Author Topic: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive  (Read 1190 times)

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2630
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #150 on: November 01, 2005, 09:31:01 AM »
I would recommend that you guys read this, could be eye opening. When you were once talking about how simple this conflict is you reminded me of this piece, glad I could paste it to help you to confront reality.

 

Rewriting History in Textbooks
By Mitchell Bard
(December 1993)


Executive Summary
The political correctness debate has led to increased scrutiny of how textbooks present the history of different peoples. While many minorities have actively campaigned to have their histories more accurately depicted, Jews have stayed on the sidelines. The following examination of 18 of the most widely used world and American history texts indicates this silence has allowed publishers to distribute books that are filled with egregious factual errors and specious analyses. The mistakes invariably are to the detriment of the Jews or Israel, raising questions about the predisposition of authors and publishers.

The anti-Israel bias is usually a result of factual inaccuracy, oversimplification, omission and distortion. Common errors include getting dates of events wrong, blaming Israel for wars that were a result of Arab provocation, perpetuating the myth of Islamic tolerance of Jews, minimizing the Jewish aspect of the Holocaust, apologizing for Arab autocrats, refusing to label violence against civilians as terrorism and suggesting that Israel is the obstacle to peace. Some of the most flagrant examples that occur in more than one book are the failure to mention that Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack in 1973 on Israel's holiest day, Yom Kippur, and that Iraq fired SCUD missiles at Israel during the 1991 Gulf War. The books in this study were so poorly written that all but one require major revisions.

The best way to correct the bias in textbooks is for parents to take an active role by examining the books their children are being assigned. If they know or suspect that Jewish history is being distorted, they should protest to the school, school board and publisher. The study does not suggest that anti-Semitic publishers are conspiring to corrupt our nation's youth. On the contrary, it acknowledges that errors are most likely to occur because editors are harried or the books are inadequately reviewed by experts. The best publishers do now want mistakes in their texts. It is up to parents and educators, however, to alert them when they occur so they can be corrected. The result will then be that publishers produce better books and students have more useful educational tools.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the last several years publishers have been pressured to revise textbooks to better reflect multicultural values. As in the political correctness debate, in general, Jews have stayed mostly on the sidelines. The result is that distortions of Jewish history have become a feature of some of the most frequently assigned textbooks and little effort has been made to monitor or rectify the situation.

To be fair, writing textbooks that satisfy everyone is probably impossible. Most have multiple authors and are therefore unevenly written. The authors rarely have a background in Middle East or Jewish history. Moreover, in 800-page tomes designed to cover all of world and American history, events must be condensed. In the case of U. S. history texts, space devoted to Jews, Israel and the Middle East is by necessity limited. Still, given the extent of media coverage on the Middle East, and the level of U.S. aid provided to Israel, one might expect greater efforts would be made to explain the basis of the U.S.-Israel alliance.

Occasional mistakes can be expected to slip through the editing process. Still, it is startling to find references to the 1973 war that failed to mention that Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack against Israel on Yom Kippur, or that some recent texts describe the 1991 Gulf War and omit that Iraq fired SCUD missiles at Israel. After reviewing 11 world and 7 American history texts that are among the most widely used, it became clear, however, that inadequate and inaccurate depictions of Middle East history are the norm. The books reviewed here are riddled with flaws. Moreover, errors are consistently to the detriment of the Jews or Israel, which raises questions about the predisposition of the authors and publishers. The anti-Israel bias rarely is manifested in the way material is interpreted, it is usually a result of factual inaccuracy, oversimplification, omission and distortion. The conclusions students are most likely to draw from these presentations are those held by Israel's detractors; therefore, it should not be surprising if students are easily encouraged to believe the worst about Israel when they reach politicized college campuses. Even more worrisome is the likelihood that future American leaders will have their earliest political attitudes toward Israel shaped by misinformation.

Outright Errors
Here are a few examples of factual inaccuracies: T. Walter Wallbank and Arnold Schrier start their chapter on the Middle East in Living World History (Scott, Foresman and Co., 1990) with a photo captioned: "the Amal fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organization keep watch over Beirut." Amal is an organization of Lebanese Shiite Muslims that fought with the PLO. Paul Thomas Welty and Miriam Greenblatt, in The Human Experience-World Regions and Cultures (Glencoe, 1992), say the PLO was expelled from Jordan in 1971 rather than 1970. In the earlier edition of The Human Experience-A World History (Merrill 1990, 1992), Mounir Farah and Andrea Karls wrote that the Arabs attacked a "few days" after Israel declared independence. The 1992 edition correctly states that the invasion occurred within 24 hours.

The ignorance of geography among high school students has often been decried, but how can they be blamed when they read this description in Global Insights-People And Culture (Glencoe, 1988, 1994), written by James Hantula et al.: "An area of Middle Eastern land, surrounded by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, used to be called Palestine, and Arabs and Jews lived there." The name Palestine was given to an area that existed before Syria, Saudi Arabia or Lebanon existed. In 1921, Britain severed nearly four-fifths of Palestine to create Transjordan (later Jordan).

Another general problem is oversimplification. Though the reading skills of high school students have deteriorated, it was still shocking to discover the "See Spot run" kind of descriptions offered by some texts. The worst book of the 18 under review, World History, by Jerome Reich, Mark Krug and Edward Biller (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1990), contains the following sentence: "The Jewish people were very unhappy under Roman rule." No further explanation is given. The authors devote a total of five pages to the Middle East, out of more than 700, and half are taken up by a map and photos. This is what they say about Israel's war of independence: "Fighting began between Israel and the Arab nations in 1948. This fighting ended in a victory for Israel." The book does not even mention the Palestinians.

Melvin Schwartz and John O'Connor write in Exploring A Changing World (Globe Book, 1993): "In 1948 the nation of Israel was formed. This started a war." Later, they say: "Since the 1948 war, border fights have broken out. Again in 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982, Israel and some of its Arab neighbors went to war....Israel is still involved in conflicts with its neighbors, especially Lebanon."

Similarly, Hantula et al. relate in Global Insights that "at the core of these [Arab-Israeli wars] was disagreement over who owns the land of Israel, once called Palestine." After the 1948 war, they say, three other wars "broke out." This is the extent of how the text covers the 1948-77 period.

Islamic Tolerance
Perhaps the most serious flaws in most books are distortions resulting from a combination of omission and commission. This is particularly true of the coverage of Islamic history and Muslims' treatment of Jews in the world history texts. The increased attention given to Islam is one change made to recent editions. Its prominence is now at least equal to that of Judaism and Christianity and, in some books, surpasses them. The significance of Islam to world history is not in doubt. What is historically inaccurate, however, is the portrayal of Muslims as paragons of tolerance, particularly regarding Jews.

Don Peretz, a Middle East scholar who should know better, wrote in the regional studies text, The Middle Fast (Houghton Mifflin, 1990), that Muslim conquests in the 7th Century were welcomed by Jews because they were offered religious toleration. As proof of this toleration, he said Jews were appointed to high positions. Wallbank and Schrier's Living World History says that conquered peoples "were generally treated with leniency" by Muslims. Several books cite Maimonides as an example of how Jews flourished under Islam.

In Global Insights, Hantula et al. refer to dhimmas, which they define as "non-Muslims who lived under Islamic rule." The authors say dhimmas did not have to serve in the army, but did pay poll taxes. Many Jews, they add, became famous court physicians. The authors acknowledge that "during certain periods of Islamic rule, non-Muslims in some areas were restricted in their activities and in the way they dressed," but they imply this was justified because it "generally happened when there was an invasion by foreigners toward whom local non-Muslims were sympathetic."

World History-Patterns of Civilization (Prentice Hall, 1990) by Benton Beers is one of the few books that hints that life was not so ideal, noting that Islam protected Jews "in theory if not always in practice." Farah and Karls put it differently, writing that Jews were "treated better under Muslim rule than they had been before" but did not have all the advantages Muslims did. While Jewish communities in Islamic countries fared better overall than those in Christian lands in Europe, Jews were no strangers to persecution and humiliation among the Arabs. As historian Bernard Lewis has written: "The Golden Age of equal rights was a myth, and belief in it was a result, more than a cause, of Jewish sympathy with Islam" ("The Pro-Islamic Jews," Judaism, Fall 1968, p. 401).

Jews were generally viewed with contempt by their Muslim neighbors; peaceful coexistence between the two groups involved the subordination and degradation of the Jews. Jews did thrive culturally and economically at certain times, but their position was never secure and changes in the political and social climate would often lead to harassment, violence and death.

The Holocaust
In the last two years, efforts by historical revisionists to place advertisements in American college newspapers received a great deal of publicity. Such efforts to negate or minimize the catastrophe that befell the Jews might not cause so much concern if people had greater confidence in the quality of education students received about the Holocaust. Any confidence that may exist is likely to be shaken, however, by looking at how U.S. high school textbooks treat the subject.

Based on the 18 books reviewed here, it would be incorrect to say that revisionists have had any impact on publishers. In general, the American history texts are far better than those covering world history. The most consistent problem is that so little space is devoted to the Holocaust that the magnitude of the atrocities of the Nazi period is lost. Most of the books spent no more than two or three paragraphs on this cataclysmic event. World History, by Reich et al., for example, devotes two sentences to the Holocaust and the word does not appear in their index. Jack Abramowitz, in World History-For A Global Age (Globe Book Co., 1985), is a little better, he has two paragraphs.

American history texts often skip the period of Nazi persecution prior to the war. In American Journey (Prentice Hall, 1992), for example, James West Davidson et al. have a single line stating that Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's defeat in World War I.

Usually, the critical aspects of the Nazi terror are ignored. World History-Patterns of Civilization by Beers, for example, describes Kristallnacht (without using the word) and implies the cause of the pogrom was a Jew who murdered a German diplomat in Paris. In The Middle East, Peretz says Nazi persecution of the Jews began with Kristallnacht. In The Human Experience—A World History, Farah and Karls define concentration camps as "large prisons" and the Holocaust as "widespread destruction." Gary Nash's American Odyssey (Glencoe, 199 1) provides good information through pictures and quotations about synagogues being torched, Jews being forced to wear yellow stars, Kristallnacht and Nazi propaganda, but the material is poorly organized.

The true horror of events is not captured in any of the books. In most, it is reduced to the statistic that six million Jews were killed. In their three paragraphs on the subject, Welty and Greenblatt (The Human Experience--World Regions and Cultures, Glencoe, 1992), mention that people were killed with poison gas but say nothing about gas chambers or crematoria.

Wallbank and Schrier's Living World History devotes more space than most books to the subject, but leaves readers confused because of the way the material is spread across different chapters. In their section on the war, mention is made of 11 million people being killed, but Jews are just lumped in with the rest. That six million of these were Jews is not stated until later in the book. Similarly, the word "Holocaust" does not appear until they review the war crimes trials, 40 pages after discussing (in greater detail than most) the Nazi persecution of the Jews. This also is one of several books that refer to the Nuremberg trials without explaining their significance.

One misleading assertion concerning the Holocaust is that the Final Solution was not "fully discovered" until after the war. The American history texts usually say that reports reached the Allies during the war, but the full horror was not revealed until the camps were liberated. Farah and Karls acknowledge in The Human Experience-A World History that the Allies heard "rumors" about Nazi genocide, but like the other world history books fail to report what American officials knew and what actions they took (and did not take) on the basis of that information. The United States and Its People (Addison-Wesley, 1993) by David King, Norman McRae and Jaye Zola is the most accurate in stating that American newspapers began reporting atrocities as early as 1942 and explaining reasons why they were not believed.

Given the quality of the writing on the Holocaust, it is not surprising that the centrality of the Nazi campaign against the Jews is sometimes lost. Schwartz and O'Connor write in Exploring A Changing World, for example: "For about 2,000 years, many Jewish people lived in Europe. But during the rule of Adolf Hitler in Germany, millions of Jews were killed." Like most books, they mention that Hitler "blamed all of the country's troubles on the Jews." They go on to say that "Hitler had six million Jews and many other innocent people murdered in what became known as the Holocaust."

The American history texts focus more on the U.S. government's position, and several refer to the immigration restrictions imposed before and during the war. Mary Beth Norton et al., in A People & A Nation (Houghton Mifflin, 1990), for example, tell the story of the St. Louis and the Bermuda Conference. They and several others also talk about the failure of the Allies to bomb Auschwitz.

One reflection of the popular value-free approach to history is the tendency to equate actions to avoid assigning responsibility or appearing to take sides. Thus, for example, in World History-Traditions and New Directions (Addison-Wesley, 1989), Peter Steams, Donald Schwartz and Barry Beyer draw an astonishing parallel between the actions of the Germans and the Allies. "Nazi murder of the Jews and other groups was the foremost atrocity of the war, but the Allies also acted harshly," they write.

The most obvious conclusion to draw from reading textbook descriptions, particularly in the world history books, is that scholars need to write a few descriptive paragraphs that could be used to explain the Nazi extermination program, what made the experience of the Jews unique, and the impact it had on the world. Nash's American Odyssey and The United States and Its People by King et al. have good material to work from. Probably

the best section on the Holocaust in any of the 18 books appears in Henry Graff's America: The Glorious Republic (MA: Houghton Mifflin, Co., 1988).

Apologists for Authoritarianism
Despite the attention given to Islam, there is a clear lack of proportion to the space devoted to the 20 members of the Arab League. Most books write little or nothing about countries other than Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Peretz, for example, devotes chapters in The Middle East to Israel and Egypt and a third one to the rest of the Arab states. In World History--Traditions and New Directions, Stearns et al. spend 11 paragraphs on Israel and 11 on the other Middle East nations.

While the approach toward Islam strains for neutrality, the coverage of Arab politics tends toward apologetics. Inter-Arab conflict is rarely mentioned. Abramowitz, in World History for A Global Age, is one of the few who spent as much as a paragraph on the subject, and he referred only to the Palestinians in Jordan.

The most serious distortion appears in the descriptions of Arab regimes, which are usually portrayed in benign or positive terms, and the ascension of leaders to power is grossly misrepresented. Beers writes in World History-Patterns of Civilization that Hafez Assad simply "became President" of Syria in 1971. Wallbank and Schrier say the same thing in Living World History, under the subhead: "Egypt, Syria and Iraq benefitted from strong leadership." They do add that Assad has ruled "with an iron hand," but they seem to justify it by explaining that the Muslim Brotherhood carried out more than 300 assassinations in 1981. Assad kept Syria united, Wallbank and Schrier say, "at the cost of dictatorship and the absence of free expression." They fail to mention that he also put down the Brotherhood's rebellion by razing the city of Hama and killing as many as 25,000 people.

In The Middle East, Peretz at least mentions the coups in Iraq and Syria that were the most frequent method of changing governments, but neither he nor any of the others point out the deficiencies in the political systems in the Arab countries. Schwartz and O'Connor write in Exploring A Changing World, for example, that since World War II, the newly independent Arab nations "have worked to establish stable governments." In The Human Experience--World Regions and Cultures, Welty and Greenblatt go so far as to excuse Arab governments for adopting authoritarian forms of government. They assert that military takeovers are common because army officers are better educated, the army is the most effective power base other than religion and historical tradition favors military rule in the Arab world. These are the same authors who write that one of Faisal's first acts as King of Saudi Arabia in 1964 was to abolish slavery, as if nothing was unusual about the practice of slavery a century after the Emancipation Proclamation. They also ignore the evidence that slavery continues to be practiced in parts of the Arab world to this day.

Like some other authors, Steams et al. talk more about how the Arabs triumphantly threw off colonialism than how they subsequently imposed despotism. "Many leaders felt that the political challenges of rapid modernization required strong leadership and government control," students are taught in World History-Traditions and New Directions.

Furthermore, the books do not distinguish Israel's political system from that of the Arab states. Schwartz and O'Connor do observe in Exploring A Changing World that "Israel has one of the few democratic governments in this region," but it is not clear what other governments they have in mind as democracies.

Jewish Invaders
The coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict is particularly abysmal. Much of the crucial history of Palestine before 1948 is omitted, particularly from the U.S. history books. Those texts that discuss the mandatory period present the Arab version of history; that is, an unrestrained flood of Jewish immigrants invaded a land already inhabited by another people, who were subsequently forced out. The historical Jewish presence in the country is usually ignored. Beers, for example, implies in World History--Patterns of Civilization that no Jews lived in Palestine until Eastern Europeans came in the 1920's and 30's (nearly 40 years after the First Aliyah) and found more than 650,000 Arabs already living there. Farah and Karls write in The Human Experience-A World History that only 50,000 Jews, most from Eastern Europe, lived in Palestine at the time of the First World War, comprising only 10 percent of the population. The actual number was more than 80,000, closer to 15 percent of the total population. Welty and Greenblatt say in The Human Experience--World Regions and Cultures that Jews only migrated to Palestine from the 1920's on and give the impression the British did not impose restrictions until right before WWII. Peretz goes further in The Middle East and implies Zionists were given advantages by the British because the First High Commissioner, Herbert Samuel, was a Jew.

In the 1990 edition of The Human Experience-A World History, Farah and Karls mention that the British limited immigration and that Arabs staged protests and attacked Jews. It incorrectly states, however, that the Jews "rioted against British limits on immigration" in the 1920's. In the newer edition, they say the flow of immigrants "swelled to a torrent" during World War II and that the Arabs began to attack settlers to slow the influx. By the end of the war, they say, guerilla raids were common in Palestine, but do not specify who was responsible. They also fail to mention the extraordinary British efforts to curtail immigration at this time.

"Despite Arab opposition, the rate of Jewish immigration was stepped up, and the number of Jews in the country increased greatly, causing fear that they would soon outnumber the Arabs," according to Peretz in The Middle East. The truth is that Jewish immigration was constant from 1920 to 1923, increased about 60 percent in 1924 (to less than 14,000), and then nearly tripled in 1925. New restrictions were then imposed by the British, however, and the rate dropped back less than 14,000 the next year and then was no more than 5,200 in any year until 1932. The numbers began to dramatically increase again, reaching a peak of more than 66,000 in 1935, but then new limitations were imposed and the numbers fell equally dramatically for the next three years, to less than 15,000. Arabs did express fears of being dispossessed, but British commissions consistently found them unfounded (yet placed new restrictions on immigration). Meanwhile, no text offers any statistics regarding the immigration of Arabs into Palestine. Actually, the non-Jewish population grew more than the Jewish population between the wars.

A good deal of effort is also made to glorify Arab nationalism. Given the lack of attention to the nature of Arab regimes, these discussions imply a progressive movement toward democracy that has yet to occur. In The Middle East, Peretz asserts that nationalism was especially strong in Palestine after World War I, though he admits "its inhabitants did not consider themselves different from those who lived in the adjoining Arab regions that became the present-day nations of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan." Peretz: also incorrectly reports that Chaim Weizmann never reached an agreement with Emir Faisal, the son of Sherif Hussein. In fact, Faisal accepted the Balfour Declaration (another contradiction to the Arab claim that the Arabs believed the British promised them Palestine), but made the agreement contingent on the British fulfilling their promises. When they did not, the deal fell apart.

The American history books ignore Zionism, the waves of immigration to the holy land and the Balfour Declaration. In American Journey, Davidson et al. make it sound like the only Jews who wanted a homeland were those fleeing the Nazis.

Spontaneous Combustion
The mandatory period is described as a time when Arabs and Jews simultaneously or spontaneously clashed. Usually, no one is blamed for inciting the violence. Stearns et al. write in World History-Traditions and New Directions, for example, that Arabs lived in Palestine "for thousands of years." They mention violence between the two groups increasing over the years without drawing any distinctions as to whom the instigators were. Similarly, Beers says in World History--Patterns of Civilization that after World War II the Arabs felt threatened by a new wave of immigrants and "new clashes occurred .... The fighting escalated as Arabs and Jews fought to control the towns and villages of Palestine." Jewish immigration "continued and grew, until by the late 1930's, Jews accounted for nearly one-third of Palestine's population," Hantula et al. write in Global Insights. "Before long, riots and armed conflict broke out." But battles did not just break out, particularly at this time, when Arab guerrillas were carrying out most of the attacks. It was not until after the partition decision, and Arab forces had already begun to infiltrate, that Jews began to fight for control of towns and villages. The way these passages are written, however, the insinuation is that Jewish immigration rather than Arab rejectionism was the cause of the violence.

One of the more misleading accounts of the history leading up to the partition decision is presented by Wallbank and Schrier's Living World History, which says the Jews opposed an independent government based on a democratic vote because the government would have been dominated by Arabs. The implication is that the Arabs favored democracy while Zionists opposed it, and that the Palestinians wanted to hold a plebiscite to decide the fate of the area. In fact, nothing resembling democracy was extant in the Arab world and certainly was not a feature of Palestinian politics, which were driven primarily by longstanding clan relationships. The Arabs' position was that Palestine was only big enough for a state in which they would have total control, including the right to prevent Jewish immigration. After independence, Israel did adopt a democratic form of government in which Arab citizens had equal rights.

Though the United States played a vital role in the establishment of the State of Israel, little attention is paid to the crucial decisions made in 1947-48. Winthrop Jordan, Miriam Greenblatt and John Bowes write in The Americans (McDougal, Littell and Co., 1992) that the U.N. proclaimed the republic of Israel, but do not mention the creation of an Arab state or U.S. policy toward partition. Similarly, in History of the United States (Houghton Mifflin, 199 1), Thomas DiBacco, Lorna Mason and Christian Appy say that Jewish settlers founded the Jewish State. They do note that the Arab nations refused to accept Israel's existence and invaded after it was declared, but fail to elaborate.

According to Gary Nash's American Odyssey, "hostility between Arabs and Jews took root after World War II" (emphasis added). He says the Arabs dominated the region and would not give up their land to immigrant Jews, though they did in fact sell large amounts. In a Study Guide at the bottom of the section relating to the creation of Israel, Nash explains the Jewish connection with the land, but says that in 1948 "Jews reclaimed their ancient homeland, but in the process the Palestinians lost theirs." Of course, had they accepted partition, the Palestinians would have had a state. Moreover, most Palestinians remained in Palestine, in either the areas that became Israel or Jordan.

In A People & A Nation, Norton et al. say Israel was carved out of the British mandate without explaining how Great Britain came to control the area, what role the U.N. played or Jewish claims to the land. The authors jump to the recognition of Israel, which they explain by "America's perceived need for international allies" and Truman's "desire for Jewish American votes." While the latter justification is often cited, the former has never been raised by any scholar of the period. Paul Boyer et al., writing in The Enduring Vision: The History of the American People (DC Heath, 1990), also attribute Truman's decision to the Jewish vote, but at least acknowledge this was only part of the reason for his action. The book does not elaborate on the others.

One of the few American history books to discuss the situation prior to 1947 is David King et al's. The United States and Its People. When it comes to the UN partition decision, however, they attribute the result to sympathy for the victims of the Holocaust. They also create the misimpression that the 1948 war was between Palestinians and Jews by saying the Arab states sent troops to help the Palestinian Arabs when in fact most Palestinians fled to avoid the fighting and the Arab states attacked with the intention of driving the Jews into the sea.

Perhaps it is a rejection of the old methods of forcing students to memorize names and dates, but it was surprising to see how few of the books gave the precise dates of events. Hantula et al., for example, say in Global Insights that the Arabs invaded Israel in the spring of 1948. The exact date is important, however, because the Arabs invaded immediately after Israel's declaration of independence, demonstrating that the establishment of the state was viewed as the aggression rather than anything the new state did.

In the 1992 edition of The Human Experience-A World History, Farah and Karls give a good explanation of the partition plan and the Arab invasion of the new state, but they exaggerate Israel's military advantage, saying it was ready with a "flood of immigrants and arms." At the end of the war they say Israel had 77 percent of Palestine, 20 percent more than the U.N. gave them. Beers relates in World History--Patterns of Civilization that the war ended with Israel annexing Arab territory and increasing the size of its territory by 30 percent. In World History--Traditions and New Directions, Steams et al. say the U.N. drew up a plan for Palestine, but does not say that the General Assembly approved it. Instead, they write only that Arabs outnumbered Jews two-to-one in Palestine, omitting that Jews were a majority in the area allotted to them by the partition resolution and in Jerusalem. Though the Arabs invaded, they say, Israel ended with "most of Palestine."

It is true that in the course of defending itself against Arab aggression, Israel gained more territory than the U.N. allotted; nevertheless, it still held less than 20 percent of the land that was to have originally been the Jewish homeland because of the British severing Transjordan from Palestine. To their credit, Steams et al. and Farah and Karls point out that Jordan annexed the area that was to be the "Palestinian state," though they do not say that only two countries recognized this action.

Refugees and Revisionism
The history of the Palestinians is replete with factual errors, omissions and distortions. Most books give the same explanation for the Palestinian refugee problem, that they "fled or were expelled." No one refers to the thousands who left before the fighting began or before the war was over. Nor do they point out that the number expelled was a fraction of the total that left to avoid the war, or in response to Arab leaders' exhortations to leave. Farah and Karls, for example, say in The Human Experience--A World History that the Palestinians "decided-or were forced-to leave what had been their homeland." This comes after a discussion of the 1949 armistice, which insinuates the Palestinians fled after the war. In their 1992 edition, they adopted a more neutral position, reporting that as a result of war 700,000 Arabs became homeless. It is unclear where Farah and Karls and the other authors who use the same statistic came up with the number of refugees. The 700,000 figure is lower than the exaggerated Arab estimates, but still nearly one-third higher than that of the U.N. Mediator on Palestine.

In World History-For A Global Age, Abramowitz is the only author who alludes to the fact that 500,000 Jews fled Arab countries in what was, in effect, an exchange of populations. No mention is made of the mistreatment of Jews that provoked many to emigrate from the otherwise tolerant Islamic societies to Israel.

Also, little is said about the treatment the Palestinian refugees received from their brethren. A couple of books do point out the refugees were not welcomed by the Arab states. Schwartz and O'Connor observe in Exploring A Changing World that Arab nations have not given the Palestinians a home, but Wallbank and Schrier's Living World History is the only book to note that only Jordan gave them citizenship. The text also points out that refugee camps became bases for "violent attacks" against Israel. Hantula et al's. Global Insights claims they occupy important posts throughout the Persian Gulf, but neglect their inability to become citizens and the expulsion of tens of thousands of Palestinians after the Gulf War.

The number and condition of the refugees are distorted in every book that discusses them. Wallbank and Schrier say most refugee camps became "permanent settlements" without jobs, farms or services. Hantula et al., Stearns et al. and Beers all have nearly identical versions. According to these authors, one-third of the 3.5 million Palestinians live in exile, as many as two million confined to squalid refugee camps. These descriptions give the impression that millions of Palestinian refugees are suffering in camps, but this has not been the case for decades. According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, two-thirds of the approximately 2.2 million Palestinian refugees are not in camps. "They live and work like everyone else in the towns and villages of the Middle East," UNRWA reports. Moreover, of the five million Palestinians, nearly three-quarters now live in historic "Palestine," either as Israeli or Jordanian citizens or in the West Bank and Gaza.

Searching for Terrorists
It has become politically incorrect to refer to anyone as terrorists, so it was not surprising that most authors avoided the label. Beers notes in World History-Patterns of Civilization that Syria has been "accused of terrorism," but even this qualified charge is weakened when he misleadingly adds that Syria has also helped in hostage releases. Schwartz and O'Connor's Exploring A Changing World refers to attacks by "commandos who slip into Israel from neighboring Arab countries." Wallbank and Schrier (Living World History), Welty and Greenblatt (The Human Experience--World Regions and Cultures) and Davidson et al. (American Journey) call the PLO "guerrillas." In The Middle Fast, Peretz refers to the PLO as a "Palestinian nationalist organization," but acknowledges that Israel labels it "a 'terrorist' organization." Norton et al's. A People & A Nation says that Palestinian Arabs, many of whom had been "expelled from their homes in 1948," organized the PLO to destroy Israel. They mention attacks such as the Munich massacre, but do not label them terrorism. Moreover, the authors seem to equate PLO and Israeli actions by noting that "Israelis retaliated by assassinating PLO figures abroad." According to Stearns et al's World History--Traditions and New Directions, "guerilla groups" raided Israeli communities and hijacked airliners and "Israel retaliated by bombing Egyptian cities." The only clues as to where they came up with the notion that Israel bombed Egypt is if they somehow confused the PLO attacks with the War of Attrition.

Farah and Karls start a section in The Human Experience-A World History by saying "angry Palestinians turned to strong resistance to achieve nationhood," and that "militant refugees formed resistance groups" that merged in 1964 to form the PLO. They also write that after 1967 the PLO decided on armed struggle to "replace Israel with an independent Palestinian state for all Muslims, Jews and Christians." They mention the Munich massacre being committed by the PLO, but, like all the others make no reference to the PLO's covenant. In their newer edition, Farah and Karls use the forbidden word, but combined terrorist attacks and border raids so it is not clear who the perpetrators and victims are. At another point they say that Palestinians who protested against Israeli rule in the territories "could be arrested and see their homes bulldozed" and that the PLO fought back with hijackings and bombings when, in fact, PLO terrorism long preceded the Israeli actions to which they refer. Jordan et al. (The Americans) and Welty and Greenblatt (The Human Experience-World Regions and Cultures) also mention the PLO engaged in terrorist activities such as hijackings and the Munich massacre. The threat posed to Israel by terrorism is further diminished, however, by the failure to provide examples (beyond two references to Munich) of specific attacks.

The most dramatic exceptions to the reticence to accurately state the PLO's aims are found in Graff's America: The Glorious Republic, where the PLO is described as "a terrorist group pledged to the destruction of Israel," and in Schwartz and O'Connor's Exploring A Changing World, which has the following question in the chapter summary: "The PLO is pledged to attack and destroy: a) Egyptians, b) Israelis, c) Jordanians."

Incidentally, all the books get the origins of the PLO wrong. Wallbank and Schrier are the only ones who correctly state that the heads of the Arab states were involved. But instead of saying they created the PLO in 1964, Living World History incorrectly gives this as the date the PLO was recognized as the representatives of the Palestinian people, something that actually occurred a decade later.

Many books also came out shortly after Arafat's 1988 statements renouncing terrorism and recognizing Israel. Although the same authors should be aware of the PLO's subsequent contradictory actions, including the raid on an Israeli beach that caused the suspension of the U.S. -PLO dialogue, Arafat's words are given great importance. In American Odyssey, Nash maintains Arafat "took a step toward a solution." Welty and Greenblatt's The Human Experience--World Regions and Cultures says that he "more or less acknowledged that Israel had a 'right to exist,'" whatever that means. At least they correctly state that Arafat did not renounce military actions against Israel. Wallbank and Schrier's Living World History claims Arafat's remarks opened "the way for new negotiations for peace in the Middle East," though peace talks did not begin until almost three years later-after the PLO was forced behind the scenes. Meanwhile, Israel's arguments for distrusting Arafat are ignored.

The Heroic Intifada
The status of Palestinians in the territories is given surprisingly short-shrift. The information presented, however, is entirely one-sided. In Living World History, for example, Wallbank and Schrier mention universities being closed. Hantula et al. say in Global Insights that schools in the territories have been "subject to Israeli censorship" and those "who spoke out against the occupation risked being deported." It is fair to mention deprivations in the territories, but no one mentions the security concerns that prompt them. Schools were only closed after they ceased to be centers of learning and became instead staging grounds for violent demonstrations. All the universities are now open. Israeli "censorship" in schools has been restricted to replacing Jordanian textbooks laced with anti-Semitic references. The January 1993 deportation of more than 400 Hamas activists has reinforced the impression that expulsion is a common method of stopping protests, but it has actually been used sparingly. Moreover, just speaking out against the occupation has never been the cause for someone's expulsion. Even with the military administration, there is no shortage of Palestinians making their feelings known. In addition, if these books were to be consistent in their efforts to present issues in a balanced manner, they would discuss some improvements in living conditions in the territories since 1967.

Nash's American Odyssey acknowledges that Israel modernized the territories in the 1970's and 80's, but says the Palestinians "were forced to carry identity cards, usually got the most menial jobs and, if suspected of causing trouble, could be beaten, arrested or have their homes bulldozed into rubble." In truth, Israelis also carry identity cards. Palestinians often are employed in low-paying jobs because they are willing to take them and Israelis generally are not. They are not forced into them. Finally, Palestinians have to do more than simply be suspected of causing trouble to merit the treatment Nash describes. Demolishing homes, for example, is a punishment rarely used and then only for severe crimes. More important, unlike elsewhere in the Middle East, the Palestinians have recourse to the courts.

Some more recent texts discuss the intifada, which is always described as a reaction to Israeli actions. No reference is made in Nash (American Odyssey) or the others to the internecine warfare labeled the intrafada. Norton et al. simply refer in A People & A Nation to Israeli forces using brute force to quell "rock-throwing youths." Nash and Farah and Karls' newer edition of The Human Experience--A World History incorrectly say the intifada started when Israeli soldiers were surrounded and shot and killed a 17-year-old. Welty and Greenblatt's The Human Experience--World Regions and Cultures is the only book to give a complete and accurate explanation of how the intifada started. Nash actually devotes more space to inaccurately explaining the outbreak of the uprising than any other aspect of the conflict or U.S.-Israel relations. More disturbing than the narrative, however, is the use of a photo of Palestinian women demonstrating next to a picture of the Mandelas, creating the misimpression of a symmetry between the struggles of Palestinians and black South Africans.

The treatment of Arabs in Israel is largely ignored. One exception is Peretz, who wrote in The Middle East that they "are not integrated into the nation's social and political structure." He calls them second-class citizens. Arab citizens of Israel have suffered hardships because of their exemption from military service and inequalities in funding of Arab municipalities, but they have greater political rights than Palestinians anywhere else in the Middle East. They have political parties and Knesset representation, and are probably as integrated into Israeli society as most minorities are elsewhere.

War Erupts
The treatment of the causes and conduct of the Arab-Israeli wars in all the texts was appalling. The complexities of the conflict are usually reduced to the Palestinians wanting independence and Israel resisting. The Arabs' refusal to accept a Jewish state in their midst is softened to an unwillingness to "recognize" Israel, a subtle difference that suggests passivity rather than an active campaign to destroy Israel. Arab intransigence is never suggested as a cause of the dispute. The books generally avoid describing Arab provocations (none mention the Arab boycott), while several go so far as to blame Israel for the wars. In World History--Traditions and New Directions, for example, Stearns et al. say "Israel's quick and successful growth and modernization contributed even more to Arab-Israeli hostility."

The most consistently incomplete and inaccurate accounts are of the Suez war. Every world history text attributes the cause to Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal. Not one mentions the fedayeen raids or other Egyptian provocations that led Israel to join Great Britain and France in the war. The closest any come to suggesting Egypt provoked Israel is a reference to Nasser blocking the canal (but not the Straits of Tiran) to Israeli shipping. Stearns et al. assert the Arabs turned away from Western nations because they supported Israel, but they do not relate that the United States opposed the war and pressured Israel to withdraw from the territory it captured.

A People & A Nation, by Norton et al., also gets it wrong, suggesting the Suez War occurred because Secretary of State John Foster Dulles lost patience with Nasser when he declared neutrality in the Cold War. Nothing is said about Egypt's arms deal with the Soviets. As in their earlier reference to the rationale for recognizing Israel, these authors say America's position toward Israel was related to "a vocal Jewish-American lobby." Boyer et al. write in The Enduring Vision that "Israeli troops stormed into Egypt." King et al's. The United States and Its People says that Israel attacked "bases from which Arabs had been raiding Israel," but fail to mention the blockade and erroneously report that the British and French were forced to withdraw from territory they occupied while Israel was allowed to keep the Sinai.

The other American history books were an improvement. Davidson et al. (American Journey), Jordan et al. (The Americans) and DiBacco et al. (History of the United States) explain that Egypt's blockade of the Suez Canal provoked Israel. Jordan and his coauthors are the only ones to also mention Egyptian terrorism as a cause of the war. None of the texts say anything about the blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba.

Accounts of the Six-Day War are not much better. In fact, with two exceptions, the American history texts skip the conflict altogether. In A People & A Nation, Norton et al. say only that Israel used American weapons "to score victories over Egypt and Syria" and that Israel seized the West Bank and the ancient city of Jerusalem from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt." Boyer et al's The Enduring Vision makes a similar reference to Jerusalem being seized from Jordan. Similarly, Abramowitz talks in World History-For A Global Age about Egyptian provocations in 1967, but does not say anything about Jordan or Syria. He then states that Israel took territory from all three countries, making it sound like there was no reason for its action on the Golan Heights or the West Bank. He also says that Jerusalem had been an international city, ignoring Jordanian control from 1949 on. Steams et al's. World History--Traditions and New Directions says Israel seized "Jordan's West Bank" and the "Jordanian half of Jerusalem." No one relates that Israel warned King Hussein to stay out of the fighting, and that it was his failure to do so that led to the territory he occupied being taken. Moreover, they create the false impression that Jordan has a claim to Jerusalem.

In World History-Patterns of Civilization, Beers writes that "both sides had been building up their armed forces" before the war and that during the fighting Israel seized the "Arab half of Jerusalem." In the 1990 edition of The Human Experience-A World History, Farah and Karls do not give any cause for the Six-Day War. The 1992 edition, however, does talk about Syria engaging in border clashes and wanting to eliminate Israel, the only reference any book makes to Syrian provocations. They add, however, that Nasser "aided Syria by closing the Gulf of Aqaba to Israel," creating the misperception that Egypt was more of an accomplice than the provocateur. The same section has a picture with the following caption: "Learning from Photographs. An Israeli armored vehicle patrols the Golan Heights. What other land did Israel seize in the Six-Day War?" If this is what students are being taught to learn from pictures, the thought of what they might be taking away from the evening news is truly frightening.

In The Human Experience-World Regions and Cultures, Welty and Greenblatt say the U.S. supported Israel in 1967 when, in fact, Johnson imposed an arms embargo and had warned against going to war. They are among the few authors to say anything about Soviet involvement in the conflict; however, they make it sound as if Soviet aid to Egypt and Syria was equal to that given to Israel by the U.S. before 1973. In fact, American aid was relatively small until the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War. The Soviets completely rebuilt the Arab arsenals while Israel was struggling to convince the United States to supply sophisticated aircraft.

All of the texts ignore the War of Attrition, reflecting a general tendency not to treat the engagements from 1969-70 as a war. But fighting lasted 16 months and resulted in the death of 600 Israeli soldiers and 127 civilians. Another 2,000 soldiers and 700 civilians were wounded.

One of the most glaring omissions from several books is the failure to mention that the 1973 war began when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Yom Kippur. Beers (World History-Patterns of Civilization), for example, says they just declared war. Norton et al. (A People & A Nation) write that Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on October 6. Nash (American Odyssey) refers to the war twice, one to say that an oil embargo was imposed on the United States and another to falsely report that "in 1948, 1956, 1967 and again in 1973, the Israelis fought wars with Arab forces, gaining more land with each victory." The impression given is that Israel was fighting wars for the acquisition of territory. Farah and Karls (The Human Experience-A World History claim Egypt and Syria "fought to get back land lost" in 1967, without mentioning when or how the attack occurred. In the 1992 edition, they correct this. Abramowitz (World History-For A Global Age) is one of the few to point out that other Arab states participated in the war.

Boyer et al. distort the origins of the war in The Enduring Vision. "Following a several-year-long Arab war of attrition against the Israelis, and concurrent bombing raids by Israel on its neighbors, Moscow-backed Syrian and Egyptian forces launched an all-out attack against Israel." The surprise attack did not immediately follow the war of attrition, which effectively ended in 1970, nor was it related to bombing raids by Israel. The turning point in the war is attributed to "massive U.S. shipments of highly sophisticated weaponry," but the almost equally massive Soviet shipment of sophisticated arms to the Arabs is not mentioned.

After the war, Boyer et al. assert that Nixon "shifted U.S. foreign policy from its traditional exclusive support for Israel to a more evenhanded relationship with the contending Middle Eastern nations." This is almost the exact opposite of what happened. It was only after 1973 that the U.S. began to explicitly work to give Israel a qualitative advantage over its adversaries. The text goes on to credit Henry Kissinger's shuttle diplomacy with smoothing U.S.-Arab relations, but asserts this "did not alter the root cause of Middle Eastern stability, especially the fate of the Palestinians." The notion that the plight of the Palestinians is central to the conflict is not surprising given the book's almost total neglect of inter-Arab disputes and U.S. policy toward countries like Jordan, Iraq, Libya and Saudi Arabia.

Discussing the period between 1979 and 1982, Norton et al. write in A People & A Nation: "Even ally Israel gave the United States trouble" by bombing PLO camps in Lebanon and "killing hundreds of civilians," and by annexing the Golan Heights. "Many American supporters of Israel, recognizing that the Jewish state faced hostile Arabs, nonetheless became impatient with Israel's provocative acts toward its neighbors." This is a complete distortion of the situation during those years. Israeli attacks on PLO camps did cause casualties but these were not unprovoked. Moreover, it is not clear who they are referring to when they say American supporters of Israel were impatient. On the contrary, support during those years was quite strong. The authors continue in a misleading direction when they write that in June 1982 Israeli troops "invaded civil war-torn Lebanon, cutting their way to the capital Beirut and inflicting massive damage. The beleaguered PLO and various Lebanese factions called upon Syria to contain the Israelis. Thousands of civilians died in the multifaceted conflict and a million people became refugees." Again, the authors give the impression that Israel's actions were unprovoked and disproportionate. They hedge by calling the conflict "multifaceted," but only refer to the Israeli role.

Similarly, Abramowitz's World History for A Global Age says Israel "accused" the PLO of using Lebanon as a base. Though Palestinians are sometimes mentioned as a destabilizing force, most books ignore the fact that King Hussein crushed the PLO revolt in Jordan and sparked the Palestinian exodus to Lebanon. The impression given is that the Palestinians in Lebanon all came from Israel.

The Syrian role in Lebanon is consistently whitewashed. In The Middle East, Peretz says only that Syria was authorized to intervene in the civil war. Steams et al. assert in World History- Traditions and New Directions the "Syrians feared that a Muslim victory would invite an Israeli invasion of their country." No one explains Hafez Assad's vision of Greater Syria or Syria's continued occupation of Lebanon. In the later edition of The Human Experience-A World History Farah and Karls go as far as to speak of new signs of "hope" in Lebanon in 1990 because of Syria ousting a Christian General (Michel Aoun) who stood in the way of the Arab League's peace plan.

Recent volumes also briefly discuss the Gulf War. Schwartz and O'Connor's Exploring A Changing World calls the Persian Gulf crisis "the most serious situation to date in the Middle East." They assert the war was over oil, not even referencing the Bush Administration's declared reasons. Also, no mention is made of the SCUD attack on Israel.

Israel as the Obstacle to Peace
The peace process is consistently handled simplistically, routinely putting the onus on Israel for the conflict and portraying Israelis as uncompromising. In The Middle East, for example, Peretz says that after 1967 "many Israelis believed that their country was the dominant military power in the Middle East. Because of this belief, they thought they would be able to maintain the status quo without making any concessions." This despite the fact that Israel was prepared to withdraw from much of the West Bank and, as Peretz acknowledges, later did give back the Sinai.

Considering the frequent discussion in the press of U.N. Resolution 242, it was surprising that none of the books cite it. The closest any came were Farah and Karls saying in The Human Experience-A World History that the U.N. asked Israel to withdraw, but it refused to do so until the Arabs recognize its right to exist. Elsewhere, however, they place the responsibility more clearly on the Israelis, asserting that they "have refused to negotiate until their country is recognized by the Arabs." It is untrue that Israel made this a precondition of talks; moreover, past negotiations all took place without Arab recognition. This misplaced emphasis on Arab recognition also brings to mind Abba Eban's remark: "There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its 'right to exist' a favor, or a negotiable concession" (New York Times, November 15, 1981). More important, however, the essence of Resolution 242 is distorted by failing to make clear the linkage between territorial withdrawal and peace.

In A People & A Nation, Norton et al. note that Israel and Egypt reached an agreement in 1975 whereby peacekeepers would be moved into the Sinai. But, they say, other problems remained: "the homeless Palestinian Arabs, Israeli occupation of Jerusalem and the West Bank, Israel's insistence on building settlements in occupied lands, and Arab threats to destroy the Jewish state." It is bizarre to equate the Arab desire to destroy Israel with political disagreements over the West Bank. Moreover, the authors are revising history to make it seem as though current disputes were issues nearly 20 years ago. For example, what homeless Palestinians are they referring to? No Palestinians were displaced in the 1973 war and none from earlier conflicts lacked places to live. Israel's control of the territories was indeed an issue, but little settlement activity took place before 1977 and did not become a major issue until it was raised by President Carter.

On the subject of peace, Camp David is usually given prominence, though the facts are sometimes garbled. Schwartz and O'Connor devote one sentence in Exploring A Changing World to the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, but do not mention Camp David. Farah and Karls give away their bias in The Human Experience-A World History by discussing the subject under the subhead, "Separate Peace." Welty and Greenblatt got their facts partially right in The Human Experience--World Regions and Cultures. They are among the few to give Begin credit for inviting Sadat to Jerusalem, but they say the invitation was to Egypt's "new leader," though Sadat had been in power for seven years. Wallbank and Schrier's Living World History teaches that the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty is known as the Camp David Accords. Actually, the accords established the framework for peace; the treaty was signed six months later. Though they and some others acknowledge that Israel returned the Sinai, no sense of the magnitude of this sacrifice is given. No one mentions, for example, that the Sinai constituted 91 percent of the territory Israel won in 1967.

Given that the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty was one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the postwar era, the American history texts might have been expected to devote a bit more attention to the subject. Norton et al's. A People & A Nation has a paragraph on Camp David, crediting President Carter's "tenacious diplomacy" for the treaty and not even mentioning Sadat's trip to Jerusalem. In The Enduring Vision, Boyer et al. say "Carter saw an opening" when Sadat made his historic trip, but the truth was almost the opposite. Carter saw Sadat's move as jeopardizing his plans to achieve a comprehensive settlement. In The United States and Its People, King et al. at least grant Begin credit for inviting Sadat to Jerusalem, but they give the false impression that Carter's meeting with Sadat in April 1977 to discuss aid was linked to the Egyptian President's decision to go to Jerusalem in November. If there was any linkage, it was Sadat's recognition that Carter's policy would not lead to a breakthrough and that he had to act unilaterally. Nash has a truly unique interpretation of the events leading to the peace treaty, arguing in American Odyssey that Carter seized the opportunity after hearing Sadat tell Walter Cronkite that he would do whatever he could to make peace with Israel. Neither Nash nor several of the others discuss the substance of the agreement or its significance.

The peace process after Camp David receives no real attention. Norton et al. wrote in A People & A Nation that Washington continued to offer peace plans, but that "Israel refused to negotiate." In The Enduring Vision, Boyer et al. state that the Reagan Plan called for the creation of a Palestinian homeland on the West Bank, something the plan does not say. Moreover, the book doesn't mention that the Arabs joined Israel in opposing it. Welty and Greenblatt write in The Human Experience--World Regions and Cultures that, following Camp David, Palestinians looked forward to a Palestinian state. They are also the only ones to report the Shamir election proposal. In the 1992 edition of The Human Experience-A World History, Farah and Karls note that the Palestinians never had self-rule under Jordan, which annexed the West Bank, a key fact ignored by the other texts and these authors in earlier editions. Peretz's The Middle East is the only book to acknowledge that no Palestinians called for a state from 1949-67 while Jordan controlled the West Bank.

An important aspect of the pursuit of peace from 1979 until August 1993 was the Palestinian rejection of autonomy. Still, Palestinian intransigence is never mentioned or implied. Instead, the problem is reduced to the refusal of Israel to accept what is presented as the reasonable desire of Palestinians to return to their land and create "a democratic nonreligious Palestinian state." Even if the complexity of the issue could be reduced to such a simple formula, it is still grossly misleading to suggest the Palestinians would adopt such a government given the undemocratic nature of its current society and the salience of religion that is evident in the ongoing battles between Islamic groups and the PLO.

Stearns et al. stray from presenting historical facts to polemics when they assert in World History--Traditions and New Directions that the chances of Palestinians reaching their goal of an independent state diminished as Israel established settlements. The settlement issue, otherwise, is not raised in the various texts, which is probably for the best given the virtual certainty that their role, location and numbers would go unexplained.

A few books mention that security is an issue, but do not go beyond vague generalities. No analysis of the geography of Israel is presented despite the emphasis many books place on the physical description of nations. Furthermore, the debate in Israel about the territories is portrayed misleadingly. For example, in World History--Patterns of Civilization Beers gives the impression that the extreme positions on the right and left are the most prevalent: "Some want to expel all Arabs from the West Bank. Other Israelis favor compromise. Some would accept a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River under certain conditions."

« Last Edit: November 01, 2005, 09:42:56 AM by I TO DA GEEZY »
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2630
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #151 on: November 01, 2005, 09:43:55 AM »
Conclusion
It would be nice to say that this study unearthed some high quality texts, but it would not be true. Of the 18 books, only two deserve recommendations. In world history, Welty and Greenblatt's, The Human Experience--World Regions and Cultures does the best job of covering important events with a minimum of distortion. Still, as noted throughout the study, the book has some deficiencies. Among the American history texts, Henry Graff's, America: The Glorious Republic was easily the class of the field (and ironically the oldest). This book was not flawless, but it provided an excellent presentation of the facts. The lack of references in this study to mistakes is evidence of the quality of scholarship.

One reason the texts are so bad is that they are not adequately reviewed by experts in the field. The authors also appear to overlook basic sources and most lack footnotes or bibliographies. The couple of books that did have references only seemed to prove the inadequacy of the authors' research. In Global Insights, for example, Hantula et al. cite obscure or marginal sources such as a book on the Palestinians by Frank Epp published in 1976. Peretz, a legitimate Middle East expert, inexplicably uses as sources for The Middle East, Uri Avnery, Amos Elon, Amos Oz and David Shipler. The only serious historian listed in his bibliography on modem Israel is Howard Sachar.

Publishers may argue that later editions of books correct earlier errors, but none of the revised works reviewed here eliminated all the problems. In fact, some newer texts were made worse. In addition, many schools can afford to replace texts only infrequently, so many students will continue to be educated with misinformation from the earlier volumes.

What Can Be Done?
The only way the quality of education can be improved is if parents take an active role in their children's schooling. Students are not likely to recognize problems with their textbooks, it's up to their parents. If a book appears problematic, the relevant passages can be forwarded to the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise for analysis. If they are inaccurate or biased, we would recommend that a protest be made to the teacher, the school and the school board, outlining the problem and expressing an interest in seeing that a more suitable book be used.

Besides alerting local school officials, protests should also be made to the publishers. The people who are responsible for putting out textbooks are not anti-Semites out to corrupt the nation's youth. Often they are harried editors who depend on reviewers to catch errors. The best publishers do not want mistakes in their books and will take steps to correct them. Sometimes, they may be reluctant. In the case of The Enduring Vision, I wrote an article on its deficiencies in the Near East Report, which provoked many angry letters to DC Heath. The publisher's initial response was defensive, claiming there "were a few factual slips" but that passages were quoted out of context. Reputable experts were subsequently brought in, however, to correct the errors and to provide more background explanations of Middle East events. In the end, the publisher produced a better book and students had a more useful educational tool.


Bibliography
Abramowitz, Jack, World History--For A Global Age (1985, Globe Book, 190 Sylvan Ave., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632).

Beers, Benton, World History--Patterns of Civilization (1990, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632).

Boyer, Paul et al., The Enduring Vision, (1990, DC Heath, 125 Spring St., Lexington, MA 02173).

Davidson, James West, Mark Lytle and Michael Staff, American Journey, (1992, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632).

DiBacco, Thomas, Lorna Mason and Christian Appy, History of the United States, (1991, Houghton Mifflin Co., One Beacon St., Boston, MA 02108).

Farah, Mounir, and Andrea Karls, The Human Experience--A World History, (1990, 1992, Merrill Publishing, 445 Hutchinson Ave., Columbus, OH 43235),

Graff, Henry, America: The Glorious Republic, (1988, Houghton Mifflin Co., One Beacon St., Boston, MA 02108).

Hantula, James, et al., Global Insights-People And Culture, (198 8, 1994, Glencoe Division, Macmillan/McGraw Hill, 936 Eastwind Dr., Westerville, OH 43081).

Jordan, Winthrop, Miriam Greenblatt and John Bowes, The Americans, (1992, McDougal, Littell and Co., Box 1667, Evanston, IL 60204).

King, David, Norman McRae, Jaye Zola, The United States and Its People, (1993, Addison Wesley, Rte. 128, Reading, MA 01867).

Nash, Gary, American Odyssey, (1991, Glencoe Division, Macmillan/McGraw Hill, 936 Eastwind Dr., Westerville, OH 43081).

Norton, Mary Beth, et al., A People & A Nation, (1990, Houghton Mifflin Co., One Beacon St., Boston, MA 02108).

Peretz, Don, The Middle East (1990, Houghton Mifflin Co., One Beacon St., Boston, MA 02108).

Reich, Jerome, Mark Krug and Edward Biller, World History, (1990, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1627 Woodland Ave., Austin, TX 78741).

Schwartz, Melvin and John O'Connor, Exploring A Changing World (1993, Globe Book, 190 Sylvan Ave., Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632).

Steams, Peter, Donald Schwartz and Barry Beyer, World History-Traditions and New Directions (1989, Addison-Wesley, Rte. 128, Reading, MA 01867).

Wallbank, T. Walter and Arnold Schrier, Living World History (1990, Scott, Foresman and Co., 1900 E Lake Ave., Glenview, IL 60025).

Welty, Paul Thomas and Miriam Greenblatt, The Human Experience--World Regions and Cultures, (1992, Glencoe Division, Macmillan/McGraw Hill, 936 Eastwind Dr., Westerville, OH 43081).

« Last Edit: November 01, 2005, 09:48:38 AM by I TO DA GEEZY »
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2630
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #152 on: November 01, 2005, 09:46:39 AM »
Add disinformation to propaganda and you've got rooted BIAS.
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

King Tech Quadafi

  • His Royal Highness
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7323
  • Karma: -221
  • i think you betta recognize...
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #153 on: November 01, 2005, 11:01:41 AM »
^ My man, you are hopelessly brainwashed to the point where conversation cannot be carried out wit you

You could post another 10 page essay and it wont do no good. Anyone here with any semblance of intelligence finished laughin at you on page 3 of the thread
"One day Alice came to a fork in the road and saw a Cheshire cat in a tree. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" was his response. "I don't know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn't matter."

- Lewis Carroll
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2630
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #154 on: November 01, 2005, 11:35:45 AM »
^ My man, you are hopelessly brainwashed to the point where conversation cannot be carried out wit you

You could post another 10 page essay and it wont do no good. Anyone here with any semblance of intelligence finished laughin at you on page 3 of the thread


lol....These few articles are the first articles I've ever pasted regarding this conflict and unlike the hundreds of articles you guys bring each time these reflect true facts and NO OMISSION, I bet you haven't even read this, otherwise ,assuming that you are indeed armed with this semblance of intelligence that you've mentioned, you would at least have commented on the statement it is making, again you simply choose to disregard whatever does not fit your version of the truth, you guys can go around bullshiting for as long as you like but one thing you can not say: you can't say I haven't commented on your statements and references- however I CAN say this about you guys. lol And I'm the one hopelessly brainwashed- If your belief that this is the real problem in this debate helps you guys sleep better at night after having advocated something you do not fully acknowlede then so be it.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2005, 11:40:20 AM by I TO DA GEEZY »
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

Don Rizzle

  • Capo Di Tutti Capi
  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: -4
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #155 on: November 01, 2005, 11:47:34 AM »
i can't be arsed to read all that, but if you want my opinion on the wall. build it if you want too, but it should be within israeli territory not occupied land demolish all jewiish homes you want and give out the necessary compensation and relocate your people, doing it on palestinian land only adds fuel to the fire and proves israel doesn't act with rightious intension....

iraq would just get annexed by iran


That would be a great solution.  If Iran and the majority of Iraqi's are pleased with it, then why shouldn't they do it?
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2630
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #156 on: November 01, 2005, 12:26:12 PM »
i can't be arsed to read all that

Too bad that you have time to read articles with omitted facts and to post them but you don't have time to read the honest truth only because it's complex and because it shatters all of the misconceptions you've grown used to.

We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

Now_Im_Not_Banned

  • Guest
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #157 on: November 01, 2005, 01:53:31 PM »
Where did I mention that I knew their intent? LOL I actually stated the exact opposite by stating that I don't know their intent, only that it's happening. I'm stating facts, not opinions. You guys are the ones bringing your own opinions into this. However, there is no way to justify the demolishing of homes... especially not when it's "to make room for a wall"


You start by saying you don't know their intentions and end the paragraph by stating what you believe their intentions are...Stop changing what you're saying, your main point is obviously to imply that the Israeli government has evil intentions, which you can't prove...Now lets see how many more circles we can go in...
 

J @ M @ L

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1630
  • Karma: -115
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #158 on: November 01, 2005, 03:11:04 PM »
Where did I mention that I knew their intent? LOL I actually stated the exact opposite by stating that I don't know their intent, only that it's happening. I'm stating facts, not opinions. You guys are the ones bringing your own opinions into this. However, there is no way to justify the demolishing of homes... especially not when it's "to make room for a wall"


You start by saying you don't know their intentions and end the paragraph by stating what you believe their intentions are...Stop changing what you're saying, your main point is obviously to imply that the Israeli government has evil intentions, which you can't prove...Now lets see how many more circles we can go in...

After you assumed you were psychic the first time, I specifically pointed out this wasn't the case... yet since you have no argument and can't admit your mistake... you feel the need to again assume to know what I was implying...

I ended the paragraph by stating that the government demolished homes to make room for the wall... THAT'S FACT... don't get it twisted... I never stated to know their intentions... all I'm stating is what they do... not why they do it... except for the case of the homes being fucked up because they were in the way of the wall being built... I can't believe you can't understand something this simple... it's almost as if you guys run away from the truth
my throat hurts, its hard to swallow, and my body feels like i got a serious ass beating.

LOL @ this fudgepacker
 

J @ M @ L

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1630
  • Karma: -115
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #159 on: November 01, 2005, 03:34:04 PM »
Ok let me break it down really slow...

"I never knew it was the government bulldozing homes and killing innocent people, I thought it was the Israeli soldiers performing these actions."

These actions = plural, which means you're referring to the bulldozing and the killing of innocent people

I stated that it's the government bulldozing homes. FACT. I'm right. You're wrong. It's over.

Then once you realize you fucked up, you say: "Well you don't know their intention" , "The only ones they purposely bulldoze are terrorist homes", etc

1. I never stated to know their intention. But what the fuck does it matter? Intention distinguishes 1st degree murder in court, but it's still murder if there is no proof of intention... do you get it? I'm trying to make things as simple as possible for you. The homes are being demolished. Fact.

2. As for "only bulldozing terrorist homes".. the government has admitted to bulldozing homes to make room for the wall.

Anyways, I'm arguing with people who claim it's the soldiers' choice to bulldoze homes and not the government's... and that Zionism hasn't affected Palestinians.... LOLLLL...
my throat hurts, its hard to swallow, and my body feels like i got a serious ass beating.

LOL @ this fudgepacker
 

J @ M @ L

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1630
  • Karma: -115
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #160 on: November 01, 2005, 03:39:45 PM »
i can't be arsed to read all that

Too bad that you have time to read articles with omitted facts and to post them but you don't have time to read the honest truth only because it's complex and because it shatters all of the misconceptions you've grown used to.

Yes because if you believe it, then it must be the honest truth.... like "Palestinians have in no way been victims of Zionism"... LOL...
my throat hurts, its hard to swallow, and my body feels like i got a serious ass beating.

LOL @ this fudgepacker
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2630
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #161 on: November 02, 2005, 09:29:08 AM »
i can't be arsed to read all that

Too bad that you have time to read articles with omitted facts and to post them but you don't have time to read the honest truth only because it's complex and because it shatters all of the misconceptions you've grown used to.

Yes because if you believe it, then it must be the honest truth.... like "Palestinians have in no way been victims of Zionism"... LOL...

See this has nothing to do with what I think because all I did was pasting it for you to read it, you are the one assuming. Read it and see for yourself whether it is the truth- this is not like your bullshit articles man, you can actually see for yourself - THESE ARE FACTS.

P.S Saying that the Palestinian leadership played only a secondary role in harming the Paletinian people is laughable. The only reason Israel ever had for retaliation was because the Palestinian "leadership" refused to uproot terrorism within its authority and jurisdiction, how come you don't get this?
« Last Edit: November 02, 2005, 09:50:08 AM by I TO DA GEEZY »
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

J @ M @ L

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1630
  • Karma: -115
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #162 on: November 02, 2005, 09:53:00 AM »
i can't be arsed to read all that

Too bad that you have time to read articles with omitted facts and to post them but you don't have time to read the honest truth only because it's complex and because it shatters all of the misconceptions you've grown used to.

Yes because if you believe it, then it must be the honest truth.... like "Palestinians have in no way been victims of Zionism"... LOL...

See this has nothing to do with what I think because all I did was pasting it for you to read it, you are the one assuming. Read it and see for yourself whether it is the truth- this is not like your bullshit articles man, you can actually see for yourself - THESE ARE FACTS.

P.S Saying that The Palestinian leadership played only a secondary role in harming the Paletinian people is laughable. The only reason Israel had for retaliating was because they refused to uproot terrorism with in their authority, how come you don't get this?

I said "if you believe it"... that means you accepting it as the truth... which you obviously do, so why do you say "this has nothing to do with what I think".... I'm assuming that you accept it as the truth? LOLLL yeah... nice try, dumbfuck... just because you make assumptions about me, doesn't mean I have the need to make them about you... another case of you having no response and resorting to non-sense.

Yes, you accept those as facts... and I consider "my bullshit articles" (whatever you're referring to) as facts...

You're talking about the present time... I'm talking about the past... what about Israeli terrorism in the mid 20th century? Again, it seems like you don't know what the argument at hand is... so you just choose one and run with it.. and away from the truth at the same time.
my throat hurts, its hard to swallow, and my body feels like i got a serious ass beating.

LOL @ this fudgepacker
 

Now_Im_Not_Banned

  • Guest
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #163 on: November 02, 2005, 11:48:01 AM »
Where did I mention that I knew their intent? LOL I actually stated the exact opposite by stating that I don't know their intent, only that it's happening. I'm stating facts, not opinions. You guys are the ones bringing your own opinions into this. However, there is no way to justify the demolishing of homes... especially not when it's "to make room for a wall"


You start by saying you don't know their intentions and end the paragraph by stating what you believe their intentions are...Stop changing what you're saying, your main point is obviously to imply that the Israeli government has evil intentions, which you can't prove...Now lets see how many more circles we can go in...

After you assumed you were psychic the first time, I specifically pointed out this wasn't the case... yet since you have no argument and can't admit your mistake... you feel the need to again assume to know what I was implying...

I ended the paragraph by stating that the government demolished homes to make room for the wall... THAT'S FACT... don't get it twisted... I never stated to know their intentions... all I'm stating is what they do... not why they do it... except for the case of the homes being fucked up because they were in the way of the wall being built... I can't believe you can't understand something this simple... it's almost as if you guys run away from the truth


You're telling me you haven't speculated on why they do what they do? Come on man, who you tryna fool, me or yourself? Read this thread front to back, it's full of speculations...The point is that the motive plays a huge part in all this, and you don't know the motive. You can't prove the motive. You can speculate, but there's no way to win with speculations. I can't believe you can't understand something this simple.
 

Now_Im_Not_Banned

  • Guest
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #164 on: November 02, 2005, 11:50:33 AM »
Anyways, I'm arguing with people who claim it's the soldiers' choice to bulldoze homes and not the government's... and that Zionism hasn't affected Palestinians.... LOLLLL...


You're just making shit up, everything you say has no value, because it's based on lies. When have I said it's the soldies choice to bulldoze homes? I said if innocent people were getting harmed, it was due to the soldiers error, not the government...It's not my fault you have a hard time understanding.
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2630
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #165 on: November 02, 2005, 02:02:05 PM »
i can't be arsed to read all that

Too bad that you have time to read articles with omitted facts and to post them but you don't have time to read the honest truth only because it's complex and because it shatters all of the misconceptions you've grown used to.

Yes because if you believe it, then it must be the honest truth.... like "Palestinians have in no way been victims of Zionism"... LOL...

See this has nothing to do with what I think because all I did was pasting it for you to read it, you are the one assuming. Read it and see for yourself whether it is the truth- this is not like your bullshit articles man, you can actually see for yourself - THESE ARE FACTS.

P.S Saying that The Palestinian leadership played only a secondary role in harming the Paletinian people is laughable. The only reason Israel had for retaliating was because they refused to uproot terrorism with in their authority, how come you don't get this?

I said "if you believe it"... that means you accepting it as the truth... which you obviously do, so why do you say "this has nothing to do with what I think".... I'm assuming that you accept it as the truth? LOLLL yeah... nice try, dumbfuck... just because you make assumptions about me, doesn't mean I have the need to make them about you... another case of you having no response and resorting to non-sense.

Yes, you accept those as facts... and I consider "my bullshit articles" (whatever you're referring to) as facts...

You're talking about the present time... I'm talking about the past... what about Israeli terrorism in the mid 20th century? Again, it seems like you don't know what the argument at hand is... so you just choose one and run with it.. and away from the truth at the same time.


LMAO man you're so damn funny....I don't have to believe something that is factual, obviously you haven't even read it(- cross reference it with the bibliography if you want), I'm not arguing on whether it is the truth- IT SIMPLY IS (lol..just like the civil war in the U.S)... you're coming up with such pathetic bullshit...at least read it before bullshiting about what's true and what's not.

And this is the problem that you CONSIDER your shit to be factual meaning that you view it as such- In your opinion those are facts something that means YOU'RE THE ONE DEALING WITH OPINIONS after having said you're only dealing with pure facts....see, I don't consider, I know. If you read it or do some in-depth research YOU'D KNOW TOO- it comes to clearify historical errors you can find in many books you may have been taught upon or taught by people influenced by those books.

And about your half assed references to Jewish underground groups - it's obvious you don't even know what you're talking about, you're just mentioning shit so it will seem like you have something to say, these people rose after the Brits started backing down from the Balfour Declaration which was suppose to be their primary goal ,yet you choose to ignore the fact The Arab States declined the "partition plan" when the Palestinians could have most of the land (as if land was/is even the issue here.... you're so naive), while planing to eliminate the state of Israel and also as a result created the refugee problem.Your entire argument is based on the fact Israel is occupying land right? If the "Partition Plan" was to be accepted by the Arab Higher Committee back then would we be having this discussion right now???-THEY PLANED TO ELIMINATE ISRAEL, THEY DID NOT WANT TO CREATE A PALESTINIAN STATE---these are facts my friend. Who is to blame when the Jews accepted the "Patition Plan" despite being allocated with a tiny part of the land and the Palestinians chose to flee under the attack threats of the Arab States. How can you ignore all this, GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS PAGE AND READ THE HISTORICAL ORDER OF EVENTS.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2005, 02:06:18 PM by I TO DA GEEZY »
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

J @ M @ L

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1630
  • Karma: -115
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #166 on: November 03, 2005, 03:30:47 AM »
"I don't have to believe something that is factual"
If this is your thesis statement, then you have 7 pages of posts to back this up with, and now I know why we're not getting anywhere :)

"I'm not arguing whether it's the truth.. it simply is"
Wow, I wonder why I didn't think of that one. "just like the civil war in the U.S."
PALESTINIANS HAVE BEEN AND ARE VICTIMS OF ZIONISM.... I'm not arguing whether it's truth... IT SIMPLY IS... just like the U.S. dropping bombs on Japan.

When I stated that: "Yes, you accept those as facts... and I consider "my bullshit articles" (whatever you're referring to) as facts... "  it was meant as sarcasm, which is why I used the word bullshit... I was simply showing you what you sound like... and now you agree that this is expressing one's own opinion, and not facts... so I have made my point, and your dumbass has proven it.

edit: my sig says it all  :)
« Last Edit: November 03, 2005, 03:49:53 AM by JML - no vowels, disembowel your Colin Powell, throw in the towel »
my throat hurts, its hard to swallow, and my body feels like i got a serious ass beating.

LOL @ this fudgepacker
 

J @ M @ L

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1630
  • Karma: -115
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #167 on: November 03, 2005, 03:44:18 AM »
Anyways, I'm arguing with people who claim it's the soldiers' choice to bulldoze homes and not the government's... and that Zionism hasn't affected Palestinians.... LOLLLL...


You're just making shit up, everything you say has no value, because it's based on lies. When have I said it's the soldies choice to bulldoze homes? I said if innocent people were getting harmed, it was due to the soldiers error, not the government...It's not my fault you have a hard time understanding.

I never knew it was the "government" bulldozing homes and killing innocent people, I thought it was the Israeli soldiers performing these actions (PLURAL... BULLDOZING HOMES AND KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE... GET IT?). Oh wait, it was..."Government" does not approve the killings of innocent people, I Geezy has been saying that...

Don't take the I Geezy route and make false accusations because you've been proven wrong.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2005, 03:46:39 AM by JML - no vowels, disembowel your Colin Powell, throw in the towel »
my throat hurts, its hard to swallow, and my body feels like i got a serious ass beating.

LOL @ this fudgepacker
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2630
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #168 on: November 03, 2005, 07:41:00 AM »
"I don't have to believe something that is factual"
If this is your thesis statement, then you have 7 pages of posts to back this up with, and now I know why we're not getting anywhere :)

"I'm not arguing whether it's the truth.. it simply is"
Wow, I wonder why I didn't think of that one. "just like the civil war in the U.S."
PALESTINIANS HAVE BEEN AND ARE VICTIMS OF ZIONISM.... I'm not arguing whether it's truth... IT SIMPLY IS... just like the U.S. dropping bombs on Japan.

When I stated that: "Yes, you accept those as facts... and I consider "my bullshit articles" (whatever you're referring to) as facts... "  it was meant as sarcasm, which is why I used the word bullshit... I was simply showing you what you sound like... and now you agree that this is expressing one's own opinion, and not facts... so I have made my point, and your dumbass has proven it.

edit: my sig says it all  :)


LOL It's like saying " THE SKIES ARE PINK"....You have to distinguish Historical Facts from interpretations, you're trying to pass your interpretations AS THE TRUTH and I'm  pointing out the historical facts which you choose to ignore in your statements. What is factual however is that Palestinians for years now have been victims of their self-proclaimed leaders and freedom fighters and you my friend are trying to blur the discussion with your kiddy shit- THIS IS PROVEN- no denying this. You keep saying that "well yes they may have been hurt by their leadership but Israel is at greater fault..." not realising that the demeanor of their leadership and it's accomplices holds as its agenda to kill civilians on both sides, they are the ones provoking Israeli retaliation-IF THE PALESTINIAN LEADERSHIP FOUGHT TERRORISM on its own Israel would never have to preform foiling operations on Palestinian territory but since their leadership is in support of terrorism Israel has no other choice than to retaliate AND THEY EXPECT ISRAEL TO STRIKE since these terrorists live within the peaceful population and even while trying to keep these strikes focused there is no way to avoid innocent deaths (And they know it and YOU know it) completely, THE ONLY WAY TO AVOID THESE DEPLORABLE VICTIMS ON BOTH SIDES is for the Palestinian leadership to start fighting terrorism, something IT IS NOT WILLING TO DO....Do you realise that they wouldn't be building this stupid wall we both oppose if the Palestinian Leadership was willing to uproot terrorism within itself???-  According to the statistics it helped reducing terrorist acts drastically, what would you do if you were a Defence Minister of a terrorism stricken country after confronting such figures when it isn't even fully built yet, can you honestly blame them considering the lives at risk?- You seem to condemn this wall more than you condemn terrorist acts and what a wierd way condemning such acts you have when you don't even fully acknowledge their repercussions- They don't only kill Israelis they also trigger the deaths of peacful poor Palestinians who DO NOT DESERVE TO DIE and the leadership, instead of fighting Palestinian terrorism, condones it and waits for Israel to retaliate so it could later receive more indetification and compassion from this Propaganda Drenched World that bases its views upon feelings instead of exploring the causes. I have Palestinian(Israeli Arabs) friends in college and they also view the Palestinian leadership as the primary obstacle on the way to peace and since they have relatives/in laws in the autonomy they say this is a very widespread view among the Palestinian population although they WANT Israel to be more compromising since the leadership does not reflect the consensus (so it is upon Israel to protect Palestinian civilians as well according to them even though they aren't Israeli citizens as a country that upholds democracy) in the autonomy but they SEE THE TRUE CAUSES to the problem and I'm wondering what drives you in this discussion, do you simply want to be right ? "win an argument"? Come on, this is serious business, A VERY COMPLEX BUSINESS, you need to look beyond the propaganda you've been fed and beyond the disinformation....Study this and you'll find out many interesting details....The articles I brought weren't to prove you wrong,I can't correct someone who had been fed unadulterated propaganda along with disinformation for so long , I brought them so you could see for yourself!- There's nothing argumentative or polemic about them, there's nothing anti-Palestinian or pro-Israeli- only FACTS!

P.S

INFO:

Black September-
The name given to the armed conflict in September 1970 that occurred after Palestinians living in Jordan threatened the regime and provoked King Hussein to attack the PLO. The PLO was routed and thousands of Palestinians fled to Lebanon. Later a terrorist faction of the PLO took the name Black September.

YOU DON'T PLAY THE GAMES THAT ARE NOWADAYS PLAYED WITH ISRAEL WITH NON-DEMOCRATIC REGIMES....I wonder if there's a UN resolution? :)


West Bank-
Territory west of the Jordan River that Israel captured from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War. Long known as Judea and Samaria, this 2263-square mile territory is home to a Palestinian population of more than one million, as well as about 240,000 Jewish residents.

Now tell me where was their self-determination agenda when they belonged to Jordan?Was Jordan ever chraged with occupation by the "International Law", or by its representatives on this board, you guys? How exactly such figures of Jewish population would threaten such an agenda(after the west bank had been captured by Israel)? 20% of our population is Palestinian and we are an established democracy....IF THEY WERE TO CREATE A DEMOCRATIC STATE WOULD THE PALESTINIAN MAJORITY be jeopardised considering these figures and the fact the Palestinian natural increase is much-much higher?


« Last Edit: November 03, 2005, 08:33:39 AM by I TO DA GEEZY »
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

Now_Im_Not_Banned

  • Guest
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #169 on: November 03, 2005, 12:42:53 PM »
Anyways, I'm arguing with people who claim it's the soldiers' choice to bulldoze homes and not the government's... and that Zionism hasn't affected Palestinians.... LOLLLL...


You're just making shit up, everything you say has no value, because it's based on lies. When have I said it's the soldies choice to bulldoze homes? I said if innocent people were getting harmed, it was due to the soldiers error, not the government...It's not my fault you have a hard time understanding.

I never knew it was the "government" bulldozing homes and killing innocent people, I thought it was the Israeli soldiers performing these actions (PLURAL... BULLDOZING HOMES AND KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE... GET IT?). Oh wait, it was..."Government" does not approve the killings of innocent people, I Geezy has been saying that...

Don't take the I Geezy route and make false accusations because you've been proven wrong.

It's too bad you have a tough time getting what I'm saying. If I didn't know you better, I'd think you were one of the typical WCC members who can't comprehend too much. I said bulldozing homes and killing innocent people, meaning the wrong homes were being bulldozed by the Israeli soldiers, which caused innocent people to die. Do you get it yet?
 

J @ M @ L

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1630
  • Karma: -115
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #170 on: November 03, 2005, 09:28:28 PM »
Wrong homes? LOL.. what wrong homes?
When it comes to bulldozing homes, they're all the WRONG homes.
my throat hurts, its hard to swallow, and my body feels like i got a serious ass beating.

LOL @ this fudgepacker
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2630
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #171 on: November 04, 2005, 03:19:40 AM »
Jamal! I want to show you now what you've been subjected to(you and every other propaganda victim):



The picture that moved hearts: This picture was taken near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, on Friday, April 6, 2001, by Evelyn Hockstein, a Reuters photographer. A Palestinian child was caught by Israeli policemen, and, in his fear - he wet his pants. Undoubtedly, this picture is very moving, and everyone can share the pain and panic of the child, that led to such an embarrassing moment.

The Palestinians, who truly understand the power of the image, spread this picture worldwide, through the media and e-mails, but - they did not explain the photo's background. A few minutes before the above picture was taken, another Reuters photographer, Natalie Behring, had taken the following picture -- which was not as widely distributed (please notice the child in the center of the picture):





On April 13th 2001 the head of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, abuses the same child and the truth by inviting the boy to his bureau in Ramallah and gives him words of encouragement for the above acts of violence (Aliam newspaper, April 14th 2001). They pose commonly displaying the picture with the wet pants ...




On April 13th 2001 the head of the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat, abuses the same child and the truth by inviting the boy to his bureau in Ramallah and gives him words of encouragement for the above acts of violence (Aliam newspaper, April 14th 2001). They pose commonly displaying the picture with the wet pants ...






The Egypt State Information Service, Aug 5, 2003) is abusing the child and the truth on its "Photo Album" of "Scenes Disturb World conscience" - the boy is this time a "terrified Palestinian girl".


more:




The Photo that Started it All (Honest Reporting, May 2002/updated by Middle East Info Dec 9, 2003): On the day the Intifada broke out, Tuvia Grossman was riding a taxi to visit the Western Wall. He was unwittingly thrust into the international limelight -- and nearly killed in the process.

On September 30, 2000, The New York Times, Associated Press and other major media outlets published a photo of a young man -- bloodied and battered -- crouching beneath a club-wielding Israeli policeman. The caption identified him as a Palestinian victim of the recent riots -- with the clear implication that the Israeli soldier is the one who beat him.

The victim's true identity was revealed when Dr. Aaron Grossman of Chicago sent the following letter to the Times:

Regarding your picture on page A5 of the Israeli soldier and the Palestinian on the Temple Mount -- that Palestinian is actually my son, Tuvia Grossman, a Jewish student from Chicago. He, and two of his friends, were pulled from their taxicab while traveling in Jerusalem, by a mob of Palestinian Arabs, and were severely beaten and stabbed.

That picture could not have been taken on the Temple Mount because there are no gas stations on the Temple Mount and certainly none with Hebrew lettering, like the one clearly seen behind the Israeli soldier attempting to protect my son from the mob.

In response, the New York Times published a half-hearted correction, which identified Tuvia Grossman as "an American student in Israel" -- not as a Jew who was beaten by Arabs. The "correction" also noted that "Mr. Grossman was wounded" in "Jerusalem's Old City" -- although the beating actually occurred in the Arab neighborhood of Wadi al Joz, not in the Old City.

In response to public outrage at the original error and the inadequate correction, The New York Times reprinted Tuvia Grossman's picture -- this time with the proper caption -- along with a full article detailing his near-lynching at the hands of Palestinians rioters.


The photo of a bloodied Tuvia Grossman became a symbol in the struggle to ensure that Israel receives the fair media coverage that every nation deserves.

In April 2002, a District Court in Paris ordered the French daily newspaper "Liberation" and the Associated Press to pay damages to Grossman in the amount of 4,500 Euro.

The Court condemned the Associated Press for "mispresenting [Grossman] as a member of the Palestinian community," while the court censured "Liberation" for "publishing the litigious picture with a comment edited the same faulty way, giving the picture a meaning and a scope it could not have."


===== ARAB ABUSE =====

Even more remarkable is that Arab groups have adopted Grossman's photo to use in their own propaganda campaigns, cynically using a bloodied Jew as a symbol of the Palestinian struggle.



An official Egyptian government website (Egypt State Information Service) is using the Grossman photo on its "Photo Gallery" of "Scenes Disturb World conscience".


The Palestinian Information Center, www.islam.net incorporated Grossman's photo onto its homepage banner.  The graphic was removed from the site, but is reprinted here:




Additionally, some Arab groups have called for a boycott of Coca-Cola, for doing business with Israel, and have circulated a series of posters to state their case. One poster shows Grossman's bleeding face juxtaposed with the Coca-Cola logo, and the tag line: "By supporting American products, you're supporting Israel."





Snopes.com reports that, ironically, since Ramallah is home to a Coca-Cola bottling facility that employs about 400 local residents (and indirectly creates employment for hundreds more), and Coca-Cola industries throughout the Middle East are operated as local businesses, any boycott of Coca-Cola in Middle Eastern countries is likely to cause more monetary harm to Arabs and Palestinians than it is to Americans or Israelis.

Snopes.com notes another irony: Pepsi is also on the Arab boycott list, with claims that the name "Pepsi" is an acronym for 'Pay Every Penny to Save Israel' or 'Pay Every Penny to the State of Israel.' As the Associated Press once noted, "Calling Pepsi a 'Jewish product' is ironic, given that Pepsi was one of many multinationals that wouldn't do business in Israel during the 40-year Arab commercial boycott of the Jewish state."

And of course the biggest irony of all is that the image chosen in the poster to represent Palestinian suffering was none other than Tuvia Grossman who nearly beaten to death by a Palestinian mob.





PALESTINIAN WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE THROES OF ISLAMIKAZE TERRORISM

Raphael Israeli

Policy Paper No. 139, 2002

Apologia
Even prior to September 11, and certainly much more so thereafter, Muslim clerics such as radical Sheikh Qaradhawi, the Sheikh of Al-Azhar Muhammad Tantawi, and Sheikh `Akrama Sabri, the hand-picked Mufti of the Palestinian Authority, and many others who took up residence in the West, such as Sheikhs al-Bakri and al-Masri who settled in London, pronounced themselves in favor of the Islamikaze killings for the sake of Islam, especially against Israelis. Tantawi is perhaps the most duplicitous among them, for unlike others, who have been either clearly for (and this is the majority of those who articulated their thinking) or emphatically against, Tantawi has shown both by first attending the Alexandria Interfaith Conference in early 2002, where those acts of terror were denounced, but then his position constantly eroded. He came first to justify the Wafa Idris act of terror; the first perpetrated by a Palestinian woman, and then accepted in fact the indiscriminate attacks against civilians as legal. His position is particularly sensitive because while he responds to the Egyptian establishment and has to toe the official anti-terrorist line espoused by his government which appointed him, he is also in a responsible and prestigious enough location to heed the popular resentment of the masses against the US and Israel.

The involvement of women, first as victims of terror and then as its progenitors, was brought up by Syrian-born Sheikh `Umar al-Bakri, who took refuge in London and advocated at some point that “all homosexuals there ought to throw themselves down from the Big Ben,” called the British MPs “monkeys”, and vowed that the flag of Islam would “fly high on 10 Downing Street and at the Elysee”. He justified and defended the September 11 New York and Washington horrors, which for him came as a “compensation for the atrocities the US had committed against Islam”, and exhorted Muslims to unite and fight, sacrifice themselves and their wealth in order to gain access to Paradise and to make the difference between “truth and falsehood, belief and heresy, oppressors and oppressed, the alliance of Satan against the Alliance of Allah”. After the American attack against Afghanistan was launched, he issued a fatwa against Pakistani President Musharraf and other Muslim leaders who let their territory be used by Americans against a fellow Muslim state. In that verdict, for what it is worth, he raised, inter alia, many aspects of the status of women in Islam and in general, in the context of what we call terrorism and he insists on dubbing jihad. For him, the Muslims who collaborated with the US were murtaddun (apostates), if “at all they were Muslims to start with”, and since they are involved in the war against Muslims, the sentence of murtadd harbi (an apostate who should be fought) applies to them, to wit:

His life is free prey [it is permissible to kill him],
 

His marriage becomes invalid, as does his guardianship of his children and relatives,
 

His property is free prey and he will not be able to bequeath it,
 

He cannot be buried in a Muslim cemetery,
 

He must be treated with animosity and hatred...,
 

There is no difference between a man and a woman... It is permissible to shed the blood of a woman who is a heretic (harbiyya), even if her fighting is limited to singing... Thus acted the Prophet against the fighting women of the Qureish tribe. He permitted their blood to be spilled and even ordered them killed, although he generally prohibited killing women.

This verdict, which allowed the killing of Muslim women under certain circumstances, appeared under the emblem of “The Shari`ah Court of the United Kingdom”, and was signed jointly by al-Bakri himself, under his title of “Shari`ah Court Judge in London”, and Muhammad al-Musa`ari, the Secretary General of the Committee for Protection of Legitimate Rights in Saudi Arabia, which lends to it authority and respectability. Its English version, however, was slightly different and signed by “Muslim Jurists from Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United Kingdom”, with the names of the original two signatories, al-Bakri and al-Musa`ari, appearing at the bottom, with their phone numbers for further inquiries. In this version, the Qur`anic verse was added which threatened that the punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and strive to make mischief in the land, is only this – that they should be murdered or crucified, or their hands and feet should be cut off on opposing sides, or they should be imprisoned.

And the section about the women of Qureish who were killed by the Prophet, was replaced by a paragraph that reads:

Therefore we ask Muslims with the capability, especially the armies of Muslim countries, to move quickly and to capture those apostates and criminals involved in these crimes, especially the ruler of Pakistan, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and Rabbani of Afghanistan.

The exposure of women to harrowing physical mutilation, on authority of the precedent set by the Prophet, though it was concealed in the English version, where women were omitted from those horrors, together with the determination to dissolve marriages of “apostate” men, naturally had an impact on the developing debate on the active participation of Muslim women (and by extension also children), in the Islamikaze attacks as actors, or on suffering the consequences thereof as passive spectators. For once the taboo was lifted on involving women (and children) in the course of Muslim violence during this brand of jihad, or in the hardships that resulted, no obstacles could be envisaged any longer for exempting them from taking part in that struggle. Here, we shall focus on Palestinian women and children, because their people, who have been engaged in a murderous battle against Israel, have become the chief model of Islamikaze in the Muslim world. The Palestinians have emerged in effect, not only as the most active agents in the implementation of the idea, but have also widened the circle of its membership beyond the few self-sacrificing radicals, into a legitimate national form of struggle in which women and children have taken the initiative, or were led, to partake. Unlike al-Bakri and al-Masri’s fantasies where they articulate their wishful thinking to confront the world, bring down the West, kindle a world Islamic revolution and subvert their Western countries of exile from within, Palestinian clerics are unified by the theme of what they perceive as a concrete, daily and all-pervasive national struggle to which they are pushed to provide theological responses. And once they sanctified Islamikaze as a legitimate form of struggle, indeed encouraged it, they could not exclude women and children from it, nor refute them when they pressed for participation. Other Muslim clerics were also dragged into the debate, but let us first focus on the Palestinian clerics’ stated positions on Islamikaze, which by necessity generated the inclusion, first of individuals who did not belong to the Islamists of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but were members of the avowedly “secular” Fatah and al-Aqsa Brigades, followed by women and then children, in those horrendous acts of terror.










« Last Edit: November 04, 2005, 04:03:38 AM by I TO DA GEEZY »
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2630
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #172 on: November 04, 2005, 03:25:32 AM »
Follow up(to the above^, another example):




"Lebanese model Nathaly Fadlallah models the 'Dress of Revolution,' designed by Saudi haute couture designer Yehya al-Bashri. The dress was part of a collection featured at an Arab fashion festival in Beirut on September 17, 2002 to demonstrate solidarity with the Palestinian uprising against Israel."

The dress is covered with faux bloodstains from the waist to the knees, and below the knees it shows an Israeli tank against a background of burning buildings.

Needless to say, in Saudi Arabia, the home of the designer, the same woman would be imprisoned as a "prostitute" for daring to dress like that.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2005, 03:27:55 AM by I TO DA GEEZY »
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2630
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #173 on: November 04, 2005, 03:38:14 AM »
And even more to the point:

Delegitimization and Antisemitism
t Is anti-Zionism different from antisemitism?


Israel, as a democracy, is receptive to fair and legitimate criticism. However, all too often Israel is singled out and held up to standards not applied to any other state. Although valid criticism of Israel has absolutely no connection to antisemitism, some of the unreasonable condemnation has its roots in antisemitic attitudes, often disguised as "anti-Zionism." Just as in the past Jews were the scapegoat for many problems, today there are attempts to turn Israel into an international pariah.

"Antisemitism" is the name given to the form of racism practiced against the Jewish people. Though the literal interpretation of antisemitism would appear to denote hostility to all Semitic peoples, this is a fallacy. The term was originally coined in Germany in 1879 to describe the European anti-Jewish campaigns of that era, and it soon came to define the persecution or discrimination against Jews throughout the ages.

Hatred of the Jewish people is an age-old phenomenon, traditionally associated with expressions of xenophobia and religious intolerance. Antisemitism has taken different forms and used various motifs throughout history. In modern times, it has been promoted by extreme nationalistic and even racist ideologies. Severe antisemitism exists in Arab countries today.


Egyptian version (1994) of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
   
Egyptian version (2001) of antisemitic tract "The International Jew"
 


Antisemitism reached its peak in the Holocaust. Over 6 million Jews (one third of the world's Jewish population) were brutally and systematically murdered during World War II.

Modern antisemitism in Europe, after being repressed for decades, has erupted with renewed fury in recent years in a new form: "anti-Zionism," or hatred of the State of Israel.

Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people - an expression of their legitimate aspiration to self-determination and national independence. The Zionist movement was founded to provide an ancient people with a sovereign state of its own, in its ancestral homeland. Israel is the modern political embodiment of this age-old dream.

The goal of anti-Zionism is to undermine the legitimacy of Israel, thereby denying the Jewish people their place in the community of nations. Denigration of Zionism is therefore an attack on Israel's basic right to exist as a nation equal to all other nations, in violation of one of the fundamental principles of international law.

Just as antisemitism denies Jews their rights as individuals in society, anti-Zionism attacks the Jewish people as a nation, on the international level. Similar to the use of "the Jew" as a scapegoat for many a society's problems, Israel has been singled out for disproportionate and one-sided condemnation in the international arena.

Anti-Zionism is often manifested as attacks on Israel in the United Nations and other international forums. Over the years, many a meeting and event of the international community has been exploited as an opportunity to condemn Israel - no matter what the subject matter, no matter how tenuous the tie to the conflict in the Middle East.

Moreover, it is no coincidence that the recent censure of Israel in international forums and the media has been accompanied by a sharp increase in antisemitic incidents in many parts of the world.

As a nation dedicated to the principles of democracy, Israel believes that criticism, whether by other nations or our own people, is a powerful force for positive change. However, there is a clear distinction between legitimate calls for improvement and the attempt to delegitimize Israel by consistently singling it out and holding it up to standards not applied to other states. All this ignores the context in which Israel must strive to survive in the face of violent attacks against its citizens and, all too often, against its very existence.
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?
 

I TO DA GEEZY

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2630
  • Karma: 185
  • Humankind will thrive on compassion
Re: Arafat Death Probe Inconclusive
« Reply #174 on: November 04, 2005, 04:36:16 AM »
And to be even more exact:


What is the status of the territories?

Control over the West Bank and Gaza passed to Israel in 1967 in a war of self-defense. For nearly a quarter of a century afterwards, the Palestinians rejected every Israeli overture, missing opportunity after opportunity to peacefully resolve the dispute through negotiation. Yet as long as the future status of the West Bank and Gaza is subject to negotiation, Israel's claim to these disputed territories is no less valid than that of the Palestinians.



 
 
Israel's current presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip dates back to 1967 and the Six Day War. However, these territories had formed the cradle of Jewish civilization during biblical times and Jewish communities existed there over thousands of years. Modern-day Israel has deep ties to the many historical sites located in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Yet Israel's claim to these territories is based not only on its ancient ties, religious beliefs and security needs; it is also firmly grounded in international law and custom.

It is important to remember that Israel's control of the territories began as a result of a war of self-defense, fought after Israel's very existence was threatened. It has continued due to the intransigence of Israel's Arab neighbors, who steadfastly rejected Israel's many offers of peace, including its post-Six Day War message that it would exchange most of the territory in return for peace. In 1979 Egypt and in 1994 Jordan finally signed peace treaties with Israel. But the Palestinians have yet to do so.

It has been asserted that Israel's continued presence in the territories violates UN Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967, one of the cornerstones of the peace process. This allegation ignores both the language and the original intent of 242. The framers of this resolution realized that the pre-1967 borders were indefensible, and deliberately chose to use the term withdrawal "from territories" (and not "from all the territories" as the Palestinians claim) in order to indicate the need for changing any future borders.

Moreover, Resolution 242 (and Resolution 338 of 1973) places obligations on both sides. The Arab regimes cannot demand that Israel unilaterally withdraw while they ignore their own responsibilities and the need for negotiations. They deliberately overlook the fact that 242 calls for the "termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and the "right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force."

Israel's presence in the territories is often incorrectly referred to as an "occupation." However, under international law, occupation occurs in territories that have been taken from a recognized sovereign. The Jordanian rule over the West Bank and the Egyptian rule over the Gaza Strip during the years 1948-1967 resulted from a war of aggression aimed at destroying the newly established Jewish State. Their attacks plainly violated UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (also known as the Partition Plan). Accordingly, the Egyptian and Jordanian seizures of the territories were never recognized by the international community. As neither territory had a prior legitimate sovereign, under international law these areas cannot be considered as occupied and their most accurate description would be that of disputed territories.

Palestinian spokespersons not only claim that the territory is occupied, they also allege that occupation is - by definition - illegal. However, international law does not prohibit situations of occupation. Rather, it attempts to regulate such situations with international agreements and conventions. Therefore, claims that the so-called Israeli "occupation" is illegal - without regard either to its cause or the factors that have led to its continuation - are baseless allegations without foundation in international law.

Palestinian efforts to present Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as the primary cause of the conflict ignore history. Palestinian terrorism predates Israel's control of the territories (and even the existence of the State of Israel itself). The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded in 1964, three years before Israel's presence in the territories began. Moreover, Palestinian terrorism has often peaked during those periods when a negotiated settlement was closest at hand, whether at the height of the Oslo process in the mid-1990s or after Israel's unprecedented peace proposals at Camp David and Taba in 2000.

The West Bank and Gaza Strip are best regarded as disputed territory over which there are competing claims that should be resolved in peace talks. The final status of these disputed territories can only be determined through negotiations between the parties. Attempts to force a solution through terrorism are ethically indefensible and only serve to encourage further violence and terrorism.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2005, 04:47:51 AM by I TO DA GEEZY »
We are all human beings isn't that a good enough reason for peace?