U.N. offers assistance to Israel

Original article: http://www.canadiancontent.net/commtr/article_685.html
U.N. offers assistance to Israel

By Canadian Content Staff
Saturday June 12, 2004

In a not so surprising move today by the United Nations, the secretary-general of the UN has offered assistance to Israel with resources to exit from the Gaza strip.

Kofi Annan, UN secretary-general, spoke to the Israeli prime minister recently stating that the UN's resources would be available to assist.

The Israeli administration all of a sudden seems very committed to ending conflicts in the region, and to halt the Jewish settlements which are increasingly infringing on Palestinian land and rights.

Currently, Arial Sharon and his team are devising plans to offer Jewish settlers a cash reward for moving out of Palestinian land.

The recent developments in Israeli-Palestinian relations have stunned many, which bring a change in the Israeli position on many topics. The supposed roadmap to peace, the refusal of Israel to comply with simple Geneva conventions and the continued violence contributed in part by military forces which occupy Palestinian land.

The move from Palestinian land by about 7,500 would start sometime in August, but a deadline remains later, at mid-2005.

Several question marks remain around the subject, but what would stop Israel from changing their mind in the move out? Conflicts will still ensue in the eastern Palestinian sector of the country, which is continually seeing its borders breached by a growing number of Israeli settlers.

The roadmap to peace has shown how much President Bush is involved in a peace process in the Middle East. The US supported roadmap has basically failed up until now.

It would be hard to determine if the recent moves by Israel were just International shows to hide their real objectives of invading more Palestinian land in the east and possibly access to the ultimate prize; Jerusalem.

This is the bottom Line, Andem. There are different objectives in the Isreali mind than they are pretending to say. The ultimate goal is Jerusalem, take the best part of west bank, leave Gaza for the Eygptians to police, no right of return to refugees which is against every UN resolution. This will leave a palestinian state that will look like a piece of Swiss Cheese.

Moghrabi, you're not making sense.

Since 1967, Israel has been offering land for peace-- as per UN res 242. It was the CHOICE of the Arabs not to negotiate, as set out in the Khartoum Declaration-- all of which is a result of a war started when Egypt kicked out UN peacekeepers. blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba and massed troops along Israel's borders in tandem with Syria.

Here we are, almost 40 years later at the same place we were in 1967, and the 'lightbulb' finally goes on in the Arab world.

Let me tell you a secret. Isrealis don't care about Gaza, the West Bank or any other Arab territory, save for a few religious fundamentalists-- and they're about to be 'bought out'.

As for Jerusalem, the best the Arab world can hope for is a shared city. When the destruction of holy sites and cemetaries was revealed and documented in 1967, can you blame the Israelis for not being so enthusiastic about any return of Holy Sites? Even Christians in pre 1967 Jerusalem were subject to, shall we say, almost dhimmi status.

All the conspiracy theories in the world can't change reality. One shrewd Arab observer wrote, "The real Naqba was the introduction of video cameras and video tape into the region."

While press manipulation is a sport engaged in by all in the region, in the end, the policymakers are keenly aware of the realites.

researchok,

I think you are being naiive about this subject. Arabs do want peace. It is called a just and comprehensive peace. Not wishy washy (will give you what we want peace). As per your statement, Isreal does not care about any Arab Land, this is total nonsense. The Isreal's have their plan already planned. From river to river to make Greater Isreal. That means from the Jordan River to the Euphrates River.

Tell what UN resolution (Out of 63) did the Isreal obey? None. They don't give a damn about the UN. If they follow the UN resloutions, Arabs as well as Isreal's will be very happy. These resolutions say that Isreal must go back to Pre-1967 war and give the Gaza and all of the west bank to the Phalastinans. Also, the return of the refugees.

Waht israel is offerring in: No right of return, not all of west bank, Gaza will be monitored by Eygpt, no armed police or army for the state of Phalastine.

Let me ask you one question. If you were an Arab, will you accept these condition for your future country.

moghrabi, I don't think I'm being naive-- I'm a realist.

Firstly, Israel is NOT in violation of 63 UN resolutions.

UN resolutions come in 2 flavors-- binding and non binding. Virtually all of the 'condemnations' of Israel are just that-- non binding resolutions. The fact that the UN has censured Israel is of little consequence, as the UN has remained silent on far worse atrocities in the region. A million and half dead Christians in Sudan, the ongoing slave trade in Mauritania, the unfolding tragedy in Darfur, the policy of rape and dismemberment gy the GIA in Algeria-- the list goes on and on.

As for the right of return (UN 33 that does NOT specifically call for the return of refugees. It also makes provisions for the compensation of refugees. More importantly, the refugee issue is not limited to the Palestinians. There is the matter of non Muslim refugees from the Arab countries that must be addressed as well, as per UN 338. I won't get into the polls of Palestinians who actually want to return, but I'm sure you're aware of the numbers.

You also neglect to mention the hard reality that the Israeli occupation has been the most benign in history. Israel has built the hospitals, health care, sanitation infrastructure, schools and power plantsa that didn't exist prior to 1967, just to mention a few improvements-- not the least of which was a viable economy, now in ruins.

As for what Isreal is offering-- well, there are consequences to war. Virtually every state came about as the result of conflict and subsequent negotiation.

It also is worth mentioning that when Israel left the West Bank and Gaza after Oslo, the PA virtually let the entire infrastucture collapse, resulting in very diminished health care, educational resources, less government provided services (e.g., mail, sanitation, etc). While Suha Arafat may get $100,000 per month spending money, and Arafat himself has squirreled away between 8-12 BILLION dollars, that alone does not qualify the PA as a responsible government. Nor does it make for a responsible 'peace partner'.

I noticed you didn't argue any of the points I made-- which is probably best.

If the Palestinians want a responsible free state, they're going to have to earn it. No state can allow terror as a form of political expression. A simple reading of the Arab and Palestinian press continue to highlight CHOICES made, including the CHOICE to glorify terror. Many hundreds have been killed in the Intrafada which is ongoing to this day as Palestinian groups use terror and murder against each other.

The Palestinians CHOSE the intifada. They CHOSE to reject Oslo and Baraks deal. They are in the situation because of CHOICES the PA made.

As a matter of fact, that holds true throughout the region. Reforms will come only when they are earned and fought for. Until that time comes, the region will continue to spin its wheels.

As I mentioned earlier, a good case can be made for the real Naqbah being the advent of video and audio tape.

Isreal does care about the PAlestinian lands... Forget about does ever growing settlements? They arnt about to give does up. Actually, the hole reason this issue hasnt been resolved with the last peace plan, is exactly because of that.

You're right.

After almost 40 years, the settlements are indeed, a 'fact on the ground'.

Still. the fact remains it has been almost 40 years since the 'land for peace' formula as proposed by UN 242 was rejected by the Arabs.

I do favor removal of the settlments-- but that in no way is binding on Israel, of course. The choice of rejection by the Arabs was made. Do you seriously think that you can look at the settlements or any other issue in the region in a vacuum? In point of fact, the rejectionist posture taken by the Arab world has only helped to legitamize Israel's claim to determine it's own fate-- a posture taken and influenced by decades of terror against Israeli civilian population and the constant barrage of violent and anti Jewish rhetoric in the PA press, in school scurriculums and the pulpit. The notion that the problem is the fault of of only one of the parties involved (Israel) is rather simplistic.

On a personal note, I do believe there is much to hold Israel accountable for-- including an inherently unfair peace process--but oversimplifying the situation by ignoring realities Israel has faced everyday since it's inception isn't one of them.

Simply stating that the settlements are the problem is a clear denial and recognition of what the real issues are.

You are being oneside when it comes to terror. isn't destroting the homes, causing thousands to be refugees, targeted assisinations a form of terror. Also, you said that Arafat (in which I am not a fan of him) took 10-12 Billion dollars. how about the scandels that Sharon is involved in.

As per UN resolution, every resoultion is binding. However when a resloution is there against Israel, the US either kills it or abstain from it. Not once the US told Israel to abide by the resolutions.

Massacares in Sabra and Shatila, Ginnen, Qana. The worst kind of massacres and against humanity go unpunished.

WMD. Only when it is in a country that does not support the US then they are OK. Israel has over 200 WMD and God knows what else.

Lets talk reality here. Israel gets away with everything because it is protected by a bigger evil, if you get my gist.

Yes, Israel is destroying homes-- homes that are used as tunnel junctions for the importation of weapons and explosives used to blow up innocent civilians.

You neglect to mention that there were no homes being blown up prior to the Intifadah.

Targeted assasinations may not be pretty, but they work, as is evident by the fewer terror attacks committed. As in any war, anywhere, leaders are fair game-- especially leaders that call for mass murder and wanton killings. In other words, 'you wanna play, you gotta pay'.

I'm glad you brought up the massacres in Sabra and Shatilla. Why do you suppose the Christian Phalange committed those atrocities? Out of love for the Palestinians? Or perhaps it was because of the way they (Christians) were treated by the Palestinians?

As fro weapons of mass destructions, well, it seems Israel may have reason to remain tight lipped. Former Iranian Persident Ali Rafsanjani has advocated the use of a nuclear weapon against Israel. His rationale (if you can call lunacy a 'rationale') was that using a nuclear weapon might damage Islam, but would eradicate Israel. Seems to me and every rational human being that in this case, the fear of retaliation should keep the lunatics in line. It is interesting to note that the Arab world (governments) actually applauded this Neanderthal.

As for the 'bigger evil', to whom are you referring (I know the answer, of course)?

So once again, the Palestinians are the victims of a conspiracy and are not at all responsible for their own fate.

Same old song.

By the way, i forgot to suggest you learn the distinction between UN resolutions.

They are referred to as series six and series seven re****ions-- those that are binding and those that are not binding.

--

We agree to this point so far. But who is creating this conspiracy. As i mentioned in a prior thread, I lost 11 memebers of my family in Sabra and Shatila. We are not palatinians. My family was massacred by Isreal's army not by the christian. If you want a witness, you have him here.

Thanks for the link. But when you see things first hand, no article is going to convince me otherwise.

a quote from the article you sent me for all to read.

"What, though, about Israel's nukes? Does its status as an undeclared nuclear power put it on a par with Iraq, which has tried to become one? No. In 1981, Resolution 487 scolded Israel for sending its aircraft to destroy Iraq's Osiraq reactor, which Israel said was being used to manufacture a nuclear weapon, despite having been given a clean bill of health by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Noting that Israel had not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), as Iraq had, the UN called on Israel to put its own nuclear facilities under the IAEA safeguards, as the NPT requires.

Two decades on, Israel has still not signed the NPT. This infuriates the treaty's supporters, who have been striving to make it “universal”. But, as with any other treaty, governments are free not to sign. What they are not free to do is sign, receive the foreign (civilian) nuclear help to which signing entitles them, and then try to build a bomb secretly. This, it is now ruefully accepted, is what Iraq tried to do, and may still be trying to do. Israel is thought to possess a large nuclear arsenal, about which it is not being open and honest, and this is provoking to its neighbours. But it is not evidence of “double standards”. Being a nuclear-armed power is not, by itself, a breach of international law."

I couldn't agree more.

I've been to Israel, Gaza and the West Bank.

I've also been to the region and have seen it all up close. I've been to Amman, Damascus, Riyadh, Tehran, (needed a new passport!)etc., and I've talked to people in the region. You might be surprised at what some really think about the Palestinians and even Israel.

to me they are both crazy. They have hatred that goes way back to God knows when.

I like the information you are providing and I can argue every single one of them. But this is fruitless. For the past 55 years, they've been trying to resolve this problem. I don't think we are going to make a dent in it here in this forum.

So what exactly is your point?

Israel is not REQUIRED to sign the NPT. Further, as my previous post indicated, the Arab world applauded the idea of actually USING nuclear weapons against Israel. Deterrance it would seem, is in Israel's best interest. Further, Isreal has stated she would not be the first to introduce WMD in the region.

One could say, "if the missiles fly, you'll know why".

So what's the problem?

Further, as you point out in the Economist article, vis a vis Iraq, "What they are not free to do is sign, receive the foreign (civilian) nuclear help to which signing entitles them, and then try to build a bomb secretly. This, it is now ruefully accepted, is what Iraq tried to do, and may still be trying to do. Israel is thought to possess a large nuclear arsenal, about which it is not being open and honest, and this is provoking to its neighbours. But it is not evidence of “double standards”. Being a nuclear-armed power is not, by itself, a breach of international law."

Case closed, as they say.

That's true.

We won't make a dent on solving middle east problems in this forum.

On the other hand, the more clarity we have, the better off we all are.

What I don't understand is why Arabs don't take Israel to task for those things she should be held accountable for.

Maybe one day, they'll figure it out.

We agree to this point so far. But who is creating this conspiracy. As i mentioned in a prior thread, I lost 11 memebers of my family in Sabra and Shatila. We are not palatinians. My family was massacred by Isreal's army not by the christian. If you want a witness, you have him here.[/quote]

My 'conspiracy' point was sarcastic.

As for your family, I'm truly sorry, but the massacre in Sabra nad Shatilla has been well documented

In point of fact, Arafat brought the death of tensd of thousands throughout the region-- Lebanon, Jordan, etc.

Simply blaming Isreal is simplistic, as I said.

Is only Arafat responsible for the death oh thousands or both parties are. From Ben Gorion to the current evil man (Sharon)? Sharon is responsible for more death than any other person I know of. We might diagree there, but i am sticking to my guns in this case.

We also need more voices from this forum to get involved. This is a very big issue and would like to hear what others think. All invited.

Actually, the numbers don't work in your favor.

Arafat has been credited (!) for up to 250,000 deaths, directly or indirectly, throughout his 'career'.

Hafez Assad had between 20-30 thousand killed in Hama-- and thats just Hama, and thats just Assad.

Hizbollah too, has claomed tens of thousands of lives in the last 20 years.

The list goes on and on.

Assigning the death of soldiers in a war as the fault of any one general on any one side is itself, rather one sided.

well i see that we stand on the other side of the fence. I am not talking about a general who caused the death of his soldiers. I am talking about his massacres that history will put in history books. If you add them all up, they will be 10 fold the number of people you mentioned above.

May I weigh in here?

First, there was a solution in the works back in the mid 90's; a tri-partite confederation, composed of Israel, Jordan, and a Palestinian entity. It was in large part a Japanese initiative; a Switzerland or Silicon Valley of the Middle East, capitalizing development of advanced R&D and manufacturing, making good use of local resources, viz., Israeli brains, Palestinian brawn, and the educated, well-behaved work force of Jordan. When the catastropic collapse of the real estate market in Hong Kong cascaded round the world like the fallout from Krakatoa, the deal fell through. Raised expectations were thwarted. Got to be a bummer, that.

Second, the peace settlement in Israel-Palestine was sabotaged in Damascus. Who controls the water in Jerusalem, that's the key. The Oslo Accord had settled the matter, but Damascus was not included. Syrian agriculture in Galilee is restricted to a distance and a height on the slope that puts the water table beyond reach. The tyrannical Allawhite (sp.?) tribe in Damascus are, finally, not bulletproof. They can only risk so much discontent. Had they acquiesced to Oslo, their heads would have been up on pikes. Damascus is the spoiler. They instigate mischief in Jerusalem, at the Temple Mount/Dome of the Rock. Islam controls the surface of the mount, but Israel owns everything underneath, down to the center of the Earth. That was what Sharon was asserting when he desecrated the Mosque of Omar. It's all about the God-damned municipal water supply, don't you see?!!

Well, try to imagine what the Israelis see on the other side of that same fence. Any good reading of the Arab press and media should illustrate the point.

As a matter of fact, AIPAC now uses as it's strongest lobbying point daily translations and transcripts of Arab media-- I know, I'm on their list (don't know why-- just started showing up). These briefings go out daily to all Congressmen, Senators, business people, etc. They are also sent to foreign leaders and government officials around the world. The translations speak for themselves.

As for the history books, look closer to home. The numbers killed by Arab dictators and their regimes far outweigh any comparisons-- not to mention the enormous and tragic waste of the potential and future of Arabs in those countries.

Well, I can't take issue with you on what you say-- water is indeed a pivotal issue-- so you're right on the money there-- but not entirely the only issue.

Interestingly, theres a not often referred to deal with the Jordanians with regard to a massive desalinization project. At the time, the Isrealis, via the Jordanians, offered their techonology and participation on the project as part of an overall peace plan.

It was of course, rejected.

Plus ca change, plus ca reste la meme.

These dictators that you are mentioning are all approved, financied, and supported by the US to keep it's interest in region. Also, to keep the Arabs fighting against each other and keep the state of Israel at killing more people, confsicating more land, bombing wherever and whenever they like.

Sadam was US favorite for a long time. His was Reagan's buddy. The saudi's and all the gulf states are puppets. Only Assad (who did his own massacres) and Iran stood up to the US and Israel.

We should be talking about the people of the area and their rights and not about the puppets sitting on their thrown. Do you agree that the palastinians have the right to return to their land? Do you agree that Israel is the only occupying force in the world today?

I read the Arab media very closely and I know what happens there. The US want to close Al-Jazeera for saying the truth. Yes, the truth which embaracess the west.

Your post makes no sense whatsoever.

That Saddam was once supported by Reagan is meaningless.

So what if we supported him in his war against Iran? What he did afterward was his CHOICE. If I give you a car to go to work and you decide to drive drunk, don't blame me if you run someone over and kill him. You made your choice.

Yes, the US buys oil from the region. So what? Do you think the North Koreans will pick up the slack if and when the US decides to buy more Russian oil or Iranian oil when that regime finally falls?

As for supporting those regimes that you speak of, lets face it. Who shall the US support-- The Al Queda types who want to overthrow them? Do you think the region and the Arabs would be better off with Taliban type regimes in place? Get real!

In point of fact, those autocratic regimes don't need US support to stay in power. They have a long history of killing those that oppose them. That Arabs fight each other has no bearing on the US-- theyve been doing that for centuries.

Palestinians have the same rights as everyone else. As I mentioned earlier, UN resolutions make that clear-- that ALL the refugees have the right to return or compensation-- including those Jews that were booted out of Arab countries, having been there from pre Islamic times. The refugee question has to be settled, I agree-- but that applies to both sides, equally, in the same forum, as specified by UN 338.

As for occupying states, well, Syria is in Lebanon, the Chinese are in Tibet and there is the matter of Spain and France regarding the Basques. There can also be a claim made for the Kurds in Arab countries and Turkey, though that may be less clear.

With the exception of the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the other 'occupations' have lasted far longer and have been far more vicious.

Saddam was in fact told to gas the kurds. To stay in power he had to do it. When it all done, they get rid of him. I am not anti-arab or anti-Israel. But you seem to put a twist on facts to get your point across. The US put these regimes to secure the source of oil. They are told to masscare their people who oppse them. This is why we have an almost revolutions and bombings in Saudi Arabia and so on. They learned recently that the US is behind these dectatorial regimes for their own benefit.

Do not tell me abiut giving me a car and I decide to drive it drunk and kill people. The dictator are given the car and told to kill the people.

I like to see the people of the Middle East live side by side. But we have to be honest with ourselves here and not be one sided as you are. You want the best for Israel and the hell with everyone else. Not going to happen, my friend. There will be more bloodshed until the Palastinans get their full right. I mean full. The British took the palastinine land to give to the Jews to clear Europe's image after Hiltler.

What Jews are you talking about that they have a right to return. I have no idea what you are talking about. As a matter of fact, Jews are asked and paid to leave their country ans settle in Israel. The reason is to populate the land and have more excuses for more settlement.

Cacaphony. Jesus wept, and Moses, too. Mohammed joined them.

I'll answer your post in reverse order.

The Jews I'm talking about are the 800,000 that were booted out of Arab countries and had their property confiscated. Please see UN resolutions on the regional refugee problems. This is basic stuff.

Also, I did a bit of research regarding Jewish immigration to Israel. As a sovereign state, Israel has the right to set its own immigration policies, just as Poland, Ireland and the UK and a host of other countries have programs to ease immigration for those with of those extractions. Again, basic stuff.

Ok, onwards.

You say, "Saddam was in fact told to gas the kurds." OK, by whom? what is your credible evidence that can back that claim up? Simply making that ridiculous assertion isn't enough to make that assertion credible.

As for dictators 'given the car', I was responding to your point. There is no evidence that I have seen that the US demands dictators 'kill their people'. Any evidence you have to that effect is evidence I'd like to see. If anything, evidence points to dictators committing evil on their own.

As for Europe 'giving' Israel WW2 to Jews to clear their consciences, there may be some truth to that, albeit minor. The fact is, Palestine was a British protectotate-- as were all the countries in the region (or French). In reality of course, the British also considered Amin Husseini's support of Hitler and his raising Muslim troops from Bosnia and even some Arab countries for the Axis. To say the British weren't happy may be a bit of an understatement. Couple that with Husseini's maniacal anti semitic rants and support of Hitler, I don't think it was too hatd for the Brits to go with the Balfour Declaration.

Like you, I would like to see people in the Middle East better off. But lets be realistic-- what does that mean? Two states or as Hamas, Jihad et al, say, only the eradication of Israel and Islamic state in it's place will suffice? Whom shall the Israelis negotiate with?