SADDAM'S PALESTINIAN CHEERLEADERS

by Colm - ISN Thu Mar 27, 2003 17:22 breathc at hotmail dot com

Avi's extreme-right postings are not representative of all Israeli opinion. There are a significant number of Israeli's who understand that peace, security and social progress for ordinary Israelis is inextricably linked to the the struggle of the Palestinian people for their basic human rights and that the first step in this direction is a complete end to the illegal occupation.

Here are links to some of the main pro-human rights Israeli groups:

www.taayush.org

http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html.

http://www.btselem.org/

by Avi H. Thu Mar 27, 2003 17:43

Colm, that you think my views are extreme right-wing, shows that you know nothing about Israel. My views are held by the majority of Israelis, including many peaceniks, who are totally fed-up with giving concessions to the Palestinians only to be rewarded with murder and mayhem. Most Israelis are also frightened of the Palestinians, because they realise - quite correctly and however hard this might be for you to grasp - that the Palestinians do not want to live with us, they just want to kill us.

by real disillusioned like..... Thu Mar 27, 2003 17:51

but i don't blame them......

by Cleaver Thu Mar 27, 2003 17:53

As far as I can see Avi, Israel seems to be giving the same concessions to Palistinans that the US & Britain are giving to Iraqi civilians ie: lots of murder & mayhem to use your own phrase.

by Avi H. Thu Mar 27, 2003 18:04

We have tried so much and so often and all they want to do is kill us. For example, at the Camp David Summit in July 2000, Palestinians had the opportunity to negotiate a final peace agreement with Israel that would have provided them with a Palestinian state. Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians a final status agreement with concessions that went far beyond what most Israelis ever expected. Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasir Arafat refused to accept an "end of conflict" agreement, offered no counteroffer, failed to demonstrate any flexibility or willingness to compromise and clung to maximalist positions on the contentious issues under negotiations. There was no reason or justification for the inscrutable Palestinian rejection of the Barak offer and their refusal to present a counteroffer after seven years of anticipating final status negotiations.
After rejecting the Israeli offer -- which included extensive concessions on sharing Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount, establishing an independent Palestinian state in 100% of the Gaza Strip and as much as 95% of the West Bank, uprooting isolated settlements -- the Palestinians walked away from negotiations.

After the Summit, President Clinton openly acknowledged Israel's tremendous offer and stated that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak "showed particular courage and vision and an understanding of the historical importance of the moment." On his return to Israel, Prime Minister Barak declared: "Today I return from Camp David, and can look into the millions of eyes and say with regret: We have not yet succeeded. We did not succeed because we did not find a partner prepared to make decisions on all issues. We did not succeed because our Palestinian neighbors have not yet internalized the fact that in order to achieve peace, each side has to give up some of their dreams; to give, not only to demand."

A year after Camp David, Palestinians publicly declared that the failure of Camp David was due to lack of preparation by the Americans, personality differences between Barak and Arafat, and by Barak's "take-it-or-leave-it" negotiating posture. These excuses do not explain the Palestinian behavior at the Summit. Instead, Camp David demonstrated that Arafat and the Palestinian leadership had unrealistic expectations that they could force Israel to concede to their maximalist demands without making important compromises of their own. With the Palestinian behavior at Camp David and their turn to violence, public opinion polls show Israeli skepticism towards the Palestinian leadership as partners for peace. Ehud Barak himself says that at Camp David, Yasir Arafat was "unmasked."

by Aidan Thu Mar 27, 2003 18:19

But we gave them everything at Camp David argument.

The Palestine state that Israeli tried to force Arafat to accept was unacceptable.

In size, resources, and access it was not a viable state for the Palestian people, and Arafat had no choice but to reject it.

Quit peddling lies and half truths here Avi

by Colm - ISN Thu Mar 27, 2003 20:08

OK Avi lets try and reason this out:

Firstly I know quite a bit about the situation in Israel/Palestine as I spent two months in the West Bank and Jerusalem last summer and saw at first hand the massive human rights violations that are perpetrated there daily by the Israeli Army and the fundamentalist settlers.

Secondly I have met with and spoken to many Israeli peace activists who continue to oppose the occupation and work for peace and justice Israel/Palestine. They do not constitute a majority at this point but they are a significant element in Israeli society.

Your reply to me indicates that your views are indeed those of the Israeli far-right. You say 'the Palestinians' simply want to kill Israelis. I note you dont say Islamic Jihad or Hama etc. So all Palestinians are hell bent on killing Israelis? This is pure and simple racism. If I was to state that Israelis as a whole are responsible for the crimes of the Israeli and fundamentalist settlers you would be outraged.

For the record: I am opposed to all forms of terrorism, by political groups or states. I condemn suicide bombings as morally wrong as well as massively damaging for the struggle for Palestinian freedom. I support the right of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security and I believe that can only come about by an immediate end to the illegal occupation.

by joe ranii Thu Mar 27, 2003 20:48

Israelis (the majority, there are of course exceptions) are robbers and murderers. They stole the land (and the water) and killed or terrorized the people who were living on it. It's as simple as that. The world would be a much better place if the state of Israel had not been forced onto a region that didn't want it. Why didn't they put it in Germany ? The Germans had harmed the jews, the unfortunate Palestinians had done nothing to them.

by Avi H. Thu Mar 27, 2003 21:00

Aidan, Arafat often says that what he was offered was not viable, but doesn't specify why. In fact, he was offered a contiguous territory constituting 95% of the present West Bank and Gaza. Israel offered also to build a sealed motorway between the West Bank and Gaza. That is the best deal any Palestinian state will ever get. I don't see there was any viability problem with that offer. The main viability issue for the Palestinians is that they have no intrinsic economy, being totally tied to working in Israel. Since Israel won't let them in any more, they have a problem. However, that's not our fault, as we got fed up with their violence towards us and locked them out.

Colm, I afraid to say that just because you spent two months in Israel that doesn't make you an expert. The fact that you call my views far right shows that you know little about the majority of Israelis. The fact is that the majority of Israelis put a Sharon government in power, and Israel, being a democracy with a proportional representation election system, certainly has a government that reflects most people's views. That really is beyond dispute.

The Israeli peace movement, so-called, is totally discredited and reviled among ordinary Israelis, because they are viewed as naive and misguided, having brought down the disaster of Palestinian terrorism upon us after Oslo. Israel implemented Oslo in stages, gradually ceding land for peace. However, the Palestinians refused to stop murdering us during this process and eventually we stopped giving them land, as we were finding that the entire process of concessions was exposing us to greater danger than before.

The reason I refer to Palestinians as a group is not out of racism. Rather, the plain fact is, the Palestinians do not have any moderate, democratic government and no non-terrorist leaders for us to deal with. We know that Arafat always rigs his own elections and that the Palestinian Authority was deeply implicated in both terrorist bombings and arms smuggling (viz. the Karine A affair). Fatah, which is one of the three terrorist groups, is in fact just a cover name for the Palestinian Authority. This the IDF has proven beyond all doubt. Arafat, although you might think he is a kindly old man is ,in fact, the terrorist who invented aircraft hijacking. Many opinion polls have been conducted which show that the majority of Palestinians want to wipe out the state of Israel altogther. And by the way, how come we never hear about all the Jews that the Palestinians would allow to live among them in the West Bank, the way 1 million Palestinians can live in Israel with full civil rights? That's because they won't allow any Jews to live there. They also have no real government but instead are ruled by a series of terrorist gangs. That is why I refer to them en masse in that way. That is also the sad truth. Although to imagine that there are significant numbers of Palestinian moderates might give a pleasing sense of satisfaction, it is pure fiction: they do not exist.

The reason for this is that in terms of social and political culture, the Arabs who make up the Palestinians are extremely backward. Generally speaking, they have no tradition of democracy, open discussion or even truthfulness. I know because I have spent a significant amount of time among them - one way or another - and I probably speak a lot more Arabic than you do. You may not like this, but it is true.

By the way, when you talk about an 'illegal occupation', what do you mean? UN resolutions do not have the force of law, and in any case, the UN General Assembly is hardly an impartial arbiter of anything. Although Palestinians like to claim the West Bank as their land, Jews have just as good a claim to it. Remember that the West Bank's ancient name is 'Judah', which is where the word 'Jew' comes from, as well as where the Jewish people come from. However, the general Palestinian way of political negotiating is to bomb and murder. Remember also that before 1967, it was part of Jordan and that didn't seem to bother the Palestinians.

Remember also that the Arabs used the West Bank to launch a war of annihilation against us not once but twice (56 and 67). These are people with a proven track record of trying to kill us. As if, in any case, the Arabs don't have enough land and wealth: there are 21 Arabs states with a collective land area the size of the USA, but nevertheless they want to destroy the only Jewish state in the world, which has virtually no natural resources and a land area smaller than that of Wales. Israel's narrowest point (in the middle of the country) is shorter than the distance from Dalkey to Heuston Station. Give me a break.

by Rinat Thu Mar 27, 2003 22:48

Hey Avi put a sock in it ....

by mordechai vanunu Thu Mar 27, 2003 22:51

Hi Avi, when do you think they will let me out ....?

http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk/

by Intransigent Thu Mar 27, 2003 23:38

Avi, just like me, is not gonna change his opinion. You can't reason with him. Israelis are always good. Palestinians always murderers who we should be afraid of. Maybe the two peoples hate each other right now. I can understand the little man being oppressed hating the big man. But the big guy here continues to suppress. No point in having the quite pointless argument about camp david and unviable Palestinian states. Bomb Texas they have oil too! Bomb Israel they have Weapons of Mass Destruction too! Bomb Ireland they have terrorists too! I love debate for debate's sake! Avi will continue to put forward his zionist views which are in my opinion rascist and eveyone (the majority) will hate him for it. There will be no reasoned arguments only disagreements never to be resolved.

by anti caca pipi lala - Sergeant Asan Akbar Fri Mar 28, 2003 00:06

'Resentment' fuelled Muslim GI's attack

Staff and agencies
Monday March 24, 2003

US army officials said today that the motive for a grenade attack on an American army command centre in Kuwait, apparently carried out by a US soldier, was probably "resentment".
Sergeant Asan Akbar, a Muslim, is being held on suspicion of throwing grenades into three tents at the camp, killing a fellow serviceman.

Army captain Christopher Scott Seifert, 27, who was sleeping in his tent at the time, was killed during the attack.

Fifteen other soldiers, including the brigade commander, were wounded - at least three of them seriously - in the attack early on Sunday morning at Camp Pennsylvania, the rear base for the 101st airborne division, near the Iraqi border.

Ten of the injured had superficial wounds, including punctures to their arms and legs from grenade fragments, military officials said. No further details were released.

It was initially reported that terrorists, possibly members of al-Qaida, were responsible for the grenade attack. Later it emerged that a US soldier was being investigated over the incident. Sgt Akbar, who would have commanded between four and seven soldiers, was found hiding in a bunker after the attack, officials said.

A military spokesman, George Heath, said Sgt Akbar had not been charged with any crime. He did not say how long he had served in the military. If found guilty of any crime, he will be brought back to the US "for judicial punishment", Mr Heath said.

Mr Heath went on to say that Sgt Akbar, of the 326th Engineer Battalion, had been "having what some might call an attitude problem".

Another army spokesman, Max Blumenfeld, said the motive in the attack "most likely was resentment". No further details were available.

But Sgt Akbar's mother, in an interview with the Nashville newspaper The Tennessean, said he had long feared persecution by his fellow troops for being a Muslim. He also had said he had been recently reprimanded for insubordination.

"He said, 'Mama, when I get over there I have the feeling they are going to arrest me just because of the name that I have carried,'" his mother, Quran Bilal, was quoted as saying.

Initially, the military suspected the attack was the work of terrorists using two grenades and small-arms fire, Mr Heath said. Two Middle Eastern men hired as contractors were detained and released. Two Kuwaiti translators were also questioned and released.

An interior ministry official speaking on condition of anonymity said that all locally contracted workers in the camp, such as cleaners, drivers and volunteer translators, were still being investigated by the Americans.

by Avi H. Fri Mar 28, 2003 04:18

The Zionism = Racism argument is long since discredited. People who put it forward are either a) anti-Semites or b) people who know absolutely nothing about the history of the Jews or c) both. Israel is the homeland of the Jews. To say that the Jews shouldn't live there is like saying the Irish shouldn't live in Ireland. What about self-determination, or doesn't that apply to Jews?

by Avi H. Fri Mar 28, 2003 05:03

Actually, the biggest shock for me on this site is that anti-Semitism seems to be viewed by most contributors as an acceptable form of racism. I knew there were problems with blacks in Ireland but I never thought that Jews would be hated. Zionism is integral to Jewish identity: 95% of Jews are Zionists or sympathise with it.

It is commonly said that the only two places in the world where Jews can live without having to apologise for being alive are the USA and Israel. Seems, sadly, to be true.

by kokomero Fri Mar 28, 2003 08:18

Poor little Avi,

nobody loves him. He is an attention-seeking prat.

His opinions, which are not even his own, are unrepresentative and worthless.

You're right Avi, the best place for you is Israel or the US.

In fact I'll even pay for your ticket back if you promise not to offend my eyes any longer with your streams of verbal diahhrea.

Go away and stay away!

by joe ranii Fri Mar 28, 2003 09:12

The apologist for murder and theft Avi writes:

...To say that the Jews shouldn't live there is like saying the Irish shouldn't live in Ireland. What about self-determination, or doesn't that apply to Jews?...

No, Avi. To say that the Palestinians shouldn't live there is like saying the Irish shouldn't live in Ireland. What about self-determination, or doesn't that apply to Palestinians?

by Avi H. Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:43

Kokomero, you're a racist and your taunts are pathetic, so get lost.

Self-determination: the Palestinians can have all the self-determination they want. It is essential, however, to accept the existence of Israel and not to try to destroy it as so far they seem intent on doing, as this represents the legitimate self-determination of the Jewish people.

by kokomero Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:43

Given Avi's previous postings which of the following summarises his position most sucsinctly:

1) Average Violent Israeli?
2) American-protestor Vehicular Incident?
3) Appologist Vitriolic Invective?
4) Anti-semitic Victimhood Incitement?
5) Advocates Violent Intolerance?
6) Animals Vermin Intifada?
7) Attention-seeking Visibly Incoherent?
8) Appoplectic Verbal Insult?

Feel free to add your own if these are unsuitable.
Call 1-800-AVI with your choice and you might win the chance to give Avi his one way ticket back to his beloved Israel or US where he will feel much more at home.

by Gaillimhed Fri Mar 28, 2003 18:25

Ah lads, (and lassies) sure isnt it great we have Avi to keep poking us awake with his big Zionist pointy stick. Hes fucking great! I love him. Hes gotta be one of the most interesting things on IMC Eire. i would love to indulge my Ego and jump in with a personal attack on Avi, But I will take the high moral ground (this time) and remind all of us to try to maintain our dignity while debating issues with Avi. Avi doesnt abuse us and call us names, we do him. Let Avi's views speak for themselves, we know who and what he is, but his views are truky beklieved by him and many of his kind. i find in him a great education as to the thinking behind the Zionist genocide, its great to be able to see in. Theres no fucking way any of us would go posting on, say, 'stormfront' and take every last piece of abuse and still come back for more. Avi dont go, i revile your viewpoint but i do want to hear it.
(i dont really love him)

by kokomero Sat Mar 29, 2003 08:28

I also have to admit to a grudging respect for Avi's tenacity even if I disagree with his extreme right-wing rehtoric.