Palestinians, Israelis, and Int'ls Rally Against the Wall

We demand that you fashionable liberal idiots help pull down the fence that is blocking our holy warriors from carrying out their divin mission of killing Jewish children.

Since the erection of the Zionist protection fence our soldiers keep having to go through checkpoints and are being caught before they can set off their bombs.

Not enough Jewish children have been killed as they eat pizza. We must have free access to these Jewish children. killing them by ones and two in cars and in their homes are not providing our people with enough gratifcation.

The security barrier would serve its defensive purpose just as effectively on the Green Line. Sharon and his administration have, however, used it as a means of de-facto annexation of the area around settlements like Ariel. In doing so, they undermine their moral imperative.

@%<

>>>The security barrier would serve its defensive purpose just as effectively on the Green Line. Sharon and his administration have, however, used it as a means of de-facto annexation of the area around settlements like Ariel. In doing so, they undermine their moral imperative.

@%<<<<<<gehrig>

Well said gehrig......

Peace not War......Build the Wall on the Green Line....
Palestinian State in the Whole of the West Bank and Gaza. What ever happened to the Road Map to a two State Solution?
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.
It would sure be better then the never ending conflict we have right now.

Arafat calls for millions to die

To Jerusalem, we are marching, martyrs by the million!" declared Yasser Arafat, as the audience roared its approval and chanted along with him.

RAMALLAH, WEST BANK -- The unmistakable figure, a short, plump man in green battle-dress fatigues and a black-and-white checked kaffiyeh, grabbed the microphone and addressed the adoring crowd.

"To Jerusalem, we are marching, martyrs by the million!" declared Yasser Arafat, as the audience roared its approval and chanted along with him.

"With blood, with our souls, we will redeem you, Abu Ammar," they responded, using his nom de guerre. "With blood, with our souls, we will redeem Palestine," they chanted, straining through the cordon of armed security men to touch him and hold up their children for him to kiss.

Here was the Palestinian leader in his element, surrounded by admirers and protected by a phalanx of paramilitary minders bristling with semi-automatic weapons. It was hard to believe he was in the midst of a political crisis, with a chorus of critics demanding that he step aside.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040802/ARAFAT02/TPInternational/Africa

And a famous American said give me Liberty or give me Death.

Whats the difference if an American is willing to die for the American Freedom, or a Palestinian is willing to die for the Palestinian Freedom.

"Palestinian is willing to die for the Palestinian Freedom."

"palestinians" are willing to murder children for 'freedom"
(hey, here's a novel idea...how about negotiating for peace?)

The key point is not whether Palestinians are willing to die for their freedom. The question is whether Palestinians are willing to die _pointlessly_ for their freedom because the Palestinian leadership has turned down opportunity after opportunity to _peacefully_ achieve the Palestinian state.

@%<

Historically, Israel "has never missed an opportunity to destroy an opportunity" for peace.

Oh, 'Israel wants peace', all right: a piece here, a piece there, a piece over there, until they now effectively live in about all of historic Palestine; plus, a piece of Lebanon, a piece of Syrian, a piece of Jordan, a piece of Egypt, now pieces of the Occupied Territories. Israel finally gave back a piece of Egypt because then Egypt (with 60 million people) was the only country that could come back and credibly threaten Israel.

This is because Israel's Zionist founders' had always planned to "ethnically cleanse" and occupy all of Palestine (and even beyond that) if it could. David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, said that he had expansionist plans all along. Zionism was Israel's 'Manifest Destiny' ideology. Indeed, Ariel Sharon's ideology claims that Israel has a right, one day, to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates Rivers. How many wars will Americans fight and die in, in part, for that? -- or at least so Israel can dominate the Middle East? What will be the Arab/Muslim/SW Asian "terrorist" backlash against this country as we do? (After all, it was the Zionist Jewish neocons in Washington who largely pushed for and planned the, just so far, $200 Billion war in Iraq. Now they want to go into Iran and Syria. What do they care?: no Israelis are dying there. It's American lives--about 18,000 total mortal and serious casualties--and American dollars that are being ground out.)

-- JA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HENRY SIEGMAN, JEWISH HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR/REFUGEE, a highly respected senior fellow at the (American) Council on Foreign Relations and former executive director of the American Jewish Congress:

Do a web search on the name Henry Siegman for seemingly innumerable listings--and embarrassment of riches--under his name!

SIEGMAN's remarks on the American Charlie Rose Show on the midnight broadcast (Aug 22/23, 2002; transcripts and videotape available) -- *DEVASTATINGLY CRITICAL* OF THE SHARON GOVERNMENT (THE LOGICAL OUTCOME OF ZIONISM)!:

Among other things, Siegman said:

- that the Sharon government was cynically and *PURPOSELY* *PROVOKING* "suicide bombers";

- that the Sharon military itself was targeting and attacking INNOCENT CIVILIANS!;

- that the Sharon government was issuing demands it *knew* no Palestinian leader could ever accept;

- and that the Sharon government was opposed to a Palestinian state *UNDER ANY CONDITIONS*!


Siegman further said that the crisis (Israel's military invasion and campaigns) in Israel’s Occupied Territories (in cities or towns like Jenin, etc.):

- was NOT really Israel’s war against terrorism;

- that it was Israel’s war to hang onto and annex the Occupied Territories (particularly the West Bank);

- that it was Israel’s war to avoid dismantling the settlements (particularly in the West Bank);

- and a war to prevent *ANY* real process towards PEACE !


Now, when someone representing the CFR says things like Siegman said -- the CFR is not just in the establishment, it's in the elite! Siegman would have never gotten on a nationally-televised American TV program had it not been for his credentials, as even Jews with his perspective are typically censored from American TV by Zionist Jewish influence in American politics and the American corporate media.

The crack in the Zionist propaganda wall has been, especially in the past two or three years, slowly, steadily travelling, if not widening yet enough! And that's what Zionists/Israel are deathly afraid of!

It's a good thing that Apartheid South Africa didn't have a rich and politically powerful U.S. lobby supporting it, with 'Afrikaner-Americans' occupying every important office in the U.S. presidential administration, or South African apartheid would still exist, anyone who opposed it would be called an *anti-white* racist, and Mandela would still be in prison.

_________________________

MLK: "NO lie can live forever! ... Truth crushed to earth will rise once again!"

JA: "Historically, Israel "has never missed an opportunity to destroy an opportunity" for peace."

Except, of course, when they're offering the Palestinians pretty much everything they were asking for (except for Israel's destruction) -- only to have Arafat stall and stall and then bring on the second intifada as a response. And that's only in the last few years; unfortunately, history has quite a few other examples where the Palestinians could have negotiated themselves an independent state -- one larger than the West Bank and Gaza, incidentally -- only to have their leadership decide that killing the Jews was more important than a Palestinian state.

@%<

gassy gerhig: "Except, of course, when they're [Israel] offering the Palestinians pretty much everything they were asking for"


Gerhig, I guess that you'll be the last *CRAZY* OLE ZIONIST JEW slinging that old chestnut lie around. Everyone from Robert Malley on Clinton's would-be '2nd Camp David' negotiating team, to Jimmy Carter, to Jewish peace organizations, to Israeli historians have debunked that bit of propaganda mythology.

But, whatever helps you get through the day -- I mean, besides the booze.

The San Francisco Chronicle -- certainly no pro-Palestinian news organ -- once merely published a *MAP* of the Sharon-proposed (remember Sharon, "the Man of Peace", as Bush dubbed him) Palestinian state.

THE LOCAL ZIONIST JEWS *HOWLED* THAT PRINTING A MAP OF THE SHARON-PROPOSED STATE WAS *UNFAIR*!! -- PRACTICALLY "ANTI-SEMITIC"!!

This because the map itself *CLEARLY* showed what a *LIE* it was that, "Sharon offered Arafat 97% of what the Palestinians wanted."

It was more like Sharon offered Arafat a disparate collection of disjointed apartheid bantustans of about 45% of the remaining 20% of Palestine.

Jimmy Carter said that Sharon's proposed Palestinian state was so abjectly unfair that Arafat would have been dead within a week if he had accepted it.

Gerhig, don't you *hate* it when I'm around to debunk your lies!? Maybe you should go find another indymedia to post at: maybe in North Dakota. (No offense North Dakota.)

JA: [various gratuitous insults]

Thanks for taking my bait so graciously. The problem is, we now know what Arafat was offered, and we know it in detail, and you can no longer hid behind the pretext that it _wasn't_ pretty much everything he was asking for.

Here's some stuff from the August 8, 2004 -- i.e. only a month or so ago -- New York Times review of Dennis Ross's book on the whole business, _The Missing Piece_. You may even recall that Dennis Ross was, no, not Clinton's number _two_ negotiator, but Clinton's number _one_ negotiator for the Mideast.

'Ross's analysis of the peace process is astute, but the real service he
performs in this book is less in explaining the meaning of events than
in setting the record straight. There has been much dispute over what
was offered to the Palestinians in the 2000 Camp David meeting and in
the months that followed. This book should end that discussion. The
final deal, made orally to the Palestinians and Israelis by Clinton, is
laid out in the appendix. Broadly, the ideas were these:

'Territory: The Palestinians would get all of Gaza and between 94 and 96
percent of the West Bank. In exchange for what they would not get of the
West Bank, Israel would be required to give up between 1 percent and 3
percent of its own land.

'Security: Israel would withdraw from the West Bank over 36 months with
an international force gradually introduced into the area. A small
Israeli presence in fixed locations would remain in the Jordan Valley
under the authority of the international force for another 36 months.
Palestine would be defined as a ''nonmilitarized state'' with a strong
internal security force and an international presence for border and
deterrence purposes.

'Jerusalem: What is Arab in the city would be Palestinian and what is
Jewish Israeli. Palestinians would have sovereignty over the plaza of
the mosques and Israelis over the Western Wall.

'Refugees: Palestinian refugees would either move to the new state of
Palestine, be rehabilitated in their host country, resettle in a third
country or be admitted to Israel if Israel so chose. None would have the
right to return to Israel against Israel's will.

'One of the reasons there has been so little clarity regarding this offer
is that it evolved over eight months. The first offer made by Israel to
the Palestinians in preparation for the July 2000 Camp David summit was
for nearly 60 percent of the West Bank. Over time it could grow to 80
percent. The Palestinians walked out, and the next offer was for 87
percent. At Camp David itself, the offer was for 91 percent plus a 1
percent swap. In other words, the Palestinians were right to say no with
such consistency. The deal kept improving. What they did not know was
when to say yes.'

And who does Ross blame? See for yourself:

'To the question of what went wrong, Ross offers two answers, one simple
and one messy but no less true or important. The simple answer is that
in the end Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, was the principal cause
of the failure. Ross illustrates this in numerous ways. The most
important and dramatic is an account of late December 2000, when, with
only a few weeks left in his administration, President Clinton suggested
a set of guidelines to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli
cabinet accepted the framework with several reservations that were
within the guidelines laid out by the president. Arafat did not. Ross
recounts watching Clinton tell Arafat that by not responding to the
American ideas, ''he was killing Barak and the peace camp in Israel.''
Arafat did not budge. As Ross puts it: ''A comprehensive deal was not
possible with Arafat. . . . He could live with a process, but not with a
conclusion.''

'The second explanation, the messier one, is that neither side had taken
sufficient steps to grasp the needs and neuroses of the other. Ross says
''the Israelis acted as if all decisions should be informed by their
needs, not by possible Palestinian needs or reactions.'' Regarding the
Arabs, he writes, ''The kind of transformation that would make it
possible for the Arab world to acknowledge that Israel has needs has yet
to take place.'' As for the American role, Ross puts it this way: ''Our
great failing was not in misreading Arafat. Our great failing was in not
creating the earlier tests that would have either exposed Arafat's
inability to ultimately make peace or forced him to prepare his people
for compromise.'' '

Thanks for giving me this opportunity to clear up your misapprehensions.

@%<

JA, super genius: "once merely published a *MAP* of the Sharon-proposed (remember Sharon, "the Man of Peace", as Bush dubbed him) Palestinian state."

Aw, you poor kid, you're all confusled again. Sharon didn't become PM until _after_ Clinton left office -- the Israeli election was Feb 6, 2001 -- and the second intifada was already in full swing. You've got Sharon confused with Barak. Your history is demonstrably faulty again.

Here's a hint: if you weren't trying so hard to swagger, maybe you'd have time to double check your facts _before_ you post, so that you wouldn't fall BLAM! on your face so many times.

@%<

Your JA impersonation isn't any more convincing than your Wendy impersonation.

Presumably JA will now ignore what I've written pointing out his errors in order to focus on your forgery.

Forgery is bad. Don't do it.

@%<

[ONCE AGAIN, GERHIG DOES HIS "CUT & PASTE" SLATHER JOB.]

YEAH, THE NEW YORK TIMES! ALL THE NEWS THAT THE RULING CLASS SAYS IS "FIT TO PRINT"!

WASN'T THAT THE HISTORICALLY IMPERIALIST NEWSPAPER THAT JUST RECENTLY APOLOGIZED FOR ITS LONGTIME SLANTED COVERAGE OF THE WAR IN IRAQ!???: YOU KNOW, PRIMARILY, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S ZIONIST JEWISH NEOCONS'-PUSHED WAR?

I GUESS THAT ONE DAY THE NYT'S -- AFTER THOUSANDS OF MORE DEATHS TO WHICH THE TIMES WILL HAVE IMMORALLY CONTRIBUTED -- WILL *FINALLY* APOLOGIZE FOR ITS SLANTED COVERAGE OF PALESTINE AND COVERAGE AGAINST PALESTINE'S INDIGENOUS THIRD WORLD PEOPLE, THE PALESTINIANS.

NOW *HOW* MANY MAJOR STAUNCH **ZIONIST** ORGANIZATIONS WAS/IS STAUNCH **ZIONIST** DENNIS ROSS (and other govt Zionist Jewish neocons) -- FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES A LOBBYING AGENT OF THE ISRAELI GOVT -- HEAD OF, AN EXECUTIVE OF, OR A HIGH OFFICIAL OF???

GEE!: I WONDER WHAT ZIONIST LIES WE'D *EXPECT* ROSS TO SAY!???

THANKFULLY, NOT EVEN ISRAELI ACADEMIC HISTORIANS GO THAT FAR, LET ALONE HENRY SIEGMAN, ROBERT MALLEY, JIMMY CARTER, ZBIGNIEV BRZEZINSKI, VARIOUS JEWISH PEACE GROUPS, OTHER JEWISH ACADEMICS, EVEN RABBI MICHAEL LERNER, ETC.

AS I SAID, GERHIG, YOU'LL BE THE *LAST*...*LONE*...*CRAZY*...*ZIONIST*...*HOLDOUT*!!

THEY'LL HAVE TO PRY THAT ZIONIST LIE FROM YOUR STONE COLD GNARLY DECREPIT DECAYING DEAD HANDS.

FORTUNATELY, A *MAP* IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS.


(Regarding Ross, see last letter: "Zionism Ignores Plight of Palestinian People", by Joseph Anderson
http://www.dailycal.org/article.php?id=10435 )

JA, stuck on facts, and resorting to bombast: "YEAH, THE NEW YORK TIMES! ALL THE NEWS THAT THE RULING CLASS SAYS IS "FIT TO PRINT"! "

Tell you what, JA. The name of the Dennis Ross book is _The Missing Piece_. Why don't you just wander into your local bookstore, flip to the appendix, and see whether or not the Times is telling the truth. See whether the appendix -- in which the offer Arafat rejected is spelled out explicitly, and it turns out not be "bantustans" after all -- is summarized properly. That ought to be a very simple task -- if you're actually interested in truth, that is, rather than writing stuff like: "THEY'LL HAVE TO PRY THAT ZIONIST LIE FROM YOUR STONE COLD GNARLY DECREPIT DECAYING DEAD HANDS."

Go ahead, JA. Put some back into something besides your capslock and punctuation keys.

And you have no comment on your inability to keep Sharon and Barak straight, I notice. I can understand your embarrassed silence. After all, that's a pretty fundamental thing to demonstrate ignorance about, isn't it. And your only alternatives are either to agree that you _don't_ know what you're talking about, or else make some lame joke about "all Zionists look alike to me."

@%<

gehrig to moron: "Your JA impersonation isn't any more convincing than your Wendy impersonation. Presumably JA will now ignore what I've written pointing out his errors in order to focus on your forgery."

ACTUALLY, I WAS JUST GOING TO IGNORE HIS CRUDE CRETINOUS FORGERY.

BUT, THANK YOU, SINCERELY, *VERY* MUCH, GEHRIG!!


(YOU SEE, I'LL SPELL YOUR MONIKER RIGHT, WHEN YOU'RE NOT BEING AN INTELLECTUALLY OBNOXIOUS ASS. I'LL GLADLY BE FAIR WHEN YOU'RE FAIR. I BET THAT THE PALESTINIANS WOULD BE TOO. IN FACT, THEY'VE HISTORICALLY MADE SUCH OFFERS -- IN FACT TO EVEN SHARE PALESTINE WITH JEWS, AS THEY HAD DONE BEFORE ZIONISM, ON AN EQUAL BASIS.)


gehrig: "You've got Sharon confused with Barak."

OH, *YES*, MY GOOD ZIONIST APARTHEID PRO-SETTLER-COLONIALIST! -- OF *COURSE* -- OF *COURSE*!!: THE ZIONIST MYTH OF "*BARAK'S GENEROUS OFFER*"

GEE, YOU'D THINK THAT YOU ZIONISTS WOULD HAVE INDELIBLY, IRRECOVABLY, PERMANENTLY DRILLED THAT PHRASE INTO EVERYONE'S HEADS BY NOW!

YOU BETTER REPORT MY SLIP TO THE ISRAEL PROPAGANDA MINISTRY -- RIGHT AWAY!!

(Actually, like the Democrats and the Republicans, Barak and Sharon were merely two sides of the same coin. Barak put in or expanded more Occupied Territory Jewish "settlements" -- you know, the ones in Barak's proposed *Palestinian* state -- than Sharon ever did!)

ONCE IN A WHILE I'LL MAKE A SLIP MISTAKE, JUST AS NEARLY ALWAYS DO YOU!

I'M *WORKING*!!

Or, at least, I'm supposed to be!

I can't two-step with you all afternoon.

As for Dennis Ross's "THE MISSING PIECE"?: Instead of Ross's twisted Zionist propaganda, IT'S THE *MAP*!!


THE TRUE "MISSING *PEACE*" IS THE MISSING MORAL PEACE THAT ISRAEL HAS ALWAYS *NEVER* WANTED -- WITH ZIONISM'S RACIST EUROPEAN SETTLER-COLONIALIST JEWISH-SUPREMACIST (LIKE EARLIER SOUTH AFRICA'S AFRIKANERISM'S RACIST EUROPEAN SETTLER-COLONIALIST CHRISTIAN-SUPREMACIST) APARTHEID IDEOLOGY.


You posted before I had a chance to correct myself: which is more than you ever do.

As for my "embarrassed silence"...: GEE, IS MY FACE RED!!

HAHAHA!!!