Share this on Facebook
download .zip with all pictures
> Are you saying there is justification for terrorism?
Screech and moan histrionically about “terrorism” and devalue the term completely when you call anyone who raises a hand in response to any Israeli– including those who’re hostile belligerents and armed combatants– “criminals” or “terrorists”.
> For suicide bombings, stabbings, and firing rockets at civilian centers?
More ridiculous whining. Suicide bombings and stabbings targeting IDF and Israel Border Police were and are and will be totally militarily legitimate.
Attacks on soft targets may be unjustifiable militarily but if you weren’t such a likudnik apologist you’d come to see that such attacks are driven by the suffering that Israel has historically inflicted and continues to inflict on the Palestinian people.
An “eye for an eye” really does apply in Palestinian minds when you see the devastation and “collateral damage” caused by Israel in Gaza last year. Something that you play shameless apologist for.
> There are and continue to be many people living under occupation who achieve their goals through non violent means.
What a crock. You simply think that Jewish blood is “worth more” and that the Palestinians should just sit and take anything that Israel dishes out without defending themselves or responding violently in any way.
If the oppressing party doesn’t respect non-violence, there is no point in engaging in non-violent action. Full stop.
> And to be clear, violence against Jews has been going on since long before Israel achieved statehood.
To be clear, “violence against Jews” before the Israeli state was created was really a few small events in the broader context of the turmoil that mandate Palestine was plunged into in the 1920s through the 1940s. Whine all you like, but the Palestinians weren’t “targeting the Jews for annihilation”; if they were the Yishuv simply would’ve been stamped out.
> Tragically, for both sides, every time the Palestinian leaders have been offered peace and statehood, they’ve rejected the offers.
Tragically for you, your crocodile tears and your disengenuity don’t overturn the fact that Israel has a long and sordid history of offering “peace deals” that’re ridiculous and lopsided. “Deals” requiring the Palestinians to give up all of their demands or claims while having to recognize all of the Israeli ones.
1948 was a ridiculous, lopsided affair. The Jews were entitled to 6 or 7% of the land in total, which is how much they actually bought and paid for. They were awarded over half of the land, with Ben Gurion only seeing it as a positive starting point– the fact of the matter is that he wanted no Palestinian presence and all of Mandate Palestine to be “for the Jewish home”.
Slimy likudnik apologists love to hide the fact that the Israeli/Jewish side did as much to screw up Camp David II as they claim that Arafat did:
>> Accusations of Israeli and American responsibility
>> In 2001 Robert Malley, present at the summit, noted three “myths” that had arisen regarding the failure of the negotiations. Those were “Camp David was an ideal test of Mr. Arafat’s intentions”, “Israel’s offer met most if not all of the Palestinians’ legitimate aspirations”, and “The Palestinians made no concession of their own” and wrote that “If peace is to be achieved, the parties cannot afford to tolerate the growing acceptance of these myths as reality.”
>> The Israeli group Gush Shalom stated that “the offer is a pretense of generosity for the benefit of the media”, and included detailed maps of what the offer specifically entailed.[unreliable source?] Among Gush Shalom’s concerns with Barak’s offer were Barak’s demand to annex large settlement blocs (9% of the West Bank), lack of trust in the commitment and/or ability of the Israeli government to evacuate the thousands of non-bloc Israeli settlers in the 15-year timeline, and limited sovereignty for Palestinians in Jerusalem.
>> Clayton Swisher wrote a rebuttal to Clinton and Ross’s accounts about the causes for the breakdown of the Camp David Summit in his 2004 book, The Truth About Camp David. Swisher, the Director of Programs at the Middle East Institute, concluded that the Israelis and the Americans were at least as guilty as the Palestinians for the collapse. M.J. Rosenberg praised the book: “Clayton Swisher’s ‘The Truth About Camp David,’ based on interviews with [US negotiators] Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross and [Aaron] Miller himself provides a comprehensive and acute account – the best we’re likely to see – on the [one-sided diplomacy] Miller describes.”
>> Shlomo Ben-Ami, then Israel’s Minister of Foreign Relations who participated in the talks, stated that the Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would dismantle the Palestinian organizations. The Israeli response was “we can’t accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation.” In 2006, Shlomo Ben-Ami stated on Democracy Now! that “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book. But Taba is the problem. The Clinton parameters are the problem” referring to his 2001 book Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy.
>> Norman Finkelstein published an article in the winter 2007 issue of Journal of Palestine Studies, excerpting from his longer essay called Subordinating Palestinian Rights to Israeli “Needs”. The abstract for the article states: “In particular, it examines the assumptions informing Ross’s account of what happened during the negotiations and why, and the distortions that spring from these assumptions. Judged from the perspective of Palestinians’ and Israelis’ respective rights under international law, all the concessions at Camp David came from the Palestinian side, none from the Israeli side.”
>> Berkeley political science professor Ron Hassner has argued that it was the failure of participants at the negotiations to include religious leaders in the process or even consult with religious experts prior to the negotiations, that led to the collapse of the negotiations over the subject of Jerusalem. “Both parties seem to have assumed that the religious dimensions of the dispute could be ignored. As a result, neither party had prepared seriously for the possibility that the Temple Mount issue would come to stand at the heart of the negotiations.” Political Scientist Menahem Klein, who advised the Israeli government during the negotiations, confirmed that “The professional back channels did not sufficiently treat Jerusalem as a religious city… It was easier to conduct discussions about preservation of historical structures in the old city than to discuss the link between the political sanctity and the religious sanctity at the historical and religious heart of the city.”
Whining and trying to blame the Palestinians for rejecting farcical “peace talks” while the IDF and Israel Border Police were firing live rounds en masse into unarmed Palestinian demonstrators. Pathetic.
> and 2008
And the same thing for here. As is typical for likudnik apologists like yourself, you try and work the narrative into some kind of situation where the Palestinians are just rejecting the Israeli “offers” out of spite, instead of for the very good reasons that they have.
>> They continue to refuse negotiations despite repeated invitations.
Whine, whine, whine and blame the Palestinians for not trusting, for very good reason, smugly smirking hypocrites and enablers of the “settlement” project.
Israelis are incapable of negotiating in good faith, it would seem. Palestinians are very well off to disregard the whiny, two-faced bleating coming from the Knesset, even if likudnik propagandists like you see their refusal to waste their time as an avenue for you to peddle your nonsense.
> And yet, Israel took the largest step so far to loosen the occupation in 2005 when they unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and helped organize democratic elections in the Palestinian territories.
Greedy, hypocritical Israel pulled a fraction of the “settler” population out of Gaza and doubled down on “settlement” construction in the occupied West Bank.
Israel doesn’t want a true democratic process when it comes to Palestinian politics. If that were the case then they wouldn’t have tried, and continue to try, to interfere or pervert the process every step of the way.
The attempts to pull down Fatah as a party, the rampant abuse and detention of Palestinian political figures across the political spectrum… your claims simply hold no water outside the execrable world of Israeli propaganda.