by J Anderson Saturday, Jun. 28, 2003 at 6:59 AM

"Furthermore Arafat was given an offer of 97% of the territories. The point here is that he rejected it because it "wasn't generous enough." The Zionists learned well from Geobbels about the constant repetition of the propaganda lie -- and make it BIG !!

(It’s a casual article, but still a good read.):

KL: "Furthermore Arafat was given an offer of 97% of the territories. The point here is that he rejected it not [only] because it "wasn't generous enough", but because he wanted much more and wasn't willing to terminate the conflict which would forever deny him the right to seek more. "


KL thinks that he's on American TV where he can get away with repeating the same old canards without being competently challenged and discredited. The Zionists learned well from Geobbels about the constant repetition of propaganda lines. It also takes a central theme of Geobbels' propaganda manual that if you make the propaganda lie BIG, rather than small, it's more likely -- a *BIG* lie, rather than a small lie -- to be believed.

I don't have time to respond to all of the above post, so let me respond to it's central point (or attempted 'coup de grace'). It appears that all of KL's other propaganda points will fall based on the discrediting of his final point.

Before I demolish this claim, first of all, it is the Zionists and the Israelis subliminally playing on the anti-Palestinian (indeed anti-people of color) *RACISM* to be able to, largely, successfully propagandize that,

"We gave the little swarthy savage virtually *everything* he wanted -- *97%!!*-- for God's sake-- and he slapped it down because he just hates us Jews so much that he wants to go on trying to exterminate us! You just can't *deal* with these swarthy towelhead savage heathens!"

Of course the Israeli government--and the Israeli press--along with the American government--and the American press--successfully propagandized both's respective public too, so that even the Israeli public had dangerously been given misinformation about issues affecting their lives--or deaths--of their own fellow citizens or family members. THIS IS THE *MYTH* OF "BARAK'S GENEROUS OFFER".

A) You tell a lie.

B) You constantly repeat it -- especially to a willing, compliant media

- like a propaganda mantra.

- (KL dutifully passes this mantra along.)

C) You make it a *BIG* lie!!

- Arafat can't have turned down 85% (although the original 'figure' was 90% -- but even *that* wasn't good enough!)

- Arafat had to have turned down ***97%***!!!

- (I even heard a figure of *98%*!)

So, that was *MYTH*...

Here is *REALITY*:

(Some of this information was taken from independent sources, but all of it is easily verifiable. Mideast scholars, like Jewish-American Middle Eastern History Professor Joel Beinin of Stanford University has pointed out the same thing.)

It was constantly propagated that, in fact, the Palestinians could have had their state without any need for the current Intifada because in July, 2000, Clinton offered the Palestinians "a peace plan" that would have ended the occupation, but Arafat turned it down. This *MYTH* has been a propaganda line long-promoted, IMPERVIOUS TO THE COUNTER-EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY A MEMBER OF CLINTON'S OWN NEGOTIATING TEAM!! --ROBERT MALLEY:

See Robert Malley and Hussein Agha, "Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors," New York Review of Books, August 9, 2001.

Malley first notes the context: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak came to Camp David in July, 2000, having reneged on various agreements with the Palestinians and having substantially increased the number of Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories during his year in office. Palestinians were understandably wary of Israeli peace offers, given that after six years of Oslo "there were more Israeli settlements, less freedom of movement, and worse economic conditions." Then at Camp David Barak supposedly made an offer -- but never in writing and never in detail. In fact, says, Malley, "strictly speaking, there never was an Israeli offer".

The standard canard goes on that with the failure of Camp David, Arafat opted for war. But consider what followed:

In September, 2000, Barak approved a provocative visit by Ariel Sharon, then a member of the Knesset, to the site of the Al Aqsa mosque.

Given the growing Palestinian rage at the occupation, the results were entirely predictable. The next day *SOME* Palestinians threw rocks (DON'T YOU ZIONISTS LONG FOR THOSE DAYS, NOW, WHEN PALESTINIANS LARGELY ONLY THREW ROCKS?) and the heavily-reinforced police responded with *INDISCRIMINTATE* LETHAL FIRE: KILLING FOUR and WOUNDING *HUNDREDS*. *THUS* began The 2nd Intifada. Israeli police and soldiers -- under Barak's authority -- continued to use lethal force in situations where their lives were not in danger.

Some Palestinians proceeded to arm themselves, and the killing escalated, with deaths on both sides, though the victims were disproportionately Palestinians.

It is sometimes claimed that Palestinians intentionally try to kill Israeli civilians (which some certainly do) while the unarmed civilians killed by the Israelis are all unintended "collateral damage." AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, THE PALESTINIANS CAN BE *AC-CUSED* OF *EVERY* ATROCITY AND THE ISRAELIS CAN BE *EX-CUSED* FROM *ANY* ATROCITY! -- PLAYING ON ANTI-PALESTINIAN, ANTI-PEOPLE OF COLOR, RACISM, WITH ATTENDANT IDEAS OF WHITE/EUROPEAN MORAL SUPERIORITY: I.E., "WE SUPERIOR WHITE PEOPLE DON'T COMMIT ATROCITIES"! But numerous human rights reports by international (as well as Israeli) human rights groups discredit this claim that Israel unintentionally targets civilians.

IN FACT, IN NOVEMBER 2001, SHARON'S DEMAND FOR A ONE-WEEK CESSATION IN PALESTINIAN ATTACKS WAS MET. (THERE HAVE EVEN BEEN LONGER CESSATIONS UP TO ABOUT ONE MONTH.) But, having painted himself into his own corner, "no negotiations without a one-week cessation of violence", Sharon then ordered the assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud Abu Hanoud, which, as everyone predicted, led to a rash of terror bombings, which in turn Sharon used as justification for further assaults on the Palestinian Authority.

(Hanoud's case is interesting in another respect: despite Israeli claims that Arafat refused to arrest terrorists, or else arrested them only to release them shortly thereafter, Hanoud had been in a Palestinian jail. He was not released. Instead, in August 2001, using an *F-16*, Israeli leaders tried to assassinate him in the JAIL! The building was destroyed and 11 police officers were killed! Hanoud escaped.)