Bush: 'We have a problem with Sharon'

[yehudi]

Behind-the-scenes exchanges between President George Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at last week's Aqaba summit may hint at a certain shift in the American stance, from the Israeli to the Palestinian side, according to a participant in the three-way meeting of the delegations.



The source quoted Bush as telling his National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that "I see that we have a problem with Sharon," while saying of the Palestinians led by Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, "We can work with them."

At one point, an irked Bush reportedly rebuked Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, telling him "Oh, but I think that you can [help the Palestinians]. And I think that you will."

At the advance request of Israel at the summit, Bush's aides had put security problems at the top of the agenda for discussion. "The first thing that Bush was required to talk about was security," the participant said, adding, "It was a request of the Israelis. So [Bush] asked Dahlan to give a briefing."

According to the source, Dahlan gave an excellent five-minute synopsis of the situation, and concluded by saying to Bush: "There are some things we can do and some things we cannot. We will do our best. But we will need help."

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz burst in at the end of Dahlan's presentation and said: "Well, they won't be getting any help from us; they have their own security service."

You could see that Bush was irritated, the participant said, and Bush turned on Mofaz angrily: "Their own security service? But you have destroyed their security service."

Mofaz shook his head and said: "I do not think that we can help them, Mr. President," - to which Bush said: "Oh, but I think that you can. And I think that you will."

Then Bush turned to Abbas - again according to a script insisted on by the Israelis - and said: "Mr. Prime Minister, perhaps you could give an overview of the situation in the West Bank and Gaza."

Abbas outlined the increasingly dire situation of the territories, saying that the humanitarian crisis was deepening, and that while recent actions of the finance minister had eased the problems, the insertion of new funding was necessary.

Sharon then interrupted and said: "The insertion of new funding must be dependent on your good behavior." Bush was again visibly irritated: "You should release their money as soon as possible. This will help the situation."

Sharon shook his head: "We have to deal with security first, and we will condition the release of their monies on this alone." Bush peered at Sharon: "But it is their money ..." Sharon said: "Nevertheless, Mr. President ..." and Bush interrupted him: "It is their money, give it to them."

After that meeting, Bush turned to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and said, "We have a problem with Sharon I can see, but I like that young man [Dahlan] and I think their prime minister is incapable of lying. I hope that they will be successful. We can work with them."

Bush was also pleased with the determination with which Abbas rebuffed pressure from his ministers, Nabil Sha'ath and Yasser Abed Rabbo, to toughen the language of the Abbas speech, which he had agreed upon with the American delegation before the summit. They said it would cause trouble in the Palestinian Authority. They argued heatedly with Abbas about his comments, at one point in front of the president. But Abbas insisted that his remarks follow the outlines set out by Bush.

Bush watched the interplay and was pleased that Abbas agreed to the American president's suggestions on the draft remarks: "If you will just do this, I pledge to you we will get where your colleagues want you to go. But we are going to take one step at a time."

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/302079.html

[Northlander]

Im not surprised really. The Israeli side are obviously trying to sink the roadmap. I dont expect Bush to applause that since he has put alot into this personally.

I dont think the israelis understand the importance of this. They are really not ready to take actions towards peace. I would like to go so far as saying there are no thought whatsoever to do so.
They will never stop the colonization and settling of palestinian areas. They will continue to push forward until they have their Erez Yisrael.

The basic evidence is that they are actually trying to boost the support for Hamas in PA areas. Its clearly so and I we can see that the americans are starting to understand that to. If something is true it is that Bushs administration doesnt consist of stupid men and they know which information the israelis sits on.
Israel knows perfectly well, as we all do, how Hamas gains support and recruitment. Its not as much about religous fanatism as being a palestinian social civil organisation. They have a military branch and a civilian. They provide food for the poorest families, schools for children, shelter for homeless etc. It cant be underestimated. It is the single most important reason for palestinians supporting them. Violent actions from PA towards extremists in Hamas can never be successful(it will be necessary from time to time) without cooperation and talks with it as an organisation.

Sharon knows this better than I do. Bush knows it. Everybody knows it. When Israel orders the attack on Rantissi they KNOW that will prevent any discussions between Abbas and Hamas. Pro-israelis can claim whatever reason they want. I agree that Israel wants him dead because they see him as a terrorist, maybe for legitimate reasons. But no one can deny that Israels knew this would make it impossible for PA to take actions towards Hamas. Which in turn makes it possible for Israel to continue not to fulfill their obligations. Its a clear try to sink the roadmap and it will be successful. Hamas is far to rooted in WB to be ignored politically. USA didnt demand that Israel, no one does, should sit in talks with Hamas. That was Abbas job. He was the guy the americans saw fit and I think he was the right guy too. What can Abbas come with now? People will just see that Israel is trying to kill the Hamas leaders continously, without regards to nearby civilians as always. That makes Abbas work impossible and strenghten Hamas.

Israel have their path already figured out. They put their trust in the Israeli lobby in USA and the special bonds and ignores this Roadmap. Things have worked fine up to now with the expansion and they take the chance that it will in the future too. I hope they are wrong and are forced to behave like a civilized normal country, but I doubt it. Soon enought there wont be any palestinian land left and then Israel wont have these annoying talks about a palestinian state. That is their agenda, that is israeli politics. As clear as ever.

[humus_sapiens]

Yehudi gloating over Israel's problems again. Suddenly Bush doesn't look so bad anymore from rotten anti-semitic Eurostan.

BTW, have you noticed the headlines: "Israel starts dismantling settlements". As in, this is only the start, watch us ethnically cleanse the Falastin and turn all of them dirty Jews into refugees.

[Northlander]

Well Hummus, if you havent noticed, the settlers were allowed to rebuild one of the outposts instantly.
There are no will to dismantle from Sharon. You need not to worry.

[yehudi]

This is clear reading the forum and the editorials that the extreme-right Likoundniks will do all they can to abort the roadmap.

Their only (big) problem is "How to do it and still blame it on the palestinians".


Unfortunately they are pretty clumsy and Bush is not abused :
"Bush upset at Israel for trying to kill Hamas chief"

George Bush reacted angrily when Israel attempted to assassinate a leading Palestinian militant yesterday - an attempt that could seriously damage the peace process which is personally sponsored by the US President.


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=414399
.

[elke]

Funny, no angry reaction to Abbas' announcement that he "won't use force against the militants". In fact, not even a batted eyelash on that. Somehow, it is considered in some circles, that the PA's pledge to fight terrorism, - a major condition of the Road Map, - can be ignored safely; but the response to terrorism from Israel is considered as a threat to the plan.

[yoyo]

Originally posted by Northlander
Israel have their path already figured out. I hope they are wrong and are forced to behave like a civilized normal country, but I doubt it. Soon enought there wont be any palestinian land left and then Israel wont have these annoying talks about a palestinian state. That is their agenda, that is israeli politics. As clear as ever.

Mister NL sez "like a civilised country"???? Sir, you have, I believe a very special "dictionary". The arabs that do not even want to put terrorist in prison are civilized, Israel is not. I am sure the arabs win on "tolerance" since Israel only has 20% of non-Jew and the arabs have.... Between 0.01 and 0.02 % of Jews.

Under what legal, biblical - sorry forget the 2 last adjectiives, under what MORAL BASIS should Israel be forced to create a palestinian state that would jeopardize Israel's existance?

How is life in Sweden? Just thought I asked because it should be easy for you to know what is The Stockholm Syndrome!

[Northlander]

Elke, the Roadmap states:

"In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below; such action should be accompanied by supportive measures undertaken by Israel. Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation based on the Tenet work plan to end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services. "

The roadmap is not a treaty, its worth pointing out.
Abbas cant fulfill his obligations without proper means.
Israel is sabotaging the whole process by attacking its enemies.
I dont question the morality in attacking one of Israels enemies.I questiong the timing and the means. It does destroy Abbas possibilities to gain support for a dialogue with Sharon among palestinians normally supportative to Hamas.

yoyo. You read in to much in what I said. I didnt raise PA to the sky. I should make it a little clearer.
Trying to kill the enemy with rockets in a densly populated area, murdering a 8 year old child, while in the middle of a peace process is not exactly "civilised manners". Its also clearly against the Israeli obligations in the Roadmap.

Who are you trying to fool here. Of cource Israel knows the effect of such an attack.

The razing of palestinian houses this week and the instant rebuilding of one of the dismantled settlements are also against the roadmap.

It states:
"GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001."

and

"Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)."

and also

"GOI takes no actions undermining trust, including deportations, attacks on civilians; confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian homes and property, as a punitive measure or to facilitate Israeli construction; destruction of Palestinian institutions and infrastructure; and other measures specified in the Tenet work plan."

[yoyo]

Number one you are not in the middle of a peace process, you are looking out if it is worth your while because you are at the start. Number two, the PA has failed to emprisoned an "ennemy of peace", a terrorist organization and has stated publicly that they have no wish whatsoever to do so (with or without help). Was that a a "civilized" way to do diplomacy? No, and unfortunately the weak cannot survive in the middle east so it is "dog eats dog". However I will add that it is still very civilized compare to what could have been use to get that guy with far more death and has Gaza is one of the densest populated area in the world, one would expect from your theories that "a terrorist in gaza is untouchable".

So, no, I never misread what you said, it is clear - Israel faced with a certain degree of civilization was considered uncivilized. Therefore my conclusion about your statement is correct: "the PA is MORE civilized that Israel which do not reciprocate".

You know, it makes me laugh how some people continues to ignore the arab obligation and blast Israel not to fullfill theirs. From 242 which stipulate "secure and recogonized borders" should be forgotten but "withdrawal" should be implemented at the expense of Israel. Like you, quoting half a "Road Map":

The security is based on the Tenet Plan:
The PA will move immediately to apprehend, question, and incarcerate terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza and will provide the security committee the names of those arrested as soon as they are apprehended, as well as a readout of actions taken.

On the Road Map, Sharon, at least is inching, but are the counterparts (with an s) inching as well?? Let's see Phase one

1. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel.

Not done

2. Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.

first part is done, but since Abbas is "talking" to finds common ground with a bench of sub-human murderer - NOT DONE

3. Arab states cut off public and private funding and all other forms support for groups supporting and engaging in violence and terror.

NOT DONE

Should I continue? Exactly which part, as tiny as it may be, has terrorist under chief Abba fullfilled to match the evacuation of outpost? His refusal to incarcerate terrorist is worst than something yet to implemented and has not, it is in COMPLETE VIOLATION of all the international agreements incoprated in the Road Map

Originally posted by Northlander

yoyo. You read in to much in what I said. I didnt raise PA to the sky. I should make it a little clearer.
Trying to kill the enemy with rockets in a densly populated area, murdering a 8 year old child, while in the middle of a peace process is not exactly "civilised manners". Its also clearly against the Israeli obligations in the Roadmap.

Who are you trying to fool here. Of cource Israel knows the effect of such an attack.

The razing of palestinian houses this week and the instant rebuilding of one of the dismantled settlements are also against the roadmap.

It states:
"GOI immediately dismantles settlement outposts erected since March 2001."

and

"Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)."

and also

"GOI takes no actions undermining trust, including deportations, attacks on civilians; confiscation and/or demolition of Palestinian homes and property, as a punitive measure or to facilitate Israeli construction; destruction of Palestinian institutions and infrastructure; and other measures specified in the Tenet work plan."

[Mediocrates]

From North -
The roadmap is not a treaty, its worth pointing out.


This is a vitally important point to make. The Roadmap is whatever people say it is. If it suits the North's to say "feh - we're not bound it's not a treaty..." then that's what will be put forth.

In the literal sense that is correct. This works to the advantage of terrorists and other people who have an underlying agenda. A treaty is binding on countries and Palestine is not one therefore it is not bound. When we come to the Israelis though they ARE bound by it since in the perverted ways of ME politics one can impose the force of treaty and law on countries that happen to exist, e.g. Israel. The PA is then free to pick and chose the boundaries of its own compliance; agreeing to this, ignoring that and so on.

Its interesting that people think the Roapmap is anything new at all because it really frames the entire history of the region since 1967. On to the one hand there is Israel subjected to thousands of resolutions, condemnations, censures and so on. And on the other side you have a terrorist state because it suits their purpose NOT to be an independent country ignoring all measure of civil order and law, working against progress toward legitimate legal standing as a country.

I'm glad that North and co. are finally beginning to admit that one basic truth.

[Northlander]

I just pointed out it is not a treaty. Not all are aware.

However, Sharon has not accepted the Roadmap unconditionally, while Abbas has.

Since Israel wont even ACCEPT their own obligations I cant see why they would critisise Abbas for not FULFILLING his.
The Roadmap doesnt guarantee that terrorism ends. That was not Abbas obligations, he cant make promises like that, only try.
Israel are supposed to help, which they refuse to do. Instead they are helping Hamas in getting even more support.

Miscalculation from the Israelis? Hardly. They know USA is right in beliving only diplomacy can stop the palestinian violence towards israelis. So why are they attack Hamas right now?

It seems the Bush administration are convinced Abbas is trying hard to focus on his obligations and they have basically just asked the same questions I do.
Why the attack on Rantisi at just this moment?
Also now Israel will hand over evidence to the americans against Rantisi. As custom is when dealing with criminals. Evidence - possible conviction. Not the opposite.

Who could dream that USA of all countries would have to teach Israel about civilised manners and how to behave in a peaceprocess. Well, someone has to. Maybe Bush will take away all my anti-americanism and finally free palestine. How ironic.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Northlander
I just pointed out it is not a treaty. Not all are aware.

However, Sharon has not accepted the Roadmap unconditionally, while Abbas has.


So I refer you the sentence you yourself wrote just above it. It is not a treaty. Anyone can unconditionally agree to anything that is non binding if they reserve for themselves the right to determine what binding agreements represent.

Since Israel wont even ACCEPT their own obligations I cant see why they would critisise Abbas for not FULFILLING his.


I suppose in the world of 'everything instantly now' the notion that a democratic society that actually has a representative democracy and the mechanics of state moves slowly might be alien to you (you have to make up your mind - are they magically infinitely powerful and need only wave their magic wands or are they being their inscrutable selves again....?).

After all by your own words Abbas' total compliance consists only of stating "I intend to be fully compliant" and that's it. That's easy to do - very quick and painless.

The Roadmap doesnt guarantee that terrorism ends.

Correct we should have no illusions that the Roadmap will have an iota of difference to terrorism. By your own words not only are the 'real' terrorists not bound by it - they probably shouldn't be. All that matters is 'try'.

That was not Abbas obligations, he cant make promises like that, only try.

We toss benchmarks out the window which is fine but now there are zero success criteria. What is 'try'? Clearly it is whatever Abbas says it is.

Israel are supposed to help, which they refuse to do. Instead they are helping Hamas in getting even more support.


Which is really the heart of it isn't it. A hairsbreadth away from claiming the Jews secretly engineer this to maintain terrorism against themselves. But aren't you the one that said there is nothing really the PA can do against terrorism?

So let's summarize for a second:

The PA can't do anything against terrorism
It can't be expected to
The Israelis aren't allowed to do anything about terrorism
And through this process, called magic somehow terrorism simply dies a natural death.

Interesting.


Miscalculation from the Israelis? Hardly. They know USA is right in beliving only diplomacy can stop the palestinian violence towards israelis. So why are they attack Hamas right now?

Precisely right - if anything by your calculation we should all simply pretend to ignore terrorism. Pay it no heed.


It seems the Bush administration are convinced Abbas is trying hard to focus on his obligations and they have basically just asked the same questions I do.

Your head must be exploding - there are no obligation by your own admission. You have turned 180 degrees. Now the Great Satan the worst government on Earth is now the great savior of the Palestinians who according to you are officially helpless to helpthemselves. Let me ask you this - if state building is so evil then why is it so good here? Aren't you worried?


Why the attack on Rantisi at just this moment?
Also now Israel will hand over evidence to the americans against Rantisi. As custom is when dealing with criminals. Evidence - possible conviction. Not the opposite.

But it's not a Treaty is it? Where does it say that Israel has to surrender its domestic government to the US?

Who could dream that USA of all countries would have to teach Israel about civilised manners and how to behave in a peaceprocess.

Who could dream that if Qusay Hussein were the leader of the Palestinians you'd clap and cheer for human rights abuses. But it stands to reason.

[Mediocrates]

THE RANTISI STRIKE

On Tuesday the IDF carried out an unsuccessful mission to eliminate Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi, who survived the helicopter strike upon his vehicle in Gaza City. An outpouring of media criticism has followed, claiming Israel's attempted hit has damaged hopes for Mideast peace.

HonestReporting encourages members to be on the lookout for these five media myths, and to respond appropriately with the facts:

Myth #1 Rantisi is not all that bad.

The Associated Press issued a lengthy, sympathetic biography of Rantisi, described in the headline as a "pediatrician and poet." The AP's Jayson Keyser characterizes Rantisi, who "wears gold-framed tinted glasses," as a healthy, caring and gracious patriarch of "six children and 10 grandchildren. He has written poetry for one of them, a girl named Assma." Keyser then proceeds to quote effusive verses from the love poem.

Fact: Rantisi, the "great family man," stated to the AFP in August that he would encourage his own sons to become suicide bombers. Rantisi has claimed responsibility for many bloody Hamas attacks, including the Hebrew University cafeteria bombing last summer. Prior to the Iraq war, Rantisi called on Iraqis to carry out suicide bombings against US forces.

Can one imagine AP describing so warmly a perpetrator of mass terror against Americans?

Comments to: feedback@ap.org

Myth #2 Israel has undermined Abbas' effort to rein in terror.

The New York Times predicts the strike will "doom any prospect of a cease-fire in the near future," and Washington Post editors claim "the strike likely will undermine Palestinian efforts to control terrorism."

Fact: Abbas has suggested only a hudna (temporary ceasefire) with the terror groups, a frail approach Israel has consistently rejected. The road map itself demands at this stage much more than a hudna — calling on the P.A. to "arrest, disrupt, and restrain" terror leaders.

As recently documented by The Washington Institute, Hamas agreed to ten ceasefires in the past ten years, and after every one of them returned freshly rearmed for terror. Why should this time be different?

Myth #3 The timing of the hit indicates Israel is trying to kill the peace effort.

The Globe and Mail called the strike "a direct challenge both to peace and to Mr. Bush."

Fact: The IDF action was not intended to kill the road map, but actually make the process possible. Consider — had the strike been successful, it would have strengthened Abbas by removing one of his most ardent opponents, who condemned Abbas' peaceful course, then directed Sunday's killing of four Israeli soldiers, just days after the hopeful Aqaba summit.

As Vice President Cheney expressed after the recent attacks against Americans in Saudi Arabia, to bring peace, terrorists must be eliminated: "The only way to deal with this threat ultimately is to destroy it. There's no treaty that can solve this problem, there's no peace agreement, no policy of containment or deterrence that works to deal with this threat. We have to go find the terrorists."

At the least, this attempted strike keeps Hamas leaders off-balanced, on the defensive, and denies them the opportunity to perpetrate attacks unhindered, which would ultimately derail the peace process.

Myth #4 Israel has abandoned diplomacy in favor of military means.

The Times of London headlined their report, "Roadmap Left Burning on the Streets of Gaza."

Fact: On Monday, Israel began dismantling 14 illegal settlement outposts, a tangible expression of its commitment to moving the road map forward. Israel has always maintained, however, that even as it fulfils its road map commitments, it will continue to act against the terrorists and defend its citizens if the PA does not take action. The PA has not acted, the terror continued, and the IDF responded.

Myth #5 The consequence of the strike will be more terror.

The Washington Post claims "it's not hard to imagine the probable consequences of Israel's failed attempt yesterday to assassinate Abdel Aziz Rantisi…[Hamas] will now launch a new terrorist onslaught at Israeli civilians."

Fact: Israel currently has over 50 specific warnings of planned terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens. This figure existed on Monday, even before the attempted hit. Never has Hamas indicated their plans are anything other than a "terrorist onslaught at Israeli civilians." Israel had every reason to assume that Rantisi's terror activities would increase; one Israeli official said "Rantisi was not just a ticking bomb, but a factory of ticking bombs."

[yehudi]

Anyway.

The Israeli governement IS actively trying to sabotage the roadmap.

Let it be know, no need to dilute the fact in lengthy, dilatory explanations. Everyone knows very well that the timing is calculated in an attempt to kill any progress toward peace.


This is not the doing of uncontrolled, terrorists individuals, this is the deliberate policy of a governement.

Who but Sharon did issue the order to strike?

.

[Mediocrates]

Rantisi by the way helped author the revised Hamas charter in 1998. His contribution was to state that Jews are decended from apes and it is Islamic duty to kill them wherever they may be found.


But I forgot (smacks head !!) its all just RHETORIC.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by yehudi


Who but Sharon did issue the order to strike?



Who disputes that Sharon issued the order to kill a mass murderer?

Either you are with the terrorists or you are with us.

[Northlander]

You seem somewhat confused Mediocrates. I didnt make the roadmap. Its an american initiative. Regardless of what I think of the Bush administration its their Roadmap and they lead the discussions. Its not a treaty and I pointed it out just so that pro-israelis doesnt use the roadmap as some sort of international legal document when trying to miscredit Abbas.

Fact. Abbas were ready from the start to follow the american guidlines. Sharon were not. Its interesting in itself.

It doesnt however make it so that Abbas has to follow the plan while Israel is not. In that case the roadmap has already lost its importance. Its still phase 1 and both sides at least pretends to put hope to it so its probalby better if we still call it "obligations".

I suppose in the world of 'everything instantly now' the notion that a democratic society that actually has a representative democracy and the mechanics of state moves slowly might be alien to you (you have to make up your mind - are they magically infinitely powerful and need only wave their magic wands or are they being their inscrutable selves again....?)

After all by your own words Abbas' total compliance consists only of stating "I intend to be fully compliant" and that's it. That's easy to do - very quick and painless.


So Israel can not be obligated to anything because its a democracy and things take time?

If you are not having some inside information from the diplomatic channels between Hamas and PA I dont know if you know more than me about how he is handling them. The thing is that even!! the Bush administration, Israels allies btw, seem happy about his commitment. What did you expect? A PA war on Hamas on day one? You are not ignorant and I know you KNOW about Hamas position in palestinian areas. Why are you playing this terrorist card over and over again? Its not that simple and its waste of time.

Correct we should have no illusions that the Roadmap will have an iota of difference to terrorism. By your own words not only are the 'real' terrorists not bound by it - they probably shouldn't be. All that matters is 'try'.

Of cource only try matters? Your point? Do you hope for a plan or roadmap that guarantees stop of terror?
Maybe you are need that magical wand.

We toss benchmarks out the window which is fine but now there are zero success criteria. What is 'try'? Clearly it is whatever Abbas says it is.

Not really. Its more what the americans says it is right now. I never asked for an all-american initative but its better than nothing. They lead the roadmap. If they say "try" is not enough, it isnt for this roadmap. So far they seem satisfied, with the pal side at least.

Which is really the heart of it isn't it. A hairsbreadth away from claiming the Jews secretly engineer this to maintain terrorism against themselves. But aren't you the one that said there is nothing really the PA can do against terrorism?

Hmmm, very tiredsome. I have only claimed PA cant do anything about terrorism without resources and as long as israel tries to prevent them from succeding. That is why the US initiative contains specific demands that Israel stops sabotaging the PA security service and their infrastructure. I get it, the Bush administration gets it. Why cant you? You can ask again, same answer.

Precisely right - if anything by your calculation we should all simply pretend to ignore terrorism. Pay it no heed.

To black and white. There is some things between sending in helicopters in cities and ignoring terrorism.
How about sticking to the roadmap?

Your head must be exploding - there are no obligation by your own admission. You have turned 180 degrees. Now the Great Satan the worst government on Earth is now the great savior of the Palestinians who according to you are officially helpless to helpthemselves. Let me ask you this - if state building is so evil then why is it so good here? Aren't you worried?

Again very simple answer. You only twist words in vain. Obligation as in "obligations according to the roadmap".

Palestinians cant get their own state through violence and Israel wont let them build one. However much I dislike USAs habit of statebuilding its better than nothing. I would have prefered something else but if so many pals can accept it..why not I? Its their choice. It does take away a great deal of hypocrisy from the Bush administration if they succed in this. Its clearly against the Israeli governments will.

But it's not a Treaty is it? Where does it say that Israel has to surrender its domestic government to the US?

Where did I say so? A helicopter attack in Gaza is not an internal Israeli political action. It was just a hint to yoyo about what is civilised and whats not. While in a peaceprocess, signed treaties or not, its not hmmm... how should I put it..a sign of good will to try to assassinate ones enemies. Especially not when you miss and kills a 8 year old girl instead of the target. The whole habit of killing people without presenting evindence is so..medival.

Who could dream that if Qusay Hussein were the leader of the Palestinians you'd clap and cheer for human rights abuses. But it stands to reason.

Who could dream that Condolezza Rice would demand an explanation for an Israeli helicopter attack where civilians are killed. I must be dreaming.

[Northlander]

Rantisi by the way helped author the revised Hamas charter in 1998. His contribution was to state that Jews are decended from apes and it is Islamic duty to kill them wherever they may be found.

But I forgot (smacks head !!) its all just RHETORIC.

So he was no saint and a rasist. Whats new? The issue is about Israel sabotaging the roadmap.

Btw, what do you call the habit among settlers to call the red crescent ambulances for "veterinaries"?

Either you are with the terrorists or you are with us.

Im with the 8 year old girl that died. You are not. Choose side.

[yoyo]

Northlander,

You seem confused as to what is the Road Map saying

1. Both sides recognize each other to exists (words) and stop incitement (deeds)

Israelis fullfilled thisd side 100% alhtough the incitement was easy to remove for Israel as it does not exists. Has Abbas created draft of new books, stop PA TV incitement, stop printed media incitement, etc...? NO - therefore the process CANNOT go forward.

2. Palestinians..undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.

Has Abbas done that? Has he pledged to do that? Has he or has he not say that he would not disrupt or restraint but only talk?

3. Rebuilt and refocused (Palestinian Authority) security apparatus begins sustained, targeted and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.

Has abbas got any plan with costs that he can present to the US? or Israel? Has he decided to confront those engaged in terror? He says NO!Has he decided to dismantled the terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad or more to the point his own Fath based Al-Aqsa Brigade? He says NO! Is he free of association with terror? He declared that Arafat is still "the boss" and that he consulted him before Aquaba and will continue!

Only after ALL of this, the GOI will can be asked to stop incursion or home demolition. Until then, his "total acceptance of the Road Map" can only be compared to Arafat promessing not to resort to terrorism after the Declaration of Principle in Oslo or the removal of the destructio of Israel in the PLO Charter which is yet to be ammended!

Sharon made 14 reservations because he is serious about peace, Abba is not whatever is written in it: DOESN'T MATTER!

[yoyo]

PS: Northlander, do you think the Hamas will ever be compromising on a 2 state solution no matter what Israel does?

Think before you answer....

[Northlander]

*sigh*

1. PA recognise Israels right to exist. Some palestinians do not. Its not different from israelis protesting against the creation of a palestinian state while their government does recognise their right for one.

The incitements I wont even comment. You are biased beyond belive.

2. Abbas condemned attacks on civil israelis. I agree that he technically hasnt followed the roadmap on this one since it says "israelis anywhere".

My personal view on that is that he shouldnt. Armed settlers should be considered illegal combatants or invaders and are obvisouly legitimate targets. Same goes for IDF. However Im sure he is "civilised" enough not to personally give orders on attacks on them in the middle of the peaceprocess. The roadmap doesnt stand above international laws and PA doesnt need to accept armed israelis inside pre-67 borders. They shouldnt.

3. The palestinian security apparatus is destroyed by israel. Its not yet rebuilded. He will move when he can. Its still phase 1 of the roadmap. Israel has not yet started to aid the PA.

Is he free of association with terror. Honestly I dont know. Hard to say. What is terrorism and what is resistance? Is Sharon free from it? Its impossible to answer that without getting into a long debate about terror.
Its enough for the Bush administration. I think they look upon him with fairly critical eyes.
Present evidence instead of what he has done that are so terrible.

Only after ALL of this, the GOI will can be asked to stop incursion or home demolition.

Wrong. Stick to that opinion and Israel will be responsible for the failure of the roadmap. Thats how it is. Like it or not. Home demolition and incursions are both against UN resolutions and also against this roadmap.

PS: Northlander, do you think the Hamas will ever be compromising on a 2 state solution no matter what Israel does?

Yes I do. It depend on what Israel and also PA does and the situation in palestine but yes. Some people never will but the organisation is not solely a terrorist organisation so as the question is posed I say yes.

[minusthejihad]

Ha. No flaw in that.

"Those damn Israeli's are screwin my peace plan! Of course they can't target a terrorist and we can, or Russia can, or Saudi can. But those Israelis can't sabotage my damn peace plan no matter what!" - W

Hey Yehudi and North, no long time no hear you squeek! And it was so nice to be away from you two anti-semites. 2 people who are neither Jewish, nor Palestinian, yet bash Israel the first minute after 13 Jews die on a bus bombing. Must have made your morning. I hope I'll see the day when I meet you in person.

[TheyAre]

Northlander is a typical European.

Israel must completely and immediately fulfill EVERY step of a peace plan before the Palestinians are obligated to fulfill the first step. If that doesn't happen, Israel is trying to undermine the peace plan.

Israel must immediately stop fighting terrorism; the PA is allowed to let terrorism go on because their "security apparatus" has been decimated. If this doesn't happen, Israel is trying to undermine peace.

Israel must allow Palestinians to voice their grievances by killing Jews. Israel must lie down in the fetal position and allow terrorists to kick it as much as they want. Otherwise, Israel doesn't want peace.

Israel must give up land and security and the lives of its citizens for peace. The Palestinians must "promise" to stop incitement and terrorism. If the Palestinians don't, that's okay, because unless Israel gives up land and security and lives, it doesn't really want peace.

Right. I have a great deal on the Eiffel Tower / Brooklyn Bridge / Moon too. Just look for me on PayPal.

[minusthejihad]

Of course, as a stereotypical European, North actually believes that the Pals are "3rd World" in which case, they should be treated with Politically Correct kids gloves as the savages they think they are, while holding the "1st World" Israeli's to higher standards. Hey, those are his beliefs, not mine.

But you know what the bottom line is.... Who the hell cares what North or his fellow Euros think anyway. I and I hope Israel certainly doesn't.

[yoyo]

Originally posted by Northlander
1. PA recognise Israels right to exist. Some palestinians do not. Its not different from israelis protesting against the creation of a palestinian state while their government does recognise their right for one.

I never said that. I acknowledge what Abba said and what Sharon said.

Originally posted by Northlander
The incitements I wont even comment. You are biased beyond belive.

PROOVE IT! PROOVE THAT THE GOI IS INCITING!

Originally posted by Northlander
2. Abbas condemned attacks on civil israelis. I agree that he technically hasnt followed the roadmap on this one since it says "israelis anywhere".

I never said the contrary. Once again I acknowldge the words said at Aquaba.

Originally posted by Northlander
The roadmap doesnt stand above international laws and PA doesnt need to accept armed israelis inside pre-67 borders. They shouldnt.

Under which international LAWS (ie: legal) does the PA have ground to declared that they have the right to kill Israeli beyon the 1948-49 Armistice Line (mistakenly refered as the 1967 borders)?

Originally posted by Northlander
3. The palestinian security apparatus is destroyed by israel. Its not yet rebuilded. He will move when he can. Its still phase 1 of the roadmap. Israel has not yet started to aid the PA.

Is there a plan, a politically viable and public or private plan to implement the Road Map in that respect from the PA? Is there a plan with costs attached to emprisonned, question, disrupt and curb down terrorist groups? ABBA SAYS NO, HE WON'T. It is not a question of money as he knows that money is no object if he comes out with such a plan.

Originally posted by Northlander
Is he free of association with terror. Honestly I dont know. Hard to say. What is terrorism and what is resistance? Is Sharon free from it? Its impossible to answer that without getting into a long debate about terror.

"Arafat is a leader compromised with terror" (Bush, June 2002). When Abba promessed Bush to be free of it, it is accepted that Arafat is a terrorist.



Originally posted by Northlander
[about the Hamas willing to make peace] Yes I do. It depend on what Israel and also PA does and the situation in palestine but yes. Some people never will but the organisation is not solely a terrorist organisation so as the question is posed I say yes.

From the Hamas Charter (ie: members of the Hamas adhere 100% to the Charter - their goal)


The principles of the Hamas are stated in their Covenant or Charter, given in full below. Following are highlights.

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."


"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Northlander
I didnt make the roadmap. Its an american initiative. Regardless of what I think of the Bush administration its their Roadmap and they lead the discussions. Its not a treaty..



It is the SAUDI plan wrapped up by the FRENCH and the RUSSIANS and agreed to by the US.


Why else would you support it?

[yehudi]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Who disputes that Sharon issued the order to kill a mass murderer? No one. Add to that it is very interesting that he decided to give the order just at the right moment to maximize damage to the peace process ...

.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by yehudi
Behind-the-scenes exchanges between President George Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at last week's Aqaba summit may hint at a certain shift in the American stance, from the Israeli to the Palestinian side, according to a participant in the three-way meeting of the delegations.

IMO, this shift (if it is a fact), was part of the price paid by the US for the UK's participation in the Iraq war.

But I find it curious that anyone would think that Sharon is "the problem," rather than pointing out that the problem is -- and has always been -- the Arab dream of mass murdering each and every Jew living in Israel.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Northlander
Im not surprised really. The Israeli side are obviously trying to sink the roadmap.


Which road map is that? The one that said the PA needed leadership uncompromised by terror, or the one that said the PA needed to take action ot dismantly the terrorist groups? You are obviously pushing for Israel to do its part regardless of whether the Palestinians do. And this says quite a bit.


The basic evidence is that they are actually trying to boost the support for Hamas in PA areas. Its clearly so and I we can see that the americans are starting to understand that to. If something is true it is that Bushs administration doesnt consist of stupid men and they know which information the israelis sits on.
Israel knows perfectly well, as we all do, how Hamas gains support and recruitment. Its not as much about religous fanatism as being a palestinian social civil organisation. They have a military branch and a civilian. They provide food for the poorest families, schools for children, shelter for homeless etc. It cant be underestimated. It is the single most important reason for palestinians supporting them. Violent actions from PA towards extremists in Hamas can never be successful(it will be necessary from time to time) without cooperation and talks with it as an organisation.


Are you serious? Isarel's actions should be seen as a rejection of a Palestinian hunda. makes sense, no? Or should Israel tolerate Hamas et al increasing their strength during a cease-fire?

I would also like to note, for the record, that Israeli forces had intervened and thwarted numerous suicide attacks since the summit. I would further like to note, for the record, that all the Palestinian terrorist groups launched several attacks against Israel in the interim, while Abbas talks about a hunda with these groups. Again, to clarify, you just want Israel to surrender, right?

And just because you think Israel can't do anything to stop Hamas doesn't mean they shouldn't try. I am personally in favour of simultaneously targeting ALL of Hamas' senior leadership. Unless, of course, they are locked up by the PA (but I am not holding my breath on this. You?).

And they do not really have a military and civilian branch. unless of course the mob in the 1930s did too. You know, soup kitchens and charities and the like. And the gangs in the inner cities too, don't forget about all the good work they do for the poor people they want to recruit.


Sharon knows this better than I do. Bush knows it. Everybody knows it. When Israel orders the attack on Rantissi they KNOW that will prevent any discussions between Abbas and Hamas.


Yes. This is true. But why? You say because Israel doesn't want peace. I say that it is because Isarel does not want a peace that involves anything less than the dismantling of Hamas, which makes more sense, unless one is inclined to believe that everything Israel does is for sinister evil purposes. But you seem to have internalized this proposition, and so what is there left to say? Excpet again, that discussions between the PA and the terror groups was not what Israel and the Quartet had in mind when this whole elaborate game was orchestrated.


I agree that Israel wants him dead because they see him as a terrorist, maybe for legitimate reasons.


Maybe, eh? thanks for that. The fact that he is a head of a world recognized terorist organization would maybe make him a terrorist. Are you on drugs?


But no one can deny that Israels knew this would make it impossible for PA to take actions towards Hamas. Which in turn makes it possible for Israel to continue not to fulfill their obligations. Its a clear try to sink the roadmap and it will be successful. Hamas is far to rooted in WB to be ignored politically. USA didnt demand that Israel, no one does, should sit in talks with Hamas. That was Abbas job. He was the guy the americans saw fit and I think he was the right guy too. What can Abbas come with now? People will just see that Israel is trying to kill the Hamas leaders continously, without regards to nearby civilians as always. That makes Abbas work impossible and strenghten Hamas.


it was not the PAs job to talk to Hamas. It was their job to dismantle Hamas. They have said they will not. So what good is the PA to Israel in these negotiations. they have nothing to offer. Why should Israel give stuff up for nothing but continued violence and a continued desire by Hamas et al for Israel's destruction?


I hope they are wrong and are forced to behave like a civilized normal country, but I doubt it. Soon enought there wont be any palestinian land left and then Israel wont have these annoying talks about a palestinian state. That is their agenda, that is israeli politics. As clear as ever.

And I guess the US should have not targeted bin laden because he was a political leader of al-quaeda? Or maybe made an agreement with the Taliban to keep him locked up, then ignore the fact that the Taliban did nothing. You are living in a dream world, where everything can be explained through Israeli intrangency and ulterior motives.

A Palestinian state is ok. A Palestinian terrorist haven is not. You ok with this proposition? If you are, then how do we get option 1 and not option 2? Certainly not by talking to hamas. And if you would be satisfied with option 2, then, again, you do not really want peace, you want Israel to surrender. And if you would be satisfied with option 2, why should anyone on this board take anything you say remotelty seriously.

And please, just because the BBC is ok with option 2 doesn't make it ok.

As this goes on and on, and as you go on and on, I start to see this phantom option which you propose about "no palestinian land" as more and more the only viable option. But of course they will always have Jordan.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by yehudi
The Israeli governement IS actively trying to sabotage the roadmap.

Let it be know, no need to dilute the fact in lengthy, dilatory explanations. Everyone knows very well that the timing is calculated in an attempt to kill any progress toward peace.


These are two different things. the road map (as you seem to interpret it where Hundas are Ok and Palestiniasn just need to say they will try) will not lead to peace. It doesn't really have a chance.

And I was REALLY impresed with your analytical refutation of the honest reporting notes. Bang up Job. Saying "Anyways" and ignoring information is obviously better than actually dealing with it. You should consider expanding that sort of analysis into a book.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Northlander
Im with the 8 year old girl that died. You are not. Choose side.

I'm not really sure that you are. Were you on her side you would act in her best interest, not in the way here political leaders want you to. And it is in her best interest for the Palestinian terror groups to be dismantled, and for the Palestinians to stop fighting. Had Hamas not planned or attempted any more terrorism, this sort of attack would not have been necessary.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Northlander
The incitements I wont even comment. You are biased beyond belive.


Nice evasion. This effectively avoids actually having to deal with the substance of the argument. PATV spreads the most explicit of incitement. Everyone seems to know that. Israel's doesn't really, and certainly not to the extent as PATV. You disagree, fine. But just trying to avoid issues is hardly becomming of a European leftist pseudo-intellectual.


My personal view on that is that he shouldnt. Armed settlers should be considered illegal combatants or invaders and are obvisouly legitimate targets. Same goes for IDF. However Im sure he is "civilised" enough not to personally give orders on attacks on them in the middle of the peaceprocess. The roadmap doesnt stand above international laws and PA doesnt need to accept armed israelis inside pre-67 borders. They shouldnt.


So basically, you want a "peace process" that allows one side continued belligerancy. Thanks for sharing. And by the way, why are "pre-1967" borders of any relevance at all. Who recognized those borders?


3. The palestinian security apparatus is destroyed by israel. Its not yet rebuilded. He will move when he can. Its still phase 1 of the roadmap. Israel has not yet started to aid the PA.


Why do you believe everything the PA says they will do, yet do not believe everything that Israel says it will do? Has the PA really ever kept any of its promises? A few examples should suffice.


What is terrorism and what is resistance?


It's not that difficult. terrorism is the PURPOSEFUL targeting of civilians to further political objectives. But of course you can always equivocate on who is a civilian. I suppose settlers are but Hamas members are not. But thats what happens when the medication gets all screwed up.


Wrong. Stick to that opinion and Israel will be responsible for the failure of the roadmap. Thats how it is. Like it or not. Home demolition and incursions are both against UN resolutions and also against this roadmap.


The road map is a failure because the preconditions for its success are not there.

And by the way, what do you think of a Palestinian "right" of return? Seems like a non-starter to me. But of course were you really to want israel's surrender, thern it would make a lot of sense.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by yehudi
No one. Add to that it is very interesting that he decided to give the order just at the right moment to maximize damage to the peace process ...

.


More of the "it's all a plot" thinking. Seemingly every act of violence perpetrated against Jews is random you think?

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by yehudi
No one. Add to that it is very interesting that he decided to give the order just at the right moment to maximize damage to the peace process ...

.

Please tell me how terrorist gangs announcing they will continue attacking Jews contributes to the "peace process."

Please tell me how Abu Mazen announcing he has no intentions of fighting terrorist gangs, in blatant contradiction to the road map, contributes to the "peace process."

Please tell us how demanding Israel stop defending herself while Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the other mass murderers continue their attacks contributes to the "peace process."

We have tried to arrive at a peaceful solution with the Palestinians. We know that condemning terrorist attacks, saying they can do nothing to stop them, and demanding that Israel cease defending herself is simply one of their many sinister methods.

Arafat has created a Terrorist United Front. They kill Jews and he issues press releases in English condemning them--while praising and encouraging them in Arabic.

[Revkha]

Originally posted by Northlander
. Abbas were ready from the start to follow the american guidlines. Sharon were not. Its interesting in itself.


These may be easy solutions for you. But for us Jews, there are REAL concerns. The issue of the right of return in the road map is a double standard since the Jews who were expelled from Arab territories do not have the right to return to those areas and the right of return is also a hidden agenda for the destruction of Israel because Arabs will constitute a majority in Israel in a few generations if this occurs. If and when a Palestinian state is formed, Jews will not be welcome there. If you really believe the terror will stop than I encourage you to log on to e-bay and bid on the Brooklyn bridge.

We will not be marched down the road to Auschwitz again via the Middle East. So it is very comfortable and sanctimonious for you to sit back and render non-Jewish opinions on an issue that is of paramount importance to us Jews. No there is no magical wand. If there were we would have waved its centuries ago to free ourselves from the ever present persecution. Yes, Israel will continue to make concessions that are not in its best interest. It will be pressured by the international community who frankly don't give a damn about Israel and Jews. But I doubt that any concessions will made that will endanger security. Perhaps if you walked in the shoes of an Israeli Jew for one day you might understand.

[elke]

Northlander, try to understand a very basic point: just because someone says that they accept something "unconditionally", does not mean that they will actually do something about it. Words are important, but not nearly as important as actions.

Abbas may have said that he "accepts the roadmap", but he has indeed put a major, overwhelming pre-condition on it: he refuses to use force to combat what is in effect a criminal band of thugs. It's like the police relying on negotiations to stop gang violence. At best, it's plain stupid, - in which case he shouldn't be allowed to lead a chicken coop; and at worst, - he's a liar: he lied when he said that he "accepted the RM without preconditions", and the confidence of the world, Israel's included, - is severely misplaced.

Abbas was ready from the start to say that he's against violence. He, apparently, wasn't ready to actually do something about it.

[yehudi]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by yehudi
No one. Add to that it is very interesting that he // Ariel Sharon // decided to give the order just at the right moment to maximize damage to the peace process ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


More of the "it's all a plot" thinking. Seemingly every act of violence perpetrated against Jews is random you think?
I'm not saying that. There are extremists on both sides who want the peace process to fail.

When I say "people who want the peace process to fail" some of them are actually writing on this forum. Like ibrosdki, humus and probably Newsguy, Canajew, elke and you as well .

So when you see Sharon issuing the order that will abort the current peace process, you defend and encourage him (I designated ibrosdki, humus, Newsguy, Canajew and you Mediocrates - please tell me if you condemn Sharon and I'm mistaken, I shall rectify that).


The question is just a yes/no: "do you support Ariel Sharon, acting as the elected leader of Israel, organizing an assassination of a terrorist with a timing purposefully planned to abort the emerging peace process?"

.

[Northlander]

Minusthejihad my friend is back. The man that gave paranoia a face. I really dont feel like defending from the anti-semite accusations all over again and not the europe bashing either.
But I kind of enjoy your personal attacks because at least they are verbal and from a distance. I guess you already know that all us europeans are far to unmanly and far to afraid of standing up for our opinions face to face.

But you know what the bottom line is.... Who the hell cares what North or his fellow Euros think anyway. I and I hope Israel certainly doesn't.

A country totally dependent on american aid and european trade shouldnt be to sure of itself. Im sure GOI knows what you dont.

Yoyo and Canajew, I agree PA is inciting. You claimed the GOI dont and that is not true, hence I said Yoyo was biased. Israeli media is inciting to. Israel have biased and non-biased media as any democracy. But some Ive seen would clearly have been illegal in europe because its extremist and rasist in its nature. Also there is alot of incitement from israelis on streets etc that GOI dont take action against. You blame PA when they dont so it should go both ways.

As for Hamas Yoyo and Canajew, I wont go in a defensive debate for Hamas you know that. I answered a question and I still belive it. Hamas turned militant in 87. It was an organisation before and it could be after a peace. I think the most radical elements would have to be removed, or they would problably remove themselves anyway. But as organisation, yes I belive they could accept a two state sollution. They will accept a two state sollution because the palestinian people will.

I want to go into general debate concerning terrorism when we discuss this but this is not the thread for that. But Hamas is just a word. A symbol maybe for Israel and also for Palestine. The problem is not the organisation as much as the will to commit crimes. When you look upon the different palestinian organisations you will even find that the islamic elements are not the source of the problem. Merely a tool for the organisations.
For Israel it would maybe be a problem if Hamas lived on regardless if it was militant or not. That might become a problem because it is not only a militant organisation for the palestinians and it will have alot of support.

I belive that the militan elements would break lose and then be eradicated as a threat by a functioning PA in the event of a real palestinian state. I dont think Israel can expect Hamas to vanish.

It's not that difficult. terrorism is the PURPOSEFUL targeting of civilians to further political objectives. But of course you can always equivocate on who is a civilian. I suppose settlers are but Hamas members are not. But thats what happens when the medication gets all screwed up.

Thats your opinion. Israel and USA call attacks against military installations terrorism as well. Its a misused term.

I use the term illegal combatant on purpose. Its a fairly new american invented term which should be clarified internationally.
But it fits the settlers quite well if it is to be used. Israel has to prove that Hamas members are not civilians before targeting them. Its far to easy to just claim anyone is not civilian and then target them. State terrorism or terrorism is basically the same thing with the slight difference that state terrorism cant be explained with "a few fanatics".

A Palestinian state is ok. A Palestinian terrorist haven is not. You ok with this proposition? If you are, then how do we get option 1 and not option 2? Certainly not by talking to hamas. And if you would be satisfied with option 2, then, again, you do not really want peace, you want Israel to surrender. And if you would be satisfied with option 2, why should anyone on this board take anything you say remotelty seriously.

That is a good sum up. Its what it comes down too basically, if you are Israeli.
It is all from a Israeli perspective.

A palestinian state is not "ok". Its not for Israel to decide.
Option 1 is absolutely clear and its a demand, then you can make how many following options you like. Israel have no right what so ever to prevent a palestinian state because its not on their territory. You forget the most basic issue of all here.

And by the way, what do you think of a Palestinian "right" of return? Seems like a non-starter to me. But of course were you really to want israel's surrender, thern it would make a lot of sense.

Of course I belive in the palestinian right of return. Who doesnt morally? They lived there so they should be allowed to. But since its not realistic maybe it has to be a compromise.

Revkha, YOU as Canajew makes it a jewish question. For the palestinians its not. You cant excuse wrongdoings by who you are. If Israel occupies territory it doesnt matter if they are Jews. This is a very basic issue that we should need to take up over and over again. There is no risk for a new Auschwitz in todays Israel so it has no relevance. I have the deepest sympathy and understanding for your thoughts regarding your history and culture but it can not be allowed to make a difference in todays politics. Im sure many Jews agree.

When anti-semitism is the problem it should be debated, when its not it shouldnt. The palestinian - israeli conflict is not about semitism. The right of return is not an anti-semitic issue nor is the right of a palestinian state. For you maybe it is but as Im sure you know Jews alone doesnt control Israels future. Just as no nation can ignore the world outside. You have large support world wide, hell even I a pro-palestinian can see Israels security issues and take them into account to some extent. Its not a question wether I recognice Israel or not. You have a huge trade and strong bonds with europe as well as USA. Basically you have a far to Jewish angle so to speak of Israels issues when much of the world dealing with Israel hasnt. Everything is realpolitcs in the end and so is the creation of a palestinian state.
Claiming we non-Jews cant understand or are not important is naive. As USA to has seen the basic need and right of a palestinian state you should realize that it is not really much of a choice anymore.

[Mediocrates]

I have a very terse and direct anwswer to that. For years I've heard from you and from people like you Sharon should be ready willing and able to negotiate under fire.

I agree. So will the PA.

[andak01]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Rantisi by the way helped author the revised Hamas charter in 1998. His contribution was to state that Jews are decended from apes and it is Islamic duty to kill them wherever they may be found.


But I forgot (smacks head !!) its all just RHETORIC.

I must point out the contradiction of this statement. If Rantisi believes that Jews are descended from apes, he is not acting as a Muslim. We are creationists. :) And his second statement refers to an interpretation of Islam that may be more common in Palestine, but is certainly not shared by the world's Muslims. The Israel-Palestine conflict is primarily a conflict about land, not religion. The rules of Jihad, if that is what he wishes to follow, prohibit the killing of women and children and clearly prohibit killing non-combattants.

http://www.iio.org/terrorism/war_fatwa.htm
Scholars had different opinions with regard to this issue (i.e. the slaying of women, children and elderly).

The first opinion: Killing women and children is not allowed under any circumstances, even if the Kuffar used their women and children as human shields. And this is the madh-hab of Malik and Al-Ouza’ey. (This opinion is not well supported by evidences.)
The Second opinion: The Weak (i.e. Women, children and elderly) are not to be aimed at, unless they fought or mixed with the fighters in a way that unable us to fight without killing them. And this is the opinion of Shafi’eys and Hanafis.

These two rulings cover the entire range of Sunni thought. The more liberal of the two allows no more than what we commonly refer to as 'colateral damage'. Perhaps Mr. Rantisi could use a refresher course if this is what he believes.

[Northlander]

Btw, I find it somewhat ironic that Hamas has become the great enemy of Israel now since Israel actively supported them in the beginning. They were supposed at that time to challenge the nationalists and PLO and by that serving Israels interests. Today they are indeed challenging Arafat and one cant help to wonder if this GOI appreciate that or not.

Some people never learn. This is somewhat like USA hunting al-qaeda. One day the islamist terrorists are "your" fanatics the next day it all come back to bite you in the ass.

elke, I get your point but Im surprised you cling to such an argument. First of all. The roadmap clearly states that PA moves towards palestinian terrorists should be accompanied by Israeli cooperation. That is crucial. I belive the americans understand that to since they pushed for that to the israelis. As I understand it Sharon dont want to help. The problem is that PA is not in a position to move really. I dont have that insight in their capability but its clear that Bush accept that they dont move now which makes me think that its possible that PA is somewhat afraid of starting something they cant handle. Im sure Sharon would love to see a palestinian civil war but most people dont.

If you add the american acceptance towards PA not acting, with their pressure on Sharon to help I think you get the simple result that they are biding their time for the right moment. The moment is now you may say but if its impossible its impossible. Its NOT the same thing as Abbas not cooperating or lying.

Im sure you dont belive that Hamas will sit quitely getting arrested and PA cant use helicopters in crowded streets for sure. They must arrest most of the militants more or less at the same time and they must also be able to handle the revenge and the common opinions from ordinary pals. Or else this roadmap is dead anyway. I say the will is there because PA too prefers less militant islamists IF the state is created. Just as for Israel they have served their purpose from time to time but absolutely not now. Didnt you even notice that Arafat himselfed called the last bombing for "an terrorist attack"? Doesnt happen every day.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by yehudi
I'm not saying that. There are extremists on both sides who want the peace process to fail.

When I say "people who want the peace process to fail" some of them are actually writing on this forum. Like ibrosdki, humus and probably Newsguy, Canajew, elke and you as well .


I never said I want it to fail. I have said there is no chance it can succeed because the preconditions are not there. There is a big difference between the two. I try to put reason before passion when assessing the validity of a policy option. Wishful thinking is counter-productive in this regard. Haven't we all learned that from Oslo?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Northlander
As for Hamas Yoyo and Canajew, I wont go in a defensive debate for Hamas you know that. I answered a question and I still belive it. Hamas turned militant in 87. It was an organisation before and it could be after a peace. I think the most radical elements would have to be removed, or they would problably remove themselves anyway. But as organisation, yes I belive they could accept a two state sollution. They will accept a two state sollution because the palestinian people will.


Why do you believe this? there really is no reason to. And this is one problem that I have had with the other side for some time. Always the best of intentions are ascribed to the terrorists, while always the most sinister motives are ascribed to Israel. Hamas must be destroyed. Without that, there will be no peace.


I want to go into general debate concerning terrorism when we discuss this but this is not the thread for that. But Hamas is just a word. A symbol maybe for Israel and also for Palestine. The problem is not the organisation as much as the will to commit crimes. When you look upon the different palestinian organisations you will even find that the islamic elements are not the source of the problem. Merely a tool for the organisations.
For Israel it would maybe be a problem if Hamas lived on regardless if it was militant or not. That might become a problem because it is not only a militant organisation for the palestinians and it will have alot of support.


Hamas is not "just a word". It is a terrorist organization and within it is encapsulated the most dangerous and destructive of ideologies. The organization must be destroyed to both purge the actions of the group as well as to purge such an organization which spreads such vitrol. The Kach party was banned a long time ago. They were better than Hamas, no?


I belive that the militan elements would break lose and then be eradicated as a threat by a functioning PA in the event of a real palestinian state. I dont think Israel can expect Hamas to vanish.


Again with the "I believe". Your beliefs are insufficient. I do not believe this. I believe that Hamas will undermine the process sommewhere down the line, and that Europe and the rest will push Israel for appeasment and to ignore Hamas while the PA shirks on its responsibilities. Seems reasonable as that is what they did the last time.


Thats your opinion. Israel and USA call attacks against military installations terrorism as well. Its a misused term.


I agree, it is a misused term. but purposely targeting civilians for political objectives IS the definition of terorism. It includes terror comming from armies, paramilitaries and fanatics. The Romans, for example, engaged in widespread terroism in securing their new conquests.


I use the term illegal combatant on purpose. Its a fairly new american invented term which should be clarified internationally.
But it fits the settlers quite well if it is to be used. Israel has to prove that Hamas members are not civilians before targeting them. Its far to easy to just claim anyone is not civilian and then target them. State terrorism or terrorism is basically the same thing with the slight difference that state terrorism cant be explained with "a few fanatics".


All the settlers or just the men? Seems like the kids and the pregnant women and such should not be considered illegal combatants, when they are neither armed nor actually participating in any sort of conflict.


That is a good sum up. Its what it comes down too basically, if you are Israeli.
It is all from a Israeli perspective.

A palestinian state is not "ok". Its not for Israel to decide.
Option 1 is absolutely clear and its a demand, then you can make how many following options you like. Israel have no right what so ever to prevent a palestinian state because its not on their territory. You forget the most basic issue of all here.


I am not Israeli, but Canadian, but I see your point. however, The Palestinians are not entitled as of right to a new state. they never had a state before, so things are a little different from a legal perspective. From a moral perspective, I believe you are right, but that any entitlement they might may must be tempered by reality. The Arabs started a war a long time ago, and they have not really stopped fighting and inciting since. Israel has been prepared to make peace, and give the Palestinians a new state, but in exchange has demanded that there be peace. Just like after the terrtories were conquored in the 60s. Land for peace. But the Arab sovereigns of those lands refused to negotiate, and since they were the aggressors in that war, the calculus is a little different.

The most basic issue is peace. For both sides. Having a jew free west bank is not the purpose of all this. Neither is partitioning Jewish Jerusalem or flooding Israel with quasi-refugees.


Of course I belive in the palestinian right of return. Who doesnt morally? They lived there so they should be allowed to. But since its not realistic maybe it has to be a compromise.


Who is a Palestinian. you want to go down this route fine. Give me a functional defition by which we can assess who is entitled as of right to "return" to israel? The grandchildren of an economic migrant who came in 1946? I hardly think so. The grandchildren of people who lived there for longer? I still don't think so. Indians cannot return AS OF RIGHT to Pakistan, neither can any other refugees from the 1940s. the whole thing is a sham and a charade of a right. there is no such thing. And as far as morality, I would respectfully suggest that moral entitlements can be nullified by subsequent action. You steal my bike so I shoot you/ rape your wife/ kill your neighbour etc. Do you owe me anything (from a moral perspective) for stealing your bike. Not really. you might have had I not done anything subsequently, but my subsequent actions vitiate any moral obligations to you that I might have had. And the same thing with the Palestinians. They have launched and supported a terrorist campaign targeting Israeli civilians. And that vitiates any moral obligations Israelis have to let them in to live amongst them

[Mediocrates]

What you mean to say North is that you cling so hard to your radical theory you simply are astonished that anyone could conceive of a pragmatic option that was tried and failed. And you use your own lack of understanding as an indictment of that pragmatism.

It's like they say "If you want loyalty, buy a dogma".

[Northlander]

Why do you believe this? there really is no reason to. And this is one problem that I have had with the other side for some time. Always the best of intentions are ascribed to the terrorists, while always the most sinister motives are ascribed to Israel. Hamas must be destroyed. Without that, there will be no peace.

I would never say "Israels" motives are this and that. the current GOI have hidden motives. They play in the dark in this because they need the american support. Sharon has no intention of letting a palestinian state be created its just so. Terrorism has nothing to do with it. Its not a Jewish or Israeli opinion.

Hamas has a charter sure. Obviously I dont agree to that as well as I dont do with their methods. I too would love to see them dissapear. But thats not relevant since they have support among palestinians. The task is as always when fighting terrorism to remove the support. Its possible. If Hamas lives on or not doesnt matter other than in a symbolic way. So I can understand why Israel wants it gone. It is however not really necessary for israeli security reasons. That was my point. Its people in the organisation that commits the crimes not the organisations itself. The evidence of that is that it was Hamas that got Israeli support during Shamir but hardly now. Its islamistic and I as many others are not that fond of organisations that mix religion with more earthly things like politics.
Again with the "I believe". Your beliefs are insufficient. I do not believe this. I believe that Hamas will undermine the process sommewhere down the line, and that Europe and the rest will push Israel for appeasment and to ignore Hamas while the PA shirks on its responsibilities. Seems reasonable as that is what they did the last time.

Same thing. Your belives are not really relevant to the creation of a palestinian state either. You and I dont decide the faith of the roadmap. Its merely our opinions and belives, no? Sort of a unnecessary comment.

All the settlers or just the men? Seems like the kids and the pregnant women and such should not be considered illegal combatants, when they are neither armed nor actually participating in any sort of conflict.

Obviously not the unarmed women and children. Not armed children either in my opinion. That opinion is not shared by either Hamas or IDF.

I am not Israeli, but Canadian, but I see your point. however, The Palestinians are not entitled as of right to a new state. they never had a state before, so things are a little different from a legal perspective. From a moral perspective, I believe you are right, but that any entitlement they might may must be tempered by reality. The Arabs started a war a long time ago, and they have not really stopped fighting and inciting since. Israel has been prepared to make peace, and give the Palestinians a new state, but in exchange has demanded that there be peace. Just like after the terrtories were conquored in the 60s. Land for peace. But the Arab sovereigns of those lands refused to negotiate, and since they were the aggressors in that war, the calculus is a little different.

Legally it could be managed. Israel was created afterall. Morally it speaks for itself. Also this habit of refering to the arabs as an entity is not entirely correct. Sure they managed to come together in war on Israel(some coordination btw) but its a ridiculous arguement that civil palestinians should be refered to as arabs in the same meaning as the leaders of those countries.
Saying "arabs" attacked and use it as an arguement that the palestinians deserve what they got is unfair to say the least.

Who is a Palestinian. you want to go down this route fine. Give me a functional defition by which we can assess who is entitled as of right to "return" to israel? The grandchildren of an economic migrant who came in 1946? I hardly think so. The grandchildren of people who lived there for longer? I still don't think so. Indians cannot return AS OF RIGHT to Pakistan, neither can any other refugees from the 1940s. the whole thing is a sham and a charade of a right. there is no such thing. And as far as morality, I would respectfully suggest that moral entitlements can be nullified by subsequent action. You steal my bike so I shoot you/ rape your wife/ kill your neighbour etc. Do you owe me anything (from a moral perspective) for stealing your bike. Not really. you might have had I not done anything subsequently, but my subsequent actions vitiate any moral obligations to you that I might have had. And the same thing with the Palestinians. They have launched and supported a terrorist campaign targeting Israeli civilians. And that vitiates any moral obligations Israelis have to let them in to live amongst them

You answered your own question. You basically dont think any non-Jew are entitled the right of return, am I right? Morally speaking any civilian that lived there when the war broke out 48 should be allowed to return, no? Morally I think it could go for indians in Pakistan too. I know perfectly well your reasons for not wanting it and I agreed maybe it wasnt realistic now. It doesnt make Israels stance morally right. After all Israel let any Jew settle in Israel so its not for practical reasons other than keeping Israel Jewish. You can never claim a dutch person has more moral rights to move to Israel just because his grandmother are Jewish than a person born and raised there. Thats the legal situation today and you must clearly see the moral problem.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by Northlander
Minusthejihad my friend is back. The man that gave paranoia a face. I really dont feel like defending from the anti-semite accusations all over again and not the europe bashing either.
But I kind of enjoy your personal attacks because at least they are verbal and from a distance. I guess you already know that all us europeans are far to unmanly and far to afraid of standing up for our opinions face to face.

No, just you.

I really don't see too many other Europeans with absolutely no connection to this conflict whining as much with such a feeling of revelance.

And I'm glad you called it just that, "opinions". And as a good American saying goes, "Opinions are like A__holes, everyone has one" - including you.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Northlander
Same thing. Your belives are not really relevant to the creation of a palestinian state either. You and I dont decide the faith of the roadmap. Its merely our opinions and belives, no? Sort of a unnecessary comment.


Sorry. My point was only that my beliefs seem a little bit more founded on the avaliable evidence about the main actors than yours. The roadmap was doomed ot failure from the get go. because the preconditions were not there. We can make a list of the preconditions, but I think it would be difficult to assert that all the preconditions for an effective peace plan are either in place or can be put in place in the short term.


Obviously not the unarmed women and children. Not armed children either in my opinion. That opinion is not shared by either Hamas or IDF.


What is a child, though. Obviously a 5 year old with a gun should not be targeted, but a 14 year old boy? 15? 17? And a 14 year old boy can be as dangerous as a 22 year old man. And when the enemy militarizes its children, do you surrender or do you fight back? Not so clear as you would assert it to be.


Legally it could be managed. Israel was created afterall. Morally it speaks for itself. Also this habit of refering to the arabs as an entity is not entirely correct. Sure they managed to come together in war on Israel(some coordination btw) but its a ridiculous arguement that civil palestinians should be refered to as arabs in the same meaning as the leaders of those countries.
Saying "arabs" attacked and use it as an arguement that the palestinians deserve what they got is unfair to say the least.


See, this is where you are wrong. There is some moral weight to the argument that some people should morally be allowed to return. But that is a far cry from asserting a universal inalienable right of return, not just for the refugees but for any and all of their descendants. And the Israelis who were kicked out of Arab lands are not allowed to return either, and have had all their property confiscated too. And the property abandoned by the fleeing Arabs in '48, well it was left vacant until the Jews who were kicked out of Arab countries settled in these dwellings. Seems morally right to me.

And real life is not fair. that's just the way it is. We can spout platitudes and abstract theories of rightousness all we want, but things do not work that way. Allowing Palestinians into Israel is a recipe for Israel's destruction. Israel will not be destroyed. therefore a right of return is a non-starter. You should be able to see this.

And I know people and governemnts are two differeent things. but in real life we take governments to act for the people. And the Arab nations attacked. The Arabs living in Palestine (they were not referred to, neither did they refer to themselves, as Palestinians at the time, that term was used to refer to the Jews who lived in palestine) supported the invaders and their cause. So they became refugees. At the time there were lots of refugees worldwide. All the rest have moved on, except the palestinian "refugees" who are really nothing of the sort. because descendants of refugees are not really refugees at all. Family reunification is one thing. Allowing a massive influx of hundreds of thousands of hostiles is something all together different. And will never be accepted by any israeli leader. So what now, then, if the Palestinians have been brainwashed into believing they have a legal inalienable entitlement to return as of right.


You answered your own question. You basically dont think any non-Jew are entitled the right of return, am I right? Morally speaking any civilian that lived there when the war broke out 48 should be allowed to return, no? Morally I think it could go for indians in Pakistan too. I know perfectly well your reasons for not wanting it and I agreed maybe it wasnt realistic now. It doesnt make Israels stance morally right. After all Israel let any Jew settle in Israel so its not for practical reasons other than keeping Israel Jewish. You can never claim a dutch person has more moral rights to move to Israel just because his grandmother are Jewish than a person born and raised there. Thats the legal situation today and you must clearly see the moral problem. [/B]

I do see the moral problem. that's why family reunification is different. But a political decision to let in hundreds of thousands or millions of "refugees" is entirely different. But with respect to Dutch people moving to Israel, there is a much more complicated discussion about how states evolve and how long the moral imperitives that were the underpinnings of the foundation of the state endure. The issues are huge and hugely complicated. But an overly simplistic unabashedly idealistic "road map" plan will not work.

And what percentage of people who claim the right of return actually lived there? Most are descendants of descendants, and they feel they are also entitled to return as of right. They are obviously not, but whether they have a moral right is something different. But again, life isn't really fair, and moral rights do not trump either security or functionalism. that's just the way it is. Why should the rules of real life not apply here?

[Northlander]

No, just you.

I really don't see too many other Europeans with absolutely no connection to this conflict whining as much with such a feeling of revelance.

And I'm glad you called it just that, "opinions". And as a good American saying goes, "Opinions are like A__holes, everyone has one" - including you.


Most europeans have no interest in getting bashed on internet by ranting cowards like you, thats why you dont see many here.

Some of us however do see the benefit in exposing people, for example you as the rasist arab-hater you are.

You dont know anything about how connected I am to the conflict.
Being Jewish is hardly a guarantee for being connected.

Why are you in Detroit and not in Palestine killing terrorists if you are so involved?

Sorry. My point was only that my beliefs seem a little bit more founded on the avaliable evidence about the main actors than yours. The roadmap was doomed ot failure from the get go. because the preconditions were not there. We can make a list of the preconditions, but I think it would be difficult to assert that all the preconditions for an effective peace plan are either in place or can be put in place in the short term.

Congratulations then if you are so well informed. Why didnt you mail the white house to tell them their roadmap was doomed to fail? Evidently your information was better than theirs and you could have spared them a great deal of work. ;)

What is a child, though. Obviously a 5 year old with a gun should not be targeted, but a 14 year old boy? 15? 17? And a 14 year old boy can be as dangerous as a 22 year old man. And when the enemy militarizes its children, do you surrender or do you fight back? Not so clear as you would assert it to be.

Maybe not so clear I agree. I´ll leave it. Its not related to the Roadmap anyway and we both agree that Hamas targets unarmed civilians anyway which is a crime regardless of where they are.

And the property abandoned by the fleeing Arabs in '48, well it was left vacant until the Jews who were kicked out of Arab countries settled in these dwellings. Seems morally right to me.

To that logic I unwillingly agree. However this time it my turn to object with practical reasons. We wouldnt have this discussion now and the problem with arabs that want to return if it hadnt been implemented. Besides the numbers dont match. what did they get, 5 houses each?

And real life is not fair. that's just the way it is. We can spout platitudes and abstract theories of rightousness all we want, but things do not work that way. Allowing Palestinians into Israel is a recipe for Israel's destruction. Israel will not be destroyed. therefore a right of return is a non-starter. You should be able to see this.

That logic goes both ways.

Not allowing the palestinians their own state is a recipe for their destruction. They will never be destroyed. Therefore anything but a state is a non-starter.

Also the "life is not fair" is dangerous. It also go both ways. Terrorism came after the occupation. Terrorism hits innocent people that are not responsible for the occupation. Hey, life is not fair, this is just how it is. It would be better if rightousness had more to do with things but I basically agree that real-politics are what steers events in ME.

If you avoid the morality discussion when it comes to Israeli laws,deeds,events with the argument that life isnt fair, in fairness, you should do the same for the palestinians.

And what percentage of people who claim the right of return actually lived there? Most are descendants of descendants, and they feel they are also entitled to return as of right. They are obviously not, but whether they have a moral right is something different. But again, life isn't really fair, and moral rights do not trump either security or functionalism. that's just the way it is. Why should the rules of real life not apply here?

You forget one little thing. Israel itself was created and based on on one big "right of return". How many that claimed the right to live in Israel then had actually lived there? Morally you get out in deep waters by taking this discussion. As you say you can always refer to the rules of real life but it doesnt make it more right. It is indeed the right of the strongest in Palestine/Israel right now.
That is where our opinions differs. Im sure we want more or less the same thing for all people. Peace and prosperity, educated children etc etc. But while you have accepted that morality is not the way to see things or even go in ME I have not.

[Mediocrates]

Also the "life is not fair" is dangerous. It also go both ways. Terrorism came after the occupation.


You really need to stick to your story. Elsewhere you claim terrorism coincided with the origins of Zionism and the arrival of Jews in Palestine. At any rate both conclusions are wrong - terrorism in the region is far older. Sometimes called war or pogroms or purges or whatnot. It's been in the region for centuries.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Northlander
Congratulations then if you are so well informed. Why didnt you mail the white house to tell them their roadmap was doomed to fail? Evidently your information was better than theirs and you could have spared them a great deal of work. ;)


It's not my job. All I can do is complain and argue. It is for others (at this point) to make policy decisions.


To that logic I unwillingly agree. However this time it my turn to object with practical reasons. We wouldnt have this discussion now and the problem with arabs that want to return if it hadnt been implemented. Besides the numbers dont match. what did they get, 5 houses each?


The numbers do match. In fact, there were transit camps for the Jewish refugees in Israel for a decade at least., because there was not enough abandoned housing.


Not allowing the palestinians their own state is a recipe for their destruction. They will never be destroyed. Therefore anything but a state is a non-starter.


I agree. I support the creation of a palestinian state. Not because they are legally entitled to it or because the area was occupied, but because they are morally entitled to self determination. But not unconditionally. they must give up the violence first.


Also the "life is not fair" is dangerous. It also go both ways. Terrorism came after the occupation. Terrorism hits innocent people that are not responsible for the occupation. Hey, life is not fair, this is just how it is. It would be better if rightousness had more to do with things but I basically agree that real-politics are what steers events in ME.


Terrorism did NOT start after the occupation. It started at least as far back as the 20s and 30s. The PLO (which was a terrorist organization, remember, involved in hijacking planes and killing olympic athletes, was founded in 1964. It renounced all territorial claims against Jordan in the west bank, and focussed exclusively on "liberating" Israel. That was before '67. This is part of the problem with this whole thing. Most people do not have a proper perspective on the history of the dispute. Its why everyone who is interested should be reading books all the time.


If you avoid the morality discussion when it comes to Israeli laws,deeds,events with the argument that life isnt fair, in fairness, you should do the same for the palestinians.


you can. that's why the Jews will not be allowed to settle in "judea and samaria". because life isn't fair.


You forget one little thing. Israel itself was created and based on on one big "right of return". How many that claimed the right to live in Israel then had actually lived there? Morally you get out in deep waters by taking this discussion. As you say you can always refer to the rules of real life but it doesnt make it more right. It is indeed the right of the strongest in Palestine/Israel right now.
That is where our opinions differs. Im sure we want more or less the same thing for all people. Peace and prosperity, educated children etc etc. But while you have accepted that morality is not the way to see things or even go in ME I have not. [/B]

Israel was created nit by law but in reality. By the late 1930s and early 1940s, the Jewish community in Palestine had successfully built up a de facto state, with independent institutions and governmental organs. That is what created the state. the law only belatedly recognized this. But it was the creation of these institutions which made everything possible.

But what of the argument that moral imeritives are sacrificed when the aggrieged party engages in conduct far more reprehansible. I think that the more terror the Palestinians engage in, the less they are morally entitled to anything. And this is an argument exclusively from morality.

[Mil]

Posted by Yehudi:


Let it be know, no need to dilute the fact in lengthy, dilatory explanations. Everyone knows very well that the timing is calculated in an attempt to kill any progress toward peace.


This is not the doing of uncontrolled, terrorists individuals, this is the deliberate policy of a governement.


Lets discuss it. I hope you are not going to go into any kind of an emotional hystria though....

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by Northlander
Most europeans have no interest in getting bashed on internet by ranting cowards like you, thats why you dont see many here.

Some of us however do see the benefit in exposing people, for example you as the rasist arab-hater you are.

You dont know anything about how connected I am to the conflict.
Being Jewish is hardly a guarantee for being connected.

Why are you in Detroit and not in Palestine killing terrorists if you are so involved?


Look chump,

I have plenty of Arab friends (including Palestinians), and in fact, not that it makes any difference, but I think I actually have more Arab friends than Jews based on the fact that I live near Detroit. However, that still does not mean that I will not call an Arab a terrorist when he/she is in fact a terrorist, and I would do the same for a Jew, Christian or anything else.

Look through all my posts and please prove that I am an "Arab Hater" or "Racist", I Tripple Dog Dare you. You'll see that you are simply slinging unfounded accusations on this forum whilst many here have proved you are a despicable anti-semite, not too mention your word "coward".

I am not directly involved because I am Jewish, but because some of my cousins are in the IDF, most of my family lives in Israel, and are thus targets of terrorists. And I financially and wholeheartedly support Israel, the IDF, and Israelis against these terrorist scum that have been trying to annihilate us since long before I was born.

Lastly, if I didn't have enough trouble simply maintaining my new life in Detroit, I WOULD BE IN ISRAEL, risking my life, confronting these scum. Since I am not and couldn't afford it right now anyway, there are many other avenues to fight terrorism and anti-semitism. I choose exposing people like you for what they are: JEW-HATERS

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by Northlander
Terrorism came after the occupation.

If the Occupation came in 1948, then what exactly do you call attacks on Jewish vilages by Arab Terrorists long before the Occupation?

The BLATANT LIE you stated is WHAT MAKES YOU A FRAUD!

[Revkha]

Originally posted by Northlander

You answered your own question. You basically dont think any non-Jew are entitled the right of return, am I right? Morally speaking any civilian that lived there when the war broke out 48 should be allowed to return, no?

You are arguing passionately for the right of return for Palestinians. You totally neglect the Jews who had lived for centuries in Arab lands and were expelled. They have no right of return. What say you about this. Again it is nothing but a double standard.

__________________________________________________


From the twisted branch
The elements converge
In a cincture of contradiction
Constrained by the euphonious wind
As it whispers “the prophet is here.”

- Chen Du Su -

[Adversary2Arabs]

Originally posted by Northlander

You answered your own question. You basically dont think any non-Jew are entitled the right of return, am I right? Morally speaking any civilian that lived there when the war broke out 48 should be allowed to return, no?


I don't think any non-Jew should EVER live in Israel. LIKEWISE I don't think and Jew should EVER live in the Diaspora. You can thank the Romans and countless other prior world powers for dispersing the Jews. We didn't ask for it, but we got it.

[Adversary2Arabs]

I guess when G-d created the heavens and the earth, when he got to Sweden he shaped it as it's people would act in the future. Like the mod sharonbn who edits posts who speak the truth.

(PS Even other Europeans think so. IE the Euro.)

[Northlander]

This is amazing. Do you understand how bad it looks when these personal attacks comes? Like a clockwork, every time. It just takes a few posts and then the same guys come in, not interested in proving their points, not interested in seeing things from the other side.

Read rules of the road minusthejihad and now also Adversary2Arabs.

I have the outmost respect for people like Canajew and anyone else that however sensitive all this is for them still behave and focus on the issues. That goes for most pro-israelis here also those with whom I and others have had quite harsh exchanges of words, like Medicrates and Johnny Yuma for example.

If we are a few that are discussing in this thread minusthejihad, I think the others themself have a choice not to discuss with me had he felt my opinions were anti-semite, personally provocative or anything else. Free will minusthejihad, you should be familiar with the idea. You are not the only Jew here and you are not the only one with ties to the conflict.

Take the others examples and choose to debate or not. Its really quite simple.
Not at any moment have I slandered or bashed Jews in this forum. I have maybe bashed americans when things heated up and I have also apologized for it when I was out of line.

As for my personal connection to the conflict half of my family are Palestinians. You know about those guys dont you?? People of flesh and blood for whom this conflict has meant everything. So you can just shut the F up and crawl back from where you came.

Adversary2Arabs, where are you from then? Florida?? Oh, I would just love to live there, a giant swamp full of retired rednecks. Life sure must be...lively there. :rolleyes:

[rferry]

Originally posted by Revkha
You are arguing passionately for the right of return for Palestinians. You totally neglect the Jews who had lived for centuries in Arab lands and were expelled. They have no right of return. What say you about this. Again it is nothing but a double standard.
Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
"When there's a synagogue in Mecca, there can be a mosque in Jerusalem." - Jared Miller

Why would any zionist wish for any jews to return to North Africa, Central Asia, Turkey, or Arabia? These are areas that have not been stated by zionist leaders or rabbinical scholars as the land of Israel. I doubt any zionist, liberal, conservative, messianic, or extremist, would request such a move. Or is it just the principle of the matter to you? If it is, if Saudi Arabia, Iran, Morocco, and Egypt offered to establish a secure homeland in thir lands for jews would you really be willing to grant Palestinians (ranging from a percentage of 750000 to 3.5 million) their so-called 'right of return'?

[elke]

As for my personal connection to the conflict half of my family are Palestinians. You know about those guys dont you?? People of flesh and blood for whom this conflict has meant everything. So you can just shut the F up and crawl back from where you came

So, which is it, Northlander? Is it "half your family" or your girlfriend, as you stated before?

Just FYI: any credibility you used to have, just took a major nosedive. You were either lying earlier, when you said that you are "as Nordic as they come", partially Laplander, - or something to that effect; - or now.

...and please don't forget that we too are people of flesh and blood, to whom this conflict is one in a series of others. Who came to Israel to prevent our disappearance, only to be met with further attempted genocide. The "Right of Return", - if allowed, - is a Trojan Horse, allowed in voluntarily!

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Northlander

I have the outmost respect for people like Canajew and anyone else that however sensitive all this is for them still behave and focus on the issues. That goes for most pro-israelis here also those with whom I and others have had quite harsh exchanges of words, like Medicrates and Johnny Yuma for example.

That's sweet. I need a hug. ;)

As for my personal connection to the conflict half of my family are Palestinians. You know about those guys dont you?? People of flesh and blood for whom this conflict has meant everything. So you can just shut the F up and crawl back from where you came.

Palestinians? Really... What a diverse family you have, Northlander! Which side of the family do you fall on? Are you of Palestinian extraction, by blood?

Adversary2Arabs, where are you from then? Florida?? Oh, I would just love to live there, a giant swamp full of retired rednecks. Life sure must be...lively there. :rolleyes:

A Florida demographics lesson:
Most of the retirees (AKA: Snowbirds) come from the Northern states of this country. They live in the larger cities of the Florida peninsula; Tampa, Miami, Clearwater, Orlando, Daytona, Boca Raton, etc. The climate, there, is considerably more tropical than that of the panhandle, where the vast majority of the so-called rednecks" live. It is in the panhandle's small towns whose names don't even appear on most maps -Carabelle, Holt, Baker, Laurel Hill, Paxton, Milligan, etc.- where most of these commonly stereotyped "native Floridians" live, and don't comprise what you've termed "retirees".

[Mediocrates]

Current Palestinian propaganda talks about "Right of Return" in the context of 'refugee status'. This bears some analysis.

Palestinians confuse 'refugee' with disaspora. That seems simple enough. Palestinians are a diaspora culture. Which means a group of people who share a common bond but who do not live in one place - frequently as scattered minorities. There are diaspora cultures all over the world: the Jews, Armenians...hell the Catholics you could say too. Palestinian confusion on this point is then used to justify 'right of return' on the flimsy notion that Israel was founded on the same basis.

But it wasn't so the analogy falls apart. Israel wasn't founded by refugees from Israel. It was founded by European refugees, Maghrib and Mizrahi refugees and diaspora Jewry for the most part. The Jewish right of return is a metaphor. "We" are returning to our homeland - spiritually, historically. But the actual chronological connection between Israel and diaspora Jewry is weak. If anything, disapora Jewry have claims to Poland, Iran, Iraq and so on.

So when we look at the Palestinian PR we see an intentionally blurry and inaccurate definition intentionally distorted for political purposes:

'Who' is Palestinian? - According to the UN anyone who could claim permanent or semi permanent residence 1946-48 with or without documented evidence.

'Who is a refugee' - Even more vague, 2/3rds of all Palestinians live in Jordan and 100's of thousands more in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, the USA and Europe. In neighborhoods in Jordan albeit poor neighborhoods people are into their 3rd or 4th generation of what they call refugee status. This truly is an intentional corruption of the notion of a diaspora culture. 3 or 4 generations - meaning you have never set foot in Palestine, nor has your mother or her father and maybe his mother too. That is not a refugee.

There is no 'there' there. There is no connection for them to Israel that is stronger than the connection to where they live now, wherever that is. If they live in bad neighborhoods in Jordan or Lebanon or as we're seeing, Iraq then that is a different issue. But to invent 'Palestinian-ism' and then use that to define a false refugee status is just politics. There is nothing else behind it.

[Northlander]

With family I didnt mean my parents but rather half of the folks on family gatherings and in daily life, my gf´s folks and mine. One family. Swedes and Palestinians. I have no palestinian heritage myself but it doesnt necessarelly mean Im not connected. My children will be part palestinians, at least I imagine they will see it that way regardless of birthplace. That make me kinda connected wouldnt you say? What am I to say to them? Sorry guys Im not entitled to tell you anything regarding your heritage and your mother´s history, hell Im not even entitled to have an opinion because Im not Jewish or Arab myself?

I live 24 hour with palestinians and therefore it affect my life.
Earlier events in ME still spreads like rings on water. It affected people and how they are and it still does, where they are and why. Its part of their life and its part of mine.
Far more Im sure than many people all over the world with no connection whatsoever to Israel or ME more than that their grandparents where Jews.

If you all tries to annoy me by parting with minusthejihad on this you are all succeful. I meaningful discussion were just destroyed. Needless to say it sheds new light on this forum were obviously personal attacks are not only allowed but alse encouraged by others.

As for the right of return. Is it impossible for anyone here to actually read?

For example, what is this?

You are arguing passionately for the right of return for Palestinians. You totally neglect the Jews who had lived for centuries in Arab lands and were expelled. They have no right of return. What say you about this. Again it is nothing but a double standard.

Im not arguing passionately for the right of return. I clearly said that for practical reasons I dont think it could be implemented.
Exactly what is so hard to understand? What does it mean?
It means that since all israelis from age zero to hundred would never accept it and therefore we would never have peace if the demand stays the palestinians should drop the demand. What did you think I meant? So, and this goes for all of you, instead of continuing to argue that the return of the refuges could never happen, why dont you just read the posts?

If you like we can discuss why I MORALLY claim they have a right, which was exactly what we did until minusthejihad intervened with his rubbish.

Just to make future attacks unnecessary I´ll make a short list of what will come myself.

No im not blond, not 2 meters tall, not anti-semite, not nazi, yes Sweden sold steel to Germany during WWII, yes Sweden looks like a penis on the Euro coin(Finland the balls), no not all our girls are sluts, no Im not leftist, not gay, not pacif