please support Israeli military servicemen for peace

[z911]

these brave service men and women need all the support they can get. please help...

On Thursday, 16 January 2003, two imprisoned conscientious objectors to military service, Noam Bahat and Hillel Goral, went on hunger strike.
Another objector, Jonathan Ben-Artzi, has been sentenced to his 7th consecutive term in prison on the same day.
All in all, we are presently aware of 9 young men held in prison due to their refusal to perform regular military service on conscientious grounds. They are joined by conscripts and reserves soldiers imprisoned due to their refusal to fight in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.
print article

Press Release, 18 Jan. 2003:
Objectors to Military Service in Israel Go on Hunger Strike in Prison

On Thursday, 16 January 2003, two imprisoned conscientious objectors to military service, Noam Bahat and Hillel Goral, went on hunger strike. Both are among the signatories of a letter signed last year by over 300 high school students, declaring their refusal to serve in the Israeli army (see their website at www.shministim.org). Both objectors are serving a second consecutive prison term in defense of their convictions and are held in the isolation ward of Military Prison No. 4, south of Tel-Aviv.

According to Noam Bahat, the hunger strike comes to protest his imprisonment for opposing the occupation of the Palestinian people, as well as to protest the occupation itself.

We demand that the democratic right of these conscientious objectors not to perform military service be recognized and call upon the Ministry of Defense and the Israeli military to release them at once.

Draft resisters are being sentenced to several consecutive terms of imprisonment for the same ‘offense’. On Thursday, 16 January, conscientious objector Jonathan Ben-Artzi was sentenced by Gen. Gil Regev, head of the military manpower division, to 35 days in military prison. This is the seventh consecutive prison term for Ben-Artzi, raising the total length of his imprisonment so far to 196 days. A recently opened online petition against the practice of repeated imprisonment of objectors has already gathered over 1000 signatures worldwide
(see http://www.petitiononline.com/091202/).

The imprisonment of these objectors is in clear violation of their fundamental human rights as recognized in international treaties signed and ratified by Israel.

All in all, we are presently aware of 9 young men held in prison due to their refusal to perform regular military service on conscientious grounds. They are joined by conscripts and reserves soldiers imprisoned due to their refusal to fight in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.


The Israeli movement of objectors, including organizations, such as New Profile, the Seniors’ Letter, Yesh-Gvul and Courage to Refuse, calls for the immediate and unconditional release from prison of all objectors, without fear of further imprisonment of young people obeying their conscience.


New Profile – Movement for the Civil-ization of Israeli Society (www.newprofile.org)
The Seniors’ Letter (www.shministim.org)
Yesh-Gvul (www.yesh-gvul.org)
Courage to Refuse (www.seruv.org.il)
The Objectors’ Parents Group
Gush-Shalom (www.gush-shalom.org)

ADDRESSES
Minister of Defence,
Ministry of Defence,
37 Kaplan st.,
Tel-Aviv 61909,
Israel.
e-mail: mailto:sar@mod.gov.il or mailto: pniot@mod.gov Fax:
++972-3-696-27-57 / ++972-3-691-69-40 / ++972-3-691-79-15

Commander of Military Prison No. 4,
Military Postal Code 02507
IDF, Israel
Fax: ++972-3-957-52-76

Commander of Military Prison No 6
Military Prison No 6
Military postal number 01860,
IDF
Israel.
FAX: ++972-4-869-28-84

Addresses of Israeli embassies can be found at
http://www.embassyworld.com/embassy/israel1.htm

Addresses of Israeli media:
Ma'ariv:
2 Karlibach st.
Tel-Aviv 67132
Israel
Fax: ++972-3-561-06-14
e-mail: editor@maariv.co.il

Yedioth Aharonoth:
2 Moses st.
Tel-Aviv
Israel
Fax: ++972-3-608-25-46

Ha'aretz (Hebrew):
21 Schocken st.
Tel-Aviv, 61001
Israel
Fax: ++972-3-681-00-12

Ha'aretz (English edition):
21 Schocken st.
Tel-Aviv, 61001
Israel
Fax: ++972-3-512-11-56
e-mail: letters@haaretz.co.il

Jerusalem Post:
POB 81
Jerusalem 91000
Israel
Fax: ++972-2-538-95-27
e-mail: news@jpost.co.il or letters@jpost.co.il

Jerusalem Report:
Fax: ++972-2-537-94-89

Radio (fax numbers):
Kol-Israel ++972-2-531-33-15 and ++972-3-694-47-09 Galei Tzahal
++972-3-512-67-20

Television (fax numbers):
Channel 1 ++972-2-530-15-36
Channel 2 ++972-2-533-98-09

edit: stupid smilie in email address...

[GeekGuy]

There has been several calls like this on indymedia.org

We can only hope that a reliable answer to this is forthcoming.

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by z911
these brave service men and women need all the support they can get. please help...

Nothing like a little middle eastern conflict to incite a heated thread;)

[z911]

Originally posted by williamwbishop
Nothing like a little middle eastern conflict to incite a heated thread;)

absolutely not my intentions Bill. Although I can understand why some of us would think like that... :p

anyway, for the record, this is not to start flame wars. it is a request for support for what I consider a good cause.

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by z911
absolutely not my intentions Bill. Although I can understand why some of us would think like that... :p

anyway, for the record, this is not to start flame wars. it is a request for support for what I consider a good cause.

I think we know each other too well, to not know that a little heated debate is not at least subconciously wanted. But hey, I love a little fire under the kettle, I'm not disparaging you in the least. You cannot excite the mind, without heating the emotions.;) And it does sound like a good cause, but I haven't read the site yet, for the fine print.;)

[KarrottoP]

I probably should just ignore this thread but its late and I can't sleep so here I go. It is not conciences objecting, its called draft dodging. If everyone did this in WWII we would all have hitlers face on our money. The price of freedom is not free. We could learn alot from the bravery and honor of our servicemen in the World Wars, it is a shame to have such cowards in today's society. I am not enlisted, nor do I particularly want to be, but if my country needed me, I would surley fight and die for the Uninted States of America. If Israel does not fight they will not exist. In america we would not stand for the actions of palestine against us, nor should we expect another country to.

Anyway, I thought this was a linux site

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by iKarrottoP
I probably should just ignore this thread but its late and I can't sleep so here I go. It is not conciences objecting, its called draft dodging. If everyone did this in WWII we would all have hitlers face on our money. The price of freedom is not free. We could learn alot from the bravery and honor of our servicemen in the World Wars, it is a shame to have such cowards in today's society. I am not enlisted, nor do I particularly want to be, but if my country needed me, I would surley fight and die for the Uninted States of America. If Israel does not fight they will not exist. In america we would not stand for the actions of palestine against us, nor should we expect another country to.

Anyway, I thought this was a linux site

Spoken like a young man. I would also fight for my country, but it really depends on if I can have a clear conscience while doing so. If america decided to pull a germany circa '39 and try to invade a country to enlarge our territory, while destroying those cultures...I would have to give it much thought. I will not kill innocents for anyone, not even the government of my own country. I have served however. While I disagree on some of our policies, overall I think we are going in the right direction(while being aware that we really don't have a decent moral reason for invading iraq, I do realize it's strategic value and thus support it.)

[williamwbishop]

And always remember, there is a difference between our country and israel, their population is not large enough to utilize a voluntary army, thus they conscript their citizens. We have an enormous(not china enormous though) military, we do not NEED to conscript our own citizens, we have a standing volunteer army.

[Saptech]

Any time someone is in the military, it's your job to kill innocents! Now, if some country is invading your country then it can be different situation.

The military's purpose is to kill!

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by Saptech
Any time someone is in the military, it's your job to kill innocents! Now, if some country is invading your country then it can be different situation.

The military's purpose is to kill!

True, but the goal is to kill opposing soldiery, and do your best to avoid collateral damage, or reduce it as best you can.

[Saptech]

Hmmm, so Bush is suggesting we go to Iraq and kill those opposing soldiers, because he have a beef with Sadaam! :rolleyes:

Interesting.

[z911]

the way I see it is that the military's reason of being is to defend the nation. hence it has a defensive vocation. I can also understand how certain politicians or ill-intentioned people in positions of influence can try to use the military for other purposes under a deceitful cover of national defence for what truly is a strategic and financial goal (gulf war...).

that's life. you have bad guys and you have good guys. so fine there is a strategic purpose but nobody said-and even less showed- that this so-called strategic goal cannot be achieved by peaceful means. after all, Cheney himself did business with Iraq before and throughout the Gulf War through his company Halliburton's subsidiaries. the security and moral grounds are not there and the Bush administration has not succeeded in making its case against Iraq.

now to get back to this draft-dodgers-or-men-of-conscience issue... true soldiers are supposed to obey orders but these orders are expected to be moral. the indiscriminate killing of civilians and systematic violations of human rights, the Geneva convention and international law do not constitute moral grounds. this is what has been going on for decades in the occupied territories and these Israeli soldiers are speaking and acting against it. these soldiers have recognized that the actions of their military in the occupied territories are immoral, unjustified and constitute numerous violations of human rights. so they're doing the right thing and acting against it. go and look on the petition online site. check out the names of the signatories. they come from all ethnies, religions, nationalities and they all support these soldiers.

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by Saptech
Hmmm, so Bush is suggesting we go to Iraq and kill those opposing soldiers, because he have a beef with Sadaam! :rolleyes:

Interesting.

Specifically soldiers, not civilians. If you have a problem with war, don't tell me, tell your government. It is not the military's job to kill innocents, it is their job to defeat another military. At least in the U.S.'s case. It is not perfect, and there are failures, but it is the way it is. Nothing in this world is perfect, and it is nice to be morally opposed to killing, but unfortunately that is not the way the world works, we are animals, and the fact that we are smart animals has no impact on our animalistic natures. We destroy, we expand, we do things that are not pretty. But we have been doing it for our entire history. Sure, it would be nice fairy tale if governments only used militaries to defend it's borders, but that's not what happens is it? Saying that the job of the military is to kill innocents is a bit melodramatic. It is ingrained in the military psyche to avoid collateral damage if possible, so to say they are only blood lusting killers is a bit wrong.

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by z911
the way I see it is that the military's reason of being is to defend the nation. hence it has a defensive vocation. I can also understand how certain politicians or ill-intentioned people in positions of influence can try to use the military for other purposes under a deceitful cover of national defence for what truly is a strategic and financial goal (gulf war...).

that's life. you have bad guys and you have good guys. so fine there is a strategic purpose but nobody said-and even less showed- that this so-called strategic goal cannot be achieved by peaceful means. after all, Cheney himself did business with Iraq before and throughout the Gulf War through his company Halliburton's subsidiaries. the security and moral grounds are not there and the Bush administration has not succeeded in making its case against Iraq.

now to get back to this draft-dodgers-or-men-of-conscience issue... true soldiers are supposed to obey orders but these orders are expected to be moral. the indiscriminate killing of civilians and systematic violations of human rights, the Geneva convention and international law do not constitute moral grounds. this is what has been going on for decades in the occupied territories and these Israeli soldiers are speaking and acting against it. these soldiers have recognized that the actions of their military in the occupied territories are immoral, unjustified and constitute numerous violations of human rights. so they're doing the right thing and acting against it. go and look on the petition online site. check out the names of the signatories. they come from all ethnies, religions, nationalities and they all support these soldiers.

We will not disagree on most of these points, but do you not think that there are efforts going on to not have a military conclusion to this? You need to separate what APPEARS from what is. With the middle east, all that is respected is power. You can debate all day long, but the end result is no different. Every culture has a different method of coming to an understanding. In asia, it is a matter of procedure. You politely refuse your host's offer of drink, and you eventually allow your host to "convince" you. You simply have to understand the way each culture operates in these matters. And these soldiers may be men of peace, but you have to realize, that there is an active effort, and has been for 30 some odd years to push them into the sea. They do not have the luxury of time consuming thought. People fail to understand that the land occupied by the palestinians was never theirs to begin with. I don't like the violence in israel anymore than anyone else, but I am realistic. I have no problem with conscientious objectors, I would not jail them...but it is done.

[williamwbishop]

Btw, if you want a "true and good" analysis of each cultures procedures for diplomacy, read some of carters efforts. Or even nixon and kissinger.

[redneckbrit]

z911, thanks for bringing this to my/our attention. It takes real guts to stand up for what you believe in and these people deserve some support.

[z911]

Originally posted by williamwbishop
We will not disagree on most of these points, but do you not think that there are efforts going on to not have a military conclusion to this? You need to separate what APPEARS from what is. With the middle east, all that is respected is power. You can debate all day long, but the end result is no different. Every culture has a different method of coming to an understanding. In asia, it is a matter of procedure. You politely refuse your host's offer of drink, and you eventually allow your host to "convince" you. You simply have to understand the way each culture operates in these matters. And these soldiers may be men of peace, but you have to realize, that there is an active effort, and has been for 30 some odd years to push them into the sea. They do not have the luxury of time consuming thought. People fail to understand that the land occupied by the palestinians was never theirs to begin with. I don't like the violence in israel anymore than anyone else, but I am realistic. I have no problem with conscientious objectors, I would not jail them...but it is done.

frankly Bill, I don't know where you got these ideas that the only thing that people in that region understand is power. there has been numerous openings from the Arabs to the Israelis over the decades. all of these openings have produced yet another peace plan which always included a recognition of Israel and its right to exist. but the peace plans have also required Israeli recognition of Palestine and its right to exist which the Isarelis never wanted to recognize. so nothing was ever signed. there has been no less than 10 different peace plans and offers over the years all of them turned down by Israel. the latest was the Saudi proposal a few months ago which although including full recognition of Israel and its right to exist was turned down as well by the Israelis. why? again it required recognition of Palestine and its right to exist as well as withdrawal from the occupied territories to pre '67 borders. something which the Israeli right does not accept. Shamir was about to do it but then he got assassinated. by whom? the extreme right again. it is also quite significant that although the PLO has recognized officially Israel's right to exist as part of the Oslo agreement, Israel has never fulfilled its own part by recognizing Palestine's right to exist. this makes me wonder who truly believes in power over reason. speaking of Kissinger, here's a quote by him: "I ask Rabin to make concessions, and he says he can't because Israel is too weak. So I give him arms, and he says he doesn't need to make concessions because Israel is strong" -- Henry Kissinger (quoted in Findley's Deliberate Deceptions p.199, quoting from Sheehan's The Arabs, Israelis and Kissinger)

a final note on the With the middle east, all that is respected is power thing: this statement presumes that middle-easterns as they base their judgement on power factors, do not possess a conventional sense of reason, which truly characterizes the human specie and sets it apart from "animals" (as I am using the term you chose to use earlier). your statement belittles middle-easterns as human beings in its implications and goes against a certain amendment in the US constitution. I vaguely remember something about equality regardless of race, religion, sex, blah blah blah... ;) so right now you and your argument are on racist and segregationist grounds.

finally on the People fail to understand that the land occupied by the palestinians was never theirs to begin with: you got it the other way around. According to international law, the Geneva convention and no less than 95 UN resolutions (it took only one UN resolution to go to war against Iraq...). Israeli presence in the occupied territories and Gaza strip is occupation. illegal occupation! that's what these soldiers are speaking against. they are also speaking against indiscriminate and extra-judicial killing and assassinations of civilians under the false pretense of security. and we're not just talking about a couple of soldiers. there are thousands of them now. but then of course we can easily label them as unpatriotic and cowardly and dismiss the issue. the latest polls over the last decade or so have shown that over 65% of Israelis AND Palestinians are well in favor of a retreat from the occupied territories and returning land for peace with the palestinians. keep in mind that the entire idea of Israel is based upon a biblical promise. so to accept it would be to recognize that the bible is an accurate historical document. any historian or even theologist would tell you the opposite. the Bible is highly subjective and was meant as a religious document with spiritual connotations, not historical ones. until its historical credibility can be clearly established it cannot be accepted as a historical document. since that credibility is still not established 2000 years after it has been written I think we can safely assume that it most probably never will be. so there goes the single most significant reason for the very existence of Israel. however, there are 6 million Israeli citizens already down there and you can't just throw them in the sea (which is not the Arabs intention as we can judge from the numerous peace plans they offered) so obviously you have to work out a deal. the other aspect of Israel that people just never seem to wonder about is that it's meant for Jewish people alone and is "the promised land for a chosen people". that also is racist and segregationist as it sets Jewish people above all others. but that is not the true Jewish perspective as there are many religious Jewish orders and many Jews who oppose that very notion and consider it to be un-Jewish. perhaps the most famous Jew of all who opposes this racist/zionist perspective is Einstein himself and I quote:
"[My] awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state." -- Albert Einstein, quoted in an article (http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/outlook.html) by Mordecai Briemberg published in The Outlook, 04/01-0/15, 1998. "
here's another quote by the Pittsburg Jewish platform on Israel when they were approached by Theodor Herzl the father of Zionism: "We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state." -- The Pittsburgh Platform, 1885, the classic statement of the protestant or Reform Judaism)

[z911]

Originally posted by redneckbrit
z911, thanks for bringing this to my/our attention. It takes real guts to stand up for what you believe in and these people deserve some support.

thank you redneckbrit. I truly appreciate your support.

[williamwbishop]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by z911
frankly Bill, I don't know where you got these ideas that the only thing that people in that region understand is power. there has been numerous openings from the Arabs to the Israelis over the decades. all of these openings have produced yet another peace plan which always included a recognition of Israel and its right to exist. but the peace plans have also required Israeli recognition of Palestine and its right to exist which the Isarelis never wanted to recognize. so nothing was ever signed. there has been no less than 10 different peace plans and offers over the years all of them turned down by Israel. the latest was the Saudi proposal a few months ago which although including full recognition of Israel and its right to exist was turned down as well by the Israelis.

Then you state as fact that Israel has never offered peace to the PLO, and that arafat has not turned down a similar number of proposals? I think you are looking at this from only one side.


why? again it required recognition of Palestine and its right to exist as well as withdrawal from the occupied territories to pre '67 borders. something which the Israeli right does not accept. Shamir was about to do it but then he got assassinated. by whom? the extreme right again. it is also quite significant that although the PLO has recognized officially Israel's right to exist as part of the Oslo agreement, Israel has never fulfilled its own part by recognizing Palestine's right to exist. this makes me wonder who truly believes in power over reason. speaking of Kissinger, here's a quote by him:

a final note on the With the middle east, all that is respected is power thing: this statement presumes that middle-easterns as they base their judgement on power factors, do not possess a conventional sense of reason, which truly characterizes the human specie and sets it apart from "animals" (as I am using the term you chose to use earlier). your statement belittles middle-easterns as human beings in its implications and goes against a certain amendment in the US constitution. I vaguely remember something about equality regardless of race, religion, sex, blah blah blah... ;) so right now you and your argument are on racist and segregationist grounds.


I think you are confusing the fact that we are discussing the middle east's customs with our constitution. Power equals respect MOST of the time in the middle east. I say they are animals. I say we are animals. I say animals in that we as humans are animals with instincts and behaviours. Please stop pulling things out of context. And I speak in terms of government, not it's people. Does your governement equal you as a person? No, it has different needs, different goals.


finally on the People fail to understand that the land occupied by the palestinians was never theirs to begin with: you got it the other way around. According to international law, the Geneva convention and no less than 95 UN resolutions (it took only one UN resolution to go to war against Iraq...). Israeli presence in the occupied territories and Gaza strip is occupation.


Your point? The U.N. is meaningless. It IS occupation, so what. When the arab nations brought war on israel, and israel not only defend itself but expanded it's borders, that lay that point to rest. The land is theirs by right of victory.


illegal occupation! that's what these soldiers are speaking against. they are also speaking against indiscriminate and extra-judicial killing and assassinations of civilians under the false pretense of security. and we're not just talking about a couple of soldiers. there are thousands of them now. but then of course we can easily label them as unpatriotic and cowardly and dismiss the issue. the latest polls over the last decade or so have shown that over 65% of Israelis AND Palestinians are well in favor of a retreat from the occupied territories and returning land for peace with the palestinians. keep in mind that the entire idea of Israel is based upon a biblical promise. so to accept it would be to recognize that the bible is an accurate historical document. any historian or even theologist would tell you the opposite.



I have no problem with them speaking out, or with their refusal to join in the campaign, perhaps you have me mistaken with someone else. And I am the last person to disagree with you on the validity of the bible. I could care less what was promised to whom in the bible, as it is total tripe. HOWEVER, you need to go speak with the british GOVERNMENT, because they are the ones who placed israel where it is. The palestinians never owned the land, it was british and before that jordanian, and before that the turks had it. Go complain to any of them if you have a problem with israel occupying the lands.

the Bible is highly subjective and was meant as a religious document with spiritual connotations, not historical ones. until its historical credibility can be clearly established it cannot be accepted as a historical document. since that credibility is still not established 2000 years after it has been written I think we can safely assume that it most probably never will be. so there goes the single most significant reason for the very existence of Israel. however, there are 6 million Israeli citizens already down there and you can't just throw them in the sea (which is not the Arabs intention as we can judge from the numerous peace plans they offered)


You very obviously have taken a one sided look at this. Go ask the jordanians if they want the land back, they already said they did not care what israel did with it. If you are foolish enough to not see that the arab nations would like israel gone, and have not taken actions to go about it, then you need to read some more.


so obviously you have to work out a deal. the other aspect of Israel that people just never seem to wonder about is that it's meant for Jewish people alone and is "the promised land for a chosen people". that also is racist and segregationist as it sets Jewish people above all others. but that is not the true Jewish perspective as there are many religious Jewish orders and many Jews who oppose that very notion and consider it to be un-Jewish. perhaps the most famous Jew of all who opposes this racist/zionist perspective is Einstein himself and I quote:

here's another quote by the Pittsburg Jewish platform on Israel when they were approached by Theodor Herzl the father of Zionism:


Again please be so kind as to not mistake me with some bible thumping right wing bigot. I base my assumptions on history, politics and common sense. You are looking for a scapegoat, count me out.

[glaston]

these brave service men and women need all the support they can get. please help...
Hah! Don't make me laugh!!! They need help?
I wouldn't support the friggin IDF at gunpoint!!

[z911]

Originally posted by glaston
Hah! Don't make me laugh!!! They need help?
I wouldn't support the friggin IDF at gunpoint!!

they're the ones speaking out against the IDF brutality and their crimes against humanity Glaston. they're being jailed and persecuted for doing the right thing and standing up to Sharon and his gang.

[z911]

Bill,

Your point? The U.N. is meaningless. It IS occupation, so what. When the arab nations brought war on israel, and israel not only defend itself but expanded it's borders, that lay that point to rest. The land is theirs by right of victory.

you're obviously talking about the Oslo agreement. Arafat turned it down for the very same reasons I mentioned previously (no mention of Palestine's right to exist and it's recognition by Israel) and then some: the Oslo agreement did not include the dismantling of settlements in the occupied territories and Gaza but went further by confiscating more land for these settlements and sumerous chunks of roads and resources for the support of these settlements (all of them illegal under international law and contravening the fourth Geneva convention). as much as I dislike Arafat, I fully support his decision.

I have no problem with them speaking out, or with their refusal to join in the campaign, perhaps you have me mistaken with someone else. And I am the last person to disagree with you on the validity of the bible. I could care less what was promised to whom in the bible, as it is total tripe. HOWEVER, you need to go speak with the british GOVERNMENT, because they are the ones who placed israel where it is. The palestinians never owned the land, it was british and before that jordanian, and before that the turks had it. Go complain to any of them if you have a problem with israel occupying the lands.
the arabs never brought war on Israel, it is the other way around. just check out history. as you said, it is the Brits who started the whole thing by colonising Palestine. that population was forcibly removed from its homes by the Zionist settlers with the support fo the British government. since 1948, over 800,000 palestinian civilians were expelled to neighbouring countries and their lands and possessions confiscated. that was not in response to arab threat. that was a colonisation effort initiated unilaterally by the Brits and the Zionists and constituted (even in 1948) a violation of international law and the Geneva convention. you say that the land wasn't theirs because it belonged to Jordan or Great Britain or the Ottomans at one time or another. however, you do not take into consideration the fact that this Palestinian population (or indigenous population) had been there for centuries or even millenia before the coming of either invading army. so they have a native right to the land whatever we choose to call that land, be it Israel or Palestine (again I am merely quoting international law). The Israeli law as it is now does not recognize that right simply because the Palestinians are not Jewish. racism, racism, racism... to me there are no two states, Israel and Palestine. There is one state for both people together. and that should entail compensation for the millions of Palestinian refugees who have been expelled out of their homes and lands for over four decades now and should be offered the right to return and/or compensation just like the Jewish victims of the Holocaust were offered by the Germans in reparation of Nazi crimes.

Again please be so kind as to not mistake me with some bible thumping right wing bigot. I base my assumptions on history, politics and common sense. You are looking for a scapegoat, count me out.

that is absolutely not the case. I am however surprised at the nature of some of your arguments. frankly I would expect you to know better.

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by z911
Bill,



the arabs never brought war on Israel, it is the other way around. just check out history. as you said, it is the Brits who started the whole thing by colonising Palestine. that population was forcibly removed from its homes by the Zionist settlers with the support fo the British government. since 1948, over 800,000 palestinian civilians were expelled to neighbouring countries and their lands and possessions confiscated. that was not in response to arab threat. that was a colonisation effort initiated unilaterally by the Brits and the Zionists and constituted (even in 1948) a violation of international law and the Geneva convention. you say that the land wasn't theirs because it belonged to Jordan or Great Britain or the Ottomans at one time or another. however, you do not take into consideration the fact that this Palestinian population (or indigenous population) had been there for centuries or even millenia before the coming of either invading army. so they have a native right to the land whatever we choose to call that land, be it Israel or Palestine (again I am merely quoting international law). The


Are you forgetting the war which nearly ALL of the surrounding arab nations tried to invade and conquer Israel? How is it you say that the arab nations never brought war on Israel? I have seen your revisionist arguments before, I suggest to bury the evil zionist pigs argument a littel deeper and focus on the point at hand, it's a little too obvious your goal. There is only one truth to the middle east, BOTH sides are at fault. The palestinians are about as innocent of escalating this as the israelis are. And answer me this, if Canada were a warring nation with us, and daily sent suicide bombers into pizza hut's, blowing up your friends and family, how likely would you be to sit down and discuss peace? Please be so kind as to stop picking sides, and look at what IS. Neither is innocent. There are parts of the arab world that want israel dead, and they will do it with or without support. Picking a side, either side, and saying "see how simple the solution is" is ridiculous.

[Grognard]

I wasn't going to get involved in this thread at all, but what planet are you on? Have you ever served? I have, in the infantry, and our job WAS NOT to kill innocents as you call them, but to destroy the enemy. His soldiers. I have no idea how you can to your completely wrong conclusion.

Israel has a small population surrounded by countries that would gladly committ genocide if not for the Israeli army and their 400+ nuclear warheads. And don't delude yourself that they would not since the Arab press regularly calls for it, as does Arafat. They face utter and total genocide daily.

As for the objectors, TFB, in WWII the US objectors served in non-combat roles such as the American Field Ambulance Service, and a group of braver men is seldom seen. IIRC a couple won the Medal of Honor for bravery in rescuing wounded men.

Its Israel's call as to what to do with these guys. They don't have the luxury of a 240+ million population, with no enemies on their borders.

And lest you call me an Israel sympathizer, I have real problems with some of the things they do, but I have the luxury of not living with their problems.
Originally posted by Saptech
Any time someone is in the military, it's your job to kill innocents! Now, if some country is invading your country then it can be different situation.

The military's purpose is to kill!

[The Ennead IX]

signed up :) Another site worth a visit on a similar subject is http://www.taayush.org/

[The Elf]

Skimming the thread, it's about israeli soldiers who object to what the israeli government is telling them to do? Why should I support them. On the whole, it seems like a problem for the israeli government that we should be letting them figure out. I say we keep our noses outta that.

[mocnicom]

williamwbishop:
The land is theirs by right of victory.
I have never heard about this "right". So then Germany should now be an American colony I guess, and Afganistan, and many others. And nobody should have been upset with Japan conquering China, or Germany conquering France I guess, afterall it was thier right to keep it because they beat them. That is some seriously flawed logic.

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by mocnicom
I have never heard about this "right". So then Germany should now be an American colony I guess, and Afganistan, and many others. And nobody should have been upset with Japan conquering China, or Germany conquering France I guess, afterall it was thier right to keep it because they beat them. That is some seriously flawed logic.

If we had defeated germany(which we didn't, we were part of a coalition), then who would have complained if we had kept it? Just because you have the option, doesn't mean you have to take it. Most don't but a lot do. Because it's flawed, do you think we should give texas back to mexico? How is it you think we got it, won in a bet?

[williamwbishop]

And by the way, the right of conquerors has been used for thousands of years, just because you don't see it daily anymore, does not mean it does not or has not happened.

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by mocnicom
or Germany conquering France I guess, afterall it was thier right to keep it because they beat them.

They failed to keep it, if they had won the war, france would still be the property of germany. When you look at the world, you would be better put to look at how it actually works, versus forcing your perspective of what seems right and wrong. Just because something is immoral, or unethical does not mean it doesn't happen. This argument of yours is more suited to academia than reality. Now you see the difference, and you can go post your vision on the thread of whipping boys, called "a theory". There is how the world works, and how we wish it would work. They are not necessarily the same thing.

[emus]

Originally posted by williamwbishop
They failed to keep it, if they had won the war, france would still be the property of germany. When you look at the world, you would be better put to look at how it actually works, versus forcing your perspective of what seems right and wrong. Just because something is immoral, or unethical does not mean it doesn't happen. This argument of yours is more suited to academia than reality. Now you see the difference, and you can go post your vision on the thread of whipping boys, called "a theory". There is how the world works, and how we wish it would work. They are not necessarily the same thing.


Reality shouldn't be analyzed academically to improve upon it?
I do believe you hope for the betterment of the world too.

[The Elf]

Originally posted by emus
Reality shouldn't be analyzed academically to improve upon it?
I do believe you hope for the betterment of the world too.

Reality = what's real..

You can academically study it, but no amount of study can change the reality of 50+ years ago, not unless your academic study is on time machines.

[undef]

there's one solution to all these mess: an all out war. winner takes all. :mad:

[Saptech]

Originally posted by Grognard
I wasn't going to get involved in this thread at all, but what planet are you on? Have you ever served? I have, in the infantry, and our job WAS NOT to kill innocents as you call them, but to destroy the enemy. His soldiers. I have no idea how you can to your completely wrong conclusion.
Yes I served in the military, Vietnam, the war the USA lost!

What infantry you was in, the one during peacetime?

And don't forget, Isreal have the BIG BAD USA on it's side. Supplying money and weapons of mass destruction. What does they produce as a country that they offer the US in return?

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by Saptech
Yes I served in the military, Vietnam, the war the USA lost!

What infantry you was in, the one during peacetime?

And don't forget, Isreal have the BIG BAD USA on it's side. Supplying money and weapons of mass destruction. What does they produce as a country that they offer the US in return?

They keep the arab nations from forming a compact that so that we can keep the cost of oil artificially low by keeping the area unstable. They also provide weapons development to us(the U.S. military will be moving to the israeli rifles soon, while scrapping the M-16 series). And don't forget, the palestinians have the REST of the arab nations on it's side. You know what palestine looks like, it makes indian reservations look cosmopolitan. So how, without support, are they able to afford to spend 15 million on arms shipments? Don't kid yourself, we support israel for the greediest of reasons, we have not gone, to my knowledge altruistic in nature. Additionally, we also support: Syria, Iran, Egypt, Jordan, etc....Where is everyone's ire when we pay them?

[mocnicom]

Originally posted by williamwbishop
[B...When you look at the world, you would be better put to look at how it actually works, versus forcing your perspective of what seems right and wrong. Just because something is immoral, or unethical does not mean it doesn't happen. This argument of yours is more suited to academia than reality. Now you see the difference, and you can go post your vision on the thread of whipping boys, called "a theory". There is how the world works, and how we wish it would work. They are not necessarily the same thing. [/B]
For me a phrase like "right of victory" carries moral implications similar to the phrase "divine right" which refers to a king being ordained to rule by GOD's will. Without the moral issues you are of course correct that reality allows them the "right" to keep the territories.

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by mocnicom
For me a phrase like "right of victory" carries moral implications similar to the phrase "divine right" which refers to a king being ordained to rule by GOD's will. Without the moral issues you are of course correct that reality allows them the "right" to keep the territories.

Thank you.:) We are merely going in the same direction, in different cars. I believe much the same as you, but I must take into account what IS. Despite the ugliness of the world, and what the people in it do, we cannot ignore history and reality.

[glyph]

one part of me admires the individuals for putting their feet down and saying they want no part of this....another part says 'oh sure, now that israel with it's collaborators in washington have instigated a crisis in which they expect americans to pay the price for - the very forces that initiated much of this turmoil are becoming consciencious!' of course this doesn't make the individuals no less heroic for making a stand, it's just the manuvering on the part of their and our governments. it's as if the israelis were the instigators, and the americans are the dumb thugs sent to deal with the mess.
i just think that the coverage of israeli troop dissention is at issue because it is a way to conserve israeli manpower and utilize american troops for israels wars. it's just funny how this dissention movement coincides with the mobilization of our troops. it would be nice to see american troop dissention too.

[z911]

Originally posted by williamwbishop
Are you forgetting the war which nearly ALL of the surrounding arab nations tried to invade and conquer Israel? How is it you say that the arab nations never brought war on Israel? I have seen your revisionist arguments before, I suggest to bury the evil zionist pigs argument a littel deeper and focus on the point at hand, it's a little too obvious your goal. There is only one truth to the middle east, BOTH sides are at fault. The palestinians are about as innocent of escalating this as the israelis are. And answer me this, if Canada were a warring nation with us, and daily sent suicide bombers into pizza hut's, blowing up your friends and family, how likely would you be to sit down and discuss peace? Please be so kind as to stop picking sides, and look at what IS. Neither is innocent. There are parts of the arab world that want israel dead, and they will do it with or without support. Picking a side, either side, and saying "see how simple the solution is" is ridiculous.

you are clearly talking about the '67 war. that war was started by Israel as was openly admitted by then Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban in the UN general assembly shortly after. that fact was also openly admitted by most Israeli statesmen at the time.

"In June l967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." -- Menachem Begin in The New York Times, August 21, 1982



http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/scripts/article.asp?mador=14&datee=5/4/01&id=118732
LBJ missed Nasser's overtures for peace in '67
By Amir Oren Ha'aretz Correspondent

A decade before Anwar Sadat's peace initiative, and along similar lines, his predecessor Gamal Abdel Nasser sent a secret message to President Lyndon Johnson, offering non-belligerence and an exchange of ambassadors with Israel in return for resumed U.S. relations with Egypt and "just and adequate compensation" for Palestinian refugees.

But the Johnson administration, nudged into inaction by jealous State Department officials, rebuffed the feeler.

This startling revelation is included in the latest batch of declassified documents in the Foreign Relations of the United States series, released by the State Department yesterday and focusing on the Arab- Israeli dispute, 1967-68.

From the American government's own documents, it turns out that following his defeat in the Six-Day War, the Arab summit conference at Khartoum in September, and acceptance of Security Council Resolution 242 in November, Nasser set out in December 1967 to establish a private back-channel to Johnson, bypassing the Egyptian Foreign Ministry and probably his Soviet minders.

Failing to enlist then-treasury secretary Robert Anderson, who for a while tried to mediate between him and David Ben-Gurion in the 1950's, Nasser conveyed his message through U.S. attorney James Birdsall. State Department bureaucrats tried to block Birdsall's invitation to the Oval Office, but Johnson was prevailed upon by his National Security Advisor to see him, to hear out Nasser's message. However, following that meeting, bureaucracy managed to delay any further action.

In January 1968, after the Tet offensive in Vietnam and his dismal showing against Senator Eugene McCarthy in the New Hampshire primary, LBJ announced his withdrawal from the presidential race.

Israel and Egypt sank into a war of attrition, followed by Nasser's death, Soviet military involvement, and the 1973 war, before Sadat's feeler was accepted by prime minister Menachem Begin.

so you might want to review your history notes about this war. now on the MYTH that Israel is under constant security threat by its neighbours, people conveniently seem to leave out that Israel has the 4th most powerful army in the world. man to man it is even more powerful than the US army. not to mention of course that Israel possesses 200+ nuclear warheads and numerous chemical and biological WMDs.

to be continued in next post...

[z911]

continuation of previous post...

now about picking sides: of course I picked a side. how could you be so naive as to expect me not to? I picked the side of the civilian populations who are paying the price of this futile ongoing situation. both Israelis and Palestinians. but don't expect me to say that this is a symmetric conflict where each population has suffered equally. Sure the Jews have suffered but they have suffered in EUROPE not Palestine at the hands of the NAZIS not the Arabs. so how about practicing what you preach and looking at what IS? the Genocide and crimes committed against Jews in WWII do not justify the crimes committed by the Israelis against Palestinians. since 1948 Israel has expelled more than 800,000 Palestinians from their homes and lands and the effort is ongoing with US taxpayer money funding the settlements, again illegal under international law. the Holocaust does not in any way justify taking somebody else's land. but the fact is that there are 6 million plus Israelis in historic palestine now. although this is the result of pure colonisation on behalf of the British and Zionists you can't just ask these people to leave. they are there to stay. but you cannot either expect the Palestinian people to roll over and renounce their rights to a land that is historically theirs. and I don't mean any sort of biblical or divine promess. that is an insult to common sense and intelligence.

your example of Canada sending suicide bombers to the US is flawed, apart from being insulting. first to make the situation comparable to the Palestine/Israel situation you have to add to it that the US invaded Canada and forcibly expelled more than 800,000 Canadians out of their homes and lands and sent them to refugee camps around the world where these refugees would have to linger for more than 35 years without any hope to see their homeland again. the rest of the Canadian population would have to live under the curfews and US army 24 hour control. people would be tortured, killed or detained for even suspicion of resisting the ocupying force. US settlements would be built everywhere on Canadian soil after confiscating Canadian property and expelling the original inhabitants and owners. roads would be built for the sole usage of the US settlers making life virtually impossible for the original Canadian population to even attempt to have a normal life. water and electricity would be siderted for the primary isage of the settlements leaving the original Canadian population in despearte situations of need. Hospitals and schools would be destroyed as well as every possible civil service structure and the Canadian economy would driven to the ground. the only jobs available are in the US and Canadians would have to line up for hours at checkpoints where they are humiliated by teenage soldiers armed to the teeth and beaten, even shot to death at the whim of these soldiers. and we're talking about bottom wage manual labour. here's the icing on the cake: the settlers regularly disrupt the life of Canadians and steal their crops, their lands. they beat them up and steal their property. they even go as far as killing them and the crimes go for the vast majority unpunished. in the same time the international community is totally oblivious to this situation since the occupying power is claiming everywhere that they are the ones in danger since after 35 years of occupation, a minority radical Canadian resistance movement has resorted to send suicide bombers in the US pizza-huts. these suicide bombers are young Canadians with no hope whatsoever of leading a normal life someday, getting an education, starting a family or anything that you take for granted in your life. WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS A CRIME. but we can understand how they got to this point. now the US occupying force cracks down heavily on the civilian population with mass punishment by bombing to the ground entire neighbourhoods, killing hundreds of innocent civilians in the process and committing numerous crimes against humanity. the international media shows nothing of it and ignores it completely whereas everytime a finger nail broke in the US, it would make the headlines. it goes on for a couple of years but the suicide bombers keep on coming. there just seems to be no way to stop them. finally, the public opinion starts to wonder if the reason these suicide bombers are here is the occupation in the first place. HELLOOOO!!! 35 years later it's about fscking time.....

now that would make it closer to the reality of things in Palestine and Israel. I should add that the above situation of the US occupying Canada and Canadinas sending suicide bombers to the US is entirely fictional and for the sake of argument. at your request Bill I impressed the Palestinian struggle over the example to make it truly realistic and representative.

finally, to even say that the land is theirs by right of victory is to deny the Palestinian side their most basic human rights. the catch is that by doing so you also give up your own human rights. this line of thinking is representative of pre-WWI, League of Nations and UN era and decades of modern thinking. it also goes against the charter of human rights and the US constitution itself. people who think like that are social dinosaurs. the futility of such an argument can be clearly demonstrated once one considers that such arguments are only possible from a position of strength. something which is never permanent. proponents of such arguments quickly become their opponents once the roles change and they are not in a position of power anymore. if we were to apply this reasoning in the world today, Europe would be greater Nazi Germany. so why the hell did the US fight in WWII to start with. why did all these people die? what if Mexico became powerful and conquered Texas back? sure it can't possibly happen in our lifetime but every superpower eventually falls. so for the sake of argument, if it did happen, what would you be saying then Bill? according to your logic you would simply give it up and go quietly. moreover, such reasoning can only lead to global anarchy or annihilation or a situation of all nations sitting down to try to figure out a better way to do things in order to avoid the first 2 possibilities. we've been there already and International Law, the Geneva Convention and the UN were the result.

Reality check Bill. Wake up already... what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is a historic crime and injustice. condoning it or ignoring it won't make it go away and is a greater crime. These soldiers refusing tos erve in the occupied territories are fighting that crime and denouncing it. you can choose to look the other way if you want but I sleep better at night.

[williamwbishop]

That's all you got? A statement by an ambassador, who was not even in Israel at the time, and a comment from THAT website? Let me go prove that african americans are inferior by using a statement from a redneck and a the KKK webpage.:rolleyes:

So basically, there were 5 countries, that just conveniently had their militaries on the borders just WAITING for israel to make the first move?

[Saptech]

Originally posted by williamwbishop
Let me go prove that african americans are inferior by using a statement from a redneck and a the KKK webpage.:rolleyes:

Let's leave African Americans out of this, we have our own problems in USA...

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by Saptech
Let's leave African Americans out of this, we have our own problems in USA...

The point was, and excuse me for being OBVIOUS, that a couple of sources, especially those from those with no real access to the inner workings of something, do not equal PROOF, or even FACT.

[williamwbishop]

And 911 you can bring up how what is happening is against our constitution as many times as you like, but ISRAEL is not the U.S. I never said what was going on was right, but I am certainly not going to lay all the responsibility at the feet of the Israelis, like you seem to want to do.

[williamwbishop]

The sooner you realize that both parties are wrong here, the sooner you will find that your views make sense.

[Hena]

Originally posted by williamwbishop
The land is theirs by right of victory.
Do you truly think so? That might makes right, since that is basis of "right by victory".

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by Hena
Do you truly think so? That might makes right, since that is basis of "right by victory".

I'm not putting morality into it. The world works and spins regardless of what we consider moral. I have said it, what, about a hundred times? I DO NOT CONSIDER IT GOOD, JUST WHAT IS. Seems a lot of people are having reading difficulties here lately. Why do people insist on reading into things what they want them to say? The whole basis of religion, right there in a nutshell. And it transfers to politics. Israel conquered the land. Do you suggest, that just because it's immoral, that every country go back for the last 5000 years and give back all the lands they conquered because we consider it "bad"?

[williamwbishop]

The strong conquer the weak, it has been this way for all of history. Why are so many people having trouble understanding the concept. What does "good" and "moral" have to do with any of it in relation to existance. Is it just? No, but it still happens. And to the comment that if texas gets pulled back by mexico who apparently kick our butts to get it? I'm sorry, if they win, the land is theirs. What do you propose we do about it? Oddly enough, the military doesn't sit down for a "peace in" before deciding whether or not they want to keep conquered lands. Revisionists are always the same.

[Hena]

I was only saying do you think it is right, not does it have bearing on reality. I fully understand that "might makes right" policy has been used and is being use. I was just asking if you think it is right? I know that i have very little effect on what happens around world, but that was not the issue :).

And as of returning land to their owners... well i would like to see one goverment for whole world. But that isn't going to happen in my lifetime. It would have a lot if problems when it would happen, but that agains is not my problem at the moment.

However. Whether things have an effect on reality or not, is not a good reason not to discuss and consider an idea :).

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by Hena
I was only saying do you think it is right, not does it have bearing on reality. I fully understand that "might makes right" policy has been used and is being use. I was just asking if you think it is right? I know that i have very little effect on what happens around world, but that was not the issue :).

Of course I don't think it is right. What person would? War is never a good thing, and it only destroys. I would be happy if suddenly everyone decided that their current borders were just fine, and agreed to never again stretch out their hands against their neighbor, but that will never happen. Which is why I don't understand the posters stance on this subject. The israelis have put more effort into the peace initiatives than the PLO. In order to make peace with their neighbors, WHOM THEY DEFEATED, they gave back to egypt sinai, during which EGYPT AGREED that israel should keep the gaza strip. They have made peace with everyone but the PLO. And how many sanctions were placed against the PLO, and specifically arafat by the U.N. for not agreeing to make peace? 911 only wants to bring in those things that look detrimental to Israel, not even wanting to recognize that arafat is equally at fault for the current crisis. Does anyone really believe that arafat is a "nice" guy? The guy was and is a terrorist. Can you say airplane hijackings? The guy was fingered for half the terrorist acts in the 70's. But nowhere is this mentioned in the preceding diatribes? Do we need to give america back to the indians because they were here before us? Tear down our cities and give it all back. That is what is being suggested. Give back the lands you conquered in response to war from your neighbors. They brought war on you, and you defeated them, but please be so kind as to give back everything. They should have left israel alone in the first place. Now all the arab nations are funnelling weapons and money into the PLO movement, and you think it fair?

[williamwbishop]

Here is the timeline for the middle east peace process,


December 1988

Palestine National Council accepts original U.N. partition plan (U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181), Israel's right to exist, and U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 and renounces terrorism. The U.S. opens dialogue with the PLO, the first formal contacts with the PLO in 13 years. The PLO charter is not revised, however. The dialogue lasts two years.

July 30, 1988

King Hussein surrenders Jordan's claim to the West Bank, cuts legal and administrative ties.

February - April 1988

Secretary of State Shultz, in a letter to Prime Minister Shamir, launches shuttle mediation effort, sets a timetable for talks on transitional arrangements and a permanent solution in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The proposal calls for bilateral Arab-Israeli talks following an international conference. It fails to gain support from all parties.

1987

December 9, 1987

Palestinian uprising — the intifada — erupts in Gaza, spreads to West Bank.


1986

September 1986

Yitzhak Shamir replaces Shimon Peres as prime minister of Israel.

February 19, 1986

Frustrated by Yasser Arafat's refusal to accept U.N. resolutions as a basis for peace talks, Jordan's King Hussein severs links with the PLO.

1985

September 1985

Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres launches peace initiative centered on Jordan which includes proposal for an international conference; the United States encourages Israeli, Egyptian, and Jordanian diplomatic efforts; Yitzhak Shamir and Likud party oppose conference.

June 1985

Israel completes withdrawal from most of Lebanon, retaining effective control over 12-mile-wide "security zone" in southern Lebanon.
1984

March 5, 1984

Lebanon abrogates Lebanese-Israeli agreement.

February 21, 1984

U.S. forces in Beirut withdraw from Lebanon.


1983

October 1983

U.S. Marine headquarters in Beirut destroyed by terrorist bomb.

May 17, 1983

Israel-Lebanon peace and withdrawal agreement signed, mediated by Secretary of State Shultz and Ambassador Philip Habib.

April 18, 1983

U.S. embassy in Beirut destroyed by terrorist bomb.

1982

September 16, 1982

Lebanese President Bachir Gemayel assassinated; Israeli forces occupy West Beirut; Christian Phalange militia massacre civilian Palestinians near Beirut.

September 9, 1982

The 12th Arab League Summit meeting in Fez, Morocco, calls for Israel's withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since 1967 including Arab Jerusalem, the removal of Israeli settlements in Arab territories, and confirms the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people under the leadership of the PLO.

September 1, 1982

President Reagan announces U.S. initiative to settle Arab-Israeli conflict, based on earlier Camp David Accords and UN Resolution 242.

June - August 1982

Lebanon War: Israel attacks Syrian and PLO forces threatening its northern border in Lebanon. Yasser Arafat and PLO followers are forced to evacuate Beirut strongholds. Philip Habib mediates PLO withdrawal agreement. U.S., French, and Italian forces deployed in Beirut to facilitate PLO evacuation.

April 1982

Israel completes withdrawal of forces and civilians from Sinai.


1981

December 14, 1981

Government of Israel extends its law, jurisdiction, and administration to the Golan Heights.

October 6, 1981

Egyptian president Anwar Sadat is assassinated.

July, 1981

Habib mediates PLO-Israeli cease-fire agreement.

June 5, 1981

Israel attacks PLO and Syrian forces in Lebanon.

March - June 1981

U.S. mediator Philip Habib attempts to defuse Israeli-Syrian confrontation over Syrian SAM missiles in Lebanon; clashes between Israel and PLO elements in Lebanon.


1979

March 1979

Israel and Egypt sign a bilateral peace treaty in Washington under which Israel agrees to hand back Sinai to Egypt. It keeps the Gaza Strip. Arab states impose boycott on Egypt.


1978

September 17, 1978:

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, with the help of President Jimmy Carter, agree at Camp David to a framework for peace in the Middle East which offers limited autonomy to Palestinians in occupied territories and sets the framework for an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty.

[williamwbishop]

cont.

1991

December 16, 1991

Despite wrangling, parties to the talks decide to go on for a second week. "That the talks are continuing...is a very big step forward in the region that's had hostility for forty-three years," the State Department's deputy spokesman says.

December 11, 1991

Direct bilateral negotiations between Israel and separate delegations from Syria and Lebanon proceed; Israeli and Lebanese delegations characterize two sessions of talks as "substantive"; but negotiations have not begun between Israel and a joint Palestinian delegation.

December 4, 1991

Palestinian, Jordanian, Lebanese and Syrian delegations arrive on time at the three designated sites to resume direct Middle East negotiations in Washington. The Israeli delegates are absent.

December 3, 1991

The United States and the Soviet Union agree to convene a meeting at the level of ministers in Moscow January 28-29, 1992, for the purpose of organizing multilateral negotiations on issues of regional concern to the area.

November 29, 1991

Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians agree to a joint U.S.-Soviet proposal to resume bilateral talks in Washington on December 4, but Israel says it will not be ready to resume bilateral talks until December 9.

November 3, 1991

The first round of direct, bilateral negotiations opens in Madrid. Representatives of Israel meet separately with a joint Jordanian/Palestinian delegation, with representatives of Lebanon, and with representatives of Syria. The talks adjourn without agreement about where or when they will reconvene.

November 1, 1991

Secretary of State Baker in remarks closing the Madrid conference says a breakthrough was achieved with the start of "direct bilateral negotiations." Baker and conference co-sponsor Soviet Foreign Minister Pankin call for direct bilateral negotiations to start immediately.

October 31, 1991

Palestinians, in a joint delegation with Jordan, attend the Madrid talks between Jordan, Syria, Israel and Lebanon. Direct bilateral talks begin among Israel and Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and participants from the occupied territories. Multilateral negotiations begin on arms control, security, water, refugees, the environment and economic development.

October 30, 1991

Opening the Madrid conference, President Bush says the objective is "to achieve "real peace...security, diplomatic relations, economic relations, trade, investment, cultural exchange, even tourism. We seek a Middle East, where vast resources are no longer devoted to armaments." Outsiders can assist, he says, "but in the end, it is up to the peoples and the governments of the Middle East to shape the future of the Middle East."

October 18, 1991

Secretary of State Baker, at a news conference in Jerusalem, says President Bush and Soviet President Gorbachev are inviting Israel, the Arab states, and the Palestinians to attend a Middle East peace conference to be held beginning October 30 in Madrid. Baker says the conference is to be followed by "direct negotiations to achieve real peace."

March, 1991

President Bush says that Gulf War victory opens "window of opportunity" for resolution of Arab-Israeli conflict. Secretary of State Baker travels to Middle East on first of eight peace missions.



1990

August 2, 1990

Iraq invades and occupies Kuwait. Yasser Arafat's support for Saddam Hussein leads Persian Gulf states to cut off funds to the PLO. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are forced out of the Gulf states.

June 1990

President Bush suspends the two-year U.S. dialogue with the PLO because of the organization's failure to condemn an act of terrorism committed against Israel by a faction of the PLO.

March 1990

Israeli national unity coalition government falls when Shamir rejects Baker's proposals.



1989

November 1989

Syria reestablishes relations with Egypt, broken off after Camp David conference in 1978; Secretary Baker proposes plan for launching Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

October 1989

Secretary of State Baker offers five-point Middle East peace plan. It is rejected by Prime Minister Shamir after he forms right-wing coalition in June 1990.

May 1989

Israeli Prime Minister Shamir announces a four-point plan involving elections in the West Bank and Gaza for representatives who would negotiate an agreement on interim self-rule and serve as a "self-governing authority." The plan proposes later talks on a permanent solution. President Bush and Secretary of State Baker begin efforts to mediate renewal of the peace process.

[williamwbishop]

cont.


September 14, 1993

The Israel-Jordan Common Agenda is agreed in Washington, DC, marking the end of the state of war between the two nations and paving the way for talks leading to a formal peace treaty.

September 13, 1993

A new page in the history of the Middle East is turned at the White House, as Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat meet and watch Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres PLO Executive Council Member Abou Abbas sign the agreement. President Bill Clinton, former presidents George Bush and Jimmy Carter, and 3,000 dignitaries witness the signing — on the same desk used in the signing of the Camp David accords 15 years earlier.

September 10, 1993

Arafat letter is hand-carried to Israel by Norwegian Foreign Minister Johan Joergen Holst, whose country brokered the PLO-Israel pact.

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signs a document recognizing the PLO, and opens the way to a signing ceremony August 13 in Washington.

President Clinton calls the Oslo agreement "a bold breakthrough." "Today marks a shining moment of hope for the people of the Middle East; indeed, of the entire world," he says, pledging continued direct engagement of the United States in the peace process.

European leaders, including French president Francois Mitterrand and British Prime Minister John Major give strong endorsements to the Israel-PLO mutual recognition accord, but caution that much remains to be done.

Belgian Foreign Minister Willy Claes, representing the European Community's (EC) current presidency, says he will immediately start consultations with his EC counterparts and the executive European Commission to intensify the Community's contribution to the Middle East peace process. The EC is already the largest donor of aid to the Palestinians.

September 9, 1993

Israel and the PLO agree to recognize each other after 45 years of conflict, building on a pact already initialed on Palestinian self-rule in the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip and in Jericho.

PLO leader Yasser Arafat signs a letter recognizing Israel and renouncing violence.

August 31, 1993

Eleventh round opens with the Israelis announcement on secret talks with PLO in Oslo and an initialed accord on self-rule for Palestinians in Gaza Strip and Jericho.

August 29, 1993

Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres tells his cabinet that he has reached an agreement with the PLO on Palestinian autonomy in Gaza and Jericho.

August 26, 1993

PLO says it has reached provisional agreement in secret talks with Israel on partial autonomy in occupied territories.

June 15 - July 1, 1993
Washington, in the tenth round, proffers document to help identify Israeli-Palestinian differences — which both reject. Complex differences with Palestinians spur debate on talking directly to PLO.

April 27 - May 13, 1993

Ninth round bilaterals open on hopeful note as Israel revokes objection to participation of Faisal Husseini, key east Jerusalem PLO activist, as delegation leader. Israel also repatriates 30 Palestinians expelled between 1967 and 1987 and offers to take back some of those deported in December. Talks end in disarray, however.

January 19, 1993

Israeli parliament lifts 1986 ban on contacts with the PLO.



1992

December 7, 1992

Palestinians send scaled-down delegation to eighth round, protesting that Israel's self-rule proposals are insufficient. Slaying of six Israeli soldiers by Palestinian extremists results in Israeli crackdown and mass expulsion of more than 400 Palestinians and in increasing tension.

October 21, 1992

In seventh round, Israel reiterates willingness to talk about pulling out of Golan, but makes clear it's not prepared to yield the entire strategic plateau. Palestinians call for similar Israeli commitment to yield ground in the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem.

August 24 - September 14, 1992

Syria and Israel achieve marked progress in bilateral talks of the sixth round. For the first time, Israel openly speaks about the possibility of withdrawing from part of Golan Heights.

March 4, 1992

The fourth round of bilateral talks ends in Washington. Working group meetings are set to convene in Belgium on economic development; in Japan on the environment; in Washington on arms control and regional security; in Canada on refugees; and in Turkey or Austria on water resources.

February 20, 1992

Secretary of State Baker voices deep U.S. concern about the escalating violence in southern Lebanon and makes high-level diplomatic demarches to Israel, Syria and Lebanon, urging them to exercise "maximum restraint."

February 24 - March 4, 1992

Palestinians in the fourth round of bilateral talks propose elections in West Bank, Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem. Israel rejects that, and talks end in disarray.

January 28 - 29, 1992

The organizational meeting for multilateral talks on regional issues such as arms control, refugees and the environment is held in Moscow. Rounds one, two and three convene in 1992 in Lisbon and London.

January 7 - 16, 1992

The United States hails as another "step forward" when Israeli and Jordanian/Palestinian delegates resolve procedural differences that allow the third round of talks to resume. Israeli representatives meet separately with Lebanese, Syrian and Jordanian/Palestinian delegations.

[williamwbishop]

cont...
1997

September 10 - 12, 1997

With the peace process stalled for more than a year, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright makes her first trip to the Middle East as secretary. She calls on Israel to refrain from steps that could pre-empt final status negotiations and urges the Palestinian leadership to curb terrorist attacks. She makes little headway and leaves vowing to return only when regional leaders have made Ahard decisions.

April 7, 1997

President Clinton meets at the White House with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, terming their conversation Avery specific, frank, candid and long.

January 17, 1997

Following extensive mediation by Jordan's King Hussein, the Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron is signed between Israel and the PLO.

January 15, 1997

Special Middle East Coordinator Ambassador Dennis Ross prepares a Note for the Record, clarifying Israeli and Palestinian responsibilities in the interim period of the Oslo process, at the request of Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Netanyahu.



1996

May 31, 1996

Labor Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu becomes prime minister of Israel, having defeated Labor's Shimon Peres in early elections called after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

April 30, 1996

President Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres sign a U.S.-Israeli Counterterrorism Accord at the White House.

March 13, 1996

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak hosts a "Summit of the Peacemakers" in Sharm El-Sheikh to call for a halt to extremism and violence.



1995

December 27, 1995

Direct Israeli-Syrian talks commence under U.S. auspices near Washington but end inconclusively.

November 4, 1995

Israeli Prime Minister Yizhak Rabin is assassinated following a peace rally in Tel Aviv by an Israeli university student, Yigal Amir.

September 29, 1995

Secretary Christopher, Foreign Minister Peres, and Chairman Arafat convene the first meeting of the U.S.-Israel-Palestinian Trilateral Committee. The parties agree to promote cooperative efforts to foster economic development in the West Bank and Gaza, to explore the means to increase the availability and more efficient use of water resources, to consult on matters of mutual interest, and to promote cooperation on regional issues.

September 28, 1995

The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is signed in Washington, DC. The agreement contains 31 articles and seven annexes (redeployment and security, elections, civil affairs, legal matters, economic relations, cooperation programs, and prisoner release). Following the signing, President Clinton hosts a summit attended by King Hussein, President Mubarak, Prime Minister Rabin, and Chairman Arafat. The leaders review progress toward a comprehensive peace and ways to reinforce and accelerate that progress.

May 24, 1995

Secretary of State Christopher announces that Israel and Syria have reached a set of understandings on security arrangements.



1994

October 26, 1994

The Treaty of Peace between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, which had been initialed on October 17 by Israeli Prime Minister Rabin and Jordanian Prime Minister Majali, is signed at the White House. President Clinton's participation in the signing ceremony underscores the U.S. commitment to the peace process.

August 29, 1994

The Agreement on the Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities is signed at Erez, a checkpoint between Israel and the Gaza Strip. The expansion of Palestinian self-rule in the West Bank over education, taxation, social welfare, tourism, and health was completed by December 1994.

July 25, 1994

The Washington Declaration, embracing the underlying principles of the Israel-Jordan Common Agenda, is signed in Washington, DC.

May 4, 1994

At a ceremony in Cairo, Prime Minister Rabin and Chairman Arafat sign the Agreement on the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area. The new agreement sets out terms for implementation of the Declaration of Principles and includes annexes on withdrawal of Israeli military forces and security arrangements, civil affairs, legal matters, and economic relations.

April 29, 1994

The Israel-PLO economic agreement signed in Paris (now incorporated into the Interim Agreement) sets the parameters for Israeli-Palestinian economic relations in Gaza and Jericho. The protocol covers trade and labor relations as well as money, banking, and taxation issues.

[williamwbishop]

cont...


December 15, 1999

President Clinton welcomes Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq Al-Shara to the White House prior to the resumption of direct negotiations suspended in 1996. The parties hold two days of talks and agree to a second round in January.

December 5 - 9, 1999

Secretary Albright travels to the Middle East to assess the progress toward a framework agreement for permanent status (FAPS) between Israel and the Palestinians. In addition to Israel and the West Bank, Secretary Albright also travels to Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

November 2, 1999

At a ceremony in Oslo commemorating the anniversary of Yitzhak Rabin's assassination, President Clinton reiterates that the U.S. will do all we can to achieve Middle East peace. The president also meets with Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat, who agree to a February 13th target for achieving a framework agreement on permanent status issues.

September 24, 1999

Representatives of regional and international parties, led by Secretary of State Albright, gather in New York as Partners in Peace to demonstrate their strong and unwavering support for the Middle East Peace Process.

September 1 - 5, 1999

Secretary Albright travels to Morocco, Egypt, Israel, the West Bank/Gaza, Damascus and Beirut to consult with regional leaders on developments in the peace process, and attends the signing of the Sharm El-Sheikh accord on September 4.

July 14 - 20, 1999

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak visits the U.S. for the first time since taking office July 6. He and President Clinton pledge to make peace a top priority. PM Barak also meets in Washington with Secretary of State Albright, Secretary of Defense Cohen and other U.S.

May 17, 1999

Ehud Barak is elected Prime Minister of Israel, defeating Benyamin Netanyahu 56% to 44% in direct voting.

May 17 - 20, 1999

King Abdullah II of Jordan makes his first visit to the United States since succeeding his father, the late King Hussein.

March 22 - 23, 1999

Chairman Arafat visits Washington and meets with Secretary of State Albright and President Clinton, both of whom reaffirm U.S. opposition to unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood.

February 25 - 26, 1999

The U.S. hosts a meeting in Washington of the trilateral Anti-Incitement Committee, formed pursuant to the Wye Memorandum.

February 16, 1999

The U.S.-Palestinian Bilateral Committee holds its second meeting, at the Department of State, to discuss matters of mutual concern.

February 7, 1999

King Hussein of Jordan dies of cancer in Amman. His son, King Abdullah II, succeeds him. President Clinton issues a proclamation honoring the legacy of King Hussein, and joins world leaders at the late king's funeral in Amman February 8.

February 3 - 4, 1999

President Clinton and Secretary Albright discuss Wye Memorandum implementation with Chairman Arafat in Washington.



1998

December 12 - 15, 1998

President Clinton visits the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Following an historic address to the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) in Gaza, the President witnesses a PLC vote "fully and forever" rejecting conflict with Israel and revoking articles of the Palestinian Charter calling for the destruction of Israel.

November 30, 1998

President Clinton hosts a Middle East Donors Conference in Washington at which some 40 nations pledge over $3 billion in economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority. The President will seek Congress' approval for an additional U.S. contribution of $400 million over the next five years.

October 15 - 23, 1998

President Clinton, Secretary Albright and other U.S. officials broker intensive negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at the Wye River Conference Center on Maryland's Eastern Shore. A final, all-night session results in agreement upon the Wye River Memorandum, which is signed at the White House on October 23.

October 5 - 7, 1998

Secretary Albright, accompanied by Special Middle East Coordinator Dennis Ross, travels to Israel and the West Bank, meeting repeatedly with Israeli and Palestinian leaders in preparation for the resumption of face-to-face talks between the two sides later in the month.

September 28, 1998

Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat meet at the White House with President Clinton, who announces that Secretary Albright will return to the region for a further push to get direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations back on track.

September 27, 1998

Secretary Albright meets with Chairman Arafat and Netanyahu on the margins of the U.N. General Assembly.

May 3 - 5, 1998

Secretary Albright meets with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat in London in a further effort to jump-start the peace process. She meets with Netanyahu in Washington on May 13.

April 28, 1998

President Clinton marks the 50th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel, calling for reconciliation and a stop to extremism on all sides of the conflict in the Middle East.

January 31 - February 1, 1998

Secretary Albright returns to the Middle East and puts forth a proposal for simultaneous steps by the Palestinians on security and by Israel on further redeployment. In what she calls a step forward. Chairman Arafat gives her a letter detailing which parts of the PLO Charter can be considered annulled.

January 20 - 22, 1998

President Clinton meets separately with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat in Washington in an attempt to re-energize the peace process.

[williamwbishop]

cont...

October 16-30, 2002

Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns travels to Paris, Cairo, Riyadh, Damascus, Beirut, Tel Aviv, Sanaa, Muscat and Doha for consultations with Arab leaders on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and other issues.

October 1, 2002

President Bush signs the Foreign Affairs Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003 and maintains that the status of Jerusalem must be negotiated by the Israelis and Palestinians.

September 25, 2002

The United States pledges an addition $9.25 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) fund, bringing the total U.S. contribution to $119.25 million for the 2002 fiscal year.

September 12, 2002

President Bush, addressing the United Nations General Assembly, underscored his commitment to the establishment of an independent and democratic Palestinian state "living side by side with Israel in peace and security."

August 8, 2002

Secretary of State Powell met in Washington with a Palestinian delegation including Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat, Interior Minister Abdel Razak Yehiyeh and Economic and Trade Minister Maher Masri.

August 1, 2002

President Bush meets with Jordan's King Abdullah in Washington. Bush also met briefly with Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who was at the White House for discussion with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

July 18, 2002

Secretary of State Powell meets with the foreign ministers of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to follow up on plans for Middle East peace endorsed by the Quartet.

July 16, 2002

Secretary of State Powell consults in New York with representatives of the European Union, Russia and the United Nations on how to support security and reform efforts leading to a Palestinian state within three years. The group, known as the Quartet, also discusses humanitarian relief for Palestinians and meets with the foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan.

June 24, 2002

President Bush, speaking from the White House, calls for new Palestinian leadership and pledges that, "when the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions, and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state whose borders and certain aspects of its sovereignty will be provisional until resolved as part of a final settlement in the Middle East." Bush also calls for an end to terrorism, increased humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, and the normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab World.

June 4, 2002

George Tenet, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, meets with Chairman Arafat in Ramallah to discuss renewed security cooperation.

May 2, 2002

The United States, United Nations, European Union, and Russia announce plans to arrange for the distribution of humanitarian aid and establish more effective security arrangements in the region.

April 7-17, 2002

Secretary Powell visits Morocco, Egypt, Spain, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, and Syria. He meets with Prime Minister Sharon, Chairman Arafat and others.

April 4, 2002

President Bush, speaking from the White House, outlines his vision for a resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and announces Secretary of State Powell will travel to the region, seeking an end to terrorism and violence.

March 14-April 14, 2002

General Anthony Zinni, Special Envoy to the Middle East, is in Israel and the West Bank to negotiate a cease-fire and the resumption of security cooperation.

March 27, 2002

The Arab League, meeting in Beirut, adopts the proposal of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah endorsing a peaceful two-state settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

March 12, 2002

The United Nations Security Council adopts Resolution 1397, endorsing a "vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders." The resolution, introduced by the United States, is the first Security Council resolution to refer to Palestinian statehood.

March 10-18, 2002

Vice President Cheney visits the Middle East, meeting with leaders in Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait.

February 18, 2002

President Bush supports a Saudi proposal to normalize Arab relations with Israel in exchange for withdrawal to its 1967 borders. The proposal first appeared February 17, 2002, in "The New York Times".

January 3-7, 2002

Presidential Envoy General Anthony Zinni travels to Israel for further negotiations.



2001

November 26-December 15, 2001

Assistant Secretary of State William Burns and General Anthony Zinni travel to Israel and the West Bank and Gaza to restart negotiations over the implementation of the Tenet security work plan and the Mitchell Committee recommendations.

November 19, 2001

Secretary Powell, in a speech delivered at University of Louisville, Kentucky, outlines U.S. policy to help achieve peace between Arabs and Israelis. He underscores U.S. support for a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders.

November 10, 2001

Speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, President Bush states the U.S. will work "toward a day when two states, Israel and Palestine, live peacefully together within secure and recognize borders as called for by the Security Council resolutions."

September 26, 2001

Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Palestinian Chairman Arafat agree to a ceasefire and promise to resume joint security initiatives.

July 19, 2001

The Group of Eight (G-8) foreign ministers, meeting in Genoa, issue a statement calling for the implementation of the Mitchell Report recommendations.

June 26, 2001

President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon meet in Washington to discuss implementation of the Mitchell Report.

June 26-30, 2001

Secretary of State Powell travels to the region to shore up the cease-fire and press for progress on other recommendations for progress on implementation of the Mitchell report.

June 7-12, 2001

Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet visits the region to negotiate terms for renewed security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians.

April 30, 2001

The Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee, chaired by former U.S. Senator George J. Mitchell, issues its final report on how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict might be solved. The report calls for an immediate cease-fire, a renunciation of terrorism and a resumption of peace talks, as well as a freeze on construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.

February 25, 2001

Secretary of State Powell meets with Prime Minister Sharon in Jerusalem and Chairman Arafat in Ramallah.



2000

December 23, 2000

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators meet in Washington.
November 7, 2000

Former U.S. Senator George Mitchell is asked by President Clinton to chair a fact-finding commission to look into the causes of recent violence between Israelis and Palestinians.
October 17, 2000

Arafat and Barak attend meeting in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt arranged by president Clinton and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to discuss a cease-fire and pullback of Israeli forces.
October 4, 2000

Israeli PM Barak and Palestinian leader Arafat meet with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and French President Jacques Chirac in Paris.
July 11-25, 2000

President Clinton hosts meeting between Israeli and Palestinian leadership to address the most difficult of final status issues, including Jerusalem and the return of Palestinian refugees.
April 7, 2000

Israeli-Palestinian talks resume at Bolling AFB.
March 21, 2000

Palestinian-Israeli talks commence at Bolling Air Force Base near Washington, DC and last one week. The U.S. facilitates discussion of permanent status issues in an effort to help the parties reach a comprehensive agreement by September 13, 2000.
February 1, 2000

The Multilateral Steering Group meets at the ministerial level in Moscow. Secretary Albright addresses the gathering, saying that the multilateral process "will benefit all peoples of the region."
January 29, 2000

Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat met with President Clinton and Secretary Albright in Dovos.
January 3, 2000

Delegations from Israel and Syria, again led by PM Barak and Foreign Minister Al-Shara, gather in Shepherdstown, West Virginia for a further week of talks. Differences remain, and Secretary Albright announces the postponement of a third round of talks.

[williamwbishop]

Now, if you bothered to read the state departments analysis, which admittedly is quite long, does it look as one sided? I'm off now, but I will post several other things of interest tonight. Again, I'm not saying Israel is innocent, but I BELIEVE that it is up to the PLO to at least put a little effort into it. They have been playing redirection for 30 years now, saying one thing, trying to get public support, saying "pitiful me", while they are arming terrorists and bombers under the table. And the arab nations are crying "foul" while funding the thing. It's NOT one sided. Both parties are responsible.

[z911]

Originally posted by williamwbishop
That's all you got? A statement by an ambassador, who was not even in Israel at the time, and a comment from THAT website? Let me go prove that african americans are inferior by using a statement from a redneck and a the KKK webpage.:rolleyes:

So basically, there were 5 countries, that just conveniently had their militaries on the borders just WAITING for israel to make the first move?

At the time Abba Eban was Israeli foreign minster. I don't think I need to introduce Menachem Begin do I? well okay he was prime minister of Israel '77-83. a foreign minister and a prime minister. If that's not enough for you then I don't know what is... actually you could also go check out the USS Liberty story. that ship was hit by the Israelis just as they started the initial attack in '67. and I agree with whoever said we should leave African-Americans out of it.

I proved my point and clearly stated that I am on the side of both civilian populations. I also clearly showed that the suffering is not symmetrical. The Palestinian plight is conveniently left out of the media where any criticism of Israeli war crimes and crimea against humanity is wrongfully attacked and dismissed as anti-semitism without even examining the facts.

posting endless posts doesn't prove anything. I am not going to do your homework for you. It is up to you to read them and express your point in a concise and brief manner while backing it up with references from whatever you consider credible sources.

edit: Bill, what you posted seems to be no more than a time sheet of events. instead of taking up all that space and confusing the issue I would ask you to post links instead of actual text. it would be much more manageable considering the volume concerned. I would also appreciate if you went back to whatever you posted up there and deleted some of these unnecessary posts as they amount to no more than friendly spam...

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by z911
At the time Abba Eban was Israeli foreign minster. I don't think I need to introduce Menachem Begin do I? well okay he was prime minister of Israel '77-83. a foreign minister and a prime minister. If that's not enough for you then I don't know what is... actually you could also go check out the USS Liberty story. that ship was hit by the Israelis just as they started the initial attack in '67. and I agree with whoever said we should leave African-Americans out of it.

I proved my point and clearly stated that I am on the side of both civilian populations. I also clearly showed that the suffering is not symmetrical. The Palestinian plight is conveniently left out of the media where any criticism of Israeli war crimes and crimea against humanity is wrongfully attacked and dismissed as anti-semitism without even examining the facts.

posting endless posts doesn't prove anything. I am not going to do your homework for you. It is up to you to read them and express your point in a concise and brief manner while backing it up with references from whatever you consider credible sources.

The african american remark was to bring to light that you are using anectdotal(arguably bad) evidence to support a flimsy argument. And yes, I'm aware of the Liberty. I'm also aware that you want to place the blame only on the israelis. Are you aware that the IDF arrested 3 israelis teenagers for throwing stones at palestinians over the weekend? Do you know about the israelis' efforts to feed and clothe the palestinians? The actions of the israelis are not left out of the media. In fact, in case you didn't know, there is an effort to create a separate palestinian state, by both the U.S. AND the israeli government? No, you wouldn't look that far would you? And I didn't accuse you of anti-semitism, I accused you of blaming only one of two parties responsible. To ignore the actions of the PLO, which INCITE the israeli government to such extremes is pathetic.

[z911]

Originally posted by williamwbishop
The african american remark was to bring to light that you are using anectdotal(arguably bad) evidence to support a flimsy argument. And yes, I'm aware of the Liberty. I'm also aware that you want to place the blame only on the israelis. Are you aware that the IDF arrested 3 israelis teenagers for throwing stones at palestinians over the weekend? Do you know about the israelis' efforts to feed and clothe the palestinians? The actions of the israelis are not left out of the media. In fact, in case you didn't know, there is an effort to create a separate palestinian state, by both the U.S. AND the israeli government? No, you wouldn't look that far would you? And I didn't accuse you of anti-semitism, I accused you of blaming only one of two parties responsible. To ignore the actions of the PLO, which INCITE the israeli government to such extremes is pathetic.

that is the most pathetic thing I've ever heard. after 25 years of oppression and ethnic cleansing, the Israelis arrested 3 teenagers for throwing stones and are now concerned with creating a Palestinian state. Wow. Problem solved. end of discussion. :rolleyes:

when Arafat and Rabin were busy implementing Oslo there were no suicide bombers and no attacks. why? because the IDF stayed out of the occupied territories and both parties respected their obligations. things were looking good. Plus the IDF wasn't busy destroying the Palestinian Authority's security forces and then blaming them of not doing anything about the bombings. there was plenty of cooperation on security and it worked. but then Rabin was assassinated by the extreme right and it went downhill from there. in 2000 Sharon triggered the 2nd intifada by going on the Al-Aqsa mosque grounds with 1000 body guards. clearly the only point of this is to start problems and have an excuse for further military action. the rest is history. get your facts straight. the Israeli extreme right has always gone out of its way to provoke and humiliate Palestinians so that military action can ensue under the false cover of security operations. later on, 3 successive right wing Israeli governments succeeded in derailing Oslo by breaking every single deal and agreement rabin made. and don't get me started on the "generous Barak offer".

people seem to forget that we are talking about the plight of a homeless, landless population which has been suffering for 35+ years. they are facing one of the most formidable military machines ever, the Israeli army. the 4th army in the world with its tanks, apache helicopters, f16 and missiles against... suicide bombers driven into a hideous act by despair and a life without hope and kids throwing stones... defending their own land.

please read the edit in my last post.

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by z911
that is the most pathetic thing I've ever heard. after 25 years of oppression and ethnic cleansing, the Israelis arrested 3 teenagers for throwing stones and are now concerned with creating a Palestinian state. Wow. Problem solved. end of discussion. :rolleyes:



The point is not that this is a one time occurance. The middle ground IDF tries to not let things get too extreme. Yes, the right provokes, but the right of the palestinians do too. How is you can only see one side of the situation? Are you then ready to give back america and every other country to the people who were living there before them? That would change the entire world. You are looking at in as a one time occurance. In truth this has happened everywhere, time after time. This is not new. And as I said before, it's not pretty, but when was the last time that the conquerors of a nation decided to submit to the will of the vanquished? It's been 30 years, more, the palestinians just need to accept their loss, and assimilate. It's not nice, but it's reality. You will not see the israeli right give in, so therefore you have the israeli SOLDIERS(which you seem to forget is it's citizens) will continue to die. You see a separation, where there is none. In Israel, you are either part of the security force, the military, or you were at some point. The palestinians are basically pissing gas on a bonfire. What did you think would happen? Arafat knew what would happen, as did the israeli right. What would you, our esteemed knowledgeable ambassador? You know as long as suicide bombings go on, military support will be heavy, and you know that this keeps the right in power. The right will never concede the palestinian state. Thus the palestinians will continue to bomb. There is no way out of this circle of violence unless someone relents first. And would you relent if it were your families being blown up(choose your own side)?

[z911]

I get the distinct feeling you don't even read my posts. throughout the entire thread I consistently kept repeating that I favor a solution where both people coexist peacefully. like I said before, you cannot throw 6 million Israelis in the sea even if according to international law the land does not belong to them.

the Palestinians did more than their fair share of compromise. They already gave up on any hope of recuperating more than 80% of their homeland. what they have left in the occupied territories and Gaza amounts to less thna 20% of historic Palestine.

The Palestinians and the PLO have officially recognized Israel's right to exist. to this day, 55 years after the creation of Israel, there is still no Israeli recognition of Palestine's right to exist although:
1. The Oslo accord clearly called for it and,
2. Israel was admitted to the UN on strict condition that it recognizes Palestine's right to exist.

The Israelis being in a position of force and relatively unthreatened when compared to the Palestinian's position have gotten away with all their crimes and their consistent refusal to recognize a Palestinian state thanks to the US support in the UN and the US taxpayer funding at the rythm of 4 billion USD/year. If it wasn't for that support, Israel would have abided a long time ago to the collection of UN resolutions which if followed would have solved the problem a long time ago. that is by the way the chief reason for US dislike in the region.

A final note on the perennial Israeli refusal to solve this problem is what happened during the last weeks of Barak's term. both Israelis and Palestinian negotiators had reached a deal. Barak just never signed it and used it for political concessions within his party. he then lost the elections. there is no Israeli government will to solve this problem. and the longer it goes on the more land they annex in the occupied territories and the more settlements they build. It is also very significant that the official borders of Israel are still not set. what is happening on the floor is a game of cat and mouse that the Israeli government plays in order to justify more military actions which implicitly come down to home demolitions and expropriation for building settlements.

now how can you blame the Palestinians for resisting? they are supposed to. it is their own land, existence and identity they are fighting for. you say they should stop resisting but that will only happen when they are all dead. why? because so far they have nothing to live for. what you are saying Bill is utterly immoral. you are basically asking me to be a coward. I refuse that. and don't tell me it's not possible to change things. just get in on the activists train and you'll see that there are millions of people worldwide who are against that tragedy and the Israeli government's actions. Hell, even their own military refuses to serve now because they have seen first hand what is happening in the occupied territories. it is not right and people are fighting back. you don't want to fight, that's fine. but don't say that it's the way it is and that the Palestinians should just give up. that's immoral...

[mocnicom]

Originally posted by williamwbishop
There is no way out of this circle of violence unless someone relents first. And would you relent if it were your families being blown up(choose your own side)?
Clearly you believe that Israel won't relent, and like it or not neither will the Palestinians. Both sides seem to think "if we kill enough of them they will give in" but both are stupid in that notion. What do you propose as a solution that can succeed then? I certainly can't see a solution that the Palestinians could possibly accomplish alone, but the Israelis may be able to. Giving in for the Israelis would only be an insult, but giving in to the Palestinians would be thier end. The Israeli right has to stop being so zionist. Certainly the Palestinians are wrong to kill, but it wouldn't be any better for them if they stopped, and it may in fact be worse for them (sign of weekness, removes reluctance and fear about further expansion unto them) .

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by mocnicom
Clearly you believe that Israel won't relent, and like it or not neither will the Palestinians. Both sides seem to think "if we kill enough of them they will give in" but both are stupid in that notion. What do you propose as a solution that can succeed then? I certainly can't see a solution that the Palestinians could possibly accomplish alone, but the Israelis may be able to. Giving in for the Israelis would only be an insult, but giving in to the Palestinians would be thier end. The Israeli right has to stop being so zionist. Certainly the Palestinians are wrong to kill, but it wouldn't be any better for them if they stopped, and it may in fact be worse for them (sign of weekness, removes reluctance and fear about further expansion unto them) .

That's just it, I think they've painted themselves into such a bloody corner that the only way out is to replace both heads, or for a revolution to occur in one of the camps. I don't see a way out of it for them. They both screwed up, they both helped hold the brush that painted them in. There is no peaceful way out.

[z911]

Originally posted by williamwbishop
That's just it, I think they've painted themselves into such a bloody corner that the only way out is to replace both heads, or for a revolution to occur in one of the camps. I don't see a way out of it for them. They both screwed up, they both helped hold the brush that painted them in. There is no peaceful way out.

actually if the events of the last 55 years have told us anything, it would be that fighting cannot solve this problem. it just escalates and then keeps on going and going and going.

based on this I would say that the only way out is actually peaceful... and the peace camp is getting more and more support now. even in the ranks of the IDF.

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by z911
actually if the events of the last 55 years have told us anything, it would be that fighting cannot solve this problem. it just escalates and then keeps on going and going and going.

based on this I would say that the only way out is actually peaceful... and the peace camp is getting more and more support now. even in the ranks of the IDF.

You are far more optimistic than I. They both refuse to back down, they both refuse to sit and talk, no matter how it appears on the surface. Their one chance was killed by his own people. As long as arafat is in charge there will be no peace. And as long as the current regime is in place in israel there will be no peace. I'm sorry, I just don't see it happening.:(

[GaryJones32]

yea i mean just recently we got money together to put an add in the ny times to support the refusenicks..
Thanks for putting this here.....
Set the captives free !!!!!! world wide
they are the real brave ones -- suppose they threw a war and no one showed up...
that's every human beings resposibility to not be a murderer..
it's an essential part of following Kol Ha Torah.
yet they get put in prisson.......
the entire country should be torn down over it.
i mean these people we pay to commit mass murder for us they can never be normal or happy psychologically after that.
and the people they kill well they are never healthy or happy again either.
it's loose loose...
both the US and Israel claim they fight for peace and you have to admit dead people are pretty peacefull.......
can you imagine about a week after a total nuclear war....
total peace and quiet.....no more threatening independence movements.......
total nirvanna

has anyone noticed the Tikkun comunity doing this big reversal and let's support israel and understand israel and all that -- even going around now calling the anti-war movement ANSWER anti-semitic

what the heck happened there ?????????????

i personally thing Israel should be declared by the entire rabbinate unfit for jewish habitation because of oppressive treatment of others.

And i am not trying to single out Israel it's just what's happening now....
I mean it's just a part of the general brutal slime of european civilisation going around exterminating other human beings like they are roaches so they can steal their land-- europeans are good at it and have now been doing it for a very long time and i imagine will eventually exterminate all non-european humans on planet earth, that is if they don't exterminate the planet and themselves first (and yes they are just that stupid)

Israel just pretends like it's something other than that which is the real joke and the thing to stop i guess.

[GaryJones32]

Originally posted by williamwbishop
Israel conquered the land. Do you suggest, that just because it's immoral, that every country go back for the last 5000 years and give back all the lands they conquered because we consider it "bad"?

This is a good point -- the thing to do is now for the oppressors like England and America and Israel or anyone else who practices rasism right now-- to grow up and become responsible citizens and adults and acknowledge that the way of colonialism and racism and genocide and slavery and unequalness is wrong -- then we can have a world where it doesn't happen anymore but only after everyone who does it acknowledges it's wrong.....
"Truth and Reconciliation"

Of course we just deal with the world the way it is now
and we can't go back to the stone age territories.
(ironically an idea Israel is rather fond of)
but here and now can be a world where a palestinean is not forbidden by Israel from drilling a well for water right ....
just like America can no longer a place where it's ok to hang slaves from trees....and continue genocide against it's native population
otherwise there is some Israeli but to kick still till they atone for their racism........
nobody gives up power over others without being forced...

[z911]

sound words GaryJones. In fact the European example is a classic. after the centuries of colonialism and what not, shortly after the 2 WW we've seen a drastic reversal in Europe. Human rights are national policy now in Europe. the days of colonialism are long gone and there's no reason why this cannot be reproduced anywhere else in the world given, of course, the proper conditions. what the Americans and the Israelis are carrying on are the remnants of this colonialist mindset. It is no surprise since you consider that Zionism finds its roots in 19th century Europe within the Ashkinaze community.

to me the biggest problem with Israel is the success of Zionism (a political movement with all the usual financial/imperial connotations characteristic of racist and supremacist philosophies) in proclaiming itself as true Judaism and convincing many Jews of such. the true nature of Zionism, which is no more than racism, is at total odds with the nature of Judaism which stresses harmony with the different communities around you. even the concepts of promised land and chosen people had long been abandoned by the international jewish community until Theodor Herzl started his rounds of Zionism promotion in the late 19th century. jews back then had realised that they had become a religion and no more a race of hebrews. I think the Jewish community needs to be aware of that again.

what you're saying about Tikkun jews is pretty disturbing. they've usually been pretty critical of Israel and now they're changing camps??! :confused: can you post some links where one can follow up to that?

[vbp6us]

Certainly the Palestinians are wrong to kill, but it wouldn't be any better for them if they stopped, and it may in fact be worse for them (sign of weekness, removes reluctance and fear about further expansion unto them) .

Exactly...Every action has a reaction, right? If someone came onto my land(US...that would never happen) and just took a huge piece of it, and told me how to run my life in what land i have left, i would be one pissed SOB. I would retaliate. If I saw my parents killed in front of me, my brother or my house, farm, Village destroyed and cleared for more development...I would do EXACTLY what Palestinians are doing.

What I just stated really does happen. Sharon is considered a War Criminal. Check how many people he killed about 20 years ago in 2-3 days. He was later removed of his position and now he is back for more.

Now your going to say "oh yeah, well what about all the innocent Israelis killed by the suicide bombers..."

Ok, so your saying that kid or women or man killed in Palestine was not innocent because he has no power to fight back?

Israeli Actions:

Shutting down Universities
Shutting Down Hospitals
Shutting Down Schools
Bulldoze Homes
Bulldoze and Uproot Farms
Bulldoze Businesses

http://www.pchrgaza.org/images/2002/pic5.jpg

[glaston]

Is there any particular reason why I should be so concerned about this? Why should I be concerned with this, when problems in my own country slowly get worse?
These people knew what the militaries job was upon enlisting. Especially over there where it's a constant battle.
Like the idiot soldiers of the US, and shortly after 9-11, they're crying on camera because they're going to war. Some even said that war was the furthest thing from their mind when they joined!
DUHHH!!!

Another thing, how can any of us support these men and do any good? Sure, they may feel a little better knowing that the guys at LNO are pulling for them. But how can we do anything that could make a difference?
Sharon doesn't care what the UN says, what NATO says, what the US says. Why will he care what the people here at LNO say?

Let these people fight their own battles! That's why the US is in the position it's in. Because we can't keep our nose out of others affairs.

Every board or group has a few bleeding heart liberals in the mix. Who think it's their duty to save the world from itself.
Panther piss....

[vbp6us]

I dont really care for this cause and what you said is absolutely true. Sharon wont care or listen. Hell he'll just send the loyal soldiers to shoot more UN members and kill more photographers and newscasters.

We cant do ANYTHING about this. Jan. 18th or 28th they have elections...wanna participate in getting someone new? Go to Isreal and vote :D. Seriously though, what are the chances? They dont even comply w/ the UN's human rights!

Why are we supporting them? I dont know. What good do we get? I dont know.

[z911]

it's really funny. people say they don't care and that it's not their problem. then they wonder why it keeps on happening and why their government keeps supporting it. you just gave yourself your own answer.

I can think about a few reasons why one should care, especially in the US. the practices of the Israeli government and its army are nothing but violations of human rights. not to mention crimes against humanity. to me this is already enough to speak out against them. if you need more, you could consider the fact that this is happening thanks to your hard earned tax-dollars at the rythm of 5 billion USD/year since ca. '65. of course we cannot ignore the fact that our indifference to what's going on has resulted in terrorist actions against our countries and widesperead dislike of the US in the region that's going to be around for decades. I can go on and on about how protesting against this can eventually and most probably will change the lives of millions of people for the better and make the world a better place for future generations (including your own children). this is about global awareness. of course whether or not you choose to do anything about it or even to speak out is your own choice. nobody's forcing you to do anything. but don't question the effect that such actions can have. it's always been the work of a few individuals which ultimately changed the world and had a lasting effect. grassroots movements are pretty damn effective. and their results stay around for a long time because you're dealing directly with the people, not the leaders. people stay, leaders go.

btw, these refuseniks did not enlist for this. I challenge this conception. they were drafted thinking they're going to defend the security of their nation, Israel. then they quickly found out that what the IDF is doing in the occupied territories and Gaza had nothing to do with the security of Israel. they found out it's all about ethnic cleansing and humiliating a destitute population, stealing their crops and lands and destroying their homes and towns.

you don't want to participate in the protest, fine. but please do not say that it's their problem and that they knew what to expect from the start. because it's not just their problem and they did not expect this from the start. they were lied to just like you and me.

from a bleeding hart activist (sorry I do not really consider myself liberal).

[Proudest Monkey]

Any Canadians out there.

How would a US citizen file for canadian citizenship? Is the job market up there as really as bad as all that.

Also links would be good, and a HOW-TO on the correct usage of eh would be the bomb.

Thanks in advance