takeo's roadmap for peace (summary)

[takeo]

1) a new center-leftwing Israeli government gets elected (a necessary condition for peace) labour-meretz preferably.
2) Israel, together with its allies the US, the EU, Russia and the UN starts to regularly discuss the peace-proces, to assure international backing, assistance and more importantly financial contributions to peace.
3) Israel invites Arafat and his associates to Jerusalem for high-level talks. the message is very clear and the further steps are laid out. Arafat must agree.
4) step one: arafat must start dismantling terrorist organisations immidiately and with all means available, he will get all assistance from Israel and the international community doing so. Dismantling means imprisonment of the entire military wing of hamas, jihad, al-aqsa, etc. as well as severe restrictions and dismantling of the civil wing of those organisations. This action must be torough and well organised, every single local cell of the organisations must be outrooted, any resistance must be dealt with accordingly and 1000's of people will be put behind bars. this must be accompanied by heavy propaganda on pâlestinian television against the organisations who jeopardise peace. the israeli army withdraws from all the territories held by the pa.
5) in the meanwhile, Israel starts to remove settlements, forcefully if necessary, any resistance of the armed settlers must be dealt with accordingly. the pace of the removal will depend upon the pace of the palestinian fight against terror and its successes. it becomes clear to the palestinians that, if they really fight terror, a palestinian state will become reality. the resettlement of the settlers will be paid for by the international community.
6) this step indicates that most settlements have been removed and the terror has been stopped, hamas, jihad and al-aqsa are as good as outrooted and chased upon, no more suicide-attacks inside Israel appear. now the final solution for the area will be discussed upon on an international conference with the un, us, Europe, Russia, the Arab neighbouring countries, etc.
7) Israel withdraws totally from the occupied territories and is replaced by an international force, guarding the borders and assuring the agreements will be executed. some parts of the wb and eastern jerusalem will be annexed to israel while some parts of israel will cease to be a part of israel and get under the autority of the pa and the protection of foreign troops. the agreements include palestinians continuing to fight terror, a large non-military border zone as well as giving free acces to israeli tourists to do holy Jewish monuments.
8) a few 100's of 1000's of palestinian refugees will return to israel from all over the world, if they don't have a terrorist past, papers proving their claim and swear allegiance to the laws of Israel. they will be a very necessary cheap labour because peace made the israeli economy expanding once again. their houses and constructions will be lagely paid for by the international community.
9) the pa and irael sign a non-aggression treaty and treaty of mutual aid in the struggle against crime and terrorism. Also economic treaties and freetrade agreements get signed.
10) israel reconsiders as well with syria and lebanon, promising them to give back the holan-heights and draw a new border according to the 1948 border. Syria in turn has to close all terrorist offices, turn over the suspects, sign a non-aggression treaty and recognise israel.
11) the palestinian state becomes independant, and both neighbours immidiately recognise eachother.

[ibrodsky]

Takeo, you make Neville Chamberlain look like a realist.

Isn't there a Dhimmitude for Dummies board you can go play on?

[Da Chuckstar]

So let me get this straight, every Jewish person living in the areas outside Israel must go back to Israel while 100's of 1000's of Arabs are to be allowed citizenship into Israel for free?

I have to tell you, you picked the wrong forum to say something as stupid as this.

I have a better idea. How about Israel takes Arafat and puts him in a prison cell (and throws away the key), then a moderate from the PA that doesn't do Arafat's bidding is appointed as Prime Minister. Then this new person can crack down on Hamas, Islamic Jihad et al and put a stop to Jew-hatred being preached in every school, mosque etc in the area.

If the new government is successful in achieving these goals, then Israel can hand over the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip to their control, and the nation of Palestine can be born.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by takeo
...
4) step one: arafat must start dismantling terrorist organisations immidiately and with all means available, he will get all assistance from Israel and the international community doing so.

That is precisely why Israel allowed him to return from Tunisia ten years ago and armed his "security forces" with tens of thousands of AK47s (was it 40,000 AFAIR?). So, how many chances does the HairyFrog have? How many more Jewish and Arab children have to die to satisfy his and your sociopathic ambitions?

7) Israel withdraws totally from the occupied territories and is replaced by an international force, guarding the borders


Why do you require the winner in the aggresive war to act as a loser? Why single out Israel? Here, let me redraw map of Europe...

As for the UN peacekeepers, did they prevent previous wars as they were supposed to? Are they preventing - right now as we speak - the Hizballah attacks on Israel from Lebanese territory? Heard any UN resolutions about terror waged on Israel? There were none. Sadly, we learned the hard way not to trust our security to anybody.

8) a few 100's of 1000's of palestinian refugees will return to israel from all over the world

How many? And their descendents too? How many generations?
What about the Jewish refugees from the Arab lands?

10) israel reconsiders as well with syria and lebanon, promising them to give back the holan-heights and draw a new border according to the 1948 border.


Why?! Do you know the history of Golans? It was part of Palestine mandate, but then thanks to an error of stupid (?) French topograph, a faulty map has been drawn. Of course, the Arabs liked it and decided to keep it. BTW, what happened in 1948?

Syria in turn has to close all terrorist offices

Not in turn, this should have been done long ago.
Also, they say they don't have any.
Plus, those that they have, are already closed.
Plus, those that are still open, are not terrorists.
And finally, those who are, are fighting for freedom and dignity of their brethren (whom they reject any human rights).

I can go on, but it's time for you to take your medications. Enough experimenting on Jews.

[Miriam]

if wishes were horses... :)

long time no see, Takeo


Re. 4 & 6: Would that be the civil war Palestinians say won't happen? Can you imagine the scope of bloodshed involved in uprooting organizations supported by about half of the population?


Re. 1: How can a demand to elect a specific government function in a democratic country? (Imagine an improvement plan for France: "§1 - Jospin gets elected in place of Chirac" :p :cool: )


Re. 8: What makes you think the refugees in question would be interested in performing dirty work in Israel?


In general, out of pure curiosity: is your plan something the PCF would approve of?

[Canajew]

I agree with ibrodsky.

I was going to go through your proposal piece by piece, but there is no point. I like the general outline of your plan (though I have numerous reservations) but ibrodsky is right - this plan is in no way connected with any sort of actual reality. Its like the joke about the economist stranded on a desert island with a can of tuna but no can opener - his solution - assume a can opener.

OK, so assume Israel replaces sharon with a government that will buckle into Palestinian terrorism. Next, assume Arafat will be a good guy now, even though he has never been in the past. Next, assume the international community actually cares about what goes on (aside from caring about political considerations, which are different) and is willing to properly address it (something it has not done before) AND is willing to pay for it with no guarantees that the PA will not just ciphen more $ away for terrorism.

Next, assume the Israelis would stand for allowing Arafat into Jerusalem for talks, and assume Arafat will not use this as an opportunity to call for a million martyrs to march on Jerusalem (if you haven't noticed, he is a little bit of a grandstander, and I doubt he would be able to resist such an opportunity, at least in Arabic).

It goes on like this. Every step in your plan is an assumption. You need to provide some sort of evidence or argument that such assumptions are reasonable (or at least reasonably possible). Steps 1 through 4 are all mere assumptions based on absolutely no evidence, whether empirical or theoretical, and as such this 'plan' is doomed to fail like the rest.

I have no plan of my own, so please don't ask me what i would do. I don't know. I don't think there is a solution, because the Palestinians will not allow it.

However, there are preconditions to a peaceful agreement. These include:

(1) the presence of an interlocutor on both sides, prepared to bargain in good faith and to be bound by any eventual agreement.

(2) a willingness of the domestic populations of each side to be prepared to be bound by an agreement negotiated in good faith by their leaders.

(3) the Palestinians must stop brainwashing their population. (note that this is not a reciprocal precondition as were the previous two because this circumstance is unique to Palestinian society and unless it is addressed BEFORE negotiations are entered into such negotiations cannot succeed)

There are undoubtedly many more, and I cannot, therefore, say that these are sufficient preconditions for a peace settlement, but rather that they are necessary conditions. Without the first two, ANY negotiations will fail, whether in the context of international agreements or private business agreements, while without the third the Palestinians will never be in a position to satisfy conditions 1 and 2.

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:


1) a new center-leftwing Israeli government gets elected (a necessary condition for peace) labour-meretz preferably.

Why? It was Begin to sign Camp-David accords. Yet this depends on the Israeli voters.


2) Israel, together with its allies the US, the EU, Russia and the UN starts to regularly discuss the peace-proces, to assure international backing, assistance and more importantly financial contributions to peace.


lets put it the other way around. Israel would be meeting with US to discuss the peace process since it will be the US that will be providing the "Internation" backing, political assistance, and most importantly financial contributions. The thing is that it is something that US and Israel are currently already doing.


3) Israel invites Arafat and his associates to Jerusalem for high-level talks. the message is very clear and the further steps are laid out.

It happened before. Arafat even spent some time at Camp David.

Arafat must agree.


He will. So?


4) step one: arafat must start dismantling terrorist organisations immidiately and with all means available, he will get all assistance from Israel and the international community doing so.


Yep. Short of starting a civil war of course.


Dismantling means imprisonment of the entire military wing of hamas, jihad, al-aqsa, etc. as well as severe restrictions and dismantling of the civil wing of those organisations.[b/]


Even if the main culprits really exist outside Palestine? Right?


[b] This action must be torough and well organised, every single local cell of the organisations must be outrooted, any resistance must be dealt with accordingly and 1000's of people will be put behind bars. this must be accompanied by heavy propaganda on pâlestinian television against the organisations who jeopardise peace. the israeli army withdraws from all the territories held by the pa.


You make me laugh. Even if Arafat wanted to remove Hamas he wouldn't be able to do it - other Arab regimes would never let him do it.


5) in the meanwhile, Israel starts to remove settlements, forcefully if necessary, any resistance of the armed settlers must be dealt with accordingly. the pace of the removal will depend upon the pace of the palestinian fight against terror and its successes.


So basically if there are court battles and such and if Israel delays for at least one month - basically PA is free to not dismantle Hamas for that month? Right? And in the mean-while some bus explodes just to hurry up the Israelis. Right?


it becomes clear to the palestinians that, if they really fight terror, a palestinian state will become reality. the resettlement of the settlers will be paid for by the international community.


Again it's the international community. Lets just say USA.


6) this step indicates that most settlements have been removed and the terror has been stopped, hamas, jihad and al-aqsa are as good as outrooted and chased upon, no more suicide-attacks inside Israel appear. now the final solution for the area will be discussed upon on an international conference with the un, us, Europe, Russia, the Arab neighbouring countries, etc.


Given that both sides have agreed to the situation on the ground.


7) Israel withdraws totally from the occupied territories and is replaced by an international force, guarding the borders and assuring the agreements will be executed. some parts of the wb and eastern jerusalem will be annexed to israel while some parts of israel will cease to be a part of israel and get under the autority of the pa and the protection of foreign troops. the agreements include palestinians continuing to fight terror, a large non-military border zone as well as giving free acces to israeli tourists to do holy Jewish monuments.


And in the mean-while two more buses explode because some faction in Palestine does not like some minute detail of the peace agreenment. Following the explosion French peace-keepers, who apparently let the bomb through, are fighting a political battle in the UN to prove of how inoccent they are. At the same time Arafat's security forces storm the head-quarters of the extremist organization and 20 people die in the battle. Another week passes and some Palestinian official gets assasinated for siding with the "Zionists." Following the assocination two days of demostrations ensue in which the Pal preventive forces kill 20 and ejure some 100. Following that a UN border potrol is targeted with an RPG killing all four European peace-keepers on board (Israel would never agree to Arab participants) causing condemnation from the UN. At the same time there is enourmous pressure on Arafat to find the guilty while at the same time the same French UN checkpoint misses another suicide bomber which kills another 15 people in a Haifa cafe.

In reality no international force would ever work and you would not find too many volunteers to send their troops to the place. If anything the security has to be worked out between Israelis and Pals.


8) a few 100's of 1000's of palestinian refugees will return to israel from all over the world, if they don't have a terrorist past, papers proving their claim and swear allegiance to the laws of Israel. they will be a very necessary cheap labour because peace made the israeli economy expanding once again. their houses and constructions will be lagely paid for by the international community.


WHAT?!!!!!!! Never will Pals be allowed to work in Israel.

9) the pa and irael sign a non-aggression treaty and treaty of mutual aid in the struggle against crime and terrorism. Also economic treaties and freetrade agreements get signed.


It will never happen. Pals have nothing to offer.


10) israel reconsiders as well with syria and lebanon, promising them to give back the holan-heights and draw a new border according to the 1948 border. Syria in turn has to close all terrorist offices, turn over the suspects, sign a non-aggression treaty and recognise israel.


Until there is going to be a Democratic regime in Damascus Syria will never get the Golan.


11) the palestinian state becomes independant, and both neighbours immidiately recognise eachother.


You basically described the "Road Map." with some extra twicks. So what's new?

[Mil]

In reality what's needed is a brand new approach to the issue and nothing that gives any room for irrelivent discussions or relies on the good-will of the two sides. The latter has been tried over and over. I say unilateral separation of Israel (on Israeli terms of course) from the West Bank and Gaza is best way to accomplish peace. And Jerusalem remains Israeli - of course.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Mil
In reality what's needed is a brand new approach to the issue and nothing that gives any room for irrelivent discussions or relies on the good-will of the two sides. The latter has been tried over and over. I say unilateral separation of Israel (on Israeli terms of course) from the West Bank and Gaza is best way to accomplish peace. And Jerusalem remains Israeli - of course.

I agree, but this wouldn't really lead to 'peace', would it? Rather the result would be, at best (though exceedingly unlikely), a cease fire and at worst (and almost certainly) continued cross border aggression.

It seems that peace is impossible and what is needed are for people's thoughts and efforts to be dedicated to conflict management rather than conflict resolution. But even with this approach, the 'best case scenario' is likely only to be mediocre.

Until the Palestinians do something so stupidly violent that they get themselves thrown out, then the battle line will move from the 49 armistance line to the 67 armistance lines.

Honestly, I see no end.

[old-reb]

Originally posted by Canajew
I agree, but this wouldn't really lead to 'peace', would it? Rather the result would be, at best (though exceedingly unlikely), a cease fire and at worst (and almost certainly) continued cross border aggression.

It seems that peace is impossible and what is needed are for people's thoughts and efforts to be dedicated to conflict management rather than conflict resolution. But even with this approach, the 'best case scenario' is likely only to be mediocre.


Honestly, I see no end.


The rest is "pie in the sky". The conflict is based on Islamic religious hatred and that will never cease. It is up to Israel to defend itself or be a victim again and all the world needs to wake up to Islamic religious hatred. It is a sad chapter in human history.

The core of the problem being Islamic racism needs to be addressed out in the open and removed from the closet.

You can't solve anything if you pretend the main problem doesn't exist.


old reb

[Mil]

Posted by Canajew:


I agree, but this wouldn't really lead to 'peace', would it?


It will. The only way I see peace - if it's enforced.


Rather the result would be, at best (though exceedingly unlikely), a cease fire and at worst (and almost certainly) continued cross border aggression.

At least there will be a Palestinian state with all the applicable rules and Israel would take care of security.


It seems that peace is impossible and what is needed are for people's thoughts and efforts to be dedicated to conflict management rather than conflict resolution. But even with this approach, the 'best case scenario' is likely only to be mediocre.

Nothing has worked. It has to be enforced especially given that religion, specifically Islam, has gotten introduced into the picture.


Until the Palestinians do something so stupidly violent that they get themselves thrown out, then the battle line will move from the 49 armistance line to the 67 armistance lines.


Forget about the transfer - it will NEVER happen.


Honestly, I see no end.

I do.

[NewsGuy]

Well, after observing and analyzing the Israeli/Arab conflict for the better part of my life, I disagree with just about every part of this plan, because it will guarantee the destruction of the State of Israel as a Jewish State. It might also bring the majority of murderous Palestinians closer to their true and ultimate dream of conducting a Jihad-Genocide of the Jews of Israel.

But unfortunately, I think it's fair to say that takeo's plan is probably not far off from the views of most Europeans, and even many Israeli Leftists would sign off on this plan.

Originally posted by takeo
4) step one: arafat must start dismantling terrorist organisations immidiately and with all means available, he will get all assistance from Israel and the international community doing so. Dismantling means imprisonment of the entire military wing of hamas, jihad, al-aqsa, etc. as well as severe restrictions and dismantling of the civil wing of those organisations. This action must be torough and well organised, every single local cell of the organisations must be outrooted, any resistance must be dealt with accordingly and 1000's of people will be put behind bars. this must be accompanied by heavy propaganda on pâlestinian television against the organisations who jeopardise peace. the israeli army withdraws from all the territories held by the pa.

Other than the Arafat reference, this is probably the only part of takeo's plan that makes sense to me and that could actually bring about the beginning of a peace process. But this has been tried time and time again, including in the latest Road Map for Peace.

And each time the Palestinians are required to eliminate their terror organizations, it becomes clear that the majority of the Palestinian people in fact support terrorism and Jihad-Genocide against the Jews, and so the Palestinian leadership is not willing to act against the wishes of its people. (as others have already commented before me).

So, I ask takeo, what does he suggest to do if and when the Palestinian leadership refuses to stop their terrorist brothers?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Mil
It will. The only way I see peace - if it's enforced.


you can't really impose peace on warring peoples. You can facilitate conditions that will allow them to make peace, and you can facilitate conditions that make war and aggression more difficult (like the wall in the WB), but peace cannot be imposed if one side is unwilling to accept it, unless of course the side that does not want peace is bluggened into submission. And on this logic, the Palestinians must be defeated in order to become independent. Because if they are not defeated they will never be willing to stop fighting. Much like the Japanese in WWII.


At least there will be a Palestinian state with all the applicable rules and Israel would take care of security.


This is ludecrous. Why should the Palestinians, once they gain independence, cooperate with Israel in any way, rather than continuing their efforts to delegitimize Israel in the international arena while continuing to facilitate cross border terrorist activities. the world did nothing in the 50s and 60s about cross border terrorism from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, so why in the world do you think they will do anything this time other than push israel not to retaliate or take effective measures to counteract these raids?


Nothing has worked. It has to be enforced especially given that religion, specifically Islam, has gotten introduced into the picture.


No, the Palestinians need to be conclusively and totally defeated in order for there to be a functional enforcement mechanism. Not humiliation-defeat, but total functional strategic and tactical defeat. Then the olive branch extended by the Israelis may get a little more respect.

And who is to enforce this 'peace'? The Europeans? Israel would never allow this. the Americans? Arab jihadists would flock to the area to kill as many as they can (and the Americans could be expected to treat the Palestinians far worse than the Israelis in dealing with these jihadists - the American's first inclanation is to carpet bomb when at risk). Some sort of third world intervention force? What kind of political will do you think they would have to stand up to Palestinian terrorist organizations willing to commit any and every kind of attrocity to undermine their morale?


Forget about the transfer - it will NEVER happen.


we'll see. It may be the only answer and while it will surely not happen in the current political environment, there may be circumstances in the future when the international community would be more tollerant of this sort of thing.

But with or without it, I still do not really see peace as a viable outcome. Rather transfer would only deliniate where the front lines are.


Honestly, I see no end.

I do. [/B]

You must be smoking REALLY good grass. :)

[David_in_NYC]

When France returns Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, we'll consider it.

How naive do you have to be to suggest putting Arafat in charge of dismantling the terror organizations? (This was condition #1 of the Road Map, by the way.) If it's not naivete that motivates such a comment, it must be outright glee at the prospect of more dead Jews.

[old-reb]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
When France returns Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, we'll consider it.

.

Good point! Bravo! Bravo! Takeo is throwing stones from a house of glass.

old reb

[Mil]

Posted by Canajew:

Sorry for not responding in time. I was having fun with TDier on the Iraqi thread. That boy is lost even when it comes to their own European history. Anyways.


you can't really impose peace on warring peoples.


It was done before many times before and especially as it applies to Israelis vs. Arabs.


You can facilitate conditions that will allow them to make peace, and you can facilitate conditions that make war and aggression more difficult (like the wall in the WB), but peace cannot be imposed if one side is unwilling to accept it, unless of course the side that does not want peace is bluggened into submission.


True. I don't disagree but this can be accomplished by a third party intervention specifically the United States. It can be a third party that can offer the two sides status-quo by providing political, financial and even military benefits. The same as was done for Egypt and Israel in the seventies during the Camp David Accords. The problem to the latter is that the third party has to be commited to the process. Actually the second main role of the UN is to fascilitate conflict resolution or rather providing a Third Party platform to the conflict by taking accountability of the situation something that UN most of the time failed to accomplish. Most of the time it was the United States or even the Soviet Union accomplishing that particular function of the UN.


And on this logic, the Palestinians must be defeated in order to become independent.


I don't agree. Plus how would they be defeated?


Because if they are not defeated they will never be willing to stop fighting. Much like the Japanese in WWII.


I heard this Japanese theory over and over again, however, this does not apply to the situation. Egypt, for example was not defeated for it to make peace with Israel. From what I see if Syria was not defeated in 1973 it would accomodate for peace with Israel as well. The idea is not to embarrass but to to build a negotiating political platform.



This is ludecrous. Why should the Palestinians, once they gain independence, cooperate with Israel in any way, rather than continuing their efforts to delegitimize Israel in the international arena while continuing to facilitate cross border terrorist activities.


Because it is in their interest.


the world did nothing in the 50s and 60s about cross border terrorism from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, so why in the world do you think they will do anything this time other than push israel not to retaliate or take effective measures to counteract these raids?


First of all don't compare situation of the 60s to the situation in the 21st century. Number two any retaliation of Israel on Palestine would be very devastating to Palestine both politically on the global stage and most importantly economically. Israeli retaliation capacity for letting terrorists through their borders is something that Jordan (especially Jordan), Syria and Egypt learned the hard way.


No, the Palestinians need to be conclusively and totally defeated in order for there to be a functional enforcement mechanism. Not humiliation-defeat, but total functional strategic and tactical defeat. Then the olive branch extended by the Israelis may get a little more respect.


You really think so? And whom exactly would they be fighting? The PLO?


And who is to enforce this 'peace'? The Europeans? Israel would never allow this. the Americans? Arab jihadists would flock to the area to kill as many as they can (and the Americans could be expected to treat the Palestinians far worse than the Israelis in dealing with these jihadists - the American's first inclanation is to carpet bomb when at risk). Some sort of third world intervention force? What kind of political will do you think they would have to stand up to Palestinian terrorist organizations willing to commit any and every kind of attrocity to undermine their morale?


I don't look at the situation as extremely as you do but international force would have many problems. That is why I say that the best approach to ensure border security would be worked out between the Pals and Israelis on their own.


we'll see. It may be the only answer and while it will surely not happen in the current political environment, there may be circumstances in the future when the international community would be more tollerant of this sort of thing.


If anything the international community would never approve Ethnic Cleansing. I would personally relinquish all the support of Israel - being a Jew and a human being - if it would ever happen. A transfer would be a very bloody and inhumane affair and it would condemn the Democratic nation for generations to come.

But with or without it, I still do not really see peace as a viable outcome. Rather transfer would only deliniate where the front lines are.

As much as I am against the transfer I do not desagree that it is a solution. The other solution is unilateral separation by Israel on Israeli terms (the best approach - in my opinion). The third solution is forceful introduction of a third party where the third party would enforce the solution. Fourth approach is to continue with this idiotic present approach or rely on the good will of the parties involved and specifically on the political strength of the Palestinians and the political interest of the Arab states.

You must be smoking REALLY good grass.

:) Sorry I don't smoke weed. But in reality there are solutions.

[Mediocrates]

If anything the international community would never approve Ethnic Cleansing.


Of course it does. The international community would declare a world holiday if Jewish Israelis were wiped off the face of the earth today. It all depends on who you hate, not that you hate.


At any rate this is all in a vacuum. All the 'lamb lies down with the lion' thinking ignores the other 2 million Palestinians in neighboring countries who will be pogrommed out of those countries and marched across the borders to Palestine. The international community will do nothing abou this either because if there is only one thing they are more indifferent to than dead Jews, it's arab on arab genocide.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Mil
you can't really impose peace on warring peoples.

It was done before many times before and especially as it applies to Israelis vs. Arabs.


but it wasn't really. Imposing a cease-fire is entirely different than enforcing peace. Cease-fires are basically states of war without the shooting.


True. I don't disagree but this can be accomplished by a third party intervention specifically the United States. It can be a third party that can offer the two sides status-quo by providing political, financial and even military benefits. The same as was done for Egypt and Israel in the seventies during the Camp David Accords. The problem to the latter is that the third party has to be commited to the process. Actually the second main role of the UN is to fascilitate conflict resolution or rather providing a Third Party platform to the conflict by taking accountability of the situation something that UN most of the time failed to accomplish. Most of the time it was the United States or even the Soviet Union accomplishing that particular function of the UN.


BS. The fundamental flaw in your arguments appears to be that you perceive the Palstinian leadership to be both rational and to have adopted as an objective function the maximization of the welfare of their population. This has been demonstrated time and time again to be false, and it takes quite the leap of faith to believe it now. I do not. They are not interested in peace.

The US can only do so much. It cannot put troops on the ground because they would quickly become targets of the Islamists. And third party commitment is insufficient if the Palestinians are not committed (unless the third party is committed to forcibly imposing its will). The Egyptian leadership and the Israelis wanted peace at Camp David I. The Palestinians obviously do not. they want the 'liberation of historic Palestine'. their populationhas been poisened by brainwashing and intollerance, and their leaders do not give a damn about the well being of the people (and even if they did, the people want suicide bombings).


And on this logic, the Palestinians must be defeated in order to become independent.

I don't agree. Plus how would they be defeated?


I don't know how to defeat them. The gloves must come off first, though.


Because if they are not defeated they will never be willing to stop fighting. Much like the Japanese in WWII.

I heard this Japanese theory over and over again, however, this does not apply to the situation. Egypt, for example was not defeated for it to make peace with Israel. From what I see if Syria was not defeated in 1973 it would accomodate for peace with Israel as well. The idea is not to embarrass but to to build a negotiating political platform.


It does apply. Very well, actually. In both cases a population was basically brainwashed into an ideological fervour, and committed to total war until destruction.

Comparisons to Egypt and Syria, on the other hand, are not apt at all. Egypt was interested in peace, while Syria (which was ROUNDLY defeated in '73 (the Israelis could have taken Damascus had the USSR not put paratroopers there) has still not made peace with Israel. The two countries are still in a state of war. And Syria will NOT accomodate for peace with Israel. Where you come up with this stuff is beyond me (maybe its crack you smoke :) ). There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it will, and there is ample evidence to suggest the contrary. they may be afraid of Israel and that is why they are financing terrorists instead of armies, but you are living in a dream world if you think they are a peaceful well-intentioned country. Delusion is what got Israel into the situation it is in now, believe the PA really intended to be bound by its commitments and allow Israel to live in peace. And more delusion will only get more of the same, regardless of the nobility of intentions.

And yes, the object is to negotiate not to embarass. But in order to negotiate the Palestinians must be roundly defeated, otherwise they will not not not negotiate in good faith and be prepared to be bound by any negotiated agreement. They must see the light before we can pull them through.


This is ludecrous. Why should the Palestinians, once they gain independence, cooperate with Israel in any way, rather than continuing their efforts to delegitimize Israel in the international arena while continuing to facilitate cross border terrorist activities.

Because it is in their interest.


WHAT?!? It is in their interests to stop fighting now. It was never in their interests to start fighting in the first place. Are you really naive enough to believe that their leadership is interested in the people's best interests, or even that the people are interested in their own best interests rather than in bringing down Israel? Again, dream world. You want to explain to me how they will relinquish the sacred 'right of return' ? the refugees wallowing in Arab camps who have been brainwashed to believe this 'right' is an inalienable entitlement will not support peace without it, and there will be no peace with it.

The Palestinians will act according to what they feel will best help them achieve their goals. And their goals are not development and education and prosperity, but again, the 'liberation of historic palestine' and the clensing of the area of its dirty Jews.


First of all don't compare situation of the 60s to the situation in the 21st century. Number two any retaliation of Israel on Palestine would be very devastating to Palestine both politically on the global stage and most importantly economically. Israeli retaliation capacity for letting terrorists through their borders is something that Jordan (especially Jordan), Syria and Egypt learned the hard way.


Why not? you don't think that things are so different today than they were back then do you? people are still people and they have the same generaly tendancies as they used to. The UN is the same dysfunctional organization, and the international community has demonstrated MANY times in the past decade that it is unprepared to make sacrifices to protect innocent civilians in far away places.

As for your number 2, isn't that exactly what Israel did this time at the start of this 'intifada'? Reprisals to provide incentive for deterrence. problem is, it didn't work. the Palestinian leadership and the terroirst groups were prepared to destroy Palestinian society (both physically and through dis-education), consequences be damned. You don't think the 50+% of the Palestinian population (both domestic and in Arab refugee camps) that want to see Israel destroyed will stop when instead they can have a $5 a week job at the car wash because they were never educated in anything but jihad and hatred, do you?

You are living in a magical world, and while it may be quite nice and comfortable there, this world doesn't really work like this. Leaders are not always interested in what's 'best' for their countries, and you need to provide some sort of justification as to why the Palestinians will act differently in the future than they have in the past and the present and have shown absolutely ZERO inclination for change.

[Canajew]

No, the Palestinians need to be conclusively and totally defeated in order for there to be a functional enforcement mechanism. Not humiliation-defeat, but total functional strategic and tactical defeat. Then the olive branch extended by the Israelis may get a little more respect.

You really think so? And whom exactly would they be fighting? The PLO?


Yes. The PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad et. al. All of them. The 'PA' is really just the PLO. It has always just been the PLO. They have lied and cheated and manipulated themselves into 'legitimate' actors in this whole event, yet they are nothing of the sort. Yasser Arafat never in reality rejected or abandoned violence. He only shelved it for tactical reasons. He, and his organization, are terrorists. The Palestinian people need to be 'de-nazified' from all of their programming (not as bad as the North Koreans do, but the same type of thing).

The olive branch extended by the Israelis will be perceived as the Palestinians have always perceived that sort of thing - as a sign of weakness inviting increased military activity. It will get them ZERO respect among the Palestinians. Only capitulation will appease them, and capitulation will only provide them more reason to demand more and, again, fight for the 'liberation of historic palestine'.


I don't look at the situation as extremely as you do but international force would have many problems. That is why I say that the best approach to ensure border security would be worked out between the Pals and Israelis on their own.


You are dreaming. The pals arn't interested. How can you work things out with a party not interested in working things out? They will not agree to anything, unless of course they have no intention of living up to their commitments. Just like their 'commitment' under the road-map to dismantle and disrupt the terrorist organizations. Abu Mazen told the Palestinian parliament that his greatest successes as PM involved getting around fulfilling these obligations.


If anything the international community would never approve Ethnic Cleansing. I would personally relinquish all the support of Israel - being a Jew and a human being - if it would ever happen. A transfer would be a very bloody and inhumane affair and it would condemn the Democratic nation for generations to come.


We'll see. They have accepted it in other places and in other times, and they might accept it in the future. I'm pretty sure it makes no difference, though. It will not stop the fighting, only change the front lines.


As much as I am against the transfer I do not desagree that it is a solution. The other solution is unilateral separation by Israel on Israeli terms (the best approach - in my opinion). The third solution is forceful introduction of a third party where the third party would enforce the solution. Fourth approach is to continue with this idiotic present approach or rely on the good will of the parties involved and specifically on the political strength of the Palestinians and the political interest of the Arab states.


but unilateral separation is not a 'solution'. It is a congflict MANAGEMENT strategy. the Palestinians will still fight, will still be fully committed to acts of terrorism and to clensing the area of Jews. But were Israel to 'unilaterally separate' like you suggest, then the fox will be in charge of the hen house and the PA will be able to freely allow the terror organizations to do what they do. The Israelis are in the WB towns in order to protect Israelis. Remove them from the west bank and the terrorists will once again have free reign there.

None of these 'solutions' including transfer and separation, will bring peace. the best hope is a tactical lull in hostilities, or something like the situation in Lebanon, but this is a remote best option, and it is far more likely that things will continue as they have been until the palestinians realize, once and for all, that they have lost and cannot win. Then there can be peace.


:) Sorry I don't smoke weed. But in reality there are solutions. [/B]

In reality there are a series of temporary stop gaps and partial solutions. the only real solution will take decades to implement and involves effort similar to the American efforts in Japan and Germany after WWII. The Palestinian society needs to be rebuilt from the ground up by enlightened foreign masters. Not a nice thing to say, but without it there will never ever be any peace.

[takeo]

so actually people can't really object to my plan except that they think palestinians will never commit to their promises. But what about Israel, wasn't it exactly Netanyahu's policy which made the palestinians loose all confidence in the oslo-proces, weren't the number of settlements twice as big since 1993... and wouldn't more than half of the people on this board object to this plan simply because they dON'T want to see a retreat from the occupied territories, because they consider it to be a legitimate part of greater Israel??? Such considerations must be dealth with as well, especially knowing that most of the current israeli government never agreed upon leaving the occupied territories, ending the settlements and recognising a palestinian state. that's exactly why a leftwing government is a requirement, because simply not only the palestinians need to agree to the principle of land for peace, so must the israeli government!!!!!!

even if the palestinians today dismantle all terrorism, I'm 100% sure Israel would still not talk with Arafat and would still not grant the palestinians their state on most of the occupied territories, and dismantle the settlements. This would simply split the government. So this current government and palestinian terrorism are allies against peace. both have a lot to loose once real peace-negociatoions lead to result, both reject the idea of a two-state solution.

[takeo]

So let me get this straight, every Jewish person living in the areas outside Israel must go back to Israel while 100's of 1000's of Arabs are to be allowed citizenship into Israel for free?

I have to tell you, you picked the wrong forum to say something as stupid as this.

why is it stupid? both are requirements by several un-resolutions... for free? they have the right to live in the land they or they parents were born, while the settlers can't show any evidence that they have the right to be there and possess this illegally acquired land.

I have a better idea. How about Israel takes Arafat and puts him in a prison cell (and throws away the key), then a moderate from the PA that doesn't do Arafat's bidding is appointed as Prime Minister. Then this new person can crack down on Hamas, Islamic Jihad et al and put a stop to Jew-hatred being preached in every school, mosque etc in the area.

Fine, but why trow arafat in jail? Doing so you won't find any palestinian moderate with at least some public support for decades to come. arafat can still be the formal leader but his health will require him to appoint another moderate prime minister. this is the scenario Israel wants to avoid at all costs, simply because they don't want peace to resume.


That is precisely why Israel allowed him to return from Tunisia ten years ago and armed his "security forces" with tens of thousands of AK47s (was it 40,000 AFAIR?). So, how many chances does the HairyFrog have? How many more Jewish and Arab children have to die to satisfy his and your sociopathic ambitions?

Arafat did do a rather good job in the 90's, restraining terror even if it had quite some sympathy amog palestinian population, perhaps he didn't do the job torough enough, but i surely remember in the 90's AI criticising the PA for putting hamas-sympathisers behind bars...
the failure of Oslo is mainly the responsability of netanyahu and barak, who never really believed in an independant palestinian state by 1999 as promised by oslo.


Why do you require the winner in the aggresive war to act as a loser? Why single out Israel? Here, let me redraw map of Europe...

Israel isn't the winner, in the current situation all parties are loosers, it's a war that can't be won on neither side. it's comparable to bosnia, all loosers, no winners. Israel had a military victory against neighbouring Arab states but couldn't win against the palestinian populations.

As for the UN peacekeepers, did they prevent previous wars as they were supposed to? Are they preventing - right now as we speak - the Hizballah attacks on Israel from Lebanese territory? Heard any UN resolutions about terror waged on Israel? There were none. Sadly, we learned the hard way not to trust our security to anybody.

yes, some un-resolutions condemned the terrorist against israeli civilians, more than one by the way.
but you are currently learning the hard way that you can't fix a satisfying solution yourself either, so international assistance is required. By the way is the situation in lebanon today so bad if you compare to some years ago or to the palestinian-israeli conflict???


How many? And their descendents too? How many generations?
What about the Jewish refugees from the Arab lands?

that are questions that should be settled during the international conferences, how many people, who exactly; etc.
some solution for the jewish refugees from arab countries should be included, compensation and/or the right to return.



Why?! Do you know the history of Golans? It was part of Palestine mandate, but then thanks to an error of stupid (?) French topograph, a faulty map has been drawn. Of course, the Arabs liked it and decided to keep it. BTW, what happened in 1948?

the golan heights are officially recognised by the entire world as a part of Syria and never ever belonged to Israel. It didn't belong to israel in the period 1948-1967, and now it's illegally occupied. look at the official map of the US-embassy in Israel, it doesn't include the golan heights!!!


Not in turn, this should have been done long ago.
Also, they say they don't have any.
Plus, those that they have, are already closed.
Plus, those that are still open, are not terrorists.
And finally, those who are, are fighting for freedom and dignity of their brethren (whom they reject any human rights).

I can go on, but it's time for you to take your medications. Enough experimenting on Jews.

well, Syria may have made their presence some kind of a mystery, they are still in Syria without any doubt. Syria is not likely to do any compromise at all untill Israel gives back the occupied part of syrian territory. Syria is not required to recognise Israel as long as Israel occupies a part of syria, since this is an act of war. Are you really prepared to postpone peace with Syria because of this little piece of land?

If the Arabs put down their weapons, there would be no war. If the Jews put down their weapons, there would be no Israel.

if the palestinians would never have resisted their occupation, there wouldn't even be a legal representative nor a palestinian government, they would live as the negro's in South-Africa, thanks to their resistance primarily during the first intifadeh at least they have some hope, some expectations which were totally denied untill the late '80's by almost the entire Israeli political top.



long time no see, Takeo

priviet, kak dela? nice to see you're still around!





Re. 1: How can a demand to elect a specific government function in a democratic country? (Imagine an improvement plan for France: "§1 - Jospin gets elected in place of Chirac" )

nothing new is it? The US doesn't recognise the elected president Arafat, the us openly threated the nicaraguan and bolivian people to stop all economic cooperation if they would elect a left-winger, Allende, ... etc. just some examples, there are many more.


Re. 8: What makes you think the refugees in question would be interested in performing dirty work in Israel?

because it would still be a huge improvement compared to their situation today. the once who have a comfortable life probably won't move to Israel but agree upon compensation.


In general, out of pure curiosity: is your plan something the PCF would approve of?

it was a personal tought, but it certainly corresponds to the program of the pcf concerning the middle east.


I was going to go through your proposal piece by piece, but there is no point. I like the general outline of your plan (though I have numerous reservations) but ibrodsky is right - this plan is in no way connected with any sort of actual reality. Its like the joke about the economist stranded on a desert island with a can of tuna but no can opener - his solution - assume a can opener.

be more specific please

OK, so assume Israel replaces sharon with a government that will buckle into Palestinian terrorism. Next, assume Arafat will be a good guy now, even though he has never been in the past. Next, assume the international community actually cares about what goes on (aside from caring about political considerations, which are different) and is willing to properly address it (something it has not done before) AND is willing to pay for it with no guarantees that the PA will not just ciphen more $ away for terrorism.

all this is very real and possible, Arafat has challenged terrorism in the past when he had the means and there were real prospects of peace, and i'm sure the pa has aknowledged that hamas and co. need to be destroyed because they will keep ruining any peace-effort. The international community and especially the us would give a lot of money to finally resolve this very ennoying question in this highly strategic region.

It goes on like this. Every step in your plan is an assumption. You need to provide some sort of evidence or argument that such assumptions are reasonable (or at least reasonably possible). Steps 1 through 4 are all mere assumptions based on absolutely no evidence, whether empirical or theoretical, and as such this 'plan' is doomed to fail like the rest.

it aren't assumptions, every step is possible, even likely in these circumstances. it's rational: the both the pa and a leftist israeli government gree upon a two-state solution so the only problem remains how to achieve this. If there's a clear roadmap to peace that forces both parties to meet the requirements most eventualities that can spoil the party are excluded. (except of course if elections bring a new kind of netanyahu to power who would block the whole process)


I have no plan of my own, so please don't ask me what i would do. I don't know. I don't think there is a solution, because the Palestinians will not allow it.

actually this question is a lot easier to resolve than the iraqi crisis, if only there would be enough goodwill and not this silly game of "who takes the first step" or mutual reprisals. ..
In Iraq the expectations and interests of both parties are radically opposed which makes it much harder if not impossible to find a solution as a compromise between the two parties. Saddam and most iraqi's won't agree to a us-occupation, the us won't just withdraw its forces and disappear after all those efforts they made, while the political ambitions of the different iraqi groups are radically opposed.

[Mil]

Posted by Canajew:



but it wasn't really. Imposing a cease-fire is entirely different than enforcing peace. Cease-fires are basically states of war without the shooting.


Cease-fire with Egypt finally ended with peace, however, cold. I would be satisfied if the relations between Palestine and Israel would be on the same terms.



BS. The fundamental flaw in your arguments appears to be that you perceive the Palstinian leadership to be both rational and to have adopted as an objective function the maximization of the welfare of their population. This has been demonstrated time and time again to be false, and it takes quite the leap of faith to believe it now. I do not. They are not interested in peace.


I am a great believer in political solutions. In history even tougher beligerents found common solutions to satisfy either sides.


The US can only do so much. It cannot put troops on the ground because they would quickly become targets of the Islamists.

US will never put troops in Israel/Palestine.


And third party commitment is insufficient if the Palestinians are not committed (unless the third party is committed to forcibly imposing its will).


The third party should be commited to provide, fascilitate, and support political platform. It has been done before and it worked!!! Listen compared to Palestine Egypt sent out an entire army against Israel and the rhetoric at the time against Israel was as profane as it is now. Some Egyptian soldiers even carried an Arabic version of Mein Kempf.


The Egyptian leadership and the Israelis wanted peace at Camp David I. The Palestinians obviously do not. they want the 'liberation of historic Palestine'.

I don't know what the Palestinian leadership is thinking but you cannot accuse them of been stupid. At the least it's their heads on the line. While Israel might spare them but their idiotic compatriots will certainly not.


their populationhas been poisened by brainwashing and intollerance, and their leaders do not give a damn about the well being of the people (and even if they did, the people want suicide bombings).


So? This does not mean that they do not want peace.



It does apply. Very well, actually. In both cases a population was basically brainwashed into an ideological fervour, and committed to total war until destruction.


Not really. Japan was not invaded, like Germany, with occupation or the destruction of its leaders. Japan capitulated.


Comparisons to Egypt and Syria, on the other hand, are not apt at all. Egypt was interested in peace, while Syria (which was ROUNDLY defeated in '73 (the Israelis could have taken Damascus had the USSR not put paratroopers there) has still not made peace with Israel.


If Israel destroyed the 3rd Egyptian Army and was allowed to re-occupy the Sinai Egypt would still be at war with Israel. That I can guarantee.

The two countries are still in a state of war. And Syria will NOT accomodate for peace with Israel. Where you come up with this stuff is beyond me (maybe its crack you smoke ).


Syria would be very happy to find an accomodation with Israel yet it's beyond of what Syria can do . Or at least not until there going to be a complete regime change in Syria.


There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it will, and there is ample evidence to suggest the contrary. they may be afraid of Israel and that is why they are financing terrorists instead of armies, but you are living in a dream world if you think they are a peaceful well-intentioned country.


I never said that Syria is a peaceful well-intentioned country. All I said that Syria would not mind to find a peaceful accomodation with Israel. At the least for security purposes.


Delusion is what got Israel into the situation it is in now, believe the PA really intended to be bound by its commitments and allow Israel to live in peace. And more delusion will only get more of the same, regardless of the nobility of intentions.


The PA itself has many things to warry about including an imminent civil war where sides would be supported by various Arab states to ful-fill their purposes. Neither Israel nor Palestine want to either become a second Lebanon or have a Lebanon like neighbor on its border.


And yes, the object is to negotiate not to embarass. But in order to negotiate the Palestinians must be roundly defeated, otherwise they will not not not negotiate in good faith and be prepared to be bound by any negotiated agreement. They must see the light before we can pull them through.


So how would you defeat the Palestinians? Do you think destroying Hamas, IJ, A-Brigades and such would fascilitatepeace? What if another group springs up? What if Saudi Arabia or lets say Syria or Iran decide to influence things a litte?



WHAT?!? It is in their interests to stop fighting now. It was never in their interests to start fighting in the first place. Are you really naive enough to believe that their leadership is interested in the people's best interests, or even that the people are interested in their own best interests rather than in bringing down Israel?


Stop repeating this idiocy about the destruction of Israel and such. It's for babies. The reason why the Intifada is still in place is because Arafat is a bad political leader where the only way he can survive is by balancing his act between all the various forces including extremists, Arab states, Israel, US and the rest of the world. That's why Arafat has to be removed or go into retirement and somebody completely new should be introduced.


Again, dream world. You want to explain to me how they will relinquish the sacred 'right of return' ?


EASY. They would be put in front of the fact.


the refugees wallowing in Arab camps who have been brainwashed to believe this 'right' is an inalienable entitlement will not support peace without it, and there will be no peace with it.


Who cares about what they think or are brainwashed to think. Let Palestinians deal with that. Everyone knows that no former Palestinian will step a foot inside Israel proper; it's all just rhetoric.


The Palestinians will act according to what they feel will best help them achieve their goals. And their goals are not development and education and prosperity, but again, the 'liberation of historic palestine' and the clensing of the area of its dirty Jews.


No comment.



Why not? you don't think that things are so different today than they were back then do you? people are still people and they have the same generaly tendancies as they used to.


There are many things that are different. First of all no Cold War and second of all the Arab world has more or less stabalized.


The UN is the same dysfunctional organization, and the international community has demonstrated MANY times in the past decade that it is unprepared to make sacrifices to protect innocent civilians in far away places.


That's why UN is not the third party - but US is.


As for your number 2, isn't that exactly what Israel did this time at the start of this 'intifada'? Reprisals to provide incentive for deterrence. problem is, it didn't work. the Palestinian leadership and the terroirst groups were prepared to destroy Palestinian society (both physically and through dis-education), consequences be damned. You don't think the 50+% of the Palestinian population (both domestic and in Arab refugee camps) that want to see Israel destroyed will stop when instead they can have a $5 a week job at the car wash because they were never educated in anything but jihad and hatred, do you?


All I said is that after the Palestinian state would be established any increased violence against Israel coming from over the borders would be answered by retaliation. Trust me after Israel destroys a few economic targets - the Pals would make sure to guard their borders.


You are living in a magical world, and while it may be quite nice and comfortable there, this world doesn't really work like this.


Dude as I said above peace was found among belligerents much more violent then those in the Israeli/Pal conflict.


Leaders are not always interested in what's 'best' for their countries, and you need to provide some sort of justification as to why the Palestinians will act differently in the future than they have in the past and the present and have shown absolutely ZERO inclination for change.


I agree, Palestinian leadership is very ineffective that's why Israel should take initiative into its own facts and separate unilaterally.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
When France returns Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, we'll consider it.

How naive do you have to be to suggest putting Arafat in charge of dismantling the terror organizations? (This was condition #1 of the Road Map, by the way.) If it's not naivete that motivates such a comment, it must be outright glee at the prospect of more dead Jews.

Not to mention 'TakeØ's plan' was the Barak deal.. give or take.

And the Palestinians counteroffer was the Intifada.

Interesting also .. TakeØ wants to unlelect the Goverment that was a result of the Arab rejection, Sharon, while keeping Arafat, who has failed to negotiate or honor agreements with every other Israel' PM of any party for 36 years.

[takeo]

(1) the presence of an interlocutor on both sides, prepared to bargain in good faith and to be bound by any eventual agreement.

ok

(2) a willingness of the domestic populations of each side to be prepared to be bound by an agreement negotiated in good faith by their leaders.

I think that willingness exists on both sides, the only problem is the lack of confidence and trust, on both sides.

(3) the Palestinians must stop brainwashing their population. (note that this is not a reciprocal precondition as were the previous two because this circumstance is unique to Palestinian society and unless it is addressed BEFORE negotiations are entered into such negotiations cannot succeed)

i think this will stop naturally once peace is a reality, it's the same all over the world. The same applies to israel of course, it should stop to diabolise Arafat... by the way palestinian anger doesn't so much rely on propaganda but much more on daily reality, rockets and tanks destroying buildings, daily closures, settlers taking over parts of palestinian cities under israeli guardance, this are daily realities which contribute to the hate against israel and everything it represents. (even before this current intifadeh, but undoubtely much stronger nowadays)

There are undoubtedly many more, and I cannot, therefore, say that these are sufficient preconditions for a peace settlement, but rather that they are necessary conditions. Without the first two, ANY negotiations will fail, whether in the context of international agreements or private business agreements, while without the third the Palestinians will never be in a position to satisfy conditions 1 and 2.

there are conditions, however, on israeli side as well, such as a general willingness to get rid of the settlements and finally accept that the palestinian state will be a reality in the near future.

Why? It was Begin to sign Camp-David accords. Yet this depends on the Israeli voters.

all right, but Begin was a lot more realistic than the current rulers. perhaps Sharon is a old real-politician, but large parts of his government certainly aren't and are in favor of ideological solutions. besides this isn't about some piece of desert, this is primarily about the historically, strategically and economically important Westbank.


lets put it the other way around. Israel would be meeting with US to discuss the peace process since it will be the US that will be providing the "Internation" backing, political assistance, and most importantly financial contributions. The thing is that it is something that US and Israel are currently already doing.

yes, but israel doesn't follow the recommendations of the us, not even in theory. Besides, the will on israeli side is lacking to really find a solution, thus leaving washington in a powerless position (punishing and threatening israel as have been the case for other countries is still not an option it seems, because of the strong zionist lobby)

Yep. Short of starting a civil war of course.

yes, but you can bet on it that if the palestinians see the israeli's are really removing settlements and withdrawing there will be a lot of support for the pa, and much less for Hamas. (as was the case in 1993-1995), hamas will certainly loose the civil war in this case. in the current conditions however things might turn out completely different. (given the fact as well that most of the pa's security apparatus has been demolished by israel)



Even if the main culprits really exist outside Palestine? Right?

the ones outside are much less dangerous.




You make me laugh. Even if Arafat wanted to remove Hamas he wouldn't be able to do it - other Arab regimes would never let him do it.

BS, jordan, Egypt, perhaps even lebanon and syria (on the condition israel is negociating over the golan) would wellcome this.




So basically if there are court battles and such and if Israel delays for at least one month - basically PA is free to not dismantle Hamas for that month? Right? And in the mean-while some bus explodes just to hurry up the Israelis. Right?

one month, no, but if it becomes clear after a year israel is not going to meet its obligations, at all, than hamas-members should be released and the struggle against terror ended. the other way around as well of course... a strong reminder to both sides to keep their commitments, and a strong reminder for whoever gets elected in israel not to postpone already agreed upon decisions.



And in the mean-while two more buses explode because some faction in Palestine does not like some minute detail of the peace agreenment. Following the explosion French peace-keepers, who apparently let the bomb through, are fighting a political battle in the UN to prove of how inoccent they are. At the same time Arafat's security forces storm the head-quarters of the extremist organization and 20 people die in the battle. Another week passes and some Palestinian official gets assasinated for siding with the "Zionists." Following the assocination two days of demostrations ensue in which the Pal preventive forces kill 20 and ejure some 100. Following that a UN border potrol is targeted with an RPG killing all four European peace-keepers on board (Israel would never agree to Arab participants) causing condemnation from the UN. At the same time there is enourmous pressure on Arafat to find the guilty while at the same time the same French UN checkpoint misses another suicide bomber which kills another 15 people in a Haifa cafe.

this doesn't sound likely or reasonable, because fighting terror means fighting all terror with all means available. The French and others would just keep the peace and protect israel militarily, the anti-terrorist struggle would be the palestinian responsability since they have the means to sort out who's terrorist and who isn't. with the propper support and means (which they haven't today) palestinians would be able to deal with the fundamentalists as any other Arab state dealt with them, such as syria, Jordan, egypt, etc.

In reality no international force would ever work and you would not find too many volunteers to send their troops to the place. If anything the security has to be worked out between Israelis and Pals.

this is preferably but there's a lack of trust between the two sides, the international troops would be a kind of go-between, especially in the border areas.



WHAT?!!!!!!! Never will Pals be allowed to work in Israel.

they did in the past, when there were far less suicide-killings than today...


Until there is going to be a Democratic regime in Damascus Syria will never get the Golan.

what difference does that make? why can't you make peace with assad, as it appears he'll be there a long time to come. even Kaddafi seems nowadays to come to terms with Europe and the us, so why not Assad? you made peace with Egypt and jordan as well which aren't exactly democracies are they? in fact dictatorships are more reliable since a democratic system means another government doesn't necessarily agree to the principles signed by his predecessor...


You basically described the "Road Map." with some extra twicks. So what's new?

new, that israel has to offer the full and total withdrawel of the occupied territories without further uncertainties or BS, and that both the israeli and palestinian duties will rely upon eachother ...

[takeo]

In reality what's needed is a brand new approach to the issue and nothing that gives any room for irrelivent discussions or relies on the good-will of the two sides. The latter has been tried over and over. I say unilateral separation of Israel (on Israeli terms of course) from the West Bank and Gaza is best way to accomplish peace. And Jerusalem remains Israeli - of course.

indeed goodwill alone isn't enough, there need to be a stick, on both sides however!!!
unilateral separation isn't the solution however, unless you mean all of the occupied territories. if not palestinians will continue to fight israel untill all of the occupied territories have been freed. but even in this case it leaves a lot of insecurity, such as at the border with lebanon.


I agree, but this wouldn't really lead to 'peace', would it? Rather the result would be, at best (though exceedingly unlikely), a cease fire and at worst (and almost certainly) continued cross border aggression.

indeed

It seems that peace is impossible and what is needed are for people's thoughts and efforts to be dedicated to conflict management rather than conflict resolution. But even with this approach, the 'best case scenario' is likely only to be mediocre.

such a situation can't be managed, only a total comprehensive solution will bring peace.



The rest is "pie in the sky". The conflict is based on Islamic religious hatred and that will never cease. It is up to Israel to defend itself or be a victim again and all the world needs to wake up to Islamic religious hatred. It is a sad chapter in human history.

The core of the problem being Islamic racism needs to be addressed out in the open and removed from the closet.

You can't solve anything if you pretend the main problem doesn't exist.

BS, islamism isn't the main problem, everything most palestinians want is a normal country in the occupied territories and most of all a normal life free of occupation. the main problem is the israeli occupation, which has to end, even people who aren't islamic resist israeli occupation, such as the christians.

Well, after observing and analyzing the Israeli/Arab conflict for the better part of my life, I disagree with just about every part of this plan, because it will guarantee the destruction of the State of Israel as a Jewish State. It might also bring the majority of murderous Palestinians closer to their true and ultimate dream of conducting a Jihad-Genocide of the Jews of Israel.

perhaps you mean the destruction of the idea of Eretz Israel to which you are so much dedicated. It would however garantee the survival of a peacefull israel integrated in the region and finally coming to terms with the palestinians and vice-versa. not all will be perfect immidiately, but surely it will mean a great improvement compared to the last decades, and a lesser financial burden as well for israel. Anyways, there isn't an alternative, because your plan of etnic cleansing will ensure Israel's destruction.

But unfortunately, I think it's fair to say that takeo's plan is probably not far off from the views of most Europeans, and even many Israeli Leftists would sign off on this plan.

that's right, i would even say the majority of the Israeli, if terrorism would really come to an end.


Other than the Arafat reference, this is probably the only part of takeo's plan that makes sense to me and that could actually bring about the beginning of a peace process. But this has been tried time and time again, including in the latest Road Map for Peace.

no, it didn't, palestinians currently haven't the means to do so and israel can't either, the climate is very hostile. only a real palestinian state can. in the 90's some of this happened, but not enough and not systematic enough.

And each time the Palestinians are required to eliminate their terror organizations, it becomes clear that the majority of the Palestinian people in fact support terrorism and Jihad-Genocide against the Jews, and so the Palestinian leadership is not willing to act against the wishes of its people. (as others have already commented before me).

IF the people really believe in the israeli intentions to really end the occupation, as they did during the mid 90's, support for hamas drops considerably.

So, I ask takeo, what does he suggest to do if and when the Palestinian leadership refuses to stop their terrorist brothers?

then of course the israeli's won't fullfill their promises either. but you should at least give them a chance to do so, reinstall the security apparatus, withdraw, and start giving them incitives, prospectives, rewards for ending terrorism, which will in turn increase the popularity of the pa. this seems to be a problem for this government, because, i repeat, they don't want to withdraw!


you can't really impose peace on warring peoples. You can facilitate conditions that will allow them to make peace, and you can facilitate conditions that make war and aggression more difficult (like the wall in the WB), but peace cannot be imposed if one side is unwilling to accept it, unless of course the side that does not want peace is bluggened into submission. And on this logic, the Palestinians must be defeated in order to become independent. Because if they are not defeated they will never be willing to stop fighting. Much like the Japanese in WWII.

the situation is not comparable, the palestinians have been military defeated, but unlike the japanese they are fighting for theirr own existence, their own country, not some colonial possessions. The japanese would still be fighting the us if the us would have colonised japan instead of returning its status of a strong independant power. as the vietnamese, in such a situation you simply can't win a war, because you can't win a war against an entire people, the european colonisers came to this conclusion some decades ago...


This is ludecrous. Why should the Palestinians, once they gain independence, cooperate with Israel in any way, rather than continuing their efforts to delegitimize Israel in the international arena while continuing to facilitate cross border terrorist activities. the world did nothing in the 50s and 60s about cross border terrorism from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, so why in the world do you think they will do anything this time other than push israel not to retaliate or take effective measures to counteract these raids?

because, once they have their independant state, they have actually something to loose, not only their credibility but their security and independance. Even the terrorists of hesbollah don't attack israel even if they have the means to do so and never recognised israel. (because lebanon is free now, their main objective) a palestinian state would take care, as jordan, egypt and even syria, not to let terrorists attack israel from ist territory.

[takeo]

And who is to enforce this 'peace'? The Europeans? Israel would never allow this. the Americans? Arab jihadists would flock to the area to kill as many as they can (and the Americans could be expected to treat the Palestinians far worse than the Israelis in dealing with these jihadists - the American's first inclanation is to carpet bomb when at risk). Some sort of third world intervention force? What kind of political will do you think they would have to stand up to Palestinian terrorist organizations willing to commit any and every kind of attrocity to undermine their morale?

Europeans, Russians, chinese and Americans under un-leadership, for example. They wouldn't flock to combat the us-forces since the troops will essencially be considered liberators by the palestinians, so even al-quaida won't risk to attack them (the palestinian question was their most important propaganda-asset untill recently, now Bush gave them another great gift, iraq!).

we'll see. It may be the only answer and while it will surely not happen in the current political environment, there may be circumstances in the future when the international community would be more tollerant of this sort of thing.

in your dreams

When France returns Alsace-Lorraine to Germany, we'll consider it.

not a single alsacien wants to return to germany, believe me! besides Alsace-lorraine is recognised by the entire world as being part of france. what a silly comparison...

How naive do you have to be to suggest putting Arafat in charge of dismantling the terror organizations? (This was condition #1 of the Road Map, by the way.) If it's not naivete that motivates such a comment, it must be outright glee at the prospect of more dead Jews.

arafat prooved in the past to be dedicated to peace if israel is as well. He still is, but needs assistance perhaps from more modern leaders more in touch with reality and in better health.

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:


what difference does that make?


Big difference.



even Kaddafi seems nowadays to come to terms with Europe and the us, so why not Assad?


Because Israel is no Europe or US. Israel is located in the Middle East. The reason why Israel would not accomodate Assad is because he is Assad.


you made peace with Egypt and jordan as well which aren't exactly democracies are they?


Peace with Egypt costs US 2 billion dollars yearly and US will never give the same offer to Syria.



in fact dictatorships are more reliable since a democratic system means another government doesn't necessarily agree to the principles signed by his predecessor...


On the contrary Democracies are much more dependable to keeping treaties already in place!!!!!!!!!! If anything it's dictatorships that have this interesting ability to change their mind. As I told you before Democracies have two very important qualities: Transparancy and Predictability. The latter is something that dictatorships lack.

[takeo]

If anything the international community would never approve Ethnic Cleansing. I would personally relinquish all the support of Israel - being a Jew and a human being - if it would ever happen. A transfer would be a very bloody and inhumane affair and it would condemn the Democratic nation for generations to come.

idem dito


As much as I am against the transfer I do not desagree that it is a solution. The other solution is unilateral separation by Israel on Israeli terms (the best approach - in my opinion). The third solution is forceful introduction of a third party where the third party would enforce the solution. Fourth approach is to continue with this idiotic present approach or rely on the good will of the parties involved and specifically on the political strength of the Palestinians and the political interest of the Arab states.

all those are theoretical solutions which will never work in reality.

Sorry I don't smoke weed.

is it legalised in illinois?





At any rate this is all in a vacuum. All the 'lamb lies down with the lion' thinking ignores the other 2 million Palestinians in neighboring countries who will be pogrommed out of those countries and marched across the borders to Palestine. The international community will do nothing abou this either because if there is only one thing they are more indifferent to than dead Jews, it's arab on arab genocide.

actually the worst off will leave for israel while the more wealthy ones, certainly with compensation, will be more easily integrated in the country of residence.


BS. The fundamental flaw in your arguments appears to be that you perceive the Palstinian leadership to be both rational and to have adopted as an objective function the maximization of the welfare of their population. This has been demonstrated time and time again to be false, and it takes quite the leap of faith to believe it now. I do not. They are not interested in peace.

your conclusions are false


Comparisons to Egypt and Syria, on the other hand, are not apt at all. Egypt was interested in peace, while Syria (which was ROUNDLY defeated in '73 (the Israelis could have taken Damascus had the USSR not put paratroopers there) has still not made peace with Israel. The two countries are still in a state of war. And Syria will NOT accomodate for peace with Israel. Where you come up with this stuff is beyond me (maybe its crack you smoke ). There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it will, and there is ample evidence to suggest the contrary. they may be afraid of Israel and that is why they are financing terrorists instead of armies, but you are living in a dream world if you think they are a peaceful well-intentioned country. Delusion is what got Israel into the situation it is in now, believe the PA really intended to be bound by its commitments and allow Israel to live in peace. And more delusion will only get more of the same, regardless of the nobility of intentions.

syria made clear time after time its willing to recognise israel on the condition israel returns the golan-heights, the only problem during negociations was how much golan should be given back.



WHAT?!? It is in their interests to stop fighting now. It was never in their interests to start fighting in the first place. Are you really naive enough to believe that their leadership is interested in the people's best interests, or even that the people are interested in their own best interests rather than in bringing down Israel? Again, dream world. You want to explain to me how they will relinquish the sacred 'right of return' ? the refugees wallowing in Arab camps who have been brainwashed to believe this 'right' is an inalienable entitlement will not support peace without it, and there will be no peace with it.

the right of return is a un-resolution and will happen sooner or later, it is even included in the roadmap. the first intifadeh led to the oslo-proces, so clearly resisting the occupation is in their interest (but not the killing of innocent people)


As for your number 2, isn't that exactly what Israel did this time at the start of this 'intifada'? Reprisals to provide incentive for deterrence. problem is, it didn't work. the Palestinian leadership and the terroirst groups were prepared to destroy Palestinian society (both physically and through dis-education), consequences be damned. You don't think the 50+% of the Palestinian population (both domestic and in Arab refugee camps) that want to see Israel destroyed will stop when instead they can have a $5 a week job at the car wash because they were never educated in anything but jihad and hatred, do you?

they already gain more than that, but anyway yes they would, palestinians want economic devellopment very badly, but they also aknowledge this requires an end to the occupation.



Yes. The PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad et. al. All of them. The 'PA' is really just the PLO. It has always just been the PLO. They have lied and cheated and manipulated themselves into 'legitimate' actors in this whole event, yet they are nothing of the sort. Yasser Arafat never in reality rejected or abandoned violence. He only shelved it for tactical reasons. He, and his organization, are terrorists. The Palestinian people need to be 'de-nazified' from all of their programming (not as bad as the North Koreans do, but the same type of thing).

insanity. the plo was a resistance organisation as anywhere in the colonised world, it is the most moderate of all palestinian organisations. In postwar germany many germans didn't like nazism so denazification was easy, in palestine every single palestinian is engaged in their national liberation, which by the way isn't as close to nazism as israel's Eretz Israel-ambitions are. the so called "denazification" of iraq didn't succeed either, because many people still support the baathist party, the same reason why the nazi's "desovietisation" during WWII completely failed. you will have to live with the plo, like it or not. the alternative is hamas, jihad or al-aqsa...


In reality there are a series of temporary stop gaps and partial solutions. the only real solution will take decades to implement and involves effort similar to the American efforts in Japan and Germany after WWII. The Palestinian society needs to be rebuilt from the ground up by enlightened foreign masters. Not a nice thing to say, but without it there will never ever be any peace.

the japanese and german society were never rebuild from the ground, and never had foreign masters. the germans and japanese did it all themselves (even the japanese emperor stayed), they just changed sides because the allied could offer them once again an independant and strong state. Israel can't offer anything like this to the palestinians. the case of iraq, and before colonialism, shows that without the population cooperating nd without strong incentives nothing can be achieved.

[takeo]

Peace with Egypt costs US 2 billion dollars yearly and US will never give the same offer to Syria.

no need to, Syria wants the golan heights, that's it.


On the contrary Democracies are much more dependable to keeping treaties already in place!!!!!!!!!! If anything it's dictatorships that have this interesting ability to change their mind. As I told you before Democracies have two very important qualities: Transparancy and Predictability. The latter is something that dictatorships lack.

so what about netanyahu not agreeing to the oslo-process? what about Bush refusing to implement kyoto? etc. ...
most democracies as well lack transparancy and predictability.
I would rather be a businessman in China or singapore than in India or bangladesh...

[takeo]

Not to mention 'TakeØ's plan' was the Barak deal.. give or take.

And the Palestinians counteroffer was the Intifada.

Interesting also .. TakeØ wants to unlelect the Goverment that was a result of the Arab rejection, Sharon, while keeping Arafat, who has failed to negotiate or honor agreements with every other Israel' PM of any party for 36 years.

no, there's a big difference!
barak's offer was even a far cry of the rather unclear oslo-agreements, and didn't promise to give back the occupied territories, only scattered parts of it without real borders as any independant state.

of course Arafat should be elected as well during new elections, but I'm sure that Arafat is more willing to commit to the two-state solution than the government-sharon is. perhaps, as i said, sharon would be realistic enough to accept such a solution, but parts of his own party and certainly his coalition-partners certainly wouldn't. They don't even agree to ceasing the settlement-activity! arafat got along pretty well with rabin and perez, untill the first one got assasinated (not by a palestinian, remember, and some members of this forum are still searching for excuses to legitimise this crime) which was the beginning of the end of the peace-process.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by takeo
no, there's a big difference!
barak's offer was even a far cry of the rather unclear oslo-agreements, and didn't promise to give back the occupied territories, only scattered parts of it without real borders as any independant state.

of course Arafat should be elected as well during new elections, but I'm sure that Arafat is more willing to commit to the two-state solution than the government-sharon is.....


If the Palestinians/Arafat wanted peace they could have made a counteroffer to Barak like " We accept BUT... After 10 years of peace we get more land back to fill in territorial gaps.. after 20 yet more.... after 30.. Yet more/all";
as a confidence building measure that was needed and only earned by time.

Surely even you don't expect Israel to return to thje 1967 lines in exchange for an Arab Promise!
Surely The Golan heights is OFF the table as a Launching platform.

Resolution 242 called on the parties to Negotiate "secure and recognized boundaries", and recognized Israel's need for more defendable borders. Language proposed to return "all" or "the" terrirories was specifically rejected in favor of just 'territories' in recognition that new boundaries would have to be drawn.
(Lest I have to go tthrough the basics of 242 again)

[Mediocrates]

It doesn't matter what Arafat claims to commit to. His word has always been and will always be worthless. It matters not at all what rigged up crazy noises they call an election to proclaim their once and future king. Mental patients, crackheads, the mafia, people waiting for the silver spaceship can all hold elections. Saddam was elected, so was Kim, so was Stalin and Hoxha and all sorts of dictators. Elections can me meaningless. And all of the claims those 'elected' make are meaningless too.

No the world is paying lip service to not agreeing to assassinate Arafat but you should disabuse yourself of any delusions that anyone or any country thinks he should be involved in any negotiations or that he is capable of distinguishing truth from insanity. The world, your precious EU would be embarassed if they suddenly proclaimed that their annointed Jew killer was a bad man who couldn't 'make peace'. It would make their own contributions of billions of dollars to his cause look too much like blood money and an a 'contract' taken out on a whole nation, a whole people.

Which, if you weren't such a raving antisemite yourself you'd see that for the bald truth it is. So they take a soft middle ground. Don't kill or exile or arrest Arafat but let him degrade himself into his own irrelvant dotage.

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:


so what about netanyahu not agreeing to the oslo-process?


How did he disagree on the oslo-process?


what about Bush refusing to implement kyoto? etc. ...


1. Bush never agreed to Koyoto
2. The world knew American reaction to Koyoto
3. Do you know why America refused Koyoto?


most democracies as well lack transparancy and predictability.


Really?????? Apparently your experience is really limited to the Democracy you live in. If anything dictatorial regimes with no freedom of press, freedom of speech and any kind of other freedoms of expression are neither transparent or predictable.

I would rather be a businessman in China or singapore than in India or bangladesh...

Good luck. Dude, you started out well on this thread but now you are sinking again. You should go to China and become a businessman - I wish you all the best.

[Mil]

Posted by Tokeo:

no need to, Syria wants the golan heights, that's it.

If anything Syria wants a comprehensive peace treaty with Israel in accordance to its own rules - at least that's would Hafez stood on. As it concerns the Golan at the least Israel would keep the mountains up until Syria exits Lebanon but in reality until there are going to be really serious changes in Damascus.


the japanese and german society were never rebuild from the ground,

Takeo Germany was pretty much rebuild from the ground up, physically rebuilt, mostly on the account of USA and USSR.


and never had foreign masters.


United States wrote constitution for both the Japanese and the Germans. The United States created both German and Japanese governments, jump started their economies, resolved the humangous refugee issue and physically provided the funds to rebuild the completely destroyed country.


the germans and japanese did it all themselves (even the japanese emperor stayed), they just changed sides because the allied could offer them once again an independant and strong state.


Little do you know of you neighbor - I am really suprised.


Israel can't offer anything like this to the palestinians.


You are right Israel does not have the resources? Yet it will be essential to the Palestinian economy.


the case of iraq, and before colonialism, shows that without the population cooperating nd without strong incentives nothing can be achieved.

What are you talking about? What colonialism? What cooperation? You are lost - your command of the English language is better then that.

[takeo]

If the Palestinians/Arafat wanted peace they could have made a counteroffer to Barak like " We accept BUT... After 10 years of peace we get more land back to fill in territorial gaps.. after 20 yet more.... after 30.. Yet more/all";
as a confidence building measure that was needed and only earned by time.

Arafat said on many occasions that the Barak-offer could be a starting point for further discussions, but barak said "no", untill the last weeks of his government, when negociations suddenly resumed but all the sudden ended when sharon was elected.

Surely even you don't expect Israel to return to thje 1967 lines in exchange for an Arab Promise!
Surely The Golan heights is OFF the table as a Launching platform.

Israel need to return to the 1967-borders, if it wants peace at least. not in return for promises, in return for achievements, as elaborated in my "roadmap". if israel ever wants peace with syria it will have to return the stolen Golan-heights, if not Syria can continue to be at war with israel which means it can sponsor all kinds of terrorist organisations as well as continue to sponsor the hesbollah. The principle "peace for land" rules here as well... you can't call Syria a vilain-state if you yourself are still occupying a part of this country, an act which makes your own country a vilain.



Resolution 242 called on the parties to Negotiate "secure and recognized boundaries", and recognized Israel's need for more defendable borders. Language proposed to return "all" or "the" terrirories was specifically rejected in favor of just 'territories' in recognition that new boundaries would have to be drawn.
(Lest I have to go tthrough the basics of 242 again)

this resolution called on israel to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967, pretty clear to me!
israel is also called on to return to recognised borders, which of course means the borders recognised by the entire world in 1949, when israel became a member of the un. Any futile attempt to keep part of the occupied territories( without giving anything in return) will make peace impossible, this is a conclusion to memorise!

It doesn't matter what Arafat claims to commit to. His word has always been and will always be worthless. It matters not at all what rigged up crazy noises they call an election to proclaim their once and future king. Mental patients, crackheads, the mafia, people waiting for the silver spaceship can all hold elections. Saddam was elected, so was Kim, so was Stalin and Hoxha and all sorts of dictators. Elections can me meaningless. And all of the claims those 'elected' make are meaningless too.

arafat's election was approved by the un and the us alike, according to the principles of modern multi-party elections. it's not his fault that the plo at that time was tremendously popular.

No the world is paying lip service to not agreeing to assassinate Arafat but you should disabuse yourself of any delusions that anyone or any country thinks he should be involved in any negotiations or that he is capable of distinguishing truth from insanity. The world, your precious EU would be embarassed if they suddenly proclaimed that their annointed Jew killer was a bad man who couldn't 'make peace'. It would make their own contributions of billions of dollars to his cause look too much like blood money and an a 'contract' taken out on a whole nation, a whole people.

the eu, china, Russia, etc. still recognise arafat as the leader of the palestinian people and visited him in this position.

How did he disagree on the oslo-process?

oh man, i could write a whole threat on that! but just visit the website of the israeli peace-movement gush shalom , they made an interactive map on which all the new settlements are indicated build when he was prime minister, as well as the agreed upon withdrawels he didn't achieve.

1. Bush never agreed to Koyoto
2. The world knew American reaction to Koyoto
3. Do you know why America refused Koyoto?

bush didn't, but clinton did, as the president of the us, so Bush should respect the treaties signed by his predecessor. 3, yes more or less.

Really?????? Apparently your experience is really limited to the Democracy you live in. If anything dictatorial regimes with no freedom of press, freedom of speech and any kind of other freedoms of expression are neither transparent or predictable.

nor are most democracies, not even the us. The iraq-crisis was a good example, very few people knew the truth about the WMD, which was not communicated to the outside world.


Good luck. Dude, you started out well on this thread but now you are sinking again. You should go to China and become a businessman - I wish you all the best.

well i know businessmen who had experience on all those countries and he assured me china was paradise compared to some of those "democracies", where corruption is almost legal, the autority of the government week, and every new government completely rids itself of the laws and the policy of its predecessor, which of course leads to chaos.

If anything Syria wants a comprehensive peace treaty with Israel in accordance to its own rules - at least that's would Hafez stood on. As it concerns the Golan at the least Israel would keep the mountains up until Syria exits Lebanon but in reality until there are going to be really serious changes in Damascus.

so in fact here you admit that not syria but israel is refusing to talk about peace!!!


Takeo Germany was pretty much rebuild from the ground up, physically rebuilt, mostly on the account of USA and USSR.

absolutely BS, most big german factories still worked and most cities and houses were still undamaged. the economic structure didn't change much, only eastern Germany was pretty much rebuild from the ground, the West wasn't at all.

United States wrote constitution for both the Japanese and the Germans. The United States created both German and Japanese governments, jump started their economies, resolved the humangous refugee issue and physically provided the funds to rebuild the completely destroyed country.

perhaps but they ruled those countries only very limited time, after which the old parties, this time with a new image and american help, reappeared.



What are you talking about? What colonialism? What cooperation? You are lost - your command of the English language is better then that

I mean in Iraq, the population is not cooperating to the foreign occupiers, who want to reinstall a modern version of coloniasm.

[abu afak]

Originally posted by takeo ]Arafat said on many occasions that the Barak-offer could be a starting point for further discussions, but barak said "no", untill the last weeks of his government, when negociations suddenly resumed but all the sudden ended when sharon was elected.

No he didn't ... until well after he realized he blew a Peace deal and started an Intifada First.
Sharon was elected 4 Months after Arafat started the Intifada against Barak/Israel. .. and because he started it.
You revisionist idiots get your cause-and-effect mixed up.


this resolution called on israel to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967, pretty clear to me!
israel is also called on to return to recognised borders, which of course means the borders recognised by the entire world in 1949, when israel became a member of the un. Any futile attempt to keep part of the occupied territories( without giving anything in return) will make peace impossible, this is a conclusion to memorise!
Guess again.
See the 242 'discussion'/Lesson I gave Mil on the first page of this string:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=3355



arafat's election was approved by the un and the us alike, according to the principles of modern multi-party elections. it's not his fault that the plo at that time was tremendously popular.

That's funny, Sharon was elected too.
They elected him and re-elected him to deal with the Illegal Intifada that Arafat started as a Counteroffer to Barak.

Try again take0.

[humus_sapiens]

Originally posted by takeo
arafat's election was approved by the un and the us alike, according to the principles of modern multi-party elections. it's not his fault that the plo at that time was tremendously popular.


Arafat is not the elected leader of the Palestinian People. He was
"elected" (the Stalin, Brezhnev or Saddam-style "elections") to a 5-year term in Jan 1996. His term expired in Jan 2001. He has been holding power illegally since then. About multiparty: his only contender was 70-year old woman. She looked illiterate and totally clueless.


the eu, china, Russia, etc. still recognise arafat as the leader of the palestinian people and visited him in this position.


Congratulations to EU, China, and Russia. They support a career genocidal totalitarian dictator. BTW, this is not the first time.

Remember the advice of the Deep Throat: "Follow the money"?
Th PA officials' salaries are paid by the EU, but Arafat and his cronies are skimming off up to 15% in income taxes and using it for their own causes. It's excellent business.

Abbas: "Personally, I don't know where those funds go, when we wanted to cancel them, they said: 'You're harming the intifada.' "

From Arafat's interview of 1968: "We aim to disrupt [Israeli] society. Insecurity will make a mess of their agriculture and commerce. It will halt immigration and encourage emigration. We will even disrupt their tourist industry."

He established FATAH/PLO in 1964 with this goal and has never abandoned it. We are talking not about a supporter of terror, but about the inventor of it as a political mean. The fact that you support him says a lot about you.

[eyl]

Originally posted by takeo
Arafat did do a rather good job in the 90's, restraining terror even if it had quite some sympathy amog palestinian population, perhaps he didn't do the job torough enough, but i surely remember in the 90's AI criticising the PA for putting hamas-sympathisers behind bars...
the failure of Oslo is mainly the responsability of netanyahu and barak, who never really believed in an independant palestinian state by 1999 as promised by oslo.

That's somewhat revisionist. Until 1996, the PA's actions against Hamas and its ilk were rather desultory. In 1996, Arafat did act against Hamas, but that was only following Israeli threats to invade following a series of suicide bombing in March or so that year (want to place any guesses as to how long the "Hamas sympathisers" stayed behind bars?). And about half a year later, PA security forces attacked Israeli troops in a number of incidents.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by takeo
1) a new center-leftwing Israeli government gets elected (a necessary condition for peace) labour-meretz preferably.
2) Israel, together with its allies the US, the EU, Russia and the UN starts to regularly discuss the peace-proces, to assure international backing, assistance and more importantly financial contributions to peace.
3) Israel invites Arafat and his associates to Jerusalem for high-level talks. the message is very clear and the further steps are laid out. Arafat must agree.
4) step one: arafat must start dismantling terrorist organisations immidiately and with all means available, he will get all assistance from Israel and the international community doing so. Dismantling means imprisonment of the entire military wing of hamas, jihad, al-aqsa, etc. as well as severe restrictions and dismantling of the civil wing of those organisations. This action must be torough and well organised, every single local cell of the organisations must be outrooted, any resistance must be dealt with accordingly and 1000's of people will be put behind bars. this must be accompanied by heavy propaganda on pâlestinian television against the organisations who jeopardise peace. the israeli army withdraws from all the territories held by the pa.
5) in the meanwhile, Israel starts to remove settlements, forcefully if necessary, any resistance of the armed settlers must be dealt with accordingly. the pace of the removal will depend upon the pace of the palestinian fight against terror and its successes. it becomes clear to the palestinians that, if they really fight terror, a palestinian state will become reality. the resettlement of the settlers will be paid for by the international community.
6) this step indicates that most settlements have been removed and the terror has been stopped, hamas, jihad and al-aqsa are as good as outrooted and chased upon, no more suicide-attacks inside Israel appear. now the final solution for the area will be discussed upon on an international conference with the un, us, Europe, Russia, the Arab neighbouring countries, etc.
7) Israel withdraws totally from the occupied territories and is replaced by an international force, guarding the borders and assuring the agreements will be executed. some parts of the wb and eastern jerusalem will be annexed to israel while some parts of israel will cease to be a part of israel and get under the autority of the pa and the protection of foreign troops. the agreements include palestinians continuing to fight terror, a large non-military border zone as well as giving free acces to israeli tourists to do holy Jewish monuments.
8) a few 100's of 1000's of palestinian refugees will return to israel from all over the world, if they don't have a terrorist past, papers proving their claim and swear allegiance to the laws of Israel. they will be a very necessary cheap labour because peace made the israeli economy expanding once again. their houses and constructions will be lagely paid for by the international community.
9) the pa and irael sign a non-aggression treaty and treaty of mutual aid in the struggle against crime and terrorism. Also economic treaties and freetrade agreements get signed.
10) israel reconsiders as well with syria and lebanon, promising them to give back the holan-heights and draw a new border according to the 1948 border. Syria in turn has to close all terrorist offices, turn over the suspects, sign a non-aggression treaty and recognise israel.
11) the palestinian state becomes independant, and both neighbours immidiately recognise eachother.

G-d, takeo, this takes the cake, what have you been smoking? I stay away for a while and you get into all kinds of mischief without my stabilizing influence...The one and only way to peace in the Middle East is for Israel to kill the terrorists before they kill Israelis. To paraphrase your motto, Israelis have no friends or allies but themselves. Least of all are the EU, UN and Russia friends of Israel, and next to least of all is the fact that there will never be a 'Palestinian' state- since 1948 the 'Palestinians' have rejected numerous opportunities to have their own nation and it is now abundantly clear that all the Arabs want is to murder Jews, but they do not want a 'Palestinian' state living in peace with Israel. Face reality, takeo.

[eyl]

Originally posted by takeo
Arafat said on many occasions that the Barak-offer could be a starting point for further discussions, but barak said "no", untill the last weeks of his government, when negociations suddenly resumed but all the sudden ended when sharon was elected.


Incorrect. Sharon was elected only several months after the intifada started (and until it had, he was considered to be pretty much unelectable)


Israel need to return to the 1967-borders, if it wants peace at least. not in return for promises, in return for achievements, as elaborated in my "roadmap". if israel ever wants peace with syria it will have to return the stolen Golan-heights,

Are you aware that under the pre-1967 borders, Syria effectively anenxes land it took from Israel in the 1950s? Oddly enough, you'll find few people calling the Syrians on that.

if not Syria can continue to be at war with israel which means it can sponsor all kinds of terrorist organisations as well as continue to sponsor the hesbollah. The principle "peace for land" rules here as well... you can't call Syria a vilain-state if you yourself are still occupying a part of this country, an act which makes your own country a vilain.

Interesting. Are you saying terrorism is a legitimate form of war when sponsored by a state?


this resolution called on israel to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967, pretty clear to me!
israel is also called on to return to recognised borders, which of course means the borders recognised by the entire world in 1949, when israel became a member of the un. Any futile attempt to keep part of the occupied territories( without giving anything in return) will make peace impossible, this is a conclusion to memorise!

Resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw to return "territory", not "the territory". The difference isn't a semantical slip; there were intensive negotiations as to whether to include the "the" or not.

bush didn't, but clinton did, as the president of the us, so Bush should respect the treaties signed by his predecessor. 3, yes more or less.

IIRC, Clinton signed the agrrement, but it still had to be ratified by the US Senate to bind the US - which it wasn't.

[Miriam]

I'm OK, thanks :)


now if you'd only put the names of the people you reply to in your posts..............

Originally posted by takeo
so actually people can't really object to my plan it's not all too original, hardly "your" plan and a considerable improvement over what I remember from your previous posts ;)


except that they think palestinians will never commit to their promises. But what about Israel, meaning that if I. doesn't keep its side of the bargain it's OK for the P.s not to keep theirs? ah, but then goodbye to the lovely peace plan one way or other?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re. 1: How can a demand to elect a specific government function in a democratic country? (Imagine an improvement plan for France: "§1 - Jospin gets elected in place of Chirac" )

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

nothing new is it? The US doesn't recognise the elected president Arafat, the us openly threated the nicaraguan and bolivian people to stop all economic cooperation if they would elect a left-winger, Allende, ... etc. just some examples, there are many more. so what, sorry?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re. 8: What makes you think the refugees in question would be interested in performing dirty work in Israel?

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

because it would still be a huge improvement compared to their situation today. the once who have a comfortable life probably won't move to Israel but agree upon compensation.
let's hope the'll see it that way, today they seem mainly to harbour hopes to dispossess Israelis once they come into the country

still, I think the crucial point is what I wrote about 4 & 6 (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=65191#post65191), that uprooting terrorism might turn out to be too costly even for a well-meaning Pal. government

[Miriam]

Originally posted by eyl
That's somewhat revisionist. Until 1996, the PA's actions against Hamas and its ilk were rather desultory. In 1996, Arafat did act against Hamas, but that was only following Israeli threats to invade following a series of suicide bombing in March or so that year (want to place any guesses as to how long the "Hamas sympathisers" stayed behind bars?). And about half a year later, PA security forces attacked Israeli troops in a number of incidents.

if you were to determine a liveable-with form of Pal. governance, what would it be?

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Miriam
if you were to determine a liveable-with form of Pal. governance, what would it be?

Dead is the only 'liveable-with' form of 'Palestinian' government I can imagine, and BTW it nauseates me to see those barbaric thugs called 'Pals'... I deduce you are a leftist, no?

[Mil]

Posted by Takeo:


nor are most democracies, not even the us.


I know France is an excetional democracy :)


The iraq-crisis was a good example, very few people knew the truth about the WMD, which was not communicated to the outside world.


Or the French building nukes for Saddam back in the eighties - the same... right?



well i know businessmen who had experience on all those countries and he assured me china was paradise compared to some of those "democracies", where corruption is almost legal, the autority of the government week, and every new government completely rids itself of the laws and the policy of its predecessor, which of course leads to chaos.

Apparently you never owned a business. I'll skip this particular rhetoric of yours to later laugh on the conclusions.


so in fact here you admit that not syria but israel is refusing to talk about peace!!!


You are pretty much right. Not until there are going to be serious changes in Damscus would there be any serious negotiations with Syria.



absolutely BS, most big german factories still worked and most cities and houses were still undamaged.


Actually no. Most of Germany was completely destroyed including all most all of the major cities and industrial centers such as the entire Ruhr region.


the economic structure didn't change much,


I know - by May 9th there was no economic structure...


only eastern Germany was pretty much rebuild from the ground, the West wasn't at all.

Are you for real? If you are trying to prove a point without knowing much on what you are talking about at least try not to bulls***t your way through... My advice is for you to avoid commenting on things you barely know. You compatriot TDier promised us some numbers of the Marshall plan yet he apparently ditched out - so I ask you....


perhaps but they ruled those countries only very limited time, after which the old parties, this time with a new image and american help, reappeared.

US occupation forces left Japan in 1956 or 11 years after the war. United States still holds bases in Germany or almost 60 years after the war. In reality American influence of German politics ended with the coming of Adenauer in the early 50 or in reality around the death of Stalin. Actually if you read the UN charter correctly I believe chapter 4 or 5 deals specifically with Germany and the former Axis - the clause was abandoned sometime around the late 50s. So basically US oversaw Germany for over 15 years post WWII.




I mean in Iraq, the population is not cooperating to the foreign occupiers, who want to reinstall a modern version of coloniasm.

Or rather the occupiers who want to rebuild Iraq in the same fashion to which they did in Germany.

[takeo]

No he didn't ... until well after he realized he blew a Peace deal and started an Intifada First.
Sharon was elected 4 Months after Arafat started the Intifada against Barak/Israel. .. and because he started it.
You revisionist idiots get your cause-and-effect mixed up.

the early launch of the second intifadeh without waiting for more proposals was a mistake, but it was made worse by the israeli violent response: 100's of demonstrators killed, israeli arab demonstrations bloodily oppressed (for which this latest week the Israeli high court blamed the israeli autorities). the intifadeh started because of a general palestinian outrage over the failed osloproces and israeli broken promises, oslo actually made palestinian life worse in stead of better(the formal cause was the visit of ariel sharon to the temple mount). Than both parties however reconciled and new peacetalks started, abruptly ended by the new prime minister Ariel Sharon.


That's funny, Sharon was elected too.
They elected him and re-elected him to deal with the Illegal Intifada that Arafat started as a Counteroffer to Barak.

Try again take0.

yes, as in palestinian society war and violence actually rewards the extremists, this is all over the world.


Arafat is not the elected leader of the Palestinian People. He was
"elected" (the Stalin, Brezhnev or Saddam-style "elections") to a 5-year term in Jan 1996. His term expired in Jan 2001. He has been holding power illegally since then. About multiparty: his only contender was 70-year old woman. She looked illiterate and totally clueless.

anyone could have participated in those elections, hamas refused to do so it was their decision, not Arafat's. since 2000 elections are impossible because of the war going on, israel in the current conditions would make elections impossible.

Congratulations to EU, China, and Russia. They support a career genocidal totalitarian dictator. BTW, this is not the first time.

BS, they support peace between two nations, while you support a war-criminal.


From Arafat's interview of 1968: "We aim to disrupt [Israeli] society. Insecurity will make a mess of their agriculture and commerce. It will halt immigration and encourage emigration. We will even disrupt their tourist industry."

in that time there wasn't peace and israel just declared war upon the entire arab world and palestinian people.

He established FATAH/PLO in 1964 with this goal and has never abandoned it. We are talking not about a supporter of terror, but about the inventor of it as a political mean. The fact that you support him says a lot about you.

arafat was supported by the israeli leades and the us back in the 90's, remember? the establishment of the plo/fatah was a reaction to illegal israeli occupation, an act of war which legitimises acts of violence (but not against civilians)

G-d, takeo, this takes the cake, what have you been smoking? I stay away for a while and you get into all kinds of mischief without my stabilizing influence...The one and only way to peace in the Middle East is for Israel to kill the terrorists before they kill Israelis. To paraphrase your motto, Israelis have no friends or allies but themselves. Least of all are the EU, UN and Russia friends of Israel, and next to least of all is the fact that there will never be a 'Palestinian' state- since 1948 the 'Palestinians' have rejected numerous opportunities to have their own nation and it is now abundantly clear that all the Arabs want is to murder Jews, but they do not want a 'Palestinian' state living in peace with Israel. Face reality, takeo.

so what's your solution, genocide of the palestinian people? my solution is on the contrary a reasonable one, a roadmap were both sides are forced into compliance, unlike Oslo. both sides, that's right, while you would prefere one-sided pressure! people like netanyahu would never again be in a position to postpone or block the withdrawel without facing the consequences.


Incorrect. Sharon was elected only several months after the intifada started (and until it had, he was considered to be pretty much unelectable)

that's right, of course, and a consequence of both palestinian and barak mismanagement of the popular uprising. But sharon couldn't find any solutions, could he? His policy prooved to be even worse than barak's, and the encouraging peacetalks during the last weeks of barak's government have been cancelled.



Are you aware that under the pre-1967 borders, Syria effectively anenxes land it took from Israel in the 1950s? Oddly enough, you'll find few people calling the Syrians on that.

that's right, but this won't be taken into account and was an illegal action, all that matters are the 1949-borders for the international community.


Interesting. Are you saying terrorism is a legitimate form of war when sponsored by a state?

it depends what kind of terrorism, if it's targetting hostile countries but no civilians it can be legitimate. the us by the way is specialising in this kind of terrorist activities for many decades. (afghanistan, Cuba, chile, nicaragua, the list goes on...)


Resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw to return "territory", not "the territory". The difference isn't a semantical slip; there were intensive negotiations as to whether to include the "the" or not.

yes, but the result is the same "territories occupied during the recent conflict" is as clear as it can get...

now if you'd only put the names of the people you reply to in your posts..............

I know, i'll work on it... next post ;)

[takeo]

it's not all too original, hardly "your" plan and a considerable improvement over what I remember from your previous posts

thanks, but it has some features which makes it better, according to me, than Bush' roadmap.

meaning that if I. doesn't keep its side of the bargain it's OK for the P.s not to keep theirs? ah, but then goodbye to the lovely peace plan one way or other?

yes, indeed if one side doesn't keep its promises there's no peace-plan at all, but of course it's only temporarily untill both sides aknowledge they'd better go along the peace-process (the international community should also pressure both sides, and blackmail them financially...)




let's hope the'll see it that way, today they seem mainly to harbour hopes to dispossess Israelis once they come into the country

i think that's incorrect, look to the israeli palestinians as an example.

still, I think the crucial point is what I wrote about 4 & 6, that uprooting terrorism might turn out to be too costly even for a well-meaning Pal. government

that's why they need international assistance.


Dead is the only 'liveable-with' form of 'Palestinian' government I can imagine, and BTW it nauseates me to see those barbaric thugs called 'Pals'... I deduce you are a leftist, no?

so you are in favor of genocide??? does it make me a leftist to despise such ideas?

Or the French building nukes for Saddam back in the eighties - the same... right?

ok, the same thing...




Apparently you never owned a business. I'll skip this particular rhetoric of yours to later laugh on the conclusions.

apparently you never did any business in India...




You are pretty much right. Not until there are going to be serious changes in Damscus would there be any serious negotiations with Syria.

ok, than stop blaming syria, since israel is the one refusing peace-talks; and of course as long as israel occupies the golan-heights, noone will really blame syria supporting terror-groups.


Actually no. Most of Germany was completely destroyed including all most all of the major cities and industrial centers such as the entire Ruhr region.

that's simply not true!
lots of cities were in ruins, but many others escaped the war without much damage, and the entire industrial infrastructure was damaged but not destroyed, exactly the same industrial groups reappeared after the war with the same people around and the same money (some of it by slave-labour)


Are you for real? If you are trying to prove a point without knowing much on what you are talking about at least try not to bulls***t your way through... My advice is for you to avoid commenting on things you barely know. You compatriot TDier promised us some numbers of the Marshall plan yet he apparently ditched out - so I ask you....

the marshall plan benefitted all of western europe including Turkey. if you look today to the sorry state of the Turkish economy it wasn't so important after all. the countries not receiving any marshall-money did pretty well, such as Finland.



US occupation forces left Japan in 1956 or 11 years after the war. United States still holds bases in Germany or almost 60 years after the war. In reality American influence of German politics ended with the coming of Adenauer in the early 50 or in reality around the death of Stalin. Actually if you read the UN charter correctly I believe chapter 4 or 5 deals specifically with Germany and the former Axis - the clause was abandoned sometime around the late 50s. So basically US oversaw Germany for over 15 years post WWII.

basically germany was divided by GB, France, the soviet-union and GB, so not only the us, and the foreign occupation didn't really have any political power since the late 40's. Germans and japanese build their society after the war in the '50's completely independant and according to a european, not American, economic model. much of the old industrial groups and people just reappeared in the new germany, while the same parties as in the weimar-republic reappeared as well (except the outlawed NSDAP)




Or rather the occupiers who want to rebuild Iraq in the same fashion to which they did in Germany.

it won't succeed since iraqi's are not cooperating and the us is trying to rebuilt iraq as a colonial power.

[humus_sapiens]

humus_sapiens:
Arafat was "elected" (the Stalin, Brezhnev or Saddam-style "elections") to a 5-year term in Jan 1996. His term expired in Jan 2001. He has been holding power illegally since then.

takeo:
anyone could have participated in those elections, hamas refused to do so it was their decision, not Arafat's. since 2000 elections are impossible because of the war going on, israel in the current conditions would make elections impossible.

Takeo is yet to find a genocidal tyrant he doesn't like. He is ready to replace legally elected Ariel Sharon, but doesn't have any problem leaving illegal despot in place. None of Arab states is a democracy, but that doesn't bother him a bit.

humus_sapiens:
He established FATAH/PLO in 1964 with this goal and has never abandoned it.

takeo:
arafat was supported by the israeli leades and the us back in the 90's, remember? the establishment of the plo/fatah was a reaction to illegal israeli occupation, an act of war which legitimises acts of violence (but not against civilians)


You're not good with neither the logic nor the arithmetic. What comes first, 1964 or 1967? What comes first, waves of bloody Arab revolts and never-ending pogroms (against the Jews) of 1921, 1929, 1936 or the phony "occupation" of 1967? Phony because the land has never belonged to the Palestinians. The previous rulers - the Ottomans-Brits-Jordan/Egypt were unable to spark as much Arab outrage as victory of "dhimmi Yahoodin".

As for Israel's support in the 90s, they trusted him, because they desperately seek peace for the both peoples. They stupidly decided to give him another chance despite of what he's done in Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon...

He failed his own people far too many times. Time for him to go is long overdue. Those who support him are either ignorant, or sick. What's your choice?

[takeo]

Takeo is yet to find a genocidal tyrant he doesn't like. He is ready to replace legally elected Ariel Sharon, but doesn't have any problem leaving illegal despot in place. None of Arab states is a democracy, but that doesn't bother him a bit.

this isn't an answer to my reply, in which i said Arafat was elected democratically, so clearly he's not a tyrant. by the way i dislike most tyrants, and i can list a considerable number of tyrants supported by your country...


You're not good with neither the logic nor the arithmetic. What comes first, 1964 or 1967? What comes first, waves of bloody Arab revolts and never-ending pogroms (against the Jews) of 1921, 1929, 1936 or the phony "occupation" of 1967? Phony because the land has never belonged to the Palestinians. The previous rulers - the Ottomans-Brits-Jordan/Egypt were unable to spark as much Arab outrage as victory of "dhimmi Yahoodin".

by invading in 1967 israel gave the palestinians a good and legitimate reason to fight Israel, and the occupation of 1967 wasn't related to any of the facts you were listing above...
of course the land belongs to the palestinians, they were the people who lived there as a majority for many generations, whatever foreign occupier ruled there.



As for Israel's support in the 90s, they trusted him, because they desperately seek peace for the both peoples. They stupidly decided to give him another chance despite of what he's done in Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon...

Arafat did a rather good job in the 90's, so much that many palestinians accused him of being a puppet of Israel. But finally Israel just postponed all the promises and continued building new settlements etc. while real independance was nowhere to be seen...



He failed his own people far too many times. Time for him to go is long overdue. Those who support him are either ignorant, or sick. What's your choice?

He will go once there will be elections in palestine and the palestinian people decides they want another leader, or once he decides to quit and leave power to someone else. untill this happens you will have to deal with him, like the palestinians will have to deal with the warcriminal sharon, like it or not.
Of course there's yet another possibility, israel murdering him, but this for sure will block all peace-negociations for decades to come and a free ticket for hamas to take over entirely the palestinian society, with devastating consequences for israel and the palestinians alike. this in turn will reenforce the israeli ultra-hawks to accomplish their "transfer"-plan... and this on its turn will lead to a war of israel against the entire Moslim world. i see where you're heading to... the big "clash of civilisations"... rather unfortunately for you once israel passes a certain red line (such as massive etnic cleansing or genocide of the palestinians) the west will stop to support israel, but some politicians in israel are too filled with revenge, ideological doctrine and blind anger to understand this.

[Mediocrates]

2834 posts of expect and demand nothing from the Palestinians. On that I agree with you . There is zero we can, or should expect or believe coming out of Palestine. Not a single thing. But where we diverge is that even though you think there is only one party at the table, the only course of action for them is 100% capitulation. And you, god knows why, believe any sane person would sign up for there own defeat for their own extinction. I guess when you were a wee lad you were nursed on stories of Ukranian kulaks joyfully sacrificing themselves for Rodina.

At any rate it's just a fairy tale that rational people eventually disabuse themselves of. The only sane policy in truth is one where the Israelis pursue what is good for them and not for the Palestinians. For someone who claims to have a professional understanding of politics this is one massive hole you could drive a Peugeot through.

All of this reframing the past and revising history is not really useful. Entertaining perhaps but useful.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by takeo
so what's your solution, genocide of the palestinian people? my solution is on the contrary a reasonable one, a roadmap were both sides are forced into compliance, unlike Oslo. both sides, that's right, while you would prefere one-sided pressure! people like netanyahu would never again be in a position to postpone or block the withdrawel without facing the consequences.


Even if Israel killed every last Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist, which may be necessary, it would not constitute genocide. These are not innocent people but depraved murderers. Your 'road map' may sound good to you, takeo, but the plain fact which you overlook is that the Arabs do NOT want peace with Israel, so there is nothing to discuss or negotiate.
For example: Nasser challenged Israel to fight almost daily. "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight," he said on May 27.9 The following day, he added: "We will not accept any...coexistence with Israel...Today the issue is not the establishment of peace between the Arab states and Israel....The war with Israel is in effect since 1948."

King Hussein of Jordan signed a defense pact with Egypt on May 30. Nasser then announced:

The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel...to face the challenge, while standing behind us are the armies of Iraq, Algeria, Kuwait, Sudan and the whole Arab nation. This act will astound the world. Today they will know that the Arabs are arranged for battle, the critical hour has arrived. We have reached the stage of serious action and not declarations.

President Abdur Rahman Aref of Iraq joined in the war of words: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear -- to wipe Israel off the map." On June 4, Iraq joined the military alliance with Egypt, Jordan and Syria.

The Arab rhetoric was matched by the mobilization of Arab forces. Approximately 250,000 troops (nearly half in Sinai), more than 2,000 tanks and 700 aircraft ringed Israel...

source: http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/myths/mf6.html

Now you tell me, where does this leave your pipe dream? And don't claim the Arabs have become more willing to make peace since 1964.

[eyl]

Originally posted by takeo
by invading in 1967 israel gave the palestinians a good and legitimate reason to fight Israel

Which conveniently ignores the fact that there was ample terrorism (including by the PLO) well before 1967.

[humus_sapiens]

humus_sapiens:
Arafat was "elected" (the Stalin, Brezhnev or Saddam-style "elections") to a 5-year term in Jan 1996. His term expired in Jan 2001. He has been holding power illegally since then.

takeo:
this isn't an answer to my reply, in which i said Arafat was elected democratically, so clearly he's not a tyrant.


I suspect youu're not as stupid as you pretend to be. Or are you?

takeo:
by invading in 1967 israel gave the palestinians a good and legitimate reason to fight Israel

Why they didn't fight the Jordan and Egypt, before that, and previous occupiers yet before?

takeo:
the occupation of 1967 wasn't related to any of the facts you were listing above...


Exactly! The occupation doesn't have to do with anything. It is their intolerance, inability to compromize, blaming the others and constant resort to terrorism that's the problem. Another problem is their sick irrational "helpers" who'd justify any atrocities against Jews, while claiming high moral grounds.

[takeo]

2834 posts of expect and demand nothing from the Palestinians. On that I agree with you . There is zero we can, or should expect or believe coming out of Palestine. Not a single thing. But where we diverge is that even though you think there is only one party at the table, the only course of action for them is 100% capitulation. And you, god knows why, believe any sane person would sign up for there own defeat for their own extinction. I guess when you were a wee lad you were nursed on stories of Ukranian kulaks joyfully sacrificing themselves for Rodina.

Peace is always two-sided, palestinians said on many occasions they are ready to recognise israel, fight terror etc. if israel is really serious about recognising a palestinians state. so the palestinians have to stop terror from within their society, israel has to stop the colonisers and occupation. Clearly two-sided, each one has their duties...

Israel won't be extinct and disappear by accepting a two-state solution, rather on the contrary, every time israel made peace with an Arab country such as Egypt or jordan, or even the withdrawel from lbanon, prooved to be a positive thing for israel, while the opposers were screaming "defeat, surrender, treason, ..." even oslo would have succeeded if Rabin wouldn't have been assasinated by israeli extremists and if the pa would have been a little tougher on hamas. clearly both sides need to outlaw their own radicals and extremists. Israel's government (even the so-called leftist ones) has too long been a hostage of radical parties, while the pa has too long been afraid of outrooting hamas. i think some people on this board belong to the extremist forces and thus are a burden for peace, which is clearly demonstrated in the outrageous solutions they propose (genocide, etnic cleansing, murder, etc. )




At any rate it's just a fairy tale that rational people eventually disabuse themselves of. The only sane policy in truth is one where the Israelis pursue what is good for them and not for the Palestinians. For someone who claims to have a professional understanding of politics this is one massive hole you could drive a Peugeot through.

the israeli indeed need to persue what's good for them but this means looking to the other side as well, and searching for solutions which are acceptable for both sides. because, without the palestinians compliance there won't be peace.

Even if Israel killed every last Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist, which may be necessary, it would not constitute genocide. These are not innocent people but depraved murderers. Your 'road map' may sound good to you, takeo, but the plain fact which you overlook is that the Arabs do NOT want peace with Israel, so there is nothing to discuss or negotiate.

the problem is that israel can't kill every terrorist, only the palestinians can do so. every terrorist killed by israel will generate a whole new generation of terrorists. it's clear that the current strategy failed, as it failed in all wars of mighty powers against an entire society. (vietnam, afghanistan, the nazi's in yugoslavia, etc.) Only the pa will convince people that terrorism is bad for them, israel won't. but they can only convince them if they can offerc something "look, this is what we'll get if we end hamas and terrorism" clearly "this" means an end to the occupation,and a fullyi independant palestinian state in the occupied territories.


Now you tell me, where does this leave your pipe dream? And don't claim the Arabs have become more willing to make peace since 1964.

yes, i claim so, since a lot has changed since those days. since oslo and camp david more Arabs are willing to recognise israel, and after so many decades most arabs except the die-hard ones recognise israel is there to stay, even syria. today most of the Arab world is on one line with the international community: they recognise israel within its pre-1967 borders if there will be a solution for the refugee-problem and the occupation will end.



Which conveniently ignores the fact that there was ample terrorism (including by the PLO) well before 1967.

ok, but 1967 didn't solve anything, did it? quite on the contrary, it created additional problems for israel, and the high cost of occupation which undermined the economy.


Why they didn't fight the Jordan and Egypt, before that, and previous occupiers yet before?

I'm sure they would sooner or later. there have been insurgencies against the brittish and ottomans, while the palestinians resisted against the jordans in the 70's didn't they? but the israeli occupation facilitated the uprising since the palestinians were threated as dogs, didn't have equal rights as israeli citizens and saw their land colonised by israeli's. this didn't happen during former occupations.



Exactly! The occupation doesn't have to do with anything. It is their intolerance, inability to compromize, blaming the others and constant resort to terrorism that's the problem. Another problem is their sick irrational "helpers" who'd justify any atrocities against Jews, while claiming high moral grounds.

since 1967 the occupation is the core problem. palestinians, by giving up more than 70% of their original homeland, prooved to be up for compromise, while some part of the israeli society doesn't even want to grant the palestinians the remaining 30%, which by the way belongs to the palestinians according to the international community.
about "sick helpers", ithink what i propose is in accordance with the position of the international community and veru rational and humane, while what you're proposing is the continuation of the oppression of an entire people.

[Mediocrates]

So you confirmed what I said. Expect nothing demand nothing and act on their own. Thank you. But again, you suffer from a delusion that anyone would gleefully embrace their own suicide when the other party is essentially useless.

Basically you refuse to answer this one simple point and erect a 1000 foot tall strawman screaming that every Israeli government that ever was is some kind of extremist racist mutation. But then you politely whisper that peace is magically possible if these evil aliens would just do as they're told.

Stripped away of its rhetoric and polite posturing, your thoughts are at their core, as racist as bigotted as antisemitic as anything I have ever heard.

[Canajew]

Wow Takeo. I'm off the computer for the weekend and you manage to get a whole treatise into the thread. Nicely done.

Originally posted by takeo
so actually people can't really object to my plan except that they think palestinians will never commit to their promises.


I can't speak for everyone else, but for me, I would be inclined to say yes, the Plaestinians will never stick to their promises, regardless of the 'goodwill measures' taken by Israel. The Israelis would, but not as first movers.


But what about Israel, wasn't it exactly Netanyahu's policy which made the palestinians loose all confidence in the oslo-proces, weren't the number of settlements twice as big since 1993... and wouldn't more than half of the people on this board object to this plan simply because they dON'T want to see a retreat from the occupied territories, because they consider it to be a legitimate part of greater Israel???


The Palestinians caused Netanyahu. Now I am not a huge fan of his politically - he was a big 'divide and conquor' type of campaigner - wedge issues and the like, but his election was an Israeli response to continued Palestinian violence.

As for 'settlements', several questions. First, you say the number of settlements doubled. Is this right, or did the number of settlers double. Different things. And if the number of settlements doubled, were they all really small? And Israelis 'settling' in and around Jerusalem don't count. Neither do ones who do not dislocate palestinians, really.

As for half the people on this board, you may be right (I can't say), but I do know that while a majority in Israel has consistently been in favour of a two state solution for a long time, a majority of palestinians have always (since the 1940s) wished to see the 'liberation of all of historic palestine'. Your inclination towards equivalency in this respect is uncalled for.


Such considerations must be dealth with as well, especially knowing that most of the current israeli government never agreed upon leaving the occupied territories, ending the settlements and recognising a palestinian state.


They must be dealt with as well. But first the Palestinians must stop targeting innocents.

This is something I feel is lacking from your analyses. You seem to miss the fairly obvious point that terrorism directed against Israeli civilians has been consistently and constatntly used by the Arabs and the Palestinians against Isralis and Jews since the 1920s. In EVERY conflict, the Arabs will, as a FIRST resort, target innocent Israeli civilians. Over 1000 Israeli civilians died in terrorist attacks between 1948 and 1967, which could not have possibly been resorted to to 'resist occupation', unless you are of the view that all of Israel is 'occupied'. Israeli occupation of Jordanian territory was a response to continued cross border terrorism AND Israel did not attack Jordan first in 1967. Israel responded only after more than six THOUSAND shells were fired into Israeli population centres from Jordan.

The settlemetns are just an excuse for the majority of palestinians who want to see Israel destroyed as a national entity (thus, the 'right of return' as a fundamental requirement of theirs)


that's exactly why a leftwing government is a requirement, because simply not only the palestinians need to agree to the principle of land for peace, so must the israeli government!!!!!!


Maybe, but Israel has elections every couple of years, and if Israelis believe the Palestinians are genuinely offering peace they will come down hard on a government that is irresponsive. The beauty of a functioning democracy.


even if the palestinians today dismantle all terrorism, I'm 100% sure Israel would still not talk with Arafat


True. But that is the way it should be. Yasser Arafat has been a terrorist since the 1960s and before. He is not a 'general' not a 'commander' of a guerilla movement and not anything else of the sort. He staked his claim to fame by hijacking airl=planes and assassinating olympic athletes and destabilizing neigbouring countries. His goal all along has been the destruction of Israel and no one in their right minds in Israel should believe anything he says. So yes, even if the Palestinians give up violence 100% the Israelis should still not talk to Arafat (unless he is addressed as 'defendant').


and would still not grant the palestinians their state on most of the occupied territories, and dismantle the settlements. This would simply split the government. So this current government and palestinian terrorism are allies against peace. both have a lot to loose once real peace-negociatoions lead to result, both reject the idea of a two-state solution. [/B]

The government will fall if that is what Israewlis want. The Palestinians will get most of the territories, not all. They will be required to compromize on jerusalem and give up any claim to return to Israel of the 'refugees' and their descendants.

The Palstinian authority is against peace. You have bought the lies they knew you would, and that's fine, I guess. But they are not partners in any sort of peace. Never were, it was all a ruse.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
[B]why is it stupid? both are requirements by several un-resolutions... for free? they have the right to live in the land they or they parents were born, while the settlers can't show any evidence that they have the right to be there and possess this illegally acquired land.


It is stupid because it is obviously patently unacceptable to one side. You, as a peacenik, must understand that compromise is necessary to achieve peace, and that Israel will not be destroyed as a national and cultural entity. I find it interesting that you are all 'compromise, compromise, compromise' but when it gets to Israeli concerns you say compromise is not necessary, rather the Isralis should capitulate.

And the children of settlers were born there, just like the children of Arab transitory labourers were born in Israel. Neither really has the 'right' to live there, no?

And the UN is stupid. We have covered this before, and until you answer my question as to where the UN derives its legitimacy and why UN decisions are legitimate when they are not ARRIVED at legitimately.

My question again (for, what, the sixth time,): were the United States to have successfully bribed, browbeaten or threatened those non-permanent countries on the security council to back its war on Iraq, would that have made the United States' actions any more legitimate in Iraq?

I say (again), no, that the actions were legitimate or not regardless of what the UN's flawed organs had to say on the matter.

And you should be careful about citing the UN's resolutions. As a lawyer, I can tell you that they are far more ambiguous than you or the Palestinians' supporters would have us believe. They called for a solution to the refugee problem 50 years ago. The fact that there are still 'refugees' has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with the Arab leadership. They must deal with it.


Fine, but why trow arafat in jail? Doing so you won't find any palestinian moderate with at least some public support for decades to come. arafat can still be the formal leader but his health will require him to appoint another moderate prime minister. this is the scenario Israel wants to avoid at all costs, simply because they don't want peace to resume.


I know this was a result of translation, but there was NEVER any peace. The Palestinian Authority was never sincere in its acceptance of Israel or its renunciation of violence. Your talk of peace is a fiction. Like those who say Israel was quiet in between successful terrorist attacks even though there were a dozen attempted attacks PER DAY in the interim. Manipulation of facts and a distortion of reason.

ISRAELIS want peace. Their government may or may not, but the people do. And the government can change. Contrast that to the Palestinians, a majority of which support bombings TARGETING innocnet women and children. Did you know that more Israeli women have been killed than Palestinian women? Or that more Israeli non-combatants have been killed in the current war than Palestinian non-combatants? ALL OF THIS is Arafat's fault.

I think the point is this: whether or not Israel deals with Arafat or not is irrelevant. He is incapable and unwilling to make peace regardless, so dealing with him, not dealing with him, makes no difference. There is no Palestinian leadership which is (or even remotely appears to be) remotely interested in a a genuine peace. Their unwillingness to compromize on the 'right of return' is a perfect illustration, as the Israelis will never accede to this demand and you know it, especially since the Palestinians have so embraced their human firecrackers.


Arafat did do a rather good job in the 90's, restraining terror even if it had quite some sympathy amog palestinian population, perhaps he didn't do the job torough enough, but i surely remember in the 90's AI criticising the PA for putting hamas-sympathisers behind bars...


This is a lie. Not necessarily yours, but it is still a lie. Arafat did as good a job as he thought he could get away with, and not a penny more. He did not fight terrorism, he did not dismantle these organizations. But he DID give them the green light in 2000 and he DID spend considerable PA resources to get them arms and munitions, and he DID endorse their targeting of inncoent civilians (what he says in english for the world media notwithstanding). He started this war as a bargaining chip. You wish to reward him for it?


the failure of Oslo is mainly the responsability of netanyahu and barak, who never really believed in an independant palestinian state by 1999 as promised by oslo.


Bull. The reason OSLO failed was because it was based on the assumption that the Plaestinian leadership had (1) abandoned the use of force to press its cause) and (2) accepted Israel's right to exist as a democratic Jewish state. Both of these assumptions were false. While Israel was propagandizing its population to belive in peace and to work towards co-existence with the Palestinians, the Palestinians propagandized their people into their present 'cult of death', they armed for war, develeoped scores of competing security apparati so that the PA could credibly say "its not us killing civilians, its them' even though the PA funded and armed them. Apparatnly Arafat learned this from Ceauceskew (sic) in the 1970s.


Israel isn't the winner, in the current situation all parties are loosers, it's a war that can't be won on neither side. it's comparable to bosnia, all loosers, no winners. Israel had a military victory against neighbouring Arab states but couldn't win against the palestinian populations.


I never said Israel needs to win, only the PAlestinians need to be defeated. They must, like the Japanese, give up and give in to have any hope of becoming anything other than the cult-of-death backwater they are now. Anyone who says anything else is selling something.


yes, some un-resolutions condemned the terrorist against israeli civilians, more than one by the way.
but you are currently learning the hard way that you can't fix a satisfying solution yourself either, so international assistance is required. By the way is the situation in lebanon today so bad if you compare to some years ago or to the palestinian-israeli conflict???


The security wall will do more for Israeli CIVILIANS (who, as you will recall, are the reason why Israel had to reoccupy Palestinian population centres in the first place, and are the PRIMARY target of the palestinians in their current war.) than any 'peace' agreement (which, under current circumstances, are not worth the paper they are written on).

And Hizbullah has continued to shell Israeli towns. What do you think any other democracy would do if a foreign neighbour allowed a paramilitary force on their territory to attack domestic civilian populations on a regular basis? But Israel is supposed to just sit still. Laughable.


that are questions that should be settled during the international conferences, how many people, who exactly; etc.
some solution for the jewish refugees from arab countries should be included, compensation and/or the right to return.


Never. The Palestinians will not be allowed back. You might as well give up the 'peace' position and go back to asking for what the Palestinians really want - Israel.

As far as international conferences, good luck with that. The Arabs and the palestinians have NEVER once acceeded to the decision of an international forum. The Peel commission, the partition plan, they simply reject and ignore what they do not like, until, lo and behold, they adopt a position iat some future date that says they ALWAYS ACCEPTED the decision. This sort of turnspeak is a complete joke, and evidence that Orwel's vision is alive and well somewhere other than North Korea (where it is completely obvious)

Those who back a right of return only make peace more elusive, and on that perspective are less in the peace camp than those like myself (who I would also classify as 'pro-peace', but I want actual peace, not imagined peace)


the golan heights are officially recognised by the entire world as a part of Syria and never ever belonged to Israel. It didn't belong to israel in the period 1948-1967, and now it's illegally occupied. look at the official map of the US-embassy in Israel, it doesn't include the golan heights!!!


you are sidetracking. The point was that the whole world believes the Golan to be Syrian because of mapping errors in the 1920s. You cannot use the fact that the whole world believes it to be true to counter the argument that a mistake led to the whole world believing something that is false. It just doesn't work that way.

Israel captured the Golan in a defensive war (Syria fired first, not that it really ever stopped in the interwar years, of course, but I suppose this is irrlevant) and is therefore entitled to hold the territory, [I]at a minimum[I] until the opposing side is prepared to genuinely commit to recognizing Israel's right to exist and signing a peace treaty. You can say Assad did all you want, but he did very little, and balked once a real opportunity was available.

Your see no evil hear no evil approach to Arab intrangencies coupled with your willingness to impugn the worst motives of the Israelis and your willingness to, when assigning criticism, come down far stronger on Israel than on any other democracy faced with similar circumstances is troubling to say the least.

[Canajew]

well, Syria may have made their presence some kind of a mystery, they are still in Syria without any doubt. Syria is not likely to do any compromise at all untill Israel gives back the occupied part of syrian territory. Syria is not required to recognise Israel as long as Israel occupies a part of syria, since this is an act of war. Are you really prepared to postpone peace with Syria because of this little piece of land?


I love this. So let me get you straight - Syria does not have to recognize Israel because Irael occupied Syrian territory in a war that Syria started because it refused to recognize the state of Israel and wanted to see it destroyed.

You say "are you really willing to postpone peace with Syria...". Problem with this is that 'peace' was never really an option. Syria has been involved in terrorism against Israel since the 1940s. How that does not justify occupying strategic Syrian territory is beyond me. You can justify however you like, but I warn you, I am a lawyer, so please try to keep your pseudo-legal arguments at least within the realm of normal legal discouse. I am prepared to discuss the laws of war (though reference to 'laws' is a misnomer as customs are a big part of this body of law) at your convenience.


if the palestinians would never have resisted their occupation, there wouldn't even be a legal representative nor a palestinian government,


whose occupation? Jordan's? Egypt's? Oh yeah, only Israel counts as a bad guy in anything. Well, if the Palestinians had not resorted to terrorism in the 1950s and Jordan had stayed out of Nasser's war of extermination, then they would never have been occupied in the first place. You seem to love starting the world in 1967. Try shifting perspectives a little.


they would live as the negro's in South-Africa, thanks to their resistance primarily during the first intifadeh at least they have some hope, some expectations which were totally denied untill the late '80's by almost the entire Israeli political top.


The Plaestinians lives improved SUBSTANTIALLY following the '67 war. Life expectancy increased, literacy increased, infant mortality decreased, expenditures on infrastructure increased. The list goes on and on. The Palestinians had been treated better than any other population in any other middle eastern country, and far better than Plaestinians were treated in Arab controlled territory.

But this is sort of beside the point. because the Palestinians were not full citizens of Israel. But this was not apartheid-like in any way. That is another fiction perpetuated by another big lie. They were enemy civbilians in terroitories captured in a defensive war. That is what they really were. they were not expected to be treated as domestic civilians - this would be like letting the Germans vote in French elections after the French captured German territory (not that the French could capture anyhting, but I digress). The problem is that the 'palestinians' were abandoned by their sovereign - by Jordan in the WB and Egypt in Gaza, thus leaving Israel with a permanent enemy population in Israeli controlled territory. So, what to do with them. Seems logical that as long as they support Israel's destruction and work towards it, and as long as they continue terrorism (into, what, the SIXTH decade), they cannot be given any sort of autonomy or independence. they were given autonomy under OSLO, and they used it to further their (non-abandoned) war airms of the 'liberation of historic palestine".


because it would still be a huge improvement compared to their situation today. the once who have a comfortable life probably won't move to Israel but agree upon compensation.


oh great, so Israel should only take back the dregs that the Arabs produced by purposeful non-integration. Get real.


all this is very real and possible, Arafat has challenged terrorism in the past when he had the means and there were real prospects of peace, and i'm sure the pa has aknowledged that hamas and co. need to be destroyed because they will keep ruining any peace-effort. The international community and especially the us would give a lot of money to finally resolve this very ennoying question in this highly strategic region.


no it isn't. Arafat has never really challenged terrorism, only made the appearance that he did. Those in power of the PA want to see Hamas gone, maybe, but only for their own reasons (i.e. to remain in power) not because they want peace with Israel. And while you are "sure' that the PA want Hamas destroyed, they have never said or acted in any way to indicate this is true. You are once again fabricating reality in order to make it fit into your world-view. The international community can give all the money it wants. It will not help the situation unless the Palestinians change their war goals.


it aren't assumptions, every step is possible, even likely in these circumstances. it's rational: the both the pa and a leftist israeli government gree upon a two-state solution so the only problem remains how to achieve this. If there's a clear roadmap to peace that forces both parties to meet the requirements most eventualities that can spoil the party are excluded. (except of course if elections bring a new kind of netanyahu to power who would block the whole process)


yes it is, and no they are not. The PA does not really want a two state solution, and they have done NOTHING to indicate that they do. They want to be free, yes, but that is not all they want. When they are prepared to 'settle' for that, they there can be talk and money and the rest. But until we get there (which requires a decopntamination of Palestinian 'society' which will require yeras if not decades) talk of peace is mere wishful thinking and not rational based on a proper assessment of the Palestinian side.


actually this question is a lot easier to resolve than the iraqi crisis, if only there would be enough goodwill and not this silly game of "who takes the first step" or mutual reprisals. ..
In Iraq the expectations and interests of both parties are radically opposed which makes it much harder if not impossible to find a solution as a compromise between the two parties. Saddam and most iraqi's won't agree to a us-occupation, the us won't just withdraw its forces and disappear after all those efforts they made, while the political ambitions of the different iraqi groups are radically opposed. [/B]

Wrong. The Iraqi crisis is easier because the US wants to get out at some point and once it does the risk of Iraqis targeting American civilians in America are slim to none. By contrast, were Israel to pull out of palestinian areas, what, would 50% continue to support terrorism inside Israel? 70%? Only 25%. you are living in a fantasy world of make-believe. Say hi to Barney for me when you get the chance.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
I think that willingness exists on both sides, the only problem is the lack of confidence and trust, on both sides.


2 things: 1 Why, in the face of all evidence, are you prepared to believe the ENGLISH WORDS of the PA and to discount all of their ACTIONS and words in Arabic; (2) you have said over and over above that the Israelis don't want peace, now you say they do, but for a lack of trust. I think I get you and you distinguish between the Israelis and the government, but again, being a democracy, the approach will have to be nuanced a little.


i think this will stop naturally once peace is a reality, it's the same all over the world. The same applies to israel of course, it should stop to diabolise Arafat... by the way palestinian anger doesn't so much rely on propaganda but much more on daily reality, rockets and tanks destroying buildings, daily closures, settlers taking over parts of palestinian cities under israeli guardance, this are daily realities which contribute to the hate against israel and everything it represents. (even before this current intifadeh, but undoubtely much stronger nowadays)


I do not share your assessment. While once 'peace is a reality' violence will stop is nominally true (as without a stop to violence there can be no peace) this is a circular argument incapable of being falsified (as were violence not to stop, there would never have been peace). Further, given that a large proportion (reasonably even a majority) of the Plaestinians see as their war goals the 'liberation of historic palestine' any 'peace' in the context of a peace agreement would only be seen by them as step 1 in the ongoing conflict, not a resolution to the conflict. And they will not stop fighting.

And yes, Plaestinian anger depends to a HUGE extent on the disinformation and the misinformation spread by the PA, by Hamas et al, and by the Arab media. Look at mohamed al-dura for that; or the 'massacre' at Jenin, where the Israelis provided food and water and mediacal care for Jenin's residents, and took superhuman efforts to avoid civilian casualties (even you should be able to recognize this by now - does this change your position a little, or have you again manipulated reality to conform with your world-view) It also depends on their cult of death (which you seem to assume away in any 'peace' arrangement).


there are conditions, however, on israeli side as well, such as a general willingness to get rid of the settlements and finally accept that the palestinian state will be a reality in the near future.


I agree. These are conditions. But not a willingness to abandon ALL of the settlements, not a willingness to abandon Jerusalem, and certainly not a willingness to contemplate a 'right of return'. And this 'state' yopu speak of will have to be something less. Because it must be demilitarized. And for the foreseeable future it must not have control of any of its borders, so as to allow the Israelis the power to oversee and enforce a demilitarization agreement. Like a 'state minus'.


all right, but Begin was a lot more realistic than the current rulers. perhaps Sharon is a old real-politician, but large parts of his government certainly aren't and are in favor of ideological solutions. besides this isn't about some piece of desert, this is primarily about the historically, strategically and economically important Westbank.


Again, you seem to lack an understanding of Israeli democracy which is kind of strange, as it is more similar to many of Europes' than to the North American model. The Israeli government is in a permanent state of transition. That is the way it works with a proportional representative system. Were the ideologues to get in the way of the will of the electorate, they will be replaced. Those parts of Sharon's government that would stand up and say NO to a real and just peace agreement are also those who would fare the worst at election time (unless of course Israelis do not believe the palestinians, which makes sense given current circumstances)


yes, but israel doesn't follow the recommendations of the us, not even in theory. Besides, the will on israeli side is lacking to really find a solution, thus leaving washington in a powerless position (punishing and threatening israel as have been the case for other countries is still not an option it seems, because of the strong zionist lobby)


They don't have to. the obligation of the Israeli government is to the Israeli people. Disagree? And Washington is powerless because Europe has been appeasing Palestinian terrorism since the 1960s, thus encouraging more and making any threats of international non-cooperation non-credible. Its kind of funny that those who ahave been the most vocal supporters of the Palestinians have done the most damage to their ultimate cause.

Were the Palestinians to have made their push for self-determination Ghandi-style, they would be right now both free and prosperous. But they did not, because of those who appeased terrorists and showed the palestinians that unless they resort to violence their goals will be ignored like the world ignores all the other stateless people living under far more brutal occupation.


yes, but you can bet on it that if the palestinians see the israeli's are really removing settlements and withdrawing there will be a lot of support for the pa, and much less for Hamas. (as was the case in 1993-1995), hamas will certainly loose the civil war in this case. in the current conditions however things might turn out completely different. (given the fact as well that most of the pa's security apparatus has been demolished by israel)


here's my problem. The Plaestinians have brainwashed their poepl into beliving in one set of grievances. Problem is, once these circumstances change, the PA will use some sort of 'turnspeak' to make those grievances into something else. Settlements was not the issue prior to 1967, and it is not really the issue today. the issue is far more fundamental. Once all the settlements 'go away' the call will rise up to give more give more, and if the Jews do not, then they are to be destroyed.

[Canajew]

the ones outside are much less dangerous.


False again. Why? Because they are not so easily compartmentalized and they are certainly not mutually exclusive groups. the Palestinian terrorist groups in the PA are financed and, to a certain extent organized, by foreign terrorists and Palestinian terrorists working abroad, particularly in other Arab and Muslim countries. Without this funding and support, the Palestinians would not be in nearly as threatening a position vis-a-vis PURPOSELY targeting Israeli CIVILIANS. they are just as dangerous as those inside, because they are all acting together. they may not be as good at planting bombs, but they paid for the bombs, they planned the shipment of bombs, and they disseminate falsehoods and propaganda to trap 'progressives' such as yourself. To say they are less important, is to once again demonstrate that you lack an understanding of the position Israel and Israelis have found themselves in for over 50 years.


BS, jordan, Egypt, perhaps even lebanon and syria (on the condition israel is negociating over the golan) would wellcome this.


even at the commencement of a Palestinian civil war? Because that is what is required. I'm sure they would all be lining up to endorse the start of such a conflict.


one month, no, but if it becomes clear after a year israel is not going to meet its obligations, at all, than hamas-members should be released and the struggle against terror ended. the other way around as well of course... a strong reminder to both sides to keep their commitments, and a strong reminder for whoever gets elected in israel not to postpone already agreed upon decisions.


interesting. So if the governemnt of Israel does not fulfil its obligations, then the Palestinians should be allowed to again PURPOSELY TARGET INNOCENT ISRAELI CIVILIANS. Can you explain this to me using some sort of progressive liberal moral framework? i'm interested to see this logic at work.

Oh, but wait. If Israeli non-compliance with agreements makes justifyable and acceptable targeting of innocent Israelis for death and dismemberment, then would not 40 years (1929-1967) of Palestinian and Arab terrorism against Israel justify Israel's PURPOSEFUL TARGETING of Plaestinian civilians? Israel, of course, doesn't do anything like this, rather it takes measures like road closures, house demolitions and other non-lethal means. But it would certainly justify non-lethal collective punishment such as expulsion (which, again, Israel does not do).

Maybe I am letting you go too easily on this, so for the record, you said
if it becomes clear after a year israel is not going to meet its obligations, at all, than hamas-members should be released and the struggle against terror ended
which means that if Israel does not cave in to palestinian demands on a timetable acceptable to the palestinians and to the Europeans (who have demonstrated themselves time and time again to be hostile to israeli arguments and concerns) then the palestinians should once again be free to target for massacre any and all Israeli civilians.

You should be careful, active proponance of this point of view in some countries might be interpreted as incitement to murder (and to war crimes). It likely should.

I still do not understand how the progressive left gets itself more in a tizzy about targeted killings of either terrorists or armed combatants, while it seems to tacitly accept as legitimate the Palestinians' PURPOSEFUL targeting of Israeli civilians.


this doesn't sound likely or reasonable, because fighting terror means fighting all terror with all means available. The French and others would just keep the peace and protect israel militarily, the anti-terrorist struggle would be the palestinian responsability since they have the means to sort out who's terrorist and who isn't. with the propper support and means (which they haven't today) palestinians would be able to deal with the fundamentalists as any other Arab state dealt with them, such as syria, Jordan, egypt, etc.


what does that mean,"to protect Israel militarily" if it did not mean the protection of Israeli civilians from foreign targeted aggression? It means nothing. And you are basically saying here that the Israeli should just trust (again) the PA to fight terrorism. Learn from history. Please.


this is preferably but there's a lack of trust between the two sides, the international troops would be a kind of go-between, especially in the border areas.


yeah. the Plaestinian terrorists 'go between' the international troops to conduct terrorism, while the troops go between both sides to decide why israel is at fault.

And these go betweens did a hell of a job videotaping Israelis getting kidnapped. Hell of a job.


they did in the past (allowed the Palestinians to work in Israel), when there were far less suicide-killings than today...


By what logic is the situation tomorrow (in which there is peace) supposed to be the same as that before this war. This war was purposely launched by the palestinians in order to further their bargaining position under Oslo. It was a war that, as its central feature, contained the doctrine of purposely targeting Israeli civilians wherever they are and without differentiation as to gender, age, nationality etc.

Now please explain to me by what reasoning you would expect Israel to treat these people the same way as before? it makes no sense. the Plaestinians should never be allowed to work in Israel again for at least, say, 25 years. Let them wallow in the hole they dug themselves.


what difference does that make? why can't you make peace with assad, as it appears he'll be there a long time to come. even Kaddafi seems nowadays to come to terms with Europe and the us, so why not Assad? you made peace with Egypt and jordan as well which aren't exactly democracies are they? in fact dictatorships are more reliable since a democratic system means another government doesn't necessarily agree to the principles signed by his predecessor...


The bit about despots signing agreements is, in my opinion, valid, as many times despots are able to sign and enforce agreements that the population would never tolerate. Israel cannot make peace with Syria because Syrian leaders do not want to make peace with Israel, and if they do want to make peace somewhere in their deep dark hearts they are afraid to becuase of the reaction of the Arab street (which they are responsible for by virtue of their nazi-like propaganda against israel and Jews)

new, that israel has to offer the full and total withdrawel of the occupied territories without further uncertainties or BS, and that both the israeli and palestinian duties will rely upon eachother ... [/B]

So I say No. Now what? Israel will not totally and completely withdraw from these lands. They are not required to do so by law, and from a policy perspective, it would be better to be at war on defensible borders than at war on non-defensible non-borders (as the 49 ceasefire lines were EXPLICITLY not borders).

So Israel's answer is no. Any room for compromise on this, or is the game over?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
indeed goodwill alone isn't enough, there need to be a stick, on both sides however!!!
unilateral separation isn't the solution however, unless you mean all of the occupied territories. if not palestinians will continue to fight israel untill all of the occupied territories have been freed. but even in this case it leaves a lot of insecurity, such as at the border with lebanon.


they will keep fighting even then.


such a situation can't be managed, only a total comprehensive solution will bring peace.


False. It can be managed. It has been managed up until now without the Israelis declaring a total war. And it will be necessary to do so in the future because the palestinians are not interested in resolving this conflict. the poeple may be (though this is tough to tell) the leadership is not.


BS, islamism isn't the main problem, everything most palestinians want is a normal country in the occupied territories and most of all a normal life free of occupation. the main problem is the israeli occupation, which has to end, even people who aren't islamic resist israeli occupation, such as the christians.


Cause and Effect. Add a time line. Try again.


perhaps you mean the destruction of the idea of Eretz Israel to which you are so much dedicated. It would however garantee the survival of a peacefull israel integrated in the region and finally coming to terms with the palestinians and vice-versa. not all will be perfect immidiately, but surely it will mean a great improvement compared to the last decades, and a lesser financial burden as well for israel. Anyways, there isn't an alternative, because your plan of etnic cleansing will ensure Israel's destruction.


I think you know what he or she meant. Not the destruction of 'greater israel' but the destruction of Israel. Your willingness to discount this widely held view is indicative of greater problems on this issue.


that's right, i would even say the majority of the Israeli, if terrorism would really come to an end.


but it won't. So what now.


then of course the israeli's won't fullfill their promises either. but you should at least give them a chance to do so, reinstall the security apparatus, withdraw, and start giving them incitives, prospectives, rewards for ending terrorism, which will in turn increase the popularity of the pa. this seems to be a problem for this government, because, i repeat, they don't want to withdraw!


how many chances? Another 1. But if they fail (again) you will say 1 more. and 1 more. ad infinum. So for Plaestinian tacticians the answer is clear. Offer peace, enter into agreements, scuttle them and make the other side look guilty. Again an illustration of how European attitudes promote terrorism.


the situation is not comparable, the palestinians have been military defeated, but unlike the japanese they are fighting for theirr own existence, their own country, not some colonial possessions. The japanese would still be fighting the us if the us would have colonised japan instead of returning its status of a strong independant power. as the vietnamese, in such a situation you simply can't win a war, because you can't win a war against an entire people, the european colonisers came to this conclusion some decades ago...


The Japanses would have still been fighting were they no bombed into submission. The US occupied Japan for a long time, and even retains long-term leases.

This 'colonization' you speak of started only relatively reecently in the timeline of the current conflict. Discuss.


because, once they have their independant state, they have actually something to loose, not only their credibility but their security and independance. Even the terrorists of hesbollah don't attack israel even if they have the means to do so and never recognised israel. (because lebanon is free now, their main objective) a palestinian state would take care, as jordan, egypt and even syria, not to let terrorists attack israel from ist territory. [/B]

Wha6t will they risk losing? they attack again, Israel retaliates. What side you think world opinion will come down on? So what do they have to lose? just like in 2000. they had stuff. Not as much as they would like, but they had stuff. they threw it all away in order to kill israeli civilians. As a political entity they deserve worse than they are getting. As individuals, many are far more complicit in murder and crimes against humanity than you would like to admit.

In reality, any moral jusitifcation for their cause should have been vitiated by their subsequent moral conduct. They should be entitled not to be killed. that's about it at this point. the Tibetans are, of course, entitled to far more, but where are you and yours on that one?

[danholo]

Canajew,

You make some good and interesting points. I have one thing to ask though:

What is your solution for the conflict to end?

[David_in_NYC]

I can offer a solution - repatriation of the non-Israeli Arabs to Jordan and Egypt.

This solves all the problems. Jordan and Egypt can then represent the thus repatriated Arabs, and be held accountable for any violence committed. The most hardcore militants will stay, choose to defend their camps, and die to the IDF, doing for the Arabs what they cannot seem to do for themselves, ridding them of the worst of their own criminal class. Israel then has defensible borders. The increase in difficulty of the target combined with the price paid by the murdering class is a deterrence that historically has worked quite well to end such wars once and for all.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
I can offer a solution - repatriation of the non-Israeli Arabs to Jordan and Egypt.

This solves all the problems. Jordan and Egypt can then represent the thus repatriated Arabs, and be held accountable for any violence committed. The most hardcore militants will stay, choose to defend their camps, and die to the IDF, doing for the Arabs what they cannot seem to do for themselves, ridding them of the worst of their own criminal class. Israel then has defensible borders. The increase in difficulty of the target combined with the price paid by the murdering class is a deterrence that historically has worked quite well to end such wars once and for all.

Thats a better solution than takeo's, and it faces reality. If, as takeo asserts, Israel must be forced into making peace why not simply force Jordan and Egypt to take back their citizens...

[Canajew]

Originally posted by danholo
Canajew,

You make some good and interesting points. I have one thing to ask though:

What is your solution for the conflict to end?

I have no solution. I'm not really sure there is one. I can say that so long as Arab rejectionism continues unabated and Arab resort to terrorism against Israeli civilians is a first resort rather than a last resort, that peace is impossible and conflict management should be the order of the day.

I like the separation fence, its a good idea, and Israel should never again consider talking to Arafat.

But none of this will solve the conflict. this conflict will not be resolved until the Palestinians exorcise the cult of death from their population, and focus on education, health and public services for their oewn people, rather than on the destruction of Israel.

But I have no idea how to get there, only that if these issues are ignored that 'getting there' is a complete fiction, as there is nowhere to get.

[danholo]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
I can offer a solution - repatriation of the non-Israeli Arabs to Jordan and Egypt.

This solves all the problems. Jordan and Egypt can then represent the thus repatriated Arabs, and be held accountable for any violence committed. The most hardcore militants will stay, choose to defend their camps, and die to the IDF, doing for the Arabs what they cannot seem to do for themselves, ridding them of the worst of their own criminal class. Israel then has defensible borders. The increase in difficulty of the target combined with the price paid by the murdering class is a deterrence that historically has worked quite well to end such wars once and for all.

I don't support this but the problem with this is that Palestinians, at the moment, are, let's say, "ultra-nationalistic" and that would never happen, nor would it be possible for Palestinians to give up, what they think as, their homeland.

I support unilateral separation on Israel's terms. Jerusalem stays as part of Israel. This city can not be divided.

If the Tanakh has any credibility Jerusalem will be the final battleground - and Israel will win.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by Lowell
Thats a better solution than takeo's, and it faces reality. If, as takeo asserts, Israel must be forced into making peace why not simply force Jordan and Egypt to take back their citizens...

I fleshed it out some and made it its own post... guess we can pursue it on that thread as it will simply be drowned out by the flood of propaganda refutation here.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
all those are theoretical solutions which will never work in reality.


like your theoretical assumption that the PA has and will renounce all violence and negotiate in good faith.


syria made clear time after time its willing to recognise israel on the condition israel returns the golan-heights, the only problem during negociations was how much golan should be given back.


Syria has engaged in posturing mimicing willingness in order to provide justifications to people like you who claim that it is Israel's fault. Pure and simple.


the right of return is a un-resolution and will happen sooner or later, it is even included in the roadmap. the first intifadeh led to the oslo-proces, so clearly resisting the occupation is in their interest (but not the killing of innocent people)


The right of return is a UN resolution? What does this mean? the general assembly? That would make it non-binding. Context? Was it a security counsel resolution? What did it say? Were there reciprocal responsibilities imposed? What is the impact of one party not fulfilling its obligations on the obligations of the other? Or do you really care about any of this?

The roadmap contemplates dealing with the refugees because the Arabs wouldn't accept it without it. that does not make the claim legitimate.


they already gain more than that, but anyway yes they would, palestinians want economic devellopment very badly, but they also aknowledge this requires an end to the occupation.


does it though? As history tells us, the occupation LED to increased investment, education, health care et al, not the reverse. An end to the occupation MAY lead to a further increase in all of these, but given the state of the PA and its history of corruption, they are more likely to produce another North Korea or Sudan than an Asian tiger.


insanity. the plo was a resistance organisation as anywhere in the colonised world, it is the most moderate of all palestinian organisations. In postwar germany many germans didn't like nazism so denazification was easy, in palestine every single palestinian is engaged in their national liberation, which by the way isn't as close to nazism as israel's Eretz Israel-ambitions are. the so called "denazification" of iraq didn't succeed either, because many people still support the baathist party, the same reason why the nazi's "desovietisation" during WWII completely failed. you will have to live with the plo, like it or not. the alternative is hamas, jihad or al-aqsa...


lies. The PLO was NOT a 'ressistance organization'. It was a terrorist organization. Since its inception it has relied on the PURPOSEFUL TARGETING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS and this has been its primary method of 'ressistance'. thus, it is not a ressistance organization but a terrorist one. Don't manipulate definitions in order to get what you want. People can see through it.

A working definition of terrorism: Terrorism is the purposeful targeting of innocent civilians for political purposes.

This definition is not perfect, and it may be succesptable to changes, but you must change and redefine it explicitly before saying the PLO didn't fit within it. That would make it easier to show you why you are wrong in this regard.


the japanese and german society were never rebuild from the ground, and never had foreign masters. the germans and japanese did it all themselves (even the japanese emperor stayed), they just changed sides because the allied could offer them once again an independant and strong state. Israel can't offer anything like this to the palestinians. the case of iraq, and before colonialism, shows that without the population cooperating nd without strong incentives nothing can be achieved. [/B]

Again, wrong. The German and Japanese societies were cvompletely destroyed. Economic and physical infrastructure was almost totally destroyed, and I think we can all agree on that. From asocial point of view, the Germans were moved from facists embracing Nazi race-purity and all the rest of the NAZIs garbage, while the Japanese were also unquestionably 'aware of their own inherent superiority' to, say, the Chinese and the Americans. The allied powers took control of these countries and all of their military and civilian institutions, imposed legal systems and constitutions on the vanquished, and proceeded to recondition those within these societies to act like civilized human beings. The Japanese Emperor stayed for cosmetic purposes. He lost all power and had to admit to the Japanese people that he was not a god (which would have been unherd of before defeat).

That you use this as an example demonstrates that you are being disingenuous with your arguments, as everybody who has even remotely looked at the issue of Japan in WWII knows why the emperor stayed on and what his role was. And I am pretty sure that you knew it too.

they did NOT 'change sides'. they were the side. Without Germany and Japan there was no side to turn from. They lost the war and were occupied by enemy powers. They did not resist because they had been unequivocally destroyed before-hand, and had their will to fight driven into the ground.

Israel cannot do this because the world never let her. So fine. The world must do something. But if it does not do all that israel needs it to do, then Israel is fully justified in saying no - that there shall be no state dedicated to the destruction of Israel in the Palestinian territory, and no state can exist as long as it teaches its children the most base forms of Anti-semitism while promoting genocide against the Jews (i.e. kill them wherever you find them et al).

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
no need to, Syria wants the golan heights, that's it.


another lie. Not yours, but still. the Syrians lie. I know it. You know it. Dogs know it. How you could put any faith in anything they say is beyond me. Syria wants the destruction of Israel. Syria has acted in a way, over the past 60 years, that is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with the premise that they have always wanted only the destruction of Israel. It is for you to demonstrate their good faith.


so what about netanyahu not agreeing to the oslo-process? what about Bush refusing to implement kyoto? etc. ...
most democracies as well lack transparancy and predictability.
I would rather be a businessman in China or singapore than in India or bangladesh... [/B]

Oslo was violated by the PA from the very beginning, as they never stopped incitement. Period. They also very quickly broke the agreement with respect to armaments, security apparati and the like. So Netanyahu was faced with either continuing to fulfil Israel's obligations notwithstanding that the Palestinians were not fulfilling theirs, or to say, "from this point forward we will only comply if they will". Seems the correct position from here, and as a legal position it is beyond raproach.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
[B]Arafat said on many occasions that the Barak-offer could be a starting point for further discussions, but barak said "no", untill the last weeks of his government, when negociations suddenly resumed but all the sudden ended when sharon was elected.


Come on now. Barak refused to deal with Arafat because HE DID NOT BELIVE ANYTHING THAT CAME OUT OF HIS MOUTH. Which makes a whole lot of sense, given that past behaviour is a fairly good indicator of future behaviour, especially with regards to a willingness to lie in international agreements. Barak said no because he did not believe the offers were real. And guess what? they weren't. Sharon wasw elected because Israel was done with Arafat and his Palestinians. They started a war while negotiations were ongoing (or struggling or at a standstill, whatever, it doesn't really matter), and Israelis responded by fighting back. And as Palestinian targeting of Israeli civilians became the norm in the war, Israelis were prepared to elect someone who was prepared to more forcibly fight back. Not fight like the Plaestinians (as this would involve bombing random civilian targets ON PURPOSE, which Israel has never done) but fight back and not cave in to another round of terrorism. You are being disingenuous with this argument.


Israel need to return to the 1967-borders, if it wants peace at least. not in return for promises, in return for achievements, as elaborated in my "roadmap". if israel ever wants peace with syria it will have to return the stolen Golan-heights, if not Syria can continue to be at war with israel which means it can sponsor all kinds of terrorist organisations as well as continue to sponsor the hesbollah. The principle "peace for land" rules here as well... you can't call Syria a vilain-state if you yourself are still occupying a part of this country, an act which makes your own country a vilain.


I will recharachterize. If the Palestinians want peace, they must, give up their right of return, give up their claim to most of Jerusalem including 'Israeli occupied East Jerusalem" and recognize that Israel will not, nor is it legally bound to, withdraw from all the territories. They must also recognize Israel's right to exist as an independent democratic Jewish state. This is just as true as what you say above, rather you like putting all the burden on Israel, while I prefer to assign benefits and concessions based on the moral culpability of the actors involved and the general tendancies of their populations. We can go into this if you like, but I am quite confident that on ANY sort of moral accountability basis the palestinians and their Arab 'bretheren' are far more morally culpable than the Israelis for what has happened to the Palestinians, for their ongoing plight, and for the continued conflict in the middle east.


this resolution called on israel to withdraw from territories occupied in 1967, pretty clear to me!


this of course is takeo, the renound international legal scholar, reading this provision as a legal document. Right? What seems clear to you was purposely designed (1) for ambiguity and (2) to expressly reject the assertion that you make that Israel must withdraw from all territories. It was designed for ambiguity to allow the US and Russia to back the same plan, so that they could tell their populations (and their clients) different things. However, the word "all" territories was purposely excised from the text in order to show that Israel need nopt withdraw from ALL territories. Making your 'clear to me' reading wrong.


israel is also called on to return to recognised borders, which of course means the borders recognised by the entire world in 1949, when israel became a member of the un. Any futile attempt to keep part of the occupied territories( without giving anything in return) will make peace impossible, this is a conclusion to memorise!


Again, you are wrong, and again, this seems a purposeful manipulation of fact. the 1949 armistance agreement specifically stated that the armistance lines WERE NOT PERMANENT BORDERS between states. In fact, the agreements did not allow that Israel might have a right to exist at all. So, when Israel conquored the West bank as part of a defensive war (you can argue all you want that israel started the war against Egypt (though you would be wrong as blockade=war in international law) but you cannot argue that Jordan fired first (and repeatedly) before Israel attacked back), not all the territories were required to be returned. This was explicitly recogniozed in 242, where reference to ALL territories was omitted. Further, your reference to 'secure and recognized boundaries' is a misinterpretation. The reference to secure is particularly significant, of course, because the armistance lines were not secure boundaries. period. Everyone knew that at the time, and given the drafting parties' knowledge and the language of the text, it seems probable that the inclusion of this term further implies that there would be some adjustment of the final border between Israel and Egypt/Jordan in any eventual peace agreement.

"Any futuile attempt" by the Palestinians to move Israel back to the 'Auchwitz' borders of 1949 "will make peace impossible, this is a conclusion to memorise!"

Now, this is true. You say your proposition is true as well. Given they are both true, is there any room left for a peacable agreement? Doesn't look like it.


arafat's election was approved by the un and the us alike, according to the principles of modern multi-party elections. it's not his fault that the plo at that time was tremendously popular.


Arafat was 'elected' in an 'election' conducted 8 years ago in a race where there was only one real candidate. He has not made any material efforts to hold additional elections when his term expired, and the Plaestinian authority has involved itself in far more serious human rights violations than Israel has even contemplated. But once again this demonstrates that the left does not really hold its 'fundamental' values to be so dear.

[Canajew]

the eu, china, Russia, etc. still recognise arafat as the leader of the palestinian people and visited him in this position.


So what? the UN recognized Arafat in the 1970s when he was ONLY a terrorist, planning a campaign of international terrorism against Israelis and Jews. He even showed up in the UN with a GUN! Yasser Arafat is a terrorist leader. israel will not and should not talk to him. the palestinians want to talk? they can get someone else. of course, they arn't really interested in talking anyways....


oh man, i could write a whole threat on that! but just visit the website of the israeli peace-movement gush shalom , they made an interactive map on which all the new settlements are indicated build when he was prime minister, as well as the agreed upon withdrawels he didn't achieve.


May I ask what the chances are that this was compared side by side to broken Plaestinian commitments, with time lines comparing these viollations and some sort of quantitative or qualitative assessment of the relative magnitudes of such breaches? No? I didn't think so. The PA never even started fulfilling their commitments in good faith. Why Israel was to continue with its moves years later is beyond me.


bush didn't, but clinton did, as the president of the us, so Bush should respect the treaties signed by his predecessor. 3, yes more or less.


I noted someone already made the point that the US had not formally accepted Kyoto, and so Bushes 'renunciation' of the treaty was not really a case of walking away from a binding treaty.

As for 3 (why the US walked from Kyoto) the issues are complicated, but it really was the kind of agreement they should have walked away from (and I have a fairly big environmental conscious). It was flawed from the start. A different thread, but again, we can get into it if you like.


nor are most democracies, not even the us. The iraq-crisis was a good example, very few people knew the truth about the WMD, which was not communicated to the outside world.


You are playing a shell game. yes democracies are not really transparent (or even truly accountable in any complete sense (but this varies between countries) and yes dictatorships are also not trasparent, but to insinuate through this comparrison that they are both the same in terms of transparency is ridiculopus. Revisit this please.


well i know businessmen who had experience on all those countries and he assured me china was paradise compared to some of those "democracies", where corruption is almost legal, the autority of the government week, and every new government completely rids itself of the laws and the policy of its predecessor, which of course leads to chaos.


First, 1 person's personal experiences are not really evidence of anything, rather only a single piece of datum to be put into a larger pool, and second, China is better than these countries because China's government is more brutal. Period. Sanctions are higher so illegal conduct is curtailed. But there is a tradeoff between the moral values a society adopts and the moral values which determine the relationship between the state and its citizens /subjects and the moral values within which a society determines proper penal sanctions. And on this China fails miserably. So while I may be prepared to assume China is has the most functional market, it is only because they are prepared to be the most brutal, which is hardly a ringing endorsement.

And Israel treats the Palestinians better than the Chinese treat their own, and most certainly better than they treat the Tibetans. (just a reminder for those who always think Israel is the 'worst' of everything. In reality it is almost universaly among the best)



so in fact here you admit that not syria but israel is refusing to talk about peace!!!


Again, talking about peace and a willingness to secure peace are different things. they talk about peace in order to gain sympathy and to allow people like you to characterize them as a peace-loving nation. It is a lie. And you are believing and repeating a lie for your own gratification. I find this distasteful.


perhaps but they ruled those countries only very limited time, after which the old parties, this time with a new image and american help, reappeared.


and so the same thing can be done for the palestinians. Only it will take maybe more time, and the clock has not started yet. they may have been occupied for 35+ years, but the 'rebuilding" (i.e. denazification (for lack of a better word)) has not yet begun.


I mean in Iraq, the population is not cooperating to the foreign occupiers, who want to reinstall a modern version of coloniasm. [/B]

Incorrect again. Colonialism never entered into their minds. You can redefine colonialism in order to make it fit, but once again that does not really accomplish anything. The Americans are trying to build a strong secular democracy (secular because religious democracy (a la Iran) is an oxymoron). maybe 'in their own image', maybe not. But in either case, certainly not colonialism.

[Mil]

Posted by Canajew:

The right of return is a UN resolution? What does this mean? the general assembly? That would make it non-binding. Context? Was it a security counsel resolution? What did it say? Were there reciprocal responsibilities imposed? What is the impact of one party not fulfilling its obligations on the obligations of the other? Or do you really care about any of this?


It's a General Assembly Resolution 194 dated to December 11th 1948. Look at the section eleven. The resolution is posted below.

[Mil]

The General Assembly,

Having considered further the situation in Palestine,

1. Expresses its deep appreciation of the progress achieved through the good offices of the late United Nations Mediator in promoting a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine, for which cause he sacrificed his life; and

Extends its thanks to the Acting Mediator and his staff for their continued efforts and devotion to duty in Palestine;

2. Establishes a Conciliation Commission consisting of three States Members of the United Nations which shall have the following functions:

(a) To assume, in so far as it considers necessary in existing circumstances, the functions given to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine by resolution 182;(S-2) of the General Assembly of 14 May 1948;

(b) To carry out the specific functions and directives given to it by the present resolution and such additional functions and directives as may be given to it by the General Assembly or by the Security Council;

(c) To undertake, upon the request of the Security Council, any of the functions now assigned to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine or to the United Nations Truce Commission by resolutions of the Security Council; upon such request to the Conciliation Commission by the Security Council with respect to all the remaining functions of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine under Security Council resolutions, the office of the Mediator shall be terminated;

3. Decides that a Committee of the Assembly, consisting of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, shall present, before the end of the first part of the present session of the General Assembly, for the approval of the Assembly, a proposal concerning the names of the three States which will constitute the Conciliation Commission;

4. Requests the Commission to begin its functions at once, with a view to the establishment of contact between the parties themselves and the Commission at the earliest possible date;

5. Calls upon the Governments and authorities concerned to extend the scope of the negotiations provided for in the Security Council's resolution of 16 November 1948 and to seek agreement by negotiations conducted either with the Conciliation Commission or directly, with a view to the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them;

6. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to take steps to assist the Governments and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them;

7. Resolves that the Holy Places - including Nazareth - religious buildings and sites in Palestine should be protected and free access to them assured, in accordance with existing rights and historical practice; that arrangements to this end should be under effective United Nations supervision; that the United Nations Conciliation Commission, in presenting to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly its detailed proposals for a permanent international régime for the territory of Jerusalem, should include recommendations concerning the Holy Places in that territory, that with regard to the Holy Places in the rest of Palestine the Commission should call upon the political authorities of the areas concerned to give appropriate formal guarantees as to the protection of the Holy Places and access to them, and that these undertakings should be presented to the General Assembly for approval;

8. Resolves that, in view of its association with three world religions, the Jerusalem area, including the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis; the most southern, Bethlehem, the most western, Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most northern Shu'fat, should be accorded special and separate treatment from the rest of Palestine and should be placed under effective United Nations control;

Requests the Security Council to take further steps to ensure the demilitarization of Jerusalem at the earliest possible date;

Instructs the Commission to present to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly detailed proposals for a permanent international régime for the Jerusalem area which will provide for the maximum local autonomy for distinctive groups consistent with the special international status of the Jerusalem area;

The Conciliation Commission is authorized to appoint a United Nations representative, who shall co-operate with the local authorities with respect to the interim administration of the Jerusalem area;

9. Resolves that, pending agreement on more detailed arrangements among the Governments and authorities concerned, the freest possible access to Jerusalem by road, rail or air should be accorded to all inhabitants of Palestine;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to report immediately to the Security Council, for appropriate action by that organ, any attempt by any party to impede such access;

10. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to seek arrangements among the Governments and authorities concerned which will facilitate the economic development of the area, including arrangements for access to ports and airfields and the use of transportation and communication facilities;

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

12. Authorizes the Conciliation Commission to appoint such subsidiary bodies and to employ such technical experts, acting under its authority, as it may find necessary for the effective discharge of its functions and responsibilities under the present resolution;

The Conciliation Commission will have its official headquarters at Jerusalem. The authorities responsible for maintaining order in Jerusalem will be responsible for taking all measures necessary to ensure the security of the Commission. The Secretary-General will provide a limited number of guards for the protection of the staff and premises of the Commission;

13. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to render progress reports periodically to the Secretary-General for transmission to the Security Council and to the Members of the United Nations;

14. Calls upon all Governments and authorities concerned to co-operate with the Conciliation Commission and to take all possible steps to assist in the implementation of the present resolution;

15. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the necessary staff and facilities and to make appropriate arrangements to provide the necessary funds required in carrying out the terms of the present resolution

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Canajew
another lie. Not yours, but still. the Syrians lie. I know it. You know it. Dogs know it. How you could put any faith in anything they say is beyond me. Syria wants the destruction of Israel. Syria has acted in a way, over the past 60 years, that is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with the premise that they have always wanted only the destruction of Israel. It is for you to demonstrate their good faith.



Oslo was violated by the PA from the very beginning, as they never stopped incitement. Period. They also very quickly broke the agreement with respect to armaments, security apparati and the like. So Netanyahu was faced with either continuing to fulfil Israel's obligations notwithstanding that the Palestinians were not fulfilling theirs, or to say, "from this point forward we will only comply if they will". Seems the correct position from here, and as a legal position it is beyond raproach.

Makes no difference whether its takeo's lie or whether he merely passes it on, only a Marxist like takeo would believe the lies of the Marxist Arafat.

From a Naomi Ragen newsletter

The KGB's Man

By ION MIHAI PACEPA

The Israeli government has vowed to expel Yasser Arafat, calling him an "obstacle" to peace. But the 72-year-old Palestinian leader is much more than that; he is a career terrorist, trained, armed and bankrolled by the Soviet Union and its satellites for decades.

Before I defected to America from Romania, leaving my post as chief of Romanian intelligence, I was responsible for giving Arafat about $200,000 in laundered cash every month throughout the 1970s. I also sent two cargo planes to Beirut a week, stuffed with uniforms and supplies. Other Soviet bloc states did much the same. Terrorism has been extremely profitable for Arafat. According to Forbes magazine, he is today the sixth wealthiest among the world's "kings, queens & despots," with more than $300 million stashed in Swiss bank accounts.


"I invented the hijackings [of passenger planes]," Arafat bragged when I first met him at his PLO headquarters in Beirut in the early 1970s. He gestured toward the little red flags pinned on a wall map of the world that labeled Israel as "Palestine." "There they all are!" he told me, proudly. The dubious honor of inventing hijacking actually goes to the KGB, which first hijacked a U.S. passenger plane in 1960 to Communist Cuba. Arafat's innovation was the suicide bomber, a terror concept that would come to full flower on 9/11.

In 1972, the Kremlin put Arafat and his terror networks high on all Soviet bloc intelligence services' priority list, including mine. Bucharest's role was to ingratiate him with the White House. We were the bloc experts at this. We'd already had great success in making Washington -- as well as most of the fashionable left-leaning American academics of the day -- believe that Nicolae Ceausescu was, like Josip Broz Tito, an "independent" Communist with a "moderate" streak.

KGB chairman Yuri Andropov in February 1972 laughed to me about the Yankee gullibility for celebrities. We'd outgrown Stalinist cults of personality, but those crazy Americans were still naïve enough to revere national leaders. We would make Arafat into just such a figurehead and gradually move the PLO closer to power and statehood. Andropov thought that Vietnam-weary Americans would snatch at the smallest sign of conciliation to promote Arafat from terrorist to statesman in their hopes for peace.

Right after that meeting, I was given the KGB's "personal file" on Arafat. He was an Egyptian bourgeois turned into a devoted Marxist by KGB foreign intelligence. The KGB had trained him at its Balashikha special-ops school east of Moscow and in the mid-1960s decided to groom him as the future PLO leader. First, the KGB destroyed the official records of Arafat's birth in Cairo, replacing them with fictitious documents saying that he had been born in Jerusalem and was therefore a Palestinian by birth.

The KGB's disinformation department then went to work on Arafat's four-page tract called "Falastinuna" (Our Palestine), turning it into a 48-page monthly magazine for the Palestinian terrorist organization al-Fatah. Arafat had headed al-Fatah since 1957. The KGB distributed it throughout the Arab world and in West Germany, which in those days played host to many Palestinian students. The KGB was adept at magazine publication and distribution; it had many similar periodicals in various languages for its front organizations in Western Europe, like the World Peace Council and the World Federation of Trade Unions.

Next, the KGB gave Arafat an ideology and an image, just as it did for loyal Communists in our international front organizations. High-minded idealism held no mass-appeal in the Arab world, so the KGB remolded Arafat as a rabid anti-Zionist. They also selected a "personal hero" for him -- the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, the man who visited Auschwitz in the late 1930s and reproached the Germans for not having killed even more Jews. In 1985 Arafat paid homage to the mufti, saying he was "proud no end" to be walking in his footsteps.

Arafat was an important undercover operative for the KGB. Right after the 1967 Six Day Arab-Israeli war, Moscow got him appointed to chairman of the PLO. Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser, a Soviet puppet, proposed the appointment. In 1969 the KGB asked Arafat to declare war on American "imperial-Zionism" during the first summit of the Black Terrorist International, a neo-Fascist pro-Palestine organization financed by the KGB and Libya's Moammar Gadhafi. It appealed to him so much, Arafat later claimed to have invented the imperial-Zionist battle cry. But in fact, "imperial-Zionism" was a Moscow invention, a modern adaptation of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and long a favorite tool of Russian intelligence to foment ethnic hatred. The KGB always regarded anti-Semitism plus anti-imperialism as a rich source of anti-Americanism.

The KGB file on Arafat also said that in the Arab world only people who were truly good at deception could achieve high status. We Romanians were directed to help Arafat improve "his extraordinary talent for deceiving." The KGB chief of foreign intelligence, General Aleksandr Sakharovsky, ordered us to provide cover for Arafat's terror operations, while at the same time building up his international image. "Arafat is a brilliant stage manager," his letter concluded, "and we should put him to good use." In March 1978 I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest for final instructions on how to behave in Washington. "You simply have to keep on pretending that you'll break with terrorism and that you'll recognize Israel -- over, and over, and over," Ceausescu told him for the umpteenth time. Ceausescu was euphoric over the prospect that both Arafat and he might be able to snag a Nobel Peace Prize with their fake displays of the olive branch.

In April 1978 I accompanied Ceausescu to Washington, where he charmed President Carter. Arafat, he urged, would transform his brutal PLO into a law-abiding government-in-exile if only the U.S. would establish official relations. The meeting was a great success for us. Carter hailed Ceausescu, dictator of the most repressive police state in Eastern Europe, as a "great national and international leader" who had "taken on a role of leadership in the entire international community." Triumphant, Ceausescu brought home a joint communiqué in which the American president stated that his friendly relations with Ceausescu served "the cause of the world."


Three months later I was granted political asylum by the U.S. Ceausescu failed to get his Nobel Peace Prize. But in 1994 Arafat got his -- all because he continued to play the role we had given him to perfection. He had transformed his terrorist PLO into a government-in-exile (the Palestinian Authority), always pretending to call a halt to Palestinian terrorism while letting it continue unabated. Two years after signing the Oslo Accords, the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists had risen by 73%.

On Oct. 23, 1998, President Clinton concluded his public remarks to Arafat by thanking him for "decades and decades and decades of tireless representation of the longing of the Palestinian people to be free, self-sufficient, and at home." The current administration sees through Arafat's charade but will not publicly support his expulsion. Meanwhile, the aging terrorist has consolidated his control over the Palestinian Authority and marshaled his young followers for more suicide attacks.

Mr. Pacepa was the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. The author of "Red Horizons" (Regnery, 1987), he is finishing a book on the origins of current anti-Americanism.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
[B]the early launch of the second intifadeh without waiting for more proposals was a mistake, but it was made worse by the israeli violent response: 100's of demonstrators killed, israeli arab demonstrations bloodily oppressed (for which this latest week the Israeli high court blamed the israeli autorities). the intifadeh started because of a general palestinian outrage over the failed osloproces and israeli broken promises, oslo actually made palestinian life worse in stead of better(the formal cause was the visit of ariel sharon to the temple mount). Than both parties however reconciled and new peacetalks started, abruptly ended by the new prime minister Ariel Sharon.


hate to break it to you, but Palestinian violence was DESIGNED to get Israel to over-react, thereby increasing sympathies for the Palestinians and their cause. They have done this for some time and this is not a newly adopted strategy. they do not give a damn about the lives of their own people. they put children on the firing lines, hide in civilian populations and the rest in order to CAUSE palestinian civilian casualties. And 100s of 'demonstrators' were never killed. This is an embellishment of the highest order.

the 'intifadeh' started because the Palestinian Authority decided time was right to launch a terrorist campaign in order to extract more concessions, while at the same time allowing Arafat to cement popular perception of him as a 'liberator'. This is fairly well documented and next chance I get I'll give you everything i have on it.

In the meanwhile, everyone interested in this issue should read Alan Dershowitz' "the Case for Israel". he is a renound legal (and moral philosophy) professor at Harvard, and his legal reasoning is top notch. People like takeo will certainly have problems with the factual assessment that Dershowitz engages in, but this is (1) beside the point and (2) mostly wrong, as his research looks really good.
He pretty much goes, point for point, though all of the 'left's' arguments about Israeli actions. Even Israel opponents like you takeo would gain much from assessing this perspective, even if you do not agree with it. A wonderful piece of legal and moral reasoning.


yes, as in palestinian society war and violence actually rewards the extremists, this is all over the world.


maybe we should try to change this? You would be in favour of sanctions against the Palestinians then? Of course, you might say, this needs to change or we will never be able to stop the spread of terrorism unless we are constantly giving in to their demands. But I doubt it.


anyone could have participated in those elections, hamas refused to do so it was their decision, not Arafat's. since 2000 elections are impossible because of the war going on, israel in the current conditions would make elections impossible.


Israel would facilitate Plaestinian elections. I believe this. So do many here. But this has about as much empirical support as your crazy statements about Arafat's willingness to make peace, Syria's amicability and the rest. They are just ridiculous assumptions couched as logical propositions. They are as ludecrous as this statement, which may be true (were Arafat excluded).


BS, they support peace between two nations, while you support a war-criminal.


it's kind of rude to say to someone who is concerned with protecting the lives of innocent Israeli civilians PURPOSELY targeted by the Plaestinians that they support Yasser Arafat. Oh, you mean SHARON the war criminal. Let me stop laughing for a sec.

If you would be so kind, I would like to digress. Now murder is against the law. Anyone who commits murder (murder as it is defined, i.e. actus reas, mens rea, a lack of defences or excuses and the rest) is a criminal.

Agree? (and if you think they were justified then it may not have been murder, so exclude those cases).

Now, stealing is illegal. Anyone who steals (again, using legal standards and ignoring marginal cases) is a criminal.

Crossing the street against a red light is illegal. Anyone who crosses the street against a red light is a criminal.

and on and on.

Now, it is nominally correct to say that murderers AND thieves are criminals. However, any semi-intelligent person would be able to distinguish between both the magnitude of the crime and the moral blameworthiness of the two criminals.

I think we all agree on this. Now the contentious part. Yasser Arafat has been responsible (direct and indirect - Sharon's 'crimes' are assessed on an 'indirectly blameworthy" standard so Arafat's should too) for far more civilian deaths than Ariel Sharon. This isn't really a disputed fact (I think).

thus, for people to call Sharon a war criminal at every opportunity when at the same time not referring to Arafat as a worse war criminal is manipulation of information and generally dishonest.

Sharon may have been 'indirectly responsible' for Sabra and Shatilla, and likely was directly responsible for blowing up Jordanian civilian homes before 1967 (I add this for honesty, third parties should contrast this against opposing arguments), though I do not know how many.

Yasser Arafat was the leader of an international terrorist network witha focus on civilian airlines, olympic athletes, international travellers and other Israeli and Jewish civilian targets of opportunity. He has purposely targeted civilians at almost every opportunity. he has also committed many MANY crimes against his own people, denying them basic rights and seeing over a security apparatus responsible for torturing and killing its own citizens. He has, throughout his entire life, spread the worst of antisemetic propaganda and has made many speaches which would be sufficient to bring him within the ruberic of 'incitement to genocide', (which, as you seem to be keen on pseudo-legal type arguments, is sufficient to constitute a crime against humanity).

So if you are to speak of Sharon as a war criminal, you MUST, for consistency and credibility, refer to Arafat as a more serious, more aggregious, larger or bigger war criminal than Sharon. Even were collective punishment, house demolitions, and targeted assassinations all war crimes (which they are not, but we can go through this later) Arafat would STILL be a far far far more aggregious violator of laws against war crimes and crimes against humanity. To say otherwise is to be disingenuous and to lie.


in that time there wasn't peace and israel just declared war upon the entire arab world and palestinian people.


revisionist history at its best. Israel was still being atatcked in the late 1960s, just as it was being attacked in the early 1960s and the late 1950s and the early 1950s and the late 1940s. Come on man.


arafat was supported by the israeli leades and the us back in the 90's, remember?


in retrospect an obvious mistake brought on by delusional wishful thinking.


the establishment of the plo/fatah was a reaction to illegal israeli occupation, an act of war which legitimises acts of violence (but not against civilians)


In 1963? you have to do a little better than that. And the PLO has as its primary tactic, PURPOSELY TARGETED CIVILIANS since its inception. So even by your erroneous characterization above they would still never have been a legitimate movement.


so what's your solution, genocide of the palestinian people? my solution is on the contrary a reasonable one, a roadmap were both sides are forced into compliance, unlike Oslo. both sides, that's right, while you would prefere one-sided pressure! people like netanyahu would never again be in a position to postpone or block the withdrawel without facing the consequences.


My solution is conflict management. It is not a solution, but you are assuming that a solution is possible. It is not. the 'right of return' is one irresolvable issue. A 'full withdrawal' is another issue. The division of Jerusalem is another. And nothing is even remotely resolvable while the palestinians teach their children to tplay with trading cards of muder/suicide bombers PURPOSELY TARGETING Israeli civilians (have I mentioned they PURPOSELY TARGET CIVILIANS, it is an important point to keep in mind). Peace with the Palestinians is not possible. Genocide is not acceptable. Deportation is not acceptable (at least until the palestinians manage to kill thousands in a terrorist attack. If that happens I say kick them all out). But capitulation to terrorism is also not an option. There are no solutions to this problem in the short term, and in the long term all is dependant on the direction of palestinian society. But they must change their society first. israel should not stick its neck out for the palestinians again, especially since they started setting off their children as firecrackers for their own amusement.

[Canajew]

that's right, of course, and a consequence of both palestinian and barak mismanagement of the popular uprising. But sharon couldn't find any solutions, could he? His policy prooved to be even worse than barak's, and the encouraging peacetalks during the last weeks of barak's government have been cancelled.


misrepresentations and mischaracterizations. The Barak 'peace talks' were not promising. Sharon could not find any solutions because THERE ARE NONE. At least, at a minimum, none that israel can implement unilaterally (separation is not a resolution but a management strategy). His policies were not worse than Baraks. You can dispute this, but no fuzzy statistics please. I don't need to know that X died under Barak and X+Y died under Sharon, this kind of argument is stupid.


that's right, but this won't be taken into account and was an illegal action, all that matters are the 1949-borders for the international community.


what matters and what's legal are two different things. Israel's conquest of land was legal. It should give it to the Plaestinians (not back as the Jordanians and Egyptians don't want it back), but this is not a requirement of law. It is a moral imperitive. the Palestinians have a right to self determination in the places where they are a majority of the population. this does not necessarily include Israeli settlements and certainly does not include Jerusalem, but it is a general moral imperitive nonetheless. However, moral imperitives can be vitiated by subsequent moral conduct, and the palestinian's (and Arab before it was fashionable for Arabs to call themselves "palestinian') CONTINUOUS resort to terrorist attacks PURPOSELY TARGETING civilians since the 1920s has gone some way to vitiate their moral entitlement to anything.

The international community can, with respect, go f- itself. It has no credibility on this.


it depends what kind of terrorism, if it's targetting hostile countries but no civilians it can be legitimate. the us by the way is specialising in this kind of terrorist activities for many decades. (afghanistan, Cuba, chile, nicaragua, the list goes on...)


this is not terrorism. It may be an illegal use of military force, it may be a an act of war, but it is not terrorism. targeting hostile countries is not terrorism. To call it terroism is to remove all content from the term, and do a disservice to everyone who tries to use language for a better, more precise undertsanding of events.

Again, Terrorism is the PURPOSEFUL targeting and attacking (or attempting the attacking) of Civilians for political purposes. It is not a guy who kills a bunch of people at his office, it is not a person who launches a missle into a military vehicle and it is NOT NOT NOT the bombing of an enemy's military infrastructure. It is PURPOSELY targeting civilian busses. It is PURPOSELY targeting children in their homes. (for a more exhaustive list, please see the list of targets the palestinians have selected in their current terrorist war. Most should provide perfect examples.


yes, but the result is the same "territories occupied during the recent conflict" is as clear as it can get...


again, not much of a legal analysis.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
yes, indeed if one side doesn't keep its promises there's no peace-plan at all, but of course it's only temporarily untill both sides aknowledge they'd better go along the peace-process (the international community should also pressure both sides, and blackmail them financially...)


An agreement. super. Not much of a starting point. So we are agreed, then, that there was never any real 'peace' in the 1990s. You say because Israel didn't accept the agreemnet, while I know that it is because the palestinians never really accepted Israel's right to exist as an independent democratic Jewish state.

And where a society demonstrates that it is prepared to destroy itself for its war goals, why exactly would financial blacklmail help? Arafat has already stolen enough money to last a lifetime, cutting financial benefits would only hurt his people, not him or his decision makers (like with Iraq - sanctions were bad because they targeted people, not the leadership - being able to get rid of the sanctions was one of the biggest reasons to support the war, in my opinion, as without the war sanctions HAD TO BE continued indefinitely). but just like they did nothing against Hussein, they would do nothing to keep Arafat et al in line.


i think that's incorrect, look to the israeli palestinians as an example.


again, reality check. the Israeli Arabs vs the palestinians. What is their level of interaction with Israeli Jews? How well were they educated? What kind of media do they have access to (i.e. free or state controlled). What is the predominant culture within their communities? passive resistance and civil disobediance or cult of death PURPOSEFUL TARGETING of innocents on the other side. Dreams of being doctors, lawyers, footballers etc vs dreams of being a 'martyr' by massacring civilians? These features will not change the moment an agreement is signed. And that is why (1) the Israeli Arabs are not a good benchmark for assessing the behaviour of Palestinina Arabs and (2) why your analogy was purposely simplistic, and, as such, a manipulation of facts to fit your arguments. Your proposition is stupid (no offense :) ).


that's why they need international assistance.


I agree, but they also have to WANT TO even more.


so you are in favor of genocide??? does it make me a leftist to despise such ideas?


no, based on my assessment of the new 'left' it is actually a requirement to SUPPORT genocide and crimes against humanity (or at least be willfully indifferent to them) if one is to be considered a leftist in good standing.


ok, than stop blaming syria, since israel is the one refusing peace-talks; and of course as long as israel occupies the golan-heights, noone will really blame syria supporting terror-groups.


dealt with above, but again JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE, and just because Syria makes fake offerings of 'peace' does not mean they want it or are committed to it. Similarly, just because a nation does not negotiate with an untrustworthy opponent does not mean that the party who refused to negotiate was against pace.


the marshall plan benefitted all of western europe including Turkey. if you look today to the sorry state of the Turkish economy it wasn't so important after all. the countries not receiving any marshall-money did pretty well, such as Finland.


wow. Can't even recognize something the US did that was good. have to minimize and trivialize it. Shows your colours more, I suspect, than you would like.


It won't succeed since iraqi's are not cooperating and the us is trying to rebuilt iraq as a colonial power. [/B]

how many Iraqis? All of them? Looks like a vast majority are cooperating, otherwise there wouldn't be so many happy children running around with US GIs.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
this isn't an answer to my reply, in which i said Arafat was elected democratically, so clearly he's not a tyrant. by the way i dislike most tyrants, and i can list a considerable number of tyrants supported by your country...


your argument doesn't follow. A tyrant can be elected democratically. there is no inconsistency there. Hitler was a Tyrant. he was democratically elected. Arafat is a tyrant, he was elected in a less democratic election than Hitler, and he has certainly acted like a tyrant since he rose to power.


by invading in 1967 israel gave the palestinians a good and legitimate reason to fight Israel, and the occupation of 1967 wasn't related to any of the facts you were listing above...
of course the land belongs to the palestinians, they were the people who lived there as a majority for many generations, whatever foreign occupier ruled there.


I love it. So ok. the Palestinians were engaged in an illegitimate genocidal war prior to 1967, their goal being the massacre and expulsion of Israel's entire Jewish population. So, in response to YEARS of cross border terrorist attacks and the moderate (six thousand shells) shelling and air bombardment of Israeli civilian towns by Jordan (i.e. the Plaestinians) while Israel was at war with Egypt (a war that Egypt started by blockading the gulf of Aquaba as per the 1956 Suez armistance agreements (try some pseudo-law on this one, please)) Israel seized those lands west of the Jordan river that were used as a launching pad for the years of terrorism (in which over 1000 Israeli CIVILIANS were killed) and the territory from which Jordan committed its act of war (the shelling of civilian population centres). So, because Israel responded to (1) an act of war and (2) years of ILLEGITIMATE (by your assessment, not mine) cross border terrorism (BOTH targeting innocent civilians) by seizing the lands from which these attacks were perpatrated, the aggressive and criminal acts of the Arabs suddenly became legitimate and the Palestinians were then allowed to CONTINUE targeting Israeli civilians. This is absurd.

the fact is that Israel was justified in seizing this land. that you will not see this is really, with respect, not my problem. But please do not let this sort of faulty logic and manipulative assessment of the facts corner you into such ridiculous positions. It is unbecoming.


Arafat did a rather good job in the 90's, so much that many palestinians accused him of being a puppet of Israel. But finally Israel just postponed all the promises and continued building new settlements etc. while real independance was nowhere to be seen...


Arafat did, again, the minimum he felt he had to, without really living up to the letter or spirit of ANY provisions in the accord. You once again ignore intransigencies in the early 1990s and start the clock when you perceive it to be most favourable to your arguments. And, by this logic, 'real independence', more than real (though imperfect) autonomy, justified resorting to terrorist attrocities from day 1 of this war? It was not 'all or nothing' like you say. it was mostly autonomous vs complete independence. they were not prepared to wait. that's fine. but when they start PURPOSELY TARGETING civilians, the calculus changes a little, don't you think?


He will go once there will be elections in palestine and the palestinian people decides they want another leader, or once he decides to quit and leave power to someone else. untill this happens you will have to deal with him, like the palestinians will have to deal with the warcriminal sharon, like it or not.
Of course there's yet another possibility, israel murdering him, but this for sure will block all peace-negociations for decades to come and a free ticket for hamas to take over entirely the palestinian society, with devastating consequences for israel and the palestinians alike. this in turn will reenforce the israeli ultra-hawks to accomplish their "transfer"-plan... and this on its turn will lead to a war of israel against the entire Moslim world. i see where you're heading to... the big "clash of civilisations"... rather unfortunately for you once israel passes a certain red line (such as massive etnic cleansing or genocide of the palestinians) the west will stop to support israel, but some politicians in israel are too filled with revenge, ideological doctrine and blind anger to understand this. [/B]

Araft should not be killed or exiled (in my opinion) but neither should Israel ever negotiate with him. Once the palestinians want peace AND recognize this fact, they will find someone else. until they do, Israel is perfectly justified in saying no, we will not talk to your representative.

As for your 'alterior Israeli plan' I do not doubt that some people feel this way. But, were you an impartial assessor, it would be quite clear that it is the palestinians, not the Israelis who are prepared to sacrifice their own civilians for ideological goals. isarel wants peace. They just have no one to make it with.

[Mil]

Alright Takeo given that you pretty much skipped the discussion of the Marshal plan the following are the statistics in 1948 money (about 20x in today's terms and 1948 prices):


COUNTRY Total Grants Loans
Total for all countries $13,325.8 $11,820.7 $1,505.1
TOTAL (millions)
Austria 677.8
Belgium-Luxembourg 559.3
Denmark 273.0
France 2,713.6
Germany, Federal Republic of 1,390.6
Greece 706.7
Iceland 29.3
Ireland 147.5
Italy (including Trieste) 1,508.8
Netherlands (*East Indies)c 1,083.5
Norway 255.3
Portugal 51.2
Sweden 107.3
Turkey 225.1
United Kingdom 3,189.8


This does not include US/Europe trade deficit or trade statistics in general.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
Peace is always two-sided, palestinians said on many occasions they are ready to recognise israel, fight terror etc. if israel is really serious about recognising a palestinians state. so the palestinians have to stop terror from within their society, israel has to stop the colonisers and occupation. Clearly two-sided, each one has their duties...


but these are not, nor should they be simultaneous duties. the Plaestinians should not be entitled to use the PURPOSEFUL targeting of innocent people as a bargaining chip. This should not be allowed. To do so is disgusting, no?


Israel won't be extinct and disappear by accepting a two-state solution, rather on the contrary, every time israel made peace with an Arab country such as Egypt or jordan, or even the withdrawel from lbanon, prooved to be a positive thing for israel, while the opposers were screaming "defeat, surrender, treason, ..."


irrelevant. Your peace proposal includes a right of return, soemthing different from all these other circumstances. And that WILLmean the destruction of Israel. And withdrawal from Lebanon was not positive. It demonstrated to the Palestinians that there would be m,uch to gain from increasing terrorist activity. And they relied on it as an example and a model in their current war. If this were true, would your assessment change regarding Lebanon?


even oslo would have succeeded if Rabin wouldn't have been assasinated by israeli extremists and if the pa would have been a little tougher on hamas.


A LITTLE TOUGHER? come on man. And rabin himself had many doubts about Arafat. Turns out he was right.


clearly both sides need to outlaw their own radicals and extremists. Israel's government (even the so-called leftist ones) has too long been a hostage of radical parties, while the pa has too long been afraid of outrooting hamas. i think some people on this board belong to the extremist forces and thus are a burden for peace, which is clearly demonstrated in the outrageous solutions they propose (genocide, etnic cleansing, murder, etc. )


Again, I love it. Equivalency - whatever you do, whatever you admit of the palestinians, make sure to draw equivalency between palestininas and Israelis. thus we have 'Israeli extremists' and Palestininas 'extremists'. Problem is that this sort of assessment is also disingenuous. Israeli 'extremists' have attempted or successfully completed how many attacks PURPOSELY TARGETING Palestinian civilians? Certainly not 0, and probebly a hundred or more, but the palestininas have attempted or successfully completed more than 18,000 terrorist attacks since the start of this war. Given this, to state that 'both Palestinian and Israeli extremists have attacked civilions' is while not a lie, a manipulation of facts and an intellectual lie.

israeli extremists recognize that peace with the Palestinians is functionally impossible, and are trying to find other 'solutions'. It is because they are, again, stuck in conflict resolution mode rather than conflict management mode. As I have said, genocide is completely unacceptable, and transfer is equally unacceptable under current circumstances. But to draw parallels between politicians advocating transfer and terrorists PURPOSELY TARGETING innocent civilians for death and dismemberment (with RAT-POISON SOAKED NAILS, no less) is, from the 'truth is paramount' perspective, completely abhorent.


the israeli indeed need to persue what's good for them but this means looking to the other side as well, and searching for solutions which are acceptable for both sides. because, without the palestinians compliance there won't be peace.


Agreed. That is why there will not be peace, because the Palestinians will never comply.


the problem is that israel can't kill every terrorist, only the palestinians can do so. every terrorist killed by israel will generate a whole new generation of terrorists. it's clear that the current strategy failed, as it failed in all wars of mighty powers against an entire society.


Israel can certainly kill more terroists while trying than the PA can while not trying, no?

And your second assessment is wrong. Every terroist killed may generate more in the short term, but were the world to fight terrorism instead of Israel, at some point the terrorists and their proginy will realize that a change in tactics is in order. At that point, and not sooner, terrorism will cease to be an effective policy tool for immoral people and governments.


"look, this is what we'll get if we end hamas and terrorism" clearly "this" means an end to the occupation,and a fullyi independant palestinian state in the occupied territories.


yeah. Look at all these goodies you got solely because you have no compunction for sending people to stab children to death in their sleep and because you don't mind calling up your victim's wife to tell her you are killing him. great message. You can put that into children's books. oh, wait, the Palestinians already have. Well, maybe you can put it on tv, or you can read it at religious gatherings? Oh, wait, that's been done too. Sounds like the feel good message of the year. Deserves a peace-prize, that does. What lunacy.


yes, i claim so, since a lot has changed since those days. since oslo and camp david more Arabs are willing to recognise israel, and after so many decades most arabs except the die-hard ones recognise israel is there to stay, even syria. today most of the Arab world is on one line with the international community: they recognise israel within its pre-1967 borders if there will be a solution for the refugee-problem and the occupation will end.


So they don't really then, as their 'solution to the refugee problem' is the creation of 2 side by side a Palestinian Arab states (or 3, including Jordan).

And the pre-1967 armistance lines ARE NOT BORDERS, and you should stop referring to them as such. It's as stupid as Israeli supporters saying that the palestinians are not occupied. They are, and the 'borders' are nothing of the sort, nor have they ever been anything of the sort. A broder is, unfortunately, a legal creation, and once again you have illustrated very well the Palestininas' supporters tactic of manipulating legal terms and creating legal fictions in order to arrive at a philosophically acceptable argument.


ok, but 1967 didn't solve anything, did it? quite on the contrary, it created additional problems for israel, and the high cost of occupation which undermined the economy.


Wrong again. It did not solve anything. True. it created additional proiblems for Israel. True again. There is a high cost of occupation, which is (helping to) undermine the economy. Also true. But you miss what was gained, and on purpose no less. Again, disingenuous.

Benefits of the six day war:

- Israel was, for the first time, in possession of secure borders from which to repel enemy army attacks without having Israeli civilian population centres a few miles from the lines, making tactical retreats impossible.
- israel successfully broke the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran, thus ensuring access to important Asian markets and, as a result, SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVING THE ECONOMIC VITALITY OF THE NATION
- The world community, for the first time, opened up to Israel, recognized its right to exist in wider numbers, and began treating it like a permanent diplomatic fixture rather than a transitory political entity to be imminently destroyed by the Arabs (a view that was widely held before '67). this also had tremenous POSITIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT.
- Nasser suffered a resounding defeat.

So yes, problems were created, but given the tradeoff it seems reasonable. I personally like Dershowitz' idea of retaining control over Jordanian West Bank land but not asserting control over Palestinina population centres. But that was not done, and that led to some problems. But considering ALL of the costs and ALL of the benefits of the six day war (not even including the fact that if Israel lost the war its civilian population would have been mostly massacred and the remainder expelled) it is fairly clear that it was a net positive event for Israel. Again, though, compared to destruction and genocide, not a bad trade at all, no?

[Canajew]

I'm sure they would sooner or later. there have been insurgencies against the brittish and ottomans, while the palestinians resisted against the jordans in the 70's didn't they? but the israeli occupation facilitated the uprising since the palestinians were threated as dogs, didn't have equal rights as israeli citizens and saw their land colonised by israeli's. this didn't happen during former occupations.


also, there was no rapid and massive propagandizing of the (significantly illeterate) Palestinian population.

And you have it wrong. When israel occupied the west bank and gaza, the lives of domestic residents improved compared to before Israeli occupation. They did not have equal rights as Israelis, but what kind of stupid proposition is that? They were not 'treated as dogs' as you say, rather they were treated as enemy civilians (and treated as the US treated enemy civilians, not the Russians or the Arabs of course, who would have genocided first and asked questions later). The settlers are, of course, another matter, and certainly were propagandized into the worst evil since Hitler, but that does not make such 'settlements' illegal or illegitimate.


since 1967 the occupation is the core problem. palestinians, by giving up more than 70% of their original homeland, prooved to be up for compromise, while some part of the israeli society doesn't even want to grant the palestinians the remaining 30%, which by the way belongs to the palestinians according to the international community.


They did NOT give up 70% of their 'homeland'. israel was reclaimed by the Jews from swamps and barren wasteland. The negev was almost completely uninhabitted. And a majority of Palestine was ceded to Transjordan, so your numbers are way off. The amount of land that Arabs were truly 'dispossessed of' is quite small as a percentage of total area and the proportion of Arabs who were displaced is a small proportiuon of the population. And they never "proved themselves upm for compromise" is another turnspeak fiction. they rejected partition, rejected peace, rejected non-belligerancy. They only accepted them after 1967, which, if you didn't know, is not the way things work here on planet Earth.

And by what legal groundsdoes the land 'belong' to the Palestinians? By saying the will of the international community causes these rights to become legitimate and entrenched, you essentially support imperialism in its purest form - it is outsiders, pure and simple, who dictate conditions.

I think they have a case based on moral imperitives. But that is not to say that they have a right to anything.


about "sick helpers", ithink what i propose is in accordance with the position of the international community and veru rational and humane, while what you're proposing is the continuation of the oppression of an entire people. [/B]

Yes, but while what you propose is in accordance with blah blah, the impact of what you propose would be a continuation of the PURPOSEFUL TARGETING of innocent civilians, and a continued struggle to exterminate Israel's Jewish population.

In Canadian constitutional law, we have a principal whereby the constitutionality of a law is assessed both based on the purpose by which the government justified its law AND on the effect that this law has on the minority group in question. Your positions have, in effect, provided continued incentive for terrorism, provided implicit support for terrorism, and sets up for genocide an entire population. So while your purpose may be noble, your plan (and your positions i.e. Hamas can kill innocents if Israel does not keep its commitments) are far more immoral and evil than any plan to continue with non-lethal forms of oppression.

[Canajew]

Thanks Mil, no time but hopefuly tomorrow. But As can plainly be seen, this is a GENRAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION and is therefore non-binding and is not a piece of law in any shape or form.

Even were it one, the Arabs and palestininas immediately violated (5), (7), (8) (also violated by Israel), (9), and (14).

As for 11, the relevant issues are (1) willing to live at peace with their neigbours, (2) earliest practicable date, (3) the whole second paragraph.

Now the Palestininas are proposing that when they are prepared to live at peace they should be allowed to return. But what is a refugee. Obviously not defined in this resolution, the term refugee in this most likely refers to the term 'refuge' as it is generally understood by the United Nations and the international community, not the definition of refugee which only applies to Plaestinins under the auspices of the UNHCR. I cannot say conclusively because I don't know the dates of these agreements, nor have I really investigated any of this, but were my assumptions to be correct then only a VERY VERY SLIM few of the Plaestinian "refugees' would qualify under this section. Only those who actually lived in Israel (not as transitory workers either) would qualify. Not their descendants or anyone else.

As for earliest particable date, practicable is a wonderful legal term that often means never. Swamping a vibrant Jewish democracy with a bunch of ill educated hateful foreigners is hardly a practicable solution to any sort of problem, thus making a 'practicable date' virtually never.

And the second paragraph I cited because it imposes obligations on the world community. OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE WORLD COMMUNITY FAILED TO UPHOLD. So the Arabs didn't abide by this, the world didn't abide by this, but Israel is expected to abide by a non-binding UN resolution, notwithstanding the fact that the UN general assembly has, time and time again, demonstrated themselves to be irrationally pre-occupied with Israel, and has shown itself to be indifferent at best and, more generally, hostile to Israel and Israeli interests.

While this is not a proper legal analysis and the basic research i did was obviously insufficient, this should prove somewhat useful in countering fictions about 'international law' from takeo and the like.


Originally posted by Mil
The General Assembly,

Having considered further the situation in Palestine,

1. Expresses its deep appreciation of the progress achieved through the good offices of the late United Nations Mediator in promoting a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine, for which cause he sacrificed his life; and

Extends its thanks to the Acting Mediator and his staff for their continued efforts and devotion to duty in Palestine;

2. Establishes a Conciliation Commission consisting of three States Members of the United Nations which shall have the following functions:

(a) To assume, in so far as it considers necessary in existing circumstances, the functions given to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine by resolution 182;(S-2) of the General Assembly of 14 May 1948;

(b) To carry out the specific functions and directives given to it by the present resolution and such additional functions and directives as may be given to it by the General Assembly or by the Security Council;

(c) To undertake, upon the request of the Security Council, any of the functions now assigned to the United Nations Mediator on Palestine or to the United Nations Truce Commission by resolutions of the Security Council; upon such request to the Conciliation Commission by the Security Council with respect to all the remaining functions of the United Nations Mediator on Palestine under Security Council resolutions, the office of the Mediator shall be terminated;

3. Decides that a Committee of the Assembly, consisting of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, shall present, before the end of the first part of the present session of the General Assembly, for the approval of the Assembly, a proposal concerning the names of the three States which will constitute the Conciliation Commission;

4. Requests the Commission to begin its functions at once, with a view to the establishment of contact between the parties themselves and the Commission at the earliest possible date;

5. Calls upon the Governments and authorities concerned to extend the scope of the negotiations provided for in the Security Council's resolution of 16 November 1948 and to seek agreement by negotiations conducted either with the Conciliation Commission or directly, with a view to the final settlement of all questions outstanding between them;

6. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to take steps to assist the Governments and authorities concerned to achieve a final settlement of all questions outstanding between them;

7. Resolves that the Holy Places - including Nazareth - religious buildings and sites in Palestine should be protected and free access to them assured, in accordance with existing rights and historical practice; that arrangements to this end should be under effective United Nations supervision; that the United Nations Conciliation Commission, in presenting to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly its detailed proposals for a permanent international régime for the territory of Jerusalem, should include recommendations concerning the Holy Places in that territory, that with regard to the Holy Places in the rest of Palestine the Commission should call upon the political authorities of the areas concerned to give appropriate formal guarantees as to the protection of the Holy Places and access to them, and that these undertakings should be presented to the General Assembly for approval;

8. Resolves that, in view of its association with three world religions, the Jerusalem area, including the present municipality of Jerusalem plus the surrounding villages and towns, the most eastern of which shall be Abu Dis; the most southern, Bethlehem, the most western, Ein Karim (including also the built-up area of Motsa); and the most northern Shu'fat, should be accorded special and separate treatment from the rest of Palestine and should be placed under effective United Nations control;

Requests the Security Council to take further steps to ensure the demilitarization of Jerusalem at the earliest possible date;

Instructs the Commission to present to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly detailed proposals for a permanent international régime for the Jerusalem area which will provide for the maximum local autonomy for distinctive groups consistent with the special international status of the Jerusalem area;

The Conciliation Commission is authorized to appoint a United Nations representative, who shall co-operate with the local authorities with respect to the interim administration of the Jerusalem area;

9. Resolves that, pending agreement on more detailed arrangements among the Governments and authorities concerned, the freest possible access to Jerusalem by road, rail or air should be accorded to all inhabitants of Palestine;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to report immediately to the Security Council, for appropriate action by that organ, any attempt by any party to impede such access;

10. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to seek arrangements among the Governments and authorities concerned which will facilitate the economic development of the area, including arrangements for access to ports and airfields and the use of transportation and communication facilities;

11. Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible;

Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of the refugees and the payment of compensation, and to maintain close relations with the Director of the United Nations Relief for Palestine Refugees and, through him, with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations;

12. Authorizes the Conciliation Commission to appoint such subsidiary bodies and to employ such technical experts, acting under its authority, as it may find necessary for the effective discharge of its functions and responsibilities under the present resolution;

The Conciliation Commission will have its official headquarters at Jerusalem. The authorities responsible for maintaining order in Jerusalem will be responsible for taking all measures necessary to ensure the security of the Commission. The Secretary-General will provide a limited number of guards for the protection of the staff and premises of the Commission;

13. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to render progress reports periodically to the Secretary-General for transmission to the Security Council and to the Members of the United Nations;

14. Calls upon all Governments and authorities concerned to co-operate with the Conciliation Commission and to take all possible steps to assist in the implementation of the present resolution;

15. Requests the Secretary-General to provide the necessary staff and facilities and to make appropriate arrangements to provide the necessary funds required in carrying out the terms of the present resolution

[Mil]

Posted by Canajew:


Thanks Mil, no time but hopefuly tomorrow. But As can plainly be seen, this is a GENRAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION and is therefore non-binding and is not a piece of law in any shape or form.

Depends how you look at it. But you are right this is in no way a Security Council resolution. Plus the Security Council resolution would never adopt anything as broad as this.


Now the Palestininas are proposing that when they are prepared to live at peace they should be allowed to return. But what is a refugee. Obviously not defined in this resolution, the term refugee in this most likely refers to the term 'refuge' as it is generally understood by the United Nations and the international community, not the definition of refugee which only applies to Plaestinins under the auspices of the UNHCR. I cannot say conclusively because I don't know the dates of these agreements, nor have I really investigated any of this, but were my assumptions to be correct then only a VERY VERY SLIM few of the Plaestinian "refugees' would qualify under this section. Only those who actually lived in Israel (not as transitory workers either) would qualify. Not their descendants or anyone else.

In my opinion the definition of a refugee in this case are pretty clear - Palestinians who previously lived in Israel poper.



As for earliest particable date, practicable is a wonderful legal term that often means never. Swamping a vibrant Jewish democracy with a bunch of ill educated hateful foreigners is hardly a practicable solution to any sort of problem, thus making a 'practicable date' virtually never.

Well it's all open to negotiations as all other such resolutions passed applies to Israel/Palestine/Arabs. The infamous 242 is a beauty of all resolutions. From what I understand the resolution was passed as a heat response to the assasination of Bernandeu rather than anything of value. If you look through the resolution everything in it is completely dependent on outside oversite which anything but practical and open to complete negotiations and renegotiations and other such hoopla.


And the second paragraph I cited because it imposes obligations on the world community. OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE WORLD COMMUNITY FAILED TO UPHOLD. So the Arabs didn't abide by this, the world didn't abide by this, but Israel is expected to abide by a non-binding UN resolution, notwithstanding the fact that the UN general assembly has, time and time again, demonstrated themselves to be irrationally pre-occupied with Israel, and has shown itself to be indifferent at best and, more generally, hostile to Israel and Israeli interests.


In 1949 the above was not the case at all. In 1949 even the Soviet Union was very interested of making a friend of Israel. In addition to everything UN was fairly new organization which workings and general principles was foreign territory to most of the countries especially to the new post colonial Arab countries who were brand new to the world of Diplomacy. The Arabs were the main sponsors of 194 and you can see the results - the resolution is too big, too unattainable, and too vague. As laughable as it seems small Israel was playing the entire Arab world on the Diplomatic and especially the UN front till probably the Yom Kippur or till the Arab regimes more or less stabalized.


While this is not a proper legal analysis and the basic research i did was obviously insufficient, this should prove somewhat useful in countering fictions about 'international law' from takeo and the like.


Takeo is actually right on some occassions as it applies to the international law, however, political realities on the ground are something completely different.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Mil
Posted by Canajew:

Thanks Mil, no time but hopefuly tomorrow. But As can plainly be seen, this is a GENRAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION and is therefore non-binding and is not a piece of law in any shape or form.

Depends how you look at it. But you are right this is in no way a Security Council resolution. Plus the Security Council resolution would never adopt anything as broad as this.


It does NOT depend on 'how you look at it'. While Israel may have moral obligations or good policy reasons for acting in this way (or not acting in this way), this is a non-binding UN general assembly resolution, and as such it is incapable of imposing ANY legal obligations on Israel. As the United nations puts it, "While the decisions of the Assembly have no legally binding force for governments, they carry the weight of world opinion, as well as the moral authority of the world community."

http://www.un.org/ga/58/ga_background.html

So while there may indeed be moral imperitives to follow general assembly resolutions, it is not required by law, thus demonstrating that calling the Plaestinians' desire to return a 'right of return' a complete and utter fiction.


Now the Palestininas are proposing that when they are prepared to live at peace they should be allowed to return. But what is a refugee. Obviously not defined in this resolution, the term refugee in this most likely refers to the term 'refuge' as it is generally understood by the United Nations and the international community, not the definition of refugee which only applies to Plaestinins under the auspices of the UNHCR. I cannot say conclusively because I don't know the dates of these agreements, nor have I really investigated any of this, but were my assumptions to be correct then only a VERY VERY SLIM few of the Plaestinian "refugees' would qualify under this section. Only those who actually lived in Israel (not as transitory workers either) would qualify. Not their descendants or anyone else.

In my opinion the definition of a refugee in this case are pretty clear - Palestinians who previously lived in Israel poper.


but again, it is the legal analysis that will be capable of determining this. Your, or Takeos (or my) opinion based only on inspection of the document in question is completely insufficient in this regard.

This UN general assembly resolution was passed, according to http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1948to1967_un_194.php on November 12, 1948.

The UNRWA, the body responsible for oversight of Plasestinian refugees was established by United Nations General Assembly resolution 302 (IV) of 8 December 1949 according to http://www.un.org/unrwa/overview/index.html

According to the UNRWA, "Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. ... UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948."

thus, the definition of refugee as contemplated by the UNRWA and the supporters of the Palestinians' 'right of return' could NOT POSSIBLY BE the definition of the term refugee in the UN's general assembly resolution, as this definition had not even been conceived of at that time. As such, the proper definition of refugee would be that term as it was defined by the United Nations.

Though I have not found what the definition was in 1948 when this resolution was passed (noting again that the resolution MUST have intended to use the term refugee in the ordinary course, otherwise it would have redefined the term to suit its purposes), the definition of refugees as given by the United Nations in its 'cyber school bus' section is:

refugees
Any person who, owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. May also include internally displaced persons in similar circumstances, designated as refugee populations of concern to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees

http://www.un.org/Pubs/CyberSchoolBus/infonation/e_terms.htm

From this definition, very few (if any) presently living Arabs who call themselves Palestinian would meet these criteria. Thus, even WERE the resolution binding and even were Israel REQUIRED by law to repatriate them (which it is not) it would still not follow that the vast vast vast majority of Plaestinian 'refugees' would be entitled to return as of right.

So, unless takeo or someone else has a problem with the analysis which is preceding, I trust that this will put an end to any claims from any readers of this post that the Plaestinians are either 'entitled to a right of return' or that such a right would require the repatriation of anything more than a nominal number of Palestininas who would qualify as genuine refugees.

Once again, in an open forum with a free exchange of ideas, truth prevails over intentionally constructed fictions.


As for earliest particable date, practicable is a wonderful legal term that often means never. Swamping a vibrant Jewish democracy with a bunch of ill educated hateful foreigners is hardly a practicable solution to any sort of problem, thus making a 'practicable date' virtually never.

Well it's all open to negotiations as all other such resolutions passed applies to Israel/Palestine/Arabs. The infamous 242 is a beauty of all resolutions. From what I understand the resolution was passed as a heat response to the assasination of Bernandeu rather than anything of value. If you look through the resolution everything in it is completely dependent on outside oversite which anything but practical and open to complete negotiations and renegotiations and other such hoopla.


It's NOT all open to negotiations. The Israelis may agree in negotiations that the Palestininas can return, but they CANNOT agree at the negotiating table that resolution 194 provided for the right of return. It just doesn't work that way. Israel did not construct this resolution, and therefore is not entitled to unilaterally recast it in some other light. The resolution is what it is. Period.


And the second paragraph I cited because it imposes obligations on the world community. OBLIGATIONS WHICH THE WORLD COMMUNITY FAILED TO UPHOLD. So the Arabs didn't abide by this, the world didn't abide by this, but Israel is expected to abide by a non-binding UN resolution, notwithstanding the fact that the UN general assembly has, time and time again, demonstrated themselves to be irrationally pre-occupied with Israel, and has shown itself to be indifferent at best and, more generally, hostile to Israel and Israeli interests.


In 1949 the above was not the case at all. In 1949 even the Soviet Union was very interested of making a friend of Israel. In addition to everything UN was fairly new organization which workings and general principles was foreign territory to most of the countries especially to the new post colonial Arab countries who were brand new to the world of Diplomacy. The Arabs were the main sponsors of 194 and you can see the results - the resolution is too big, too unattainable, and too vague. As laughable as it seems small Israel was playing the entire Arab world on the Diplomatic and especially the UN front till probably the Yom Kippur or till the Arab regimes more or less stabalized.


with respect, this is irrelevant. The UN is pressuring Israel RIGHT NOW in a way entirely consistent with my claims. How they treated Israel back then is irrelevant, as we are talking about accepting this as binding RIGHT NOW, not 50+ years ago. And given the UN's record of hostility towards Israel and Israeli interests, there seems absolutely ZERO justification for Israel to accept as binding a non-binding general assembly resolution that contained obligations imposed on and not followed by the Arabs and Palestinians and by the world community at large.


While this is not a proper legal analysis and the basic research i did was obviously insufficient, this should prove somewhat useful in countering fictions about 'international law' from takeo and the like.

Takeo is actually right on some occassions as it applies to the international law, however, political realities on the ground are something completely different. [/B]

Maybe he is right sometimes, this is not the point. My problem is that were he right, he would most likely be right by accident, not pursuant to any sort of rational functional legal analysis and certainly not because he approaches legal issues from an unbiased 'carte blanche' perspective asking, what does the law say, what does it mean, why have I concluded such? etc..

And realities on the ground are something different, and are completely irrelevant when talking about a 55 year old resolution of the general assembly of the united nations. This analysis of 194 was not meant to reflect ANY facts on the ground, rather it was meant to cast better light on what the resolution actually says and whether it binds any parties named in the resolution. Facts on the ground are a red herring.

[Lowell]

The lawyerly voices drone on and on, lulling everyone in the courtroom into a peaceful somnolence... zzZZZzzzZZZ... ah how I miss the old days before attorneys increased to their vast numbers, each outdoing the other in detail mongering. :)

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Lowell
The lawyerly voices drone on and on, lulling everyone in the courtroom into a peaceful somnolence... zzZZZzzzZZZ... ah how I miss the old days before attorneys increased to their vast numbers, each outdoing the other in detail mongering. :)

but without details, its just storytelling.

Also, in the context of this debate and the resolution of these issues, it is tremendously important to be aware of all the details, even if only to be able to show those on the other side why their inferences and assumptions and beliefs are wrong.

As for the zzZZing, I was thinking about starting up some sort of sleep clinic if this whole law thing doesn't work out. Looks like I may have found my first customer :)

[takeo]

these are a lot of posts to reply to, a few hours at least, you certainly put some efforts in it. Please give me some time or the lady will make her own very personal intifadeh...

[Mediocrates]

the takeo illegal occupation of the doghouse.

[Communication]

Of Jews and Kurds
17:24 Sep 23, '03 / 26 Elul 5763


The as-Safir newspaper, out of Beirut, recently featured two articles a few days apart, both of which indicate the discomfort significant swaths of the Arab world feel when ethnic minorities take their rightful place in their midst. In one piece, a former Lebanese prime minister calls for a stealth approach to eliminating the Jewish character of the Jewish state, and in the other, a columnist bemoaned the weakening of the Arab character of the Arab state of Iraq.

In the September 12, 2003, edition of as-Safir, former Lebanese Prime Minister Salim Hoss wrote that the original Arab goal regarding Israel was taking the land, “expelling the Zionist invaders”, and establishing an independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital. “However,” Hoss explained, “the goal of the Palestinian struggle has changed since the 1967 catastrophe. Arab leaders have raised the slogan of ‘removing traces of aggression’, which means returning to the situation that existed before the occupations of 1967, to the state that existed in 1948...” along with the “right of return” for Arab refugees to Israeli territory.

“In my opinion, Palestine has to remain one whole entity and Palestinians have to return back to their home land,” the former Lebanese leader wrote, “But in contrast to what Arab extremists say about the necessity to expel Jews from Palestine, I say we need to assimilate them in a unified Palestinian entity where Arabs and Jews live next to each other in peace and safety.” Hoss continued, “The intifada and resistance need to continue until we reach our final goal which is the establishment of a unified Palestinian entity, with Jerusalem as its capital and the right of return implemented. But what we desperately need to do is to re-evaluate our tactics of resistance.”

The problem with the current tactics, in Salim Hoss’ view, is that “we are one way or another legitimizing Israel’s ruthless deeds....” The solution, then, is to “change the rules of the game and stop attacking innocent civilian Jews. ...We need to go back to the traditions of demonstrations, strikes, sit-ins, civil disobedience, media campaigns, leafleting, etc. Replacing suicide bombings with those progressive means will have a positive reaction with international public opinion, which we desperately need if we seriously consider winning at all.”

Meanwhile, in Iraq, according to as-Safir columnist Sateh Nouriddine, the US is planning a state “devoid of its traditional Arab character.” In a September 10th column, the writer explained that the appointment of a provisional Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, who is of Kurdish origin is a clear hint of this intention. “The presence of this Kurdish delegate [at the Arab League ministerial meeting in Cairo earlier in the week], representing such an important Arab country as Iraq, was aimed at unfairly provoking Arab chauvinism.” However, Nouriddine explained, there was nothing the Arab League could have done to prevent the Kurd from attending and representing Iraq.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
these are a lot of posts to reply to, a few hours at least, you certainly put some efforts in it. Please give me some time or the lady will make her own very personal intifadeh...

slow day at the offfice yesterday. But I look forwrad to your comments and appreciate your efforts.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Canajew
but without details, its just storytelling.

Also, in the context of this debate and the resolution of these issues, it is tremendously important to be aware of all the details, even if only to be able to show those on the other side why their inferences and assumptions and beliefs are wrong.

As for the zzZZing, I was thinking about starting up some sort of sleep clinic if this whole law thing doesn't work out. Looks like I may have found my first customer :)

Oh, I concede the importance in the modern world, a world largely created and managed by lawyers, of details but it seems only lawyers can appreciate such toilsome matters. At any rate the 'other side' has its own lawyers and there are always more than enough details pro and con that the argument is seldom resolved, and either side is seldom proved wrong by recitation of opposing details. Not to digress into a discussion of law but terrorists and criminals rarely heed the legal niceties except in the breach, and if laws were obeyed we would need very few laws- or lawyers. Sometimes I miss the old days when arguments were settled by the edge of a sword rather than by the droning details of lawyers. :) But carry on, I am reading every word- unlike takeo, who skims and guesses and wonders how to refute your details.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Lowell
At any rate the 'other side' has its own lawyers and there are always more than enough details pro and con that the argument is seldom resolved, and either side is seldom proved wrong by recitation of opposing details.

Many times, yes. But in this instance there is really no room for any other position. This issue is not particularly ambiguous from a legal point of view, and a proper legal argument (assuming the other side is receptive to reasoned analysis) IS enough to resolve the question once and for all. This 'resolution' may not be acceptable, but this is besides the point. They raised the legal issue. I showed them why their perceptions were wrong, using the law as their issue is inherently legal in nature. There is not really any room for argument on this, other than arguments which allow for ignoring things that are true and assuming things that are false.

The 'right of return' is a falsehood and there is no basis in any sort of law or custom for that right.

the Israelis are not required to withdraw from all of the teritories captured from Egypt, Jordan and Syria in a defensive war.

These are legal statements, and the only way for the Palestinians and their lawyers to present an argument is to either distort facts or distort the law. Because with proper facts and a rational, reasonable assessment of the laws in question, their positions become absurdity.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Canajew
Many times, yes. But in this instance there is really no room for any other position. This issue is not particularly ambiguous from a legal point of view, and a proper legal argument (assuming the other side is receptive to reasoned analysis) IS enough to resolve the question once and for all. This 'resolution' may not be acceptable, but this is besides the point. They raised the legal issue. I showed them why their perceptions were wrong, using the law as their issue is inherently legal in nature. There is not really any room for argument on this, other than arguments which allow for ignoring things that are true and assuming things that are false.

The 'right of return' is a falsehood and there is no basis in any sort of law or custom for that right.

the Israelis are not required to withdraw from all of the teritories captured from Egypt, Jordan and Syria in a defensive war.

These are legal statements, and the only way for the Palestinians and their lawyers to present an argument is to either distort facts or distort the law. Because with proper facts and a rational, reasonable assessment of the laws in question, their positions become absurdity.

I happen to agree, and I'd never be foolish enough to argue the contrary... but I am more or less in touch with reality, and takeo as an admirer and apologist for terrorists is not, and he actually believes the law is on his side. Now, what about this legal question: are the 'Palestinians', as squatters, legally required to withdraw from Israeli land- Judea, Samaria and Gaza- that they now occupy and use as bases to terrorize Israel? You see, I believe it is the Arab 'Palestinians' who are the occupiers and not the IDF or Israeli settlers.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Lowell
I happen to agree, and I'd never be foolish enough to argue the contrary... but I am more or less in touch with reality, and takeo as an admirer and apologist for terrorists is not, and he actually believes the law is on his side. Now, what about this legal question: are the 'Palestinians', as squatters, legally required to withdraw from Israeli land- Judea, Samaria and Gaza- that they now occupy and use as bases to terrorize Israel? You see, I believe it is the Arab 'Palestinians' who are the occupiers and not the IDF or Israeli settlers.

really? why are they quatters? Did they enter the territory legally? Were they recognized as inhabitants by the authorities (whether ottoman or british mandatory?). Do they hold legal title to the land their homes were built, or do they have valid binding contractual lease agreements allowing them to stay? All of these are important in determining who is a squatter.

Some more questions. Why is Judea and Samaria Israeli land? Why are Palestinian POPULATION CENTRES Israeli lands? Why is all the property which existed on these lands prior to Israeli sovereignty over these lands Israeli property? Do the Palestinians, as legitimate inhabitants of portions of that land before the Israelis gained control over it, have any sort of legal or moral claim to those lands which they actually lived on (contrasted to barren unsettled unworked parts of Judea and Samaria)? Do they have a claim on those lands that were unsettled, uninhabitted, unfertile and undeveloped? Where do these claims derive from?

I am not going to answer these questions, though I will say that i do not believe that the palestinians are squatters, nor do I believe that there is any legal basis for claiming they must withdraw.

However, having said this, I am also of the view that Israeli 'illegal settlements' are nothing of the sort. They are not illegal as far as I can tell (though I have not looked at this in any substantive way, so this conclusion is quite tenuous and I would welcome arguments as to why they are illegal, with proper citations and references if possible :) ). the lands are occupied. that is true. But the lands are also disputed as there is no, and there has never been, any border recognized between the two pieces of territory. As such, it cannot be said that Israeli settlements are illegal per se. Some may be, but others are most surely not. Again a fiction that the palestinians love to repeat ad nasium in order to make their claims appear legitimate.

And, as an aside, there is an implicit limitation period in all of this. Not by law, but seemingly by custom. Just because the Jews lived there 2000 years ago and the Arabs did not, it does not follow that all Arabs are now squatters, because, while the rights of the Jews may or may not have been extinguished, they were certainly curtailed a little through non-use of the land (this is part of the reason it is fairly easy to justify claims for Jewish sovereignty in the 30s and 40s - the Jews reclaimed much (most) of their land from barrens, swamplands and uninhabited deserts. Even were these lands nominally owned by the 'palestinians ' (who did not exist as a political entity back then) the sale of these lands to Jews and these Jews' reclamation of that land from infertility rendered that land theirs. The land that was gained in the subsequent defensive war became legitimate Israeli territory because of the nature of that war (though what difference there is between the nature of that war of extermination and the 1967 war of extermination is anyone's guess).

And with respect, the issue of terrorism is not relevant to whether the Palestinians are squatters. Squatting and terroism and murder are different things.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Canajew
really? why are they quatters? Did they enter the territory legally? Were they recognized as inhabitants by the authorities (whether ottoman or british mandatory?). Do they hold legal title to the land their homes were built, or do they have valid binding contractual lease agreements allowing them to stay? All of these are important in determining who is a squatter.

Some more questions. Why is Judea and Samaria Israeli land? Why are Palestinian POPULATION CENTRES Israeli lands? Why is all the property which existed on these lands prior to Israeli sovereignty over these lands Israeli property? Do the Palestinians, as legitimate inhabitants of portions of that land before the Israelis gained control over it, have any sort of legal or moral claim to those lands which they actually lived on (contrasted to barren unsettled unworked parts of Judea and Samaria)? Do they have a claim on those lands that were unsettled, uninhabitted, unfertile and undeveloped? Where do these claims derive from?

I am not going to answer these questions, though I will say that i do not believe that the palestinians are squatters, nor do I believe that there is any legal basis for claiming they must withdraw.

However, having said this, I am also of the view that Israeli 'illegal settlements' are nothing of the sort. They are not illegal as far as I can tell (though I have not looked at this in any substantive way, so this conclusion is quite tenuous and I would welcome arguments as to why they are illegal, with proper citations and references if possible :) ). the lands are occupied. that is true. But the lands are also disputed as there is no, and there has never been, any border recognized between the two pieces of territory. As such, it cannot be said that Israeli settlements are illegal per se. Some may be, but others are most surely not. Again a fiction that the palestinians love to repeat ad nasium in order to make their claims appear legitimate.

And, as an aside, there is an implicit limitation period in all of this. Not by law, but seemingly by custom. Just because the Jews lived there 2000 years ago and the Arabs did not, it does not follow that all Arabs are now squatters, because, while the rights of the Jews may or may not have been extinguished, they were certainly curtailed a little through non-use of the land (this is part of the reason it is fairly easy to justify claims for Jewish sovereignty in the 30s and 40s - the Jews reclaimed much (most) of their land from barrens, swamplands and uninhabited deserts. Even were these lands nominally owned by the 'palestinians ' (who did not exist as a political entity back then) the sale of these lands to Jews and these Jews' reclamation of that land from infertility rendered that land theirs. The land that was gained in the subsequent defensive war became legitimate Israeli territory because of the nature of that war (though what difference there is between the nature of that war of extermination and the 1967 war of extermination is anyone's guess).

And with respect, the issue of terrorism is not relevant to whether the Palestinians are squatters. Squatting and terroism and murder are different things.

That's a lot of work you expect from me! I guess that will teach me to keep my mouth shut around a lawyer... Hey, Communication, want to repay me for those maps and coffee I got for you? No? Drat. OK I'll do a little research and see what I can find to support my contention that the 'Palestinians' are squatters...

[David_in_NYC]

Let me quickly summarize 'Takeo's Roadmap For Peace':

(1) All Jews line up on one side of the road with empty hands.

(2) All Arabs line up on the other side of the road with AK-47s.

(3) On the count of 3, everyone with a weapon fires.

[old-reb]

Originally posted by David_in_NYC
Let me quickly summarize 'Takeo's Roadmap For Peace':

(1) All Jews line up on one side of the road with empty hands.

(2) All Arabs line up on the other side of the road with AK-47s.

(3) On the count of 3, everyone with a weapon fires.

How many times has this scenario been repeated through out history?

old reb

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Canajew
really? why are they quatters? Did they enter the territory legally? Were they recognized as inhabitants by the authorities (whether ottoman or british mandatory?). Do they hold legal title to the land their homes were built, or do they have valid binding contractual lease agreements allowing them to stay? All of these are important in determining who is a squatter.

Some more questions. Why is Judea and Samaria Israeli land? Why are Palestinian POPULATION CENTRES Israeli lands? Why is all the property which existed on these lands prior to Israeli sovereignty over these lands Israeli property? Do the Palestinians, as legitimate inhabitants of portions of that land before the Israelis gained control over it, have any sort of legal or moral claim to those lands which they actually lived on (contrasted to barren unsettled unworked parts of Judea and Samaria)? Do they have a claim on those lands that were unsettled, uninhabitted, unfertile and undeveloped? Where do these claims derive from?

I am not going to answer these questions, though I will say that i do not believe that the palestinians are squatters, nor do I believe that there is any legal basis for claiming they must withdraw.

However, having said this, I am also of the view that Israeli 'illegal settlements' are nothing of the sort. They are not illegal as far as I can tell (though I have not looked at this in any substantive way, so this conclusion is quite tenuous and I would welcome arguments as to why they are illegal, with proper citations and references if possible :) ). the lands are occupied. that is true. But the lands are also disputed as there is no, and there has never been, any border recognized between the two pieces of territory. As such, it cannot be said that Israeli settlements are illegal per se. Some may be, but others are most surely not. Again a fiction that the palestinians love to repeat ad nasium in order to make their claims appear legitimate.

And, as an aside, there is an implicit limitation period in all of this. Not by law, but seemingly by custom. Just because the Jews lived there 2000 years ago and the Arabs did not, it does not follow that all Arabs are now squatters, because, while the rights of the Jews may or may not have been extinguished, they were certainly curtailed a little through non-use of the land (this is part of the reason it is fairly easy to justify claims for Jewish sovereignty in the 30s and 40s - the Jews reclaimed much (most) of their land from barrens, swamplands and uninhabited deserts. Even were these lands nominally owned by the 'palestinians ' (who did not exist as a political entity back then) the sale of these lands to Jews and these Jews' reclamation of that land from infertility rendered that land theirs. The land that was gained in the subsequent defensive war became legitimate Israeli territory because of the nature of that war (though what difference there is between the nature of that war of extermination and the 1967 war of extermination is anyone's guess).

And with respect, the issue of terrorism is not relevant to whether the Palestinians are squatters. Squatting and terroism and murder are different things.

I can point you in the right direction. These arguments are centered around claims of "prior rights" (AKA "past perfected rights") and "eminent domain".

If, for example, in most of the states in the United States, I build a fence, wall, or structure on your property, or there is a path or roadway being used across your property, and you don't litigate for a period, on average, of nine years, I can claim "prior rights" or "past perfected rights" and continue to use the property. However, I cannot make any changes to the fence, wall, structure or roadway, other than maintain it in its original form. In other words, I cannot make a claim to additional property.

If, on the other hand, I am a governmental agency, I can acquire property from individuals through "eminent domain"; otherwise known as "the rights of condemnation". In most cases, two conditions have to be met; in this order. First, a greater public need than that of the propertys current use, and, "fair market value" compensation for property condemned must be given. If the property owner refuses to relenquish the property for the fair market value, the governmental agency can "seize" the property, and it gets a bit fuzzy regarding the compensation.

[Lowell]

Here's a picture show that I hope even takeo can understand-
http://www.conceptwizard.com/conen/conflict_2.html

I haven't had the time to research the squatter question but JY does suggest a good perspective. Imagine if illegals from Mexico set up semi-autonomous areas within the US, demanded the right of return and committed terrorism against Americans... would they be squatters subject to expulsion? Similarly with the Arabs who style themselves 'Palestinians' and occupy Israel's land.

[Lowell]

Another picture show-
http://www.infoclick.org/nutshell3.html
What do these facts do to your pipedream, takeo?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
I can point you in the right direction. These arguments are centered around claims of "prior rights" (AKA "past perfected rights") and "eminent domain".

If, for example, in most of the states in the United States, I build a fence, wall, or structure on your property, or there is a path or roadway being used across your property, and you don't litigate for a period, on average, of nine years, I can claim "prior rights" or "past perfected rights" and continue to use the property. However, I cannot make any changes to the fence, wall, structure or roadway, other than maintain it in its original form. In other words, I cannot make a claim to additional property.

If, on the other hand, I am a governmental agency, I can acquire property from individuals through "eminent domain"; otherwise known as "the rights of condemnation". In most cases, two conditions have to be met; in this order. First, a greater public need than that of the propertys current use, and, "fair market value" compensation for property condemned must be given. If the property owner refuses to relenquish the property for the fair market value, the governmental agency can "seize" the property, and it gets a bit fuzzy regarding the compensation.

in the common law system, what youy refer to stems from the doctrine of adverse possession. Where I openly and in a manner inconsistent with your interests take possession of someone else's land and that possession goes unchallenged for the necessary period of time, then I would gain legal title to that land.

Your second bit about government appropriation of lands does not appear at all relevant in international disputes, and I am not sure how it would apply here. It would apply inasmuch as the discussion were about Israeli appropriation of land in the territories for matters of national importance (with an ultimate oversight of proper use of expropriation powers vested in the independent judiciary), but that is a far less basic and fundamental question than whether the Arab inhabitants of Judea Samaria and Gaza weho call themselves Plaestinian are 'squatters' or not.

The but about adverse possession, though, would work more in favour of the Plaestinians than against them. They ere the ones who adversely possessed the land after the Jews were driven out, and they lived in that land openly and notoriously and unchallenged in that right for a long time. They never allowed Israeli settlement of 'their lands' though, so I really don't see how they would be illigitimate.

And it is important to remember that these are all domestic laws that we are asuming to apply both in the past when such laws did not exist and in international disputes where such doctrines do not really apply. They are goiod as a moral guide, but that's about it. I wouldn't like to make a case in the international arena based on the common law of an external country, especially where that doctrine has been significantly proscribed by legislation in many many jurisdictions over the years.


And to takeo - I hope you are still planning to respond to my comments. It seems only fair.

[David_in_NYC]

Originally posted by old-reb
How many times has this scenario been repeated through out history?

old reb

Too many. If we're smart, there will be no further incrementation of that number.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Canajew


Your second bit about government appropriation of lands does not appear at all relevant in international disputes, and I am not sure how it would apply here. It would apply inasmuch as the discussion were about Israeli appropriation of land in the territories for matters of national importance (with an ultimate oversight of proper use of expropriation powers vested in the independent judiciary), but that is a far less basic and fundamental question than whether the Arab inhabitants of Judea Samaria and Gaza weho call themselves Plaestinian are 'squatters' or not.

The but about adverse possession, though, would work more in favour of the Plaestinians than against them. They ere the ones who adversely possessed the land after the Jews were driven out, and they lived in that land openly and notoriously and unchallenged in that right for a long time. They never allowed Israeli settlement of 'their lands' though, so I really don't see how they would be illigitimate.

Hypothetically, yes, as long as their adverse possession wasn't contested before ex number of years; I agree; it could be argued that they have a claim. However, the re-taking of the land by the Israelis would seem to negate the claim, in that they now have dominion; where having the might of police powers makes right.... There again, even if a return of land were contested, and Israel claimed similar grounds to eminant domain, and say the world court (ha, ha) found for the plaintiff, who would enforce the judgement? Certainly not Belgium, or France.... :D

And it is important to remember that these are all domestic laws that we are asuming to apply both in the past when such laws did not exist and in international disputes where such doctrines do not really apply. They are goiod as a moral guide, but that's about it. I wouldn't like to make a case in the international arena based on the common law of an external country, especially where that doctrine has been significantly proscribed by legislation in many many jurisdictions over the years.

Yes. I'm aware that this is mental gymnastics. Interestingly, some of the United States supreme court justices have based decisions on European law. Are you aware of that? On some level, I find that disturbing.


And to takeo - I hope you are still planning to respond to my comments. It seems only fair.

Bon chance!

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Hypothetically, yes, as long as their adverse possession wasn't contested before ex number of years; I agree; it could be argued that they have a claim. However, the re-taking of the land by the Israelis would seem to negate the claim, in that they now have dominion; where having the might of police powers makes right.... There again, even if a return of land were contested, and Israel claimed similar grounds to eminant domain, and say the world court (ha, ha) found for the plaintiff, who would enforce the judgement? Certainly not Belgium, or France.... :D


of course no one would 'enforce' such a thing, but an important thing to keep in mind is that this doctrine has associated with it a sort of limitations period, where when open and notorious possession goes on for more than (at most, 20) years then the original title holder's title is extinguished and that individual cannot regain title.


Yes. I'm aware that this is mental gymnastics. Interestingly, some of the United States supreme court justices have based decisions on European law. Are you aware of that? On some level, I find that disturbing.


this happens all the time all over the world, at least within the common law system. The thinking goes that the principles are universal, and where 2 countries statutory provisions are similar, that common law principles are portable across countries. In law school we spent a fair amount of time looking at cases from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and even Israel, all common law countries with similar principles. The French civil law system is, conversely, quite different, so it is a more rare ocassion when cases from countries with this model are used as precedent or as a guide, except in certain areas, such as anti-trust law, where the principles are more or less universal.



Bon chance! [/B]

but its HIS thread. I responded to his original posts. He must just be saving his strength or is busy at work or something?

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Canajew
of course no one would 'enforce' such a thing, but an important thing to keep in mind is that this doctrine has associated with it a sort of limitations period, where when open and notorious possession goes on for more than (at most, 20) years then the original title holder's title is extinguished and that individual cannot regain title.



this happens all the time all over the world, at least within the common law system. The thinking goes that the principles are universal, and where 2 countries statutory provisions are similar, that common law principles are portable across countries. In law school we spent a fair amount of time looking at cases from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and even Israel, all common law countries with similar principles. The French civil law system is, conversely, quite different, so it is a more rare ocassion when cases from countries with this model are used as precedent or as a guide, except in certain areas, such as anti-trust law, where the principles are more or less universal.




but its HIS thread. I responded to his original posts. He must just be saving his strength or is busy at work or something?

To be sure it's his thread but takeo's interest is not to discuss and debate the truth or reality, but to assist in the promulgation and propagation of a Big Lie, viz, that the 'Palestinians' have some legitimate claim to the land they occupy. In contrast I research my position that the Arabs are squatters who have no legal claims to the land, especially since they utilize their occupied portions to launch terrorism against a sovereign nation...

Definition of a squatter settlement varies widely from country to country and depends on a variety of defining parameters. In general, it is considered as a residential area in an urban locality inhabited by the very poor who have no access to tenured land of their own, and hence "squat" on vacant land, either private or public...

A squatter settlement therefore, can be defined as a residential area which has developed without legal claims to the land and/or permission from the concerned authorities to build; as a result of their illegal or semi-legal status, infrastructure and services are usually inadequate. There are essentially three defining characteristics that helps us understand squatter settlement: the Physical, the Social and the legal with the reasons behind them being interrelated...

http://www.gdrc.org/uem/squatters/define-squatter.html

Standing next to a half-finished road that will someday be a thoroughfare for Israeli settlers, Naim Sa'ad explains that in 1967, Bir 'Ona was annexed to Israel, along with Arab East Jerusalem. Its residents, however,were not embraced by the state. After living several years without an Israeli classification, the villagers were first given West Bank status, and then finally, in 1983, offered the blue identity cards signaling Jerusalem residency. But the villagers of Bir 'Ona refused this last offer, in line with what was at the time a general Palestinian boycott of the Israeli state...

http://www.palestinereport.org/sect/jer/bir.html

...Jews first settled in Efrat in 1980, and I asked him: When does a "settlement," with a population running into the thousands, become a "village" or "town," and when do "settlers" become "residents"?

http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/04.Feb.1999/Columns/Article-3.html

The present arab "palestinian" usurpers in Israel simply have no hint of a valid claim to anything.
The arab claim is that of a "johnny come lately" squatter - or someone who intends to steal the land by sitting on it. The Jews themselves might be thought of as the rightful covenanted caretakers. Israel is a sovereign nation and the historic owner - so no "squatter rights" can ever apply.

http://www.bibleprobe.com/WWWBoard/messages/182.html


Does this elicit your lawyerly smirk, Canajew? :)

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Lowell
To be sure it's his thread but takeo's interest is not to discuss and debate the truth or reality, but to assist in the promulgation and propagation of a Big Lie, viz, that the 'Palestinians' have some legitimate claim to the land they occupy. In contrast I research my position that the Arabs are squatters who have no legal claims to the land, especially since they utilize their occupied portions to launch terrorism against a sovereign nation...


if true, it is remarkable that people function this way and no less remarkable that so many are willing to believe them.


Definition of a squatter settlement varies widely from country to country and depends on a variety of defining parameters. In general, it is considered as a residential area in an urban locality inhabited by the very poor who have no access to tenured land of their own, and hence "squat" on vacant land, either private or public...


Squatters and squatter settlements are two different things and though obviously related, should be deliniated between.

But your definition of squatter settlements appears to be valid and I can accept it as such.


A squatter settlement therefore, can be defined as a residential area which has developed without legal claims to the land and/or permission from the concerned authorities to build; as a result of their illegal or semi-legal status, infrastructure and services are usually inadequate. There are essentially three defining characteristics that helps us understand squatter settlement: the Physical, the Social and the legal with the reasons behind them being interrelated...


so the squatter can be defined as an individual who lives on land which he is not authorized to by the governing authority or some other (legal) private transaction (like a lease, for example)


Standing next to a half-finished road that will someday be a thoroughfare for Israeli settlers, Naim Sa'ad explains that in 1967, Bir 'Ona was annexed to Israel, along with Arab East Jerusalem. Its residents, however,were not embraced by the state. After living several years without an Israeli classification, the villagers were first given West Bank status, and then finally, in 1983, offered the blue identity cards signaling Jerusalem residency. But the villagers of Bir 'Ona refused this last offer, in line with what was at the time a general Palestinian boycott of the Israeli state...


but that village was legitimately located where it was. While it is nominally true that a state can arbitrarily deprive inhabitants of their legal rights, including their rights to live on the land, it seems highly suspect that a sufi living in Saudi Arabia (I would use Jew but there are, obviously, none there, and apparently the Saudi perceive other Muslims to be equivalent to Jews) would become a squatter because the state passed draconian laws saying that sufis do not have a right to live on the land. It seems there is a component of squatting, especially in an international context, that is lacking - for if the laws which render people squatters is invalid, then they are not really squatters.

These people you speak of were residents of the land before Israel gained sovereign control. If they still own the land (and I mean de facto own, all land may be nominally 'owned' by the state (as in Canada) but in reality it is owned by the person with legal title or a deed) then they are not squatters, even if the governmnet does not want them there.


...Jews first settled in Efrat in 1980, and I asked him: When does a "settlement," with a population running into the thousands, become a "village" or "town," and when do "settlers" become "residents"?


an interesting question. I assume the Palestinians would answer "never" but I also assume that they would not apply the same criteria to Arabs who moved to Palestine in the 1920s and 1930s (a substantial proportion of the Arab population, btw)

And if the answer is indeed never, then we living in North America not of native descent would still be squatters. Conversely, by your logic, the natives would have been squatters if the sovereigns (whether britain or, later, the United States) declared them not owners of any lands they inhabit. Normative justice issues seem to loom large in this.


The present arab "palestinian" usurpers in Israel simply have no hint of a valid claim to anything.


I agree, except a moral right to self-determination in those areas where they represent a majority AND where they do not have the rights of Israeli citzens (which they should NOT, of course, this is only meant to make a distinction between Arab Israelis and palestinians). As far as a right of retun and that sort of garbage, any objective person would be able to see their 'rights' are nothing of the sort.


The arab claim is that of a "johnny come lately" squatter - or someone who intends to steal the land by sitting on it. The Jews themselves might be thought of as the rightful covenanted caretakers. Israel is a sovereign nation and the historic owner - so no "squatter rights" can ever apply.


First. there must be a distinction between those Arabs who I would also be inclined to consider squatters - those Arabs who moved to Palestine in the 20s 30s and 40s in order to be more proximate to Jews and the employment that this would provide. Those like the druze and bedoin are different, and I'm sure you see this distinction as well. they lived as cultural entities in these lands for a long time, and are entitled to remain there. Similarly, Arab palestinians who have lived there for hundreds of years are not 'johnny come latelies', nor did they ever intend to dispossess others of their land. Just like many settlers do not 'dispossess' land but rather occupy barren lands - a difference which is ignored by the palestinians which should not be). But of course where distinction between the two groups is difficult - because the Palestinians have so successfully brainwashed their population, for example, it may be possible to assert the whole group are squatters - just like the Arabs did to the Jews in the 1920s.


Does this elicit your lawyerly smirk, Canajew? :) [/B]

I never meant to smirk (except with takeo) and if I came across the wrong way I apologize. I am still not convinced by your proposition, and I certainly cannot ascribe to the view that Arabs are squatters on Judea and Samaria which is, by right, Jewish Israeli. The Israelis are fully justified in occupying the area, and even in settling parts of it. But they do not seem justified or legally entitled to expel the Arab population. Regardless, no nuancing of the 4th Geneva convention (like, for example, the palestinians pretending that the voluntary relocation of families counts as 'transfer') would allow for such a thing.

But this should, hopefully, set an example for takeo of rational BI-DIRECTIONAL argument and discussion. It should, hopefully, also show him I am not a blind supporter of my cause, and I would welcome it were he to similarly not be a blind follower of his cause. but time will tell...

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Canajew
if true, it is remarkable that people function this way and no less remarkable that so many are willing to believe them.



Squatters and squatter settlements are two different things and though obviously related, should be deliniated between.

But your definition of squatter settlements appears to be valid and I can accept it as such.



so the squatter can be defined as an individual who lives on land which he is not authorized to by the governing authority or some other (legal) private transaction (like a lease, for example)



but that village was legitimately located where it was. While it is nominally true that a state can arbitrarily deprive inhabitants of their legal rights, including their rights to live on the land, it seems highly suspect that a sufi living in Saudi Arabia (I would use Jew but there are, obviously, none there, and apparently the Saudi perceive other Muslims to be equivalent to Jews) would become a squatter because the state passed draconian laws saying that sufis do not have a right to live on the land. It seems there is a component of squatting, especially in an international context, that is lacking - for if the laws which render people squatters is invalid, then they are not really squatters.

These people you speak of were residents of the land before Israel gained sovereign control. If they still own the land (and I mean de facto own, all land may be nominally 'owned' by the state (as in Canada) but in reality it is owned by the person with legal title or a deed) then they are not squatters, even if the governmnet does not want them there.



an interesting question. I assume the Palestinians would answer "never" but I also assume that they would not apply the same criteria to Arabs who moved to Palestine in the 1920s and 1930s (a substantial proportion of the Arab population, btw)

And if the answer is indeed never, then we living in North America not of native descent would still be squatters. Conversely, by your logic, the natives would have been squatters if the sovereigns (whether britain or, later, the United States) declared them not owners of any lands they inhabit. Normative justice issues seem to loom large in this.



I agree, except a moral right to self-determination in those areas where they represent a majority AND where they do not have the rights of Israeli citzens (which they should NOT, of course, this is only meant to make a distinction between Arab Israelis and palestinians). As far as a right of retun and that sort of garbage, any objective person would be able to see their 'rights' are nothing of the sort.



First. there must be a distinction between those Arabs who I would also be inclined to consider squatters - those Arabs who moved to Palestine in the 20s 30s and 40s in order to be more proximate to Jews and the employment that this would provide. Those like the druze and bedoin are different, and I'm sure you see this distinction as well. they lived as cultural entities in these lands for a long time, and are entitled to remain there. Similarly, Arab palestinians who have lived there for hundreds of years are not 'johnny come latelies', nor did they ever intend to dispossess others of their land. Just like many settlers do not 'dispossess' land but rather occupy barren lands - a difference which is ignored by the palestinians which should not be). But of course where distinction between the two groups is difficult - because the Palestinians have so successfully brainwashed their population, for example, it may be possible to assert the whole group are squatters - just like the Arabs did to the Jews in the 1920s.



I never meant to smirk (except with takeo) and if I came across the wrong way I apologize. I am still not convinced by your proposition, and I certainly cannot ascribe to the view that Arabs are squatters on Judea and Samaria which is, by right, Jewish Israeli. The Israelis are fully justified in occupying the area, and even in settling parts of it. But they do not seem justified or legally entitled to expel the Arab population. Regardless, no nuancing of the 4th Geneva convention (like, for example, the palestinians pretending that the voluntary relocation of families counts as 'transfer') would allow for such a thing.

But this should, hopefully, set an example for takeo of rational BI-DIRECTIONAL argument and discussion. It should, hopefully, also show him I am not a blind supporter of my cause, and I would welcome it were he to similarly not be a blind follower of his cause. but time will tell...

I know you weren't 'smirking', just some humor on my part, no need to apologize. :) You raise some thoughtful points and I'll resume soon... yoo hoo takeo, your thread misses you!

[Miriam]

Originally posted by Lowell
Dead is the only 'liveable-with' form of 'Palestinian' government I can imagine, and BTW it nauseates me to see those barbaric thugs called 'Pals'... I deduce you are a leftist, no?
LOL, what a lot to deduce from laziness :p

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Miriam
LOL, what a lot to deduce from laziness :p

Yours or mine? :)

[Donna]

Originally posted by Lowell
I know you weren't 'smirking', just some humor on my part, no need to apologize. :) You raise some thoughtful points and I'll resume soon... yoo hoo takeo, your thread misses you!


Throw in a moonpie with that YooHoo and maybe taco will come back.

Pssst...how'm I doing so far?

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Donna
Throw in a moonpie with that YooHoo and maybe taco will come back.

Pssst...how'm I doing so far?

That's a good idea, Donna, thanks!

YooHoo, takeo, do you want a delicious moonpie?

Psst you are doing great but, oh Donna, your innocence is waning fast... just 26 more posts and you'll be a senior... sad!

[Canajew]

Gentle, gentle. I don't want to brow-beat him into silence or flight, I just want to engage in dialogue with him - you know argue the points of discussion, reason through causes and effects, correct misaprehended facts, that sort of thing. You guys are going to make him cry and then he'll never come back and then maybe I'll cry and then ...

p.s. what's a moonpie?

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Canajew
Gentle, gentle. I don't want to brow-beat him into silence or flight, I just want to engage in dialogue with him - you know argue the points of discussion, reason through causes and effects, correct misaprehended facts, that sort of thing. You guys are going to make him cry and then he'll never come back and then maybe I'll cry and then ...

p.s. what's a moonpie?

Great minds, Canajew, must have sustenance. No great thinker can long subsist upon ideas alone, hence the decision to attempt to lure the esteemed takeo back to his thread with a promise of a delectable treat, the renowned moonpie.

http://www.moonpie.com/hist_text.asp

I do not think he will cry more than he already has over your reasoning, objective disquisitions into his proposed roadmap; on the other hand, since moonpies are not available in his unenlightened France more tears may ensue over this grievous lack.

[Donna]

Originally posted by Lowell
Great minds, Canajew, must have sustenance. No great thinker can long subsist upon ideas alone, hence the decision to attempt to lure the esteemed takeo back to his thread with a promise of a delectable treat, the renowned moonpie.

http://www.moonpie.com/hist_text.asp

I do not think he will cry more than he already has over your reasoning, objective disquisitions into his proposed roadmap; on the other hand, since moonpies are not available in his unenlightened France more tears may ensue over this grievous lack.


But, Lowell, is it really true that the venerable moonpie is not available in France? Oh the humanity.

I suppose he could settle for peanuts in his Mecca-Cola.


Anticipation, anticipa-a-tion...

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Lowell
http://www.moonpie.com/hist_text.asp


we have these pies in Canada as well, but they are made by a company called Vachon. As a class they have been called Vachon-cakes. the chocolate ones are called Joe Louis and the vanilla ones are Half Moons (as they are only half a circle).

I have always called them lune-moons, because all packaging in Canada has english and french on it and when I was younger I thought that both words (which were right on top of each other) were the complete name - thus half lune-moons.


And RC cola and Yoohoo are both fantastic. Too bad in france all they have is a zillion kinds of cheese :(

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Canajew
we have these pies in Canada as well, but they are made by a company called Vachon. As a class they have been called Vachon-cakes. the chocolate ones are called Joe Louis and the vanilla ones are Half Moons (as they are only half a circle).

I have always called them lune-moons, because all packaging in Canada has english and french on it and when I was younger I thought that both words (which were right on top of each other) were the complete name - thus half lune-moons.


And RC cola and Yoohoo are both fantastic. Too bad in france all they have is a zillion kinds of cheese :(

Thanks for the info, good stuff. I wasn't aware all France has is cheese. Do you think this affects French thinking- I mean, Rousseau! And Voltaire was an anti-semite.

Donna, 25 to go! Don't cry... and he may have a peanut allergy

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Lowell
Thanks for the info, good stuff. I wasn't aware all France has is cheese. Do you think this affects French thinking- I mean, Rousseau! And Voltaire was an anti-semite.


Well, studies have shown a clear correlation between cheese consuption and a society's predisposition to surrendering to a hostile foreign foe, but we have not yet been able to demonstrate a causal connection. So far only the correlation has been noted. It may be that some OTHER feature is the common cause of both excessive cheese eatings and the quick-fire surrender mechanism.

And takeo I'm not doing this to be mean or to 'dis' or anything, I'm just bored. There is no one here to argue with :(

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Canajew
Well, studies have shown a clear correlation between cheese consuption and a society's predisposition to surrendering to a hostile foreign foe, but we have not yet been able to demonstrate a causal connection. So far only the correlation has been noted. It may be that some OTHER feature is the common cause of both excessive cheese eatings and the quick-fire surrender mechanism.

And takeo I'm not doing this to be mean or to 'dis' or anything, I'm just bored. There is no one here to argue with :(

Of course, correlation is not causation. Perhaps it has to do with herpes bacteria present in French cheeses? BTW, takeo, I think, does not want to argue but merely to dispute. He will return when you truly thrist for his Gallic insight.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Lowell
Of course, correlation is not causation. Perhaps it has to do with herpes bacteria present in French cheeses? BTW, takeo, I think, does not want to argue but merely to dispute. He will return when you truly thrist for his Gallic insight.

Perhaps herpes, but it is interesting to note that such a pompous arrogant self-indulgent society would both self indulge in cheese production and be so proud of themselves when comparing themselves to outsiders as to under-assess any potential threats from those who may not like French arrogance nearly as much as the French do. Thus it would indeed by the French identity which led to both excessive cheese production and a lightning-quick surrender finger. this could also explain why a meglomaniac who treats women like garbage (President Chirac) is so widely popular, or why France should perceive itself to be the centre of Europe when it is so obviously more on the west (left) side. I don't mean to seem racist or anything, but ultimately it just comes down to the fact that France is full of Frenchmen. C'est la vie.

gall ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gôl)
n.
A skin sore caused by friction and abrasion: a saddle gall.
...
v.
To become irritated, chafed, or sore.

I would suspect that any galling 'insight' he could provide would indeed make me irritated, chafed and sore.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Canajew
Perhaps herpes, but it is interesting to note that such a pompous arrogant self-indulgent society would both self indulge in cheese production and be so proud of themselves when comparing themselves to outsiders as to under-assess any potential threats from those who may not like French arrogance nearly as much as the French do. Thus it would indeed by the French identity which led to both excessive cheese production and a lightning-quick surrender finger. this could also explain why a meglomaniac who treats women like garbage (President Chirac) is so widely popular, or why France should perceive itself to be the centre of Europe when it is so obviously more on the west (left) side. I don't mean to seem racist or anything, but ultimately it just comes down to the fact that France is full of Frenchmen. C'est la vie.

gall ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gôl)
n.
A skin sore caused by friction and abrasion: a saddle gall.
...
v.
To become irritated, chafed, or sore.

I would suspect that any galling 'insight' he could provide would indeed make me irritated, chafed and sore.

Let us not forget, too, that the Eiffel Tower is the largest phallic symbol in the world, one much revered by Frenchmen if not Frenchwomen, although it signifies no great manliness, as shown by the French proclivity for surrender. It's an odd socio-biological quirk that the Fight or Flight syndrome has been reduced in Frenchmen to a Flight syndrome, which may explain why takeo has not returned to his disputation.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Lowell
Let us not forget, too, that the Eiffel Tower is the largest phallic symbol in the world, one much revered by Frenchmen if not Frenchwomen, although it signifies no great manliness, as shown by the French proclivity for surrender. It's an odd socio-biological quirk that the Fight or Flight syndrome has been reduced in Frenchmen to a Flight syndrome, which may explain why takeo has not returned to his disputation.

lol. Good times.

Well the eifel tower USED to be the largest, and it was the largest at the time it was built, but like all frech accomplishments, it was eventually eclipsed by a better one (Toronto's CN Tower, I believe, is the 'largest free standing phallic symbol' - I think that's what the tourism literature says).

But perhaps the loss of 'manliness' in the stature of the tower is the cause of French 'surrender-itis'. But this would imply that there was a period of time where they wern't victims of the surrender-flinch and I have no evidence to believe that.

And they do indeed have a finely tuned fight or flight mechanism. It just works a little different. See if the French are not in any real danger or are dealing with 'friends' they will immediately adopt a 'fight' stance, thereby antagonizing all their friends while making them feel oh so superior. on the other hand, as soon as there is the perception of immediate danger - flinch - instant surrender, with a simultaneous call to their 'friends' to blame them for France's problems.

Maybe its the water?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Canajew
we have these pies in Canada as well, but they are made by a company called Vachon. As a class they have been called Vachon-cakes. the chocolate ones are called Joe Louis and the vanilla ones are Half Moons (as they are only half a circle).

I have always called them lune-moons, because all packaging in Canada has english and french on it and when I was younger I thought that both words (which were right on top of each other) were the complete name - thus half lune-moons.


And RC cola and Yoohoo are both fantastic. Too bad in france all they have is a zillion kinds of cheese :(

Moonpies, RC Cola (with peanuts), and a can of Sweet Dental Snuff.... However, you must be wearing Duckbill bib overalls with no shirt, with one side of the bib unfastened and hanging down, when consuming items in this food group.

(Donna, there's nothing sexier than a woman with a little Sweet Dental Snuff running out the side of her mouth and down her chin.....)

[Donna]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Moonpies, RC Cola (with peanuts), and a can of Sweet Dental Snuff.... However, you must be wearing Duckbill bib overalls with no shirt, with one side of the bib unfastened and hanging down, when consuming items in this food group.

(Donna, there's nothing sexier than a woman with a little Sweet Dental Snuff running out the side of her mouth and down her chin.....)

Look, Johnny...I'm going to have to issue a warning for a total gross out image there. I'll have you know that real women dip Tube Rose Snuff, and they carry a little styrofoam cup with a paper towel folded inside for discreet spittin'.

B'sides...if she's wearin' overalls with no shirt and one side of them overalls is down, something is wrong if'n yer lookin' at her chin.
:p

Anyway, you aren't gonna hold it against a woman just cause she's lost a few teeth and drools a little huh?

Edited to reply to JY: Well, that one tooth on the bottom may not be purty but it would come in handy working in a Swiss Cheese Factory....

Pssst Lowell: Did ya notice that editing a post does not cause the post clicker to...click?

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Donna
Look, Johnny...I'm going to have to issue a warning for a total gross out image there. I'll have you know that real women dip Tube Rose Snuff, and they carry a little styrofoam cup with a paper towel folded inside for discreet spittin'.

B'sides...if she's wearin' overalls with no shirt and one side of them overalls is down, something is wrong if'n yer lookin' at her chin.
:p

That is true. It's the guys who are 24-24-24! Almost there.... nothing sexier than a woman's innocence slippin' away!

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Donna
Look, Johnny...I'm going to have to issue a warning for a total gross out image there. I'll have you know that real women dip Tube Rose Snuff, and they carry a little styrofoam cup with a paper towel folded inside for discreet spittin'.

B'sides...if she's wearin' overalls with no shirt and one side of them overalls is down, something is wrong if'n yer lookin' at her chin.
:p

Anyway, you aren't gonna hold it against a woman just cause she's lost a few teeth and drools a little huh?

I wasn't talkin' 'bout women-folk wearin' bib overalls, while dipping, although I do remember my first semester of college at FSU, back in 1974, and my astonishment at a particularly well endowed young lady running down the sidewalk, late to class, wearing a pair of bib overalls and no shirt; and no, I wasn't astonished at her chin.... Except for the occasional smacking it was taking.....

Lost teeth and drools... hmmmm.. I don't mind the drooling, unless it's in my ear at 2:00AM... Missing teeth? How many? If there's just one left, bottom center, that might make her a little hard on the eyes....

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Donna
Pssst Lowell: Did ya notice that editing a post does not cause the post clicker to...click?

Indeed it doesn't. And, Donna, I am sure that you are more fetching than you lead us to believe, bib overalls or not. :)

[takeo]

Even if Israel killed every last Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist, which may be necessary, it would not constitute genocide. These are not innocent people but depraved murderers. Your 'road map' may sound good to you, takeo, but the plain fact which you overlook is that the Arabs do NOT want peace with Israel, so there is nothing to discuss or negotiate.

"the" arabs don't exist, as well as "the" jews don't exist, some arabs really want peace, and that includes the palestinian autority.

Wow Takeo. I'm off the computer for the weekend and you manage to get a whole treatise into the thread. Nicely done.

yeah, but you seem to have kept it thriving while I was away for a while.

I can't speak for everyone else, but for me, I would be inclined to say yes, the Plaestinians will never stick to their promises, regardless of the 'goodwill measures' taken by Israel. The Israelis would, but not as first movers.

Israel, as the mightiest of the two sides, should take the first step. And did Israel ever stick to its promises?

The Palestinians caused Netanyahu. Now I am not a huge fan of his politically - he was a big 'divide and conquor' type of campaigner - wedge issues and the like, but his election was an Israeli response to continued Palestinian violence.

ok, this is true, and he is still a great ally of hamas and co. It takes two to tango...


As for 'settlements', several questions. First, you say the number of settlements doubled. Is this right, or did the number of settlers double. Different things. And if the number of settlements doubled, were they all really small? And Israelis 'settling' in and around Jerusalem don't count. Neither do ones who do not dislocate palestinians, really.

both processes happened at the same time, enlargement of existing settlements and building new ones.

As for half the people on this board, you may be right (I can't say), but I do know that while a majority in Israel has consistently been in favour of a two state solution for a long time, a majority of palestinians have always (since the 1940s) wished to see the 'liberation of all of historic palestine'. Your inclination towards equivalency in this respect is uncalled for.

well, i have already posted polls on this forum which show that a majority of palestinians is ready to accept a two-state solution based on the 1967-border. so yes equivalence is justified.


They must be dealt with as well. But first the Palestinians must stop targeting innocents.

ok, but will israel stop the occupation if palestinians would suddenly stop targetting civilians? i'm not sure...

This is something I feel is lacking from your analyses. You seem to miss the fairly obvious point that terrorism directed against Israeli civilians has been consistently and constatntly used by the Arabs and the Palestinians against Isralis and Jews since the 1920s. In EVERY conflict, the Arabs will, as a FIRST resort, target innocent Israeli civilians. Over 1000 Israeli civilians died in terrorist attacks between 1948 and 1967, which could not have possibly been resorted to to 'resist occupation', unless you are of the view that all of Israel is 'occupied'. Israeli occupation of Jordanian territory was a response to continued cross border terrorism AND Israel did not attack Jordan first in 1967. Israel responded only after more than six THOUSAND shells were fired into Israeli population centres from Jordan.

Jordan signed a threaty with egypt of which israel was well aware of. if you attack spain or Belgium you shouldn't be surprised to face a war against the entire nato...
By the way Israel ALSO targetted civilians during the 1948 war which is no longer a secret and even recognised by the former responsibles, which of course isn't a legitimation but still. the zionist colonisation before WWII was been resisted by the population, at this level it wasn't a war between official armies but between palestinian and jewish civilians, so clearly civilians were attacked, the same happened during civil wars between ethnic groups in the Balcans.
Anyway i don't see how any of this is a legitimation for the occupation of the westbank, gaza and Eastern Jerusalem. Yes the us committed a lot of horrendous crimes during its history, so does this mean al-quaida was right to target washington and new york?



The settlemetns are just an excuse for the majority of palestinians who want to see Israel destroyed as a national entity (thus, the 'right of return' as a fundamental requirement of theirs)

that's bullocks... the settlements are unattached to the problem of the refugees and israel as a national entity, it is a matter of the occupied territories solely, a clear policy by israel to change the etnic composition of those areas, and a clear discrimination exists between the israeli and palestinian inhabitants of the same area.


Maybe, but Israel has elections every couple of years, and if Israelis believe the Palestinians are genuinely offering peace they will come down hard on a government that is irresponsive. The beauty of a functioning democracy.

that's exactly why this government is torpeding every opportunity that could create new conditions for the establishment of peace... and even creating new conflicts (such as a direct military confrontation with syria)


True. But that is the way it should be. Yasser Arafat has been a terrorist since the 1960s and before. He is not a 'general' not a 'commander' of a guerilla movement and not anything else of the sort. He staked his claim to fame by hijacking airl=planes and assassinating olympic athletes and destabilizing neigbouring countries. His goal all along has been the destruction of Israel and no one in their right minds in Israel should believe anything he says. So yes, even if the Palestinians give up violence 100% the Israelis should still not talk to Arafat (unless he is addressed as 'defendant').

you wouldn't even talk to arafat if he managed to completely stop terrorism? in that case you're the one unwilling to accept peace and you're an obstacle to peace, you can't choose the leaders on the other side. palestinians are ready to negociate with anyone, even warcriminals such as sharon, if it could bring peace.

The government will fall if that is what Israewlis want. The Palestinians will get most of the territories, not all. They will be required to compromize on jerusalem and give up any claim to return to Israel of the 'refugees' and their descendants.

they will never give up such claims, sorry, it's too symbolic and those demands are supported by the international community and un-resolutions. But of course compromises can be found that would consider israel's demographic concerns, as even arafat himself declared.

[takeo]

The Palstinian authority is against peace. You have bought the lies they knew you would, and that's fine, I guess. But they are not partners in any sort of peace. Never were, it was all a ruse.

as you know already i disagree with this position, oslo could have been a succes but was imperfect, yet the palestinian autority did a rather good job in the mid' 90's when there was still hope oslo could succeed and israel would comply to its promises, despite the rightwing resistance. they made some mistakes, but not their entire policy was wrong.

It is stupid because it is obviously patently unacceptable to one side. You, as a peacenik, must understand that compromise is necessary to achieve peace, and that Israel will not be destroyed as a national and cultural entity. I find it interesting that you are all 'compromise, compromise, compromise' but when it gets to Israeli concerns you say compromise is not necessary, rather the Isralis should capitulate.

both sides should compromise, palestinians already made a huge compromise by giving away 70ù of their original homeland to Israel, but they won't compromise over the remaining 30%.

And the children of settlers were born there, just like the children of Arab transitory labourers were born in Israel. Neither really has the 'right' to live there, no?

the problem is that settlers moved there while israel was illegally occupying those territories, which is illegal according to international law (enough threads about this subject...) and palestinians have been expropriated. Besides those people live in a kind of juridical vacuum, officially those territories are no part of Israel, while those people live there and enjoy israeli civil rights. in fact they are illegal residents, as the people who live in israel illegally, such as some eastern europeans of non-jewish origin or people from thailand etc.

And the UN is stupid. We have covered this before, and until you answer my question as to where the UN derives its legitimacy and why UN decisions are legitimate when they are not ARRIVED at legitimately.

there are many reasons, but just one: Israel (as well as the us) is a member of the un, and has accepted to comply to the rules and resolutions of the un... as a lawyer you should understand this...

My question again (for, what, the sixth time,): were the United States to have successfully bribed, browbeaten or threatened those non-permanent countries on the security council to back its war on Iraq, would that have made the United States' actions any more legitimate in Iraq?

of course it wouldn't have made a lot of difference since china, France and russia were going to use their veto anyway. and if they didn't than the action would have been legal and the us could without lying invoke that the international community supported their action.

I say (again), no, that the actions were legitimate or not regardless of what the UN's flawed organs had to say on the matter.

if so why don't you propose the us and israel to withdraw from this institution? the first gulf-war would never have had such worldwide support if it weren't for un-approval.

ISRAELIS want peace. Their government may or may not, but the people do. And the government can change. Contrast that to the Palestinians, a majority of which support bombings TARGETING innocnet women and children. Did you know that more Israeli women have been killed than Palestinian women? Or that more Israeli non-combatants have been killed in the current war than Palestinian non-combatants? ALL OF THIS is Arafat's fault.

why is it arafat's fault? if israel would have been a bit more straighforwards in complying to oslo-requirements, wouldn't have reacted so harshly to the intifadeh (which only later started to target civilians) and wouldn't have demolished the palestinian security-apparatus, hamas and jihad and other terror-organisations wouldn't be so strong today.

This is a lie. Not necessarily yours, but it is still a lie. Arafat did as good a job as he thought he could get away with, and not a penny more. He did not fight terrorism, he did not dismantle these organizations. But he DID give them the green light in 2000 and he DID spend considerable PA resources to get them arms and munitions, and he DID endorse their targeting of inncoent civilians (what he says in english for the world media notwithstanding). He started this war as a bargaining chip. You wish to reward him for it?

it's not about rewarding, it's about finding a solution, clearly the current strategy is no solution... the situation of the mid 90's was far better than the current situation, so yes arafat succeed in curtailing terror, even if he didn't do enough to completely dismantle it. by totally disregarding arafat as a peace-partner israel gave full controll to the terror-groups, which is what happens currently.

Bull. The reason OSLO failed was because it was based on the assumption that the Plaestinian leadership had (1) abandoned the use of force to press its cause) and (2) accepted Israel's right to exist as a democratic Jewish state. Both of these assumptions were false.

they are right, still so, but not for the entire palestinian society, however a considerably part of it, including the pa.

While Israel was propagandizing its population to belive in peace and to work towards co-existence with the Palestinians, the Palestinians propagandized their people into their present 'cult of death', they armed for war, develeoped scores of competing security apparati so that the PA could credibly say "its not us killing civilians, its them' even though the PA funded and armed them. Apparatnly Arafat learned this from Ceauceskew (sic) in the 1970s.

hamas was a serious nuisance for arafat in the 90's, there wasn't any complicity and there stil isn't. as any liberation war there are people with more radical and with more humane means, those don't necessarily cooperate, often the contrary.


I never said Israel needs to win, only the PAlestinians need to be defeated. They must, like the Japanese, give up and give in to have any hope of becoming anything other than the cult-of-death backwater they are now. Anyone who says anything else is selling something.

problem is that palestinians, unlike the japanese, have no prospect for an independant state. the us didn't intend to colonise japan, unlike israel.
also unlike the japanese they feel martyrised by a much more powerfull country, the japanese felt invincible and strong and when this feeling collapsed and prooved to be a lie they respected the stronger one. However in the palestinians mind it is exactly the inverse, they feel like the weak victim of a strong country (or countries, if you include the us) and every defeat gives them new energy, this is exactly why their resistance only grew over the decades, while israel became stronger as well.


The security wall will do more for Israeli CIVILIANS (who, as you will recall, are the reason why Israel had to reoccupy Palestinian population centres in the first place, and are the PRIMARY target of the palestinians in their current war.) than any 'peace' agreement (which, under current circumstances, are not worth the paper they are written on).

ok, i agree, but the wall would only be effective if it would be built along the israeli-palestinian borders, and not in the middle of palestine!!!

And Hizbullah has continued to shell Israeli towns. What do you think any other democracy would do if a foreign neighbour allowed a paramilitary force on their territory to attack domestic civilian populations on a regular basis? But Israel is supposed to just sit still. Laughable.

but any other democratic country doesn't occupy parts of its neighbours either...

Never. The Palestinians will not be allowed back. You might as well give up the 'peace' position and go back to asking for what the Palestinians really want - Israel.

bs, a number of palestinian refugees will not destabilise israel, neither did the israeli arabs.

[takeo]

you are sidetracking. The point was that the whole world believes the Golan to be Syrian because of mapping errors in the 1920s. You cannot use the fact that the whole world believes it to be true to counter the argument that a mistake led to the whole world believing something that is false. It just doesn't work that way.

mapping errors in the 20's? says who? whatever it's a fact that syria was recognised by the entire world INCLUDING the golan heights, and israel was recognised without the golan heights, which was inhabited by people who weren't palestinians nor jews. Error or not, since that time the golan heights were syrian and that's still the position of the entire world, the us included.



Israel captured the Golan in a defensive war (Syria fired first, not that it really ever stopped in the interwar years, of course, but I suppose this is irrlevant) and is therefore entitled to hold the territory, [I]at a minimum[I] until the opposing side is prepared to genuinely commit to recognizing Israel's right to exist and signing a peace treaty. You can say Assad did all you want, but he did very little, and balked once a real opportunity was available.

israel knew syria would react if they invaded egypt, the same principle i explained above for jordan. let's just inverse the positions, what's worse, allowing some anti-israeli organisations to have offices in your country and not recognising a country or actually occupying a part of this country? so israel should take the first step to abolish the occupation of the golan heights, in return syria should sign bilateral agreements with israel, which is now impossible because of the israeli occupation of the golan heights. please don't inverse the relationship... anyway talking about syria israel has just made another great provocation and act of war by durectly attacking israel, syria legally has the right to respond and attack israeli positions anywhere in israel, but it won't since this would fit perfectly in the agenda of Sharon to broaden the conflict to the entire region. but i'm sure if israeli attacks against syria continue syria won't stand idle, syrian rockets can reach any position and any town in israel... and they have the right to respond to israeli aggressions, it's called self-defense.




Your see no evil hear no evil approach to Arab intrangencies coupled with your willingness to impugn the worst motives of the Israelis and your willingness to, when assigning criticism, come down far stronger on Israel than on any other democracy faced with similar circumstances is troubling to say the least.

it's because israel considers itself to be a democracy that the human-rights breaches are considered worse and condemned worse, i'm sure AI will have a higher standard either for France and the us than for zimbabwe or paraguay... still what israel is doing in the occupied territories is unacceptable according to any standard, especially since it happens outside israeli territory. (which makes it different from for example tchechnia, it would be comparable if russian troops would be doing the same in for example Georgia or ukrain)


I love this. So let me get you straight - Syria does not have to recognize Israel because Irael occupied Syrian territory in a war that Syria started because it refused to recognize the state of Israel and wanted to see it destroyed.

history doesn't count, what counts is the present, and in the present israel is occupying a recognised part of syria...

You say "are you really willing to postpone peace with Syria...". Problem with this is that 'peace' was never really an option. Syria has been involved in terrorism against Israel since the 1940s. How that does not justify occupying strategic Syrian territory is beyond me. You can justify however you like, but I warn you, I am a lawyer, so please try to keep your pseudo-legal arguments at least within the realm of normal legal discouse. I am prepared to discuss the laws of war (though reference to 'laws' is a misnomer as customs are a big part of this body of law) at your convenience.

I am not a lawyer but i know for sure that occupying a part of your neighbour is illegal in ANY circumstance...
would cuba theoretically have the right to occupy miami because since many decades miami-based terrorists organised terrorist blasts in cuba???

[takeo]

whose occupation? Jordan's? Egypt's? Oh yeah, only Israel counts as a bad guy in anything. Well, if the Palestinians had not resorted to terrorism in the 1950s and Jordan had stayed out of Nasser's war of extermination, then they would never have been occupied in the first place. You seem to love starting the world in 1967. Try shifting perspectives a little.

but if you resort to historical hypothesis i can do the same as well: possibly palestinians wouldn't have resorted to terrorism if israel didn't cleanse millions of palestinians from their original home in israel. and this one isn't a hypothesis but a certainty: jordan would have stayed out of the war if israel didn't attack egypt in the first place!!!

The Plaestinians lives improved SUBSTANTIALLY following the '67 war. Life expectancy increased, literacy increased, infant mortality decreased, expenditures on infrastructure increased. The list goes on and on. The Palestinians had been treated better than any other population in any other middle eastern country, and far better than Plaestinians were treated in Arab controlled territory.

I don't believe so, in fact i heard exactly the opposite.
What is for sure is that an average settler gets three times the ration of water of an average palestinian, and that israel didn't invest in the palestinian infrastructure, which is obvious if you compare them to other arab neighbours such as syria or jordan.

But this is sort of beside the point. because the Palestinians were not full citizens of Israel. But this was not apartheid-like in any way. That is another fiction perpetuated by another big lie. They were enemy civbilians in terroitories captured in a defensive war.

all right but officially those territories were annexed to israel, no? so in fact that makes them inhabitants of israel according to your own constitution!

That is what they really were. they were not expected to be treated as domestic civilians - this would be like letting the Germans vote in French elections after the French captured German territory (not that the French could capture anyhting, but I digress).

Well the people of elzas-lorraine have full civilian rights, and always had under French rule! but we never annexed the other parts of germany so those are beyond comparison.



no it isn't. Arafat has never really challenged terrorism, only made the appearance that he did. Those in power of the PA want to see Hamas gone, maybe, but only for their own reasons (i.e. to remain in power) not because they want peace with Israel. And while you are "sure' that the PA want Hamas destroyed, they have never said or acted in any way to indicate this is true. You are once again fabricating reality in order to make it fit into your world-view. The international community can give all the money it wants. It will not help the situation unless the Palestinians change their war goals.

how do you know arafat's goals so well? all i rely on are his own words and his acts, such as oppressing the military wing of hamas on several occasions.



Wrong. The Iraqi crisis is easier because the US wants to get out at some point and once it does the risk of Iraqis targeting American civilians in America are slim to none. By contrast, were Israel to pull out of palestinian areas, what, would 50% continue to support terrorism inside Israel? 70%? Only 25%. you are living in a fantasy world of make-believe. Say hi to Barney for me when you get the chance.

if palestine would be free terrorism will cease almost completely, as it did when israel signed threaties with other independant arab countries, and even as it did when israel stopped the occupation of libanon with no threaties signed at all and a hostile military power near its borders. Still, violence diminushed almost completely.


2 things: 1 Why, in the face of all evidence, are you prepared to believe the ENGLISH WORDS of the PA and to discount all of their ACTIONS and words in Arabic; (2) you have said over and over above that the Israelis don't want peace, now you say they do, but for a lack of trust. I think I get you and you distinguish between the Israelis and the government, but again, being a democracy, the approach will have to be nuanced a little.

even in a democracy one has to distinguish between the government and the people, look at the latest war, more than 70% of Brittons were opposed to it...


And yes, Plaestinian anger depends to a HUGE extent on the disinformation and the misinformation spread by the PA, by Hamas et al, and by the Arab media. Look at mohamed al-dura for that; or the 'massacre' at Jenin, where the Israelis provided food and water and mediacal care for Jenin's residents, and took superhuman efforts to avoid civilian casualties (even you should be able to recognize this by now - does this change your position a little, or have you again manipulated reality to conform with your world-view) It also depends on their cult of death (which you seem to assume away in any 'peace' arrangement).

the pa and their media are moderate compared to the average palestinian, i can assure you, in average palestinian conversations you will hear much harsher words than in palestinian mainstream media outleds. cmpare it to the difference between the general israeli mood and ha'aretz. Both sides try to win world sympathy for their cause.

[takeo]

I agree. These are conditions. But not a willingness to abandon ALL of the settlements, not a willingness to abandon Jerusalem, and certainly not a willingness to contemplate a 'right of return'. And this 'state' yopu speak of will have to be something less. Because it must be demilitarized. And for the foreseeable future it must not have control of any of its borders, so as to allow the Israelis the power to oversee and enforce a demilitarization agreement. Like a 'state minus'.

it's unacceptable to the palestinians, it would be more a kind of vasalship than real independance. A real state has own borders, perhaps other countries or an international force can be established at the borders with jordan and egypt, but certainly not Israel, this will never be accepted.


Again, you seem to lack an understanding of Israeli democracy which is kind of strange, as it is more similar to many of Europes' than to the North American model. The Israeli government is in a permanent state of transition. That is the way it works with a proportional representative system. Were the ideologues to get in the way of the will of the electorate, they will be replaced. Those parts of Sharon's government that would stand up and say NO to a real and just peace agreement are also those who would fare the worst at election time (unless of course Israelis do not believe the palestinians, which makes sense given current circumstances)

ok, but at the same time while in the government they can make any prospects for peace impossible. (for example the new attack against syria will only broaden the conflict)


Were the Palestinians to have made their push for self-determination Ghandi-style, they would be right now both free and prosperous. But they did not, because of those who appeased terrorists and showed the palestinians that unless they resort to violence their goals will be ignored like the world ignores all the other stateless people living under far more brutal occupation.

that's bs. Ghandi could only convince the brits because a huge bloodbath was in the making, as in Vietnam, Indonesia, kenya and many other colonies around the world. if the palestinians didn't start the first intifadeh there situation wouldn't have improved, as it didn't improve during the relatively peacefull(i mean inside the occupied territories) 70's.


here's my problem. The Plaestinians have brainwashed their poepl into beliving in one set of grievances. Problem is, once these circumstances change, the PA will use some sort of 'turnspeak' to make those grievances into something else. Settlements was not the issue prior to 1967, and it is not really the issue today. the issue is far more fundamental. Once all the settlements 'go away' the call will rise up to give more give more, and if the Jews do not, then they are to be destroyed.

they were not the issue because they didn't exist, israel always created some additional problems that made any peacedeal even harder to reach.

even at the commencement of a Palestinian civil war? Because that is what is required. I'm sure they would all be lining up to endorse the start of such a conflict.

everyone would support the pa in those circumstances.


interesting. So if the governemnt of Israel does not fulfil its obligations, then the Palestinians should be allowed to again PURPOSELY TARGET INNOCENT ISRAELI CIVILIANS. Can you explain this to me using some sort of progressive liberal moral framework? i'm interested to see this logic at work.

no, but the pa isn't directly responsible for those actions, they are helping israel by helping them in their struggle against those groups, however if israel doesn't commit to its agreements why would they have to help israel? it still doesn't make the pa directly responsible for those terror-actions. it's a deal and a deal means both parties need to comply, if not the deal is over.
The us does exactly the same, it wants to curtail vietnamese, cuban or laotian terrorists operating from us-territory but only if those countries agree to a certain us-requirements...
by the way according to international law nothing does justify measures that harm innocent civilians such as demolishion on purpose, ethnic cleansing, etc.


I still do not understand how the progressive left gets itself more in a tizzy about targeted killings of either terrorists or armed combatants, while it seems to tacitly accept as legitimate the Palestinians' PURPOSEFUL targeting of Israeli civilians.

I never defended purposely killing nor harming innocent civilians (you did) but i said that if israel wants help in DEALING with those terrorists, it should comply to its agreements as well.

[takeo]

Now please explain to me by what reasoning you would expect Israel to treat these people the same way as before? it makes no sense. the Plaestinians should never be allowed to work in Israel again for at least, say, 25 years. Let them wallow in the hole they dug themselves.

because while they were working in israel LESS terrorist attacks happened than nowadays, clearly migrant workers are not the main factor in terror while their money will help the palestinian economy to recover, which is also positive for israel in the long run, since people having a wellpaid job will less likely be attracted to fanatism.

The bit about despots signing agreements is, in my opinion, valid, as many times despots are able to sign and enforce agreements that the population would never tolerate. Israel cannot make peace with Syria because Syrian leaders do not want to make peace with Israel, and if they do want to make peace somewhere in their deep dark hearts they are afraid to becuase of the reaction of the Arab street (which they are responsible for by virtue of their nazi-like propaganda against israel and Jews)

jordan and egyptian dictators made peace with israel, and if assad could recover the golan it will be perceived as a victory and this will justify in his eyes to make peace with israel. (he already said so)


So I say No. Now what? Israel will not totally and completely withdraw from these lands. They are not required to do so by law, and from a policy perspective, it would be better to be at war on defensible borders than at war on non-defensible non-borders (as the 49 ceasefire lines were EXPLICITLY not borders).

So Israel's answer is no. Any room for compromise on this, or is the game over?

well, it depends, clearly the pre-1967 borders are what the palestinians expect, but they are willing to give israel some parts of it if israel is willing to give some parts in return, also some jewish parts of eastern jerusalem can be traded for mainly palestinian parts of israel. palestinians and the international community will start the negociations with the 1967-border as a basis, some small border-changes can be made but nothing more. But if israel is not willing to compromise on this, and in other words wants to continue the occupation of parts of the occupied territories, than clearly it means game over, and continued war untill the occupation stops. And in this case the palestinians will gather an even larger support in the world than they do already, and i certainly would as well (as long as they don't target civilians but only the political framework and the military). this is essential: palestinians won't go for less than the 1967-border which is only a fraction of their original homeland, perhaps some adjustments are possible, but mutual, not one-sided, and if you don't accept this you should prepare for many more years of war and destruction for israel. Just suppose saddam in 1991 only removing from a part of kouweit...



how many chances? Another 1. But if they fail (again) you will say 1 more. and 1 more. ad infinum. So for Plaestinian tacticians the answer is clear. Offer peace, enter into agreements, scuttle them and make the other side look guilty. Again an illustration of how European attitudes promote terrorism.

the european attitude brought peace on most of the European continent, the israeli rigid attitude brought, well, what we can see every day on television... and perhaps soon to come another war with syria... if we French had the same inclination in Algeria as israel had with the occupied territories we would still be at war.



Wha6t will they risk losing? they attack again, Israel retaliates. What side you think world opinion will come down on? So what do they have to lose? just like in 2000. they had stuff. Not as much as they would like, but they had stuff. they threw it all away in order to kill israeli civilians. As a political entity they deserve worse than they are getting. As individuals, many are far more complicit in murder and crimes against humanity than you would like to admit.

once they have an independant state they will loose their independance and peace, nowadays they have nothing at all to loose.
palestinians are human beings but haven't been threated as human beings by israel, that caused the current attitude. the same can be seen in chechnia, injustice causes cruelty, that has been a fact during the entire world-history. Why do you think many israeli are so revengefull and absolutely uncompromising, in fact not very different from the palestinian attitude, because the jewish people suffered hardship and discrimination during its entire history!



In reality, any moral jusitifcation for their cause should have been vitiated by their subsequent moral conduct. They should be entitled not to be killed. that's about it at this point. the Tibetans are, of course, entitled to far more, but where are you and yours on that one?

Tibetans are chinese citizens, and have exactly the same rights as chinese citizens, and in fact they have never been wealthier than today, the comparison between tibet and palestine isn't really accurate.

[Mediocrates]

Another 10000 lines of nothing ever expected or demanded of murdering terrorists. Just more of the same, just more demands of Jews who've just buried their families.


Spare me any response. I wish you death.

[Lowell]

the" arabs don't exist, as well as "the" jews don't exist, some arabs really want peace, and that includes the palestinian autority

The Arabs do exist, and so do the Jewish people who inhabit their land of Israel, and the 'Palestinians' in the main do not want peace, and there is no "Palestinian Authority' since Arafat's term of office long ago expired, and this thread was improved, takeo, by your absence.

[takeo]

Syria has engaged in posturing mimicing willingness in order to provide justifications to people like you who claim that it is Israel's fault. Pure and simple.

and what if syria's intentions were just to recover the golan-heights in return for some kind of deal with israel? why would that be impossible?



The right of return is a UN resolution? What does this mean? the general assembly? That would make it non-binding. Context? Was it a security counsel resolution? What did it say? Were there reciprocal responsibilities imposed? What is the impact of one party not fulfilling its obligations on the obligations of the other? Or do you really care about any of this?

yes i do care. It's of course interconnected with a whole bunch of other requirements on both sides, which have by now been met by jordan and egypt. but i'll try to post it once i got trough yours posts...



The roadmap contemplates dealing with the refugees because the Arabs wouldn't accept it without it. that does not make the claim legitimate.

for whatever reason it's included in the roadmap, so that makes the roadmap unacceptable for you? and yet israel accepted it!

does it though? As history tells us, the occupation LED to increased investment, education, health care et al, not the reverse. An end to the occupation MAY lead to a further increase in all of these, but given the state of the PA and its history of corruption, they are more likely to produce another North Korea or Sudan than an Asian tiger.

independance of arab countries was a positive development for most countries, tunisia, egypt, syria, jordan, even iraq all did a lot better after than during colonisation. it won't be exactly an Arab tiger in a near future, altough if you look at lebanon how well they recovered only one decade after a devastating war...


lies. The PLO was NOT a 'ressistance organization'. It was a terrorist organization. Since its inception it has relied on the PURPOSEFUL TARGETING OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS and this has been its primary method of 'ressistance'. thus, it is not a ressistance organization but a terrorist one. Don't manipulate definitions in order to get what you want. People can see through it.

it was a resistance organisation since it struggled against the occupation of palestine. the plo was never directly connected to the killing of innocent civilians as far as i know...

[takeo]

A working definition of terrorism: Terrorism is the purposeful targeting of innocent civilians for political purposes.

all right, this means that the israeli army is a terrorist organisation as well... it destroyed houses that belonged to fAMILY (family is still civilian, including babies and elderly, and people who might not agree at all with the crime of their relative) of suicide-killers, it intentionally harms civilians by closures, etc.
it also means that the us used terrorism as a tool in Vietnam, laos and cambodia...


Again, wrong. The German and Japanese societies were cvompletely destroyed. Economic and physical infrastructure was almost totally destroyed, and I think we can all agree on that. From asocial point of view, the Germans were moved from facists embracing Nazi race-purity and all the rest of the NAZIs garbage, while the Japanese were also unquestionably 'aware of their own inherent superiority' to, say, the Chinese and the Americans. The allied powers took control of these countries and all of their military and civilian institutions, imposed legal systems and constitutions on the vanquished, and proceeded to recondition those within these societies to act like civilized human beings. The Japanese Emperor stayed for cosmetic purposes. He lost all power and had to admit to the Japanese people that he was not a god (which would have been unherd of before defeat).

most changes were superficial, the mentality and the leaders changed because of the defeat (they inclined on a military victory, and their credibility was gone once they lost the war) but the industrial production, people in charge of them, etc. remained more or less the same and were rebuild, while the current liberal democrat party in japan adopted a whole lot of politicians from the pre-war times... the same thing in germany were the christian-democrats assumed the role of the nazi-party, especially in bavaria.
the real fundamental changes happened in eastern germany, were the entire political, military and economical elite were removed.
it is comparable to the swift transition in some countries such as poland, were former communists became social-democrats and supporters of nato, leaving the communist economical and political structures as a whole, or spain were former franco-supporters suddenly called themselves democrats while the entire economical, social etc. elite stayed.



they did NOT 'change sides'. they were the side. Without Germany and Japan there was no side to turn from. They lost the war and were occupied by enemy powers. They did not resist because they had been unequivocally destroyed before-hand, and had their will to fight driven into the ground.

no, they cooperated with the occupying powers because those didn't intent to toroughly change the society, at least not in western germany, and wanted to return independance.
palestinians would never believe that israel would one day make them an independant strong nation once again, since israel claims the palestinian lands for themselves and threated the palestinians for mane decades as second-rate citizens. Besides if the palestinians don't cooperate it just won't happen! look at the russians in afghanistan (or the Americans in vietnam or iraq) without the support of the majority society-building is impossible.


Israel cannot do this because the world never let her. So fine. The world must do something. But if it does not do all that israel needs it to do, then Israel is fully justified in saying no - that there shall be no state dedicated to the destruction of Israel in the Palestinian territory, and no state can exist as long as it teaches its children the most base forms of Anti-semitism while promoting genocide against the Jews (i.e. kill them wherever you find them et al).

but as long as israel says no there shall be war, that's a certainty!!! a palestinian state can hardly make things worse, and offers new opportunities (as i have repeated at nauseam already)


Oslo was violated by the PA from the very beginning, as they never stopped incitement. Period. They also very quickly broke the agreement with respect to armaments, security apparati and the like. So Netanyahu was faced with either continuing to fulfil Israel's obligations notwithstanding that the Palestinians were not fulfilling theirs, or to say, "from this point forward we will only comply if they will". Seems the correct position from here, and as a legal position it is beyond raproach.


palestinians did comply, can you precisely proove that they didn't, with facts? i certainly can proove that netanyahu didn't!!!!


Come on now. Barak refused to deal with Arafat because HE DID NOT BELIVE ANYTHING THAT CAME OUT OF HIS MOUTH. Which makes a whole lot of sense, given that past behaviour is a fairly good indicator of future behaviour, especially with regards to a willingness to lie in international agreements. Barak said no because he did not believe the offers were real. And guess what? they weren't. Sharon wasw elected because Israel was done with Arafat and his Palestinians. They started a war while negotiations were ongoing (or struggling or at a standstill, whatever, it doesn't really matter), and Israelis responded by fighting back. And as Palestinian targeting of Israeli civilians became the norm in the war, Israelis were prepared to elect someone who was prepared to more forcibly fight back. Not fight like the Plaestinians (as this would involve bombing random civilian targets ON PURPOSE, which Israel has never done) but fight back and not cave in to another round of terrorism. You are being disingenuous with this argument.

so in that case how do you react to the negociations barak and clinton restarted with arafat during his last weeks in office?
Since sharon rose to power more israeli died and israel was a less secure place to live, so do you still think his policy is the right one? suppose just for one minut that barak's last negociations were succesfull and ended or at least diminished the attacks, wouldn't that have been preferable over the current situation?
i'm not going into details about why camp david failed or why the intifadeh started, that's a whole thread on its own (or you could just read some of the articles posted on the peace now website) but the intifadeh started as street riots and riots in israeli streets, and this was brutally oppressed by the israeli military and police, with hundreds of deadths as a result, this led to the creation of al-aqsa and the reactivation of hamas and jihad and to an unprecedented gulf of bloodshet, which was only made worse by the destruction of the pa, which meant the pa lost its grip on palestinian society. today most suicide bombers come from territory occupied by israeli troops, so who's to blame now for not stopping the terrorists??? Israel also rejected all peaceproposals and cease-fires ever since.

[takeo]

I will recharachterize. If the Palestinians want peace, they must, give up their right of return, give up their claim to most of Jerusalem including 'Israeli occupied East Jerusalem" and recognize that Israel will not, nor is it legally bound to, withdraw from all the territories.

so in fact what you want is them give up all their demands, even those supported by unsc-resolutions...
yes, israel is legally bound, you may claim not so, many people will claim israel is bound, and in fact not a single state recognises israel's possession of those lands.
So never ever the palestinians will give up those legitimate demands, if that's what you're after you can just as well stop all negociations and prepare for decades of war... apparently eastern jerusalem, the westbank and your aversion to a few 100's of 1000's of palestinians coming back to their homecountry is worth more than peace... fine so be it, it means war is the only solution for the palestinians to achieve their goals, and if israel is unwilling to let go the occupied territories it really deserves war(and it is perfectly legal for palestinians to target military and political targets in israel and the occupied territory).
as i said some small adjustments are possible, if israel is willing to give parts of israel in return, but never will the palestinians agree to a partition of the remaining land they and the entire worldcommunity now consider as palestine, including of course eastern jerusalem.
They must also recognize Israel's right to exist as an independent democratic Jewish state.

they already did so, at least the official government

This is just as true as what you say above, rather you like putting all the burden on Israel, while I prefer to assign benefits and concessions based on the moral culpability of the actors involved and the general tendancies of their populations. We can go into this if you like, but I am quite confident that on ANY sort of moral accountability basis the palestinians and their Arab 'bretheren' are far more morally culpable than the Israelis for what has happened to the Palestinians, for their ongoing plight, and for the continued conflict in the middle east.

morally israel isn't either in a very bright position, for example not allowing the refugees to return to their homes in 1949 is, according to me, in violation with human principles and human rights and with morality as well. So is the israeli threatment of palestinians since the 1967-occupation, destroying or expropriating their houses for building settlemens, threating them as second-rate citizens under constant occupation, adhering their territory to israel without accepting them as israeli citizens and giving them citizens rights, etc all this is morally totally unacceptable and made israel the bully in the eyes of the international public opinion, while in 1949 it was still widely regarded as the victim.

this of course is takeo, the renound international legal scholar, reading this provision as a legal document. Right? What seems clear to you was purposely designed (1) for ambiguity and (2) to expressly reject the assertion that you make that Israel must withdraw from all territories. It was designed for ambiguity to allow the US and Russia to back the same plan, so that they could tell their populations (and their clients) different things. However, the word "all" territories was purposely excised from the text in order to show that Israel need nopt withdraw from ALL territories. Making your 'clear to me' reading wrong.

ok, i accept this, so you accept that your theory is only one of the possible interpretations. From my point of view "territories occupied during the latest conflict" is clear enough... (which other territories could they refere to, than the ones occupied in 1967???)


Again, you are wrong, and again, this seems a purposeful manipulation of fact. the 1949 armistance agreement specifically stated that the armistance lines WERE NOT PERMANENT BORDERS between states. In fact, the agreements did not allow that Israel might have a right to exist at all.

what counts is the un recognising israel based on its borders during that time, each time the un recognises a country it does so within the borders they currently occupy, unless stated otherwise. when the us recognised china it explicitly stopped recognising taiwan as an independant state, so did the un.



Further, your reference to 'secure and recognized boundaries' is a misinterpretation. The reference to secure is particularly significant, of course, because the armistance lines were not secure boundaries. period. Everyone knew that at the time, and given the drafting parties' knowledge and the language of the text, it seems probable that the inclusion of this term further implies that there would be some adjustment of the final border between Israel and Egypt/Jordan in any eventual peace agreement.

you give your own interpretation to the word "secure", but who says those weren't secure and who says they don't mean "certain", "stable", etc.

"Any futuile attempt" by the Palestinians to move Israel back to the 'Auchwitz' borders of 1949 "will make peace impossible, this is a conclusion to memorise!"

says who? Israel only once almost lost a war, and it was in its current borders! And please don't invoke Auschwitz, it is totally unrelated and not appropriate in this discussion.

Now, this is true. You say your proposition is true as well. Given they are both true, is there any room left for a peacable agreement? Doesn't look like it.

you seem rather inclined to keep parts of the westbank and the entire eastern jerusalem, and refuse to compromise over the matter of refugees. this is essential, it means no peace is possible, at all.

Arafat was 'elected' in an 'election' conducted 8 years ago in a race where there was only one real candidate. He has not made any material efforts to hold additional elections when his term expired, and the Plaestinian authority has involved itself in far more serious human rights violations than Israel has even contemplated. But once again this demonstrates that the left does not really hold its 'fundamental' values to be so dear.

I hope you'll agree that palestinian elections would be rather difficult in the current situation! and palestinian human rights-violations were mainly against hamas-militants. besides, according to AI 1000's of palestinians are in israeli jails for years already without even the prospect of a trial...

So what? the UN recognized Arafat in the 1970s when he was ONLY a terrorist, planning a campaign of international terrorism against Israelis and Jews. He even showed up in the UN with a GUN! Yasser Arafat is a terrorist leader. israel will not and should not talk to him. the palestinians want to talk? they can get someone else. of course, they arn't really interested in talking anyways....

I believe Arafat and he represents the entire part of the palestinian society ready to compromise with israel but only at its conditions, not as a puppet of Israeli wishes and desires, fighting israel(but not its citizens) if it refuses to do so. I think anyone targetting Arafat is in reality targetting those entire group of palestinians, ready to compromise but not unconditionally, and is opposed to peace if that would mean the sacrifice of giving up the occupied territories. I'm a bit disappointed that you are among them.
this discussion isn't about arafat personally, by the way he'll soon die anyway, and i fear what will happen next, perhaps infighting and hamas and jihad compltetely taking over, which ends aLL hope for peace.


May I ask what the chances are that this was compared side by side to broken Plaestinian commitments, with time lines comparing these viollations and some sort of quantitative or qualitative assessment of the relative magnitudes of such breaches? No? I didn't think so. The PA never even started fulfilling their commitments in good faith. Why Israel was to continue with its moves years later is beyond me.

try to be a bit more precise please, with references to precise articles of the oslo-agreement they violated...

[takeo]

As for 3 (why the US walked from Kyoto) the issues are complicated, but it really was the kind of agreement they should have walked away from (and I have a fairly big environmental conscious). It was flawed from the start. A different thread, but again, we can get into it if you like.

yep, that would be interesting. kyoto is only a small step towards solving the problem, but if the us doesn't join in surely neither will Russia and other poorer countries and nothing will happen to stop the greenhouse-proces...


You are playing a shell game. yes democracies are not really transparent (or even truly accountable in any complete sense (but this varies between countries) and yes dictatorships are also not trasparent, but to insinuate through this comparrison that they are both the same in terms of transparency is ridiculopus. Revisit this please.

ok, it depends, but my point is that not all democracies are transparent (russia for example, if it's a democracy after all) but of course in general democracies are a bit more transparent than dictatorships


First, 1 person's personal experiences are not really evidence of anything, rather only a single piece of datum to be put into a larger pool, and second, China is better than these countries because China's government is more brutal. Period. Sanctions are higher so illegal conduct is curtailed. But there is a tradeoff between the moral values a society adopts and the moral values which determine the relationship between the state and its citizens /subjects and the moral values within which a society determines proper penal sanctions. And on this China fails miserably. So while I may be prepared to assume China is has the most functional market, it is only because they are prepared to be the most brutal, which is hardly a ringing endorsement.

China's policy is ethical in its own very special way. high and more brutal sanctions aren't necessarily unethical, isn't it?
its policy is directed toward rapid economic growth and lifting of living standard in the entire country, seems like moral to me.


And Israel treats the Palestinians better than the Chinese treat their own, and most certainly better than they treat the Tibetans. (just a reminder for those who always think Israel is the 'worst' of everything. In reality it is almost universaly among the best)

really? In Tibet no people get shot, no rockets in their gardens, no closures, ... equal rights between chinese and tibetans (except that tibetans are allowed to have more children than chinese) and a policy of "positive discrimination" to promote the enrolment of Tibetans in higher education studies.


Again, talking about peace and a willingness to secure peace are different things. they talk about peace in order to gain sympathy and to allow people like you to characterize them as a peace-loving nation. It is a lie. And you are believing and repeating a lie for your own gratification. I find this distasteful.

how do you know a 100% it's a lie?


and so the same thing can be done for the palestinians. Only it will take maybe more time, and the clock has not started yet. they may have been occupied for 35+ years, but the 'rebuilding" (i.e. denazification (for lack of a better word)) has not yet begun.

if it didn't happen in 35 years it will never happen, since israel uses the wrong methods, in order to gain respect from the palestinians they must threat them as equals and human beings, if the Americans threated the germans as the israeli did for 35 years i'm sure there would still not be any peace in Europe (actually the allied forces threated germany as dirt after WWI and we all know the result...)

Incorrect again. Colonialism never entered into their minds. You can redefine colonialism in order to make it fit, but once again that does not really accomplish anything. The Americans are trying to build a strong secular democracy (secular because religious democracy (a la Iran) is an oxymoron). maybe 'in their own image', maybe not. But in either case, certainly not colonialism.

the Brittish said the same, but at the same time THEY were the true masters and once gone their "democratic" government usually collapsed with the colonial power. the same happens in iraq, the current government is nothing but a strawman and certainly not representing the iraqi population.

[takeo]

uh... sleepy sleepy now... it's freeking cold here in my office(the central heating doesn't work, the boiler is made in Syria would it be a coincidence :confused: ) ! i just noticed that i missed a part of the discussion, sorry another time will do.

[Mediocrates]

takeo's plan consists of this:

1 - Imagine all of the things PLO terrorists want.

2 - Do those things.

3 - Dress it up in Marxist nonsense.

Like his soulmates in Hamas, PIJ, PLFP, the easiest thing of all to do is to simply demand. Demand this, that the other. Comply comply comply. No other thought or action required. And if he doesn't get what he demands, well there's always another bus.

[Canajew]

Israel, as the mightiest of the two sides, should take the first step. And did Israel ever stick to its promises?


Israel should not take the first step. that has been done many times before, and has been demonstrated an ineffective policy.

And yes Israel did often stick to its promises, but once the PLO was shown to have not turned any sort of new leaf, they only kept some of them. Still more than the PA ever did.


ok, this is true, and he is still a great ally of hamas and co. It takes two to tango...


Netanyahu is an ally of Hamas? What are you smoking?


both processes happened at the same time, enlargement of existing settlements and building new ones.


yes, but when you say "settlements double" this means the NUMBER of settlements. Did the number of settlements double? If they did, what sort of de minimus should apply to counting them. An 'outpost' with a couple of nutball families hardly qualifies as a real settlement like Ariel.



well, i have already posted polls on this forum which show that a majority of palestinians is ready to accept a two-state solution based on the 1967-border. so yes equivalence is justified.


yes but a two state solution with a full right of return is not really a two state solution at all. They want Israel, just they have developed better code words to hide it from the 'enlightened' such as yourself. I never thought it would work, but there you go...


ok, but will israel stop the occupation if palestinians would suddenly stop targetting civilians? i'm not sure...


not sure, eh? well that seems sufficient justification for continuing to target civilians. I would say the answer would be yes, though the Palestinians will not get nearly all of their (ridiculous) demands, and the point is moot, as the Palestinians have never abandoned terrorism as a first strike startegy.


Jordan signed a threaty with egypt of which israel was well aware of. if you attack spain or Belgium you shouldn't be surprised to face a war against the entire nato...


you have your timeline wrong. Egypt engaged in an act of war first. The disengagement agreement of 1956 specified that blockading the straits would be considered an act of war, and international law also holds that a blockade is an act of war. So Israel did not start the 67 war Egypt did. And the shelling fro mJordan and from Syria was continuous and ongoing before the start of that war, so saying that Jordan was only responding to Israel's actions is disingenuous.


By the way Israel ALSO targetted civilians during the 1948 war which is no longer a secret and even recognised by the former responsibles, which of course isn't a legitimation but still.


Israel did not target civilians in any way similar to the way the palestinians target civilians. Maybe they targeted homes and maybe they threw people out, but this is different than organizing massacres. the massacres that did happen were not supported by the government and are not, and were not, viewed with pride by Israelis, unlike the Palestinians and their 'martyrs'.


the zionist colonisation before WWII was been resisted by the population, at this level it wasn't a war between official armies but between palestinian and jewish civilians, so clearly civilians were attacked, the same happened during civil wars between ethnic groups in the Balcans.


see, this is a lie too. The 'colonization' as you call it was not really resisted by the population at all. In fact, Arab migration increased substantially to be close to the capital investment Jewish immigrants were making. It was the mufti and his ilk that polarized the Arab population into violent animocity. And in case you missed it, one of the reasons why the Peel commission recomended partition was because they realized that was the only way to protect Jewish civilians from attacks by Arabs.


Anyway i don't see how any of this is a legitimation for the occupation of the westbank, gaza and Eastern Jerusalem.


I will explain it then. When faced with continuous terrorist attacks over the armistace lines, which had resulted in over a THOUSAND civilian deaths between 1948 and 1967, and when faced with a war launched by Egypt and entered into by Jordan and Syria, Israel fought back and secured those lands which were used by these nations to both launch terror attacks and launch artillary and other military attacks. This is a perfectly legitimate acts of self defence, and a valifd response to YEARS of cross border terrorism.

Now of course the lands should have been returned right away in exchange for a peace agreement or at least a recognition of Israel's right to exist, but none of the Arab states were willing to make peace or renounce their claim for Israel. And the PLO also rejected any peace or compromize with Israel. As such, Israel was entitled to keep these lands until such time as these enemies were prepared to make peace. Please note that 'making peace' necessarily includes halting terrorist attacks against civilians, and the PA has still not made peace with Israel.


Yes the us committed a lot of horrendous crimes during its history, so does this mean al-quaida was right to target washington and new york?


what?!? Israel HAS NEVER targeted civilians for death and desturction. To PURPOSELY target civilians for death is qualitatively different than either accidentally killing civlians or destroying civilian infrastructure or curtailing civilian freedoms. Your example is stupid.


that's bullocks... the settlements are unattached to the problem of the refugees and israel as a national entity, it is a matter of the occupied territories solely, a clear policy by israel to change the etnic composition of those areas, and a clear discrimination exists between the israeli and palestinian inhabitants of the same area.


the settelmetns are just an excuse for those whose real goal it is to see Israel destroyed. This is not an argument that occupation is just or discrimination is ok or anything of the sort, itis merely an argument that says what it says. The whole issue of settlements is a clever diversion for those who fear their real position is not very palatable to western audiences. In arabic, however, they are less equivocal.


that's exactly why this government is torpeding every opportunity that could create new conditions for the establishment of peace...


you don't seem to get it. there ARE NO opprotunities to create new conditions for peace. For there to be peace the Palestinians need to be deprogrammed. until this happens peace is not possible. the PA was supposed to do this by stopping the rabid jew-hating incitement, but it has not. There is nothing Israel can do to facilitate peace other than showing the palestinians that Israel will not be bullied into submission.


and even creating new conflicts (such as a direct military confrontation with syria)


Israel did NOT create a 'new conflict with Syria'. Syria harbours terrorist organizations which have adopted, again as a PRIMARY tactic, the PURPOSEFUL TARGETING OF CIVILIANS. Now I know you like international law, especially when the US is found to be the bad guy, so here's a little bit more.

The leading International Court of Justice ruling on the law of war is the 1988 judgment in the Paramilitary Activities in Nicaragua case. The Sandinista government alleged that the Reagan administration's sponsorship of the anti-Sandinista guerrillas, known as the Contras, constituted an invasion-by-proxy of Nicaragua. While the Contras were seen as an indigenous movement of politically disaffected Nicaraguans, the court found that American financing and training effectively made the U.S. complicit in the Contras' violent attacks within Nicaragua.

The argument levelled by Nicaragua against America is precisely that levelled by Israel against Syria. While Islamic Jihad may be a radical Palestinian movement, it is Syria who finances them, houses their political headquarters and provides training facilities. By the logic of the Nicaragua case, Syria is complicit in the Islamic Jihad attacks and is as culpable as its proxy bombers for the lives lost at Haifa's Maxim restaurant.

The one defence raised by the Americans against Nicaragua is that they were coming to the aid of their regional ally, Honduras, who shares a lengthy border with Nicaragua and who had suffered numerous Sandinista cross-border raids. In the court's view, however, the American counterattacks were unjustified as the Nicaraguans had done nothing wrong in launching attacks deep within Honduran territory. After all, that was where the Contras were hiding and training.

Sound familiar? If Nicaragua can defend itself by attacking the Contras at their bases in a neighbouring country, then Israel can do the same with respect to Islamic Jihad and other violent groups. Again, on the logic of the Nicaragua case, Syria has not been legally wronged by this week's air strike since Israel has the legal right to send its armed forces across the border to the very place where the terrorists are hiding and training.

And by the way, this is not my opinion, but that of Ed Morgan, Professor of Law at the University of Toronto (where I went) and one of THE leading international law scholars in Canada. How do you get around this?

[Canajew]

you wouldn't even talk to arafat if he managed to completely stop terrorism?


This is like saying, 'you wouldn't talk to Arafat even if he becomes a woman, or even if he develops some sort of new advance in biotechnology" they are all fanciful and not connected to any sort of reality. Arafat will NEVER do anything substantial to fight terorism, so your little observation is meaningless. The chances of Arafat stopping terrorism are far less than the chance that he might really be the Mother Theresa (think about it - have you ever seen them both together - didn't think so, its because they are the same person)



in that case you're the one unwilling to accept peace and you're an obstacle to peace, you can't choose the leaders on the other side.


I am an obsticle to peace, eh? What peace are you talking about? I do not see any evidence that the 'peace' which you promise will not just be more of the same.


palestinians are ready to negociate with anyone, even warcriminals such as sharon, if it could bring peace.


again with the war criminal bit. I'm pretty sure it was you who I chewed out about inconsistent use of language, and I won't do it again. I also won't justify anything you preface with such inflamatory and manipulative language with a response.


they will never give up such claims, sorry, it's too symbolic and those demands are supported by the international community and un-resolutions.


couple of things. First, since when was symbolism pragmatic. Why is palestinian symbolism important (especially when it is so often based on false histories and purposely manipulated facts) while israeli symbolism is irrelevant? Second, UN resolutions really say nothing of the sort. Can't remember which thread its in, but to sum up 1st the UN reslution on refugees is non binding and therefore meaningless from a legal perspective and 2nd the definition of refugee in that resolution would not include a vast vast vast (i.e. 90%+) majority of Plaestinian 'refugees' as they have been classified as refugees under a separate definition, available only to them, WHICH DID NOT EXIST when the resolution was passed, and could therefore NOT have been the intent of the assembly.


But of course compromises can be found that would consider israel's demographic concerns, as even arafat himself declared. [/B]

Arafat lies. And demographics be damned, Israel should not have to absorb enemy civilians who support terrorism. Anyways, very few palestinians are real refugees anyways, so really you are only talking about, what, a couple of dozen people?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
as you know already i disagree with this position, oslo could have been a succes but was imperfect, yet the palestinian autority did a rather good job in the mid' 90's when there was still hope oslo could succeed and israel would comply to its promises, despite the rightwing resistance. they made some mistakes, but not their entire policy was wrong.


The entire policy was wrong. Did you know that the first thing Arafat did when he entered Gaza pursuant to the accord was to smuggle in terrorists who were specifically excluded from the deal. nice people, like the ones who assasinated olympic athletes and a guy who planned an attack against a childrens school that killed more than 20 kids. ARAFAT SMUGGLED THESE PEOPLE IN THE TRUNK OF HIS CAR. He was dishonest and untrustworthy from the beginning. He was also complicit in funding terroist groups like al-aqsa, he facilitated the smuggling of weapons which he was not allowed to do under the accords, and he launched this war when he didn't get everything he wanted. The entire policy was wrong because it was all based on a false premise - that the PLO had renounced terrorism and was prepared to really work towards a peaceful solution.


both sides should compromise, palestinians already made a huge compromise by giving away 70ù of their original homeland to Israel, but they won't compromise over the remaining 30%.


wow. So the palestinians have compromized because they recognize Israel's right to exist (which they don't)? They did not lose 70% of their homeland. Most of their 'homeland' is now Jordan, and most of Israel was either uninhabited swampland or sparsely populated desert before the Jews revitalized them. So your 70-30 figure is, in fact, another lie. Not strictly so, but in effect, just as big as if you had made up arbitrary numbers.


the problem is that settlers moved there while israel was illegally occupying those territories, which is illegal according to international law (enough threads about this subject...)


either show me why its illegal or stop using that term. It is not illegal, it never was illegal, and it never will be illegal. it may not be proper or acceptable to many, but this is a different issue. The occupation is not illegal. The re-occupation after the Passover masacre was not illegal either.

You seem to have been brainwashed by your own propaganda. rational inquiry, please.


and palestinians have been expropriated. Besides those people live in a kind of juridical vacuum, officially those territories are no part of Israel, while those people live there and enjoy israeli civil rights. in fact they are illegal residents, as the people who live in israel illegally, such as some eastern europeans of non-jewish origin or people from thailand etc.


well, to be accurate, some of their lands were expropriated, you cannot expropriate people (except of course in tall the Muslim countries where slavery is legal - I guess theoretically the state could expropriate a subject's slaves).

See, this isn't really true either. Israel occupied those lands as part of a valid defensive initiative. The sovereign of those lands was the Ottomans, until the brits kicked them out. The Brits were given control by the League of Nations, on the condition that 'Palestine' was to be a Jewish National Home. In 1922 the Brits violated this by ceding land to transjordan, which quickly passed a law (which is still on the books - talk about aparthide) that says no jew can become a citizen of that state. In 1948 Israel had Israel and the rest of the land was under the sovereign control of Egypt and Jordan. These states later renounced their claims to the land, land that was rightfully occupied in a defensive war, and was not returnable as the enemy refused to recognize or negotiate with Israel.

So the civilians in that area remain enemy civilians, but Israel did not prevent Israeli civilians from moving into these territories. Of course, moving to another land, whether the 'territories' or France, an Israeli citizen is still fully entitled to the rights which accrue to that citizen by virtue of his or her citizenship.

And you call them illegal immigrants. I would like to know what law they violated to make them 'illegal'. As it must necessarily be so that if something is not prohibited by law then it is not illegal, no?


there are many reasons, but just one: Israel (as well as the us) is a member of the un, and has accepted to comply to the rules and resolutions of the un... as a lawyer you should understand this...


So blind obediance to the rule of law, even if it means suicide, eh? And why is it that every other country in the Arab world can ignore 242, but Israel is bound by it to the letter as its opponents see it? makes no sense.


of course it wouldn't have made a lot of difference since china, France and russia were going to use their veto anyway. and if they didn't than the action would have been legal and the us could without lying invoke that the international community supported their action.


you did not answer my question. Would that have made US actions legitimate?


if so why don't you propose the us and israel to withdraw from this institution? the first gulf-war would never have had such worldwide support if it weren't for un-approval.


It may be in the US's interest to withdraw but I do not support that. the UN is still a wonderful institution as far as creating good social organizations, good banking and financing institutions and good international health institutions. It is only dysfunctional in the political arena. And Israel cannot withdraw becasue that would be a disaster for international relations. But Israel should not blindly follow Syrian UN resolutions either.


why is it arafat's fault? if israel would have been a bit more straighforwards in complying to oslo-requirements, wouldn't have reacted so harshly to the intifadeh (which only later started to target civilians)


another lie. the first thing that the Palestinians did in this war they launched was to throw rocks at Jewish worshipers at the western wall. this was done before Sharon's visit to the temple mount, by the way, the war was purposely started before and this was just a good excuse for escallation.

And Arafat is a lier and a murderer. he has always been a lier and a murderer. Read 'yassir Arafat: A political biography' if you are concerned with any sort of actual facts. I know it was written by a couple of Jews, but...


and wouldn't have demolished the palestinian security-apparatus, hamas and jihad and other terror-organisations wouldn't be so strong today.


strange that its still strong enough to target 'collaborators'. Also, we have gone into wey Israel attacked PA institutions in response to terrorism. You willfully ignore what doesn't fit in your neat little compartmentalization of this issue.


it's not about rewarding, it's about finding a solution,


false, because sometimes solving a localized problem will not solve the wider problem. Until the cult of death is exorcized from the palestinian society, any 'peace deal' will only result in more Israeli suffering and more palestinian aggression. And rewarding terrorism is surely not the way to get them to see this.

[Canajew]

clearly the current strategy is no solution... the situation of the mid 90's was far better than the current situation, so yes arafat succeed in curtailing terror, even if he didn't do enough to completely dismantle it. by totally disregarding arafat as a peace-partner israel gave full controll to the terror-groups, which is what happens currently.


the situation in the mid 90s was a false calm. it was not really any more 'peaceful' than today, except there were fewer attacks. the PA still wanted Israel destroyed, and they were still complicit in terrorism, and terrorism was still ongoing.

Now, you seem to know nothing about Arafat before 1993, so I will share a little tidbit - When Arafat was head of the PLO he PURPOSELY kept loose control over the various factions, so that he could allow them to engage in terrorism but then turn around and deny this to the international community. Sound familiar?


they are right, still so, but not for the entire palestinian society, however a considerably part of it, including the pa.


What does this mean? So the assumptions were true for the PA and true for most but not all of the Palestinians. The assumptions were false and therefore that deal could not have led to peace. So your observation of calm in the mid 90s was improperly ascribed to a state of peace rather than an intermediate phase of the PAs larger war.


hamas was a serious nuisance for arafat in the 90's, there wasn't any complicity and there stil isn't. as any liberation war there are people with more radical and with more humane means, those don't necessarily cooperate, often the contrary.


this has never been a liberation war. Hamas wants all of Israel. they have always wanted all of Israel. The Fatah wants all of Israel, they have always wanted all of Israel. The PFLP wants all of Israel, as they have always wanted. And so on. This is a war of destruction and extermination. It has always been so. the Palestinians have shown ZERO inclination to engage in nation building. they are more concerned with killing Israeli civilians than with the well being of their own children. they are interested in destroying Israel, not in building a civil society in Palestine.


problem is that palestinians, unlike the japanese, have no prospect for an independant state. the us didn't intend to colonise japan, unlike israel.


problem is, the Palestinians have been so inculcated with their propaganda and lies that they still believe they can win and are therefore unwilling to compromize on anything.



also unlike the japanese they feel martyrised by a much more powerfull country, the japanese felt invincible and strong and when this feeling collapsed and prooved to be a lie they respected the stronger one. However in the palestinians mind it is exactly the inverse, they feel like the weak victim of a strong country (or countries, if you include the us) and every defeat gives them new energy, this is exactly why their resistance only grew over the decades, while israel became stronger as well.


and I'm sure they felt this way in 1948, when the Israelis had to defend each and every on of their vilages from slaughter and plunder but the Arab armies and Palestinian civilians, repsectively, or were you not aware of the fact that Palestinian civilians would congregate where the Arab armies were planning an attack so that they could loot the Jews homes after they were all killed.

Every defeat gives them new enery because they are stupid. Just like Araft, whose every defeat in the 60s 70s and 80s were perceived by him and his blind followers as 'victories' even though they were crushing defeats. The beauty of an uneducated and illiterate population coupled with despotic media control. teh only 'defeat' that Arafat hs ever perceived was recognizing Israel's right to exist and endorsing (nominally rather than in substance) a two state solution, which was long considered by Arafat to be the biggest defeat of all.


ok, i agree, but the wall would only be effective if it would be built along the israeli-palestinian borders, and not in the middle of palestine!!!


that's not really true at all. the wall will be effective the greater the number of Israelis it protects and the fewer Plaestinians are on Israel's side. Whether it follows the 49 (elapsed) armistance lines is irrelevant to this. you may not like it, but this is different than saying it will not be effective. it would be a more compelling argument to say that it would be less effective if built on the 49 armistance lines as it would protect fewer Israeli civilians.


but any other democratic country doesn't occupy parts of its neighbours either...


Justified action based on the several wars of extermination launched on it by its neighbours. What other democracy faced that?


bs, a number of palestinian refugees will not destabilise israel, neither did the israeli arabs. [/B]

Israeli Arabs are civilized people. the Palestinians are more or less mindless puppets of their masters. I'm sure I would support some specific Palestinians becoming citizens of Israel. the educated, the intelligent, those focussed on building and growing rather than on death and destruction. But this is unrealistic. if Palestinians want to immigrate to Israel, then, once there is real peace and the Palestinians have civilized themselves, then any Palestinian should be entitled to apply for Israeli citzenship just like any other foreigner is allowed to do.

And the Palestinians do not want a limited inflow of refugees (though the term 'refugee' is really a misnomer), they want the inflow of millions of people. they want israel destroyed by another means. that you will not see this is troubling.

[danholo]

Canajew:

Israel did not target civilians in any way similar to the way the palestinians target civilians. Maybe they targeted homes and maybe they threw people out, but this is different than organizing massacres. the massacres that did happen were not supported by the government and are not, and were not, viewed with pride by Israelis, unlike the Palestinians and their 'martyrs'.

How ironic... I just read yesterday about Deir Yassin and the War of Independence in Alan Dershowitz's book. The funny fact is that what happened in Deir Yassin contrary to takeo's "moral equivalence" was that even though it wasn't a planned massacre but a failed military operation, this is used to equate the Israelis as the same with its Arab enemies. Not only is this claim a lie, it is a bigoted view against Israel.

Deir Yassin made the Israeli leaders dismantle the paramilitary groups Etzel and Lechi although it wasn't a planned massacre but an operation carried out by unexperienced soldiers. But pointing out only Deir Yassin, it is intellectually dishonest to ignore what the Arabs did. When they started their assault against Israel they deliberately bombed Tel Aviv's civilian population and continued to attack mainly civilians during the war and still do to this day. It is easy to point out Deir Yassin because it stands out as the only real "massacre" purported by Israel while on the other hand Arab armies and Palestinian paramilitaries are guilty of so many civilian massacres, we've lost count. Their tactic is to attack civilian targets in the hope of instilling fear on the public and "drive the Jews out" but since the Jews had more to lose and were afraid the Arabs would slaughter their relatives if they were captured - which happened as well - they fought fiercely for their families and own lives

When the Deir Yassin incident became public to the Arab population, the reports were hyped up, death toll exaggerated and mainly the lie that the Jewish fighters raped Arab women made tens of thousand of people flee from their homes. These kind of lies and exaggerations are typical by the Arab side and takeo and others just play their game; Israelis are horrible because of Deir Yassin but Arabs are the victims because their main tactic is to attack civilians.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
[B]mapping errors in the 20's? says who? whatever it's a fact that syria was recognised by the entire world INCLUDING the golan heights, and israel was recognised without the golan heights, which was inhabited by people who weren't palestinians nor jews. Error or not, since that time the golan heights were syrian and that's still the position of the entire world, the us included.


you have cleverly shifted the direction of this particular argument. I only said that you cannot use public opinion to show that the borders are valid if that international opinion is based on a fasle belief about the borders. You have gone into substance, while I was talking about your thought process.

And those people who lived on the Golan and did not flee as the Syrians told them to are noww, I believe, full citizens of Israel. Nice people too, from what I'm told.


israel knew syria would react if they invaded egypt, the same principle i explained above for jordan.


so Israel should not have responded to Egypts act of war then, thanks for clarifying. So everything Israel does is wrong, while everything the Arabs do to destroy it is right.

And how would you explain the years of shelling of Israeli population centres from positions in the Golan prior to 1967?


let's just inverse the positions, what's worse, allowing some anti-israeli organisations to have offices in your country and not recognising a country or actually occupying a part of this country?


I don't undertsand, but it seems irrelevant, as Syria was just as unprepared to recognize Israel and stop attacking its civilians pre 1967 as post 1967.


So israel should take the first step to abolish the occupation of the golan heights, in return syria should sign bilateral agreements with israel, which is now impossible because of the israeli occupation of the golan heights.


Israel should not withdraw from the Golan until Syria becomes a normal non-terror supporting country. then they can talk. But until then, Israel must hold these territories so that the Syrians do not get any bright ideas about finishing what they started in 48.


please don't inverse the relationship... anyway talking about syria israel has just made another great provocation and act of war by durectly attacking israel, syria legally has the right to respond and attack israeli positions anywhere in israel,


another lie. See above post dealing with the legality of Israel's actions. Syria was not wronged, and was therefore not really 'provoked'. in fact, the real provocation was providing safe harbour to terrorists. And you are the king of the inverse relationship, please don't accuse me of your wrongdoing. It is, though, entirely consistent with the turnspeak so common in the Arab world for at least a hundred years now, where israeli defence of its civilians is aggression, and terrorist attacks against civilians are defensive. Boggles the mind how stupid people can get if they are allowed to get away with it.


but it won't since this would fit perfectly in the agenda of Sharon to broaden the conflict to the entire region.


you don't think, maybe for a second, that Israel's policy is designed to stop foreign support for terrorism, thus making the conflict more amenible to peace? Because until Syria and Iran stop funding terorism TARGETED against CIVILIANS, the region will never be stable enough for peace. So what you perceive of as destabilizing is merely an attempt to stabilize something that became unstable so long ago that you do not even recognize it.


but i'm sure if israeli attacks against syria continue syria won't stand idle, syrian rockets can reach any position and any town in israel...


Syria will buckle under pressure. they are in need of a little whooping anyways. you say escalation, but really what you want is for Syria to be able to continue to sponsor terrorism and provide them with haven and training camps, while Israel continues to absorb terrorist attrocities.

Syria is well aware of what sending their rockets into civilians areas will mean. And note that Israel did not attack the Syrian government or Syrian civilians, they targeted a terrorist facility. that you cannot perceive this distinction is part of the alrger problem.


and they have the right to respond to israeli aggressions, it's called self-defense.


they do not have that right. See the above comments from Professor Morgan.

Also, why does Israel not have the right to respond to cross border terrorism, but Syria has this right to respond to the direct targeting of terrorist infrastructure? I have provided a solid legal reason why Israel is justified in responding but Syria is not. What sort of argument can you put forth that Syria has the right to respond but Israel does not?

[Canajew]

it's because israel considers itself to be a democracy that the human-rights breaches are considered worse and condemned worse,


israel treats the Palestinians as good as they could reasonably expect, but of course they have never really been reasonable in their expectations. road closures are a response to terrorism. Searching and delaying ambulances is a direct result of the palestinians using these vehicles (in violation of the laws of war) to smuggle TERRORISTS and suicide bombs.

And while you likely consider targeted killings to be a human rights violation, they are clearly not, and again it is difficult to discuss particular things when the definitions are so different for both sides. Whe you sasy human rights violations, i take these to include: detentions without trial; house demolitions; road closures; dealying humanitarian vehicles from their work, and the like. All of these are far better than what the Palestinians do, even to their own people, and while Israel is not and should not be permitted to slink to the depths of depravity that their enemies wallow in, Israel must be able to take all necessary steps to prevent attacks TARGETED against her civilian population with a complicit PA standing on the sidelines cheering the terrorists on.

And you must hold all countries to the same standard when you are talking about a conflict among them. What you are doing would be like condemning the Allies for bombing Dresden or the like (which may indeed have been terrorism and a war crime) without pointing out that the Germans were the first to adopt such a tactic, that the germans were the aggressors, and that the Germans had, as a war goal, the enslavement or slaughter of millions and millions of people. Sometimes preventing the immoral and illegal actions of others requires a little bending of the laws, particularly when the 'war crimes' you speak of are not lethal in their purpose or generally in their effect, as is the case with Israel.

And by the way, the Palestinians are the war criminals, they hide in civilian areas in clear violation of the rules of war. Were they not to do so, fewer innocents would die when Israel tries to take these people out. but you would allow them their breach of the rules of war, without similarly allowing Israel to breach those rules in responding to the initial breach, and this is wrong. this sort of logic will only reinforce the perverse thinking that continues to be behind the palestinians war goals.


history doesn't count, what counts is the present, and in the present israel is occupying a recognised part of syria...


and in the present the Palestinians do not have a state and Israel is in control of the west bank and gaza. so if history doesn't matter... Also, today there are no Syrians living in the Golan, only Israelis and former Syrians who became Israelis. So as history doesn't matter ...

And by the way, this statement is one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen in quite some time. So the historical validity of claims do not matter, only what? the force with which those claims can be backed? the number of people who believe in false claims? And with the particular statement made, which I will replicate below, hostory most certainly DOES matter.

"I love this. So let me get you straight - Syria does not have to recognize Israel because Israel occupied Syrian territory in a war that Syria started because it refused to recognize the state of Israel and wanted to see it destroyed."

the observation is valid and still stands as a proper interpretation of your arguments. You say that Israel occupied Syria. besides the fact that this is history and history doesn't matter (as there are now no Syrians in the Golan at all, only Israelis), the fact that Israel VALIDLY occupiede this territory AND Syria has continually refused to either stop terrorism or make genuine peace, means that it continues to be VALIDLY occupied and your little game of blame consignment breaks down.

Syria and her allies started another war of extermination (Nassers word's not mine, Asad called it a war of 'annihilation') and Israel occupied Syrian territory. So now, because Israel fought back and seized a buffer zone and the lands from which wave after wave of attacks came against israeli civilians in the North, Syria does not have to change its initial position that it does not want to recognize and make peace with Israel. this is ludecrous.


I am not a lawyer but i know for sure that occupying a part of your neighbour is illegal in ANY circumstance...


but this is, of course, completely wrong, and as a statement of law it is clearly false. there are legal occupations of territory, there have always been legal occupations of territory, and there will continue to be legal reaosns for occupying territory. You may 'know for sure', but you would eb wrong. maybe its time to look at all the other things you are so sure of.



would cuba theoretically have the right to occupy miami because since many decades miami-based terrorists organised terrorist blasts in cuba???

yes, assuming this is true and the United States government provides them the means and the opportunity to carry out such attacks and does not respond to a request by Cuba to stop them.

But of course I don't know whether any of this is true or whether your talk of 'terrorist' attacks are not targeted at civilians (thus not making them terrorist but militant attacks).

It may not be practicable, but this is entirely different than saying its illegal.

And as a corrolary, would you be of the opinion that no matter what an enemy state does to your nation or your nation's people, you are never entitled to fight back and put an end to such targeting of civilians? Just have to keep on taking it? Maybe give in to their obscene demands? Or just bribe them to go away? Anything but fight back? Seems kind of stupid, no?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
[B]but if you resort to historical hypothesis i can do the same as well: possibly palestinians wouldn't have resorted to terrorism if israel didn't cleanse millions of palestinians from their original home in israel. and this one isn't a hypothesis but a certainty: jordan would have stayed out of the war if israel didn't attack egypt in the first place!!!


another lie. Millions of palestinians were not clensed from their lands. the numbers range from 400 to 800 thousand refugees, so your reference to 'millions' was a blatant attempt to exaggerate and lie. Firther, many tens of thousands of these people were not reaslly refugees at all but economic migrants who settled near Jewish towns in the 20s and 30s. they are also not validly considered Palestinian refugees.

And your little 'certainly' about Jordan and Egypt is another lie. If Israel had not attacked first Egypt would have and Jordan would have been forced to follow suit, or else Nasser would have characterized Hussein as a collaborator with the zionist entity and had his regime subverted. Your 'certainty' is really nothing of the sort, and irrelevant as Israel was perfectly justified to attack Egypt to relieve the blockade of the straits of tiran. or would you again be a proponent of just sitting by while your enemy strangles you?


I don't believe so, in fact i heard exactly the opposite.


you are wrong. you can check this, its not so hard, just try to look at real world (i.e OECD and the like) data and not just rely on Arab propaganda and their manufacture of information.


What is for sure is that an average settler gets three times the ration of water of an average palestinian, and that israel didn't invest in the palestinian infrastructure, which is obvious if you compare them to other arab neighbours such as syria or jordan.


Israel should not have to invest in the infrastructure of the Palestinians, that is why they have the PA (not to attack Israel, which seems to be their perception of why they have a PA). Again, Palestininas are enemy civilians. they are not entitled to full benefits of citizenship, and as long as they continue to support the PURPOSEFUL targeting of innocent civilians, the Israeli government should not spend a dime on them, unless, of course, this dime is spent to keep them locked up and away from Israeli civilians.

I also like how everything is Israels fault and that none of this ineqwuality was ascribed to the petty despot and his regime, the one which stifled free enterprise and perpetuated corrupt government and lacky monopolies, the one that prevents any sort of free press which might expose this corruption, or the one which embezzed HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars away from exactly the kind of infrastructure projects you seem to be so keen on. The Palestinians were given control over their civilian infrastructure. Why is it Israel's fault that the PA destroyed them?


all right but officially those territories were annexed to israel, no? so in fact that makes them inhabitants of israel according to your own constitution!


well, no. First, it is not 'my' constitution, I am a Canadian. Second, the west bank and gaza were not annexed. the golan heights and east Jerusalemn were, and every enemy civilian residing in these annexed areas was given the opportunity to apply for citizenship AS OF RIGHT (which means that if they wanted it citizenship was automatic). Some east Jerusalem Arabs did not choose to become Israeli citizens (largely due to pressure from Arafat et al) but many did and are now full citizens. You again demonstrate that you will rely on the worst of sources and the least thorough of analyses to ensure your world-view is consistent with your perception of reality.


Well the people of elzas-lorraine have full civilian rights, and always had under French rule! but we never annexed the other parts of germany so those are beyond comparison.


I know nothing about these lands, so I cannot really comment on this at all, but my point was that when an enemy declares its intention to destroy you and kill all your civilians, and the enemy's lands are captured in a war to prevent this genocide, the civilians in the captured territories are not entitled to be treated as full citizens of the capturing state. It just doesn't work that way. they are entitled to the protection of the geneva conventions. Nowhere in these conventions does it even remotely imply that enemy civilians are entitled to vote in domestic elections or are entitled to domestic services. this proposition is another ridiculous one.


how do you know arafat's goals so well? all i rely on are his own words and his acts, such as oppressing the military wing of hamas on several occasions.


look. i have paid quite a bit of attention to Arafat for a long time. I have read several and am in the process of reading another book on him. his goal always was the conquoring of all of 'historic palestine'. He was not really a nation builder-type, but a 'revolutionary'. he has always structured the terrorist apparatus under his control so that he could credibly deny involvement in terrorist actions that he initiates.

And he hasn't changed a bit. he still has as his official emblem a map of POalestine which includes Israel, and other than the meaningless lip service he pays against 'all forms of terrorism, whether Israeli or Palestinian' he has never done anything which might be interpreted as a real acceptance of Israel or a real renunciation of violence targeted at civilians.

He 'suppresses' hamas when it serves his tactical or strategic interests. He does not oppose them because he thinks they are immoral, and he does not suppress them because he thinks this will result in peace, he suppresses them the minimum that he has to to make it look like he's doing something, and no more. he provides them logistics and funding and suppoort, he allows them to be in charge of humanitarian and education infrastructure, and he allows them to continually use PATV for incitment and violence. Or maybe they did not ask for such incitement, Arafat just decided to give them a present for free. Or maybe Arafat's goal is to so rile up 'his' people that they eventually 'rise up to crush the zionist entity once and for all'. Read a decent book about him please. If it is not pure Arab propaganda and lies it will be most illuminating.

And I don't have books at the office, but Arafat has been complicit in terrorism since the 1960s. In fact one of his first attacks as a 'guerilla' leader was against a movie theater. This happened BEFORE the occupation of the wets bank and gaza in 67, by the way.

He has also had a history of immediately violating any agreements he enters into, not just with Israel, but with pretty much every single ruler in the Arab middle East. You can check this too, starting with his 'commitments' to King hussein in the late 1960s and early 1970s. i will post them next time I bring the book to work.


if palestine would be free terrorism will cease almost completely,


just as there was no terrorism beofre occupation?


as it did when israel signed threaties with other independant arab countries, and even as it did when israel stopped the occupation of libanon with no threaties signed at all and a hostile military power near its borders. Still, violence diminushed almost completely.


there continue to be attacks against Israelis from Lebanon. While you may believe the propaganda, you must understand that those who know better will not be so easily duped.

And when you speak of 'hostile military power', I assume you are speaking of Hizballah, who, if you would be aware of the disengagement arragement, was supposed to be quickly replaced in the South by the Lebanese army. the fact that they have continued to allow Hizbullah to use that area as a launching ground for attacks against Israel is in fact sufficient justification for those lands to be reoccupied. While the Syrians and Lebanese may be like the PA in that they feel they have no need to be bound by any sorts of commitments or promises, to the international community or anyone else, just because they are liers and we know it does not mean that they are therefore allowed to get away with those lies.


even in a democracy one has to distinguish between the government and the people, look at the latest war, more than 70% of Brittons were opposed to it...


really? 70%? Scary thought. Seems that in fact it is almost all of Europe who have turned their backs on liberal morality. nice to know, though.

[Canajew]

the pa and their media are moderate compared to the average palestinian, i can assure you,


if this is true, then we are all doomed. PATV and the Palestinian print media publish some of the most obscene and disgusting thing I have ever seen. The antisemitism is of course one aspect of this obscenity, but the glorification of violence and the inculcation of the cult of death within the very young (like a five year old I saw who was 'coached' by the interviewer into saying that suicide bombing was one of the highest things that a Palestinian could aspire to) is far more obscene, and seems to be a big part of the problem. If these are indeed 'moderate' elements of Palestinian society, then there is indeed no hope, and conflict management should be the order of the day until the palestinians decide to fix themselves.


in average palestinian conversations you will hear much harsher words than in palestinian mainstream media outleds.


so great. After all this trying to convince us that the palestinians really want peace and really do recognize Israel, you then say that the PA is 'moderate' on these issues compared to the rest of them? how can these positions be reconciled?


cmpare it to the difference between the general israeli mood and ha'aretz. Both sides try to win world sympathy for their cause.

Really, so the regular Israeli mood that peace with two separate states would be a good solution were the Plaestinians really interested compared to the Ha'aretz mood that Israel should surrender as soon as possible to Plaestinian demands is similar to the contrast between the PATV view that jews are evil parasites and that a two state solution should be tolerated for now and is not an abandonment of the 'national dream' MORE EXTREME Palestinian views that, what? The two state solution is unaccpetable and the Jews must be destroyed. Hardly an apt comparisson, no?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
it's unacceptable to the palestinians, it would be more a kind of vasalship than real independance. A real state has own borders, perhaps other countries or an international force can be established at the borders with jordan and egypt, but certainly not Israel, this will never be accepted.


I'm not sure I asked whether this was acceptable to the Palestinians. I don't really think I care. No, wait ... Nope, I don't care at all. Lots of things are unacceptable to Israel, but you never seem to think that makes any sort of difference, but because the Palestinians want a country free of Jews anything less would be unacceptable?

How about this. Since the palestinians cannot be trusted to abide by any commitments they ever make, especially with regards to issues of security and munitions levels, Israel must do it for them. they had a chance in 2000 and they blew it by again launching a war whose primary doctrine was the PURPOSEFUL targeting of innocents. Given this, I really don't care what they think is acceptable or not, I only care about making sure that they cannot again violate the security aspects of the agreement. So tough for them, they should have thought about that before they again started the PURPOSEFUL wholesale massacre of Israeli civilians, and their society should have thought about that before they started to so blindly and enthusiastically support this barbarity.

They want a real state, eh? Show me evidence of this? Where was the planning for a civil society? Where was the investment in civilian infrastructure? Where was the focus on growth and development, rather than on blaming Israel for everything and continuing to work towards its destruction? There is no evidence that what they indeed want is more a state of their own than the destruction of Israel?


ok, but at the same time while in the government they can make any prospects for peace impossible. (for example the new attack against syria will only broaden the conflict)


again, it is more likely that Syria will capitulate and that this will in fact help curtail the conflict. Syria got itself involved. unless you have a problem with the case law and Prof. Morgan's analysis, I trust claims of this nature will cease.


that's bs. Ghandi could only convince the brits because a huge bloodbath was in the making, as in Vietnam, Indonesia, kenya and many other colonies around the world. if the palestinians didn't start the first intifadeh there situation wouldn't have improved, as it didn't improve during the relatively peacefull(i mean inside the occupied territories) 70's.


The Palestinians did not have their own country because Arafat prevented any moderates from coming to a pragmatic solution, and instead moved them on the course of death and destruction (leading, of course, to 'ultimate victory'). israel tried to give the lands back after the war, but there was no one on the other side to negotiate with, as the famous '3 no's' made quite explicit.

israel has always wanted peace with its neighbours. The Arabs never really wanted peace with Israel. Had the Palestininas chosen a different course, things would be far better for them today. But THEY made the choice, not Israel, and THEY are responsible for the deterioration of the situation post 2000, and THEY are responsible for the fact that there is no palestinian state right now.


they were not the issue because they didn't exist, israel always created some additional problems that made any peace deal even harder to reach.


yes, like insisting that the Palestinians stop targeting Israeli civilians for death. Crazy additional problem, to insist on stuff like this.


everyone would support the pa in those circumstances.


maybe. they all hate Arafat, though, and for good reason. And they certainly would not 'love it' which, if my memory serves, was the initial proposition.


no, but the pa isn't directly responsible for those actions,


yes they are responsible. they have always been responsible and continue to be responsible. just becasue they are not prepared to asume that responsibility does not mean they are not responsible. And again note the similarity between this and the constant MO of the PLO, Arafat being in ultimate control but purposely launching attacks from organs which he can deny all connection, even though he was responsible for the wide scope they were given.

And by the way, you evaded my observation that it was YOU who suggested that if the Israelis do not do what the PA wants Hamas et al should be set loose upon Israeli civilians. this is your desire, not the PAs.



they are helping israel by helping them in their struggle against those groups,


lies.


however if israel doesn't commit to its agreements why would they have to help israel?


Because they believe in a peaceful two state solution and Hamas et al do not? Seems good enough to me.


it still doesn't make the pa directly responsible for those terror-actions.


yes it does, but their complicity and responsibility go far far deeper.


it's a deal and a deal means both parties need to comply, if not the deal is over.


so the deal is over. the Palestinians will never comply with anything, so there is no chance of a deal. So what now?


by the way according to international law nothing does justify measures that harm innocent civilians such as demolishion on purpose, ethnic cleansing, etc.


home demolitions are allowed if for a necessary military purpose. And destroying homes used to smuggle weapons and homes that are used as safe houses for terrorists or as sniper nests is permitted. Blowing up the homes of suicide bombers may not be, but this is hardly anywhere close to the most aggregious violations of the laws of war in this conflict.

Ethnic clensing is not permitted, but of course it is only the PA which proposes the ethnic clensing of Jews. palestinians have not been ethnically clensed in any way.

Note, though, that the deportation of enemy civilians is not necessarily illegal, if done for a narrow band of reasons which are not really relevant to this discussion (like to protect their safety). So your 'absolute' prohibition is another exaggerated lie.


I never defended purposely killing nor harming innocent civilians


no, you went one better and said that others should be alllowed to target Israeli civilians if Israel does not give in to Palestinian demands.


(you did)


I most surely did not, though you manage to be nominally true by lumping killing civilians in with 'harming civilians'. Don't try this stuff with me, it won't work. I'm not that sort of fool. Harming civilians is sometimes justified, particularly where the harm which is at issue is economic or a fundamnetal necessity in a valid legal military initiative. So road closures are ok, house demolitions are sometimes OK, and searching ambulances is certainly ok. I do suport these things, but to imply that I support the Purposeful targeting of innocnet civilians for death and dismemberment is fundamnetally dishonest and another example of what I find so displeasing about the palestinians, their supporters and their loosy-goosy play with the truth.

And you did suppoort the purposeful targeting of innocnets by Hamas et al. Try getting around this one more time, please:


if it becomes clear after a year israel is not going to meet its obligations, at all, than hamas-members should be released and the struggle against terror ended.


what this means in plain english is that if Israel does not meet the obligations which are specified by Europe et al, then the Plaestinian AUthority should proptly release all terrorists from prison and do nothing to prevent them from continuing their attacks PURPOSELY targetingIsraeli civilians.

Thus, to recharacterize a little, you are in favour of allowing the PURPOSEFUL targeting of innocent Israeli civilians if the Palestinians do not get what they want.

[QUOTE]
but i said that if israel wants help in DEALING with those terrorists, it should comply to its agreements as well. [QUOTE]

Israel cannot and should not comply when the PA is facilitating and giving the green light to terrorism. And it has never gotten any real help from the Palestinians in fighting terrorism, and there is no reason to trust them in the future, so thanks but no thanks, I would prefer no help at all rather than this kind of 'help' from the PA.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
because while they were working in israel LESS terrorist attacks happened than nowadays,


first, its FEWER, not less, as we are talking about discrete quantities (i.e less water, fewer bottles of water)

Second, your specious assignemnt of a causal connection to two discrete incidents is not sufficient to demonstrate anything, and certainly not suffient to make a reasonable well thought out argument.

How about this: when there were fewer terrorist attacks, there were more Plaestinians working in Israel. See this is the proper way to look at this, because the Israeli decision to prevent entry by Palestinina labourers was a DIRECT RESULT of palestinian terorrism and the refusal of the PA to deal with them.

And, again, when you try to kill me over and over again, why must I keep giving you your job back? makes zero sense.


clearly migrant workers are not the main factor in terror while their money will help the palestinian economy to recover, which is also positive for israel in the long run, since people having a wellpaid job will less likely be attracted to fanatism.


I agree. However, the flow of migrant workers is a wonderful cover for terrorist infiltrators. Don't deny this please, it is a fairly basic observation. As a result, until the threat of terrorism ceases the Palestinians should not be allowed to enter Israel en masse.

In addition, you go on and on about Plaestinina views and Palestinian feelings, but you seem to lack any sort of understanding of the gross sense of betrayal israelis felt at being again targeted for terrorist slaughter. The Plaestinians violated THE basic commitment - a renunciation of violence and more specifically a renunciation of violence PURPOSELY TARGETED at innocent civilians. Were the Israelis to refuse to ever allow any palestinian nationals into their territory, I would certainly understand. you should too.


jordan and egyptian dictators made peace with israel, and if assad could recover the golan it will be perceived as a victory and this will justify in his eyes to make peace with israel. (he already said so)


he also said repeatedly that he did not harbour terrorists and he did not fund terrorist activities. these were also lies. He lied to Colon Powell when he said he will dismantle these organizations' offices and infrastructure in Syria, and he lies pretty much every time he opens his mouth. He is no Sadat and he is no King Hussein. In fact, the best comparison I can come up with is Saddam hssein, whose word means nothing and whose compunction towards harming innocnets is non-existent. I would trust peace with him as much as peace with Saddam; or Hitler.


well, it depends, clearly the pre-1967 borders are what the palestinians expect, but they are willing to give israel some parts of it if israel is willing to give some parts in return, also some jewish parts of eastern jerusalem can be traded for mainly palestinian parts of israel. palestinians and the international community will start the negociations with the 1967-border as a basis, some small border-changes can be made but nothing more.


I don't understand. this was more or less the understanding that was worked out with Barak in 2000. Why do you think that after launching another terrorist war whose primary tactic is the PURPOSEFUL targeting of innocent civilians that the Plaestinians are entitled to as much as they were before. they are entitled to far less. Just like Germany pre and post WWII. they started another war that didn't need to be started, so they will lose a little.

And the fact that they have such an intollerant society strongly vitiates against returning Jewish religious and cultural sites to their control. Can you see this?


But if israel is not willing to compromise on this, and in other words wants to continue the occupation of parts of the occupied territories, than clearly it means game over, and continued war untill the occupation stops.


so even were 99.9 percent of the palestinian population free and lkiving in an independent state of their own, they would still not stop fighting so long as Israelis remain in control of lands which the Palestinians do not inhabit? What about the fact that most palestinians believe all of Israel to be 'occupied'? does this mean the war will continue no matter what, and if so why should Israel give them anything.


And in this case the palestinians will gather an even larger support in the world than they do already, and i certainly would as well (as long as they don't target civilians but only the political framework and the military).


phew. that's a load off. I thought they might actually get more international support. but of course it would not, as they have NEVER not targeted civilians as a general strategy, and are in no position to do so in the future.

And you do support their purposeful targeting of innocent:

if it becomes clear after a year israel is not going to meet its obligations, at all, than hamas-members should be released and the struggle against terror ended.


this is essential: palestinians won't go for less than the 1967-border which is only a fraction of their original homeland, perhaps some adjustments are possible, but mutual, not one-sided, and if you don't accept this you should prepare for many more years of war and destruction for israel.


I accept this generally, but the Palestinians are not prepared for peace with Israel, so this talk is really premature and just plain moot.


Just suppose saddam in 1991 only removing from a part of kouweit...


also, just suppose that for decades the government of Kuwait launched countless terrorist raids againsty iraqi civilians (you will also have to assume that the Iraqi govenrment actually CARED about its civilians, a very dubious assumption) and had first began launching volly after volly of artillery into Iraqi population centres. this would change the calculus a little, no?


the european attitude brought peace on most of the European continent,


and it perpetuated conflict outside of Europe.


the israeli rigid attitude brought, well, what we can see every day on television... and perhaps soon to come another war with syria...


again, your logic is wrong. What are you comparing these scenes on TV to? Some magical world where we all hold hands and sing? Some magical world where the Palestinians are a peaceful civilized people? You need to compare them to what would have happened had the actions not been taken. And had Israel not engaged the Palestininas after the Passover Massacre, Israeli casualty figures would be far higher. And, as you said, if Israel does not withdraw from everything the Palestinians want them to, the violence would not have stopped. And israel would not, under any circumstances, labour or likud, have withdrawn from all the teritories that the plaestinians wanted them to.

And the war with Syria needs to happen sooner rather than later.
Otherwise Syria will continue to fund Plaestinian terrorism, will continue to harbour terrorists, and will continue to make any sort of peace (which you seem to nominally be in favour of) far less likely.


if we French had the same inclination in Algeria as israel had with the occupied territories we would still be at war.


and if you for a second actually held Plaestinian terrorists who blew up Jews in Europe in the 60s and 70s, maybe the Palestinians would have realized that terrorism wouldn't get them anywhere.

When I speak of European attitudes I am primarily speaking of this: their willingess to tolerate and appease terrorists, so long as those terrorists do not attack them. Much like Saudi Arabia but without the massive bribes.


once they have an independant state they will loose their independance and peace, nowadays they have nothing at all to loose.


Obviously the lives and well being of their children mean nothing to them. Kind of sad, really.


palestinians are human beings but haven't been threated as human beings by israel,


they are treated more as human beings by israel than they are by the PA, and more than any Arab state treats its citizens, especially those that support attacking it.

And with respect, they do not seem to treat THEMSELVES as human beings, and they have shown absolutely zero inclination to foster any sort of civil society. Stop blaming Israel for everything. When the term Plaestinian meant Jewish persons living in the Palestine Mandate (as that is all it meant back them), those palestinians were not free but still built their civil society, still fostered a keen sense of morality, still buiklt up the social institutions necessary for a civilized society. The fact that the Palestinians have not done so is their fault, not Israels.

[Canajew]

that caused the current attitude. the same can be seen in chechnia, injustice causes cruelty, that has been a fact during the entire world-history.


are you comparing israeli actions in the wb and gaza to Russian behaviour in Chechnya? How many people dies there? how many were civilians and how many combatants? How many cities were razed to the ground? How many people were raped or tortured? Compare these figures to Israel. Compare Israeli rules of engagement with Russian rules of engagement. Compare ANY of these things, just don't make such stupiud bald assertions. Your attempt at moral equivalence is sickening really, not from my perspective, but from the perspective of any Chechen who had to put up with such utter barbarity being compared with the Palestinians' treatment at the hand of the Israelis.


Why do you think many israeli are so revengefull and absolutely uncompromising, in fact not very different from the palestinian attitude, because the jewish people suffered hardship and discrimination during its entire history!


excpet that Israeli's historical treatments was indeed abhorent, while the Palestinians have manufactured much of theirs, included so many falsehoods within their narrative, and been consistently aggressive towards Israel. Palestinian suffering is the fault of their leadership. israel is just vdefending itself as it is fully entitled to do. Once the palestinians change tactics permanently, their suffering will abate.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
and what if syria's intentions were just to recover the golan-heights in return for some kind of deal with israel? why would that be impossible?


and what if I told you I have some valuable swampland in Florida that I may be interested in parting with for the right price?

Why would that be impossible. use common sense.


yes i do care. It's of course interconnected with a whole bunch of other requirements on both sides, which have by now been met by jordan and egypt. but i'll try to post it once i got trough yours posts...


I've already looked into it. there is really little you can add of any substantive value. But look at it and come to your own conclusiosn, post them, and I'll explain to you why you are wrong. And the 'now implemented by egypt and jordan' garbage is just that - garbage. Some things have an expiry date. you cannot try to kill me for 50 years and then turn around and say, "remember that offer you made 50 years ago - I'll take it" Real life doesn't work this way.


for whatever reason it's included in the roadmap, so that makes the roadmap unacceptable for you? and yet israel accepted it!


well, the roadmap specified nothing, only said it was a topic for discussion. And we are discussing it. And after discussing it, my answer is no, that is ridiculous, and even were it not ridiculous very very few Palestinians are genuine refugees entitled to anything.

Again, I took issue with the prcess of your argument, not its substance. You said the right was valid because it was included in the road map, and I said that given the reaons it was in the road map, the fact that it was in there provides absolutely zero support for the proposition that since it is in there it is a valid right.

Your games will not work with me.


independance of arab countries was a positive development for most countries, tunisia, egypt, syria, jordan, even iraq all did a lot better after than during colonisation. it won't be exactly an Arab tiger in a near future, altough if you look at lebanon how well they recovered only one decade after a devastating war...