It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


OP/ED: The Intifada Is Over And Israel Has Won

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 03:21 PM
What is missing from the news that used to be a weekly topic? The answer is suicide bombers in Israel. Although it was a costly victory, Israel has put an end to the Palestinian intifada, and done so on their terms. Israel is definitely calling all the shots and holding all the good cards. Arafat has led the Palestinians down the path to defeat, and his promises of victory have now been shown to be nothing but false hopes. There will always be the occasional bombing, but groups like Hamas are now spending more time hiding and running than attacking.

The Washington Post - Israel's Intifada Victory
While no one was looking, something historic happened in the Middle East. The Palestinian intifada is over, and the Palestinians have lost.

For Israel, the victory is bitter. The past four years of terrorism have killed almost 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands of others. But Israel has won strategically.

Arafat failed, spectacularly. The violence did not bring Israel to its knees. Instead, it created chaos, lawlessness and economic disaster in the Palestinian areas. The Palestinians know the ruin that Arafat has brought, and they are beginning to protest it. He promised them blood and victory; he delivered on the blood.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The intifada began in September 2000 after Arafat refused the offer by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. President Clinton had put intense pressure on both parties to come to an agreement, and settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for good. Both parties met at Camp David in July of 2000 to discuss an offer that was being extended by Barak to Arafat. If Arafat accepted he would have to accept Israel as a nation, and could not make claims in the future for Israel's land. What was the offer that Arafat refused?

  • Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
  • The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
  • The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
  • Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
  • Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
  • "Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

Arafat completely rejected this offer, and did not even propose a counter offer. Instead of negotiating, the Palestinians began an effort to drive the Israelis out with systematic bombings and attacks on Israeli settlements. Israel's response to the Palestinian efforts have crushed the Palestinians hopes of removing Israel, and have only strengthened Israel's grip on the region.

Israel's counter attack to civilian bus bombings was targeting the leaders of the organizations carrying out these attacks. Although heavily criticized, these attacks have been highly effective. The most recent head of Hamas is not even being named for fear of Israeli attacks.

Israel's other attack plan was more passive, but just as effective. The separation barrier, although still under construction, has almost completely halted the weekly suicide bombings. In a stroke of genius, Israel has sealed off the border, and redrawn the green line with the same plan. Obviously there can be no negotiation over land rights anymore. The wall stands in the way of the Palestinians gaining any ground.

Israel is now sealing off the last holes in their defenses. The Israeli Defense Ministry is now accepting bids to dig a 15-20-meter deep trench along the Philadelphia Route on the Gaza Strip-Israeli border with Egypt. This would put a stop to the illegal tunnels that Hamas uses to smuggle in weapons. Bullets will be harder to come by than gold in Gaza after this trench is finished. Israel has already successfully blockaded the sea route from weapons smugglers.

The Palestinians have no choice but to accept Israel as a state, and try to negotiate a peace agreement with them. Sharon's tough stance and often criticized plans appear to be quite effective. Arafat has nothing now. Hamas and the PLO are powerless, and hiding. Sadly the Palestinians are the ones who suffer the most from his plans. Hopefully both sides can reach a negotiation, and help restore some dignity to the people of Palestine.

Related ATS Discussions:
Israeli/Palestinian Research Project
30 Years Of U.S. UN Vetoes (did you know?)

Additional Sources:
Palestine Facts - What took place at Camp David in 2000?

[edit on 18-6-2004 by dbates]

[edit on 6-19-2004 by Valhall]

[edit on 21-6-2004 by dbates]

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 04:28 PM
Holy Mother and Father of Pebble People, the terrorists have lost? They have given up? The terrorists have finally figured out that for every Israel civillian they kill they will lose a terrorist leader. They have lost! Yes! Finally! Celebrate good times people, the terrorists have lost this battle, now hopefully the others will lose to.

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 04:36 PM
The sad thing here is that it is the Palestinians who end up suffering the most due to their own leadership.

Think of this for a moment:

What would have happened if Arafat had accepted Barak's offer? You know... the offer quoted above in the article. That offer contained more than Sharon's current plan. Similar to both Gaza went completely to the new Palestinian state, and in fact Barak's plan had more of the West Bank included than Sharon's does. So what did the refusal get Arafat? As far as one can see all it got him was hundreds if not thousands of his own people blowing themselves up. It's gotten him retaliations from Israel which tragically lead to civilian deaths too.

So why did Arafat reject an offer which even gave him a chunk of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount too!?!?

Because he doesn't want that. He wants the whole thing period. He wants there to be no Israel at all. Not in the pre-1967 borders, not in the 1948 borders, nothing. That is a losing proposition and he refuses to accept that. It's unfortunate that so much power is in this man's hands. There have been others involved in Palestinian government who have shown interest in negotiating by they are always rendered irrelevant by Arafat. It's just sad because it's not necessary.

Had Arafat accepted Barak's deal there would've been a state of Palestine already. That state would've had all of Gaza, 95% of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and FULL CONTROL over the holy sites on the temple mount.

What a shame.

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 04:51 PM
Isn't this a little too quick to declare a conclusive victory....sorry to say it, but i don't see this as being over, it may be some time before another attack, but it will happen.

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 05:10 PM

The intifada began in September 2000 after Arafat refused the offer by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.


That meeting between Barak, Arafat and Clinton did`nt had any direct repercussions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict AT ALL!!!

It`s Ariel Sharon who started the second Intifada! You want fact? On september the 28th, Ariel Sharon showed up in person right in the "Esplanade of the Mosques" in Jerusalem -all along with his personal bodyguards- right in the middle of hundreds of Palestinian Muslims. That had the obvious effect of starting a massive riot of Palestinian mens, the intervention of Israeli troops to quell the riot, and the whole thing ended with the much mediatized murder of a Palestinian young boy, shot by a few Israeli soldiers. This is where the second Intifada started.

So you still think Arafat started the whole violence by refusing to negociate with the Israeli State? Then tell me, why is it that he wilfully showed up to a meeting with Shimon Peres on November the 1st, which purpose was to find a mutual solution to end the violence???

There`s been one last meeting between Clinton, Arafat and Peres in January, and this was the meeting that had an inconclusive result, not the one in September! Clinton had to stop trying as he was about to give his seat to Bush Jr, who, on his part, took like one year to do anything concrete in Israel.

What you wrote here is rubbish... You are distorting an historical FACT. Either you do it on purpose, or you're just not on the right track and misleaded by some partisan news article.

The second Intifada, even if it could have been conditionned by the conclusion of the Camp David meeting, was started by Ariel Sharon and the Likoud, and it`s Ariel Sharon himself, as soon as he got in power, that supported the continuation of the violence by sending his troops to attack Palestinian civilians with tanks and missiles, and refusing to stop the expansion of Israeli colonies, at the same time. Ariel Sharon is a criminal! Is that so hard to believe?

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 05:17 PM
Hi, allow me to introduce you to something called fact. Fact tells you that Jews have a holy site on the temple mount also. I'm sure you're not saying that Sharon ignited the Intifade and caused the death of thousands by visit his OWN religion's holy site right?

It's almost funny that you ignore the fact that Arafat sends his people (particularly kids) to their own deaths while he continues a futile attempt to get the Israelis to agree to leave the entire middle east. And instead you blame it all on a visit to a Jewish site by a Jewish prime minister. Allow me the privelege of subscribing to whatever newspaper you get your facts from. Lord knows it might be VERY interesting.

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 05:39 PM
Who would have ever thought that not letting your enemy overrun you, and retalitory strikes would work (

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Echtelion
It`s Ariel Sharon who started the second Intifada! You want fact? On september the 28th, Ariel Sharon showed up in person right in the "Esplanade of the Mosques" in Jerusalem -all along with his personal bodyguards- right in the middle of hundreds of Palestinian Muslims.

Right, how dare a Jew show up to one of their own sites where they can be seen by Muslims. At this point in time I have no sympathy for the Palestinians, not after watching them cheer for 9/11, not after watching them dress up babies as suicide bombers, not after watching them cheer for suicide bombers and not if they use the mere sight of a Jew as justification for the intifada.

If this is what it takes I hope the US does the same thing, identify a terrorist and take them out on sight.

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 06:56 PM
But his politically motivated opportunistic grandstanding should have been met by an equivalent noisy, yet peaceful, demonstration by his opponents.

Instead, it was met by weeks and months of violent rioting, which included trained armed men among the stone throwers. And then when that didn't """work""", vile mass-murder bombings.

Quite a number of which killed ARABS (Israeli) as well as Jews. Did the bombers care?

No, in fact there is some evidence that they intentionally did this because they want to punish Arabs too for "daring" to be friendly with Jews instead of wanting to exterminate them.

Before Camp David and Taba, my sentiments were 50/50. I thought Arafat was being obnoxious at times, and so was Netanyahu. I figured it was all political B.S. and maneuvering for leverage before the serious negotiations were going to happen. Barak was elected, and he, along with Bill Clinton, offered an unprecedented and, given the history, exceptionally generous settlement. Full soverieignty in Gaza and most of West bank, and as an added bonus, some land now presently part of pre-1967 Israel.

There was no counter-offer by the Palestinean side---what could there be other than
erasing Israel from the map? Even to this day the Fatah constitution still calls for total extinction of "zionism" as a political and cultural entity by armed struggle. This is a barely concealed order for genocide.

Some people (almost all European leftists) have proposed that there not be a "state of Israel" but an even more religiously divided "palestine" including both territories where both the Arabs and Jews had equal rights and votes. That's a total crock of course, as the moment it happens there would be a violent pogrom against the Jews. (That's why they wanted Israel to begin with). If that were the radicals' desired solution, they would go out of the way to say "We only have a problem with Zionism politically, we want a different political system so we can live with Jews with equal rights and peacefully."

So, when was the last fiery imam who gave a sermon saying that?


Rather they fill their airwaves and newspapers with the most vile anti-Jewish bigotry seen since the Third Reich, such as calling Jews "sons of pigs and monkeys" and things like that.

Inside Israel, there are a number of Arab communities who DO want that, and they do get along reasonably well with Jews. OF course they want a settlement for the Palestineans as well, but they aren't interested in mass murder as opposed to getting jobs and sending their children to school.

Notice what isn't in the reverse---any significant Jewish minority doing well in a dominantly Arab or Muslim state. In 1948, there were 150,000 Jews living in Baghdad, of all places, where they had been for more than 2,500 years. Now? Virtually zero, except a tiny number of very elderly who are too old and poor to go anywhere. And they have to keep so in secrecy.

There must be a reason for that.

Golda Meir was right: "peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us."

Edited by TC for vulgarity.

[edit on 19-6-2004 by Thomas Crowne]

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 07:55 PM
To quote myself

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Just a follow up.

Up to now, at least, it seems that the tactic of targeting the leadership is working.

Or at least until the Hamas gets a smarter leader.

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:03 PM
Palestina libera, Palestina rossa!!!!

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:07 PM
Heh, good news at alst from the Arab Israeli conflict, the only solution seems to be to exterminate the terrorists.

I don't think I have ever seen a people make so many wrong moves as a "nation", Backing the wrong people, fighting the wrong wars, alienating the wrong powers. They are the authors of their own demise...

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 08:41 PM

Originally posted by James the Lesser
The terrorists have finally figured out that for every Israel civillian they kill they will lose a terrorist leader. They have lost! Yes! Finally!

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but contempt for people who attempt to make political points by killing innocent civilians.
I do however feel obliged to point out that for every Israeli civilian that Palestinian terrorists kill they also lose 3.5 Palestinian civilians. That is to say, over the course of the second Entifada, Israeli troops have killed over three and a half thousand Palestinian civilians.
In one of their first 'targeted bombings', they dropped a one ton bomb on a civilian area at night when people were sleeping. This attack did kill its target, but at the same time, it killed another seven civilians, including four children. For this reason, I am obliged to hold the Israeli leadership in the similar contempt. I quite understand that many of you will view this response as 'weak', or 'caving in to terrorism' but I simply do not believe that it is possible to make the world better by doing bad things. This holds just as true for states as it does for paramilitary organisations.
To conclude, I would like to reaffirm that I do believe that Israeli citizens have the right to live without fear, and that this has been accomplished is positive. That it has been accomplished by crushing the Palestinians under foot is the part which I cannot abide.

[edit on 18-6-2004 by Yog the Sloth]


posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 09:51 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, buuuuuuut . . . . Are not Jews Palestinian by law of the land?

What I mean is, Jews and Palestinians are Brother and Sister, eh?

The Land of Palestine, is what it was and Jerusalem was a 'lil city in the middle, no?

Go back religiously, and I bet ya' find that the Jews presided in the land of Palestine . . .

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 03:27 PM

Palestinian intifada is over

If this is true, then why do we hear nothing about it. It's not as if this is some mediocre event, and unfortunatly it would be a good thing for GWB as well.

Could it be that making this news mainstream would only inflame the Palestinian's and once again escalate the situation?

I dunno, but these are some substantial statements that seem too imposible to keep under wraps. I wouldn't consider it over until a formal agreement is signed between the 2 sides. This could be a mere lull in the war, though I agree the Israelis have made significant progress.


[edit on 19-6-2004 by raven2012]

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 03:38 PM
I just pity the everyday Palestinian people, and the Jewish who suffer their attacks also, its so sad to see so much killing caused by A) religion B) the west.

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 04:23 PM
By the West?...
Its the arab nations who have used the Palestians for there political agenda in the name of Allah.. THey could have had a State right next to Israel ? How was it the west.

Explain Dont Blame.

I felt like Johnny Cocraine for a moment there

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 08:31 PM
Yog if you want to go down the road of "who is the best at killing innocent civilians, then then look at the Suicide bomber last year who targeted a bus of school children coming home from a trip and killed 19, injures over 40 (from memory). How sadistic can you get? He had to have consciously decided to blow himself up in the bus and deliberatly targeted children, no accident or extenuating circumstances there...

Originally posted by Yog the Sloth

In one of their first 'targeted bombings', they dropped a one ton bomb on a civilian area at night when people were sleeping. This attack did kill its target, but at the same time, it killed another seven civilians, including four children. For this reason, I am obliged to hold the Israeli leadership in the similar contempt.

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 09:15 PM

Originally posted by raven2012
If this is true, then why do we hear nothing about it.

Maybe because the "news" article was based on a opinion(/editorial) article, from a collumnist (Charles Krauthammer) at The Washington Post.

[edit on 19-6-2004 by Hoaks]

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 09:32 PM
There is no way such a huge confict between two groups could end over night. This was one of the biggest conflicts of our time, and now its over? This is complete crap i say, and it could be calming a bit, but over? There is no way in hell it is over.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in