The final solution to the Middle East conflict.

by peace. Tue Apr 20, 2004 12:45

The United Nations Security Council has adopted no less than 87 resolutions concerning Palestine since 1948.
The resolutions focus on achieving peace in the Middle East. They involve the situation in the Occupied Territories, including Jerusalem, illegal Israeli practices and Israeli attacks against Palestinian targets.

Historically, Israel has enjoyed little support from the United Nations, as its government has long violated most of the resolutions.

So what exactly has the UN resolved?

Resolutions by year

1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1940s

Resolution 181
Adopted by the General Assembly on 29 November 1947
Approved by the United Nations at its 128th plenary meeting (33 votes in favour, 13 votes against, with 10 abstentions)
It established a plan for partition, with economic union. It took note of the declaration by the United Kingdom, as the mandatory power for Palestine at the time, to complete its evacuation of Palestine by 1 August 1948.

Resolution 194
Adopted by the General Assembly on 11 December 1948
The UN approved it at its 186th plenary (fully attended) meeting. A committee of the assembly resolved that France, Turkey and the US should constitute the conciliation commission. It established that they should have the following functions:
(a) To assume the functions given to the UN mediator on Palestine by resolution 186 (S-2) of the General Assembly of 14 May 1948;
(b) To carry out the specific functions and directives given to it by the present resolution and such additional functions and directives as may be given to it by the General Assembly or by the Security Council;
(c) To undertake, upon the request of the Security Council, any of the functions now assigned to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine or to the United Nations Truce Commission by resolutions of the Security Council; upon such request to the Conciliation Commission by the Security Council with respect to all the remaining functions of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine under Security Council resolutions, the office of the Mediator shall be terminated

Resolution 50
Adopted by the Security Council on 29 May 1948
Adopted at 310th meeting (draft was voted on in parts, no vote taken on text as a whole)
This called for a cessation of all military activities for four weeks, and urged all governments and authorities concerned to take every possible precaution for the protection of the holy places and the city of Jerusalem.

It instructed the UN mediator for Palestine, in cooperation with the Truce Commission, to supervise the observance of these provisions; and decided that they should be provided with a sufficient number of military observers.

It decided that, if either party or both rejected the resolution, the situation in Palestine would be considered with a view to action under Chapter 7 of the charter of the UN.

Resolution 54
Adopted by the Security Council on 15 July 1948
Adopted at 338th meeting (7-1-3) (one against was Syria, three abstentions were Argentina, Ukrainian SSR, USSR)
It determined that the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter of the UN.

It ordered all governments and concerned authorities to desist from further military action; and declared that failure to do so would lead to further action under Chapter 7;

It ordered, as a matter of urgent necessity, an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Jerusalem; and instructed the UN mediator to continue efforts towards the demilitarisation of Jerusalem.

Resolution 61
Adopted by the Security Council on 4 November 1948
Adopted at 377th meeting (9-1-1) (one against was Ukrainian SSR; one abstention was USSR)
It called for the withdrawal of forces and for the establishment, through negotiations, of permanent truce lines and neutral or demilitarised zones in order to ensure full observance of the truce. A committee of the council was also appointed to advise the acting mediator.

Resolution 62
Adopted by the Security Council on 16 November 1948
Adopted at 381st meeting (draft was voted on in parts, no vote taken on the text as a whole.)
It decided that, in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine, and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace, an armistice line should be established in all sectors of Palestine.

Resolution 66
Adopted by the Security Council on 29 December 1948
Adopted at 396th meeting (8-0-3) (three abstentions were Ukrainian SSR, USSR, US)
It called upon the governments concerned to order an immediate ceasefire and to implement, without further delay, resolution 61 (1948) of the council, and to allow the complete supervision of the truce by the UN observers.

Resolution 73
Adopted by the Security Council on 11 August 1949
Adopted at 437th meeting (9-0-2) (two abstentions were Ukrainian SSR, USSR)
It called upon the governments and authorities concerned to achieve agreement, at an early date, on final settlement of all outstanding questions between them.

The council also found that the armistice agreements constituted an important step towards peace in Palestine.

It decided that the acting mediator be relieved of any further responsibilities under the Security Council resolutions; and arranged for the UN Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) to assist in the supervision of the armistice agreements.

5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1950s
Resolution 101
Adopted by the Security Council on 24 November 1953
Adopted at 642nd meeting (9-0-2) (two abstentions were Lebanon, USSR.)
The council found that the retaliatory action at Qibya (Jordan), taken by the armed force of Israel on 14-15 October 1953 and all such actions, constituted a violation of the ceasefire provisions of Security Council resolution 54 (1948) and were inconsistent with the parties’ obligations under the general armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan and the Charter of the UN.

It recalled to the governments of Israel and Jordan their obligations under Security Council resolutions and the general armistice agreement to prevent all acts of violence on either side of the demarcation line

It reaffirmed that it was essential, in order to achieve progress by peaceful means towards a lasting settlement of the issues outstanding between them, that the parties abide by their obligations under the general armistice agreement and the resolutions of the Security Council; and requested the Secretary-General to consider, with the chief of staff, the best ways of strengthening UNTSO.

5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1960s
Resolution 228
Adopted by the Security Council on 25 November 1966
Adopted at 1328th meeting (14-01) (one abstention was New Zealand)
It condemned the loss of life and heavy damage to property resulting from the serious Israeli military action that took place in Southern Hebron (Al-Samu’) on 13 November 1966.

It censured Israel for this large-scale military action in violation of the UN charter and of the general armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan; and emphasized that the council would have to consider further and more effective steps as envisioned by the charter to ensure that such violent acts would not be repeated.

Resolution 237
Adopted by the Security Council on 14 June 1967
Adopted at 1361st meeting - unanimously

It called upon the government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants of the areas where military operations had taken place and to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who had fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities.

It recommended to the governments concerned the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles governing the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons at time of war, contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949; and requested the Secretary-General to follow the effective implementation of this resolution and to report to the council.

Resolution 242
Adopted by the Security Council on 22 November 1967
Adopted 1382nd meeting - unanimously

It affirmed that the fulfilment of charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles: withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict, termination of all claims or states of hostility, and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area, and their right to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

It also affirmed the necessity for guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area; for achieving a just settlement for the refugee problem, and for guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every state in the area through measures including the establishment of demilitarised zones.

It requested the Secretary-General to designate a special representative to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution.

Resolution 252
Adopted by the Security Council on 21 May 1968
Adopted at 1426th meeting (13-0-2) (two abstentions were Canada, US.)
It condemned the failure of Israel to comply with General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967; and considered that all legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel, including the expropriation of land and properties, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem, were invalid and could not change its status.

It urgently called upon Israel to repeal from all such measures taken and to desist from further actions that intended to change the status of Jerusalem.

Resolution 267
Adopted by the Security Council on 3 July 1969
Adopted at 1485th meeting - unanimously

It reaffirmed the established principle that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible; and deplored the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council.

It censured in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the city of Jerusalem; and urgently called once more on Israel to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect in the future.

It determined that in the event of a negative response or no response from Israel, the Security Council should reconvene without delay to consider what further action should be taken on the matter.

Resolution 271
Adopted by the Security Council on 15 September 1969
Adopted at 1512th meeting (11-0-4) (four abstentions were Colombia, Finland, Paraguay, US.)
It grieved at the extensive damage caused by the fire-starting in the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on 21 August 1969 under the military occupation of Israel; and recognised that any act of destruction or profanation of holy places, religious buildings and sites in Jerusalem or any encouragement of such act may seriously endanger international peace and security.

It called upon Israel to scrupulously observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation and to refrain from causing any hindrance to the discharge of the established functions of the Supreme Muslim Council of Jerusalem.

It condemned the failure of Israel to comply with resolutions stated before.

5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1970s
Resolution 338
Adopted by the Security Council on 22 October 1973
Adopted at 1747th meeting - unanimously

It called for an immediate ceasefire and termination of all military activities.

It called upon the parties concerned to start, immediately after the ceasefire, the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts.

It decided that negotiations should start, immediately and concurrently with the ceasefire, between the parties concerned under appropriate patronage aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.

Resolution 446
Adopted by the Security Council on 22 March 1979
Adopted at 2134th meeting (12-0-3) (three abstentions were Norway, UK, US)
It determined that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 had no legal validity and constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

It called once more upon Israel, as the occupying force, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

The council also called on Israel not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.

It established a commission consisting of three members of the Security Council to examine the situation relating to settlements and requests the Commission to submit a report to the Security Council.

5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1980s
Resolution 465
Adopted by the Security Council on 1 March 1980
Adopted at 2203rd meeting - unanimously
It accepted the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the Commission of the Security Council (on settlements); and determined that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, had no legal validity.

The council also determined that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constituted a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and also constituted a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

It strongly deplored the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices; and called upon Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

It called upon all states not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requested from the commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, and to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with the intention of ensuring the protection of those important natural resources.

Resolution 471
Adopted by the Security Council on 5 June 1980
Adopted at 2226th meeting (14-0-1) (one abstention was U.S.)
It expressed deep concern that the Jewish settlers in the occupied Arab territories were allowed to carry arms, thus enabling them to perpetrate crimes against the civilian population.

It called for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes and condemned the assassination attempts on the lives of the mayors of Nablus, Ram Allah and Al-Bireh.

It expressed deep concern that Israel, as an occupying force, had failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

It called once again upon all states not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and reaffirmed the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.

Resolution 605
Adopted by the Security Council on 5 June 1980
Adopted at 2777th meeting (14-0-1) (one abstention was US.)
Taking into account the need to consider measures for the impartial protection of the Palestinian civilian population under Israeli occupation, the resolution strongly deplored those policies and practices of Israel, which violated the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, particularly the opening of fire by the Israeli army resulting in the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians.

It called, once again, upon Israel, the occupying force, to abide immediately and thoroughly by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Resolution 636
Adopted by the Security Council on 6 July 1989
Adopted at 2870th meeting (14-0-1) (one abstention was US.)
It condemned the continuing deportation of Palestinian civilians by Israel, and called upon Israel, the occupying force, to ensure the safe and immediate return of deported Palestinians to the occupied Palestinian territories.

It called upon Israel to desist from deporting any other Palestinian civilians; and reaffirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention was applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.

5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990s
Resolution 904
Adopted by the Security Council on 18 March 1994
Adopted at 3351st meeting – unanimously (the draft was voted on in parts, with the US abstaining. No vote was taken on the text as a whole.)

It reaffirmed its relevant resolutions, which stated the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 to the territories occupied by Israel in June 1967. Thereby, the resolution strongly condemned the massacre in Hebron committed against Palestinian worshippers in Al-Ibrahimi Mosque, on 25 February 1994, during the holy month of Ramadan, and its aftermath, which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others.

It called upon Israel, the occupying force, to implement measures, including inter alia (confiscation of arms), with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers; and called for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians throughout the occupied territory, including, inter alia, a temporary international or foreign presence, which was provided for in the declaration of principles within the context of the ongoing peace process.

It requested the co-sponsors of the peace process, the US and the Russian Federation, to continue their efforts to revitalise the peace process, and to undertake the necessary support for the implementation of the above-mentioned measures.

It called for the implementation of the Declaration of Principles, signed by the government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation on 13 September 1993 in Washington DC without delay.

5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000s
Resolution 1322
Adopted by the Security Council on 7 October 2000
Adopted at 4205th meeting (14-0-1) (one abstention was US.)
It condemned the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent violence there and at other holy places, as well as in other areas throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 1968, resulting in more than 80 Palestinian deaths and many other casualties.

It condemned acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life. And called upon Israel, the occupying force, to abide thoroughly by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war.

It called for the immediate cessation of violence, and for all necessary steps to be taken to ensure that violence ends, that new provocative actions are avoided, and that the situation returns to normality in a way that promotes the prospects for the Middle East peace process.

It stressed the importance of establishing a mechanism for a speedy and objective inquiry into the tragic events of September 2000, with the aim of preventing their repetition.

5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution 1397
Adopted by the Security Council on 12 March 2002
Adopted by a vote of 14-0-1 (Syria abstention)
Recalling all its previous resolutions, in particular resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), the resolution affirmed a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognised borders.

It expressed its grave concern at the continuation of the tragic and violent events that have taken place since September 2000, especially the recent attacks and the increased number of casualties.

It stressed the need for all concerned to ensure the safety of civilians, and to respect the universally accepted norms of international humanitarian law.

It demanded immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction.

It called upon the Israeli and Palestinian sides and their leaders to cooperate in the implementation of the Tenet work plan and Mitchell report recommendations with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement.

Resolution 1402
Adopted by the Security Council on 30 March 2002
Adopted by a vote of 14-0-0 (Syria did not take part in the vote)
It expressed grave concern at the further deterioration of the situation, including the recent suicide bombings in Israel and the military attack against the headquarters of the president of the Palestinian Authority.

It called upon both parties to move immediately to a meaningful ceasefire, and requested the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Palestinian cities, including Ram Allah. and called upon the parties to cooperate fully with Special Envoy Zinni, and others, to implement the Tenet security work plan as a first step towards implementation of the Mitchell committee recommendations, with the aim of resuming negotiations on a political settlement.

It restated the demand in resolution 1397 for immediate cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction.

Resolution 1405
Adopted by the Security Council on 19 April 2002 (adopted unanimously)
It concerned by the dreadful humanitarian situation of the Palestinian civilian population, especially, reports from the Jenin refugee camp of an unknown number of deaths and destruction.

It called for the lifting of restrictions imposed, particularly in Jenin, on the operations of humanitarian organisations, including the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.

It stressed the need for all concerned to ensure the safety of civilians, and to respect the universally accepted norms of international law.

It emphasised the urgency of the Palestinian civilian population to access medical and humanitarian organisations.

It welcomed the initiative of the Secretary-General to develop accurate information regarding recent events in the Jenin refugee camp through a fact-finding team and requested him to keep the Security Council informed.

Resolution 1435
Adopted by the Security Council on 24 September 2002
Adopted by a vote of 14-0-1 (US abstained)
It condemned all terrorist attacks against any civilians, including the terrorist bombings in Israel on 18 and 19 September 2002 and in a Palestinian school in Hebron on 17 September 2002.

It expressed serious concern at the reoccupation of the headquarters of the president of the Palestinian Authority in the City of Ram Allah that took place on 19 September 2002 and demanded its immediate end.

It expressed alarm at the reoccupation of Palestinian cities as well as the severe restrictions imposed on the movement of persons and goods, and was gravely concerned at the humanitarian crisis being faced by the Palestinian people.

It reiterated the need for respect in all circumstances of international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention.

It demanded that Israel immediately cease measures in and around Ram Allah, including the destruction of Palestinian civilian and security infrastructure. It also demanded the expeditious withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces from Palestinian cities towards the return to positions held prior to September 2000.

by Farine Noir Tue Apr 20, 2004 13:34

It's just a talking shop. Nothing gets done without the consent of the suoerpowers of which there is only one at the moment.

by al awda Tue Apr 20, 2004 14:55

the question is 'how long do illegal murdering settlers have to stay on land that they stole at the end of a gun before the previous owners forgive them and decide that they are happy with their new homes in refugee camps dispersed across the arab world and further'

Illegitimate european planters have colonised the world and peace in the target countries only arrived when either they accepted the indigenous population's right to co-exist, or more frequently they exterminated the indigenous people entirely.

The land must be returned, the refugees must be allowed to go home. Where the settlers go after that, is a different question.

if the right to return was granted, it would take time for the wounds to heal (on both sides), but both palestinians and israelis could then start to look forward to living together as equals

there are two options for peace in the region - a negotiated, democratic and egalitarian one state solution or the extermination of the palestinian or israeli people.

by John Boy Walton Tue Apr 20, 2004 15:32

Hey don’t get me wrong I’m not against a negotiated, democratic and egalitarian one state solution.
If it were possible.
But I don’t think you can say the alternative is the extermination of innocent Palestinians or Israelis.
Why does it have to come to that?

We live in the supposed civilized 21st century A.D not the 21st century B.C.

But the fact is that Hamas, clearly the most dominant political organization in Gaza , is against any negotiated, democratic and egalitarian one state solution.
Just look up their web site or read what they have actually said – basically a forced explusion or genocidal massacre of Jews and the establishment of an undemocratic Islamic regime oppressing Arabs – amputation of limbs, stoning of adulterers and execution for apostasy.

Ireland was planted by the British for hundreds of years by colonists. Northern Irelanders consider themselves full blooded British not Irish. Their ancestors came into Gaelic lands and uprooted the native Irish.
Imagine if Irish advocated killing and murdering a million or more Northerners and sending them back to the British mainland?

There is so much bad blood and fanaticism in Palestine toward Israel that the idea of refugees returning to their former lands is just absurd.
First of all you would need Israeli agreement which Arabs wouldn’t recognise anyway. They would sooner fight than let that happen.

Be serious and realistic for a moment.

“where the settlers go after that, is a different question”. What do you mean? Do you advocate uprooting millions of people. Where to? By force?
That’s called ethnic cleansing.

The Israelis have done it to the Arabs. Does that make it right to do to them?

What has been done is done.
Sanity is what is needed.

by derek Tue Apr 20, 2004 15:49

A day after Israeli troops killed its second leader within a single month, the Islamist terrorist organization Hamas put on a brave face. The Israelis “are dreaming,” if they think this would weaken Hamas, announced Ismail Haniyeh to a crowd of over 70,000 mourners at the funeral for Abdel Aziz Rantisi. “Every time a martyr falls,” Haniyeh insisted, “Hamas is strengthened.”
This sort of boosterism and puffery has a long history among Palestinians. The last time Israeli forces did real damage to the Palestinian war machine, in May 2002, for example, Khaled Meshaal of Hamas announced that the Israeli devastation was actually “a Palestinian victory that lifted the morale of our people.” Not to be outdone, Yasir Arafat of the Palestinian Authority (PA) claimed that same month, “The more destruction I see, the stronger I get.”
These leaders may be fooling themselves by pretending that defeat is victory, but growing numbers of Palestinians are wising up to the bitter realities of losing a war. Their mood has darkened since February 2001, when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon came to office intent to establish that violence against Israel does not work.
The results have deeply affected Palestinian life. In one town of 5,000 on the West Bank, a resident told the Times of London how his town has been “isolated from the whole world, even from other villages. Everybody has to be in their homes by 6 p.m., and the Israeli patrols come around every day to check.”
Protracted isolation has led to steep economic decline. Recent PA figures show that 84 percent of the Palestinian population lives in poverty, as defined by the World Bank, four times the number that did so before the Palestinians stepped up the violence in late 2000. PA residents number 3.5 million and their economy produces $2.5 billion a year, meaning the average per capita income is $700 (U.S.) a year.
A World Bank study in 2003 found that investment in the PA declined from about $1.5 billion in 1999 to $140 million in 2002. The United Nations found in 2003 that Palestinians have turned to subsistence agriculture – growing their own food – in place of the more sophisticated work they had previously been doing.
Commenting on the situation, the UN special envoy to the region, Terje Roed-Larsen, describes the Palestinian economy as “devastated.”
(That said, conditions should not be exaggerated. Foreign aid adds $800 million a year, bringing annual per capita income to about $1,000 – or about the same as Syria and higher than India and all but a few sub-Saharan countries. Palestinians are thus by no means the poorest people in the world.)
In a word, Sharon’s tough policies have established that terrorism damages Palestinian interests even more than it does Israeli ones. This has led some analysts deeply hostile to Israel to recognize that the “second intifada” was a grievous error. Violence “just went haywire,” says Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al-Quds University. An “unmitigated disaster,” journalist Graham Usher calls it. A “crime against the Palestinian people,” adds an Arab diplomat.
After the execution of Hamas’s other leader, Ahmed Yassin, last month, sixty prominent Palestinians urged restraint in a newspaper ad, arguing that violence would provoke strong Israeli responses that would obstruct aspirations to build an independent “Palestine.” Instead, the signatories called for “a peaceful, wise intifada.”
Ordinary Palestinians, too, are drawing the salutary conclusion that murdering Israelis brings them no benefits. “We wasted three years for nothing, this uprising didn’t accomplish anything,” says Mahar Tarhir, 25, an aluminum-store owner. “Anger and disillusionment have replaced the fighting spirit that once propelled the Palestinian movement,” finds Soraya Sarhaddi Nelson, a reporter for Knight Ridder.
As for Israelis, as early as July 2003 the military brass reached the conclusion that Israel was achieving victory. More sharply, Israeli analyst Asher Susser concluded in the Middle East Quarterly back then that the Palestinian effort to break the Israeli spirit through terror “has failed” and resorting to force “was a catastrophic mistake, the worst the Palestinians have made since 1948.”
In this context, rapidly eliminating two Hamas chieftains in a row deepens Palestinian perceptions that Israel’s will to defend itself is strong, its military arm long, and that terrorism is tactically wrong. Perhaps more Palestinians will realize the time has come to accept the existence of the Jewish state.

by Northern Eye Tue Apr 20, 2004 16:04

Tell the 100,000 people who came onto the streets for their leaders funeral and chanted for death to Israel that they are defeated. Go on. Tell them.

All that buffoonry about Sharon crushing the Palestinian spirit has been proved to be rubbish as they're determined to fight more that ever for their freedom. After all, whats the alternative? People with nothing are always going to fight for something.

The only people Sharon is defeating at the end of the day is his own. Look what his brutal tatics have done to Israel in the eyes of the world. He's made it the most hated country in the world and that hate will stay for a generation. It can't keep going on the way it is now forever and its Nazi tatics will backfire when it finds itself running out of friends. Remember, the right wing Christian junta won't always be in the White House and the next Democratic admin will have at least a little more sense that the current Republican one has.

by John Boy Walton Tue Apr 20, 2004 18:00

John Kerry isn't.
He's Jewish.
His ancestors came were Jews named Kohn. His paternal grandfather Fritz came from a Austrian town which is now in Czechslovakia.
Democrats have traditionally been top heavy with East Coast Jews paticularly in New York.

So don't kid yourself about the White House changing its view on Israel.

100,000 came out at the latest Hamas leaders funeral screaming "Death to Israel!"
They were calling for genocide against the Jews who they call "pigs and monkeys."
Do you support that do you?

I thought Trotsky was a Jew?
Was he a monkey?

You really hate Jews don't you pal?

You must hate Woody Allen and Steven Speilberg and Harrison Ford?
Do you hate Bob Dylan too?
How about that he/she who won the Eurovision?
I bet you'd like to he/she stoned?

You know these crazy Hamas people hate Roman Catholics too?
sorry you didn't know that!

by Northern Eye Tue Apr 20, 2004 18:31

Please tell me where I ever said I hate Jews. Tell me or apologise. I only stated the fact - a news fact. 100,000 people came out on the strreet and chanted 'Death to Israel'. Its a fact. I was just using it as an example to rubbish the poster who was trying to claim that the Palestinians were in effect broken. In fact, don't apologise. You're a moron, just like anybody else who screams' Jew hater' at the critics of the fat Nazi in Jerusalem.

The Democrats are still whores and corrupt idiots. They're just not as bad as the Bushites. Kerry's a prick, but he's probably got a bit more wit that the crazy religious Bush. By the way, he's also a taig.

by Liam O Heachthigeirn Wed Apr 21, 2004 13:17

Johnny Boy, your response was a typical response to anything negative being said against Israel. This sort of scaremongering by crying "victim" doesnt wash with me.

The fact is, that Palestinian people are victims of a great unjustice which is not generallt presented to us properly in the media.
America plays a big part in this but the main problem is Israel . Israel obviously hates Palestinians due to the ammount of military force used against them, could this be a form of nazi-ism?
Well are there Ghettos in Palestine?
Is there an oppression of a particular people going on?
Try and answer thise questions honestly...