Justice for Palestine: Irish Times

by for Gaza Sat Jan 31, 2009 22:22

Click on the link above to see the full-page statement - "Irish Call for Justice for Palestine" - which appeared in today's Irish Times (31st January) as p.5, replete with ca. 300 signatures. Signatories include 5 MEPs (from de Rossa to Harkin), a bundle of TDs (FF, SF, Independent and Labour), some MLAs, Gerry Adams and Tony Benn, the presidents or general secretaries of Siptu, Impact, Nipsa, Unite, Mandate and other trade union bodies, professors, activists, musicians, cultural figures, and citizens.

Please re-publish, circulate and re-circulate far and wide - especially to networks you my have in the US, UK, Australia, Europe, the Arab world, Israel etc., and to Jewish democratic or anti-Zionist groups. Journals and magazines should be encouraged to reprint it and can presume (on the basis of this publication) to have the permission to do so.

by MMcK Sun Feb 01, 2009 01:09

The advert that appeared in todays Irish Times is a disgrace. It costs €25,900 for a full page advert in the Irish Times!

So we have a long list of people who paid nearly €26,000 to have their names appear in the paper, to tell the world of their outrage and pain....Bleeding hearts.

Why did they not donate the money and pay for much needed aid for the people in Gaza?

€26,000 would provide much needed resources for a lot of Gazans. No instead they would prefer to have an ad in the Times. To be able to tell their firends and peers, oh by the way did you see that ad in the paper!

This should not be broadcast as the previous poster said, the IPSC should be ashamed of itself for wasting this money on an ad that will not make one iota of difference to the lives of the Palestinians.

The IPSC should also be ashamed because it allowed right-wing politicians from the likes of Fianna Fail and the Greens to add their names and money to this advert. You take cash and support from people who are members of a government that has actively supported the US war in Iraq. Are Palestinian lives more important that the lives of Iraqis?

by Sam Sun Feb 01, 2009 01:51

The ad is designed to show the strength of feelin across all sectors of Irish society against the treatment of Palestinians by the Israelis.

If you wish to organise an advert about Iraq, your're more than welcome to. Denigrating those who spent their own money to demonstate their disgust at Israel's actions is appalling however.
I doubt if those people who paid for the advert sent nothing to Gaza either. Its just your idiotic speculation.

by shea Sun Feb 01, 2009 03:37

it was done before for the colombia 3. in the early day's an add appeared with people from all cornors signing it. think it worked in that it alloud a little did of reason to seep into the discussion of there arrest and chance of a fair tria, in the case of gaza iam not sure what it's intended to achieve, maybe keep it in the headlines a bit longer, don't allow the pressier on isreal to dwindal, maybe? are they advertiseing a series of concerts in vicar st in a few weeks to raise aid for gaza.

by A Mick in America Sun Feb 01, 2009 06:01

MMCK Said :

" This should not be broadcast as the previous poster said, the IPSC should be ashamed of itself for wasting this money on an ad that will not make one iota of difference to the lives of the Palestinians. "

I dont expect this to make one bit of difference to the Palestinian people who live in the worst imaginable circumstances at this point in time. My thoughts on this is that it is supposed to make a difference to the lives of Irish people who might feel a certain sense of shame at the way in which droves of Irish politicians pass by the trough of Irish taxpayers money and feed well and never pay so much as a curse of lip service to the god awful mess around us.
This initiative puts a bit of shame on us all so that we may feel guilty enough to demand action from these paddy joes and mickey Macs to stand up for the hard done by Palestinians.
It gives me some sense of pride that the money was spent on the ad and that the people put their names to it.

An irish investment in a Palestinian future. A good start.

Thanks for this worthy initiative.

Freedom for Palestine.

by Gavan Gray Sun Feb 01, 2009 09:36

"the IPSC should be ashamed of itself for wasting this money on an ad that will not make one iota of difference"

That Geldof fellow really should have just sent a couple of quid of his own money to the people in Ethipia instead of trying to make a fuss and attract people's attention to the problem. That concert must have cost a fortune, what was he thinking?

by J Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:23

Yes, no one should ever advertise. Then, no one will ever know whats going all, then the problem will just go away.... Cop on, its another tactic for pro-Palestinians.... whats wrong with that?

Well done guys, SUPPORT GAZA

by Freedom for Palestine Sun Feb 01, 2009 15:51

...anyone labouring under the illusion that Geldof and his egomaniac cronies made such an innumerable difference to the suffering in 3rd world countries (paticularly in Live 8) should really examine the aftermath of the gigs,cos thats all they were,gigs that promoted the likes of Bono etc and gave Geldof an opportunity to sit on a high moral pedestal (and crticise direct action portesters to boot)

by Arm-a-gedden Sun Feb 01, 2009 18:03

I'am one of those people who subscribed to have my name in yesterdays Irish Times ('Irish Call For Justice For Palestine') did I have any difficulty in that well obviously not,none what so ever did anyone twist my arm to do so? no they most certainly did not. By the way whatever way I chose to spend my hard earned money is my business and that of nobody else.

Do I care if anybody seen my name not in the least, you do what you believe in.

As far as I'am aware not all of the money went to the Irish Times but I do stand to be corrected on that.

I have as an individual have aready contributed to various events that raise funds for Gaza and I will continue to do so in the future.

As for FF/ and the Greens I as an individual well I'am powerless over that, and do not forget there are a lot of people who have done their bit for Iraq and various other war torn and ravaged areas around the Globe, as well, we are not all politicians thankfully.

To bad for you that the Ad was what you call a disgrace, well you are only one, or maybe you are one of many who represent maybe a Zionist movement and you fell bitter that the Ad should have been representative of the rouge state of Isreal.

by Contrarian Mon Feb 02, 2009 00:20

What exactly does the IPSC want? A Palestinian state on the 1967 boundary lines? Well that was freely on offer from 1948 to 1967. The Palestinians fellow Arab states Jordan and Egypt ruled the West Bank and Gaza respectively. Why didn't they set up a Palestinian state there back then? Is it Israel's fault if they didn't?

And as for that bit in the ad about Israel never declaring its borders. How could it? It was surrounded by states which never even recognized its existence. Pretty difficult to agree borders with countries that refuse to recognise that you exist, eh?

The ad also omits to mention that the Palestinians, the Arab League and every Arab country REJECTED the 1947 UN partition plan (map 2 in the Ad) that would have set up a Palestinain state more than twice the size of the West Bank/Gaza strip. (The paln was accepted by the Jewish Asembly in Palestine)

by Susan Mon Feb 02, 2009 16:46

Contrarian,

It doesnt take much consideration to surmise that your questions are rhetorical and that you dont want any answer that might explain these matters to you. You are in ignorance of the entire situation and I trust you wish to remain that way as it would not suit you to understand why the Palestinians did not form a state during that period. If you knew the reasons for this then you would have to move on from your ignorance and start to understand the actual plight of these people and perhaps form a real opinion.

Here is an article that you wont read, written by Dr. Hassan A. El-Najjar outling in brief his answers to your rhetorical questions.

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Editorials/2002/Oct,%20Nov%2...n.htm

" But why couldn’t the Palestinians (with help from their Arab brothers and sisters) establish a Palestinian state during the nineteen years of 1948-1967, under question? The answer is that neither Palestinians nor Arabs as a whole have ever enjoyed peace since the establishment of Israel. Israel has launched a major war on Arabs in every decade during the second half of the twentieth century. More important, it was impossible to establish a state that includes the West Bank and Gaza without peace with Israel, which separates them geographically. During the period in question, Israelis launched a major war in 1956 but raided Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza before (Al-Sabha) and after (Al-Samou’). But the most practical answer is that the Palestinian people were turned into refugees after Israel had denied them return to their villages and cities. They were thinking about physical survival during that period. However, Palestinian political parties have never stopped preparing their people for struggle to achieve their national and political rights. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 rejuvenated the Palestinian struggle as it brought Palestinians from the three territories into physical contact with one another. It also convinced Palestinians that they could not depend on Arab governments any longer to achieve their aspirations. "

When you are finished not reading that article you should certainly not read the following article which gives you informaiton on the the Murderous Ariel Sharon and the antics of the terror group Commando Unit 101 which operated during the period about which you wish to remain ignorant.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/50s.html

" Moshe Dayan, head of the Operations Dept. of Israel’s Army, decided that his army was getting sloppy, “lowering its fighting standards.” Dayan, who recognized talent when he saw it, knew that Ariel Sharon was exactly what the IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) needed. Ariel Sharon formed a special commando force. Unit 101.

Unit 101 specialized in night raids and phony “reprisal raids.” General Dayan had said that Israel must “invent dangers” and “adopt the method of provocation and revenge.” So, Sharon, who was a quick learner, had his men provoke neighboring Arabs into doing something petty, then used that as an excuse to sneak across the border at night and kill a few Arabs. "

by Hypocrits Mon Feb 02, 2009 19:22

What a waste of money.

It could have been used to help so many people.

As for those of you who have Irish Broadband.Do you know your wireless box was made by an Israeli company.
Then again if any of you have been to hospital.You probably used Healthcare drugs made by Israeli Pharmacies and medical Equipment made by Israeli's

You people are Hypocrits.If you children were ill.You would not ask where the drugs or equipment came from.You use computers and mobiles.Voicemail was invented by the Israeli's the IDF started mobile phones.

The Israeli's invented some of the top irrigation systems used by Spain for your tomatoes and Peppers.

Israeli firms provide jobs in Kerry.Tipperary and Waterford.Should those people quit.

The Magen David.Built a make shift hospital on the boarder with Gaza.Hamas would not let anyone out.

Egypt has let a petty four wounded children out.Egypt boarders Gaza.Egypt keeps the Gaza boarder closed too.

by Contrarian Mon Feb 02, 2009 19:26

Susan,

I will afford you the courtesy you refuse me; namely to assume that despite your apparent lack of respect for opposing viewpoints, your views are sincere and genuinely held. However, you are factually incorrect on at least one point - I did actually read the articles you cite. (I find, Susan, that if you only read from sources with which you agree, it tends to produce a somewhat blinkered viewpoint.)

So, Susan, let us read and critically analyse YOUR preferred sources. From aljazeera.info, your first cited source opens with the paragraph:
The 1947 UN Partition Resolution 181 divided Palestine into two states: Jewish (Israel) and Arab (Palestine). The Arab state of Palestine included three territories: The West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Galilee (partition map). In 1948, the Jewish state was established as planned but the Arab state of Palestine was not allowed to see light. Israel annexed the Galilee by force and evicted most of its Palestinian population, during the 1948 war. They became refugees in Lebanon and Syria, as Israel has never accepted their return to their villages and cities, just like what it did to refugees who were evicted from other areas. The UN General Assembly passed resolution 194 that called on Israel to allow the refugees to return and be compensated for their lost property, which Israel has never complied with. (More historical background).

Aljazeera conveniently omits to tell us that (as I posted above) the Palestinians, the Arab League and every Arab country REJECTED the 1947 UN partition plan set out in Resolution 181. The Jewish Agency accepted the plan. So the state that allegedly "was not allowed to see light" was the very state that the Palestinians themselves (and their Arab neighbours) had rejected.

The 1948/9 war is presented by aljazeerra as an Israeli annexation and eviction of the Palestinian population. The truth is more nuanced. After World War 1, International Law represented by the League of Nations mandated the creation of a Jewish state in Mandate Palestine. Jews responded by emigrating to Palestine aften fleeing persecution and anti-semitism in Russia and Europe. These emigrants didn't steal anybody's land - they bought it from willing sellers and/or settled on previously unoccupied land in the Negev desert. The Jewish settlers were integrated into the surrounding Arab population and economy. However, this mandate and subsequent immigration was never accepted by some sections of the Arab world. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s Arab riots and uprisings nominally against the British rule but de facto leading to attacks on Jewish communities civilians were increasingly prevalent. This culminated in the 1936-39 Arab revolt which polarised and separated the two communities. Britain responded by restricting Jewish immigration (in contravention of the League of Nations mandate) and passed laws forbidding Jews from purchasing land. The Palestinian response included a visit by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (the Palestinian's spiritual leader) to Berlin where he met Hitler and praised his methods of dealing with the Germans "Jewish problem" while requesting help to implement "similar methods" back in Palestine. The Grand Mufti then trotted off to Bosnia where he brought an Arab division to fight alongside the Nazis against the Yugoslav partisans. The remnants of this inglorious force returned to post war Palestine and were incorporated into the Arab Liberation Army (alongside deserters from the British Army and ex-Nazis) which fought to prevent the emergence of an independent Jewish state. (Meanwhile Britain was even STILL restricting Jewish emigration to Palestine, and interned ship-loads of concentration camp survivors in camps in Cyprus. One unfortunate group were returned from Israel to .....of all places, Hamburg.) In the ensuing civil war / Israeli War of Independence / 1948-49 war, the newly formed IDF fought and defeated the Arab Liberation Army and invading armies from Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Iraq. The nascent state of Israel lost over 1% of its population in this war (just over 6,000 dead) The Palestinian casualty figures were similar (10,000 to 12,000 from a population of 1,200,000 approx) There are conflicting accounts of the treatment of Palestinian civilians. What is known for a fact is that over 700,000 fled or were evicted form their homes. What is also known is that many did NOT flee and they and their descendants (now over one and a half million) remain in Israel proper (not the west Bank/Gaza) today where they enjoy full citizenship rights. Undoubtedly there were atrocities on both sides - there is compelling evidence of that. However it is as wrong to say they all were expelled as it is to say that they all fled to clear the way for the expected victory by the Arab armies over a battered and weakened Jewish people. There is evidence of massacres by Jewish forces in some villages, there is evidence of Arabs being encouraged to leave by their leaders in other areas. If the Jewish forces were as intent on expelling the Palestinians as is claimed, why were some villages attacked and other (nearby) villages left in peace. Could it be that those villages selected for attack and expulsion were those very ones which launched attacks on isolated Jewish civilian communities?

By the way, at the very same time, Arab states from Morocco to Iraq were busy expelling 800,000 Jews from their homes and countries where they had lived for generations. Their property was confiscated and, needless to say, they have never received any compensation. They were accepted into the State of Israel as full citizens and were assisted to rebuild their lives. In stark contrast to the treatment of Palestinian refugees left to languish for generations in refugee camps by their fellow Arab host countries.

And, of course, Resolution 194 (if you bother to read it in full) does not give an unrestricted "right of return." Its text says: The General Assembly ... Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

For a start, it refers to refugees who wish to live in peace with their neighbours. This would seem to require recognition of those neighbours as a de minimis condition to exercise that right. Can Hamas fulfil that condition today? You will also note that it refers to Governments in the plural - thus not fixing Israel with sole responsibility. And of course it is a General Assembly resolution rather than a Security Council resolution and thus not binding in international law.

Enough of aljazeera and its jaundiced view of history. It doesn't seriously address the question of why no Palestinian state was formed on the West Bank and Gaza between 1949 and 1967. It blames a lack of peace with Israel (while bizarrely ignoring the Palestinian refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist) How can you make peace with a country you don't recognise?????? It also refers to raids by Israel during those years. These did happen. But so did raids ON Israel by Palestinians, and units of the Egyptian and Jordanian armies. This hardly explains the complete failure to establish a Palestinian state. The reality is that Jordan, Egypt and other Arab countries did all in their power to oppose the creation of a Palestinian state.

The second source you cite, Susan, is even more bizarre. It is simply a tabloid version of a complicated period in history and its account of the Laval affair in particular is roundly contradicted by Wikipedia. (not that that's an infallible oracle, but its better than a biased propaganda tract)

Finally, Susan, I am not without feeling for the Palestinain people in all of this. Or the Israeli people. The Palestinian people have been badly served by their leaders. By the bloated corruption of Arafat's PLO and by the Islamofascism of Hamas and Hesbollah. They have also been betrayed by their fellow Arab countries who have chosen to let them live in stateless squalor rather than either grant them citizenship OR negotiate a peace with Israel that might allow them to return.

by JayCeeme Mon Feb 02, 2009 19:44

The Palestinians certainly need justice
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID...35455

There were human rights violations but they were committed by Palestinians against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and had nothing to do with Israelis.

Abu Ein has published a list of names and neighborhoods of those in Gaza who were killed, maimed, beaten or tortured during the Israeli war on Gaza.

There were 11 executed
There were 58 shot in the feet or legs
There were 112 people whose legs were broken

Who is going to pay for an advertisement to publicize this?

by Joy Wolfe Mon Feb 02, 2009 21:18

It is interesting to see the maps those placing the advert allegedly supporting the Palestinians chose to use
As a previous contributor said until 1967 all the land designated to have been the Palestinian state was in Palestinian or Jordanian hands.
Nothing was done then to create the apparently much longed for state of Palestine which was actually handed to them on a UN platter in 1947/48

Nor was anything done to give Gazans a decent quality of life when it was in Egyptian or Palestinian Authority hands. No-one cared one iota about the Palestinians, many of whom were thrown out of Arab countries, until they became a stick to beat Israelis and Jews with.
As for the maps perhaps the 300 plus signatories might take a few moments to look at Saudi Arabian and Syrian maps of the Middle East, and Palestinian Authority and many Arab country schoolbooks to see if they can spot Israel
I can save them the trouble by telling them Israel does not exist in these books, a clear message to prove what we all know is the aim of Hamas, Hizbollah, and to a slightly lesser extent, the PA - namely the total annihilation of the Jewish state
With the UN, EU, PA and many Arab countries and some of the Gazan people themselves all blaming Hamas for this current tragedy, for tragedy it is for both sides, and with Hamas and Fatah busy killing each other, it seems ironic that bleeding hearts in Ireland can't see it as clearly as all of them,
If the signatories REALLY cared about the Palestinians they would be urging Hams to stop the rocket fire and the use of Gazan women and children as human shields and get on with trying to find a peaceful solution. Then again - pigs might fly.

by Arm-a-Gedden Mon Feb 02, 2009 21:48

You said: in reply to Susan,

Aljazeera conveniently omits to tell us that (as I posted above) thePalestinians, the Arab League and every Arab country REJECTED the 1947 UN partition plan set out in Resolution 181. The Jewish Agency accepted the plan. So the state that allegedly "was not allowed to see light" was the very state that the Palestinians themselves (and their Arab neighbours) had rejected.

Point One,Resolution 181
You omitted this very important fact, The plan was not accepted by the Palestinian Arabs and arab States on the ground that it violated the provisions of the UN charter, which granted people the right to decide their own destiny. They said that the Assembly had endorsed the Plan under circumstances unworthy of the United Nations and that the Arabs of Palestine would oppose any scheme that provided for the dissection, segregation,or partition of their country, or which give special and preferential rights and status to a minority.Very fair point don't you think, and one that I'am surprised that you missed.

How many UN Resolutions has Israel abided by?

by Sean Og - Media Analyst / Research Mon Feb 02, 2009 22:56

Research shows that most of the land that Israel occuiped after 1949

[end of their Independence War ] was Jewish owned except for the Negev desert .

That is why Abdullah of Trans Jordan did not invade those areas -according to

Prof Avi Shlaim [Politics of Partition ]

The only " Palestine " was the British ruled Mandate Palestine 1918 -- 1948

by Barrycork Mon Feb 02, 2009 23:27

Would these politicans spend one hundred euro for Magen David.For all you who don't know what that is.It's is the Jewish Version of the Red Cross and Red Crescent.
They clean up after an Arab suicide bombing.Granting the dead some dignity and ensuring evrey is done through Jewish customs.
They also help Palestinans too,

Israel has a right to exist and an even greater right to defend herself,From excessive Islamo fascist attacks.

If Israel put down her weapons tomorrow.Iran,Hamas and Hizbollah would destroy it in hours.If Hamas laid down their weapons,There would be peace.

Israel wants peace.No Israeli in SOuthern Israel wants their child to play in Bomb shelters.No Israeli wants to retire and get old in a city where they have 15 seconds to hide from a Hamas rocket.Once the alarms go off.

The fact a Hamas leader has travelled to Iran today shows how Iran is supporting groups who want to wipe Israel off the map.

Israel must secure the release of Gilad Schalit.I would suggest it forces Hamas to hand him over no matter what it takes.

Israel is the largest donor to the Palestinan people.If you continue your boycott.Israeli government money will dry up and the Palestinans will suffer even more.

Wake up.We would not accept 8000 rockets fired from Manchester into Dundalk.

by Contrarian Mon Feb 02, 2009 23:30

No, Arm-a-Gedden, its not a very fair point at all. The point is simply that the Arab Palestinians and their Arab neighbours rejected the UN resolution 181. They may well have felt entitled to do so on the basis that "they" didn't want "their" country to be partitioned and/or their right to decide their own destiny.

But,
1. It wasn't just "their" country - they shared it with the Jewish population of Palestine.
2. It was never a unitary state prior to the Mandate era.
3. The Jewish people of Palestine had a right to decide their own destiny too.
4. Where such rights conflict, it is a little unreasonable for one side to insist on getting all its own way.
5. The UN assessed the conflictings rights and claims and issued Resolution 181 as a compromise to settle the matter.
6. The Arabs rejected compromise and insisted on all-or-nothing.
7. They rejected an independent Palestinian state much larger than what they now seek.

by Susan Tue Feb 03, 2009 01:34

I will take that as Point One proven.

Earlier you asked : " The Palestinians fellow Arab states Jordan and Egypt ruled the West Bank and Gaza respectively. Why didn't they set up a Palestinian state there back then? Is it Israel's fault if they didn't? "

I have posted a learned thesis that fully addresses the ignorant position you expound along with a correct presumption that you have no will or ablilty to absorb even that tiny amount of detail.

You post a typical stream of irrelevant krud in response.

You cant even get to the second line of your own debate.

by Miriam Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:32

Important, detailed information on each of the plantation-style settlements from 'Mondo Weiss'

http://www.philipweiss.org/

by Miriam Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:45

Yesh Din are campaigning to help Palestinians sue the Israeli government for the illegal settlement of their land (see map and other info in previous post). Article in the NYT about Yesh Din:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?...13313

Quote:

"The campaign by the advocacy group, Yesh Din, which fights for the rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories, follows the publication on Friday in the newspaper Haaretz of classified government data regarding the extent of construction in officially recognized settlements that is illegal by Israeli standards.

The violations include private and public building carried out without the appropriate permits or outside of approved plans, as well as the construction of whole neighborhoods on private Palestinian lands in blatant contravention of Israeli policy and law.

The information was published as President Obama’s special Middle East envoy, George J. Mitchell, wound up his maiden visit to Israel and the West Bank, though individuals involved in the campaign said the publication was not timed to coincide with Mr. Mitchell’s trip."

by David L Tue Feb 03, 2009 13:36

Whatever reservation I might have once had about the ad, at least its managed to infuriate the cut and paste brigade from Giyus, and waste their time.

Fair dues, Susan and Miriam for trying to counter the sludge of lies they're offering. Of course it's pointless, they'll just keep poisting more irrelevent lies, but at least it shows the ad has hit a nerve. How dare the IPSC gather hundreds of prominent (and ok, some not so prominent) Irish people, and bring the cause of Palestine and the importance of boycott onto the main pages of a national paper. Indeed.

by Layla Tue Feb 03, 2009 13:42

The page in the Irish times was good. Many people (especially the older generation) may not spend a lot of time on the internet to find out the truth about the crimimal, racist entity that is Israel.
So I feel that the ad reached those people. Plus, it will go down in history in the archives of the Irish Times.

Israel is not a normal country. It is an occupying power that is brutal, racist and unjust. It is defensive because it knows its grounds for existence are false. In the long term the only hope for Israelis is to agree to dismantle their "state" and replace it with one state that gives equal rights to all who live there.

Palestinians will never give up. Justice will be served. It is a question of when - not if.

by Susan Tue Feb 03, 2009 15:56

David L said : " Of course it's pointless, they'll just keep poisting more irrelevent lies, but at least it shows the ad has hit a nerve. "

I beg to differ a little on that, David. We are all aware of the effort and time that the Israeli Government puts into recruiting, arming and training its army of internet clones and to Israel, public image is everything. They have a number of tactics but on a discussion board like this the main tactic is to sludgify otherwise quite simple issues. So they will come to the end of a thread and post three or four longwinded or just plain confusing rants. As is the case above where we are to presume that three or four people came along and posted "views". We of course know that they are all being generated by the same clone.
Most people who are casually surfing for a bit of interesting debate on a subject that holds some interest for them will go to a thread and go straight to the bottom to see what stage the debate is at. The intention is that these casually surfing people, but potentially very Palestinian sympathetic people, will find a typical pile of irrelevant shite. They then presume that the article is too complicated or is useless for them and that the issue has failed to resonate , in this case the issue being the ad in the Times.
These little robots are tenacious but they are also human and so get tired of posting shite. So the best thing to do is to let them spend an hour generating the reems of rot then when they are done come along after them and post something relevant and hopefully salvage the thread again with minimal effort.

You know, fire one shot for every ten they fire.

by Mr Man Tue Feb 03, 2009 16:03

Of course! Anyone that has any viewpoint different to your has to be an Israeli 'clone' blogger, recruited and trained to undermine indymedia.ie! God forbid they should have complicated posts so that you might actually have to think a little.

by David L Tue Feb 03, 2009 16:10

Thinking about it Sarah might be right. Either way, I do respect the fact that you're taking the trolls on. As for whether they are trolls or people who independently see things different from me, try a little test Mr Man. Google some of their phrases and see them come up again, and again, and again. Have fun!

by Mr Man Tue Feb 03, 2009 16:24

If you do that with alot of pro-palestinian hardliners phrases you get the same thing. Does that mean that they are recruited by hamas and trained to undermine blogs globally?

I think its more indicative of lazy thought, just spewing out what they have read elsewhere. Because, lets face it, Indymedia.ie isn't exactly a hub of mass opinion. On the Guardian 'comment is free' is where you go to see the trolls and 'clones' at work.

by Irishboi Tue Feb 03, 2009 18:41

I am not hired or recruited by Israel.I just believe it has a right to exist.And with that it means I believe it has a right to defend itself from terror.

What has been amazing is the lies from the Pro Palestinan side.John Ging came out after the Un investiagtion and said Israel did not hit the UN school.Yet did you hear that on RTE or The Irish Newspapers.Of course not.They have an agenda.

I am left wing activists.A former Pro Palestinan activists.Who decided to study and read more.I read evreything i could from anti Israeli books to pro Israeli books.I thaught about the arguements.
I found out there never was a Palestine.That the PLO even admitted that.That the reason most Arab states wont give Palestinan refugees Citizenship is because they will loose the desire to return and ease of on the fight.So Lebanon and Syria want the Palestinans to keep fighting.Keep blowing themselves up and firing rockets into Israel.

I learnt how Jordan was actually set up for the Arabs.Both Christian and Muslim.
I don't agree with evreything Israel does.Nor do I criticise the whole Palestinan movement.

But I look at a similar mass movement of people.India and Pakistan.Israel is the same.Over a million Jews were expelled from Arab countries.Leaving behind assest worth 900 million dollars in todays terms.So people talk about Returning Palestinans to Palestine.Where are the Jews from Arab lands like Iran and Yemen to go.Will these governments be givIng back the land to the Jews.No I doubt it.

So I think.The Arab lands and indeed Europe and the UsA and other countries should absorb Palestinan refugees.Along with some returning to Israel.If the Palestinans don't agree to this.Israeli's of Arab decent should seek a return of their assets.

Its not clear cut.The people who Mainly comment on this page don't want an Israel.
The vast majority of Irish people are critical of Israel.But believes they should exist.

by clycops Tue Feb 03, 2009 22:37

Israel - the zionist state has no right to exist. It was born out of violence and injustive and has no democratic mandate - never had and never will have.

It is a failed state that can only be sustatined by continuing violence and injustice. Increasing numbers of Jewish people world wide are appalled by the state which claims to represent them. Israel tries to use the suffering of the Jewish people to sheild it from criticisim so that it can continue its genocide against the Palestinian people and create a Zionist state in all of Palestine - a fun place that will be if they ever succeed. .

Israel was never worried by the rocket fire from Gaza - they are worried by the demographic threat of 1.5 million Palestinians breeding like rabbits and under thier control - whether they like it or not. Israel deliberately provoked Hamas into resuming rocket fire inorder to justify their long planned genocidal assault against the defenceless, besieged and destitute civilians in Gaza - before G. W. left office and ahead of their domestic elections - nothing like killing a few Palestinians to boost the election numbers.

So Irishboi - rather than Ireland and Euroope absorbing Palestinians its time Europe and the USA allowed the return of the hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of Israeli's Jews dissillusioned with the failed Zionist project thereby bringing to an end this sorry saga and the dissolution of the racist delinquent Zionist entity in Palestine.

Boy - wouldn't that do some good for all humanity.

by Mr Man Wed Feb 04, 2009 00:13

"It was born out of violence"

Like the Republic of Ireland, USA, GB, France (well pretty much all of Europe), Venezuela, Brazil, Cuba. In fact, the majority of countries are founded on violence. Does this reduce their right to exist?

"and has no democratic mandate"

I'm not sure what you think a democratic mandate is. I'm not even sure that there is something called a democratic mandate, unless you mean something like a constitution. Last time I checked, it was ranked highest in SE Asia for freedom and rights (with caveats in relation to its borders).

"Europe and the USA allowed the return of the hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of Israeli's Jews"

With the exception of Immigrant Jews (of which already have the right to return to their countries (with the exception of some nearby countries from which they were expelled and property siezed)) what country are native born Israelis 'returning to'? Returning to a country they have never been to? Isn't this how the mess started in the first place, with jews of the world (well, zionist jews) 'returning' home?

by Sean Og Wed Feb 04, 2009 00:26

How much money could have gone to help those needy ones in the Middle East

instead of going on a 100 euro a head ego trip ?

So we read all the names - did they all pay up ?

was it 25,000 euros for an I T page ?

by David L Wed Feb 04, 2009 11:07

Sean Og, i don't get your problem. I think the cost was about 25 grand, and signatories were asked to pony up the cost between them. But why is that bad? Do you attack folks going out shopping too, saying "how dare you - that could be money spent on Palestinian charities"?

The guys I know who signed the letter - some have contributed to Palestinian charities, some have even organised fundraisers, and are centrally involved in charity work. One action for Palestine doesn't mean you don't get involved in other actions. The reverse is the case, in fact.

But I hope you too are giving money to Palestinian charities, because you do believe it's important. If you're not, one very good group in Ireland is Irish Medical Aid for Palestine.

All the best

David

by Irishboi Wed Feb 04, 2009 20:04

Check out RTE online.They admitted today that Israel never hit the Unrwa SCHOOL.it was Hamas spin.

Also it has a report on Hamas robbing aid meant for the civilians.Hamas don't really care.

As for Jews being sent back to Us and Europe.What about the Arab Jews.Who you ignored.Where are they to go.They were kicked out of Yemen and Iran.They make a huge amount of Israels current population.

And considering the Israeli economy is growing and your boycott is failing.I don't think you can say its a failed state.Palestine is failing because Hamas and Fatah are only interested in money and being corrupt.

Least those who want to know the truth can see it on rte.Which is rare

by Sean Og Thu Feb 05, 2009 02:03

Why waste money on adverts in I T when that could go on aid ?

Why not use money for charity aid rather than propaganda which will not be effective .

You keep trying the boycott approach which will NOT work for various reasons .

All you are doing [and I dont know who is funding YOU ] is stirring up hate

instead of working for peace and reconciliation .

by gazasympathiser Thu Feb 05, 2009 09:14

This is a democracy not a racist theocracy therefore all forms of protest are legitimate.

Ireland gives a lot of aid pro capita and much of the aid is raised on the back of advertising in newspapers and other media.

The boycott will be successful as it was in the case of South Africa.

by David L Thu Feb 05, 2009 09:59

Sean Og, as the semi-literate rantings of people like 'Irishboi' shows, the advertisement of the IPSC is at least effective in provoking a response, if not an entirely coherent one. It has more importantly , got people to think more about the idea of boycott and effective solidarity towards Palestinians.

If you think boycott won't work - fair enough, that's your opinion. Increasingly people around the world and in Ireland are disagreeing, seeing boycott as an effective non-violent way to put pressure on Israel and stop future atrocities.

But there are alternative courses of action and I invite you to get involved with them, if you haven't already. If you believe charity is the most effective response then do, like many of the signatories to the ad, get involved in charity work.

Like the ad says, every little helps

by Frank Adam - private citizen Thu Feb 05, 2009 14:57

The Arab states and the leaders of the Arabs of British Palestine - who were the first to scamper off - spent 1947 from the moment UNSCOP set out that summer to view the country and hear evidence - telling the press and all and sundry that they would fight any UNSCOPproposal that included partition - in the best theocratic ethnic style that it was an Arab [Moslem] country so end of argument.

For the benefit of the theocratic racists who support a Palestine Arab State all the plans for an Arab state in Palestine are to be free of Jews and it was the Arabs who cleared the Christians out of Jerusalem. There were 24 000 when the British left in 1948 and 12 000 when the Israelis arrived in 1967. There are still only 12 000 because Christian Arabs have seen Palestine Nationalism turn as Moslem as Irish Nationalism has been Catholic and so they emigrate to avoid the mind wrenching of turning Israeli and the bricked windows of staying as non- Moslems in the Arab side of Jerusalem.

For those who think that the Arabs' problem with Israel can be solved by returning Israeli families originating in Europe to Europe you have forgotten that half of Israel's Jews are families that fled nationalism in Arab countries which turned Antisemitic for the same reasons nationalism turned so across Europe and the Americas - including Ireland; and in passing how many Israeli Jews would you resettle in the Emerald Isle? because as soon as you say send them to Poland your argument is scuppered.

The present Israeli population is well intermarried. The present Chief of Staff - no token position - is Gaby Ashkenasi with Bulgarian origin father and Syrian origin mother - and that is an older generation! The youngsters are over 50% intermarried by their grandparents' origins.

Nice point of accuracy - especially for republicans and Republicans: anybody writing or saying West Bank instead of Nablus and Hebron Districts has given themselves away as believing the West Bank should be back in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan!

Nice point of The Enlightenment: what are all you soi-disant democrats and secular egalitarians doing supporting a cause that is run by theocratic authoritarians that if they took power in Ireland would promptly disenfranchise all non-Moslems in best tradition of The Penal Times?

by gazasympathiser Thu Feb 05, 2009 16:10

It is time to fight Zionism with any possible means and method.

As far as the secular Jewish agenda is concerned, a real assimilationist manner would be most appropriate.

It is necessary to fight Zionism as a human being; as an ‘English Jew’ rather than as a ‘Jew who lives in England’; as a ‘human being who appears to be Jewish’ rather than as a ‘Jew who declares himself to be a humanist’.

Jews around the world as well as in Israel must let the Zionists know that the world out there is far more attractive than the racist, colonialist murderous dream the Zionists have to offer.

If left-wing Jews are genuine in their fight against Zionism, they should completely avoid the usage of Jewish identity as the pillar of their arguments.

If they remain hidden behind their Jewish identity we must then suspect their call to be a form of a mild left-wing Zionism.

Jewish secular criticism will start to be effective only when the Jewish ethnic issue has been completely dropped from the body of any critical argument.

Jews are at their very best when they leave the ghetto physically and mentally; when they talk to the hearts of their listeners without being victims, chosen or righteous; when they join the human family without prejudice.

This is called assimilation.

by Mr Man Thu Feb 05, 2009 18:14

"It is necessary to fight Zionism as a human being; as an ‘English Jew’ rather than as a ‘Jew who lives in England’; as a ‘human being who appears to be Jewish’ rather than as a ‘Jew who declares himself to be a humanist’."

Ever seen 'this is England'? Where the skinhead demands that black people consider themselves English first and African second? Integrate or die? Lose your own culture please, you're in England now.

"If left-wing Jews are genuine in their fight against Zionism, they should completely avoid the usage of Jewish identity as the pillar of their arguments."

Why?

"If they remain hidden behind their Jewish identity we must then suspect their call to be a form of a mild left-wing Zionism."

So you are saying if a Jew says he is a Jew, then he is a zionist? Rubbish.

Your adoration for Gilad Atzmon is questionable. The guy is pally with holocaust deniers and has said some pretty anti semitic things. He actively tries to blur the lines between Israeli and Jewish. And for someone who wants Jews not to use their identity to argue points, surely he shouldn't do that at the top of his website?

""I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act"
-Gilad Atzmon May 2005

"American Jewry makes any debate on whether the "Protocols of the elder of Zion" are an authentic document or rather a forgery irrelevant. American Jews (in fact Zionists) do control the world."
-Gilad Atzmon

"We must begin to take the accusation that the Jewish people are trying to control the world very seriously…."
Gilad Atzmon

"“To be a Jew is to be a victim and to enjoy your symptoms."
Gilad Atzmon

""The Jews are the ultimate Chamelions, they can be whatever they like so long as it serves some expedient..."
Gilad Atzmon

Whatever happened to no platform.....

by MMcK Thu Feb 05, 2009 18:37

Gazasympathiser you have posted here the following comments -

"If left-wing Jews are genuine in their fight against Zionism, they should completely avoid the usage of Jewish identity as the pillar of their arguments.

If they remain hidden behind their Jewish identity we must then suspect their call to be a form of a mild left-wing Zionism.

Jewish secular criticism will start to be effective only when the Jewish ethnic issue has been completely dropped from the body of any critical argument.

Jews are at their very best when they leave the ghetto physically and mentally; when they talk to the hearts of their listeners without being victims, chosen or righteous; when they join the human family without prejudice."

I repeat you said gazasympathiser "Jews are at their very best when they leave the ghetto physically and mentally". Which ghetto are you referring to? The Warsaw Ghetto?

Again you said "when they join the human family without prejudice". Are you saying that you cannot be a part of humanity if you identify yourself as a Jew?

These comments are racist. A person who is Jewish has every right, as does a Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or Hindu to identify themselves and their political beliefs and or their national and cultural identity with their religion.

You may not agree with them doing so but they have the right to do so, the right to religious freedom. What you have said is that the problem lies with their identification with being Jewish and also by strong implication because of their focus at times on the impact of the holocaust on the Jewish people.

That is like saying the problem with the people of the Middle East is the fact that a sizeable proportion of them identify with and portray themselves as being Islamic. That they are reactionary because Islam is part of their national and political identity. If someone was to write here that Iranians are reactionary because of their identification with Islam they would be correctly condemned for it, and it would be a racist slander.

Gazasympathiser your comments are deeply suspect. I believe that you maybe masquerading as someone who is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but that you may have another sinister agenda which comes from the far right of the political spectrum.

by Sean Og Thu Feb 05, 2009 22:42

David Landy --is this the sort of action you want ?

Ironic that most of the whites who opposed Apartheid were Jewish and that the Muslims in South Africa kept very quiet and were hardly heard from until after the ANC took power .

NB see the link below to a website
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Muslim anti-Semitism takes a leaf from the Nazis

Only one week after Hitler was sworn in as leader of Germany, a national boycott of Jewish businesses was organised by the Nazis.

Today in South Africa, the Muslim community is copying these tactics and calling for a national boycott of all Jewish businesses.

For more information go to: http://supernatural.blogs.com/

"It's Almost Supernatural" is a website "

It would seem that anti-Israel sentiment is morphing into anti-Jewish sentiment.

A few weeks ago on Friday and Saturday afternoons (16 and 17 January,
2009), a group (Women in Black) picketed outside the
Cape Town Holocaust Centre/Jewish Museum.

The museum was closed for Shabbat so after a few minutes they left and moved to
another location in a Jewish area (the Three Anchor Bay beach front).

by tagger Thu Feb 05, 2009 23:04

The present Chief of Staff - no token position - is Gaby Ashkenasi with Bulgarian origin father and Syrian origin mother - and that is an older generation!

This chap is in charge of a rag tag outfit of conscripts, conscripts who are recruited from all over the globe, and who do not have a belly for a fight which this has been proven on more than one occasion. They prefer to stay in their tanks and armoured carriers in case that they get killed, it is from these positions that thery carry out their acts of terror upon innocent civilians.Real soldiers dismount their vehicles and take the fight to their enemy on the ground, not the IDF way as their way is the terror way.

It does not take a lot of skill to preside over an illdisciplined outfit like the IDF who do not abide by International law, International Humanatariam Law, and the Geneva Conventions. It is very easy to terrorise Aid workers, blow up their ambulances, and to maim and murder their crews, slaughter innocent men, women, and children these are not the acts of disciplined soldiers. And their excuse is always, the terror-istes were in the house, outside the house,in the garden, they were using civilians as human shields the civilised World is sick of hearing this crap, it has had enough of it, and it now realises that Israel is nothing but a rouge/Apartheid/Racist, colonialist, state, even its old terror-iste friend the US is now also seeing this. So wake up Israel the game is up and the endgame is coming rapidly, now by the day it gets closer.

The present Chief of Staff - no token position that is obviously why his face is now known trough out the World, "Wanted for War Crimes" something to be very proud of indeed.

by Gab Fri Feb 06, 2009 14:52

"They prefer to stay in their tanks and armoured carriers in case that they get killed, it is from these positions that thery carry out their acts of terror upon innocent civilians.Real soldiers dismount their vehicles and take the fight to their enemy on the ground..."

Nope. Infantry soldiers fight their enemy on the ground. Armoured units, such as tank crews, stay in the tank and operate it. That's what it is for. In no army in the world you have tank crews getting out and fighting on the ground. Chivalry days are long gone.

by Vincent Fri Feb 06, 2009 15:18

No Gab, you are wrong. In a brief report from respected Israeli Journalist Amira Hass the mode of Urban warfare is described.

--- Palestinians say Israeli soldiers remain in their tanks until the last minute before taking over a Gaza residence. "The soldiers don't dare get out of the tanks and come into our homes - only after they send in dogs to clear the area," say Palestinians forced to leave their northern Gaza homes.
M., a Jabalya refugee camp resident, told Haaretz, "the army moves very slowly. The tanks approach houses, then they send the dogs. If it's a three-story home, they send three dogs: The dogs have a camera on one leg and a walkie-talkie on the other. That's how the dogs transmit what is in the house. Then the tanks advance up to the doorway by rolling over the fence, and the soldiers exit the tank."
According to M., soldiers find only women, children and the elderly in the house, because the public address system called on all men under age 50 to gather at the school.
"People are very scared to go to the schools the UN has opened as shelters or to hole up in mosques, which the IDF has also bombed," M. added. ---

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054133.html

by Gab Sat Feb 07, 2009 13:22

It is not cowardliness, it is wise. In fact, it is a brilliant act. Why to risk soldiers' lives when you have a way to avoid it? You don't get scores for false bravery. If you can get your goals fulfilled with less of your soldiers being killed, its for the best.

by Vincent Sat Feb 07, 2009 14:15

And there you go spectacularly missing the point that you yourself made.

They didnt achieve their goals. They didnt achieve any of their goals. The reason they didnt achieve any of their goals is because of the type of warfare that they employed in Gaza .i.e. Why risk soldiers' lives when you have a way to avoid it? Thats not the cowardice of the soldiers, its the cowardice of the politicians. They want to get the respect of the people by playing tough, but they have no stomach for dead Israeli soldiers. So they leave them hiding in tanks only putting them on the ground when it is safe, as a token gesture to the people. All you have are tanks firing on buildings , killing families etc.
They didnt stop the rocket fire. Because they didnt go into the buildings to get the mortars and supplies.
They didnt damage Hamas because they would need to go and capture them on the ground , they didnt.
They didnt stop smuggling because they cant afford to occupy the Strip as the soldiers would have to risk their lives.
They didnt restore deterrence as they plainly showed that they have no stomach fo a ground war to eliminates large numbers of Hamas men instead of indiscriminate shelling of innocent families.

They tried to get a victory of any description , without risking soldiers - impossible. The whole cmpaign was an utter failure that has made Hamas stronger and more popular than ever before. The exact same thing happened in Lebanon and Hizbollah emerged stronger , now they have repeated the pattern again in Gaza.

Failure in Gaza - Yehuda Wegman YNET http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3665887....html

Gideon Levy / Gaza war ended in utter failure for Israel HAARETZ http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1057670.html

by Frank Adam - private citizen Sun Feb 08, 2009 16:35

The last time Irish units fought in a full scale state-of-the-art war was under British Colours with Kitchener and Haig - and the argument has never ceased since as to whether that war could have been conducted with more skill not to throw away infantry lives needlessly without armour and creeping artillery barrages, and in big units rather than spread out in a "cloud" of, "football teams."

The technical problems were partly solved by 1918 and even more so in 39 -'45 and since. True, voters do not like their friends and sons being killed, when a few shells on the enemy could have saved their lives, better still talks rather than descent into war - whence the reluctance for so long to call Little Adolph's bluff - that explains the strong anti-war movements across the West ever since and the de-glamourisation of war compared to pre-1914 literature and theatre of all sorts.

Contrast, first the PLO, then Iran and its front dummies: Hizbollah and Hamas have resorted to conning youngsters with paradise yarns to throw themselves naked into battlefields of modern automatic fire where it is only a matter of statistics to be shot within three months in 14 - 18, or three weeks nowadays - and for what is a nice question as the Arabs could have assembled a Palestine partition state a long time ago with half the nous of Michael Collins and De Valera.

Before buying all the Arab claims about Hezbollah or Hamas "victories," they are very Pyrrhic, if indeed victories, otherwise why did Hizbollah sit out the Gaza Campaign? It was hurt harder than many will admit starting with the Israeli Air and intelligence successfully pranging the hideouts of all the big rockets that could have struck further than Haifa. When in previous engagements Israeli attempts to keep down damage to civil infrastructure eg in Jenin only caused themselves more injury than necessary and the Arab propaganda machines still threw out tenfold lies. So be hanged for a sheep as a lamb.

This is also so in terms of Arab lies about the casus belli: it is nothing to do with Israel being beyond, nor within the Green Line. It is about the very existence of Israel. Before 1967 the Arab parties refused to talk "before Israel withdrew to the 181 proposed borders." The megalomaniac dictators never said they would talk to Israel if she did withdraw. Hamas Charter refuses to recognise the validity of any international instruments of any kind except those imposed by itself and a Moslem Brothers Caliphate.

Part of the Arabs problems in and with "Palestine" is that they refuse in their minds to respect their opponents as having the same rights and brain power as themselves. Breaking rules scores a fast one - once - then lets opponents do likewise, the reason why Wellington who was Irish born, would not allow his men to cheer him; why sergeants and officers and all teachers and officials are cautioned not to talk coarsly nor rudely - it only brings on repartee in kind.

Do read the 1947 papers and the archives since:
it was the Arab parties who rejected the UN resolution 181 on Palestine and are "offside" ever since;
it was the Arab parties that for 20 years refused to say "Israel" let alone talk to Israel;
it was the Arab parties who made a doctrine of attacking civil transport and housing
as much in the fifties,
as in the last eight years declaring they would... "rocket Sderot till it was a ghost town."
It is Hamas and Hizbollah that refuse the very concept of peace, even if they might conclude a truce.
The Gazans have only got what the Arab parties dispensed to Israel - in spades.

I have already seen reports that the Arabs being by culture good at rote learning (as any host university in the West knows) - as with Soviet training in 1956, 67 and 73, took in the Iranian street fighting drill fortifying the main roads - only the Israelis also took a decco and went in down side streets and back doors like notorious cases of WW II infantry attacks along railway lines!

Then there is the laughable jibe at Jews who have migrated to Israel. Given the hundreds of poor Irish who joined the British Palestine Police; the thousands of peasant Irish who fought on both sides of the armies of the US Civil War; that a founding Chilean hero is General Bernard O'Higgins; and that more thousands of unemployed Free State Irish fought in British Forces in 1939 - 45 as private voluntary engagements than the thousands who joined up in The Six Counties - leave the glasshouse before throwing stones...!

by Vincent Sun Feb 08, 2009 17:26

The indigenous Palestinian inhabitants of the land had every right to refuse to accept partition of their land with an alien colonilaist community that refused to accept the indigenous people's very existence. No people should be asked or made to give up over half their homeland in order to appease imperialist or colonialist forces.

Read this article then see if your viewpoints hold any validity. (they dont by the way)

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

Assuming that you are an American, based on the above facts, would you concede sovereignty and land ownership over 60% of your country to a foreign minority, such as Canadians and Mexicans, who owns under 7% of U.S.'s lands? Click here for a map illustrating such comparative partition of the U.S. in favor of one of its ethnic or religious minorities.

If you do not accept such a plan for yourself as an American, then Why ask the Palestinian people to concede 60% of their land in favor of an ALIEN foreign minority?

We cannot help it but to a draw similarity with a famous Old Testament story, when two women disputed the motherhood of a baby. They took their dispute to King Solomon, who decided to settle the dispute by cutting the baby in half. The baby's mother quickly objected the King's decision and preferred giving up that baby rather than killing it. That is when the wise King recognized that she must be the mother, and the other woman is an imposter. In a similar fashion, the Palestinian people refused the unjust resolution that called for the division of their country with an alien colonizers.

Dr. Walid Khalidi articulated the Palestinians position as follows:

"The native people of Palestine, like the native people of every other country in the Arab world, Asia, Africa and Europe, refused to divide the land with a settler community."

---------------------
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remem....html