Posted on 04/23/2002 11:03:09 PM PDT by RightlySo
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:38:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
OSLO
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
This comes from the Washington Times. Have any other news agencies picked it up?
okay, what about that? they gave them the price for the peace process that is now rubble. and peres was not the main reciever of the price, but arafat and rabin, the leaders on both sides. they did not revoke it for rabin who died through the hands of his own men fighting for peace, but only for peres who seems to be able to support any policy.
i would like to hear from you how what sharon does can be a solution to any problem there. does he want to kill all palestinians to solve the problem? are you really all wondering that there is more terror with open war? on both sides? sharon is a stupid power player and he destroyed everything rabin fighted for.
If silly Norwegians can't figure out Arafat, their 'prize' starts to look awfully tarnished. Who'd a thunk all those Norwegians were so tacitly anti-Israel?
It's Arafat who wishes to kill all Israelis as the solution. Arafat is an Egyptian revolutionary and, as anyone with a brain and a memory knows, in reality he could care less about Palestine.
You pro-Arab jerks are really beyond belief.
If silly Norwegians can't figure out Arafat, their 'prize' starts to look awfully tarnished. Who'd a thunk all those Norwegians were so tacitly anti-Israel?
all those norwegians? because the norwegian PEOPLE give the nobel price? i think not? and at leats at the moment, arafat is isolated and can do next to nothing, so what should he do to lose his reputation?
@RightlySo:
Your response is barely intelligable,
sorry, english is not my primary language.
but the major points are understood-- I consider them entirely thoughtless.
thank you for not contributing anything that could be discussed.
@deb:
Aren't you paying attention? It is the PLO and their brother Muslims who have embarked on an extremely dedicated war against all Western and non-Islamic peoples.
of course every palestinian...we got the bad guys on the one side and the good guys on the other side. treat them like that and you will be right.
It's Arafat who wishes to kill all Israelis as the solution. Arafat is an Egyptian revolutionary and, as anyone with a brain and a memory knows, in reality he could care less about Palestine.
anyone with a brain and a memory knows that he now is the elected leader of palestine (so his nationality is unimportant) for quite a time and that the peace process has been supported by him like it has been by the israeli leader (rabin, peres) of that time...
You pro-Arab jerks are really beyond belief.
thats your problem. for us or against us. black or white. israel or palestine. only victims on the one side, only misguided pointless murderers on the other side. of course thats the same problem the pro-arabs got. understand, i dont try to justify what any side does here, i think both sides see themselves as victims of the other one and deny any responsibility at this conflict. if arafat had invested the money given to him to (re-) build the palestine economy istead of letting it vanish into dubious channels, the conflict would perhaps not be there...and when both sides were negotiating, it was at least equally his fault that it never worked. but his problem is that his only source of power and influence is the support of the various fanatic groups in palestine. this partly dictates him a course that can only be straightened by long negotiations while pausing the terrorism as well as the war and illegal settlement actions on the israeli side. at the moment, arafat is powerless, jailed in his command post, cut off from the outside world. so the only person able to do ANYTHING is sharon.
sharon is a hardliner, he has always been one. do not call me pro-arab or anti-israel (because what do most of the people have to do with it?), call me anti-sharon. i dont have the faintest idea whom this war should help. of course it leads to even more fanatism on the arab side. how would you talk and react if, lets take russia, violated american territory or that of your allies, occupies the cities and traps the leaders? perhaps sharon wants war with the other arab countries, i dont know. on the other hand, israel is the only state that could be destructed at the first sign of weakness because it is surrounded by enemies, but when powell was there, they could have drawn back and kept their face. the only effect this war will have, apart from getting people killed on both sides, is eliminating more and more of the moderate arabs and shoving them into the arms of hardliners and fanatics.
if the majority here was pro-arab, i would take the israeli side. most people dont want to discuss but to be confirmed in their views. IMHO the best solution would be to send in UNO or american troops, what suits you best, and secure the border for some years.
but to me, its clearly understandable that when somebody gets the peace nobel price and some years later co-organisates a war in the very same conflict, the nobel committee has got to feel stupid.
One would prefer that he had done "next to nothing" since his confinement, but this is not the case. Instead he urged his forces and other Pawnistinians (a.k.a. Arafat's cannon fodder) to fight to the death against the Israeli anti-terrorism sweeps, thereby leading to many unnecessary Palestinian (and Israeli) fatalities and much unnecessary destruction. He has continued his call for a million "martyrs" to march on Jerusalem. He has prevailed on armed Palies who took over the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem not to surrender. He has refused to turn over wanted criminals under his own immediate control to the Israelis, despite his OBLIGATION under Oslo to extradite them. He gave an interview to Al-Jezeera in which he expressed to wish to become a martyr like the passover bomber, thus expressing his approval for the horrific mass murder of Jews sitting down to prayer that triggered the current Israeli anti-terror sweeps.
All of these things confirm Arafats reputation, as a murderous terrorist and war-monger.
Many things in the Middle East are unpredictable, but the election of Sharon was not. Indeed it was as predictable as clockwork. Whenever Israel perceives that there is the remotest possibility for advancing peace, they will elect a peace-making government. When their "peace partners" have proven untrustworthy, violated their agreements wholesale, and turned to attack them, they will elect a government that will defend them vigorously. (Although Sharon showed incredible restraint in holding off a major incursion this long.)
In short the election of Sharon (or someone like him) was the ENTIRELY PREDICTABLE effect of the Palestinian Authority's systematic violations of their obligations under Oslo; their failure, most especially, to meet their most important obligation of preparing their people for peace, instead using all available means from newspapers to television, and from kindergarten to Mosque, to incite hatred, mistrust and intollerance; their planned and intentional instigation of the current intifada; and their continual escalations of violence, including open encouragement of suicide attacks and bombings (which we now know, at least with regard to the Al-Aqsa Brigades, that Arafat, a notorious tightwad, was actually paying for).
In a meaningful sense it was Arafat and the Palestinian Authority (and of course Hammas and Islamic Jihad, etc) that elected Sharon. Indeed since polls have consistently shown that large majorities of the Palestinian people oppose the peace process and approve of suicide bombings, one could congradulate them, and not just their leaders, for the Likud party's victory.
If the Palestinians continue on the path of violence they have chosen, they will manage to elect someone even to the right of Sharon. If there is another Prime Minister under continuing terrorist violence with no meaningful Palestinian attempts to restrain it, then the military government of the territories will be reinstated and the Palestinian Authority dissolved. (In truth this should have been done around '96 or '97, when it was clear that Arafat would not comply with Oslo.)
Like when he turned down Israel's offer of 97% of the Palestinian demands. That "peace process...support"?
Hahaha! Hilarious. And exactly what is his address in "Palestine"? Because, of course, there is no "Palestine", genius.
Being the elected leader of Palestine is like being the elected leader of the Rotary Club. When the Rotary Club gets its own "homeland" is when the "Palestinians" will.
Just like the Tamil Tigers, the IRA, KLA, ETA and the terrorist Muslims of the Philippines & Indonesia (to name only a few) the phony demand for a "homeland" is the preferred excuse of Marxist radicals to wage their war against the non-Communist governments of the world.
So when people like you show up to defend the Marxists and pretend the situation "isn't black or white", the question becomes...are you just an ignorant dupe? Or a complicit liar?
Now are you going to try and tell us Barak was a "hardliner"?
If Hitler was around when these jamokes were kissing the rings of the worlds most horrible people, he would have gotten a Nobless Piece Price.
I am frankly shocked that Pol Pot missed out.
if i may remind you, rabin said: 'when we came into this land, there were people living here.' muslims as well as jews. you may be right that their state is not aknowledged by the UNO (an organisation most of you laugh at), but they have been living there and as long as the king of jordania, who owns the land, does not tell them to go, its their state. by the way, before the israelites threw the english out of there by terror and built their own state, how was the name? british mandatory territory palestine. dont misunderstand me, i am not talking about israel, but just about the land the palestinians are living on NOW. to question their right to be there is as hilarious as questioning the israeli rights.
So when people like you show up to defend the Marxists and pretend the situation "isn't black or white", the question becomes...are you just an ignorant dupe? Or a complicit liar?
funny. what do the palestinians have to do with marxists? but of course you are right, i am trying to archieve my own wicked goals by discussing with virtual people over the internet. has your life been very boring until now?
check your news sources. The legally elected leader of the Palestinians began his campaign of suicide murders against Israel before Sharon was elected.
why are you telling me that, did i say something else anywhere?
sorry, but apart from the wanted criminals under his own immediate control i doubt that. how should he have contacted the terrorists in the church that was/is as cut-off as he himself?
its another problem with the other points, i can hardly believe that arafat would be that STUPID. of course i think him able and full of enough hate to give these commands, but that would cost him all his 'popularity' with the p.c., wouldnt it? i heard the exact opposite, that he has ordered them (at least officially) to cease fire and stop the bombings. how do you know anything else? i would be pleased to see some sources, some links to newspaper articles or stuff like that if you are willing to invest the time. same thing with him paying the al-aqsa.
of course the palestinians elected sharon through terror, the very same way that sharon and his kind give arafat his power through illegal settlement. thats what i mean, this conflict can not be solved through war. at the moment i really doubt if it can be solved by these two sides, i think they really need some peacekeeping force in the middle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.