takeo's roadmap for peace (summary) [Archive] - Page 2

takeo

10-20-2003, 04:30 PM

let's start with your last posts.
1) this has clearly been pasted and copied from an anti-palestinian propaganda-site, which means the quotes might or might not be true, might not be in accordance with the general context, and might not be representative. (for example I can quote from the jerusalem post each time someone calls for the etnic cleansing of the occupied territories, "transfer", making it look like that's a typical viewpoint in the israeli press)

2) They don't make distinction between children throwing stones and suicide bombers, which is not correct. The martyrs arafat and the palestinian press refered to and made a hero where the stonethrowing children who died because of israeli bullets. Martyr doesn't necessarily mean suicide-bomber.

3) The quotes from religious leaders and others praising suicide-bombings where not the responsability of the palestinian press, for example if someone on BBC calls for a genocide against all jews it doesn't mean that's the responsability or personal opinion of the bbc..

4) I agree however that the media have a part of their responsability by not openly trying to discourage those acts, and by not adressing them properly as cruel and barbaric acts, and by allowing people such as religious leaders to openly encourage them. it's because palestinian society isn't an autoritarian one, the opinions reflected in everyday life are reflected in the media, the state isn't strong if it exists at all. when i visited the ot in 1999 people told me there was a prgram with someone joking about the president, corruption etc. . you will never hear calls for suicide-bombings on syrian tv, nor will you hear religious leaders preaching anything that has not been allowed by the official baathist censorship. also in lebanon you'll hear people on state and private television call for the extermination of the jewish people, etc. (as well as anti-syrian opposition) it's because it's a democratic society, where the media more or less reflects everyday opinion, unlike Syria. But what your source conveniantly forget to mention is that in the official palestinian media you'll also hear voices that condemn the suicide-actions, and even political programs on the radio where such matters are discussed.

takeo

10-20-2003, 05:42 PM

And maybe one reason for this is that the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world watching this on TV are lead to believe that there are people inside these houses when they are demolished, confirming the fact that Jews are "blood thirsty monsters". There are so many lies circulating in the Arab world since day one that it has made its mark on the Arab mind, totally distorting the truth. When you repeat a lie enough it'll become reality and since collectively everyone lives in this bizarro reality it becomes truth eventually. I believe Arabs in the Middle East have very little information on what the truth is because, every day, one more grain of lies is fed to the Arab mind, contributing to the heap of lies that they have been inundated with since even before Israel came to being. Reading the book I'm reading, Arabs were lead to believe that they were "crushing" the Israelis and "repelling" its aggression in the Six-Day War - while it was quite the opposite- and never knew, in the first place, that the Suez was never under blockade. Arabs still believe that they have one the Yom Kippur war, which I find utterly ridiculous.

I'm no expert on the subject, nor do I have any merit when saying this, but I think propaganda has an immense effect on the over all populus and the Arab rulers have accomplished what Hitler and Goebbles did in Germany. The Arab mind, in my opinion, is severly plagued with the hatred of Jews since birth and its evident in school, books, television and movies. I don't know how a situation such as this can be fixed and if it can it will take a long time; two to three generations. It's essential to end the Israeli-Arab conflict because the population explosion, now experience in the Arab world, is just making things worse.

You are not entirely correct that propaganda plays an essential role. Let's just take Iraq as an example, currently full of Western (well i should say, western European, Americans seem to mostly rely on the official propaganda that everyone is happy in iraq...) journalists trying to find out how iraqi's think. for decades iraqi have been fet saddam-propaganda, you know what i mean. Well, surprisingly people have very different opinions than the official one. Some iraqi are staunchly pro-Saddam, others are virulently anti-Saddam and are even prepared to cooperate with the occupiers just because they liberated them from Saddam, some even support israel because israel is supposed to be most "anti-saddam", even more than the us which used to support Saddam. they didn't change their opinion overnight, had them very long time, despite the propaganda. but there are more opinions, many iraqi hate Saddam but equally hate the us and Great-brittain, some iraqi are supporters of al-quaida others depise fundamentalism, some saddam-supporters and haters are anti-fundamentalists as well as some supporters and haters of the occupiers are fundamentalists. The arab opinion isn't one voice, one opinion, and often in the most moderate and pro-western countries such as Egypt or jordan you'll find the harshest anti-israel view.
And the most popular Arab channel, al-jazeera, often shows israeli victims of suicide-attackers and interviews their families, also broadcasting the israeli side and opinions.
it doesn't happen very often that israeli television channels focus on the opinions and sufferings of palestinian side, except leftist ones.

but what of collective accountability. When I was in grade school, we used to effectively 'nominate' a -disturber to raise trouble, drive the teacher crazy and divert her as far as possible from her lesson plan. As I was supported by my peers, both actively and passively, it was indeed quite fair for the teacher to hold us collectively accountable (though hold me even more accountable if I was the rabble-rouser) and that is the way it should have been. We all decided to act that way, I was cheered on by my peers and as a result we were all culpable for my actions.

i would have taken and punished you as an example for others, (for example by giving you a humiliating oral test about a much hated subject i know you didn't study, and then shouting "is there another candidate?" my preferate method to punish troublemakers hehe, altough in my first year i was a softie)

considering all the Palestinians do is act on hate, you are hardly in a position to criticize Israeli policy which is, in large part, based on that hate.

but by saying so you proove israel isn't any better than the palestinians, altough it claims to be a modern western nation...

I wasn't aware that the Germans assumed a position f power immediately after they surrendered. Did it not take a fair number of years before they were welcomed propoerly into Europe, as if I remember correctly, part of the reason they were broguht into NATO and into European decision making at the very beginning was to "keep Germany down". And the Germans changed their government and a lot of other things first. The palestininas have not changed anything and continue to propagandize nothing but hatred in their media.

Yes, they did, almost immidiately, germany entered in the European integration only a few years after its defeat.
And i'm really fet up with this comparison, palestinians have been occupied by israel for decades while Germany occupied the entire Europe, there's really no comparison possible.

well maybe they should have paid more attention to their children then. However, if I could propose an alternative, I would suggest that the homes not be destroyed but that ownership of the home be transferred to a victims fund and liquidated as the fund sees fit. Hows that for more fair?

it wouldn't be any fairer, they would still loose their house and belongings because of actions they weren't responsible for.

maybe. It seems effective in that it makes bombers aware of the necessary implication of their actions on their families. that there are so many palestininas who do not care about their families seems to undermine the effectiveness of this plan, but again giving in now and stopping this action without any real commitment by the palestininas AND their leaders to stop terrorist attacks against civilians would be extremely counter productive. Sometimes changing a bad regime mid-stride can be worse than allowing it to continue - like agricultural quotas.

no, giving it up now would give the signal to palestinians that israel isn't as bad as they tought it was. of course this alone isn't enough, it should be accompanied by a whole lot of other measures to change the palestinian perception of israel.

but of course Israel only responded like this after YEARS of terrorist attacks TARGETING civilian persons. All your example countries have hardly come close to having to absorb a fraction of the punishment directed at Israel, and in none of these circumstances was the goal of the terrorist groups the destruction of the target country.

The Basques and the IRA have been targetting respectively Spain and Great Brittain for years as well, and their aim was and still is the breakup of those countries. Anyway it's clear the brittish response to Irish terrorists (what you would call "appeasement") payed off, and now terrorism is a thing of the past in northern ireland.

takeo

10-20-2003, 05:45 PM

Thanks for the clue in. I think, however, that the leaders of Communism are the true Communists, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, etc., and the members are led to believe Communism is a benevolent Social Democracy movement. But these are one and the same.

what's one and the same, social democracy and pol pot? So you actually compare pol pot to Schroder or Jospin (Blair thinks he's a social-democrat but of course he's more rightwing than chirac, who doesn't pretend to be a social-democrat but a liberal) ????????????????

To hear you tell it, the Palestinians made a tactical mistake by embracing terrorist mass murder in 2000.

The truth is that terrorist mass murder is the centerpiece of the Islamists' strategy. It is a strategy that stretches from Morocco to Indonesia; in the Middle East, it reaches back to the 1920s.

Contrary to your claim, terrorist mass murder was not a tactical choice for the Palestinians. It is what groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and PFLP are all about. It pervades Paestinian society: the media, schools, and mosques. It was and is the modus operandi for the PLO.

suicide actions against civilians are a very recent devellopment that has been started in sri lanka by the non-muslim tamils.
Terrorism has been choosen often by the weak who couldn't defend against huge military powers such as the us or israel by conventional means (unlike for example the soviets and the chinese who never resorted to such tactics). it's not a typical muslim thing but happens in latin America, africa and south-eastasia as well and was one of the methods used during the decolonisation-struggle (and, if i may ad, during the resistance against the nazi-occupation in Europe).

Sure, if the Palestinians abandoned terrorist mass murder things would be different. But then, if they abandoned terrorist mass murder and the cult of martyrdom, strap-on explosives, and Jew-hatred, they wouldn't be the Palestinians, would they? I dare say that cult worship of suicide-genocide is the only characteristic that defines the Palestinians as a 'nation'.

BS, palestinians have a culture that goes back many centuries and their current pre-occupation with the israeli occupation is only relatively short in their history. You could as well claim that "israel is all about the struggle against the Arabs" since that seems to be the most visible feature of israel. I hope palestinians will abandon terrorism against civilians, soon, for a lot of reasons.

And if you opposed terrorism as you claim you would recognize Israel's right to defend itself.

Jews learned from WW II that the only people who will defend them from mass murder are... the Jews.

what jews learned from WWII was personally and always different. what my family learned from WWII was that discrimination based on race, nationalism and religion is what 's the most dangerous.

Israel of course has the right to defend itself, but not by harming the rights of its neighbours. israel is not defending itself by the way but the occupied territories.

Your willful distortions and acceptance of historical revisionism is so tiresome.

What don't you understand about one million Arabs living inside Israel with the right to vote?

What don't you understand about the Arab demand for a Jew-free West Bank and Gaza?

I understand that the "arabs" in israel have a right to vote, but i equally understand that they do not have the right to marry a non-jewish person living outside of israel (while the jewish citizens of israel do have such a right) and i equally understand that palestinians living in the occupied territories for decades do not have any rights at all as far as israel is concerned (and don't start "since 1993 blabla" before 1993 they hadn't any rights either).

about your last point i explained my opinion to canajew. The jews and their families who lived there in the 20's can return, the ones who came there as illegal immigrants since 1967 have to leave.

You are all for the Intifada, except you are against the one thing that defines the intifada and has defined the dirty war to destroy Israel and "drive the Jews into the sea" from the beginning.

BS, the first intifadeh wasn't about harming civilians, it was about harming the occupying forces in the Westbank and gaza.

Perhaps you should visit Hamas' website. After you read about the glorious "martyrdom operations," come back and tell us how they have always doubted and had misgivings about this approach...

I know their position and i'm not exactly a hamas-fan as you know. hamas doesn't represent the entire palestinian society, as well as your point of view doesn't entirely represent the israeli society.

You don't "support" it, perhaps, but you work overtime making excuses for it.

because they are a natural consequence of the israeli policy to collectively target the palestinians, it doesn't legitimises terrorism, but it's a great recruitment-tool for terrorists.

There you go again, defending the butcher of Baghdad in the name of "democracy, liberty and freedom of speech." You look at the Korean peninsula and see a dictatorship... in Seoul.

That's not exactly a good summary of my post, i didn't defend saddam but i criticised people who use those words as propaganda but aren't sincere about implementing them in reality.
did you never hear of the Southkorean military rulers who killed 10000's of political opposers? perhaps you're a bit blind on one side...

More people then you think share my opinions, for example in Europe according to polls published today 80% of Western Europeans believe george Bush' intentions weren't about saving the iraqi people nor saving the world from weapons of massdestruction...

You have even outdone yourself this time, Takeo.

Communism is a miserable failure. It's adherents are totally discredited.

Communism was abandoned by the Soviet Union and its satellites with next to no resistance. China's Stalinist leaders remain in power, but the country has converted to a free market .

China isn't a full market economy today, it's rather a mixed economy with joint-ventures tightly controlled by the state, as put forwards by lenin during the NEP. China and vietnam have been the most succesful economies during the 90's and during the last years as well. The soviet-Union since it changed communism for capitalism plummetted in deep misery and decline, after many decades of rapid economic growth.

The only places I can think of that remain staunchly Marxist are North Korea and Cuba, the world's two economic basket cases.

Well Cuba doesn't have an equal chance to devellop, does it, while it's still better than most neighbouring countries.

Everywhere Communism reigned there was economic collapse, brutal oppression, and as near a complete loss of the "freedom of speech" you claim to cherish as is conceivable.

in some cases, not always and everywhere, while in most thirth world-countries capitalism was and still is responsible for economic deprivation of the massive majority.
You mean "freedom of speech" under Allende as compared to your hero Pinochet, the champion of free speech???

I agree of course communism wasn't very democratic in most cases and the bureaucratic structure wasn't perfect, which gave birth to all kinds of abuses, it clearly needs refinement and change. Yet, it is still preferable over pure capitalism.

takeo

10-20-2003, 06:03 PM

first, while the UK and France were undoubtedly 'colonial powers' in the 1940s and 1950s, control over the suez canal was not an incidence of this colonialism, it seems. It was not about controling foreign peoples but rather to control this central transportation link, without which international commerce would suffer severely. While I have not paid too much attention to colonialism and its impacts, I would be interested in knowing what sort of rudimentary definition you use to classify things as 'colonial' or not. Because just as attacks targeting military are not terrorism, I would suspect other things which at first glace might appear to be colonialism, are really of a different nature.

but colonialism was all about controlling strategical sites and economic important areas...
colonial in the original sence means establishing your autority and population in areas with a foreign population. So in this sence the colonisation of the Westbank refers to the original meaning. But colonial in the 19th century sence means industrialised foreign powers searching for areas to posses and controll, for strategic and/or economic reasons. In this sence the iraq-adventure is clearly colonial.

Second, there was a doctrine which was adopted by the Israelis at the beginning, and this doctrine, which was a response to the continued threat to the existence of Israel and her civilian population, was that any enemies of our enemies were our friends. It got them into lots of uncomfortable realtionships, like with the SOuth Africans, but where one's survival is at stake one is more likely to ignore these factors. Similarly with the 56 suez war. Israel was going to have to act militarily to end the blockade, but because the Brits and French had their own agendas there, Israel took the opportunity to combine efforts. Not support of colonialism at all rather usingt the colonial powers' concerns and objectives to achieve valid security goals for Israel.

that's exactly the same reason why currently al-quaida and Saddam joined, even if they were ennemies in the past. it's also the reason why hamas and the pa don't attack eachother.

Canajew

10-21-2003, 06:07 AM

Originally posted by takeo
let's start with your last posts.

couple of things. First this is not a 'propaganda site' all these examples have links to the actual media clips on the website so you can see that these actually happened. Second, they do make a distinction between types of activity but it is also important to remember that the strategy of making children vulnerable to soldiers is still a crime, even if all you do is encourage them to throw stones. third, this cannto be compared to the BBC because the BBC is a free media in a free liberal democracy, while PATV is rigidly controled by the palestinian Authority and nothing can continue on it for long without at least not offending the PA leadership - and if something ran three times a day for an extended period it must not have been deemed offensive to Arafat and the PA. Also, you may wish to quote the Jerusalem post as representative of the larger whole, but this is just one outlet among many many Israeli outlets. by contrast PATV IS PATV it is the broadcasting channel of the Palestinian Authority and there are few alternatives to most .

You again wilfully ignore the message which is of central importance by black-listing it based on a presumed interest group which you dislike. Whether Palestinian Media Watch is a 'propaganda site' - it really isn't it is a media review site with a particular bent but still relies on actual FACTS to make arguements - is beside the point - evaluate the content - take a look at the numerous clips provided on the site and evaluate them properly.

2) They don't make distinction between children throwing stones and suicide bombers, which is not correct. The martyrs arafat and the palestinian press refered to and made a hero where the stonethrowing children who died because of israeli bullets. Martyr doesn't necessarily mean suicide-bomber.

the poitn of this study was NOT to show that the Palestinians teach their children to be suicide bombers (they do, but this is not the point). the point is that the Palestinian media, under Arafat's control, propagates death and violence and destruction and creates a cult of death within Palestinian society and amongst Palestinian young people. The focus was not so much on the fact that they want to kill Israeli civilians (which, again, they do based on their glorification and lionization of suicide boimbers who targeted civilians) rather it was on the fact that these young people are being brainwashed to seek death. See the difference? Maybe you should re-evaluate the study paying a bit more attention - check out some of the media clips.

3) The quotes from religious leaders and others praising suicide-bombings where not the responsability of the palestinian press, for example if someone on BBC calls for a genocide against all jews it doesn't mean that's the responsability or personal opinion of the bbc..

covered above - PATV is not the BBC. PATV is the media organ of the palestinian Authority in a sicety where there is no such thing as freedom of the press.

it's because palestinian society isn't an autoritarian one,

is this for real? you can't serious assert this sort of blatant fiction and expect anyone to take you seriously. Palestinian society is consistently ranked as authoritarian in international studies - look at transparency international's rankings and see where they are ranked - and it is clearly authoritarian. there are MANY documented cases of the PA arresting and assaulting journalists and media publishers who did not tow the party line, and Arafat has in the past sent his force 17 to assassinate foreign Arab journalists, successfully killing one in London in 1987.

You constantly speak of the PA ebing powerless and that israel is to blame for this, but the palestinians still have the LARGEST per capita police force in the world - with over 50,000 people on Arafat's security payroll. While they maybe would be able to crush Hamas, they surely would be able to keep the producers at PATV in line, especially given that Arafat had incarcerated a publisher of one newspaper (I forget which one but I'll get thedocumentation if you like) becasue he wrote something on PA corruption. Given that they arrest based on accusations of PA corruption and not on incitement and falsehoods directed against Arafat's "peace initiatives" (lol), it is abundantly clear that this incitement, while maybe not ordered directly by Arafat, has certainly been acquiesced in by Arafat - he has always been a micro-managing tin-pan despot and would not allow others to make decisions on this type of thing - responsibility for this sort of media content lies squarely with Arafat and his PA.

the opinions reflected in everyday life are reflected in the media, the state isn't strong if it exists at all.

see above for the 'powerlessness of the state'. As for everyday opinion being reflected in the media, I would suggest that you again have your causes and effects backwards, and that much of this public opinion was formed through the disinformation contained in this media. Further, moderation has constantly been squeezed out of the PA media from the beginning of the Oslo process, with only a few exceptional periods where it was grudgingly tolerated. Otherwise cries of collaborator or traitor are quick to fly from the PA.

I don't care that they give equal time to pro and anti terrorism programming (not that they do, but even did they it still wouldn't matter). this sort of thing needs to end entirely or there will never be peace. It must end before Israel lets the Palestinians go, as if they do not the palestinians will continue in their cult of death march to liquidate the Jews.

Canajew

10-21-2003, 06:34 AM

Some economic and social development facts about the occupied territories:

Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60% of all male adults in the occupied territories had been employed with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83%.

During the 1970s, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest growing economy in the world - ahead of such "wonders" as Singapore, Hong Kong and Korea, and substantially ahead of isarel itself.

Per capita gross national product expanded by more than 10 times between 1968 and 1991, from $165 to $1,715. This figure of $1,715 can be contrasted with GNPs of $1,050 for Jordan, $600 for Egypt, $1,630 for Turkey and $1,440 for Tunisia in the same year.

Mortality rates fell by more than two thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000 (compared to an average of 68 for the rest of the Middle East and North Africa).

Israeli mediacal programs reduced infant mortality rates from 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (In Iraq the rate was 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22).

Under a systematic program of innoculation, childhood diseases such as polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated.

By 1986, 92.8% of the palestinian population in the WB and Gaza had electricity around the clock, compared with 20.5% in 1967. 85% had running water in dwellings, compared to 16% in '67. 84% had electric or gas ranges for cooking, compared to 4% in 67. Similar statistics exist for refrigirators, cars and so on.

During the two decades preceeding the first intifadeh, the number of schoolchildren in the territories grew by 102% and the number of classes 99%, though the population itself grew by only 28%.

At the onset of the Israeli occupation there did not exist even a single university in the territories. By the early 1990s there were 7, with an enrollment of 16,500 students. At the time there were only 6 universities in Israel proper.

Illiteracy rates dropped from over 50% before 1967 to 14% of adults over 15, compared to 69% in Morocco, 61% in Egypt, 45% in Tunesia and 44% in Syria.

All this from Karah, "Arafat's War."

source:

The most comprehensive sources of information on the socioeconomic development of the WB and Gaza between 1967 and 1993 are the annual yearbooks of Israel's Central bureau of Statistics, Statistical Abstracts of Israel [/] , and the annual reports of the Administrator of Activities in the Territories: [I] The Administered Territories - Data on Civilian Activity in Judea and Samaria, the Gaza Strip, and North Sinai (the latter category was of course dropped following the return of this territoriy to Egypt). Other valuable sources include the regular reports of the Wrold Bank (e.g. "World Development Indicators," "West Bank and Gaza at a Glace") as well as various UN reports: United Nations Statistics Division (e.g. "Indicators on health and Economic Activity," "Indicators on Literacy"); World Health organization (e.g. "The World Health Report) etc...

See also: "West Bank and Gaza: An Evaluation of [World] bank Assistance," March 7, 2002 (report no. 23820); Adam roberts et al., Academic Freedom Under Israeli Occupation (London and Geneva: World University Service and International Commission of Jursits, 1984) etc...

So once again a little component of your arguemnt and world-view is eroded. Do you reposition your remaining pieces to maintain the fiction or do you engage in a real evaluation of the facts as they occured.

danholo

10-21-2003, 10:42 AM

takeo:

also in lebanon you'll hear people on state and private television call for the extermination of the jewish people, etc. (as well as anti-syrian opposition) it's because it's a democratic society, where the media more or less reflects everyday opinion, unlike Syria. But what your source conveniantly forget to mention is that in the official palestinian media you'll also hear voices that condemn the suicide-actions, and even political programs on the radio where such matters are discussed.

So why isn't Lebanon treated as a country that's part of the democratic society?! I would expect its relations with Israel and other parts of the world to be great!

danholo

10-21-2003, 03:07 PM

Canajew,

Does or did Israel have a responsibility to provide the same services and need to achieve the same standard of living for the occupied people, the Palestinians? What is the obligations of an occupying power towards the people when, indeed, the power does not want to annex the territories, nor does it want these people as its citizens?

I was reading a book in at B&N which stated that (or was it on this board) that Israel was attempting to resettle Palestinians from their refugee camps into "normal" towns. It supposedly succeeded on rehabilitating about 8,300 families but still hatred was brewing in the Palestinian population in the 80's towards Israel, especially amongst those who experience humiliation in check points, while going to work and when they saw the high standard of living that Israelis were enjoying. It can be said that they were treated as "ni#$%s" cause they were doing all the crappy and "dirty" jobs no Israeli wanted. Some Israelis claim that the situation of the Palestinians were kept "hidden" from the Israelis by the government.

You seem to know a lot but I have no idea why humiliating people at checkpoints is "justified" and to make them wait to go home. I'm talking about before the first intifada here btw.

Canajew

10-21-2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by danholo
Canajew,

Does or did Israel have a responsibility to provide the same services and need to achieve the same standard of living for the occupied people, the Palestinians? What is the obligations of an occupying power towards the people when, indeed, the power does not want to annex the territories, nor does it want these people as its citizens?

I'm not sure. there are basic requirements in the Geneva conventions for the treatment of occupied peoples and I assume this is the only legal document which specifies this treatment. I think there are requirements for treating the plaestinians above and beyond their state at the time of occupation (as I also assume that Jordan and particularly Egypt did not provide enough for the palestinians when they were the occupying powers.) But these are just speculatins and finding out the real obligations would take several hourse of research which I can't spare for at least a little while (sorry). But the 4th geneva convention should have the answers you are looking for, though the language will be archaic and ambiguous in its interpretation.

I was reading a book in at B&N which stated that (or was it on this board) that Israel was attempting to resettle Palestinians from their refugee camps into "normal" towns. It supposedly succeeded on rehabilitating about 8,300 families but still hatred was brewing in the Palestinian population in the 80's towards Israel, especially amongst those who experience humiliation in check points, while going to work and when they saw the high standard of living that Israelis were enjoying. It can be said that they were treated as "ni#$%s" cause they were doing all the crappy and "dirty" jobs no Israeli wanted. Some Israelis claim that the situation of the Palestinians were kept "hidden" from the Israelis by the government.

maybe, and this is likely true, to an extent, but obviously a society with virtually no education and no skills will not have the same level of affluence as one with high degrees of education and skills as well as a history of higher output. the palestinians could not have expected to develop much faster than they did (although it is interesting to note that if the 1st intifadeh never happened the palestinians would be far far better economically and socially than they are today). But they did the 'dirty' jobs because they were not skilled enough to do anything else (though there was, I would suspect, almost certainly some blatant discrimination at the margins).

I have seen this wealth envy argument proposed before (a prof. I had in undergrad who taught Jewish history) and I'm sure its a valid explanation but it hardly seems a valid REASON, if you can see my distinction. They may indeed have envied this wealth but this should not have set them off resenting the Israelis as it did.

You seem to know a lot but I have no idea why humiliating people at checkpoints is "justified" and to make them wait to go home. I'm talking about before the first intifada here btw.

I don't know much about palestinians' treatment before the first intifadeh, but I know that the Israeli policy of settlements, which had progressed at an increasing rate leading up to the intifadeh, was an extremely agitating factor which was a big contributing factor (but not in the current one, as this one is driven by the PLO and other external Palestinians who have always rejected Israel's right to exist while the domestic palestinians were, before they were brainwashed into automatons by the PLO, more desirous of a two-state solution with a high degree of economic integration with Israel).

The first uprising was a real uprising and quasi-civil rights movement, which was ultimately co-opted by the PLOs military agenda and turned into something completely different.

As to the humiliation at checkpoints, this would depend on lots of different circumstances. Were these checkpoints to have valid security reasons, such as preventing PLO terrorist attacks, then they would have been necessary regardless of the humiliation the individual Palestinians felt. but of course it is certain that there were likley many instances of humiliation and unaccpetable behaviour by Israeli soldiers and commanders on the ground, which further agitated the palestinians. This would, i woudl suspect, have much to do with the training (or lack thereof) that these soldiers underwent to deal with palestinian civilians entering Israel for work.

Wish I could provide more assiatnce but this is not an area where I have properly and sufficiently versed myself. takeo, I'm sure, has much to add here, and lies and propaganda aside, there are probably nuggests of truth in what he has to say on this.

Canajew

10-22-2003, 02:11 PM

Canajew

10-22-2003, 02:20 PM

takeo,

another example of how the Palestinians invent facts when the actual relaity doesn't suit them. Turns out that the recent 'massacre' in Gaza never happened, and once again the Plaestinians have simply invented a fiction to spread around the world. While the world may eventually recognize this as another fake massacre like in Jenin (although many people do not even though this information has been public for a long time) you can be assured that the Palestinian people themselves will continue to be inundated with this and other lies by the palestinian 'news' media and that they will use this as evidence of more Israeli provocation.

Lies aside, if no efforts Israel ever takes to reduce incidences of civilian casualties gets any credit and the Plaestinians will manufacture outrages even when none occurred, why, other than because of the inherent morality of Israel and the Israeli people, would the IDF try to avoid such casualties in the future.

I'm not saying they should, (they obviously should from a moral point of view) rather I am trying to illustrate that your references to Israeli provocations and Israeli incitements are not really apt as the Palestinians will manufacture Israeli provocations regardless of what Israel does or omits to do. It is the palestinian media which acts the provocateur in all this. The IDF just tries to do its job and stop the Palestinians from committing ACTUAL massacre after massacre after massacre.

IAF footage refutes claims of massacre in Gaza
By MARGOT DUDKEVITCH
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...d=1066715113718

Twenty hours after the IAF helicopter rocket attack on a vehicle containing Hamas terrorists in the Nuseirat refugee camp on Monday night, which was described by the Palestinians as a massacre and by MIK Ranan Cohen as a "blitz", the air force released footage that clearly shows there were no Palestinian civilians in the street when the two rockets hit the car despite Palestinian reports claiming otherwise.

The thermal footage taken by a remote control drone that filmed the entire rocket attack begins shortly before the first rocket hits the vehicle carrying the Hamas suspects.

The picture shows the main road in the camp with two vehicles traveling a distance apart along it. The helicopter monitors the movement of the terrorist's car, which is the second vehicle seen on the film and shows the first Hellfire missile directly hitting it.

The driver loses control, crashes into a tree and the car disappears, hidden by a building, but is seen seconds later traveling in reverse. There are no people on the streets and no other vehicles when the car comes to a halt.

An ambulance is then seen passing the damaged vehicle as it continues along the road. Only after the ambulance is a distance away does the air force pilot release the second rocket which hits the vehicle and clearly shows three bodies lying in the street.

For at least two and a half minutes after the attack the footage shows the thermal images of one or two other people in the area but not close to where the vehicle that was hit.

On Monday night following the attack Palestinians claimed eight people were killed and over eighty wounded. Palestinian media reports claimed that air force helicopters fired one rocket which hit the car and then a second rocket into a crowd that had gathered around the burning vehicle.

Israeli security officials on Tuesday said of the eleven Palestinians killed in all five attacks on Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip at least seven had been accurately identified as Hamas terrorists.

The IDF Spokesman noted that the entire incident began at the border fence near Kibbutz Nahal Oz when soldiers on patrol spotted a group of Palestinians attempting to infiltrate into Israel and opened fire killing two.

At the same time the soldiers spotted members of the same terror cell fleeing in a car back towards Gaza. The soldiers alerted the air force and a helicopter pursued the vehicle and fired rockets killing the Hamas terrorists that were inside.

Canajew

10-24-2003, 07:00 AM

Takeo,

check out this site:

http://www.operationsick.com/homepage.asp

I would respectfully ask that you spend a bit of time (i.e. a half hour or more) reviewing the site, particularly with regards to the Palestinians but also with respect of other groups, and try to tell me why the Palestinian situation and what the Plaestinians are doing is any different than the worst of child abuses?

It is the web site of a human rights organization which focusses on the exploitation of children in armed conflicts, but unlike the UN report on the same subject, it actually assesses the Palestinian as well. This aspect of the conflict is another one which needs to be properly understood and dealt with before any sort of peace and free palestine can emerge.

The site deals with, among others,

Ethiopia
Uganda
Sudan
Sierra Leone
Liberia
Angola
Myanmar
The Phillipines
Sri Lanka
Uganda

and of course, your favourite of all these child-exploiting parties - the Plaestinian Authority

The blurb on the group:

Operation S.I.C.K. (Stop Inciting Children to Kill) is an independent network of students combatting the exploitation of children for armed conflict. We condemn any group that recruits and incites children to hate and kill for political purposes, and view it as a flagrant violation of their basic human rights.

S.I.C.K. operates as a non-denominational and non-partisan human rights network, researching and reporting on children's incitement, linking campuses around the globe to generate public awareness, and lobbying governments to effect change.

Another set of information which should hopefully bring down yet another of the pillars of false assumptions and false paradigms upon which your world-view sits. How many before the whole thing comes crumbling down?

danholo

10-24-2003, 08:07 AM

I'd also like to know if literally washing your hands in your enemy's blood is a cause of "despair"?

takeo

10-24-2003, 12:42 PM

ok i have some free time to answer some of your posts, the answer to the other ones will follow soon.

The site you mentioned isn't completely neutral, it quotes articles from the Washington post and jerusalem post, and it constantly refers to the palestinian children being used in the intifadeh, but never to the targetted killing of children by Israeli military during the first weeks of the intifadeh and later. Anyway, i don't think children should be used to carry out the intifadeh but often it's their own personal will, they are not forced to do so, but they want to be heros as well. This makes the palestinian case different from all the other cases mentioned on the site, where children are forced to fight (africa, myanmar, Sri lanka, etc.) You can blame the propaganda but I don't think propaganda has a crucial role in this, despite the facts you mentioned before. What's much more important than the media is the things they see daily (the israeli military occupation is visible everywhere, the occupied territories are rather small and every child has been confronted with israeli military) and even more importantly the things they hear in their family, uncles or brothers being killed, etc. Anyway, i think the palestinians have the right to have their own propaganda, so does israel, and propaganda is always onesided. (so is israeli propaganda). the call for martyrs may have negative consequences on the children but it's a part of Arab tradition, as we can see in iraq as well, where more and more children confront the American occupiers with sometimes deadly consequences. I think if i had a child i wouldn't let them go to the battlefield, but i can understand people who are proud that their children participated in the intifadeh voluntarily, especially since muslims believe people dying for the right cause will directly go to heaven.

So propaganda may have its effect on all this, but it is clearly not the only cause.

Mediocrates

10-24-2003, 12:49 PM

Either you do not understand what neutral is or you are an unregenerate liar. I don't think you're stupid so you must be lying. Therefore there is not a single word you speak that can be relied upon. I can only hope it is their will to eventually jihad you.

danholo

10-24-2003, 12:56 PM

takeo

10-24-2003, 01:02 PM

another example of how the Palestinians invent facts when the actual relaity doesn't suit them. Turns out that the recent 'massacre' in Gaza never happened, and once again the Plaestinians have simply invented a fiction to spread around the world. While the world may eventually recognize this as another fake massacre like in Jenin (although many people do not even though this information has been public for a long time) you can be assured that the Palestinian people themselves will continue to be inundated with this and other lies by the palestinian 'news' media and that they will use this as evidence of more Israeli provocation.

it's all part of the propaganda-game. each time a suicide-attack is carried out israel blames Arafat, which is propaganda as well and noone is forced to believe this.
Anyway even if it wasn't a massacre (probably, altough why didn't Israel admit foreign observers in jenin???) it was still a war crime against civilians, and the methods used by israel do not legitimise the term "collateral damage", since it's all too obvious such methods will generate innocent victims, no matter how carefull it's carried out.

Lies aside, if no efforts Israel ever takes to reduce incidences of civilian casualties gets any credit and the Plaestinians will manufacture outrages even when none occurred, why, other than because of the inherent morality of Israel and the Israeli people, would the IDF try to avoid such casualties in the future.

Israel doesn't take a lot of efforts to reduce civilian casualties, but probably it avoids larger scale human rights violations (such as in Chechnia, Bosnia, etc.) because it would make israel's relation in the international community even more precarious, and would make it more difficult for the us to veto condemnations of and sanctions against israel in the unsc. that's also why even the most extremist political forces in Israel now realise "transfer" is not an option. That's also why Arafat hasn't been assasinated yet.

takeo

10-24-2003, 01:08 PM

Oy vey.. I agree with you Medio. I can't understand how propaganda where Jews are described as "monkeys and pigs" has any equivalence with Israeli "propaganda"? The Palestinian spokespeople have been caught many times of lies like accusing the Barak offer having some kind of Bantustans which is a lie that has been repeated so often that it has become the truth already.

But the Barak offer WAS a Bantustan, just visit the site of Gush Shalom where they have the exact content of the talks and the proposal.

Anyway in the israeli propaganda palestinians are often described as "dehumanised animals" etc. which isn't any better than "monkeys and pigs" is it...

takeo

10-24-2003, 01:35 PM

takeo, please explain to me how ANY peace plan will work given the following recent survey.

The first two bolded sections specifically indicate that the plaestinians will not stop figthing until israel is destroyed, while the second set of bolded results clealy indicate that the role of disinformation within the Plaestinian media and within Palestinian culture is pervasive and rampant and causes Palestinian perceptions to be nothing short of delusional.

polls are what they are, polls, and previous polls gave other results. propably palestinian attitude towards israel has hardened which is hardly surprising (as i warned you, the current methods used by Sharon will not make the palestinians any more moderate, nor will it lead to their "surrender" (whatever you perceive to be a "surrender" in the current conditions)
if israel suddenly would offer ithe palestinians all of the occupied territories and a limited right of return that wouldn't destabilise israel in return for the recognition of and safety for israel , i'm sure the outcome of the polls would be very different. But in the current conditions people do no longer believe in peace with israel, and this explains the current results. Anyway, they also indicate that even in the current extreme conditions a large part of the palestinians want to recognise israel, so not all hope should be lost. What's exactly the number of israeli demanding the withdrawel of tghe palestinian territories? it isn't very encouraging if you rely on the latest polls... as i said the current methods used by both parties lead to a hardening of the positions.

Forty-two percent of Palestinians and 61 percent of Israeli-Arabs stated that they support the people who are attacking Americans in Iraq. Zero percent of Israeli Jews said they did.

I'm really surprised, only 42%????????? Even in France more than 56% of the interviewed French do have sympathy for the people who attack occupying forces in Iraq, according to a poll published in Le Monde.

Given this, it seems that israel's only option is to keep fighting back until the Palestinian change their views. And if they never do change their views then this fighting will go on forever.

i think you are confusing cause and effect this time. Palestinians will only change their view if the situation changes. And the situation can only change if talks resume and israel offers once again the withdrawel from occupied territory. Anyway the fighting going on for decades to come would be a disaster for Israel, for the US, for the Palestinians and for the entire region.

How many other additional pieces of information are required that directly contradict what you say and believe before you allow yourself to re-evaluate things anew?

I based myself on previous polls which i published here with links available. Given the current conditions i think the outcome of the poll is logical according to my theory (not according to yours that the current israeli policy will lead to the palestinian surrender), altough of course deplorable and a backwards evolution.

How many more pieces of information are necessary until you can even remotely imagine the Israeli thought process in trying to determine how to survive against this continuous quest for Israel's destruction, which has now continued unabated for 55 years?

perhaps it's time for israel to rethink its policy, which didn't really yield a lot of positive consequences. A radical change is needed, and israel is in a position to do so, palestinians will accept any solution which is just a bit better than camp david, they accepted the latest peacedeal offered by moderate israeli politicians. if those were currently in power in israel, the situation would have been better than today and peace would be possible. the only remaining problem would be hamas and other terrorists, but those would be much more isolated and weaker in the palestinian society than currently, and more easy to deal with (either extermination if they continue to undermine peace or appeasement if they give up terrorism, suicide-bombing and most of their weapons).

When will you admit that any 'plans' for peace that do not deal ex ante with plaestinian rejectionism and anti-semitism and media incitement have absolutely NO chance of suceeding (unless their real goal is the continuation of the war to 'liberate all of historic Palestine')?

i think media incitement, rejectionism and anti-semitism is directly linked to the israeli policy of colonisation, occupation, reoccupation, closures etc. So if israel changes its policy this will become less (altough of course not disappear, this will take much more time) as it was less during the first years of Oslo.

Canajew

10-24-2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by takeo
The site you mentioned isn't completely neutral, it quotes articles from the Washington post and jerusalem post, and it constantly refers to the palestinian children being used in the intifadeh, but never to the targetted killing of children by Israeli military during the first weeks of the intifadeh and later.

here's a hint. the reason they didn't mention the targeted killings of Palestinian children is because NOTHING LIKE THIS EVER HAPPENED. I am getting really tired of your games.

And why is something untrue just because it was reported in the Jerusalem post? This osrt of reasoning is beyond retarded.

Anyway, i don't think children should be used to carry out the intifadeh but often it's their own personal will, they are not forced to do so, but they want to be heros as well.

this is getting really frustrating.... they want to be heroes because they have been taught from birth that they should be an dthey are taught that mudering Jews is the way to become Heroes.

This makes the palestinian case different from all the other cases mentioned on the site, where children are forced to fight (africa, myanmar, Sri lanka, etc.) You can blame the propaganda but I don't think propaganda has a crucial role in this, despite the facts you mentioned before.

then you are wrong. That's fine, just don't expect either anyone to take you seriously or for your proposals to actually result in the results which you perceive will result. Flawed logic and poor methodology will ensure flawed results.

What's much more important than the media is the things they see daily (the israeli military occupation is visible everywhere, the occupied territories are rather small and every child has been confronted with israeli military) and even more importantly the things they hear in their family, uncles or brothers being killed, etc.

again, this matters, but not nearly as much as how these events are depicted in the media. Having an uncle killed as he tried to blow up a bus of schoolchildren is only a prideful event if the media reports that the person was wantonly killed by the Israeli army and died a 'martyr'. The loss would still exist, but the difference is that Israeli children are not taught to dream that the best thing they can do for their people is to blow themselves up with a bunch of innocnets.

Anyway, i think the palestinians have the right to have their own propaganda, so does israel, and propaganda is always onesided.

again, your equivalency is retarded. israeli 'propaganda' does not consist of the constant demonization, the constant calls for violence, the constant incitement, the constant conditioning of a people to prepare themselves for death. Your inability to distinguish magnitudes in making statements will have to stop.

(so is israeli propaganda). the call for martyrs may have negative consequences on the children but it's a part of Arab tradition,

oh, well if it is their TRADITION to abuse their children it must be ok.

as we can see in iraq as well, where more and more children confront the American occupiers with sometimes deadly consequences.

again with the deluded perception of Iraq comming to lend additional support to your deluded perceptions of the plaestinians. Keep up the bad work.

I think if i had a child i wouldn't let them go to the battlefield, but i can understand people who are proud that their children participated in the intifadeh voluntarily, especially since muslims believe people dying for the right cause will directly go to heaven.

and especally because they have been indoctrinated to believe this is the highest thing one could hope of from their child and because if they were to condemn their children they would almost certainly get a knock on the door from the PA or Hamas...

So propaganda may have its effect on all this, but it is clearly not the only cause. [/B]

I never said it was the only cause, I said that unless we deal with it ex ante (along with a host of other causes which are manifestations of Plaestinian disfunction) then peace is impossible. Did you intentionally misrepresent my position or can you really not perceive the difference?

And propaganda is a HUGE factor that has been used, over the course of 10 years now, to ready the Plaestinians for this barabric war. I'm reading yet another book and will have even more for you on this. I have now learned about the incitement which led to the 'spontanious' uprisings in 1996 and another (i forget the date). the 1996 one was where the Palestinians rioted because Israel opened a tunnel which was nowhere near the al-aqsa mosque. While you will undoubtedly dismiss the pages of propaganda out of hand, for people who were not aware of it it is quite eye opening, and casts even further light on the fact that Arafat never rejected violence as an option, which was his fundamental (indeed THE fundamental) obligation of Oslo.

Canajew

10-24-2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by takeo
But the Barak offer WAS a Bantustan, just visit the site of Gush Shalom where they have the exact content of the talks and the proposal.

Anyway in the israeli propaganda palestinians are often described as "dehumanised animals" etc. which isn't any better than "monkeys and pigs" is it...

This is wrong. Look at what Clinton proposed. just because you can find a bunch of stupid Israeli appologists to parrot Palestinian lies does not make thgem right. How about this. Read what the Palestinian delegates wrote about Barak's offer at and immediately following the negotiations. They revised their positions about a year later, but looking at their earlier statements it is quite clear that Barak offered exactly what he and Clinton said he did.

Canajew

10-24-2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by takeo
it's all part of the propaganda-game. each time a suicide-attack is carried out israel blames Arafat, which is propaganda as well and noone is forced to believe this.

Arafat is to blame because he has still not lifted a finger to do anything he said he would do and because he has created an environemnt where terrorism can flourish. He is more responsible than Sharon being 'indirectly responsible' for Lebanon, which, according to you, is enough to convict.

Anyway even if it wasn't a massacre (probably, altough why didn't Israel admit foreign observers in jenin???)

ARE YOU RETARDED? You still think that the Jenin 'massacre' may actually have taken place? Why should anyine keep talking to you about anything if all you do is parrot lies?

it was still a war crime against civilians, and the methods used by israel do not legitimise the term "collateral damage", since it's all too obvious such methods will generate innocent victims, no matter how carefull it's carried out.

you are wrong. israel pioneered new techniques in jenin designed to minimize the loss of life of civilians. this may necessarily have entailed additional property damage but the priority was quite right. How many civilians dies in Jenin? 5? 6? How many died like this because of pallestinian war cirmes? Answer: all of them - had the Plaestinians not committed war crimes by both hiding in civilian dress and hiding in civilian population centres, and by setting up the civilian area as a war ground while trying their best to ensure that the minimal number of Plaestinians LEFT the area then these civilian numbers would have been reduced and the people killed would have been combatants.

Israel doesn't take a lot of efforts to reduce civilian casualties,

more repetition of BLATANT lies and propaganda. I'm trying to lay off the abuse but you are making it very difficult. I thought we were going to try to be a little more intelligent in our thought process? You keep up like this I'm likely to get myself banned.

but probably it avoids larger scale human rights violations (such as in Chechnia, Bosnia, etc.) because it would make israel's relation in the international community even more precarious, and would make it more difficult for the us to veto condemnations of and sanctions against israel in the unsc.

here we go - so the bloodthirsty patently immoral Jews would stop at nothing to commit as many attrocities as they could get away with but the brave Frecnh won't let them.

I fail to see how you could have arrived at this position without internalizing the worst of anti-semetic propaganda, otherwise your 'truth-detectors' would be going gangbusters.

that's also why even the most extremist political forces in Israel now realise "transfer" is not an option. That's also why Arafat hasn't been assasinated yet. [/B]

That is also why I haven't sent the Mossad after you as well. Stupid.

Canajew

10-24-2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by takeo
polls are what they are, polls, and previous polls gave other results. propably palestinian attitude towards israel has hardened which is hardly surprising (as i warned you, the current methods used by Sharon will not make the palestinians any more moderate, nor will it lead to their "surrender" (whatever you perceive to be a "surrender" in the current conditions)

again, it doesn't matter what Sharon does or does not do, it is the content which gets to the people which influences them and it is the PLO which dictates what content is put in front of the people.

if israel suddenly would offer ithe palestinians all of the occupied territories and a limited right of return that wouldn't destabilise israel in return for the recognition of and safety for israel , i'm sure the outcome of the polls would be very different.

but of course this is EXACTLY what Israel offered in 2000 and again a little later, and the numbers went in the opposite direction due to the propaganda.

But in the current conditions people do no longer believe in peace with israel, and this explains the current results. Anyway, they also indicate that even in the current extreme conditions a large part of the palestinians want to recognise israel, so not all hope should be lost.

yes, we shouldn't lose hope that they will settle for a hudna until they feel themselves strong enough to destroy Israel. That's much better than then only wanting to destroy Israel right now.

What's exactly the number of israeli demanding the withdrawel of tghe palestinian territories? it isn't very encouraging if you rely on the latest polls... as i said the current methods used by both parties lead to a hardening of the positions.

Again, stupid. You constantly and consistently ignore all the point I make about hy israelis perceive things the way they do. Withdrawing from the territories right now will only make things worse. Why does everyone know that but you?

I'm really surprised, only 42%????????? Even in France more than 56% of the interviewed French do have sympathy for the people who attack occupying forces in Iraq, according to a poll published in Le Monde.

it is not whether they have sympathy (although this number is abjectly disgusting and if true I would suggest that it is an indicator that a downgrade of relations between the US and France is well overdue) it is whether they SUPPORT them. Again demonstrating that the accuracy and meaning of words seems to mean nothing to you.

And do the french not seem to care that these attacks are comming either from Saddam loyalist baathists who would like to re-establish their strangle-hold over the people or from foreign Arab fighters who wish to see the AMericans destroyed REGARDLESS of the costs imposed on the Iraqi people? Again, abjectly disgusting.

But that you for convincing me not to buy french products whenever possible.

i think you are confusing cause and effect this time. Palestinians will only change their view if the situation changes.

that's right. that is why the palestinians need to be defeated because only then will they change their views that they are entitled to everything they could possibly want and that violence is the way to get it.

And the situation can only change if talks resume and israel offers once again the withdrawel from occupied territory. Anyway the fighting going on for decades to come would be a disaster for Israel, for the US, for the Palestinians and for the entire region.

less of a disaster than the implementation of your 'peace plan'.

I based myself on previous polls which i published here with links available. Given the current conditions i think the outcome of the poll is logical according to my theory (not according to yours that the current israeli policy will lead to the palestinian surrender), altough of course deplorable and a backwards evolution.

Patience, young Padawan. It takes time to bring results about. Rome was not built in a day, after all.

Once the Plaestinians are completely re-occupied and their civil administration removed, once again will Israel be able to ensure that no munitions are smuggled into these territories. this will make it impossible for the plaestinians to launch attacks from the WB and Gaza, and while they will undoubtedly shift bases overseas, maybe after a couple of years the Plaestinians living in the WB and Gaza will be more inclined to 'settle' for less than the destruction of Israel. But as long as they think they can win, there will be no hope.

perhaps it's time for israel to rethink its policy, which didn't really yield a lot of positive consequences.

they did rethink their policy. otherwise an independent Plaestinian state would today be at war with Israel, and casualty figures would surely be far higher on both sides.

A radical change is needed, and israel is in a position to do so, palestinians will accept any solution which is just a bit better than camp david,

no they will not. this is an out and out lie.

they accepted the latest peacedeal offered by moderate israeli politicians.

also a complete lie. just becasue one guy accepts it and some in the authority pay lip service to it does not mean squat. Please stop lying. Just stop. you might find it refreshing.

if those were currently in power in israel, the situation would have been better than today and peace would be possible.

NO IT WOULD NOT HAVE. The Palestinians have never been prepared to make peace. If the left was in charge either they would have become disillusioned by palestinian non-compliance with EVERYTHING or they would have surrendered Israel's interests, thus bringing forward the next stage of Arafat's war.

the only remaining problem would be hamas and other terrorists, but those would be much more isolated and weaker in the palestinian society than currently, and more easy to deal with (either extermination if they continue to undermine peace or appeasement if they give up terrorism, suicide-bombing and most of their weapons).
[/QUOTE

HA! They were easier to deal with before Arafat had ANY control, before Arafat truned gaza into a terrorist haven and beofre Israel allowed the palestinians under Arafat any control.

[QUOTE]
i think media incitement, rejectionism and anti-semitism is directly linked to the israeli policy of colonisation, occupation, reoccupation, closures etc.

but once again you are clearly wrong. i'm just getting tired of presenting the same facts to you and having you ignore them.

So if israel changes its policy this will become less (altough of course not disappear, this will take much more time) as it was less during the first years of Oslo. [/B]

bullsh!t. The first years of Oslo saw an increase in terrorism as Arafat allowed the terrorists free reign in gaza. Bombs got more sophisticated, shooting attacks increased and all the rest. You really need to actually READ something.

Canajew

10-24-2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Either you do not understand what neutral is or you are an unregenerate liar. I don't think you're stupid so you must be lying. Therefore there is not a single word you speak that can be relied upon. I can only hope it is their will to eventually jihad you.

but isn't that how brainwashing works - not stupid people parroting things that to any non-brainwashed non-stupid individual would clearly be ridiculous.

the French really seem to have it bad. But I'm sure things will be much better there when the Islamists take over. Shouldn't be long now ...

And I agree, there is not a single word that you speak that can be relied upon. All you do is blindly spout lies, circular and flawed logic, and false moral paradigms that, on any sort of cursory analysis, are patently and completely immoral.

Which raises a different issue. While I have no idea how to solve the problems in the middle east and the problems of Palestinian depravity, I also have no idea how to fix the demented views of the new left. I mean they won't even properly discuss things based on THEIR OWN principles. thus you end up with a leftist who should nominally be in favour of human rights and the like standing up for the worst of oppression and the worst of depravity. How do we fix that?

takeo

10-24-2003, 02:46 PM

well no, not really. Bombing enemy civilians in order to get them to submit is not my position, and I know this would be extremely countr productive. However, there should be no compromise with those who make war agaisnt civilians, and there should be no compromise with a government like the PA which has demonstrated time and time again that it does not perceive itself to be bound by any commitments it undertakes. The military war agaisnt israel must be defeated. After this, the 'popular uprising' component of the conflict should be dealt with on an equitable basis but again remembering that the palestinians have collectively acted as the worst of barbarians in this conflict and that Israel is entitled to protection and separation from this most brutish of societies.

there should be a compromise, whatever the past of the pa and other groups. Blair made compromise with IRA, and this serious turn in Brittish policy even made Jerry Adams a moderate and ended bloodshet. only talks will end this conflict, and the pa is the only one at the other side to talk with, so get rid of your personal dislike and get the job done. both israel and the palestinians should receive higher garantees that the other side will implement promised steps, that's on which i focused with my plan. But even a withdrawel without any garantees is still better than the current condition, in this case israel can build any wall it likes on the green line, and a berlin wall in jerusalem, noone will condemn israel for doing so. The israeli military is numerous times more powerfull than any arab army in the region so it shouldn't fear a palestinian invasion, while it will be rid of the problems on the occupied territories as well as of the suicide-bombings. it would be a tense situation as near the libanese border but this is preferable over the current situation. you seem to think the hesbollah is still a major danger for israel and for this reason the current calm is a dangerous one as you stated. I don't think so, the moment hesbollah launches rockets against israeli towns on large scale israel would have the perfect excuse to invade lebanon once again, and this time without international condemnation. the dsame in palestine, the worst situation would be the same as the current situation (reoccupation), but the prospects for peace would be much larger. All it requires is for israel to give up all the occupied territories (or with some minor territory exchanges).
It would of course be better to have a reliable and implemented peace-process, but even more or less unilateral withdrawel would, in the worst case, led to the same situation, and in the best case to a tense peace as near the border with israel. In both cases a lot less citizens will die than currently, on both sides.

As i said earlier, surrender of the palestinians is impossible, they simply won't, you will have to resort to transfer or genocide as proposed by the ultra-hawks on this forum, this will be the only way to militarily win this war.
israel is entitled to separation from this society it hates (and vice versa) on two conditoons: 1) if they don't live in israel propper 2) if israel itself separates from all palestinian territory, as long as it doesn't and settlements remain no separation will take place.

maybe, but maybe not. This 'policy' as you like to call it, really just started with operation defensive shield, and has not even become a full scale military confrontation with the enemy's military capabilities. So while you say the strategy hasn't worked, it would be more accurate to say that half measure strategies haven't worked and that given capitulation is not a real option for Israel it must take the gloves off and defeat the military enemy - and after that deprogramme the enemy population, reintegrate concepts like decency into their identities and then make a fair peace.

this is just propaganda-talk, really "we won't give in to your demands as long as you don't make the first step" is just rethorics, of course israel will give in to palestinian demands, sooner or later (i hope sooner). palestinians won't make the first move, simply because the pa does not have the capacity to eliminate hamas while palestinians will cease-fires can't work if israel doesn't participate. Please swallow your pride and withdraw, as i explained above it could only serve israel's interests.
the solution you put forwards is just utopian, it will never happen and israel can't win this war against an entire population (i suppose every palestinian family or clan now has its own self-made weapons factory and even destroyed they have the technology to make new ones, it's become a militarised society after so many decades of occupation and struggle against this occupation, as vietnam was in the 70's).

Israel will never treat the Plaestininas like the Russian treat the Chechens. You believe this?

no, for reasons explained above, not because i believe in the ethic principles of Sharon and co.

an analogy. When you clean your room, or your house, often things get messier before they can get cleaner, because things need ot be moved in order to be cleaned behind, things need to be rearranged which involves cluttering areas up first and so on. Similarly, sometimes a war is necessary in order to arrive at peace. Like with the germans. And with the palestininas, if they gain their independence believing that it was the result of violence and depravity, then the world will be a far worse place than were they to lose militarily but still be granted autonomy by the victors.

yes, but the palestinian room is already so messed up it can't get any more messed up, and each time they clean it someone else messes it up once again. In this situation you don't feel like cleaning your room...
The germans messed up themselves, they occupied dozens of countries and they knew the us weren't going to colonise Germany. That's of course a main difference with the palestinian (or even iraqi) situation.

this is true. I do not trust them, but the problem is not my lack of trust, the problem is their actions which led to this lack of trust. there is a difference. My lack of trust was not arrived at through lies and propaganda, in fact it was arrived at IN SPITE of the lies and propaganda the peace camp was putting forth. By contrast most of the mistrust on the Palestinina side comes from media manipulation and outright lies by the PA about Israeli actions a, intentions and motives. Thus their mistrust stems not mostly from the actions of Israel, but from the misrepresentation of those actions by the PA and its media.

you say "in spite of the lies and propaganda of the peace camp". This, to me, sounds very propagandistic, don't you see it that this kind of rethorics are propaganda on itself? Just blame the other side entirely and doing so and just despose their arguments as meaningless propaganda so you don't have to think about any peaceplan or hard offers to make peace possible. don't you think for a second that the mistrust may also stem from years of netanyahu and other israeli politicians who simply refused to end the occupation and give palestinians a full independant state with all assets of an independant state. don't you think that the mistrust of israeli citizens (amongst of course the daily reality of suicide bombings) may stem from the israeli propaganda that all palestinians are equal and that hamas and pa are just one and the same???

takeo

10-24-2003, 02:47 PM

to make a statement that for example "no one should do anything to try to prevent terrorists from targeting and killing Israeli civilians" is to make a statement that supports the right of the terrorists to engage in terrorist attacks. You can deny this all you like, but that is the reality. Just like for me to propose that the Israeli military should not try to prevent settler-terrorists from targteing Palestinina cars and schools would be a statement that supports the right of terrorists to enagge in terrorist activities and is thus a statement in support of these same terrorist activities. It is still support for terrorism.

so you admit that israel not removing illegal settlements( i mean illegal according to the israeli administration, of course all settlements in the occupied territories are illegal) means supporting those settlements???
But the situation is different, the international community isn't forced to help israel, while israel is forced to end terrorism against within its military occupied regions. i agree with you on the pa's position, but the pa isn't a real state and since israel destroyed most of its infrastructure it is more or less powerless.

well, first the 'occupation' as you call it is not illegal and certainly not a high crime like a war crime or a crime against humanity, so what you propose is a show trial not one based on the rule of law. With respect to ethnic clensing, I would suggest that a better time to hold a trial on this would be when all of the Arab leaders are tried for kicking out all their Jews and confiscating their property in the 40s and early 50s. It is not realted to terrorism asd much as to these other events, so your request to couple these issues should rightly be refused.

why not have a trial for all those crimes together as well as israeli crimes???
By the way occupation not autorised by the un is a giant crime against international right.

It is not a 'lie', I never proposed that this statement were true, and no rational Israel supported would ever suggest this. This is an example of a 'strawman' type arguemnt - where you create a straw man charicature of the opposing side's arguemnt - which is not grounded in the actual position of the oposing side - then you attack this misrepresentation.

ok, sorry, i misrepresented your position, i should have been more subtle and should have said "terrorists can hide amongst civilians which means this is enough reason to refuse theur entry"

that's not true at all. I figured the US might be lying about WMD and reasons etc, but I supported this action only BECAUSE OF liberty and freedom. No matter how bad you perceive American actions and motives to be, you cannot credibly tell me that you believe they are worse in ANY caegories than Saddam Hussein and his dictatorial govenrment. This is absurdity.

yes they are worse, before they had a dictator, but at least not occupied by foreigners and put in colonial submission, which is worse than any dictatorship, and the reason why more and more iraqi who hated saddam now join the resistance as well.

I don't think MOST of the media, certainly the cable media like MSNBC and FOX< but the networks are fairly anti-republican with most things, and I think the CEI of ABC has even recently admitted this.

ok, perhaps, but even the ones not tied to the republican party had a less than critical attitude towards the war and official rethorics. This is now slowly changing since everyone now aknowledge that the Bush-administration voluntarily misled the public opinion and the world.

first, democracy was forcible imposed in Germany, Japan, Italy and other places after WWII.

not true, those countries had only been defeated in a war they provoked themselves, and after defeat those regimes lost all credibility with their populations. Democratisation would never have worked without the support of a majority of japanese and germans. In italy's case it's even more obvious that italians made their democracy all themselves, most of northern italy was already liberated and changed by the resistance before the allied forces entered. the us-interfearance made italy less democratic, since the us together with the vatican plotted against the communist party and made a democratic election impossible, thus preventing the hugely popular italian communist party from winning the elections, and making italy a country ruled by a corrupted number of small parties for decades to come, while the largest party in parliament could not form a government.

Second, I have not been a supporter of American actions to support dictators and I criticize this sort of thing fairly often. I am not a blind supporter of the Americans as you are of the Americans and Israelis enemies. Talk of democracy was indeed just propaganda from American policy makers in the 50s and 60s and 70s, but hopefully Clinton changed that and now the Americans will slowly but surely gravitate away from suppoprt for corrupt oppresive despots.

it didn't change a bit, look at the us support for mubarak and jordan...

To propose that despots and tyrants continue to be allowed to oppress their subjects is hardly a more moral position than support for American backing of these regimes.

there's a moral difference between non-interfearance and support for those regimes. I think interfearance in a country that didn't attack other countries and isn't massacring its population is always negative. people don't like foreign intervention even if their own leaders sicken them as well, just imagine Europe meddling in the latest controversial election in the us and recognising Gore instead of bush...

I know what communism is, both from an economic perspective and from a political perspective. I am aware theat communist governemnts do not pay particualr adherence to communist social and economic ideologies and I also am well aware of the fact that the brutal dictatorial tactics of political communism are not the same as the economic and social arguemnts of communism.
]
But I am also aware of several other thing: on a large scale it seems quite impossible to have any version of communism without also having a repressive communist political organization, designed to supress dissent and maintain order.

I agree, since the communists who tried to change society in a democratic way such as Allende (or currently chavez) have been faced with huge foreign and internal pressure from groups who want to continue their privileges and resort to undemocratic means to do so (currently there are rumours of the cia planning a coup in venezuela against the elected president, as they already did once a few years ago) . So you can't radically change a society without some degree of autoritarism and force, yet of course it doesn't mean it have to stay that way, that's where most communist states failed.

Seond, while communism and socialism are indeed possible policy alternatives on smaller scales and in situations where the individuals within that society are both fairly homogeneous and heavily motivated by ideology (like the Kibutzes), this is not sustainasble either over time or across a more heterogeneous population. Issues like development, investment and allocative efficiency cannot effectivley be dealt with by communist economic and social systems, and over time this will result in a signifcant erosion of standards relative to a sitaution where a more capitalist economic model were adopted.

yes they can, most communist governments have a good record in these issues, china, the soviet-union etc. had and still have effective plans for devellopment and investment, better than in most capitalist thirth world-countries. The problem however is sometimes overbureaucratisation and most of all overcentralisation, which makes planning less effective, China has already dealt with those initial typical communist mistakes.

I am not a blind supporter of capitalism and I know there are MANY MANY situations where market failure requires govewrnment intervention, but communism is not the way to go to deal with these. It would be like using a bazooka to swat a fly.

sometimes you have to use poison gaz to kill millions of cockrauches in one time...
what i mean is that sometimes smallscale or slow evolution is impossible, and an entire change of government and society is needed if you want results, China did it in the 50's and the soviet-union in the 20's and 30's, whereas the pseudo-socialist government of India never had the force and determination to radically change their backwards society.
Please let me specify before you start comparing to the palestinian society. All this happened from inside, supported by the majority and by its own leaders. All the cases in which communism was forced upon from the outside even if it wasn't colonialism since those countries were still ruled by Russian puppets, not by the Russians themselves(Afghanistan, poland for example) failed to radically change society and convince the majority of population.

So yes socialism can be good, and is generally quite good at the initial development phase, but attention must constantly be paid to deregulation of markets, govenrment withdrawal from efforts in private ordering and the like.

I would say constant attention must be paid to make bureaucracy smoother, to decentralise, etc. which is not the same as giving capitalism full liberty to shape the economy to their needs, profits and desires.

takeo

10-26-2003, 03:20 AM

here's a hint. the reason they didn't mention the targeted killings of Palestinian children is because NOTHING LIKE THIS EVER HAPPENED. I am getting really tired of your games.

ok, let me quote from the AI-website, or is this another leftist anti-semitic organisation lying to the world? In this case further debate with you is as useless as with lomplighter and other likeminded people. I am getting tired of your constant one-sided information gathering and denying anything that doesn't fit in your worldview. in the future i will only respond to you if i find propper information on the web to support my claims, i am tired of the insults such as lier etc. because this is just a tactic to dismiss and ignore the information considered "unusefull" in your rethorics.

"Palestinian children have been killed by Israeli soldiers using excessive and disproportionate lethal force in response to protests, or as a result of shelling and bombardments of residential areas. Others were killed during Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) assassinations of Palestinian activists, or when their homes were demolished. Some died because they were denied access to medical care by the IDF. At least three were killed by armed Israeli settlers.

Israeli children have been killed by Palestinian armed groups, many in suicide bombings. Some have been shot dead by members of Palestinian armed groups or by individual Palestinians inside Israel, and in settlements and on roads in the Occupied Territories.

No judicial investigation is known to have been carried out into any of the killings of children by Israeli soldiers, even in cases where Israeli government officials have stated publicly that investigations would be carried out. The Palestinian Authority, for its part, has failed to take the necessary measures to prevent attacks on Israeli civilians by Palestinian armed groups and to bring to justice those responsible for unlawful killings. All the parties involved in the conflict are disregarding the right to life of the most vulnerable members of the Israeli and Palestinian civilian population. "

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGMDE151472002

"Muhammad Ibrahim Hajaj, Ahmed Suleiman Abu Tayah and Ibrahim Reziq Omar, all 14 years of age, were shot dead and several other children were wounded on 1 November 2000 by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in the Gaza Strip, in a place which over the past two years has been a regular demonstration site for children who gather to throw stones at IDF tanks and/or at the IDF tower. Muhammad Ibrahim Hajaj was shot in the neck and Ahmed Suleiman Abu Tayah and Ibrahim Reziq Omar were shot in the head and chest. All three died immediately. Several other children were wounded, including two 10-year-olds who were shot in the abdomen and in the right shoulder. According to eyewitnesses and to medical records, the children were fired on with live ammunition from a distance of about 150 metres. "

And why is something untrue just because it was reported in the Jerusalem post? This osrt of reasoning is beyond retarded.

for the same reason you consider everything that's published on the website of gush Shalom to be untrue...
how would you react if i gave links to the website of hamas or articles published by hamas editions??? Your one-sidedness is astonishing for such an intellectual capable person.

again, this matters, but not nearly as much as how these events are depicted in the media. Having an uncle killed as he tried to blow up a bus of schoolchildren is only a prideful event if the media reports that the person was wantonly killed by the Israeli army and died a 'martyr'. The loss would still exist, but the difference is that Israeli children are not taught to dream that the best thing they can do for their people is to blow themselves up with a bunch of innocnets.

BS, the uncle will become a martyr in his own family, no matter how the media reacts to this event. And most palestinians didn't die in suicide attacks but during israeli attacks or rallies near israeli military posts. Again your onesidedness and downright manipulation of facts is astonishing.
But in israel the army is mighty and powerfull, i'm sure during the first years of zionism when israel didn't have a mighty army children as well as grown-ups volunteered in actions that could be decribed as suicidal.

again, your equivalency is retarded. israeli 'propaganda' does not consist of the constant demonization, the constant calls for violence, the constant incitement, the constant conditioning of a people to prepare themselves for death. Your inability to distinguish magnitudes in making statements will have to stop.

yes it consists of the constant incitement for violence against the palestinians and their autority, such as in the jerusalem post or on this site, israeli media and rightwing zionist media in the us teach their audience to hate the palestinians.
the only difference is perhaps that in Israel you will also find more moderate voices and media, since the israeli society is a more sofisticated and more democratic one than the palestinian society. (you see, i also admit facts that, according to you, don't fit in my worldview...)

I never said it was the only cause, I said that unless we deal with it ex ante (along with a host of other causes which are manifestations of Plaestinian disfunction) then peace is impossible. Did you intentionally misrepresent my position or can you really not perceive the difference?

But you said it was the most important cause. I think this isn't true, and i have more knowledge of the palestinian society than you do.

And propaganda is a HUGE factor that has been used, over the course of 10 years now, to ready the Plaestinians for this barabric war. I'm reading yet another book and will have even more for you on this. I have now learned about the incitement which led to the 'spontanious' uprisings in 1996 and another (i forget the date). the 1996 one was where the Palestinians rioted because Israel opened a tunnel which was nowhere near the al-aqsa mosque. While you will undoubtedly dismiss the pages of propaganda out of hand, for people who were not aware of it it is quite eye opening, and casts even further light on the fact that Arafat never rejected violence as an option, which was his fundamental (indeed THE fundamental) obligation of Oslo.

which book? i'm getting the impression that you rely on quite one-sided information, that might be presented as neutral and scientific, but really only represents one side of the coin...
Arafat never rejected violence as an option, that's right of course, neither should he, palestinians were only committed to oslo because it would bring them an own state which was promised by 1999, it didn't happen.
I don't know a lot about the 1996-rioting, you might be right, but the uprising calmed down did it, since the palestinians still had confidence in the oslo-agreements, confidence that was reflected in the palestinian media.

takeo

10-26-2003, 03:37 AM

This is wrong. Look at what Clinton proposed. just because you can find a bunch of stupid Israeli appologists to parrot Palestinian lies does not make thgem right. How about this. Read what the Palestinian delegates wrote about Barak's offer at and immediately following the negotiations. They revised their positions about a year later, but looking at their earlier statements it is quite clear that Barak offered exactly what he and Clinton said he did.

so the israeli peace-movement is according to you "a bunch of stupid israeli apologists parroting palestinian lies", this is more illuminating about your own ideas than about theirs. This people aren't "committed to the extermination of the israeli people and the annihilation of israel" yet they dismiss the barak-offer as unacceptable because (summarising) 1) it didn't offer the palestinians free international borders 2) most of the settlements would remain scattered all over palestine with exclusive israeli roads connecting them and cutting trough palestinian territory 3) eastern jerusalem wouldn't become a full part of Palestine but would have another status, which is unacceptable for the palestinians 4) the refugee-question was not acceptably mentioned, only a few 1000 of the numerous refugees would get the right to return
but both arafat and Gush shalom recognised that this plan could be used as a basis for further discussion, but it wasn't enough. I fully agree with this view. palestinians should receive nothing less than granted to them by several un-resolutions, the illegal settlements should disappear, perhaps some could remain as a result of border exchangesbut certainly none near the border of jordan or the jordan-valley for example, which is far from mainland israel and could never be incorporated in israel.
If you don't agree to this and think palestinians should be granted less than what has been offered in camp david and demanded by several un-resolutions (some of them binding others not but nevertheless an expression of the opinion of the international community), than of course no need to talk at all, and the weapons should speak. That's why i don't believe in peace-negociations with the current government and the pa should cut the cr*p and say so in all honesty. the intifadeh should go on but by other means, not by targetting innocent civilians, which really harmed the palestinian cause and gave the impression to the israeli people that it's them or the palestinians, which is a lie promoted by rightwing propaganda. the palestinians should copyy the methods used by the iraqi resistance and the resistance against the israeli occupation of lebanon. Those yielded good results in lebanon and will yield good results in the case of iraq, i'm confident of this. And hopefully it will also undermine the chances of
bush to be reelected, since more and more americans are being sick and tired of Americans dying in iraq because Bush lied to them. I love the documentories of mickael moore.
(and if i get censored for this so be it, it shows that your main preoccupation isn't terrorism against civilians but your political goal of Eretz israel)

takeo

10-26-2003, 04:05 AM

Arafat is to blame because he has still not lifted a finger to do anything he said he would do and because he has created an environemnt where terrorism can flourish. He is more responsible than Sharon being 'indirectly responsible' for Lebanon, which, according to you, is enough to convict.

But Sharon ordered the falangists into those refugee-camps, Arafat never ordered hamas and others to carry out suicide-attacks. yes he's to blame because he did too little to oppress hamas and others or make them change strategy, but this isn't direct responsability but neglect. it's like someone being murdered on the street by a gang and bypassers doing nothing to prevent it. But in sharon's case it's like hiring a deathsquad and ordering them to kill someone while watching from the sidelines, which is not quite the same as neglect.

ARE YOU RETARDED? You still think that the Jenin 'massacre' may actually have taken place? Why should anyine keep talking to you about anything if all you do is parrot lies?

not a real massacre, still many dozens of innocent citizens have died in this, which has been confirmed by international observers. By the way how do you explain the israeli refusal to accept internationa observers during the operation? isn't it because they wanted to hide something, and doesn't it create suspition? (like the russians refusing foreign observers, for good reasons) (and please don't say to me it's to protect them, israel doesn't care at all about the safety of foreign journalists, as has been demonstrated in the past)

you are wrong. israel pioneered new techniques in jenin designed to minimize the loss of life of civilians. this may necessarily have entailed additional property damage but the priority was quite right. How many civilians dies in Jenin? 5? 6?

come on please! of course israel could have bombed jenin to the stone age but it doesn't mean that the method used was acceptable. So next time a corsican separatist bombs paris we are allowed to destroy half of Bastia and blow up houses in where we suspect suspects to hide???
Accept it as a fact: neither this method, nor any other method will end this guerilla warfare without just bombing the entire area to pieces OR without palestinian cooperation. hamas-militants are everywhere and hide among the population, this makes it impossible for israel to catch them all and know about their whereabouts. israel needs inside information and cooperation from palestinians, in the current circumstances it will never obtain this.

How many died like this because of pallestinian war cirmes? Answer: all of them - had the Plaestinians not committed war crimes by both hiding in civilian dress and hiding in civilian population centres, and by setting up the civilian area as a war ground while trying their best to ensure that the minimal number of Plaestinians LEFT the area then these civilian numbers would have been reduced and the people killed would have been combatants.

yes, but it's typical for guerilla warfare to hide amongst the population, and guerilla will only succeed as long as the local population cooperates. if israel wants to change that attitude and expect palestinian cooperation against hamas and others, it radically needs to change its policy. I'm sorry for repeating myself but that's just reality.

here we go - so the bloodthirsty patently immoral Jews would stop at nothing to commit as many attrocities as they could get away with but the brave Frecnh won't let them.

not the jew in general, many jews around the world and even inside israel are disgusted by the israeli policy, and not only france, but the entire world community.

but i'm sure the current ultra rightwing israeli government would carry out plans such as tranfer if they could get away with it. some israeli coalition partner of likud even openly admitted so. I'm not saying that the entire israeli society would support this, fortunately, quite on the contrary according to me.

I fail to see how you could have arrived at this position without internalizing the worst of anti-semetic propaganda, otherwise your 'truth-detectors' would be going gangbusters.

this is not only my position but the position of the israeli leftwing as well, and some ultra rightwing people on this forum have admitted that israel is bound by the international community in its reactions.

takeo

10-26-2003, 04:41 AM

but of course this is EXACTLY what Israel offered in 2000 and again a little later, and the numbers went in the opposite direction due to the propaganda.

no, it isn't, at all (see above)

yes, we shouldn't lose hope that they will settle for a hudna until they feel themselves strong enough to destroy Israel. That's much better than then only wanting to destroy Israel right now.

that's your interpretation, not fact. My interpretation is that a hudna, even a temporary one, will give peace new chances. It could restart talks and end the bloodshet temporarily, those talks will possibly lead to a new peaceplan and implementation of the roadmap, and this on its turn offers new hope for lasting peace.
Continuing the current situation on the contrary offers nothing at all for noone except the extremists.

Again, stupid. You constantly and consistently ignore all the point I make about hy israelis perceive things the way they do. Withdrawing from the territories right now will only make things worse. Why does everyone know that but you?

everyone doesn't know so, it's youir perception, not everyone's, in fact the entire israeli leftwing is in favor of it, even unilateral if there's no other possibility.

it is not whether they have sympathy (although this number is abjectly disgusting and if true I would suggest that it is an indicator that a downgrade of relations between the US and France is well overdue) it is whether they SUPPORT them. Again demonstrating that the accuracy and meaning of words seems to mean nothing to you.

i never said there isn't a difference between support and sympathy, but still i find 41 percent somehow less than i expected.

And do the french not seem to care that these attacks are comming either from Saddam loyalist baathists who would like to re-establish their strangle-hold over the people or from foreign Arab fighters who wish to see the AMericans destroyed REGARDLESS of the costs imposed on the Iraqi people? Again, abjectly disgusting.

But that you for convincing me not to buy french products whenever possible.

This is BS, of course saddam loyalists are among the fighters (witch is their right to do so, mind you, the us didn't have any legal reason to invade and occupy Iraq) as well as foreign fighters( i warned everyone on this site before the start of the war that foreign extremists would jump on this, and so they did, and now they're allies against the us-occupationists, you know "the ennemy of my ennemy is my friend", you said it yourself...however islamists are only Saddam's friends very recently, since the start of the us-occupation, the us brought them together). But it's becoming clear that the resistence is coming from the iraqi society itself, French journalists inflitrated in some resistence-groups and it was obviously clear that there are 100's of local groups formed by local people who hate the occupiers but have no links to any of the forementioned groups. They could never be succesfull without whidespread support among the population, which is growing by the way.
They do so because they want the iraqi people to be free and not occupied by the us or a strawman, the us on the other hand strangled iraq for years economically and invaded it regardless of the cost for the iraqi population.
many of the countries who donated for Iraq did so without in any way supporting the colonial administration in iraq, and donated to independant ngo's who were helping the iraqi people even when the us and gb were still strangling the iraqi people by imposing an embargo.

Fine, i'm considering to stop drinking coca-cola and eating in mc donalds...and my next car won't be a ford... however i will continue to watch American movies and listen to American music since the majority of actors and musicians have publicly condamned Bush and his policy. (and i don't watch Schwarzenegger films anyway because they're boring and because i don't like Austrian fascists)

that's right. that is why the palestinians need to be defeated because only then will they change their views that they are entitled to everything they could possibly want and that violence is the way to get it.

They will never be defeated and israel should learn that violence will never be enough to stop the palestinian uprisal. Your illusionary "defeat" is not realistic.

less of a disaster than the implementation of your 'peace plan'.

my peaceplan would be a major improvement, if both sides would be committed to it, but even if they wouldn't it would still be a small improvement over the totally hopeless situation of today.

Patience, young Padawan. It takes time to bring results about. Rome was not built in a day, after all.

keep on dreaming, the military solution of this conflict is doomed.

Once the Plaestinians are completely re-occupied and their civil administration removed, once again will Israel be able to ensure that no munitions are smuggled into these territories

how will israel end the self-made explosives and other weapons made in improvised palestinian stores and homes, it simply can't. most weapons smuggled from abroad aren't weapons to kill civilians, but more soffisticated ones such as anti-tank weapons designed to attack the israeli occupation army.

. this will make it impossible for the plaestinians to launch attacks from the WB and Gaza, and while they will undoubtedly shift bases overseas, maybe after a couple of years the Plaestinians living in the WB and Gaza will be more inclined to 'settle' for less than the destruction of Israel. But as long as they think they can win, there will be no hope.

they will settle for anything that gives them an independant country in the Westbank, Gaza and eastern jerusalem and a reasonable solution for the refugee-question that 'll satisfy both sides. even the remaining palestinians who want to destruction of all israel will soon change their view once they'll see the palestinian state, free of israeli occupation and colonisers, becoming a reality.
Remember hesbollah wants destruction of israel, still it mostly stopped attacking israel once the occupation of lebanon ended, and hesbollah is more extremist than the pa. you may shout all you want that this is just temporary etc. it isn't after 4 years and during an incredible regional turnoil the situation is still relatively calm at israel's northern borders, it wasn't all the years israel occupied lebanon.

they did rethink their policy. otherwise an independent Plaestinian state would today be at war with Israel, and casualty figures would surely be far higher on both sides.

that's just your interpretation and your hypothesis, not based on any evidence. israel did rethink its policy and on a daily basis israeli citizens as well as palestinian civilians are suffering. that's just reality and doesn't look like changing anytime soon.

also a complete lie. just becasue one guy accepts it and some in the authority pay lip service to it does not mean squat. Please stop lying. Just stop. you might find it refreshing.

the entire pa accepted it, and this guy negociated with the blessing of Arafat himself. Please stop denying facts, it's refreshing...

takeo

10-26-2003, 05:15 AM

NO IT WOULD NOT HAVE. The Palestinians have never been prepared to make peace. If the left was in charge either they would have become disillusioned by palestinian non-compliance with EVERYTHING or they would have surrendered Israel's interests, thus bringing forward the next stage of Arafat's war.

another load of propaganda, i'm getting really desillusionated by you, i tought you had somehow more reasonable and less propaganda-like arguments than most other participants here.
"surrendering israel's interests" by giving up the settlements, granting the palestinians their own state and ending the suicide attacks by doing so?

HA! They were easier to deal with before Arafat had ANY control, before Arafat truned gaza into a terrorist haven and beofre Israel allowed the palestinians under Arafat any control.

the territories already were a hamas haven even before arafat took controll, the only thing that changed were the hamas tactics.
hamas had considerably less influence during the mid 90's than before, but unfortunately this changed during the end of the 90's, both hamas and netanyahu succeeded in doing so.

but once again you are clearly wrong. i'm just getting tired of presenting the same facts to you and having you ignore them.

this aren't facts but your own interpretation, please don't be so certain of your own solid conviction, it could be wrong you know. I always look if my convitions are in touch with reality, and have changed them often during my life. Apparently you didn't or much less so.

bullsh!t. The first years of Oslo saw an increase in terrorism as Arafat allowed the terrorists free reign in gaza. Bombs got more sophisticated, shooting attacks increased and all the rest. You really need to actually READ something.

as i said the only thing that really changed were hamas-tactics, this could have happened as well without oslo, as currently becomes clear. hamas-terrorists continue their attacks even from territory under israeli occupation.

the French really seem to have it bad. But I'm sure things will be much better there when the Islamists take over. Shouldn't be long now ...

:rolleyes: another sign that you really don't know enough about what you're talking.

And I agree, there is not a single word that you speak that can be relied upon. All you do is blindly spout lies, circular and flawed logic, and false moral paradigms that, on any sort of cursory analysis, are patently and completely immoral.

absolutely bs, all i do is analysing the situation and comparing both sides to eachother, something you find repulsive since you consider one side to be heavenly much more morally relieved than the other one, and from this attitude stems your bias. You also refuse to question your sacred convictions and you are dismissing any fact that doesn't serve them as a lie and any logic that questions them as immoral and subversive, without much scientific reason.

Which raises a different issue. While I have no idea how to solve the problems in the middle east and the problems of Palestinian depravity, I also have no idea how to fix the demented views of the new left. I mean they won't even properly discuss things based on THEIR OWN principles. thus you end up with a leftist who should nominally be in favour of human rights and the like standing up for the worst of oppression and the worst of depravity. How do we fix that?

what do you mean "their own principles"?
my principle is that i hate suicide attacks and tiranny, but that this doesn't legitimise israeli occupation and oppression. The world isn't black and white you know, neither side has a monopoly on absolute truth or absolute morality.

my problem with people who have similar convictions as yours is that they simply refuse to question their convictions, and dismiss any fact that endangers them.

You criticise Arab regimes and societies, rightly so, but you are generalising, refusing to see the positive devellopments and elements in the Arab world at the same time, and making an overall negative judgement. This is the same the ultra-right in Europe does, such as mr. Le Pen.