Peace in the West Bank

Eric5273 · #1 01-25-2009, 09:18 PM

Last I checked, those living in the West Bank have not been firing rockets into Israel. So you would think those people can live in peace. Apparently not.

This was on television tonight:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

Seeing this, I don't see what benefit the Palestineans get from agreeing to a cease-fire. Kind of like the slave-master telling the slaves he will not beat them if they behave. Either way they will still be slaves.

For there to be peace, Israel has to offer some sort of incentive to the Palestineans, and right now there is none.

Sponsored Links

LobsterX · #2 01-26-2009, 12:58 AM

Here we go again...

B-Line · #3 01-26-2009, 03:20 PM

Bob Simon is an anti-Israeli scum bag.... Just like a few others who like to shoot their mouth off about a country needing to take drastic actions to ensure it's survival..

Here is another 60 minutes report where Simon again, gave an unbalanced, unfair, biased report.

Just because John Stewart, Bob Simon and you agree that Israeli is the one to blame does not make it so.

Eric, try to remember, Israel is the only thing that's keeping you and your extended families out of the preverbal OVEN. It's a shame you just don't get it.

CAMERA ALERT: Review of 60 Minutes’ “Israel's Hit Squads”
On April 1, CBS “60 Minutes” aired a segment with Bob Simon entitled “Israel's Hit Squads.” The program described Israel's policy of arresting terrorist suspects when arrests are possible, but mainly focused on Israel's policy of assassinating terrorists and planners of terrorism.

60 Minutes gave the Israeli spokesperson adequate time and open-ended questions to say what he wanted. CBS referred to most of the Arabs killed by the Israelis as “terrorists” and mentioned Israeli victims of terror. However:

* Simon gave lopsided emphasis to Israel's killing of Palestinian Thabet Thabet, who was portrayed as a peacenik, unlikely to be involved in terrorism. At the same time, Simon did give the Israeli spokesperson a chance to explain why they targeted Thabet. The Israeli spokesperson didn't offer a substantive explanation, due to intelligence concerns about revealing -- and jeopardizing -- their information source. 60 Minutes spent much of the segment humanizing Thabet Thabet, interviewing family and friends, while they didn't do the same for Israeli victims of terror. They also didn't mention that Israeli intelligence information (which determined that Thabet was involved in terrorism) is usually quite reliable.

*Additionally, Simon described in graphic detail how Thabet's “arm was nearly severed.” He did not use similarly graphic and emotional language to describe the injury done to Israeli victims.

* In the intro, 60 Minutes said that Israel was “in the assassination business.” Obviously, there is no “business” or profit involved. So this was an oddly crass way of describing Israel's response to terrorism.

*While Simon used the term “terrorist” numerous times, he did refer to one of the terrorists killed as merely an “activist” and didn't at all describe his crimes or allow any comments from the Israelis about it.

*Missing also was context --- the question of alternatives to Israel's actions. There was no comparison of Israel's policy to their past policies or to those of the US. For example, in response to terrorist attacks, the US has, without warning, bombed military infrastructures of the responsible government or terrorist group, regardless of whether the people inside the structures took an active role in that particular terrorist attack.

ACTION ITEMS: [In the original alert, action items and contact information were listed here.]

B-Line · #4 01-26-2009, 04:32 PM

I want to amend my statement. Bob Simon is not a scum bag. I'm actually usually, very engaged in his reports, I respect him a great deal and often turn to 60 minutes because I do believe they try to give a balanced view of situations.

Having said that, I firmly believe, having watched a number of interviews with Bob Simon about Israel and peace in the Middle East, that he has a biased view, that peace is no longer obtainable, and he blames it on the Israeli's..

And that is what aggravates me. No where in any of his reports does he quote or show a Palestinian saying, "We refuse to recognize Israel as a state" or that the majority of Palestinians refuse the two state solution because it recognizes Israel.

Nowhere in his report did he mention the reason that the doctor is not allowed to travel to Jerusalem because in the past when they did allow travel, terrorists used the opportunity to bomb Israel, so Israel had to close the border. Same thing with the check points.

Comparing Israeli's to Palestinians is not the same as Apartheid. Apartheid was instituted as a way to create cheap labor so deep ore gold could be mined from the Rand inexpensively (Yes, I studied S. Africa in college.) - Apartheid was created and maintained for financial reasons, for workers, for labor, because S. Africa has a lot of natural resources that are very difficult to extract.
-- Israel has religious separation because those whom are not Jewish wish to destroy the state of Israel and kill all the Jews.. Calling it Apartheid is quite a spin. Enslaving people for cheap labor is not the same as restricting people who mean to kill you, your family and all your friends.

- There are many Arab people who live and work in Israel, they are safe, they go about their lives.
- Imagine if the settlers in the West Bank were absorbed into the Palestinian state. In other words, lets say Israel said to the settlers, "you can stay where you are, but there is going to be a two state solution and you are in Palestine lands, so you will come under the government of the Palestinians if you do not move back to the original borders.." - What do you think would happen to those Jews? Would they live in relative peace in an Arab state of Palestine? Or would they be killed by the Palestinians?

- Of course, they would be killed. But the Arabs who live in Israel are not rounded up and murdered.

The reason Israel needs to address the settlers is because without the protection of Israel, they would be killed simply because they are Jewish.

None of this is addressed by Bob Simon. He calls Gaza the worlds largest Jail because Israel has it's borders closed, well, why doesn't Egypt allow travelers through? Why doesn't Jordan either?

The only peace anyone in the Middle East wants is at the expense of the security of the Israelis..

Bob Simon's view on the whole affair has also been presented with an extremely heavy hand that hasn't show the other side of the issue. It placates the wants and needs of the Arabs without discussing any of the real dangers that Israel faces.

How about this for a peace plan. Take all the land in Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Germany, Austria, France, Poland, Russia, Spain, etc. that used to belong to Jews before the Inquisitions, before the Holocaust, before the Pogroms in Russia, the Pogroms in Iraq and Iran and Egypt. Land that was owned by Jews, cared for by Jews and lived on by Jews, but were then EVICTED.. Thrown out, sometimes killed, sometimes beaten, sometimes escorted to the borders...

...And give that land to the Palestinians.

That's right, I'm suggesting that all the land that was owned by Jews and was then seized by the Shah's, or the Kings, or the Nazi's, or the Arab Coalitions... Be then given to the Palestinians. Cause rightfully that is Jewish property that no one has ever paid reparations for.

Eric5273 · #5 01-26-2009, 05:31 PM

All that is nice, but let me ask again. What exactly do people in the West Bank have to do to have their freedom?

B-Line · #6 01-26-2009, 06:32 PM

I guess that depends on what you mean by freedom.

It seems to me that the situation the people in the West Bank are in is a direct and immediate result of the entire populations support and attack of the Jewish state. And it's continued desire to see a total destruction of the Jewish state by no less than half of it's population.

They were once offered their freedom, with the lands in the West Bank and Gaza, yet they chose to decline it in an effort to destroy Israel.

Or do you mean freedom to travel in and out of Israel without restriction? Cause it seems to me that Israel used to allow that, until the Palestinians used that freedom as a vessel to attack Israel.

Or by freedom, do you mean to inhabit buildings that were developed by the settlers, were before, there were no buildings?

Or by freedom, do you mean that Israeli soldiers should stop visiting homes that have a technical, strategic overlook to observe and monitor what is going on with their enemies?

Or by freedom, do you mean to pass in and out as they please?

Or by freedom, do you mean the freedom to continue their war with Israel after they are given control of the West Bank?

Or by freedom, do you mean the freedom to have rockets sent into areas like Gaza using tunnels through Egypt?

So tell me Eric, what do you mean by Freedom?

What if the Jewish settlers don't want to move? What if they want to stay in the dwellings and areas where they live? Should the Palestinians have the freedom to evict them? Kill them? Maybe stick them in the ovens and make pillows out of their hair? Or do you mean the freedom to perform inhumane surgical operations on the settlers?

If Arabs can live in Jewish lands, why can't Jews live in Arab lands?

Eric5273 · #7 01-26-2009, 06:53 PM

Quote: