of view, anything is negotiable except for the Right of Return and East Jerusalem. What was offered at the failed Camp David summit is unacceptable to many Palestinians for the following reasons:

The implementation of the Palestinian Right of Return, based on UN GA resolution 194, is THE KEY for ending the conflict. So any peace process that does not address the R.O.R. is nothing but a temporary cease fire, and the conflict eventually would flare up again. It should be emphasized that the majority of the Palestinian people are refugees, and for any agreement to hold, it must neutralize this vital political block.

To even think that King Hussein and his grandfather King Abdullah refused to relinquish sovereignty over Jerusalem to the Israelis, and to expect the Palestinian people to do the exact opposite, is LUDICROUS. Keep in mind that it's a well known fact that the Hashemites has been a central factor in protecting Israel's interests even before its inception in 1948, This fact is rarely disputed among historians, click here to read more about the Hashemites role during the 1948 war.

Jerusalem is extremely important from an Islamic point of view because it was the first Qibla before Mecca, and the third holiest site for Muslims after Mecca and Medina. Even if you disagree with this assessment, from a political point of view Jerusalem is the most unifying factor amongst Arabs and Muslims.

Most Arabs cannot comprehend the thought that Arabs and Muslims fought so bravely to cleanse Jerusalem from the Crusaders, and to give it up on a silver platter to the Israeli Jews. It should be noted that hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims died battling the Christian Crusaders between the 11th-13th centuries, for the sole purpose of cleansing the Holy Land from the Crusaders. Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when the Holy Land really needed their assistance during the Crusade genocide! Was Palestine a "Promised" or "non-Promised" Land, that is the question?

According to Barak's offer, the proposed Palestinian areas would have been cut from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state would have consisted of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers. No sovereign nation would accept such an arrangement-that could hinder its strategic national security and interests, click here for a map illustration.

It's not only that the future Palestinian state would have been completely demilitarized and Israeli early warning radar installation would have been installed deep in the Palestinian areas, but also its economical, social, and political relations with its neighboring Arab states would have been severely scrutinized by Israel as well.
Not in Arafat's defense, however, it's worth noting that he took a risky political decision when he signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993, even prior to receiving assurances that any UN resolution concerning Palestine would be implemented, not even one. Consequently, over seven years after Oslo, Arafat has little to show his people, especially after giving up so much upfront and in the Wye River Agreement. For example,

The occupied West Bank and Gaza strip have more Israeli Jewish colonies and bypass roads than ever,

Palestinian Arab Jerusalem is continuously being ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian population, and its Palestinian Arab identity is being stripped day by day,

Unemployment has tripled, and above all

Arafat appears increasingly to be an Israeli and American stooge, whose primary job is to control the Palestinian people the way Americans and Israelis see fit.
It's fundamentally wrong and very misleading to blame Arafat for the outbreak of resistance against the Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Zionists often prefer to blame Arab leaders rather than tackling the core issues of the conflict, this is usually done for the purpose of buying time hoping that Palestinians would lose hope. The Oslo Agreement's fundamental flaw was that it had attempted to scratch the surface of the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and not to necessarily solve them. Any agreement, similar to the Oslo Agreement, is destined for failure if it won't address the core issues of the conflict, such as the Palestinian Right of Return, the status of Jerusalem, water allocations, and the borders of the emerging states.

It is very possible that Palestinians and Israelis are not yet ripe for a final peace settlement, however, that is no excuse to accept any interim "peace agreement" that compromises critical Palestinian national interests. Until a fair and a just peace agreement comes up, which must address the core issues, both communities have to start educating themselves about the conflict and to hope for the best.

Please review these maps and let us know what you think of the proposals that the Palestinians have actually had in front of them and subsequently chosen to reject.

http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm
http://umcp.org/index.php/DennisRossMap8

http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm

Hint: No Israel page.

But I'll debunk your lies anyway
Why did Arafat reject Barak's 'generous' offer at Camp David? (here's the lie)

At the failed Camp David summit, Arafat was clearly ambushed by Clinton and Barak, when both presented him a deal that was much more favorable to Israel than to Palestine. Because of domestic U.S. political reasons, a sitting U.S. president could never propose a deal that is unfavorable to Israel. What was fundamentally wrong at Camp David that Arafat was negotiating in miles while Barak was negotiating in inches. It's worth taking a note that it's the Palestinian people who owned and operated 93% of Palestine's land as of 1948, click here for a breakdown of Palestinian vs. Zionist land ownership as of 1946. In a nutshell, Arafat was presented with "a take it or leave it deal" either Palestinians had to give up their claims to most of East Jerusalem and forfeit their Right of Return, and in return Palestinians would "gain" a non-contiguous state on parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or the whole Clinton-Barak offer had to be rejected outright; which he did.

One CENTRAL FACT, which is usually suppressed in the Western media, is that the Israeli government has previously offered most of the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip to King Hussein (with the exception of occupied East Jerusalem). However, the king of Jordan rejected the "generous" offer outright. In an interview with H.M. King Hussein, he stated:

"... I was offered the return of something like 90 plus percent of the territories, 98 percent even, excluding [occupied East] Jerusalem, but I couldn't accept. As far as I am concerned, it was either every single inch that I was responsible for or nothing." (Iron Wall, p. 264)

So to claim that:

"Barak went further than any other Israeli leaders for peace"

is a BIG LIE because other Israeli leaders were willing to handover more occupied lands and sovereignty to King Hussein in return for the Israeli version of "peace".

All Israelis, Zionists, and Americans must understand that no Arab leader could entertain the thought of such an offer, not even King Hussein himself when he was alive. From our point of view, anything is negotiable except for the Right of Return and East Jerusalem. What was offered at the failed Camp David summit is unacceptable to many Palestinians for the following reasons:

The implementation of the Palestinian Right of Return, based on UN GA resolution 194, is THE KEY for ending the conflict. So any peace process that does not address the R.O.R. is nothing but a temporary cease fire, and the conflict eventually would flare up again. It should be emphasized that the majority of the Palestinian people are refugees, and for any agreement to hold, it must neutralize this vital political block.

To even think that King Hussein and his grandfather King Abdullah refused to relinquish sovereignty over Jerusalem to the Israelis, and to expect the Palestinian people to do the exact opposite, is LUDICROUS. Keep in mind that it's a well known fact that the Hashemites has been a central factor in protecting Israel's interests even before its inception in 1948, This fact is rarely disputed among historians, click here to read more about the Hashemites role during the 1948 war.

Jerusalem is extremely important from an Islamic point of view because it was the first Qibla before Mecca, and the third holiest site for Muslims after Mecca and Medina. Even if you disagree with this assessment, from a political point of view Jerusalem is the most unifying factor amongst Arabs and Muslims.

Most Arabs cannot comprehend the thought that Arabs and Muslims fought so bravely to cleanse Jerusalem from the Crusaders, and to give it up on a silver platter to the Israeli Jews. It should be noted that hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims died battling the Christian Crusaders between the 11th-13th centuries, for the sole purpose of cleansing the Holy Land from the Crusaders. Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when the Holy Land really needed their assistance during the Crusade genocide! Was Palestine a "Promised" or "non-Promised" Land, that is the question?

According to Barak's offer, the proposed Palestinian areas would have been cut from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state would have consisted of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers. No sovereign nation would accept such an arrangement-that could hinder its strategic national security and interests, click here for a map illustration.

It's not only that the future Palestinian state would have been completely demilitarized and Israeli early warning radar installation would have been installed deep in the Palestinian areas, but also its economical, social, and political relations with its neighboring Arab states would have been severely scrutinized by Israel as well.
Not in Arafat's defense, however, it's worth noting that he took a risky political decision when he signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993, even prior to receiving assurances that any UN resolution concerning Palestine would be implemented, not even one. Consequently, over seven years after Oslo, Arafat has little to show his people, especially after giving up so much upfront and in the Wye River Agreement. For example,

The occupied West Bank and Gaza strip have more Israeli Jewish colonies and bypass roads than ever,

Palestinian Arab Jerusalem is continuously being ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian population, and its Palestinian Arab identity is being stripped day by day,

Unemployment has tripled, and above all

Arafat appears increasingly to be an Israeli and American stooge, whose primary job is to control the Palestinian people the way Americans and Israelis see fit.
It's fundamentally wrong and very misleading to blame Arafat for the outbreak of resistance against the Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Zionists often prefer to blame Arab leaders rather than tackling the core issues of the conflict, this is usually done for the purpose of buying time hoping that Palestinians would lose hope. The Oslo Agreement's fundamental flaw was that it had attempted to scratch the surface of the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and not to necessarily solve them. Any agreement, similar to the Oslo Agreement, is destined for failure if it won't address the core issues of the conflict, such as the Palestinian Right of Return, the status of Jerusalem, water allocations, and the borders of the emerging states.

It is very possible that Palestinians and Israelis are not yet ripe for a final peace settlement, however, that is no excuse to accept any interim "peace agreement" that compromises critical Palestinian national interests. Until a fair and a just peace agreement comes up, which must address the core issues, both communities have to start educating themselves about the conflict and to hope for the best.

Please review these maps and let us know what you think of the proposals that the Palestinians have actually had in front of them and subsequently chosen to reject.

http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm
http://umcp.org/index.php/DennisRossMap8

http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm

Hint: No Israel page.

But I'll debunk your lies anyway
Why did Arafat reject Barak's 'generous' offer at Camp David? (here's the lie)

At the failed Camp David summit, Arafat was clearly ambushed by Clinton and Barak, when both presented him a deal that was much more favorable to Israel than to Palestine. Because of domestic U.S. political reasons, a sitting U.S. president could never propose a deal that is unfavorable to Israel. What was fundamentally wrong at Camp David that Arafat was negotiating in miles while Barak was negotiating in inches. It's worth taking a note that it's the Palestinian people who owned and operated 93% of Palestine's land as of 1948, click here for a breakdown of Palestinian vs. Zionist land ownership as of 1946. In a nutshell, Arafat was presented with "a take it or leave it deal" either Palestinians had to give up their claims to most of East Jerusalem and forfeit their Right of Return, and in return Palestinians would "gain" a non-contiguous state on parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or the whole Clinton-Barak offer had to be rejected outright; which he did.

One CENTRAL FACT, which is usually suppressed in the Western media, is that the Israeli government has previously offered most of the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip to King Hussein (with the exception of occupied East Jerusalem). However, the king of Jordan rejected the "generous" offer outright. In an interview with H.M. King Hussein, he stated:

"... I was offered the return of something like 90 plus percent of the territories, 98 percent even, excluding [occupied East] Jerusalem, but I couldn't accept. As far as I am concerned, it was either every single inch that I was responsible for or nothing." (Iron Wall, p. 264)

So to claim that:

"Barak went further than any other Israeli leaders for peace"

is a BIG LIE because other Israeli leaders were willing to handover more occupied lands and sovereignty to King Hussein in return for the Israeli version of "peace".

All Israelis, Zionists, and Americans must understand that no Arab leader could entertain the thought of such an offer, not even King Hussein himself when he was alive. From our point of view, anything is negotiable except for the Right of Return and East Jerusalem. What was offered at the failed Camp David summit is unacceptable to many Palestinians for the following reasons:

The implementation of the Palestinian Right of Return, based on UN GA resolution 194, is THE KEY for ending the conflict. So any peace process that does not address the R.O.R. is nothing but a temporary cease fire, and the conflict eventually would flare up again. It should be emphasized that the majority of the Palestinian people are refugees, and for any agreement to hold, it must neutralize this vital political block.

To even think that King Hussein and his grandfather King Abdullah refused to relinquish sovereignty over Jerusalem to the Israelis, and to expect the Palestinian people to do the exact opposite, is LUDICROUS. Keep in mind that it's a well known fact that the Hashemites has been a central factor in protecting Israel's interests even before its inception in 1948, This fact is rarely disputed among historians, click here to read more about the Hashemites role during the 1948 war.

Jerusalem is extremely important from an Islamic point of view because it was the first Qibla before Mecca, and the third holiest site for Muslims after Mecca and Medina. Even if you disagree with this assessment, from a political point of view Jerusalem is the most unifying factor amongst Arabs and Muslims.

Most Arabs cannot comprehend the thought that Arabs and Muslims fought so bravely to cleanse Jerusalem from the Crusaders, and to give it up on a silver platter to the Israeli Jews. It should be noted that hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Muslims died battling the Christian Crusaders between the 11th-13th centuries, for the sole purpose of cleansing the Holy Land from the Crusaders. Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when the Holy Land really needed their assistance during the Crusade genocide! Was Palestine a "Promised" or "non-Promised" Land, that is the question?

According to Barak's offer, the proposed Palestinian areas would have been cut from East to West and from North to South, so that the Palestinian state would have consisted of a group of islands, each surrounded by Israeli settlers and soldiers. No sovereign nation would accept such an arrangement-that could hinder its strategic national security and interests, click here for a map illustration.

It's not only that the future Palestinian state would have been completely demilitarized and Israeli early warning radar installation would have been installed deep in the Palestinian areas, but also its economical, social, and political relations with its neighboring Arab states would have been severely scrutinized by Israel as well.
Not in Arafat's defense, however, it's worth noting that he took a risky political decision when he signed the Oslo Agreement in 1993, even prior to receiving assurances that any UN resolution concerning Palestine would be implemented, not even one. Consequently, over seven years after Oslo, Arafat has little to show his people, especially after giving up so much upfront and in the Wye River Agreement. For example,

The occupied West Bank and Gaza strip have more Israeli Jewish colonies and bypass roads than ever,

Palestinian Arab Jerusalem is continuously being ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian population, and its Palestinian Arab identity is being stripped day by day,

Unemployment has tripled, and above all

Arafat appears increasingly to be an Israeli and American stooge, whose primary job is to control the Palestinian people the way Americans and Israelis see fit.
It's fundamentally wrong and very misleading to blame Arafat for the outbreak of resistance against the Israeli Occupation Forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Zionists often prefer to blame Arab leaders rather than tackling the core issues of the conflict, this is usually done for the purpose of buying time hoping that Palestinians would lose hope. The Oslo Agreement's fundamental flaw was that it had attempted to scratch the surface of the core issues of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and not to necessarily solve them. Any agreement, similar to the Oslo Agreement, is destined for failure if it won't address the core issues of the conflict, such as the Palestinian Right of Return, the status of Jerusalem, water allocations, and the borders of the emerging states.

It is very possible that Palestinians and Israelis are not yet ripe for a final peace settlement, however, that is no excuse to accept any interim "peace agreement" that compromises critical Palestinian national interests. Until a fair and a just peace agreement comes up, which must address the core issues, both communities have to start educating themselves about the conflict and to hope for the best.