Rolf,

I am an Israeli, and would like to try to clear up some
misconceptions.
Until 1997, the majority of Israelis and American Jews wanted peace
with the Palestinians. Most wanted to make large concessions in order
to get that peace. Prime Minister Barak pushed this to its limits at
the Camp David Summit in which he offered large amounts of land to
create an independant Palestinian State that would hopefully result in
peace. Arafat turned down the offer and did not make a counter-offer.
At this time, many Israelis realized that Arafat, the Palestinian
leader, did not want peace under negotiable terms as shown by his
refusal to make a counter-offer. When the Intifidah (Muslim holy war)
started a few months later, most Israelis felt trapped. The last
thing that they wanted was war in which their friends and relatives
could be killed in busses and cafes. Unfortunately though, Arafat was
not willing to negotiate for peace, claiming that he had no control
over the terrorists. At this time, the Israeli population became much
more militant in their view towards Palestinians. They felt that
without a leader with whom to negotiate, they had no choice but to
defend themselves from terrorism in a very aggressive way. The result
was the occupation of Jenin, Gaza, and other Arab settlements.

You said that you had difficulty finding sophisticated pro-Israeli
arguments. I would recommend that you read "The Case for Israel" by
Alan Dershowitz. It is very well written and fact based. I'm sure
you will take exception to some of his claims, but if you keep an open
mind, I think you will find that the author has integrity.

Regards,
Ari

(TommyBoy) wrote:

Puzzling. You take a stand against calling Nazis butchers and call a
challenge to that defense "twisting the topic"

I don't know what _you_ mean with challenge, but I do know that you have
misunderstood the following:

- you had called the Nazis butchers
- I objected and said not all Nazis were butchers
- then you invited me to elaborate about "nice" Nazis
- I tell you that nobody has spoken about nice Nazis
- and you finally define my own presentation as a twist of topics

This is becoming boring because you simply have overlooked that the objection
against Nazis being labelled as 'butchers' does NOT mean that Nazis are 'nice'!
That is a false logic.
I don't know where you have read that but I know that I never have spoken of
'nice' Nazis. And you won't succeed in branding me for that rather basic
differentiation. It was a differentiation and NOT propaganda pro Nazis.

Nothing wrong with your being immature but then you shouldn't avoid becoming
impolite. It's a waste of time since you have still so much to learn.


while in your previous
message you offered your own twisting of the topic by saying it was
wrong to say all Germans were Nazis. That's your invention so stop
pretending that others are twisting topics.


You see? Here you misunderstand why I introduced that. It is not a twist of
topics because the underlying thesis of Omid David was exactly that nonsense.
He called a German politician a 'Nazi *******', although that politician was
100% not a Nazi at all. So by logic we must assume that Omid David takes _all_
Germans as Nazi *******s. Did you completely miss that?



That's two posts by you in "response" to my posts that offered
nothing. Two strikes... three and you're out you know... can't waste
too much time with

I object against your application of the bloody Gotcha game.

Please note that extra lessons from now on only against American Express - I
have to be careful with my time schedule, you know...

Rolf

"Lion" wrote in message
om...
Rolf,

I am an Israeli, and would like to try to clear up some
misconceptions.
Until 1997, the majority of Israelis and American Jews wanted peace
with the Palestinians. Most wanted to make large concessions in order
to get that peace. Prime Minister Barak pushed this to its limits at
the Camp David Summit in which he offered large amounts of land to
create an independant Palestinian State that would hopefully result in
peace. Arafat turned down the offer and did not make a counter-offer.
snip

Ari,
Is it not also a misconception that Barak's offer was a fair one: A plan
under which the proposed Palestinian state would lack many of the attributes
of sovereignty normally associated with true statehood? That is my
recollection of what happened at Camp David.
Bob Musicant

Dear Mr. Musicant,

Heil Dubya,

In fact, wasn't the "Israeli" "offer" more akin to the United Statesian
establishment of "reservations" for the sovereign indigenous North American
nations than a genuine "peace offer"?



"Lion" wrote in message
. com...
Rolf,

I am an Israeli, and would like to try to clear up some
misconceptions.
Until 1997, the majority of Israelis and American Jews wanted peace
with the Palestinians. Most wanted to make large concessions in order
to get that peace. Prime Minister Barak pushed this to its limits at
the Camp David Summit in which he offered large amounts of land to
create an independant Palestinian State that would hopefully result in
peace. Arafat turned down the offer and did not make a counter-offer.
snip

Ari,
Is it not also a misconception that Barak's offer was a fair one: A plan
under which the proposed Palestinian state would lack many of the attributes
of sovereignty normally associated with true statehood? That is my
recollection of what happened at Camp David.
Bob Musicant


Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgan die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristallnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
(I go on trial at 77 Lexington Avenue, White Plains, NY, at 1400 hours, 15
December, for refusing to move away from a demonstration site -- against the U.
S. invasion of Iraq -- when ordered by a member of the Army of Occupation of
White Plains, despite the fact that the demonstrators had a "permit" to do
exactly what I was doing, at the time and place I was doing it. My son,
Douglass, has coined a lovely and apt phrase and I am proud to use it:
HYPOCRISY, NOT DEMOCRACY!)
gens una sumus

Israel's peace offer at Camp David is contentious and complicated.
Israel offered most of the land that Arafat requested, and offered the
Palestinians control over their holy sites. However, Israel said that
the Palestinian state would not be allowed to have a military, and
would not have complete sovereignty over its borders.

"Bob Musicant" wrote in message et...
"Lion" wrote in message
om...

Ari,
Is it not also a misconception that Barak's offer was a fair one: A plan
under which the proposed Palestinian state would lack many of the attributes
of sovereignty normally associated with true statehood? That is my
recollection of what happened at Camp David.
Bob Musicant

Bob,
I accidentally sent that post before it was finished. Here it is:

Israel offered most of what Arafat requested, but not everything. As
you point out, several important elements of statehood were left out,
including a military and true sovereignty over borders.

I am not defending the offer as "fair" or claiming that Arafat's
refusal was incorrect. My claim was that Arafat did not make a
counter-offer, which suggested to the Israeli people and myself, that
he was not interested in peace. If Barak's offer had been
unsatisfactory, Arafat should have responded with specific concessions
that Israel could make to gain peace. Why did Arafat not make a
counter-offer?

The conclusion that most Israelis arrived at, was that he was not
interested in a negotiable peace. By "negotiable" I am referring to
any treaty that Israel could possibly agree to. The Palestinian
Liberation Organization has long held that its mission was "to push
the Jews into the ocean." Arafat gained popularity at the beginning
as a Guerrilla fighter, and radical, who told the Palestinian people
that he would get them all of Israel. Israel and America have long
held out hope that he had abandoned his former views, but his refusal
to make a counter-offer suggested that he had not.

The Palestinians have long suffered at the hands of their leaders. I
hope that someone will rise through the ranks with public support that
will finally be able to negotiate a long lasting peace in everyone's
interest.

Regards,
Ari


"Bob Musicant" wrote in message et...


Ari,
Is it not also a misconception that Barak's offer was a fair one: A plan
under which the proposed Palestinian state would lack many of the attributes
of sovereignty normally associated with true statehood? That is my
recollection of what happened at Camp David.
Bob Musicant

(Rolf Tueschen) wrote in message ...
(TommyBoy) wrote:

Puzzling. You take a stand against calling Nazis butchers and call a
challenge to that defense "twisting the topic"

I don't know what _you_ mean with challenge, but I do know that you have
misunderstood the following:

- you had called the Nazis butchers
- I objected and said not all Nazis were butchers
- then you invited me to elaborate about "nice" Nazis
- I tell you that nobody has spoken about nice Nazis
- and you finally define my own presentation as a twist of topics

This is becoming boring because you simply have overlooked that the objection
against Nazis being labelled as 'butchers' does NOT mean that Nazis are 'nice'!
That is a false logic.
I don't know where you have read that but I know that I never have spoken of
'nice' Nazis. And you won't succeed in branding me for that rather basic
differentiation. It was a differentiation and NOT propaganda pro Nazis.

Nothing wrong with your being immature but then you shouldn't avoid becoming
impolite. It's a waste of time since you have still so much to learn.


while in your previous
message you offered your own twisting of the topic by saying it was
wrong to say all Germans were Nazis. That's your invention so stop
pretending that others are twisting topics.


You see? Here you misunderstand why I introduced that. It is not a twist of
topics because the underlying thesis of Omid David was exactly that nonsense.
He called a German politician a 'Nazi *******', although that politician was
100% not a Nazi at all. So by logic we must assume that Omid David takes _all_
Germans as Nazi *******s. Did you completely miss that?



That's two posts by you in "response" to my posts that offered
nothing. Two strikes... three and you're out you know... can't waste
too much time with

I object against your application of the bloody Gotcha game.

Please note that extra lessons from now on only against American Express - I
have to be careful with my time schedule, you know...

Rolf

Silly and dumb you are. You go into the bin with Jerk Sam Sloan and
Bigot Bibuld. I can see why so many have found your character lacking.

**** you Rolf. No explanation needed.

"Rolf Tueschen" wrote in message
...
I want to know how you judge this.

In a private forum a Jewish chess programmer (Omid David) always writes
hate
propaganda pro Israel and against Arafat and his Palestinians. Nothing
wrong
with that IMO, what would you expect from an Israeli?

But his lies go so far that he for example calls a late German politician,
a
former Vice Chancellor of Germany, Juergen W. Moellemann from Muenster, a
"Nazi
*******"!

When I read it I couldn't believe my eyes. Moellemann well criticised the
policy of Sharon but he never was a whatever Nazi! Nor a Neo-Nazi. Nor an
anti-Semite.

So, when I read that Nazi-******* insult (Jewish Propaganda) I tried to
teach
the guy a lesson from psychology. I turned around the insult and directed
it
against himself.

I called Omid David, the brave Israeli, a Jewish ******* and because he
had
spread lies about an honest German politician, who is dead BTW, I added
the
adjective "lying", so that the whole expression was 'lying Jewish
*******'.

After this hell broke lose.

I was defamed as an Anti-Semite.

What do you, from the international community, think about the expression?
Is
it impossible to characterize a Jew who's lying as a lying *******? Just
because I am a German I should not be allowed to speak the truth? And if
someone speaks the truth about a Jewish liar, is he therefore an
Anti-Semite???

Not that i needed advice. I am old enough to know how to deal with a liar.
But
I would be interested in your opinion how you think about a German who
calls a
Jewish liar a 'lying Jewish *******'. Is it forbidden because of the
Holocaust?


Rolf

Rolf Tueschen wrote:
"Roman M. Parparov" wrote:

As a German, you should have known what your nation willingly did to
Jews. 99% of Germans repented of that horrible action. You probably
belong to the 1% that long for Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels,
Borman & Co. return.

As for "anti-Palestinian" - prove any statement that was made by
Israelis on this issue that hasn't been true so far.

Then we had to talk about ethics and you would call me Anti-Semite for the
accusation of inhuman treatment of the Palestinians with racism as accomplice.
Not that this must bother you as Israeli of course. Since you always have the
Holocaust as the Ace in your sleeves. Sarcasm out.

Rolf

The Holocaust is the tragedy a certain central European nation methodically
brought on whole peoples. Some of them, you included, still think it was
an accomplishment and miss those days.

As for Palestinians, there wasn't a single case of government-guided
nazism (not racism, for Jews and Arabs are of the same race). But even if
there were, Germans don't have a say. Because of what they did sixty years
ago and much more because not everyone repented of that.

--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)51-34-18-34 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

(Lion) wrote:

I am not defending the offer as "fair" or claiming that Arafat's
refusal was incorrect. My claim was that Arafat did not make a
counter-offer, which suggested to the Israeli people and myself, that
he was not interested in peace. If Barak's offer had been
unsatisfactory, Arafat should have responded with specific concessions
that Israel could make to gain peace. Why did Arafat not make a
counter-offer?

The conclusion that most Israelis arrived at, was that he was not
interested in a negotiable peace. By "negotiable" I am referring to
any treaty that Israel could possibly agree to.



You are really funny. Honestly I never heard such a twisted logic in my life.

Are you really that dumb and dickheaded? I don't think so because you wrote a
lot of thoughtful lines on the matter of Israel.

But this is incredible. Are you all gamblers? I mean the Israeli elite?

You argued like this: Barak gave a lot but Arafat still refused. Tht was not to
blaim, you say, because what Barak gave was not sufficient. But what you would
have expected and with you the whole people of Israel: that Arafat should have
made a new proposal so that the Israeli side could perhaps have accepted.

What a nonsense!

And what a hypocrisy!

We all know what Israel is thinking about Arafat, the Noble Prize Winner for
Peace! Kill him, if not that, at least get him out of here. He's not the
President for the Palestinians whom the Jews could tolerate. etc etc.

Look at this:

You have it all. You have the economical wealth, you have the Atomic Bombs, you
have High Tech and all. The Palestinians have nothing but their lives. And they
say - if we don't get a fair chance to live in our own State we don't want
anything at all - BUT - we will make life for the Israelis as hard as possible.

This is what is happening right now.

When I was young I learned a lesson: the stronger is always the one who should
give in - otherwise there is no chance for a solution.

Israel will have to learn that lesson from my youth. It's certainly not a
German lesson. It comes more from the deep knowledge of mankind. - But ok,
Israel can create its own ethics.

I'm deeply shocked that I had to write this to you because by your senseful
message you made it possible in the first place that I could write the verdict.
Please don't take this as personal, stay at your opinion if you are convinced.

The decisions are laying outside of our both responsibilities.

Kind regards,

Rolf