From my inbox.

As the search for real peace continues.

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

One of the first on-line responses to the publication of
the letter to President George W. Bush and Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice was a simple, straightforward
question: "What is in it for Israel?" The "it" referred
to guidelines the letter proposed for an agreement that
would end Israel's occupation of the territories the IDF
overran forty years ago in a conflict—as Israelis were
reminded by the celebrated author David Grossman when he
addressed a recent commemoration of Prime Minister Yitzhak
Rabin's assassination—that is now in its 10(0?)th year.

What is in it for Israel should be self-evident, but now
that three new Israeli generations have been born having
no memory of Israel without settlements, it no longer is;
for too many, the occupation—and the spiral of Israeli-
Palestinian violence that has come with it—is a given,
the natural order of things.

An agreement that leads to the end of an occupation that
with the best of intentions humiliates and brutalizes an
entire nation should be more than enough of a reason to
go for it. The subjugation and permanent dispossession of
millions of people is surely not the vocation of Judaism,
nor is it an acceptable condition for a Jewish national
revival.

The argument against an Israeli agreement with President
Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is that
they are too weak and unpopular to implement an accord
that would require them to put an end to the violence of
Palestinian rejectionist groups. Indeed, it is pointed out
that the fact that most of the violence in the West Bank
continues to come from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a
faction that belongs to Abbas's Fatah, underlines the
limits of Abbas and Fayyad's authority and their capacity
to establish the rule of law in the territories.

That Abbas has been unable to control violence is true
enough, but it is nevertheless a disingenuous argument.
Abbas's weakness is the result of Israeli policies—
primarily the relentless expansion of Israeli settlements
on Palestinian territory that continues even as Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert speaks about removing settlements—
that have convinced most Palestinians that Israel has no
intention of returning to the pre-1967 border and allowing
the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. An Israeli
policy that seriously rewarded Abbas for his moderation—
such as a significant release of Palestinian prisoners,
instead of several hundred out of the over 10,000 prisoners
being held by Israel; the removal of physical obstructions
and checkpoints that have strangled Palestinian economic
and social life; the dismantlement of outposts and a freeze
on further construction in the settlements, as required by
the Roadmap—would turn Abbas and Fayyad into strong leaders
overnight. But Olmert has until now only offered token
"gestures," and Palestinians have been given no reason to
believe that a change in Israeli policy will occur even
when the Palestinians choose leaders committed to non-
violence and moderation.

Checkpoints and roadblocks designed to prevent the movement
of people and goods throughout the West Bank—well over 500
such obstacles—have devastated the Palestinian economy and
turned Palestinian life, in all of its aspects, into an
endless nightmare. In 2005, following Abbas's election as
president of the Palestinian Authority and before Israel's
dismantlement of its settlements in Gaza, Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice and James Wolfensohn, the former
president of the World Bank who was designated as the envoy
of the Quartet (the EU, UN, US, and Russia), worked out a
detailed agreement with the Israeli government to remove
many of these obstacles. The plan included the creation of
a safe passage that would link the populations of the West
Bank and Gaza—a connection that is vitally important to the
social, cultural, and economic life of these geographically
separated entities, to which Israel had already committed
itself in the Oslo accords. The whole point of that agree-
ment was to show Palestinians that Abbas's moderation and
opposition to violence could obtain results that Israel
had denied his predecessor, Yasser Arafat. It proved the
opposite. According to Wolfensohn, Israel violated the
agreement before the ink of its representatives' signatures
had dried.

"In the months that followed, every aspect of the agreement
was abrogated," Wolfensohn, an observant Jew and a lifelong
friend and generous philanthropic supporter of Israel,
recently told the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. Indeed,
instead of removing checkpoints, more were added. Reading
the Ha'aretz interview, it is difficult to avoid the
impression that this firsthand experience with Israel's
dealings with the Palestinians profoundly disillusioned
Wolfensohn, who came to see the equities of the conflict
in a new light.

Syria and Hamas

The signers of the letter to President Bush stressed that
a successful outcome of the Annapolis conference would
require Syria's participation in the conference, as well
as efforts to start a dialogue with Hamas. Washington
overcame its initial reluctance to include Syria. However,
Syria has said it will not attend if the subject of a Syria-
Israel peace agreement will not appear on the Annapolis
agenda. Syria's nonattendance would result in the down-
grading of Arab attendance at the meeting to the
ambassadorial rather than ministerial level, which in
turn would defeat the American objective of using the
Annapolis gathering to create a coalition of moderate Arab
countries that, together with Israel, would be prepared
to counter the growing threat of Iranian hegemony in the
region.

Syria's absence will also prevent a serious exploration of
the Arab League's 2002 peace initiative, whose promise of
full normalization of relations with the state of Israel is
contingent on an Israeli-Syrian agreement. It would also
impede efforts at a resolution of the festering crisis in
Lebanon.

Israel and Washington have made clear their determination
to deny Hamas the fruits of its 2006 victory in the most
honest and democratic election—perhaps the only one—in the
Arab Middle East and to return to power a Fatah leadership
that lost those elections. This has surely given Hamas's
leadership an incentive to undermine any agreement reached
by Abbas in Annapolis, or in the negotiations that are
supposed to follow the conference. But if Abbas emerges
from Annapolis with parameters for an agreement with Israel
that will be seen as fair by the Palestinian public—even if
such parameters were not explicated in a joint statement of
principles by Olmert and Abbas but by Bush in his address
to the meeting—Hamas would damage its standing with the
Palestinian public if it were to seek to wreck such an
accomplishment. Palestinians have suffered too much for
too long to tolerate that kind of recklessness.

Israel and the US have disqualified Hamas as a peace
partner not only because it has refused to recognize Israel
but also because it refuses to be bound by previous agree-
ments between the PLO and Israel's government. A recent
Op-Ed in Israel's Yedioth Ahronot newspaper by Zalman
Shoval, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington and a
longtime senior adviser to Likud prime ministers,
illustrates the manipulative character of Israel's
diplomacy. Shoval asks in his Op-Ed piece, "How could
the government that would replace Olmert's cabinet be able
to free itself from the pledges and commitments to be made
in Annapolis," given the "basic principle of international
law that every government inherits the rights and
obligations of its predecessors, ?"

What is remarkable is not only the shamelessness of a Likud
leader, himself a prominent Israeli lawyer, urging publicly
that Israel find ways to violate commitments it is about
to make to the Palestinians in a meeting to which the
president of the United States is a party, but of the
answer Shoval proposes: This principle of international law
applies only to states, and "after all, it is difficult to
define the Palestinian Authority as a state." Apparently
not so difficult as to prevent Israel from starving the
civilian population of Gaza by pretending that Hamas is to
be defined as a state.

Be that as it may, Abbas will have to negotiate with Hamas
the reestablishment of a unity government even in the
highly unlikely event Annapolis is a success. He cannot
risk the permanent separation of Gaza from the West Bank,
nor will the Palestinian public allow him to take that
risk. An even greater risk is that without a unity
government, Hamas—which has significant political support
in the West Bank—will replace Fatah in the West Bank as
well. Hamas will exist at least as long as Fatah, and
Palestinian governance will have to reflect that reality.

Palestinian Compromises

Is Abbas prepared to agree to compromises that Palestinians
must make if there is to be an agreement with Israel? The
answer is yes, if the demands for compromise do not go
beyond those envisioned in President Clinton's proposals
and in the Taba discussions that followed the failed Camp
David summit in 2000. The parameters of an agreement
reflecting those compromises are outlined in the letter
from Scowcroft, Brzezinski, Hamilton, et al. to President
Bush and Secretary Rice.

It is not true, as Israelis often claim, that Palestinians
refuse to compromise. (Former prime minister Benjamin
Netanyahu famously complained that "Palestinians take and
take while Israel gives and gives." That is an indecent
charge, not only because so far Israel has given
Palestinians nothing, but because Palestinians made the
most far-reaching compromise of all when, in 1988, Arafat
formally accepted the legitimacy of Israel within the 1949
armistice line (i.e., the pre-1967 border). With that
concession, Palestinians gave up their claim to more than
half the territory that the United Nations 1947 Partition
Resolution had assigned to Palestine's Arab inhabitants.
Palestinians have never received credit for this wrenching
and historic concession, made well before Israel formally
recognized that Palestinians have a right to sovereignty
in any part of Palestine. The notion that Palestinians can
now be compelled to accept "border adjustments" at the
expense of the 22 per cent of the territory that is left
them is deeply offensive to Palestinians, and under-
standably so.

Also forgotten is that at the Camp David summit
Palestinians agreed to border adjustments to the pre-1967
borders that would allow large numbers of West Bank
settlers—about 70 percent—to remain within the Jewish
state, in an equal exchange of territory on both sides
of the border. Barak rejected the principle of one-to-one
land swaps.

In the past, the Palestinian demand that Israel accept the
Palestinian refugees' "right of return" to their homes was
a serious obstacle to a peace agreement. But the Arab
League's peace initiative of 2002 leaves no doubt that what
Arab countries are demanding is Israel's acceptance of that
right in principle, while agreeing that the number of
refugees allowed to return would be subject to Israel's
agreement.

If Annapolis fails, it will be because of Israel's
rejection of the single most central condition for
success: full disclosure of its definition of viable
Palestinian statehood. Olmert has already reneged on
his earlier endorsement of Rice's insistence that the
meeting must produce a joint statement outlining a
permanent status agreement to avoid becoming a meaningless
photo op, and it remains unlikely that any meaningful
joint declaration can be reached.

According to Aluf Benn, Ha'aretz's diplomatic
correspondent, Olmert is adept at marching "in the no-man's
land between talk and action." For Olmert, Benn says,
engaging in high-level talks and granting gestures to the
Palestinians creates "the most convenient diplomatic
situation," because such gestures are "in themselves
sufficient to remove international pressure on Israel to
withdraw from the territories and to end the occupation."
At the same time, "as long as it's all talk and there
are no agreements," internal pressures not to cede the
territories are neutralized. Olmert seems to have succeeded
in turning Annapolis into that kind of no-man's land.

The Cost of Failure

The importance of reaching such an agreement now rather
than in the future should be self-evident. For if Annapolis
fails, the likelihood that Israel will again have a
moderate Palestinian interlocutor is close to zero. Not
only the prospect of a moderate Palestinian leadership but
also the commitment of all Arab countries to normalizing
relations with Israel following a peace agreement will be
casualties. Hamas's insistence that moderation, as under-
stood by Israel, is a synonym for Palestinian capitulation
will become widely accepted, and not only in the Arab
world.

The disillusionment that would follow a failed effort in
Annapolis would therefore leave Israel with the most
dismal of prospects for renewing a peace process with the
Palestinians and with Arab countries. It certainly could
not happen in circumstances as favorable as they are today,
for the growing skepticism in US policy circles about
Israel's real intentions in the territories, as suggested
by the letter to Bush and Rice by this country's most
eminent elder statesmen and stateswomen, is bound to change
what has been the reflexive US support that Israel has been
able to count on until now, particularly during the past
two administrations.

More important, should Annapolis fail, prospects for
resuming a viable peace process at some future date will
be made increasingly unlikely by the changing demographic
balance in Palestine. A clear Arab majority in historic
Palestine, a situation that is imminent, will persuade
Palestinians and their leaders that the quest for a two-
state solution is a fool's pursuit. They may conclude that
rather than settling for even less than 22 percent of
Palestine—i.e., less than half the territory that the
international community confirmed in the 1947 Partition
Resolution of the UN is the legitimate patrimony of
Palestine's Arab population—it would be better to renounce
separate Palestinian statehood and instead demand equal
rights in a state of Israel that includes all of Palestine.
Why settle for crumbs now if as a result of their decisive
majority they will soon become the dominant political and
cultural force in all of Palestine?

If the international community has been largely indifferent
to—or impotent to do anything about—what some have tried
to portray as a quarrel between Israel and Palestinians
over where to draw the border between the two, it is far
less likely to remain indifferent to an Israel intent on
permanently denying its majority Arab population the rights
and privileges it accords to its minority of Jewish
citizens. It would be an apartheid regime that, one hopes,
a majority of Israelis would themselves not abide.

Annapolis may well be a historic watershed—the last
opportunity to salvage not only a two-state solution but
a Jewish state that remains a democracy.

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

Another constitutional jargons only extracted from the minds of those who seek for more shedding of blood, rather than how to abate it.

If you are so honest with this plagiarism act of yours, could you kindly state the source of this inbox of yours?

Yahoomail.

Or do you need the subscription info?

what can i say the poster is too long but read it but does not mean much and so does not change much

This plagiarised article can be found here:http://www.nybooks.com/qa/siegman

The author,Henry Siegman,was the subject of an article here:Bashing Israel At Every Turn


Apparently,his funding on the CFR comes from inter alia,Arab businessmen and Palestinian organisations-http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/2158

Waiting to see the emergence of a strong Palestinian state.

The end of Israel's Apartheid on the Palestinians is coming to an end.

Just like blacks in South Africa survived the evils of Apartheid under white minority rule, our Arab brothers suffering under Jewish (white) rule, will survive the evils of the Israeli government.

May God's name be praised!

There's only one answer to the initial question 'What is in it for Israel'


SURVIVAL.

It's always amusing when fat cats on NL who have never lived in a truly hostile environment start pontificating about what Israel is doing wrong. Why would someone in his right mind start criticising the proliferation of roadblocks in Israel when he knows they are surrounded by thousands of would-be suicide bombers?

Go ask why the Abia state residents supported the rise of the Bakassi boys with their style of jungle justice.

texazzpete:

There's only one answer to the initial question 'What is in it for Israel'


SURVIVAL.

It's always amusing when fat cats on Nairaland who have never lived in a truly hostile environment start pontificating about what Israel is doing wrong. Why would someone in his right mind start criticising the proliferation of roadblocks in Israel when he knows they are surrounded by thousands of would-be suicide bombers?

I am shocked at the way thin rats on Nairaland continue to support actions that are clearly wrong and yet always explain away their support with non issues.

texazzpete:

Go ask why the Abia state residents supported the rise of the Bakassi boys with their style of jungle justice.

Abia State did not seize any neighboring land in the first place so your question though diversionary remains baseless.

I-man:

This plagiarised article can be found here:http://www.nybooks.com/qa/siegman

The author,Henry Siegman,was the subject of an article here:Bashing Israel At Every Turn


Apparently,his funding on the CFR comes from inter alia,Arab businessmen and Palestinian organisations-http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/2158

Referencing the content in bold see below the portion from the linked article that covers the funding and see for yourself why the likes of I-man will forever remain a liar and a deceiver.

So why would the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York-based American institution, fund this "expert" at the level of $204,151 in salary and benefits, making him, in the most recent year for which tax returns are available, its fourth-highest paid employee? It turns out that much of the funding for the Council's "U.S./Middle East Project" comes from overseas, including the European Commission, the government of Norway, Kuwaiti and Saudi businessmen, a Lebanese politician, and, for one year, an official of the commercial arm of the Palestinian Authority, Munib Masri.

But for a year's funding according to the article all the fundings have come from European Commission, the government of Norway, a Lebanese politician and two countries that are allies to the US, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Now, who is fooling who? It is clear that some people cannot live without lies.

@Afam

It is clear that you are a man of unmitigated idiocy.How have you refuted this assertion?-

Apparently,his funding on the CFR comes from inter alia,Arab businessmen and Palestinian organisations

Aren't Kuwaiti and Saudi businessmen Arabs?Isn't a Lebanese politician an Arab? What difference does it make to their Arabness if their country of origin is a US ally? Do you think most Saudis are pro-US?15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia- a US ally.

The money didn't come from the various Arab Govts but individuals.Only an slowpoke like you would think that one is no longer an Arab business man because your country is a US ally.If Bin Laden-a Saudi-were to contribute to the funding,I guess his being from a nation allied to the US disqualifies him as an Arab.Complete bonehead

I-man will forever remain a liar and a deceiver.

What is the difference between a liar and a deceiver?Better go and concentrate on your petty trading

European commission = individual?
Government of Norway = individual?
1 year funding by a commercial arm of PLO = Palestinian organizations?

You are a liar and will die a liar.

Reconcile the first 3 lines with the obvious lies you stated on this thread.

Don't worry yourself too much as with your own hands you have shown the world that you will rather lie and misinform than face facts.

Apparently,his funding on the CFR comes from inter alia,Arab businessmen and Palestinian organisations

You have shown yourself to be intellectually challenged.Once again,you have been unable to show how you have refuted the above.Perhaps,your benighted mind was confused by the term,"inter alia".

The money didn't come from the various Arab Govts but individuals.

The Kuwaiti,Saudi and Lebanese donors were individuals,not Govts,so their country's good relations with the US is patently irrelevant.What a complete slowpoke!

1 year funding by a commercial arm of PLO = Palestinian organizations?

In your dumb haste to correct me,you made your own mistake.The funding came from an individual,Munib Masri,working with a Palestinian organisation.Of course I made a mistake in saying Palestinian organisations,but a cretin like you had to add your own faux pas in a stupid bid to correct me.

I-man:

You have shown yourself to be intellectually challenged.Once again,you have been unable to show how you have refuted the above.Perhaps,your benighted mind was confused by the term,"inter alia".
The Kuwaiti,Saudi and Lebanese donors were individuals,not Govts,so their country's good relations with the US is patently irrelevant.What a complete slowpoke!
In your dumb haste to correct me,you made your own mistake.The funding came from an individual,Munib Masri,working with a Palestinian organisation.Of course I made a mistake in saying Palestinian organisations,but a cretin like you had to add your own faux pas in a stupid bid to correct me.

Can you please stop the lies?

The content in bold refers, you did not make a mistake, you made several mistakes and you just admitted to one of them.

Your keyboard no dey gree type european commission and government of Norway abi you just dey avoid them?

can you guys not disagree without resorting to insults?

Tell them oooo.

Whenever you disagree with them the next thing is insults. However, I have the right dose of medicine for people that do so, rather than swallow their insults I return them in kind and it has been working like magic.

Blatant:

can you guys not disagree without resorting to insults?

pls help us ask Afam.

Afam:

Abia State did not seize any neighboring land in the first place so your question though diversionary remains baseless.

the lands were siezed from Jordan and Egypt NOT the palestinians. Egypt and Jordan have both expressed reluctance to take the lands back! what shld Isreal do? Give it to just about anyone who can cry very loudly?

davidylan:

please help us ask Afam.

You mean why he believes in replying in kind? Simple, it is the only medicine that works for people that believe in insulting others.

davidylan:

the lands were siezed from Jordan and Egypt NOT the palestinians. Egypt and Jordan have both expressed reluctance to take the lands back! what shld Isreal do? Give it to just about anyone who can cry very loudly?

At least you now agree that the lands were seized.

At least you don't talk about Israel being attacked by its neighbors in 1967 because it has been made very clear that the claim was a lie that had been told over the years.

So, does it then mean that Israel can attack its neighbors, seize their lands while people like you wonder who they should return the lands to since according to you both Jordan and Egypt have expressed reluctance to take the lands back.

Truth shall always prevail and your comments somehow goes to show that no matter how long it takes being on the side of truth is better.

Welcome to reality my friend.

Na wah all this isreali-palestina issues. Make una take am easy.

I-man:

This plagiarised article can be found here:http://www.nybooks.com/qa/siegman

The author,Henry Siegman,was the subject of an article here:Bashing Israel At Every Turn


Apparently,his funding on the CFR comes from inter alia,Arab businessmen and Palestinian organisations-http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/2158

A close look at I-man's mail, the guy put inter-alia which is "amongst other things" so he chose the ones to emphasize and summarised the others, except the meaning of the word inter-alia has change, i dont see the lie.

Afam:

At least you now agree that the lands were seized.

I never once repudiated that fact . . . the lands were siezed by Egypt and Jordan in 1948 and then reclaimed in 1967. Get your FACTS right.

Afam:

At least you don't talk about Israel being attacked by its neighbors in 1967 because it has been made very clear that the claim was a lie that had been told over the years.

READ before you ejaculate. Isreal was surrounded by Egypt and Syria. Here is an excerpt from a Wikipedia account
The Six-Day War (Arabic: حرب الأيام الستة, ħarb al‑ayyam as‑sitta ; Hebrew: מלחמת ששת הימים‎, Milhemet Sheshet Ha‑Yamim), also known as the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, the Third Arab-Israeli War, Six Days' War, an‑Naksah (The Setback), or the June War, was fought between Israel and Arab neighbors Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The nations of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Algeria also contributed troops and arms to the Arab forces.

In May 1967, Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula, which had been stationed there since 1957 (following the 1956 Sinai invasion by Israel), to provide a peace-keeping buffer zone. In reaction to Israeli-Syrian tensions, Egypt amassed 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, and called for unified Arab action against Israel. On June 5, 1967, Israel launched an attack against Egypt's airforce, claiming that it feared an imminent invasion by Egypt. Jordan, which had signed a mutual defence treaty with Egypt on May 30, then attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya. At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, eastern Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of the war affect the geopolitics of the region to this day.

So, does it then mean that Israel can attack its neighbors, seize their lands while people like you wonder who they should return the lands to since according to you both Jordan and Egypt have expressed reluctance to take the lands back.

Afam:

Truth shall always prevail and your comments somehow goes to show that no matter how long it takes being on the side of truth is better.

Your comments dont prove anything beyond the fact that you dont know what you are saying period!

If indeed we should force Isreal to go back to the pre-1967 borders, it shld be ceding those lands to Egypt and Jordan and NOT the crying "palestinians".
I hope you realise that is one part of the "truth" that shld prevail.

buluti:

A close look at I-man's mail, the guy put inter-alia which is "amongst other things" so he chose the ones to emphasize and summarised the others, except the meaning of the word inter-alia has change, i don't see the lie.

dont bother, pple like Afam dont bother to read as long as they can use insults to force their myopic oppinions through.

buluti:

Na wah all this isreali-palestina issues. Make una take am easy.

A close look at I-man's mail, the guy put inter-alia which is "amongst other things" so he chose the ones to emphasize and summarised the others, except the meaning of the word inter-alia has change, i don't see the lie.

The summary was wrong and he admitted that much so I see this attempt as unnecessary unless you are happy seeing the guy's lies being exposed all the time.

Only someone that is happy with misinformation will not see anything wrong in the guy's post which was very clearly misleading as regards the funding.

How can the following

It turns out that much of the funding for the Council's "US./Middle East Project" comes from overseas, including the European Commission, the government of Norway, Kuwaiti and Saudi businessmen, a Lebanese politician, and, for one year, an official of the commercial arm of the Palestinian Authority, Munib Masri.

be summarized to read the following

Apparently,his funding on the CFR comes from inter alia,Arab businessmen and Palestinian organisations

?

Sometimes I am amazed at the level of lies and support for lies on this forum.

@davidylan,

Again, I am happy that you have also reluctantly agreed that Israel attacked its neighbors, thank God.

Truth shall always prevail over lies, na dia I stand put gidigba.

Afam:

The summary was wrong and he admitted that much so I see this attempt as unnecessary unless you are happy seeing the guy's lies being exposed all the time.

Stop being a cretin,no where did I claim that my summary was wrong,except for using organisation in the plural.Your willful blindness is hilarious.

@ Afam, you are entitled to your opinions and i only stated mine.

Afam:

The summary was wrong and he admitted that much so I see this attempt as unnecessary unless you are happy seeing the guy's lies being exposed all the time.

Only someone that is happy with misinformation will not see anything wrong in the guy's post which was very clearly misleading as regards the funding.

How can the following

be summarized to read the following?

Sometimes I am amazed at the level of lies and support for lies on this forum.

You need to relax (take a chill pill) on the agression, theres no need for all the derogatory statements, again i only stated my opinion and never insulted you so i dont see where the like for like comes from.

lets even look at it closely: To help break it down, lets look at the two statements.

"It turns out that much of the funding for the Council's "US./Middle East Project" comes from overseas, including the European Commission, the government of Norway, Kuwaiti and Saudi businessmen, a Lebanese politician, and, for one year, an official of the commercial arm of the Palestinian Authority, Munib Masri"

In simple terms the statement is about funding and by who. The above states that govt of Norway,kuwaiti & Saudi business man, Lebanese politician, and official of the palestinian authority.

And someone says:

Apparently,his funding on the CFR comes from inter alia,Arab businessmen and Palestinian organisations.

Again funding and by who:

inter alia (amongst other fund contributors in this case the govts of Norway, Kuwaiti and official of palestinan authority) Arab business names (Kuwaiti and Saudi) and palestinian organisations.

Your crust seems to be palestinian authority / palestinian organistion, comeon its a discussion forum, and looking at it in a context the palestinian authority is a palestinian organisation, since the so called palestinian aithority rule/authority is divided its authority is limited to only the west bank as hamas controls the Gaza strip, it cannot be considered a govt it does not have power and legitimacy, its really just an organisation, a Paramilitary organisation maybe. The summary is therefore right, it gives a snap shot of longer statement.

But as i said, its a debate, so take it easy. We are not marking accuracy here, its the context things are being used that should be considered, reading the statement objectively one can tell if the writer intended to mislead the reader, in this case that is not present.

Afam:

@davidylan,

Again, I am happy that you have also reluctantly agreed that Israel attacked its neighbors, thank God.

Truth shall always prevail over lies, na dia I stand put gidigba.

lol you must be reading upside down. where did i indicate such? seems you already have a pedigree of reading errors into posts that do not support your myopic ideas.

You claim "truth shall always prevail", the problem is you dont even know the difference between fact and fiction. NOT even the Egyptians are blaming the Jews for attacking them. Perhaps you can go to court on their behalf.
The truth of the 6-day war is only a mouse click away, stay their in your empty egoistical shell crying about "truth".

Afam:

The summary was wrong and he admitted that much so I see this attempt as unnecessary
Truth shall always prevail over lies, na dia I stand put gidigba.

Innocent Palestinians

@buluti,

This guy was being economical with the truth and the posts are clear on this. He carefully excluded non arab links as regards the funding and you don't see anything wrong in that?

@davidylan,

Did anyone attack Israel in 1967? Yes or no.

Did Israel attack its neighbors in 1967? Yes or no.

@I-man,

Take it easy on the misinformation and "lies" abeg because they will always be exposed.

@ Afam,

What exactly is your point? It is clear to all, Isreal launched an attack at Egypt on June 5 1967. So spit out what you want to say if there is any actually.

mrpataki:

@ Afam,

What exactly is your point? It is clear to all, Isreal launched an attack at Egypt on June 5 1967. So spit out what you want to say if there is any actually.

Thank you jare. Actually I am aware that Israel attacked its neighbors but people like I-man, Davidylan and some other religious bigots on this forum have been claiming that Israel was attacked by its arab neighbors in 1967 and using the lie as a justification for the lands Israel seized in 1967.

With someone like you around I am sure they will watch what they say next time, keep the TRUTH FLAG flying.

You see, we can actually agree on something, the world is indeed a beautiful place.

Sincerely,I wish to say this I think lucidly most of the guys delving into the isreali-palestinian issue are intellectually not versed in it.Sincerely,it is conspicuous,but to help matters so that henceforth we will see more intellectually true judgements, to start with I refer every man to read ARAFAT by Tony Walker & Andrew Gowers,THE HISTORY OF PALESTINE by Dr. Muhsin Saleh & ISLAM AND THE PROBLEM OF ISREAL by Ismail Al-Faruqi:all of whom are reputable scholars.Sincerely,I did this so as to reduce my posting because most of the misunderstood issues here can only be tackled through voluminous writings.Peace on everyman that stands oiut for Justice and Peace.Perhaps after reading these voluminous books Nigerian would be refered to as Home of Truthful Intellectuals,

Afam:

@davidylan,

Did anyone attack Israel in 1967? Yes or no.

Did Israel attack its neighbors in 1967? Yes or no.

hmmm i'm not sure you would sit down quietly waiting to be inevitably destroyed if Egypt, Jordan and Syria surrounded you on every side, ammassed 1000 tanks and 100,000 troops at your borders and imposed a naval and air blockade on you.

Afam, the problem is you have a one-track mind. You just mumble . . . did anyone attack Isreal in 1967 . . . the above constitutes much more than an attack, it was clear an invasion of Isreal was imminent you numpty!

Egypt's closure of the Straits of Tiran was a clear and blatant act of war.To blockade any nations right of passage is an act of war.No mind Afam

@davidylan/!-man,

Can you guys please speak english? Trying to confuse yourselves just because a simple question was asked is not fair.

It is clear that this issue of who attacked who is closed, you may contact mrpataki to lecture the 2 of you if need be, bloody liars.