Israeli Settler Outposts Grow With Govt Aid

Israeli state bodies have been secretly diverting millions of dollars to build illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank, an official report has revealed.

Former state prosecutor Talia Sasson has recommended criminal investigations against those alleged to be involved.

Israel is meant to remove unauthorised outposts on Palestinian land under the US-backed roadmap peace plan.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Nasser Al -Kidwa said there would be "no peace" while settlement building continued.

Anti-settlement groups say more than 100 outposts have sprung up, normally consisting of small groups of mobile homes stationed close to existing settlements.

'Violation'

The report details how officials in the ministries of defence and housing and the settlement division of the World Zionist Organisation spent millions of dollars from state budgets to support the illegal outposts.

Ms Sasson called it a "blatant violation of the law" and said "drastic steps" were needed to remedy the situation.

It describes secret co-operation between various ministries and official institutions to consolidate wildcat outposts, which settlers began setting up more than a decade ago.

It was an initiative backed by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, then foreign minister, who urged settlers to seize hilltops in order to break up the contiguity of Palestinian areas and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The report found:

* The housing ministry supplied 400 mobile homes for outposts on private Palestinian land
* The defence ministry approved the positioning of trailers to begin new outposts
* The education ministry paid for nurseries and their teachers
* The energy ministry connected outposts to the electricity grid
* Roads to outposts were paid for with taxpayers' money

Deputy Defence Minister Zeev Boim told Israeli Army Radio that the outposts "must be removed", but that nothing was likely to happen until the government's plan to withdraw from Gaza had been implemented.

"It is time for the international community to say 'enough' to Israel and work with the same determination as on other matters," said Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei.

A US embassy spokesman in Tel Aviv also repeated Washington's longstanding call for Israel to remove the outposts.

Settler leader Shaul Goldstein said Mr Sharon should face questioning over the report's findings.

"It's obvious that the one who sent us in order to protect the roads and land is the prime minister so he should look in the mirror," Mr Goldstein said.

"Mr Sharon has to be questioned - not us."

A statement from Mr Sharon's office - which commissioned the report - said the matter would be discussed in the cabinet on Sunday.

About 400,000 Jewish settlers live in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem - alongside among than four million Palestinians. About 8,000 settlers and the soldiers that protect them are due to be withdrawn from Gaza starting in July.

Under international law, all settlement building in Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem is considered illegal, though Israel disputes this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4328817.stm

It's the reverse. In int'l law there's no prohibition against building settlements in disputed territories like Gaza and Judea-Samaria, not to mention East Jerusalem that was heavily populated by Jews up to the first half of 1948, as long as land and property isn't stolen from inhabitants who had lived on these territories. However, just about everyone on the planet disputes this.

I've studied fascism and am a bit familiar with "neo-conservative" ideology and can tell you they share few, if any, similarities. The Neocons support democracy, the rule of law, and free trade, something no fascist has ever supported. Fascists, by contrast, are totalitarian, there is no rule of law (what the Party sez, goes) and are extremely anti-free trade (most view capitalism as some sort of jewish conspiracy to bilk the good citizens of their various countries). Please, go back to school or at least read a book that is on the National Alliance's recommended reading list.

mis-direction
does not make you right

[Angie, please...
by historian Wednesday, Mar. 09, 2005 at 1:43 PM

I've studied fascism and am a bit familiar with "neo-conservative" ideology and can tell you they share few, if any, similarities. The Neocons support democracy, the rule of law, and free trade, something no fascist has ever supported. Fascists, by contrast, are totalitarian, there is no rule of law (what the Party sez, goes) and are extremely anti-free trade (most view capitalism as some sort of jewish conspiracy to bilk the good citizens of their various countries). Please, go back to school or at least read a book that is on the National Alliance's recommended reading list.]

There is much that is superficially accurate here. Neoconservatism and Nazism have frequently been distinguished by the comparisons made in this post.

And, I would add that neo-conservatism tends to have an affectionate relationship with modern culture. It is rare to see any neo-conservative express anger about gay marriage or the content of literature, music and Hollywood films.

Admittedly, there are some apparent exceptions, such as Michael Medved, but I don't think that he is really a neo-conservative, rather, he is a cultural conservative who allies himself with neo-conservatives on occasion.

Nazism, by contrast, abhorred modern culture in just about all of its manifestations, music, film, literature and art, and, tragically, and falsely, associated much of it with Jews as a means of expressing its anti-semitism.

But . . . it is not really true that neo-conservatives are unequivocal democrats. Instead, they support democracy to the extent that it facilitates a global neoliberal project dominated by the US.

Countries such as Venezuela, where the populace has not once, not twice, but three times voted to support Chavez, receive nothing but neo-conservative scorn. Why? Because Chavez insists upon nationalist control over the Venezuelan oil supply for the benefit of Venezuelans as opposed to the benefit of the US and multinational investors.

Similarly, Iran, for all of its flaws, is more democratic, even today, than it was when governed by the Shah. In a different context, neo-conservatives would praise it (much as they praised the military juntas of South American during the 1980s) as a positive example of ongoing evolutionary reform.

Why don't they? For reasons similar to those that explain why they revile Chavez: they want the US to militarily and economically control the Middle East and its oil supply

Neo-conservatives only support a kind of democracy in which the US condescendingly seeks to engage in the pretense of obtaining approval for predetermined actions. If countries refuse to engage in this charade, as with Turkey and France, for example, the neo-conservative response is vitriolic.

Likewise, the neo-conservative marriage to free trade has waned. As Chalmers Johnson and others have noted, Clinton was much more free trade oriented than Bush, who uses trade policy as a means of intimidating countries that do not unquestioningly support the US. Bush has effectively abandoned the GATT/WTO system, with the expressed intention of substituting regional trading blocs designed along mercantilist lines.

The idea that the neo-conservatives believe in the "rule of law" is laughable. They have expressly stated in their own words, on numerous occasions, that the US should not, under any circumstances, be bound by international law. They successfully advocated for the war in Iraq despite the lack of any factual or legal basis, and are attempting to expand the war to Iran in a similar way.

Ask a neo-conservative what Iran is doing that is illegal, and they will laugh, and look at you as if you are an imbecile. Laugh, because, for them, it has never been about the legality of anything, and they would find it astounding that you would reference the concept. Instead, it is about expanding the American sphere of influence, and preventing the emergence of an independent alternative to the US in the Middle East.

I won't even get into renditions, torture, the Patriot Act and the Geneva Convention.

Neo-conservatism can be boiled down to one principle: the expansion and preservation of American global dominance throughout the 21st Century. Abrasive relations with Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela and Europe are significantly driven by neo-conservative fears that they will become economic and military rivals to the US. All other principles, such as free trade, democracy and the rule of law are expendable if necessary to try to prevail in this struggle.

There is one comparison with the Nazis that may turn out to be accurate. As the Nazis became involved in more and more conflicts, they adopted more and more extreme policies. Will the neo-conservatives do likewise in the face of rising global opposition? Only time will tell, but their willingness to encourage extremist attacks upon freedom of speech and the media are not good omens, as correctly noted by people like Paul Craig Roberts.

--Richard

"Russia, China, Venezuela and Europe are significantly driven by neo-conservative fears that they will become economic and military rivals to the US."

I don't think the American politicians are responsible for that.

Take into account that you are mentioning some non-democratic countries or, at least, whose democracy is not very clear.

As for the European Union, it consists of 25 countries, and there are only three opposing or half-opposing the US.

["Russia, China, Venezuela and Europe are significantly driven by neo-conservative fears that they will become economic and military rivals to the US."

I don't think the American politicians are responsible for that.

Take into account that you are mentioning some non-democratic countries or, at least, whose democracy is not very clear.

As for the European Union, it consists of 25 countries, and there are only three opposing or half-opposing the US.]


but, Russia, Venezuela and the European countries are all much more democratic than quite a number of the US allies in the "war on terror"

China is a bit of a special case, going back to the US open door policy of the turn of the century before 1900, and US policymakers resent not being able to fully harvest the fruit of prevailing over all the other colonial powers that sought to economically exploit China

even so, I do believe that democracy isn't much of a primary concern among neo-conservatives unless it is a kind of democracy that acknowledges the US as dominant, just as Russian communism was at the apex of the pyramid

finally, note that I am talking about neo-conservatives specifically, and not American politicians generically, who often lack the capacity to develop their own independent foreign policy approaches because of more pressing domestic concerns

--Richard

Yes, the European Union countries are democracies. But most of them aren't against the US, as I told you beforel.

And France and Germany were against the war on Iraq, not out of pacifism, but because they were making big business with Saddam. And the same happened with Russia.

I believe that if Saddam hadn't found the support of those countries, perhaps he would have allowed the inspectors in earlier and perhaps the war could have been avoided.

[I forgot
by Sefarad Thursday, Mar. 10, 2005 at 11:28 PM


And France and Germany were against the war on Iraq, not out of pacifism, but because they were making big business with Saddam. And the same happened with Russia.

I believe that if Saddam hadn't found the support of those countries, perhaps he would have allowed the inspectors in earlier and perhaps the war could have been avoided.]

I believe that your comment is more accurate in regard to the Russians than the French and the Germans. Certainly, there were people in those countries who profitted from Saddam, but it is a neo-conservative libel, one that was established when the US censored portions of a UN report on Saddam's weapons program that has been widely reported as revealing the complicity of US companies, to suggest that France and Germany were unique in this regard.

Furthermore, it is another neo-conservative libel to suggest that the people themselves in France and Germany were not vehemently opposed to the war. They were, and it had nothing to do with making money off Saddam, and politicians in these countries had no choice but to follow them.

Neo-conservatives emphasize the covert economic deal making between France, Germany and Iraq (while, naturally, conveniently ignoring the US role) because: (1) it conforms to their personal view of the world, a world in which the opinions of the public matter for nothing, while the Machiavellian maneuvers of big political and economic players count for all; and (2) it helps them distract the US public from the obvious: people across much of Europe opposed the war in Iraq in large numbers, for many reasons that could not be reduced to the crass self-interest asserted by them

Finally, as for the weapons inspectors, one novel theory says that Saddam wanted to maintain the diminishing illusion of a threat to deter the Iranians. Whether true or not, it is certainly plausible. Also, there is, again, the obvious: Bush and Blair decided to attack Iraq almost a year before the invasion in March 2003, and the issue of the weapons' inspectors was merely a public relations sideshow.


--Richard

"I believe that your comment is more accurate in regard to the Russians than the French and the Germans."

It is the same for all of them. Russia was selling weaponry to Iraq. Germany was selling chemicals, with which they could make weapons too. And France was supplying Iraq with nuclear power.

And besides when the US was threatening war on Iraq, France and Germany had signed contracts on petrol with Saddam despite the embargo.

This doesn't mean that other countries companies weren't making business too.

But one of the reasons why Germany and France opposed war was that.

"Finally, as for the weapons inspectors, one novel theory says that Saddam wanted to maintain the diminishing illusion of a threat to deter the Iranians. Whether true or not, it is certainly plausible. Also, there is, again, the obvious: Bush and Blair decided to attack Iraq almost a year before the invasion in March 2003, and the issue of the weapons' inspectors was merely a public relations sideshow. "

I don't know the intentions of Saddam or Bush or Tony Blair. But I do know that, as a consequence of the Gulf War I, Saddam had to allowed inspectors in, that he expelled them when they found banned weapons and started destroying them, that there were many UN resolutions against Iraq and that Saddam ignored them.

I read the first Blix report and it was very interesting: the Iraqi authorities were making their best to make things difficult for the inspectors.

If he didn't have what he shouldn't, why so many obstacles and even threats?.

I recommend you read the report. I suppose you might find it in google ("Statement by Hans Blix to the UN Security Council").

that the war wasn't about WMD

because, if it were, we would have attacked a country, like North Korea, that either has them, or is on the verge of having them

instead, we attacked a country that we knew to be prostrate and incapable of providing any meaningful resistance

for reasons that the neo-conservatives publicly provided since the mid-1990s

unfortunately for us, we mistakenly only evaluated the capacity for resistance in terms of conventional military weaponry and training

about 20 years after the Bush presidency, a lot of the documents will come out, they will show that Bush and his advisors had already decided, shortly after 9/11, to attack Iraq when it became politically feasible to do so

--Richard

And the weapons haven't appeared. But still I cannot understand why Saddam didn't want to allow the inspectors in.

And other questions still remain :

It was known that he had those weapons, which had been found and so the inswpectors were expelled.

Why didn't Saddam explain what he has done with them? And why did he prefer that war was declared on his country?

"The Neocons support democracy, the rule of law, and free trade"

Absolute pure total right-wing bullshit:

1) "Democracy..." : yeah, they support democracy US spookocracy-style, i.e. a false front of corrupt mouthpieces who do whatever the global billionaire elite tells them. When a REAL democracy emerges, however, a la Arbenz, Mossadegh, Bosch, Lumumba, Sukarno, Allende, Torrijos, etc. X 30, they stomp its guts out every time. The neo-cons are the new kids in this game, but the U.S. imperial mentality hasn't changed much in 100+ years, and the neos have proven how sincerely they "support democracy" with their treatment of Chavez and Aristide. As both Ukraine and Iraq demonstrate, they only pull this "supporting democracy" charade when it's in the distinct geopolitical interest of U.S. global empire.

Once they get the latter all sewn up, they're gonna ditch all the bullshit games and unveil their REAL plan: a planet-wide Nazi Germany. Mark my words.

2) "...the rule of law..." : truly laughable bullshit. The invasion of Iraq is one of the most appalling violations of international law since the German invasion of Poland in 1939, to which it compares in many other ways as well. Ditto their abrogation of the ABM treaty, their refusal to allow World Court jurisdiction over the U.S., and their open contempt for the U.N. (uh, the PRIMARY AGENT of international law. hello?)

3) "...and free trade" : ah, yes, of course -- the big rhetorical smokescreen for the IMF/World Bank/billionaire elite's master plan for economic colonization of the entire planet, so they can pour ALL of its wealth down their insatiable gullets. Didn't NAFTA clue you in? Go hang with some maquiladora workers and ask them where they used to live. Go there now and you'll find GHOST TOWNS. They had hard lives there, but they at least had intact families and communities, and half a shot at building a self-respecting life. Now they're uprooted transient slaves in their own country.

But you're on the sugar-dumpling end of all that, so why would you care, huh, smug right-wing pig?

Since we are trying to get to the point of a Viable Palestinian State called for in the Road Map to Peace, Why is Israel committing actions that only go to fuel the Conflict?

It is Israel that is taking Palestinian Land for it own use, not the other way around, until this one true fact is faced there will not be Peace in the Middle East and the Jews around the World will continue to lose more and more respect (therefore an increase in Anti-Semitism).

Most Jewish People are good People just like Most Palestinians are good People, let us not let the greedy few ruin it for the rest.

Do the right thing and Peace Will Follow......
Hypocrisy and double standard does not lead to peace, and people are not blind and they can see the truth as it really is.

Thirty-six years of war should be enough for such a small number of people, when you consider the World Population.
Allowing the Palestinian People to have their small state in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza can solve this conflict.
There are 1,200,000 or so Arabs living inside Israel Proper.
There are 400,000 or so Jews living inside the West Bank and Gaza.
Trying to remove all the settlement can be an almost undoable task.
So Set the Borders for Israel to it Pre 1967 Border (Green Line) and have the State of Palestine inside the West Bank and Gaza.
If the U.N. can decide the Borders of Israel in 1948,
The U.N. can decide the Borders of Palestine in 2005.
You would end up with Israel with a majority Jewish Population and Palestine with a majority Muslim Population.
This would allow for the Israeli Military to Guard and Control the Israeli pre 1967 borders instead of confiscating Palestinian Land and Demolishing Palestinian Homes in the West Bank and Gaza that only goes to fuel the need for the Palestinian People to fight for their Freedom.
The Jews who do not like living in the new Palestinian State can feel free to move to Israel if they so choose.
The Arabs living inside Israel can feel free to move to the new Palestinian State if they so choose.
Almost every nation on earth has more then one ethnic group or religious group, so why not Israel and Palestine?
It would sure be better then the never-ending conflict we have right now.

Who has died and how in this struggle for Palestinian Freedom?
CLICK HERE > http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html

IMC TURNS A BLIND EYE TO SUDAN


"we are particular who we care about"

There They Go Again, Those Arab Racists

by Ariel Natan Pasko repost

It looks at the vicious attacks taking place in Sudan against black Africans, by Arab militias. It surveys the Middle East/North Africa, the so-called "Arab World," and proposes an Israeli foreign policy initiative to support the non-Arab and non-Muslim minorities in the region.
There they go again. The story is so old already. Arab militia or Arab army or Arab terrorist attacks non-Arab. Or was that Muslim fanatic attacks non-Muslim? This time it's happening in Sudan.

While we're sitting and talking probably a few hundred more black Africans in Sudan have starved to death, or been brutally killed, raped, enslaved, or simply pushed off their land by 7th century Arab imperialist invaders, or more rightly "Arab Settlers".

Oh yes, that's right "Arab settlers"...

Like the ones Saddam Hussein brought into Kurdistan - i.e. the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq in the 1970's - to displace the indigenous Kurds, during his forced Arabization campaign. Forcibly relocating many Kurds from the Kurdish heartland in the north, he razed all Kurdish villages along a 1,300-kilometer stretch of the border with Iran.

Now Sudan is doing the same thing.

While Arab militiamen known as the Janjaweed, rape, slaughter and drive out over a million black Africans from their homes in western Sudan, the government in Khartoum turns a blind eye. The Janjaweed have killed about 30,000 people and left some 2 million in desperate need of aid, or there will be humanitarian disaster. The Janjaweed has been described as an Arab Islamic group that has targeted mostly black Christians. According to some reports, the Sudanese government itself armed and paid the militia of Arab raiders, and authorized them to slaughter and drive out members of the Zaghawa, Masalit and Fur tribes.

This has all taken place under the watchful eye of Kofi Annan, the UN, Colin Powell, the US, the European Union, and 20-something Arab League states. I can understand the Arab states turning a blind eye to the ethnic cleansing campaign underway (or impending genocide?), it doesn't look good having "Arab Settlers" butchering people. But why haven't Annan and Powell, sons of the African continent, gone ballistic? After all, it is their black brothers who are getting it, from the Arabs this time. And what about the Europeans who are always so "human rights" oriented when it comes to Israel, why not on the African continent?

Sudanese President Omar Bashir pledged to US officials to disarm the Janjaweed and other militias, but he's promised that before...

Jan Egeland, the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, complained that the United Nations was slow to act in Darfur, where aid workers say about 350,000 people could die this year of disease or malnutrition. He also blamed Khartoum for lack of action in aiding the refugees.

A typical UN do-goody, Egeland seems to have overlooked the fact that the Sudanese government might have deliberately caused this problem. It's a typical Arab/Muslim land grab. It's happened in Iraq, it's happened in Lebanon with Syria occupying Lebanon and persecuting the Christians there, and it's happened in Israel, where 7th century Arab imperialist invaders and 20th century Arab squatters have tried to displace the indigenous Jewish population.

Arab Settlers, and they're violent at that...

Describing the pogrom-like atmosphere, one woman told how the Janjaweed entered the village. She said, "The Janjaweed shouted, 'We will not allow blacks here. We will not let Zaghawa here. This land is only for Arabs.'"

Another woman described how the Janjaweed took her and her two sisters away on horses and gang-raped them. The raiders shot one sister, and cut the throat of the other, they then discussed how to mutilate her. "One Janjaweed said, 'You belong to me. You are a slave to the Arabs, and this is the sign of a slave,'" she recalled. He slashed her leg with a sword before letting her hobble away, stark naked.

"First the planes were flying over us and bombing us. Then the Janjaweed came," a third woman described. "They started to shoot and burn. They took all our belongings. They took men and slit their throats with swords. The women they took as concubines."

The situation is so horrendous, that the former editor, Abd al-Rahman Al-Rashed, of a prestigious Arab daily "al-Sharq al-Awsat" (London), recently published an op-ed titled, "The Death of 300,000 People." In the article, al-Rashed decried the Arab media's apathy to the violence in Sudan.

al-Rashed wrote, "They are not the victims of Israeli or American aggression; therefore, they are not an issue for concern...Is the life of 1,000 people in western Sudan less valuable, or is a single killed Palestinian or Iraqi of greater importance, merely because the enemy is Israeli or American?"

He continued, "It is a grave matter that government-sponsored forces or militias should be allowed to carry out the annihilation of people in order to achieve quick or decisive victory...As for Arab intellectuals who see nothing in the world but the Palestinian and the Iraqi causes, and who consider any blood not spilled in conflicts with foreigners to be cheap and its spilling justifiable, they are intellectual accomplices in the crime."

What does all this have to do with Israel?

Well, as I wrote back in March 2004, (Israel Should Support the Kurds Against Syria):

"As the discussion of democratization of the Middle East continues, an important point that must be made time and time again, is the importance in building structures that liberate the minorities of the region from oppression.

Non-Arab and Non-Muslim minorities live throughout North Africa and the Middle East. Contrary to the propaganda that the region is Arab/Muslim, these minorities are remnants of the indigenous peoples, before the great Arab imperialist wars of the 7th century, and "Islamicization process" that followed. Non-Arab Muslims like the Kurds in Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran; the Berbers - known as Amazighes - in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, have all resisted Arabization for over 1,000 years. Non-Muslims like the Assyrian Christians in Iraq - who argue that they are not Arabs - the Copts in Egypt, Christian Lebanese - many who claim not to be Arab but Phoenician - the Christians in Sudan, and other Christians throughout the region, have been persecuted minorities, since the rise of Islam. Others like the Druze and Jews have also been persecuted by Arab/Muslim regimes throughout history..."

"Only Israel, the Jewish State, has fully liberated itself - in the political sense - from this Arab/Muslim oppression, although it still suffers from physical violence against her people. Israel should take the lead - in it's foreign policy - to support democratization and regime change throughout the region. Israel shouldn't wait until countries of the region reform, but should pro-actively support the legitimate aspirations of the oppressed minorities of North Africa and the Middle East, and build alliances with them."

Since writing those words, news of Israeli security cooperation in the Kurdish areas of Iraq has leaked out. Although denied by all involved, I can only hope that it's true and that the Mossad is listening. It should begin to branch out to work with other minorities throughout the region as well.

I haven't yet mentioned the so-called "Palestinians," and I won't beyond saying, that they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Aren't they an oppressed minority? No, as Arabs, they are part of the greater Arab Nation who since the 7th century has conquered, oppressed, and occupied everyone else in the Middle East and North Africa. As radical Muslims, everyone can see that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the other terror groups are continuing down the same path as Bin Laden. In fact, not long before his assassination, Hamas "spiritual leader" Sheikh Yassin had begun speaking about the "Global Jihad" in Bin Laden and al-Qaeda type terms. Hezbollah has also been working in the "Palestinian" administered territories for a while already, as evidenced by Israel's recent capture of a Hezbollah cell in Gaza. So, they are part of the regional oppression network, not the future liberty and freedom alliance that Israel should work to build with other minorities in the area.

Like that Arab murderer in Sudan who said, "This land is only for Arabs," the late Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi said not long before his demise, "We will continue with our holy war and resistance until every last criminal Zionist is evicted from this land. By G-d we will not leave one Jew alive in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews." Most of the so-called "Palestinians" agreed with him.

Arab racism marches on...

Israel should speak out strongly against the ethnic cleansing and potential genocide taking place in Sudan today, just as I've urged it do about the atrocious Syrian occupation in Lebanon. Israel should support the rights of the Kurds to an independent state and encourage other indigenous peoples and their liberation movements.

A major element of Israel's strategic foreign policy should be based on supporting the rights of minorities in the area. Only that way, based on democratization, liberation from oppressive regimes, and encouraging freedom, will the Middle East and North Africa be transformed into a region worthy of its millennia old history.

A pre-Arab and pre-Muslim history I might add!

Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at:


http://www.geocities.com/ariel_natan_pasko


(c) 2004/5764 Pasko


It can also be read at:

http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_4241.shtml

http://www.truthnews.net/world/2004070037.htm

http://israpundit.com/archives/007409.html

http://www.jewishindy.com/article.php?sid=3634

Since we are trying to get to the point of a Viable Peaceful Solution, Why are Palestinians committing atrocities that only go to fuel the Conflict?

It is Palestinians that are taking Israeli Land for their own selfish use, not the other way around, until this one true fact is faced there will not be Peace in the Middle East and the Muslims around the World will continue to lose more and more respect (therefore an increase in Anti-Muslim sentiment).

Most Muslim People are good People just like Most Israelis are good People, let us not let the greedy few ruin it for the rest.

Do the right thing and Peace Will Follow......
Hypocrisy and double standard about Palestinian Terror does not lead to peace, and people are not blind and they can see the truth as it really is.

Thirty-seven years of war should be enough for such a small number of people, when you consider the World Population.
Allowing the Palestinian People to have their small state in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza can not in itself solve this conflict.
There are 1,200,000 or so Arab settlers living inside Israel Proper.
There are 400,000 or so Jews living inside the West Bank and Gaza.
Trying to remove all the settlements can be an almost undoable task.
So Set the Borders for Israel to somewhat beyond its Pre 1967 Border (Green Line) and have the State of Palestine inside Part of the West Bank and Gaza.
If the U.N. could decide the Borders of Israel in 1947 and fail to protect the Jews from the Arab Attack that ensued,
The U.N. can not decide the Borders of Palestine in 2005.
You would end up with Israel with a majority Jewish Population and Palestine with a majority Muslim Population.
This would allow for the Israeli Military to Guard and Control the new Israeli Borders instead of confiscating Palestinian Land and Demolishing Palestinian Homes in the West Bank and Gaza, provided the Palestinian Terrorists stop trying to rob the Israeli People of their Freedom, which only goes to fuel the Israeli reprisals.
The Jews who do not like living in the new Palestinian State can feel free to move to Israel if they so choose.
The Arab settlers living inside Israel should feel free to move to the new Palestinian State if they so choose.
Almost every nation on earth has more then one ethnic group or religious group, so why not Israel and Palestine?
It would sure be better then the never-ending Conflict we have right now.

Who has died and how in this struggle for Palestinian Murder and Destruction?
CLICK HERE > http://www.ifamericansknew.org/misleadingstats/deaths.html

>>>After 37 years surely we know the Truth
by ANGEL Monday, Mar. 14, 2005 at 5:08 AM<<<The ANGEL imposter>


The ANGEL imposter at it again, he/she has his/her views, but they must not be good enough to post in his her own name/handle.......Do you agree or not that there is such a thing as a Road Map to Peace calling for a Viable Palestinian State?

Since we are trying to get to the point of a Viable Palestinian State called for in the Road Map to Peace, Why is Israel committing actions that only go to fuel the Conflict?

It is Israel that is taking Palestinian Land for it own use, not the other way around, until this one true fact is faced there will not be Peace in the Middle East and the Jews around the World will continue to lose more and more respect (therefore an increase in Anti-Semitism).

Most Jewish People are good People just like Most Palestinians are good People, let us not let the greedy few ruin it for the rest.

Do the right thing and Peace Will Follow......
Hypocrisy and double standard does not lead to peace, and people are not blind and they can see the truth as it really is.

Thirty-six years of war should be enough for such a small number of people, when you consider the World Population.
Allowing the Palestinian People to have their small state in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza can solve this conflict.
There are 1,200,000 or so Arabs living inside Israel Proper.
There are 400,000 or so Jews living inside the West Bank and Gaza.
Trying to remove all the settlement can be an almost undoable task.
So Set the Borders for Israel to it Pre 1967 Border (Green Line) and have the State of Palestine inside the West Bank and Gaza.
If the U.N. can decide the Borders of Israel in 1948,
The U.N. can decide the Borders of Palestine in 2005.
You would end up with Israel with a majority Jewish Population and Palestine with a majority Muslim Population.
This would allow for the Israeli Military to Guard and Control the Israeli pre 1967 borders instead of confiscating Palestinian Land and Demolishing Palestinian Homes in the West Bank and Gaza that only goes to fuel the need for the Palestinian People to fight for their Freedom.
The Jews who do not like living in the new Palestinian State can feel free to move to Israel if they so choose.
The Arabs living inside Israel can feel free to move to the new Palestinian State if they so choose.
Almost every nation on earth has more then one ethnic group or religious group, so why not Israel and Palestine?
It would sure be better then the never-ending conflict we have right now.

Who has died and how in this struggle for Palestinian Freedom?
CLICK HERE > http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html

Dennis Rodman: that angel is a freak!

The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the forcible transfer of people of one state to the territory of another state that it has occupied as a result of a war. The intention was to insure that local populations who came under occupation would not be forced to move. This is in no way relevant to the settlement issue. Jews are not being forced to go to the West Bank and Gaza Strip; on the contrary, they are voluntarily moving back to places where they, or their ancestors, once lived before being expelled by others. In addition, those territories never legally belonged to either Jordan or Egypt, and certainly not to the Palestinians, who were never the sovereign authority in any part of Palestine. "The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the local population to live there," according to Professor Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs.4

As a matter of policy, moreover, Israel does not requisition private land for the establishment of settlements. Housing construction is allowed on private land only after determining that no private rights will be violated. The settlements also do not displace Arabs living in the territories. The media sometimes gives the impression that for every Jew who moves to the West Bank, several hundred Palestinians are forced to leave. The truth is that the vast majority of settlements have been built in uninhabited areas and even the handful established in or near Arab towns did not force any Palestinians to leave.

>>>After 37 years surely we know the Truth
by ANGEL Monday, Mar. 14, 2005 at 5:08 AM<<<The real ANGEL<

>>>Do we want a Fair and Just Peace or Not?
by ANGEL Tuesday, Mar. 15, 2005 at 3:20 AM<<<The ANGEL imposter>

The ANGEL imposter at it again, he/she has his/her views, but they must not be good enough to post in his her own name/handle.......Do you agree or not that there is such a thing as a Road Map to Peace calling for a Viable Palestinian State only after Palestinian Terror is defeated and stopped?

Since we are trying to get to the point of a Viable Peaceful Solution, Why are Palestinians committing atrocities that only go to fuel the Conflict?

It is Palestinians that are taking Israeli Land for their own selfish use, not the other way around, until this one true fact is faced there will not be Peace in the Middle East and the Muslims around the World will continue to lose more and more respect (therefore an increase in Anti-Muslim sentiment).

Most Muslim People are good People just like Most Israelis are good People, let us not let the greedy few ruin it for the rest.

Do the right thing and Peace Will Follow......
Hypocrisy and double standard about Palestinian Terror does not lead to peace, and people are not blind and they can see the truth as it really is.

Thirty-seven years of war should be enough for such a small number of people, when you consider the World Population.
Allowing the Palestinian People to have their small state in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza can not in itself solve this conflict.
There are 1,200,000 or so Arab settlers living inside Israel Proper.
There are 400,000 or so Jews living inside the West Bank and Gaza.
Trying to remove all the settlements can be an almost undoable task.
So Set the Borders for Israel to somewhat beyond its Pre 1967 Border (Green Line) and have the State of Palestine inside Part of the West Bank and Gaza.
If the U.N. could decide the Borders of Israel in 1947 and fail to protect the Jews from the Arab Attack that ensued,
The U.N. can not decide the Borders of Palestine in 2005.
You would end up with Israel with a majority Jewish Population and Palestine with a majority Muslim Population.
This would allow for the Israeli Military to Guard and Control the new Israeli Borders instead of confiscating Palestinian Land and Demolishing Palestinian Homes in the West Bank and Gaza, provided the Palestinian Terrorists stop trying to rob the Israeli People of their Freedom, which only goes to fuel the Israeli reprisals.
The Jews who do not like living in the new Palestinian State can feel free to move to Israel if they so choose.
The Arab settlers living inside Israel should feel free to move to the new Palestinian State if they so choose.
Almost every nation on earth has more then one ethnic group or religious group, so why not Israel and Palestine?
It would sure be better then the never-ending Conflict we have right now.

Who has died and how in this struggle for Palestinian Murder and Destruction?
CLICK HERE > http://www.ifamericansknew.org/misleadingstats/deaths.html