Could you please point out to me where does it say that Israelites were the first *settlers* in that land east and west of the river? I will be grateful.
Also the link you have provided does not mention anything about that.
Thanks. </strong><hr></blockquote>
ahhh?!? How far back do you want me to go? You have almost 3500 years of history there.
And I gave a reference: Source: Joan Peter's "From Time Immemorial" Harper & Row Publishers.
I am not asking about the validity of your source. Sorry for not being so clear in my question. Please forgive my ignorance.
You went back to:
1273 BCE Israel Conquest of Canaan ** under Joshua,
Is that what makes you believe that Israelites are the first settlers in the lands east and west of the river?
I ask, because I read the word "Conquest", meaning an act of conquer. So who did Joshua conquer? Maybe you will be patient enough and help me understand this.
Wrong, these are not my arguments, these are arguments you have invented, silly you
Right ! Silly me. Should have known better than to waste my time with you Irving. You are beyond reproach. But at least I exposed you for what you are. <hr></blockquote>
uhh ... What wit!
You don't really expect me to defend arguments I don't even agree to have made?
Why don't you answer my questions instead?
And what have you really exposed? Give me an example? And be creative, try finding some new ways of putting me down, your starting to sound like a broken record.
Rashumon. I thought you'd be more interested actually getting on with the discussion.
Here's a clipping from todays Haaretz:
"(...) Sharon's promises of determined leadership on this issue are thus hollow. He will do everything he can to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. The old condition for negotiations was a period of calm. Then came the demand (and implementation) for destruction of the terrorist infrastructure. Those conditions were buried under the rubble of the Palestinian cities, but they could pop up again even if there is a lull in terror attacks. The new condition is patronizingly called reforms in the Palestinian Authority. They too can wait ad calendas grecas, as the Romans termed "never." (The Greek calendar had no calends, or debt settlement days, on the first of the month). Or as we say - until the prophet Elijah shows up.
This pattern of lies has so entangled national politics that even if Netanyahu had been roundly defeated, we would not be free of it. The most amazing aspect of it all, of course, is that a majority of the general public favors setting up a Palestinian state and making many concessions necessary in the process leading to it. (...)"
Yossi Alpher is an Israeli political analyst. He is former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University.
There appear to be no fewer than six different categories of advocates of regime reform in the Palestinian Authority. The diverse advocates are less interesting for what they propose--their commendable ideas range from "kicking Arafat upstairs" to a ceremonial position, via new democracy and transparency provisions, to uniting all Palestinian security forces under a single command--than for why they have gotten into the business of reforming Arafat's regime in the first place.
First are those Israeli right wingers who seek to install a more moderate and friendly Palestinian regime largely because they believe that it will then accept reduced Israeli territorial offers and ongoing Israeli security dominance. Ostensibly Prime Minister Ariel Sharon belongs to this group; after all, he already tried in the past to install and manipulate pro-Israel proxies in the West Bank and Gaza (the Village Leagues, 1981) and in Lebanon (1982). These attempts failed miserably, and Israel paid a heavy price, particularly in Lebanon.
Precisely for this reason it appears that Sharon himself may understand that his advocacy of Palestinian regime reform is a nonstarter. In fact, he probably views the demands as a convenient excuse for avoiding entering a peace process in which he will be called upon to offer serious territorial concessions. This second category of advocates of change, then, are counting on Arafat to scuttle the reforms.
A third category of Israeli advocates are ideological conservatives who believe that democratic regime reform imposed from without on the Palestinians will truly benefit Palestinian society, and that it constitutes a genuine prerequisite for peace. Israeli Minister Natan Sharansky represents this group. If and when a democratic Palestine emerges, at least some of these conservatives will be prepared to discuss far-reaching peace compromises, because they will have confidence in the other side.
The American advocates of Palestinian regime reform, represented at the highest ranks of the Bush administration, appear to parallel this third group of ideological conservatives, both in the sincerity of their demands and in their willingness to seek a fair peace deal once they confront an improved Palestinian state.
How realistic are these sincere outside advocates of reform? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer sought in early May to impose on the Palestinians nothing less than "transparency, democracy, market economy, good governance, lack of corruption." Where in the entire Arab world does such a regime exist?
Finally, there are the advocates from within the Arab-Muslim camp. They range from such Palestinian leaders as Abu Maazen (Mahmoud Abbas), who rejects outside advice--"We do not listen to what the West is demanding. However, we say that reform is the right thing to do"--to former Indonesian President Abd a-Rahman Wahid: "I recommend to my Palestinian brothers to get rid of Arafat's regime...But I don't see how the Palestinian people can do so peacefully." Most Arab rulers are more circumspect than Wahid, lest their demands on the Palestinians be seized upon by their own constituencies and applied to themselves. Still, they apparently recognize the need for the Arab world to take some initiative in pressuring Arafat on reform.
The Israeli-Palestinian relationship has come a long way since former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin reassured Israelis that Arafat's regime would be able to "deliver the goods" and apprehend Palestinian terrorists better than Israel, precisely because Arafat would not be encumbered by Israel's meddlesome High Court of Justice and human rights advocacy organizations. Israel winked at Arafat's methods initially, reminding itself that in any case it was fated to make peace with dictatorial neighbor regimes. Now there is a growing awareness in many circles-- Israeli, Arab, American, European--that Arafat's tolerance of corruption and indiscriminate violence is a major part of the problem. Perhaps Ariel Sharon's only success in 15 months in office has been to place Arafat's unsavory role on the international agenda.
Midst the talk of Arafat's many faults, we should also remind ourselves that he and the Palestinian legislative council were elected in 1996 in one of the freest elections the Arab world has ever witnessed; and that the Palestinian press, alongside fierce anti-Israel incitement and restrictions on Palestinian freedom of expression, also prints daily translations of a variety of critical op-eds from the Israeli press. If there is any Arab society with the motivation to build a working democracy it is the Palestinians. The inside advocates deserve our encouragement.
But not our intervention. An Israeli or American attempt to remove Arafat by force, or "kick him upstairs" to a ceremonial position, is almost certain to repeat the Lebanon fiasco and produce more, not less violence. It would also set a dangerous example to the Middle East, where the Arab masses in any case long ago concluded that the US has no interest in instilling real democracy. In any case, Arafat can probably be counted on in the short term to thwart all the schemes being hatched in Washington and Jerusalem to democratize his regime and centralize security control.
Those who are sincere about Palestinian regime reform must step back, let Palestinians do it, and hope they succeed. Palestinians need to sweep out the ills of Arafat's mafia rule because it serves their own interests--not ours.
As you may have noticed, I regard (and many with me) the israeli settlements of the Occupied Territories as the foremost obstacle to peace and stability in the region. I know many of you think this conflict os about terrorism and security, but I think these are only consequences. We have to look at the causes. And the settlements are one of the most important motivators behind the current violence.
B'tselem, a respected recently released this report on the "Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank"
Comments
<strong>
Could you please point out to me where does it say that Israelites were the first *settlers* in that land east and west of the river? I will be grateful.
Also the link you have provided does not mention anything about that.
Thanks.
ahhh?!? How far back do you want me to go? You have almost 3500 years of history there.
And I gave a reference: Source: Joan Peter's "From Time Immemorial" Harper & Row Publishers.
Are you just being silly?
mika.
[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
<strong>
ahhh?!? How far back do you want me to go? You have almost 3500 years of history there.
And I gave a reference: Source: Joan Peter's "From Time Immemorial" Harper & Row Publishers.
Are you just being silly?
mika.
[ 05-15-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not asking about the validity of your source. Sorry for not being so clear in my question. Please forgive my ignorance.
You went back to:
1273 BCE Israel Conquest of Canaan ** under Joshua,
Is that what makes you believe that Israelites are the first settlers in the lands east and west of the river?
I ask, because I read the word "Conquest", meaning an act of conquer. So who did Joshua conquer? Maybe you will be patient enough and help me understand this.
(Mika's not talking to me any more. Have you noticed? It's like I've been dumped.
Wrong, these are not my arguments, these are arguments you have invented, silly you
Right ! Silly me. Should have known better than to waste my time with you Irving. You are beyond reproach. But at least I exposed you for what you are. <hr></blockquote>
uhh
You don't really expect me to defend arguments I don't even agree to have made?
Why don't you answer my questions instead?
And what have you really exposed? Give me an example? And be creative, try finding some new ways of putting me down, your starting to sound like a broken record.
Rashumon. I thought you'd be more interested actually getting on with the discussion.
Here's a clipping from todays Haaretz:
"(...) Sharon's promises of determined leadership on this issue are thus hollow. He will do everything he can to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. The old condition for negotiations was a period of calm. Then came the demand (and implementation) for destruction of the terrorist infrastructure. Those conditions were buried under the rubble of the Palestinian cities, but they could pop up again even if there is a lull in terror attacks. The new condition is patronizingly called reforms in the Palestinian Authority. They too can wait ad calendas grecas, as the Romans termed "never." (The Greek calendar had no calends, or debt settlement days, on the first of the month). Or as we say - until the prophet Elijah shows up.
This pattern of lies has so entangled national politics that even if Netanyahu had been roundly defeated, we would not be free of it. The most amazing aspect of it all, of course, is that a majority of the general public favors setting up a Palestinian state and making many concessions necessary in the process leading to it. (...)"
By Gideon Same
You cab read the whole editorial here:
<a href="http://news.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo= 164037&contrassID=2&subContr assID=4&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=164037" target="_blank">Dr. Sharon and Mister Hyde</a>
---
With a little help from their friends?
by Yossi Alpher
Yossi Alpher is an Israeli political analyst. He is former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University.
There appear to be no fewer than six different categories of advocates of regime reform in the Palestinian Authority. The diverse advocates are less interesting for what they propose--their commendable ideas range from "kicking Arafat upstairs" to a ceremonial position, via new democracy and transparency provisions, to uniting all Palestinian security forces under a single command--than for why they have gotten into the business of reforming Arafat's regime in the first place.
First are those Israeli right wingers who seek to install a more moderate and friendly Palestinian regime largely because they believe that it will then accept reduced Israeli territorial offers and ongoing Israeli security dominance. Ostensibly Prime Minister Ariel Sharon belongs to this group; after all, he already tried in the past to install and manipulate pro-Israel proxies in the West Bank and Gaza (the Village Leagues, 1981) and in Lebanon (1982). These attempts failed miserably, and Israel paid a heavy price, particularly in Lebanon.
Precisely for this reason it appears that Sharon himself may understand that his advocacy of Palestinian regime reform is a nonstarter. In fact, he probably views the demands as a convenient excuse for avoiding entering a peace process in which he will be called upon to offer serious territorial concessions. This second category of advocates of change, then, are counting on Arafat to scuttle the reforms.
A third category of Israeli advocates are ideological conservatives who believe that democratic regime reform imposed from without on the Palestinians will truly benefit Palestinian society, and that it constitutes a genuine prerequisite for peace. Israeli Minister Natan Sharansky represents this group. If and when a democratic Palestine emerges, at least some of these conservatives will be prepared to discuss far-reaching peace compromises, because they will have confidence in the other side.
The American advocates of Palestinian regime reform, represented at the highest ranks of the Bush administration, appear to parallel this third group of ideological conservatives, both in the sincerity of their demands and in their willingness to seek a fair peace deal once they confront an improved Palestinian state.
How realistic are these sincere outside advocates of reform? White House spokesman Ari Fleischer sought in early May to impose on the Palestinians nothing less than "transparency, democracy, market economy, good governance, lack of corruption." Where in the entire Arab world does such a regime exist?
Finally, there are the advocates from within the Arab-Muslim camp. They range from such Palestinian leaders as Abu Maazen (Mahmoud Abbas), who rejects outside advice--"We do not listen to what the West is demanding. However, we say that reform is the right thing to do"--to former Indonesian President Abd a-Rahman Wahid: "I recommend to my Palestinian brothers to get rid of Arafat's regime...But I don't see how the Palestinian people can do so peacefully." Most Arab rulers are more circumspect than Wahid, lest their demands on the Palestinians be seized upon by their own constituencies and applied to themselves. Still, they apparently recognize the need for the Arab world to take some initiative in pressuring Arafat on reform.
The Israeli-Palestinian relationship has come a long way since former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin reassured Israelis that Arafat's regime would be able to "deliver the goods" and apprehend Palestinian terrorists better than Israel, precisely because Arafat would not be encumbered by Israel's meddlesome High Court of Justice and human rights advocacy organizations. Israel winked at Arafat's methods initially, reminding itself that in any case it was fated to make peace with dictatorial neighbor regimes. Now there is a growing awareness in many circles-- Israeli, Arab, American, European--that Arafat's tolerance of corruption and indiscriminate violence is a major part of the problem. Perhaps Ariel Sharon's only success in 15 months in office has been to place Arafat's unsavory role on the international agenda.
Midst the talk of Arafat's many faults, we should also remind ourselves that he and the Palestinian legislative council were elected in 1996 in one of the freest elections the Arab world has ever witnessed; and that the Palestinian press, alongside fierce anti-Israel incitement and restrictions on Palestinian freedom of expression, also prints daily translations of a variety of critical op-eds from the Israeli press. If there is any Arab society with the motivation to build a working democracy it is the Palestinians. The inside advocates deserve our encouragement.
But not our intervention. An Israeli or American attempt to remove Arafat by force, or "kick him upstairs" to a ceremonial position, is almost certain to repeat the Lebanon fiasco and produce more, not less violence. It would also set a dangerous example to the Middle East, where the Arab masses in any case long ago concluded that the US has no interest in instilling real democracy. In any case, Arafat can probably be counted on in the short term to thwart all the schemes being hatched in Washington and Jerusalem to democratize his regime and centralize security control.
Those who are sincere about Palestinian regime reform must step back, let Palestinians do it, and hope they succeed. Palestinians need to sweep out the ills of Arafat's mafia rule because it serves their own interests--not ours.
---
B'tselem, a respected recently released this report on the "Land Grab: Israel's Settlement Policy in the West Bank"
Read about it here:
<a href="http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/2002/020513.asp"; target="_blank">B'Tselem releases new report:
Settlements are built on 1.7% of West Bank land and control 41.9%</a>
(you can also download the full report)