slumdog's past comments

  • 2


    Yeah, SenseNotSoCommon,

    The ancient books were all pretty much full of a lot of blood lust. It is almost as if they could see the future of the region as well.


    I just realized. I did answer your question about my test post in my first response to you this evening. Didn't you notice it?

    Posted in: Violence soars in Gaza as world pleads for truce

  • 1



    I understood your comment just fine and I am not avoiding anything. Here it is again is your comment for you:

    The comment in question was SuperLib saying (he was shocked by the number of westerners who thin violence is key to Palestinian statehood) No one said that, not one comment.

    yabits is one and he is from the US. You said no one has said that and you said no one western has said that and you were mistaken. The US is a western country. He has suggested on several occasions that Hamas violence is justified in its violent response. That was the subject of your comment and that is my response. I did not change anything.

    You say, as for the Israeli draft, Israel has no choice because it's a small country???

    Yes, what do you find so strange about that? They need as many people as possible to serve in the army. That is also why they have the reserve system in which Israelis are required to put in a few weeks a year even after they do their service. If you have a point, could you make it without being so crytic?

    noticed you also never said why you needed to do a "test" post?

    Because I could not post until I deleted my Java cache. What does this have to do with anything?


    4.Everyone makes a big thing about Hamas not recognizing the state of Israel to exist.

    It is a big thing. Hamas are the elected leaders of the Palestinians.

    But nobody mentions that many of the ruling party (Likud) and several other Israeli parties

    Because people will rightfully acknowledge their are nuts in Israel and that there are nutty political parties in Israel. However, the actual leaders of Israel have recognized the right of a Palestinian state to exist. Israel prime ministers, including Rabin who lost his life working with Arafat for peace, acknowledge Palestine's right to exist. Even Netanyahu has done so, although he is not very clear about what kind of state he is talking about. Still, Israeli prime ministers time and time again have talked about the right of a Palestinian state ot exist in the Occupied Territories. Hamas has never done so and Hamas is not a fringe group. They are the elected leaders of the Palestinians and they block any and all attempts to negotiate for a peaceful two state solution.

    Posted in: Violence soars in Gaza as world pleads for truce

  • 0



    No one said that, not one comment.

    yabits specifically supports Hamas and the violence that Hamas has done, including suicide bombing apparently. He excuses Hamas violence quite frequently. As to the test, I was having trouble posting anything for a while. It seems to be fixed now.

    As to the Israeli draft, Israel does not have a choice. It is a smail country with a small population. Hopefully, someday there will be a time when there is peace and less soldiers on all sides will be needed.


    The anti-Semite card should always be recognized as a desperate one

    Always? Even when the statement is anti-Semitic? Suggesting that the media is controlled by Jews is a racist statement. If you were to replace it with any other ethnic group, you would find it unacceptable. Amazing you do not in this case. You can disagree with a person's opinion, but that disagreement should have nothing to do with their race or ethnicity. Solely connecting it to race or ethnicity is racism in its purest form.

    employed by losers.

    Stay classy.

    The only reason you build all these illegal settlements, with all the roads and infrastructure to support them, and pay people a bonus to come live there is not because you believe there is any possibility that you would give it up. It is iron-clad proof that Israel is not seeking peace.

    ? Again, you choose to ignore reality. Israel pulled it settlers out of Gaza and Sinai. There were roads and infrastructures there, too. They are there in the Occupied Territories until a time when a deal is made. Then, those too will be removed. You see, you keep attempting to claim Israel will never remove settlers when they are already done so. So you are futilely attempting to argue with history and facts on the ground. Now, the ground that blindly hates Israel may fall for this, but the astute reader will notice that Israel has traded land for peace and has dragged settlers violently in many cases from territories it once occupied. So, while you guess incorrectly, I refer to actual actions and history. You agreed that Rabin was working for peace when he was killed. You know for a fact that Barak was working for peace. You know they had the support of most Israelis to do so.


    Newsflash: Israel is a democracy with one vote for one person. This is not comparable to South Africa at all. South Africa was one big country which, like the US did, had racist laws in its country. The Occupied Territories are not recognized as being part of Israel. The residents of those territories are not Israelis.

    Jews lived as a minority group in Palestine for centuries, in relative peace and prosperity.

    Please stop repeating half-truths about life for Jews in Arab countries. They were second class, or lower, citizens in their own countries. It was not a situation that would be acceptable today. You just got over talking about how bad South Africa was and then you suggest Jews living under similar conditions in Arab countries had it good. Please.

    It is Israel that wants to keep Jews separated from Palestinians.

    Really? Then how do you explain all those Israeli Arabs living in Israel as Israeli citizens? How many Jews were living in the West Bank after 1948?

    They have wanted to completely erase Arab Palestine from the map.

    Jordan and Egypt held the West Bank and Gaza respectively from 1948 to 1967 and never once considered giving the land to the Palestinians. It was only after Israel captured the land that such talk began. Since then, Israel has entered talks with the Palestinians to attempt to give them those lands in return for peace. This was never discussed before Israel captured the lands. So, I would suggest it was more the surrounding Arab countries that seemed to have wanted to erase Palestinians, not Israel.

    The Zionist state has never wanted peace.

    This statement from you strikes me as quite disingenuous when you are already on record as having admitted that you know Rabin was working for peace with the Palestinians. You know Rabin was a Zionist. So, why would you claim something you know to be patently false?

    1.Hamas is no more a terrorist organization than several of the groups that helped found the state of Israel.

    If Hamas were willing to change their spots and make peace as former Irgun member Begin did, then this would have a point. Right now, no such Hamas exists.

    Begin and Shamir -- by making them prime ministers, and that plenty of streets are named after them.

    Both Begin and Shamir ended up entering negotiations. Begin made peace with Israel and Shamir negotiated in Oslo. Hamas has indicated that they will never do so. I hope they change their minds and do do so. Today's terrorist is often tomorrow's hero. Ironic, yes. But, true. I would have no problem with a Hamas that change their spots and decided to go into negotiations with Israel and would fault anyone who did.

    The Jewish forces were the first ones to execute innocent civilians.

    Here again, you seem to be confused between opinion and fact. Both sides undoubtably killed civilians. However, I doubt there is anyone who can state which side was first. Just continually posting someone's opinions, often very bias ones at that, does not equal fact.

    Posted in: Violence soars in Gaza as world pleads for truce

  • 0



    You are correct seeking peace is the right way but see when Palestinians get their schools and hospitals bombed, the US refuels Israel...

    It seems that it is possible that both sides have been bombing the schools. The only solution is to talk to each other. To not do so, is to keep repeating the same thing every couple of years as they have been doing. This helps no one and really hurts the Palestinians, especially Gazans.


    Keep in mind that a siege is an act of war, and Israel placed Gaza under siege before Hamas fired a single rocket.

    You keep repeating this error and I keep correcting it. The US, EU, Russia and the UN, in addition to Israel, put sanctions on Hamas because of their actions. Hamas broke many of the arrangements that were agreed to between the PLA, Egypt and Israel. Feel free to continue to ignore this, but forgive the rest of us if we actually want to focus on what happened and not personal opinions.

    If genuine democracy -- one man; one vote -- threatens the existence of a state, then the problem is with the state, not democracy.

    ? Israel has one man; one vote. Why do you insist on confusing Israel and the Occupied Territories? The Occupied Territories are not annexed and are not part of the State of Israelis. The residents of the Occupied Territories are not Israelis. You are suggesting that Israel should absorb people from outside of Israel and that will not happen. Just as the US will not suddenly allow anyone who wants to live there to come in unfettered. It is reasonable for Israel to want to control its immigration just as any country does. Your suggestion of absorbing people from outside Israel is what would destroy Israel and it is an unreasonable suggestion.

    You are dreaming.

    No. It happened. How many settlers are in Gaza now? How many are in Sinai. How many IDF soldiers are in southern Lebanon now? Zero. That is how many will be in the future state of Palestine. Zero. History is on my side in this. Olmert was planning on doing the same with the West Bank before he got voted out.

    Those who support systematic racism and brutal oppression stand on the wrong side of history.

    I agree. That is why those of us who support a peaceful two state solution stand on the right side of history and the future will bear this out. It will happen and you will have to admit you were wrong.

    Claiming those who are blindly pro-Israel have tremendous influence over the media is dead-on accurate.

    First, if it is so accurate, you should be able to prove it. Second, being pro-Israel does not equal being a 'semite'. The comment suggested that the media was controlled by 'semites'. This is a racist statement and it adds no useful information to the discussion.

    I won't quibble over details.

    Why not? The devil is in the details. Suggesting a racial group has control of the media is a racist statement. In this case, it is also inaccurate. I am absolutely amazed that you support this type of speech.

    The anti-Semite card should always be recognized as a desperate one, Always? Even when the statement is anti-Semitic? Suggesting that the media is controlled by Jews is a racist statement. If you were to replace it with any other ethnic group, you would find it unacceptable. Amazing you do not in this case. You can disagree with a person's opinion, but that disagreement should have nothing to do with their race or ethnicity. Solely connecting it to race or ethnicity is racism in its purest form.

    employed by losers.

    Stay classy.

    A media that fails to report that has its reasons for doing so.

    The media reports plenty on both sides. I read them in the media. I see them on CNN and BBC. You and the other poster are suggesting it is merely because the media are Jewish. That is racist.

    Images of dead and brutalized non-violent Palestinians would raise more sympathy, and that is what many in the media cannot afford.

    I see these images daily in the media and it has absolutely nothing to do with what the religion of the media that shows me is.

    Israel can lie, cheat, steal, terrorize and kill

    A true view of history shows both sides have lied, cheated, terrorized and killed and received aid while doing so. Both sides. I find it ironic that you are okay with people suggesting the media is controlled by Jews and also only blame Israel for a situation that both clearly contribute to. Actually, more than ironic, it is very telling.

    Posted in: Violence soars in Gaza as world pleads for truce

  • 0


    The leaders of the Palestinian non-violent resistance movement are not Hamas.

    Ummmm. ..Yes, that was my point. Hamas are the leaders of the Palestinians and they do not practice non-violence. My point is that they should in the way that King and Ghandi did. You have stated you support Hamas' violence as a means to an end and that end should be the end of Israel. I disagree with both of your points in this regard.

    Posted in: Violence soars in Gaza as world pleads for truce

  • -1


    This is speaking of the past

    You have to be kidding. Most of your posts focus almost exclusively on things that happened 100 years ago. Suddenly talking about the past is taboo.

    Zionist Israel, in order to remain a Jewish state, much as apartheid South Africa was to be a white state, must oppose and subvert democracy.

    You keep repeating the same things. So, I will keep repeating my response. All Israeli citizens, not matter what their religion, have the right to vote in Israel. Israeli Arabs are members of the Israeli government, are government workers, and public school teachers. There is absolutely no Arab country in the middle east where this is true of Jews. None.


    Incorrect, huh? You know what incorrect means, right? It means you can now prove that the majority of both sides do not want peace. I know for a fact that the majority of both sides want peace. The majority of the world's people in general want peace. What is your proof they do not? What is your proof, not opinion mind you, that the majority of Israelis do not want peace?

    When the chips are down, the IDF will rush to the protection of illegal settlers if need be, and the people will cheer it.

    While Israel occupies the occupied territories, the IDF will protect the Israelis that are there. However, a peace deal will remove the settlers, as peace deals and pullouts have removed them in Sinai and Gaza. By the way, the settlers may cheer when the IDF has to go in, but the majority of Israelis would prefer not to have anything to do with the occupied territories, that includes having to go in to protect the settlers. That is why the majority of Israelis were for peace talks in 2000 and 2001 and the majority of Israelis were for the Gaza pullout, as well.

    You are simply in complete denial, having given yourself over to fantasies. I was once where you are now.

    I have studied the history much more deeply than you have. Both sides have been violent, both sides violate agreements, and the majority of both sides just want to live in peace. It is not I that is in denial. I can see that both sides are at fault and that both sides need to get together and make peace. Your attempt to claim it is only one side reveals that it is actually you that is in denial.

    Your desperation is making you sound ridiculous.

    ? Now, you consider wanting non-violent leaders to be desperate and ridiculous? How sad for you.

    The leaders of the Palestinian non-violent resistance movement are not Hamas. Ummmm. ..Yes, that was my point. Hamas are the leaders of the Palestinians and they do not practice non-violence. My point is that they should in the way that King and Ghandi did. You have stated you support Hamas' violence as a means to an end and that end should be the end of Israel. I disagree with both of your points in this regard.

    American racists back in the day undermined King's movement by tying it to the Black Panthers, the same as you are doing with non-violent Palestinians and Hamas.

    ? Speaking of ridiculous. Hamas are the actual elected leaders of the Palestinians. They are not a fringe group. They are the leaders of Gaza. They are not non-violent. They are decidedly violent. Any reason why you choose to ignore the fact that the leaders of the Palestinians are extremely violent and have clearly stated that they never want peace with Israel? Hamas are the elected leaders the Palestinians and they are not non-violent. This is not me tying them to anything. It is Hamas and their own policies. Can you see the difference?

    Posted in: Violence soars in Gaza as world pleads for truce

  • 0


    Keep the clothes on!

    Speak for yourself!

    Posted in: Actress/sexpert Aya Sugimoto founds organization for animal welfare

  • 0



    Good post and points, again. Refreshing, as always.

    We wouldn't even be here if Israel hadn't rejected the 2003 Geneva Accord:

    Yes, good ol' Sharon making trouble again. Sharon made it clear he would have been against making a deal in 2000 and 2001 if he were prime minister. Of course, had Barak and Arafat made a deal in 2000 and 2001, Barak probably would have been reelected again. Even if he had not, Sharon would have had to abide by what was agreed to anyway. Then, it would have not been an issue anymore in 2003.

    The challenge for us all (it's not an us/them issue) is to disarm hearts and minds on both sides, and do it quickly. The longer this wound festers, the stronger Hamas, third-rate imams and pimply wannabe jihadists everywhere become.

    Best point of the discussion. I agree 100%. This is the only way. Both sides need to be encouraged to go to the negotiating table. That means Netanyahu and Hamas/Fatah.

    Now, on to other posters:

    There is not one comment, on this thread, of "westerners", supporting your claim.

    Come on, Stuart. Both you and I know you have been active in these discussions and know full well that there are a few posters here that think Hamas violence is not only justified but necessary and at least one has actively and specifically calls for the destruction of Israel as the only viable solution.

    Do you, Stuart, support Hamas' continued rocket attacks in the face of the current situation? Don't you think serious negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis would serve them both better than this constant round and round of attacks? Personally, I am sick of this constant cycle of violence.

    Now, I would like to respond to your previous post. I am sure SuperLib would respond as well with his own opinion.

    but I would also say the same thing of Israel, violent actions & reactions, are a way of life in Israel and it gradually affects the very young and salitifies by the time they're adults.

    I am sure being in a constant state of war affects both sides negatively. No doubt about it. However, there are many liberal Israelis and many (most) who want a peaceful two state solution. You can find many interviews on the internet and the media of Israeli children and young people saying these very things. There are many interviews with young Israelis where they clearly say that although the rockets are frightening, that they know the average Gazan has it much, much worse. So, I would disagree if you are suggesting that Israelis feel no ampathy with the Gazans' situation.

    Plus forced military training tends to inhance intolerance and violent responce.

    Actually, I often see quite the opposite. For many, military service helps the Israelis realize that they would prefer peace rather than fighting. If you ask most young Israelis if they would prefer to fight or not, they would answer they would prefer not to. South Korea has the draft as well and I would say it is the same there as well.

    The only real solution is one where both sides come together and negotiate until a deal is made.


    Yet violence is key to Zionist statehood and domination.

    Violence was the key to your own country's existence, too. Also to its domination of minorities. Both the Israelis and Palestinians have always used violence, have always broken each others agreements and have not managed to stay at the negotiating table long enough to make a deal.

    A key point is this:

    No, THE key point is this. The majority of BOTH sides is largely non-violent. The majority of BOTH sides wants to live in peace. There are plenty of peace organizations in Israel that show this.

    You have Zionist settlers

    You have them and you have Hamas. The difference? Hamas are the actual leaders of the Palestinians. The settlers are not the leaders of Israel. Settlers get dragged screaming off of land Israel trades for peace. So, the settlers are merely pawns.

    In my view, the real anti-Semite

    Claiming Jews control the media is anti-Semitic. One would think you could at least acknowledge this.

    The point again is that the vast majority of Palestinians are using non-violent protest as their means, and have been doing so for years

    The message has not reached Hamas. That is the problem. It only works if the leaders are non-violent protesters. King and Ghandi led non-violent protests. Hamas shoots rockets. The two cannot be compared in any way, shape or form.

    Israel, in its current form, could never and will never do this.

    Olmert was planning to do this. Barak was hoping to do this. Netanyahu? I have no idea what the man is really thinking. The point is there have to be committed leaders on both sides. However, Hamas' attitude helps keeps the status quo. Encouraging Hamas helps keep the status quo. You said it yourself. Hamas are the Israeli extremists' dream. So, why should Hamas do it that way then? Why play it that way when they could say, "Okay, we renounce violence and want to work for a real peace. Let's get started." You can bet the world would rally around their cause if Netanyahu did not respond favorably. However, we will never get to see this if Hamas continues they way they are.

    There is too much good land and water resources that they control in the West Bank.

    The water resources are mostly from farther up north. Water sharing arrangements were very successfully being worked on in previous discussions. Both sides said so in 2000 and 2001. Both sides show progress. Outside observers saw progress. It can and will happen someday.

    The Israeli government is paying those who will move to these illegal settlements the equivalent of $20,000 US.

    They will be gone when a deal is made just as the settlers were removed from Gaza and Sinai. The two sides need to work and make a deal and it is time the world started to try and figure out a way to get them to do so.

    But, as Robert Malley pointed out. It will happen. It is just a matter of sooner or later. I am hoping for sooner. I would love to see a Palestinian nation and an Israeli nation side by side in peace and so would most of the world.

    Posted in: Violence soars in Gaza as world pleads for truce

  • -1


    I also believe if it really wanted to, Israel could resolve the conflict and bring peace to the land for all people.

    I agree that Israel could do so as a willing partner, but how does Hamas fit into your equation? Do you think Israel could accomplish this without Hamas agreement? If so, how? Just up and leaving the territory will not do this as Hamas still says they will not stop until Israel is destroyed.

    Posted in: Violence soars in Gaza as world pleads for truce

  • 1



    Great points.

    Posted in: 1-year-old girl hit and killed by kindergarten bus

  • 2


    But, really, if your own child - or grandchild - were driven to school in a bus piloted by a septuagenarian, if you didn't feel a bit concerned, you would not be a good parent.

    I disagree on both your points. 1) Judging people solely on their age and nothing else is referred to as agesim and it is just as dangerous and wrong as racism or sexism. I would be concerned if the driver were a bad driver full stop no matter what age they were. If they were a good driver, I would feel just fine.

    you would not be a good parent.

    I disagree on your assessment of what constitutes 'not a good parent'. I maintain that a "not good parent" would be one that does not maintain control of a smail child by either picking them up or holding their hand, etc, when there is a clear danger such as traffic nearby. You have shown no reason to think the driver did anything wrong except for living to be 72. Being 72 is not a crime and should not be treating as being one and people whom I assume to be older than you should not automatically be considered criminals simply because they are of a certain age. Trust me, you will not like it when people do it to you and you should not do it to others.

    Posted in: 1-year-old girl hit and killed by kindergarten bus

  • 0


    Actually, I should correct myself. Although my original comment is gone. Mark G's is still there:

    I say several sources because English language media is Semite dominant


    I agree that Israel is 100% responsible for any loss of innocent life that it causes, but it seems to me that neither side knows when to stop. It really does. The ones that suffer are the average people on both sides, but mostly on the Palestinian side especially in Gaza. Hamas needs to agree to a permanent truce and start taking lessons from the great leaders such as Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi and use non-violent means to seek a peaceful permanent solution for all concerned. On Israel's side, Netanyahu must stop building settlements in the West Bank and show a more sincere desire to talk to any and all Palestinian leaders who express a true desire to make peace. This includes Hamas if they change their minds. Menachem Begin was a member of the Irgun and managed to trade land and make peace with Egypt. Netanyahu should take a page from that book and move in that direction. Hamas must lay down their arms and change their attitude toward one of mutual recognition and peaceful coexistence with two nations side by side: Israel and Palestine. Failure to do this will only lead to this happening again and again.

    Posted in: Violence soars in Gaza as world pleads for truce

  • 0


    Wow, three thumbs down for pointing out the Mark G suggesting the media is controlled by Jews is an inappropriate thing, not to mention incorrect, thing to say. I realize the posts are gone now (Mark G's was up for about a day), but you all know what he wrote. Which ever side you decide you are on, I cannot understand support for any racist remarks about either side.

    Posted in: Violence soars in Gaza as world pleads for truce

  • -2


    Simply stating a fact.

    To be said to be stating a fact, you would actually have to be stating facts. What you wrote was not a fact. Although it strikes me as very telling about you in other ways.

    I urge you to consider saving your David Duke 'the Jews control the Media' posts for online discussions that are more appropriate, such as Stormfront.

    Posted in: Violence soars in Gaza as world pleads for truce

  • 0


    What you wrote was Malley's opinion. I pointed out his facts.

    They are all Malleys opinions and views of what took place. You have not shown them to be facts. You have shown them to be opinons, as I have. However, while you pointed out some opinions, you also managed to completely avoid all balance seemingly on purpose.

    It is disingenuous to mention Barak's actions without acknowledging the increase in terrorism at the time and the pressure Barak was under to maintain security. Arafat went to the negotations and by all accounts, they went very well. No matter what had happened up to that point, it is unrealistic to suggest that Arafat saw no point in negotiating at all because he and his staff were there for days negotiating. It was Arafat that provided no counter offer. Malley himself talks of his disappointment with the Palestinian passivity and inablitiy to seize on the moment. He is not the only one. Clinton clearly has stated the same thing several times.

    Again, I would appeal to readers to consider how important

    I would appeal to readers to consider that Arafat was in the negotations at that point. So, he obviously was no so affected by what had happened up to that point that he was unable to negotiate. He and his staff seemingly did so with the Israelis in what has been described by members of both sides as very fruitful discussions. Arafat then went to Davos and made a horrible speech basically decrying everything that was discussed and agreed to in negotiations and this was after Shimon Peres showered him with warm words and compliments.

    Both sides were in a better place during the negotations we are discussing. It was Arafat and his lack of response to the Israeli offer and his speech in Davos that helped pave the way for the 14 years of misery since.

    It is both sides that are to blame for the conflict and it is both sides that have to come together and fix it. They will do it someday. I know they will.

    Posted in: Israel rejects Gaza ceasefire plan as death toll nears 850

  • 2



    Clearly, it was not the age of the driver that caused this tragedy. It was the fact the a child was able to be in a dangerous situation in the first place that caused it. Holding the child or holding their hand would have prevented it. A younger driver would not have. BTW, 72 is not that old. You should meet some people around that age and find out for yourself before passing judgement.

    Posted in: 1-year-old girl hit and killed by kindergarten bus

  • 0


    That is what listening selectively to "eyewitnesses" will get you.

    To quote you, "That's truly laughable". You misrepresented the Guardian article by Robert Malley completely.

    Allow me to quote the final paragraph:

    Offer or no offer, the negotiations that took place between July 2000 and February 2001 make up an indelible chapter in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Taboos were shattered, the unspoken got spoken, and, during that period,** Israelis and Palestinians reached an unprecedented level of understanding of what it will take to end their struggle.** When the two sides resume their path toward a permanent agreement - and eventually, they will **- they will come to it with the memory of those remarkable eight months, the experience of how far they had come and how far they had yet to go, and **with the sobering wisdom of an opportunity that was missed by all, less by design than by mistake, more through miscalculation than through mischief.

    You completely misrepresented the negotations, the history leading to them and the reasons for the actions taken place, particularly by Ehud Barak. Robert Malley is a man deserved of respect for his balance and perspective. You completely misrepresented that balance and perspective.

    In case you did not happen to notice, one of the eyewitnesses I quoted was in fact Robert Malley, the man whose article you misrepresented.

    Robert Malley also wrote:

    I was at Camp David, a member of the small American peace team, and I, too, was frustrated almost to the point of despair by the Palestinians' passivity and inability to seize the moment.

    So, your incorrect claims of what Zionism are, are just that: incorrect. Your incorrect claims of the reasons why Barak did what he did are also just that: incorrect. This is according the very article you linked to supposedly support your argument. Again, I would suggest you actually read what you link before you link it.

    I agree with Robert Malley. There will be peace between the nations of Palestine and Israel. You can bank on it.

    Posted in: Israel rejects Gaza ceasefire plan as death toll nears 850

  • 0


    What's your source for this, please?

    Hi, SenseNotSoCommon,

    Here you are:

    Hamas tells social media activists to always call the dead ‘innocent civilians’

    Posted in: U.N. Security Council calls for immediate Gaza ceasefire

  • 1


    Thanks, Slumdog Personally, what really sticks out in Malley's commentary is:

    You are welcome. It is very refreshing to converse with someone who does not feel the need to resort to hyperbole or fake quotes as some have done. I agree with what you have said. This is also mentioned in the link that I provided as well. Neither Arafat nor Barak were in a popular or strong position when the negotiations took place. Which to me was all the more reason to have stuck with the talks and worked them out until successful. They were in fact almost there. This is shown by comments of those who were there. Then, Arafat went to Switzerland and made that horrible speech. Sharon ended up winning the election and the Second Intifada started and the area has never been anywhere near that close to peace since.

    According to Friel, H (Ed.) Chomsky and Dershowitz : On Endless War and the End of Civil Liberties, 2013, Kindle., at Davos, Arafat condemned Israel's use of non-conventional weapons and punitive economic measures against the Second Intifada, before trying to soften his tone.

    Well, it seems to me that when you have just made the kind of progress that was made at Taba and Shimon Perez gets up to speak at Davos and showers Arafat with praise that Arafat would have held his tongue. The Second Intifada was not Barak's fault and Barak was in danger of losing the election to the man whose fault it was, Ariel Sharon. Basically, Arafat succeeded in handing the election to Sharon and ruining any chances for further talks. Also, the general consensus of the people involved was that Arafat walked away from the talks because of the speech he made in Davos. As noted in the link I provided, Arafat's speech made it quite clear that he was no longer interested in talks. His speech made no sense otherwise when you consider the timing of it.

    Posted in: Hamas asks for new truce as Israel resumes Gaza assault

  • 1


    It's five books.

    Fine, Five books is not enough.

    Zionism which lies

    "Lies", huh? Kind of ironic coming from someone who has completely misrepresented the Zionist platform.

    Sorry, Israel has a right to exist.

    The Israelis who note the growing racism in Israel do not endorse killing innocent civilians

    Many countries have a problem with racism. Israel is one of them. Most people, including most, if not all, Israelis do not endorse killing innocent civilians. That is just hyperbole.

    Israel has never sought a just peace. Whatever "land" they gave up -- and I am specifically referring to Sinai and Jordanian lands -- was never theirs in the first place.

    Nah, sorry. You cannot have it both ways. I am tired of the damned if you do and damned if you don't attitude. Israel did give up land it possessed for peace. It also did pull out of Gaza in 2005.

    was never theirs in the first place.

    Sorry? Aren't you already claiming that none of it is theirs anyway, including the West Bank and Gaza? You are not even consistent in your argument. Israel has given back land it has captured. It has made peace. It negotiated for peace in 2000 and by all eyewitness accounts, the talks were going well when Arafat quit them. That was Arafat's doing, not Israel's. You claim the offer was not good enough. Well, that is what continued negotiations are for, to continue until the job of peace is done. Israel and Clinton wanted to continue. Arafat did not.

    Surrender. Arafat could not accept surrender on Israeli terms. Good for him and for his people.

    Sorry, you 'opinion' based on five books does not equal the value of people that were there:

    Robert Malley wrote:

    I was at Camp David, a member of the small American peace team, and I, too, was frustrated almost to the point of despair by the Palestinians' passivity and inability to seize the moment.

    In short, there was reason on the last day of Taba to believe that with four or five more days of negotiating, a framework agreement for most but not all issues was possible. With such positive progress, I cannot see any good reason whatsoever for Arafat to have left the talks. None. I can clearly see at least 14 years of misery why he should have stayed and continued talking.


    As Taba ended, there was general talk about further steps. One proposal was a meeting of Barak and Arafat, before the election, to achieve an undefined breakthrough or to agree on a framework. Another suggested reconvening the negotiators after the election, with the goal of reaching agreement by April 30. Some planning toward further meetings did occur, but a bitter speech by Arafat on Sunday, January 28, in Switzerland, attacked Israel with language completely at odds with the Taba negotiations, and that marked the end of the process.

    Like many people who have duped themselves -- as I once did -- you don't have the ability to see the pertinent facts that belie your flawed assumptions. Israel had stolen miles and miles of Arab land and was offering Arafat inches. You can continue to excuse Arafat dropping out on the chance for a true peace, but I will not fall for it.

    Nope. That is not what eyewitnesses to the talks or the negotiators have to say. Arafat betrayed his people and they have continued to suffer for it for the past 14 years.

    This is a laugh.

    No, my facts also came from the same sources you are using. They are accurate. Both sides were attempting to take over the Golan, but it was Syria that was shelling Israel from the Golan Heights and continued to do so up to 1973. Even Syria admits they did this.

    Israel will never give up stolen land on which it has built settlements

    ? Again, Israel has pulled out of Sinai and took its settlements with it. Israel pulled out of Gaza and took its settlements with it. Former Prime Minister Olmert was working on plans to do the same in the West Bank, but was voted out of office before he could do it. You make claims that have no bearing on either history or the present situation. Israel has removed settlements and has given back land for peace.

    The only solution is one-state solution

    No. The destruction of Israel is not an option. It will never be an option.

    Posted in: Israel rejects Gaza ceasefire plan as death toll nears 850

View all