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...


note that Arafat caused their war. Note also that you are the typical marxist in this - assume economic progress based on other exmaples that may or may not be relevant.

They have no independent judiciary. their executive branch is corrupted to the core. the have no infrastructure, no education (other than terrorist education and brainwashed hatred), no civil society, no free press, no free markets, a ridiculously corrupted economic regime, and, to top it all off, no one within the PA, especially Arafat, has shown any inclination to treat any of these things as a priority. And don't blame this on Israel, they showed just as little inclination when they had control under Oslo.

Economic growth does not happen in a vacuum. It takes very particualr circumstances for it to be facilitated. The palestininas are about as far on the development chart as the Syrians or the Iranians, who, if you didn't know, have never really done such a good job at fostering ANY economic progress.

And they did not really do 'a lot' better as you said. they did marginally better, but they were seriously hurt by a decrease in investment from the colonial power (especially the UK) and were sriously hampered by corruption and faulty economic policy. And they are still wallowing in their own poverty, unless they found enough oil to make this a little better for a little while.

It never ceases to amaze me that those who are so vociforous on the left about promoting socialist economic ideology have so slight a grasp on the actual realities of markets and economics. Just assume all will be good in the future and leave it at that? Seems a lot like the utopian ideologies that have cost millions of lives and been economic catastrophes in the past hundred years (marxism, naziism) and will continue to do so in the future (Islamism Wahhabiism et al).



it was a resistance organisation since it struggled against the occupation of palestine.


A lie. The PLO was formed in 1963 or 1964 so there was no occupation. And it 'struggled' against civilians attending movies and athletes participating in the olympics and couples walking along the beach. This is not a struggle against any occupation, it is a struggle to snuff out the lives of those who they despise.



the plo was never directly connected to the killing of innocent civilians as far as i know... [/B]

Well, you are wrong then. The PLO was involved in tons of them, only Arafat tried to keep Fatah a little seperate so he could deny involvement in the actions of Black September and the Like.

So another lie. When I bring that book and list tens of attacks they were involved in, will you rethink, or will you justify to yourself that this couldn't be so, and the Jews must be lying?

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
[B]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


sorry, I thought it would be clear enough to any right thinking person that the purposeful targeting of civilians means targting their physical integrity. And the fact that you could attempt to draw a moral equivalency between tareting the lives and physical well being of Israeli civilians was just as much terrorism as targeting the possessions of the Plaestininas. This is beyond stupid.



, it intentionally harms civilians by closures, etc.


you do not seem to get it, so I will lay it out in small words. Closures started because Palestinians would not stop sending terrorists to slaughter Israeli civilians. The purpose of closures is not to intentionally harm civilians but to prevent terrorists from killing Israelis. The fact that civilians are harmed (again in the economic sense rather than in terms of real harm to their physical integrity, which should be a proper conception of terrorism for any reasonable person) is a byproduct, but it was not the intent.



it also means that the us used terrorism as a tool in Vietnam, laos and cambodia...


I don't know, but if the United States purposely targeted civilians (for death or seriousn bodily harm) for political purposes, then yes, the US did engage in terrorism. What relevance does this have to the current discussion, though?



a palestinian state can hardly make things worse, and offers new opportunities (as i have repeated at nauseam already)


worse for whom? For Israelis, I think, the potential that a palestinian state with full control over its borders and without any constraints as to their munitions, armaments or tactics would be far worse than the state of affairs today is very real, and that you cannot even recognize this only reinforces the impression I get from you that you really do not understand Israelis at all, and certainly do not understand their mentality in acting the way they do. But we understand your position very clearly, and reject it because it will not work and will only risk more harm to Israel. How many times must Israel stick its neck out so that the world community can try another 'peace' plan?



palestinians did comply, can you precisely proove that they didn't, with facts? i certainly can proove that netanyahu didn't!!!!


yes I can prove that the PA was in systematic and complete violation of the Oslo agreement, but not now as I lack sources at the moment. But the fatc that Arafat had over 10,000 more 'police' than he was supposed to and the fact that he smuggled in terrorists in his car THE FIRST TIME he entered the Palestinian territory, are a couple of good examples. there are, undoubtedly, scores more, and if we include all the broken promises he made to Arab leaders as head of the PLO (like he will not try to subvert their regimes, he would not use their land as a launching pad for Palestinian terrorism against israelis) material violations would surely count in the hundreds.



so in that case how do you react to the negociations barak and clinton restarted with arafat during his last weeks in office?


political reasons, a last desperate chance at achieving the impossible - peace with a party who did not desire it.



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?


didn't I make it very clear that I did not want to see this sort of stupid argument? I'm pretty sure I did.

Again, just because X+Y people died today while only X dies yesterday, it does not follow that the strategic choices of the political actor were bad ones. you fail to follow the most important rule for this sort of this: KEEP EVERYTHING ELSE CONSTANT. Unless you can account for other factors in your model or effectively keep them the same, you cannot just look at the conclusion today and the conclusion yesterday and say the startegy must have been a bad one.

Lets complicate the model a little bit. Say that there is a ramp-up period for terrorism (a reaosnable assumption as it takes time and resources to train and deploy terorrists). now if the former leader followed the peace track and ignored a ramp-up to terrorism, does it not follow that, all else the same, terorirst attacks will be higher in the future than back then?

Lets also look at the strtegic decisions of the other side, as, while there is almost certainly an interaction effect between Israeli and PA actions, the other side's actions can directly impact on the bottom line figure that is at issue (i.e. casualty figures). So, the PA strategy changed about the same time as they launched their little war, though almost surely before-hand based on the logistics involved in starting such an operation.

this is BEFORE Sharon took office, so the proper comparrison must be what would have happened if Sharon had not been elected and the Palestininas continued with their strategy compared to what actually did happen under Sharon. And the numbers seem quite clear. before Defensive Shield Israeli casualty figures were FAR HIGHER than they have been AT ANY POINT SINCE, and there is no reason to believe that absent such a response these figures would have declined by themselves.

Seems to me that Sharon's strtegy, when looked at this way, is a relatively good one, unless some other strategy could have been employed to cause the PA to change their strategy away from terrorism and violence (this is just basic game theory type stuff and anyone interested in international politics, especially leftists with their generally deficient knowledge of economics and, dare I say it, basic math, should verse themselves in it). And from everything that I and that the Israelis have seen, the only way to get the PA to moderate their strategy is either to appease them or remove their capability for imposing such significant costs on the Israeli population base.

Now, appeasment, the preferred European strategy when dealing with this sort of thing, will only further entrench the PAs terror strategy the next time they want something, as it has been shown to be an effective strategy to achieve whatever desires they might have.

Defeating them, on the other hand, will surely take more time and be more costly in the immediate term and indeed in the sort-run, but as time goes on (as we have observed) an increasingly aggressive strategy is very efective at disrupting the palestinian terrorism apparatus.



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?


suppose for just a minute that aliens would have landed and magically solved everyones problems by creating two parrallel yet overlapping universes where each party could get all of their demands? Would this not also be preferable to the current situation?

My example is an absurdity, but you must understand that to anyone who has any real sense of Arafat, your proposition is equally absurd.

Of course it would have been better, but Arafat was more interested in launching this war. he changed strategies first, Israel merely responded in the way it felt was optimal.

Although, diminishing attacks would not necessarily have been better - you end up with a Syria or Hizbullah like situation where the enemy continues to target you but they already have what they wanted.

[Canajew]

i'm not going into details about why camp david failed or why the intifadeh started,


I'm pretty sure I know what you think, and am equally sure you are wrong. I don't really need to see what you actually said to make this conclusion, it stems from the content and general validity of your other observations.



but the intifadeh started as street riots and riots in israeli streets, and this was brutally oppressed by the israeli military and police,


Israeli police shooting of Israeli Arab protestors was indeed a disgrace, as the judiciary has pronounced in Israel, and it will not be repeated. However, your characterization of this war as a people's uprising is fundamnetally inaccurate - it was a war strtegically developed and purposely implemented by Israel's 'peace partner'. And those 'street rioters' had guns this time, not stones, and they were firing from within crowds at Israelis.



with hundreds of deadths as a result,


civiaan deaths or paramilitary/terrorist deaths? What time period was this for? At what point had over two hundred ('hundreds' must mean at least 200) Palestinian civilians been killed in clashes with Israeli military forces. how many of these were killed by Plaestinian crossfire (like that poor Mohamed al-dura boy), or killed as collaborators?

You may like to call these deaths a 'result of Israeli occupation' but the but for cause of them was the war, not the occupation. For had there been no war, even were the occupation to have continued, the people would not have died in this way.

And I question your figures, you need to provide a timeline with them and some sort of verification so that I can indeed conclude that the al-asqa brigaes (a terrorist suicide squad, but no matter) was formed after this.

Also, when was this group formed? When did Hamas get the green light to attack Israeli civilians? When did the incitement of the PA glorifying suicide bombings and Jew killing begin? Did it ever stop? Do you not think this would have ANYTHING to do with Palestinian casualty figures?

What about palestinian strategies such as hiding behind civilians while firing at Israelis and sending children to commit attrocities against israelis and to smuggle terrorist weapons into Israel?


.
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.


I agree that attacking the PA rather than Hamas et al right from the beginning was a mistake, but Israel wanted to show the PA that it must change its strategy of confrontation, as the PA was the recognized authority for the Palestinian territories. But if we could do it all over again, I would suggest targeting the terrorists, 'political' leaders or not, right from the very beginning, including sending in ground forces to arrest and kill them.

but this doesn't seem to me like what you were going for.



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. [/B]

THE CEASE FIRE OFFERS WERE ALL SHAMS. Everyone seems to know this but you. And once the wall that you and yours are so hostile about is completed, I would expect successful terrorist attacks to decrease substantially, just like in Gaza

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
so in fact what you want is them give up all their demands, even those supported by unsc-resolutions...


no, i was only saying that if you come up with stupid statements of bright line principles then I can come up with equally stupid bright line principles.



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.


recognition by states and legal obligations are different things. So maybe you should start referring to it as the unsupported occupation or the condemned occupation or something which actually says what is true, and stop calling it the illegal occupation, which it is not. Words matter.



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...


Again, I made these statements to illustrate the stupidity of your bright line statements (Israel must do X Y Z or else)



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


couple of things.

First, you are a big fan of symbolism and the like for the Plaestinians, but Jerusalem is THE symbol for the Jews. You must reconcile these positions.

Second, the Israelis will return most of the wets bank, just not all of it. those areas which are inhabited by israelis should remain Israeli. Compensation can be worked out.

Third, it is not a couple hundred thousand refugees, it is everyone who wants to come back. you are misrepresenting the palestinina position in order to make it more palatable.

Fourth, Israel is not their 'home country' if they were not born there. their ancestors MAY have lived there a long time ago, but that was before the Arabs declared a war of extermination against Israeli jews and worked for so long to bring that about.

And fifth, a point that I have made many times already, the trade-off is not this or peace, because the Palestinians are not prepared to make genuine peace and cease all hostilities, so even were all of their demands met I am almost positive that incitement and violence would continue.



... 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).


their goals being the liberation of all of historic palestine, or only those that stop at the armistance lines? Does this include the goal fo flooding Israel with palestinian 'refugees'?

And yes it is legal for them to target the Israeli military (I am not sure about political figures, so I will not addres them here), but it is also legal for Israel to fight back. That is why targeted killings are not illegal, because they target armed combatants in an armed conflict.

So they can fight legally all they want (note, of course, that their primary strategy of choice is to target NONCOMBATANTS, making your littl eproposition above more or less irrelevant) and Israel can legally fight back.

So who will give first? For Israel to give in measn its destruction. For the Palestinians to give in it means they will only get most of what they want, not all of it. See where I'm going with this?



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.


of course, and even then they won't stop. But if they are never going to stop anyways, why should Israel give them anything?



they already did so, at least the official government


they did not really. they mouthed the words but they never internalized the validity of the message.



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.


oh. According to you, eh? my mistake.

And the 'refugees' of which you speak, these are the ones who were to be a fifth column and undermine the young Jewish state from the inside?

And while your conception of human rights is fundamentally flawed, your conception of morality is about as broken as it could be.



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.


How many Jewish homes in the West bank and Gaza were either expropriated from or built on Palestinian homes? I would suspect its pretty small, but you seem to imply it is every single one, so I will leave it to you to justify this assertion.

They were not 'second rate citizens' they were enemy civilians in occupied territories. And that is how they were treated, though they were treated FAR better than the Jews would have been treated had the Arabs won.

Israel is looked on badly because of the success that the Arab propaganda machine has had, starting with their initiatives in the UN in the 50s and 60s. Also, Arab oil has made a big difference in gettin gpeople to tow the line. And since the whole 'globalization' thing became such a hot issue, they got support by demonstrating to a bunch of close minded simpletons that porotesting against the suffering of womena dn the exporting of jobs was exactly the same as protesting against the only country in the middle east where citizens are equal before and under the law and defending itself from suicide terrorism.

Just because the world is full of stupid people does not mean that the stupid people are right.



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???)


not my theory, it belongs to those who were involved in the negotiations and the legal scholars who have properly looked at it. Your clear to me reading is not correct, so either you will have to, once again, jetteson truth so that you can feel good about your consistent world-view, or you must recognize the flaw in your thinking and remedy it. I know what Arafat would do, what would you?



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.
[/UOTE]

did they recognize Israel's borders at the time? i don't know. Do you?

[QUOTE]
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.


you must ascribe the interpretation to the term as it was meant to be applied at the time. Looking at the way in which this resolution was formulated and the behind the scenes discussions, it is clear that the word secure, coupled with the purposeful removal of the word ALL, resulted in a resolution which required Israel to withdraw to different, secure (unlike the previous borders, which were uniformly recognized to not be secure and defensible) borders.



says who? Israel only once almost lost a war, and it was in its current borders!


says no one. this was just another stupid statement which parallelled your stupid statement but replaced statements about Plaestinians with statement s about Israelis.



And please don't invoke Auschwitz, it is totally unrelated and not appropriate in this discussion.


I am not invoking it, you once again demonstrate your lack of understanding of Israeli history. Israelis routinely referred to the 49 armistance lines as "auchwitz borders" as they were recognized to be extremely compromising for national security and the securtiy of Israeli citizens. You may not like the term, but it was coined by those who survived Auchwitz, so your concern is, with respect, completely irrelevant.



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.


really? why not? because the Palestinians will not give up? Why should the Israelis give up? For a peace that the Palestinians do not really want? For a peace that the palestinians will not really abide by?

I supported Barak in 2000, and he would have given the Palestinians almost everything they wanted. not everything, but almost everything, and they chose instread to start a war targeting Israeli civilians.

[Canajew]

I hope you'll agree that palestinian elections would be rather difficult in the current situation!


what, with the rampant stifling of dissent and the absence of any sort of independent media or judiciary? I completely agree. Until Arafat dies no election will ever be held where he doesn't get a despotic 80 or 90 percent of the vote.



and palestinian human rights-violations were mainly against hamas-militants.


another lie. they were, aside from the violations against israelis, mostly against political dissenters and those who would dare expose PA corruption or question the direction of Arafat's intifadeh.



besides, according to AI 1000's of palestinians are in israeli jails for years already without even the prospect of a trial...


and I'm sure they are all innocent too, just arrested without any intelligence on them whatsoever, just to be mean. Stupid.



I believe Arafat


why?



and he represents the entire part of the palestinian society ready to compromise with israel


I do not believe this.



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.


more lies. they are completely willing to fight Israeli civilians, and have demonstrated themselves to be so involved time and time again (corporate veil be damned - the corporate veil is what allows a company like Dow Corning to get away with terrible conduct engaged in by a subsidiary, like Dow Chemicals).

And they cannot fight back without completely renouncing the Oslo accord. And if they renounce that, israel would then be entitled to kick him back out.



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.


you are wrong about this. About as wrong as could be. Attacking Arafat is an attempt to bring forth people who are genuinely interested in peaceful coexistence. Arafat is a terrorist and a mass murderer of civilians. And he is an obsticle to peace.



I'm a bit disappointed that you are among them.


am I now? I don't want the palestinians to compromise, or I don't want peace? Or maybe your lack of understanding of the real issues prevents you from perceiving things properly?



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.


there is, right now, no hope for peace, other than the wishful thinking pie-in-the-sky type of hope. Only with an upheaval within Palestinian society will there be ANY chance that peace may be possible in the future, but, of course, were Hamas et all to seize power the chances of peace would be roughly equivalent to the chances for peace under Arafat.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
[B]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...


see, I think that kyoto is a step backwards and is only good for its propaganda/profile raising value. Allocating emmission permits will not work because the allocation of permits involves the international allocation of assets worht TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of dollars. Kyoto was extrmely small and involved far less massive sums, and agreemnt still wasn't really possible.

The Russians don't really matter, as their economy has taken such a hit that their emissions are already far below 1990 levels and should not be returning anytime soon.

The UK is in great shape, as they get all the credit for Thatcher's shutting down of their coal indistry, while Europe is OK because its population growth baseline is so low.

North America, including Canada, on the other hand, is in a different state entirely, as per capital emissions would have to fall by a quarter to meet targets, something which the US would not be able to do without significant economic costs, or it paid for permits from toher countries that those other countries should not really have gotten in the first place.

What I think is needed is a system of emissions taxes that accrue to the national government. It avoids the problems of allocaitng permits, it generates revenues for governments that can then reduce other more distortionary taxes and it would allow the price to be set based on the social cost of consuming the resource.

Let poluters polute if the social benefits of their economic activity outweigh the costs, just make sure that the true social cost is extracted from producers.

And Kyoto is a proposition about as far away from this system as could be.



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


I know, but don't compare the US to Syria because they both 'lack transparency'. And the 'a bit better' is a lie, there are transparency indeces drawn up by international economic institutes which clearly demonstrate that democracies are far more transparent than dictatorships. On the margins the difference smay be small, but this would involve comparing the best dictatorship to the worst democracy and would not really be a proper method of analysis.



China's policy is ethical in its own very special way. high and more brutal sanctions aren't necessarily unethical, isn't it?


difficult question. Should people be killed for graft? How about for dissent or whistleblowing? What is the proper trade-off between assessment of economic benefits and assessment of violence against citizens by the state?

I, for example, support the three-gorges dam initiative. i know it will displace millions who have lived there for far longer than the Palestinians in Israel or indeed the rest of Plaestine, but the economic benefits and the benefits in terms of reduced carbon emissions are indeed massive.

However, there should be a least restrictive means test, whereby only the least burdensome response is ethical. thus, while it may be ethical to relocate these people, it is certainly not ethical to kill them, as there is a less imposing way to bring about the desired result.

As far as dealing with graft and the like, I would strongly suspect that China would not meet this test, even allowing for the fact that the victim is a criminal and therefore all the costs imposed on that person should not be validly included in the assessment.

But yes, a difficult issue.





how do you know a 100% it's a lie?


history, reading, observation of behaviour.



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,


it is not about getting respect, it is about excizing the cult of death and instilling within the Palestinians a sense of civil society, one that lots of not free people have.




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.

irrelevant. just because someone uses a false explanation in the past does not mean that every use of that explanation in the future is also false. The brits were imperialist. the always have been. teh Americans on the other hand, have always been hostile to empire, and certainly have never been interested in emulating the brits on this.

[danholo]

I've been reading Alan Dershowitz' book "the Case for Israel" and he mentions several times that Palestinians were offered a state in 1937, -47, and in 2000-01. Every time they rejected the offers and resorted to violence instead. Like after Camp David, Arafat begun his terror war and who got the sympathy?! The Palestinians for murdering Israelis and because Israelis were fighting this. Dershowitz's book is great! Occasionally it does point out some defects with Israel but things like the Palestinian leadership siding with Nazis during the Second World War, when Jews sided with the British, Palestinians actually gained from it and were offered a state!!!!

[Mil]

Posted by Danholo:


I've been reading Alan Dershowitz' book "the Case for Israel" and he mentions several times that Palestinians were offered a state in 1937, -47, and in 2000-01.


In 37? This is a first time I hear of this.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Mil
Posted by Danholo:


I've been reading Alan Dershowitz' book "the Case for Israel" and he mentions several times that Palestinians were offered a state in 1937, -47, and in 2000-01.


In 37? This is a first time I hear of this.

the Peel commission report was issued in 1937, if I am not mistaken, and this commission recommended a two state solution, with the Jewish state only ocmprizing a MINISCULE proportion of what it does today, and the Arabs who now call themselves Palestininas still rejected it.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Spare me any response. I wish you death. [/B]

You really think this sort of talk is acceptable? Not very nice, you know.

[Mediocrates]

Too bad. I've heard this nonsense from him for more than a year.

"Just give up and die and then we'll talk about the terms of your surrender" - takeo.


Let's forget that it was not a Palestinian who jumped under a bulldozer. It was Rachel Corrie a smug angry white girl from the suburbs, cradled in safe soft cost free Marxist dribble her whole life. Such as it ever was - the so called activists who peer down from the silly heights of their own egos telling me how angry they are that I don't appreciate their support of the murderous instincts of others. People who never spent 24 hrs w/o hot food and cable TV whining that the world should annoint them its moral compass.

What we need to do toss THEM on the trash heap of history.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Too bad. I've heard this nonsense from him for more than a year.


but aren't you a moderator? Would this be tolerated from others? Should it be tolerated from others?

And doesn't making a statement like this undermine the credibility of the arguments in this thread AS ARGUMENTS, for any third parties reading who will undoubtedly be reactionary when faced with such an unambiguous statement?

I am very well aware of takeos bias and the nonesense that he espouses, and I am well aware that it is the perpetuation of exactly this type of garbage which makes antisemetic violence more tolerable in the 'enlightened' western european world, and that these sorts of perpetuated fictions only make the prospects of another genocide more likely (see the Durban 'anti-racism' conference for how this sort of process works),

but ... where was I going with this ... oh yes, it still does not follow that you should post a desire to see his death in the thread. Aside from the impact this will have on the larger 'cause' it is morally quationable and completely unnecessary.

And takeo, I am looking for more of a 'eureka' type thing from you than any sort of death - a moment where everything clicks and you see how you were manipualted (and manipualted yourself) into patently false beliefs and a flawed value system. I know this is about as likely as Arafat being genuinely committed to peace (i.e. not really possible at all), but until you actually cause real harm to people or cause others to cause such harm, I think wishing for your death would be quite premature, notwithstanding the blind support you lend to Israels enemies and the most aggregious of war criminals :D .

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Canajew
but aren't you a moderator? Would this be tolerated from others? Should it be tolerated from others?




Probably not. Roma Locuta Causa Finita.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Probably not. Roma Locuta Causa Finita.

Odd you quote St. Augustine.
Although he used a couple 'est's. :D

[old-reb]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Too bad. I've heard this nonsense from him for more than a year.

"Just give up and die and then we'll talk about the terms of your surrender" - takeo.


Let's forget that it was not a Palestinian who jumped under a bulldozer. It was Rachel Corrie a smug angry white girl from the suburbs, cradled in safe soft cost free Marxist dribble her whole life. Such as it ever was - the so called activists who peer down from the silly heights of their own egos telling me how angry they are that I don't appreciate their support of the murderous instincts of others. People who never spent 24 hrs w/o hot food and cable TV whining that the world should annoint them its moral compass.

What we need to do toss THEM on the trash heap of history.

It is good to have people like Takeo online, else you are preaching to the choir.

People like Rachel are mass produced by the media.

I was watching BBC with my English girlfriend and they were showing the hardships put on the Pals by the fence. The Pal said,'Israel should be building bridges between the culture's instead of building fences." My girlfriend adds, "The Israeli's are not very nice people."

I tried the shock treatment--I said, "They should wipe out the 6 million Jews from Israel."
She took me seriously and added, " We should recall Hitler for that job." and laughed and went back to knitting.
She lived in New York for 25 years and has children and grandchildren living there who were badly affected by the WTC bombings. The terrorist who hate and attack Israel are the same ones that hate and attack us but the truth in her mind is what BBC says and the real world is not even considered. She even refuses to believe that Saddam used gas on Iran and his own people. If I bring it up, she says I shouldn't be spreading those lies.

I might add that we seldom talk politics as we live in a liberal community where I am a minority Republican.

old reb

[Mediocrates]

(But the St Aug. quote that I really like is ~~Oh God, please make me holy, just not yet ~~)


Anyway, that quote really carries weight as a matter of legal import. Back in the day, Mother Church would stamp all of its Papal Orders with a similar imprimatur: "Rome Says; Case Closed" more or less. Which I think is a wonderfully crisp expression of the practical aspects of power.

Just like history has made its judgment on the politics of people like takeo, eventually history will pass its judgment on the takeo people themselves.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Just like history has made its judgment on the politics of people like takeo, eventually history will pass its judgment on the takeo people themselves.

That's a good point. Marx, Stalin, Hitler, etc. are now just moldering piles of bones, made so by the same forces of History they used to justify the murders of millions. Those like takeo and Arafat are the walking dead, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually dead and awaiting only their final composting to garden dirt.

[Canajew]

Some tidbits on Arafat for Takeo:

Between 1969 and 1985, PLO groups committed more than eight thousand terrorist acts - mostly within Israel, though at least 435 abroad - killing more than 650 israelis, over 3/4 of them civilians, 28 Americans and dozens of people from other countries. (Ariel Merariand Shlomo Elad, The international Dimension of Palestinian Terrorism (Boulder Colorado, 1986) at 5.)

Arafat explained in 1968: violence should be focussed against Israeli citizens and their facilities, "to create and maintain an atmosphere of strain and anxiety that will force the Zionists to realize that it is impossible for them to live in Israel." (Interview with Arafat, january 22, 1968 in IDOP)

In November 1969, there were particularly bloody clashes between the Jordanian army and Arafat's forces in Jordan. To restrore order, the King and Arafat worked out a deal prohibiting Plaestinian forces from carrying guns or wearing uniforms in towns, seizing cars, arresting people, or recruiting Jordanian army deserters. Arafat also promised not to shell israeli targets from jordanian territory and to coordinate any cross-border attacks with local Jordanian commanders. Arafat broke the accord within days. Then in February 1970, after fighting had again broken out, the King demanded that Arafat respect his authority and order his men to obey Jordanian laws. Arafat refused.

During a May 1973 dinner with Romania's dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu, Arafat bragged about having managed the murder a few weeks before of the US ambassador to Sudan. A captured terrorist in that operation admitted the attack was a PLO operation ordered directly from Arafat's headquarters.

The first clashes between PLO and Lebanese forces in Lebanon began in 1968 and continued sporadically for many months. On November 3, Lebanon accepted an agreement that gave Arafat full freedom of action as long as he respected Lebanon's laws and sovereignty. Araft promised he would not launch attacks from Lebanese villages, shoot at Israel from Lebanese territory, or lay mines along the frontier. Within three weeks the PLO had violated this agreement. Soon Arafat was making speeches urging Lebanon's people to revolt.

In April 1971, Arafat created the Black September organization at a Fatah meeting in Dar'a, Syria. The organization was headed by Abu Iyad, one of Arafats closest supporters and confidants. At the 1972 olympic games in munich, eight Fatah men, organized by Abu Iyad, were dispatched from Lebanon, killing 11. A short time later, Black Spetember terrorists planned to assassinate Israel's prime minister, Golda Meir, as she took part in a religious service at Bucharest's Charloe Synagogue during a visit to Romanis, but Romania did not want this to happen on her soil so it detained the terorists (and provided them a full banquet dinner) before promply sending them out of the country.

In 1985, deprived of the ability to hit Israel from lebanon, the PLO turned to attacks by sea and operations abroad. Abu Jihad and Arafat's personal bodyguard unit, Force 17, mounted terrorist attacks from algerian bases. Fatah members also tried to bomb Israeli offices in frankfurt, Rome and Madrid. Arafta claimed these attacks were being "mastermined by the Mossad".This wave of attacks culminated in the brutal murder of three Israeli tourists in Cyprus by Force 17. the killers included a British neo-nazi skinhead working for the PLO, a former member of Arafat's personal bodyguard who had been an official at the PLO Athens office, and a Fatah man evacuated from lebanon with Arafat.

During the Achilles Lauro hijacking, which was initiated by a memmber of the PLO executive committee, Arafat sent people to Cairo to 'negotiate' the hijackers' surrender. Intercepted communications between the 'mediators' and the hijackers showed the two sides were working hand in glove. After being released, some of the hostages recounted that the gunmen told them: we came on behalf of Yasser Arafat.

More later... (lots of stuff post Oslo to come, and this list is hardly exhaustive).

[Canajew]

Despite Fatah's relative abstention from terrorist attacks in 1989 and 1990, other PLO groups, part of the oragnization led by Arafat and on whose behalf he had made the Geneva pledges (in which he 'renounced' terrorism in all its forms and pledged that any group involved would be expelled from the PLO) continued in their attempts to kill Israeli civilians. In no case did Arafat act to stop them beforehand or criticize them afterward. On the contrary, his threats of punishment were reserved for those expressing moderate views.

In may 1990, Abu al-Abbas sent a squad from his Palestine Liberation Front, a PLO member group in good standing, to shoot civilians on Tel Aviv's beach. The Israeli navy stopped them and prevented the attack, and one prisoner, the operation's deputy commander, told journalists that the target was Tel Aviv's beachfront hotel district and his orders were, "Don't leave anyone alive. Kill them all... children, women, elderly people." There was ample evidence of Arafat's complicity in the attack. Abbas was a member of the PLOs highest body and a close ally of Arafat. His Tunis office was in the same building as Fatah, and Arafat was providing much of that group's budget. The official PLO radio station carried three PLF communiques detailing the operationand both israeli and US intelligence sources concluded that Arafat MUST have known about the attacks in advance. the US tried for weeks to get Arafat to condemn the attacks, even in the most ambiguous and superficial way, but after two weeks they gave up.

As part of the OSLO agreement which allowed Arafat back into Gaza, Arafat had sent Israel a list of people he wished to escort him from Tunis for Israel's approval. These were people who were involved in attacks on Israelis, but Israel agreed to allow all but the very worst offenders. Among the few banned were the planner of a 1974 attack on a high school and a key figure behind the 1972 massacre of Israeli olympic athletes. Arafat smuggled these people in in the trunk of the cars in his motorcade. For the next few days he denied they were in the country. Under intense Israeli pressure, he sent these people back to Egypt, but several weeks later Israeli intelligence discovered that Araaft had smuggled them back in, and there they stayed.

[Canajew]

After the signing of Oslo and the agreement to allow Arafat into gaza, Arafat and his top colleaugues stopped referrign to israeli cities as occupied, but some officials, as well as the PA controlled media and education system, continued to talk in traditional terms as if little or nothing had changed. Arafat refused to criticize the radicals or teach moderation, and his people continued to be taught to applaud anti-Israel terrorism and to view moderation as bordering on treason.

The head of the Shin bet met with Arafat 15 or 20 times in 1994 and 1995 to present specific requests to detain terrorists as he was required to do under the Oslo agreemnts. When given a list, Arafat would reply, "He's not in Gaza," or "He's a farmer" or "I checked out your information and its not good enough, "its your problem, not mine," "I know better than you how to treat Hamas."

Even to Rabin's face, Arafat untruthfully insisted that Ibrahim Ayyash, the chief Hamas bomb maker, whose creations killed many Israeli civilians in 1994 and 1995, was in Sudan and that no one had seen him in gaza. He stuck to that story up to the moment that Israeli agents killed Ayyash by blowing up his cellphone as he stood in the middle of a gaza street.

Arafat also defended his performance by asking how he could be expected to dismantle Hamas when Israel failed to do so when it ruled (sound familiar). This implied Arafat failed to understand a central premise of the peace process: If Arafat did a worse job that a direct Israeli presence, what was the advantage of ceding him more land and authority.

It was no accident that before 1994, when Arafat arrived in gaza, there had never been a suicide bombing inside Israel, even though travel between Israel and the territories had been far more open in the early years. Most terrorist attacks on Israel had to come over borders with Arab states, and by controlling the WB and Gaza, Israel could prevent the guns and explosives from comming in or was able to capture them quickly. Terrorists had no safe haven where they could recruit and train men, build bombs, plan operations, or move close to targets in Israeli cities. But once Arafat was in the West bank and gaza and Israel was gone, staging such attacks and doing such things became far easier. Terrorist groups could operate openly and even run boimb factories. Terrorist leaders and key personnel were almost immune to arrest, while the PA rounded up those who helped Israel gather intelligence.

After Arafat returned, terrorist acts were constantly presented as legitimate and heroic. This was what young Palestinians were taught in their schools and what everyone was told by the PA controlled media. Rather than explain the dangers of violence, Arafat and his colleagues hardly ever portrayed Israeli measures such as closures and delaying negotiations to their people as inevitable reactions to palestinian violence and attacks.

Arafat frequently created wild theories about how Israeli extremists or even the Israeli government itself was behind anti-Israel terrorism, he called Hamas a creation of Israel and at one point accused israel's chief of staff, under Rabin, of planning a coup to stop the peace process. By poirtraying Hamas as an Israeli puppet - which he knew not to be true - Arafat disclaimed any need to take action in meeting his formost commitment under the peace agreement and the main criterion by which his role as a negotiating partner would be judged.

Arafat stated to an Israeli negotiator in 1995: "I know there are two ways to reach a Palestinian state, through the negotiating table and through a war of independence. We can accept a lot of casualties, thirty thousand martyrs. Can you accept five hundred Israeli soldiers killed?"

More later, but hopefully you are starting to see the picture a little better. None of this, of course, includes mention of Arafat's rampant corruption or domestic failures to attempt to build any functional institutions in the interim and that his favourite strategy for dealing with this was to inflame anti-Israel sentiment among his population through the PA contolled media and then call for them to rally around him against israel.

Are you startingto see how Arafat's lies have permiated the wider discourse of the reactionary left and people like yourself? you really should read a good book on him.

[Patriot]

After reading your plan, I'm starting to miss good, old Oslo...
Your plan is a sure-fire plan for the destruction of Israel.
Let's go over it step by step:

1. Ofcourse you need a labor-meretz government. No other government would agree to this suicide plan.
2. Discuss with whom? have the pals ever demonstrated their desire for peace? in summer 2000, PM Ehud Barak offered them a plan much like yours - they replied with terror and blood.
3. Why Arafat? Why give this terrorist a prise for years of terror and death? The root of all evil here is Arafat and his gang, brought by a labor-meretz government from Tunis.
4. And this is exactly what the pals have agreed to in the Road Map a few months ago. Did they lift a finger? did they stop one terror attack? was one terrorist arrested? was one gun confiscated? Only this week Abu-Ala declared that he is not going to confront terrorist organizations, so...
5. And here you are equalling terrorist activity and the settlements. How can you say that the bloody massacres of innocent people is quivalent to building homes and living peacfully?
6. and who will decide if the pals have carried out what they have signed? the EU? the UN? any other anti-Israeli, pro-Pals organization?
7. We have UN forces on our northern border. They have not stopped even one terrorist attack against Israel since they were deployed there in 1970's. In October 2000 a force of UN soldiers stood by and watched as Hizbulla terrorists kidnap 3 Israeli soldiers. I don't believe that foreigners will sacrifice their lives (if it will come to this - and it will) to defend Israel.
8. Flooding Israel with arabs is just what the enemy wants - to further disrupt the demographic balance in their favour. In two or three decades there will be an arab majority in Israel, and the only Jewish state will cease to exist. That is what you want?
and why just a few 100,000's? why not all the refugees?
9. Israel and the pals signed just that agreement in 1993 - it is called Oslo. Have the pals stopped their terror attacks against Israel for just one day...?
10. yeah, right... have other ideas how to destroy Israel...?
11. And the pals are rewarded for years of terros and murdering of Israelis, by the gift of statehood...

[Canajew]

and takeo, i came across this article today that you need to address as well. It is on incitement in the PA controlled media, and Arafat, as a tyrannical despot who will not tolerate anything in the papers that he doesn't want (like criticisms of his corruption and calls for moderation) is directly responsible for this lionization and the susequent violence which it helps produce.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1065689777843&p=1006953079865

Oct. 9, 2003
Promoting women terrorists

Observing a society's heroes offers insight into its nature and values. It is therefore distressing to observe how the Palestinian Authority transforms those who kill Jews, including women terrorists, into its heroes and role models, especially for children.

Immediately after the first suicide bombing by a woman, Wafa Idris, on January 27, 2002, the PA undertook a very public campaign of indoctrination of its women to see themselves as potential suicide bombers. Female suicide bomber Hanady Jaradat, who murdered 19 last week, is a product of this indoctrination.

After the Idris bombing, the official PA structures immediately turned Idris into a heroine and her murder into an act to be emulated. Within days, the PA held a demonstration in her honor with young girls carrying posters with Idris's picture, and the words: "The Fatah Movement... eulogize with great pride the heroic Martyr Wafa Idris." [Al-Ayyam, February 1, 2002].

Articles by women appeared within days throughout the PA media: "Raviha Diyav, of the Palestinian Women Union emphasized that the participation of Idris in the attack shows the determination of the Palestinian women to participate as full partners in the national struggle, alongside her brothers." (Al-Ayyam, February 1, 2002)

The PA, seeing that women could more easily get by Israeli security, immediately created a framework for women's terrorist activity: "The purpose of this brigade is to carry out attacks on the Israeli home front. The troop has been named the brigade in honor of the Martyr Wafa Idris." (Al-Quds, March 1, 2002)

PA-controlled Palestinian Television immediately joined the promotion. It started broadcasting a musical video clip starring a woman singing to background scenes of extreme violence, who is suddenly transformed from a mere singer into a warrior wearing an army uniform singing of her desire to fall as a Martyr: "You will not be saved, Oh Zionist, from the volcano of my land's stones, I will even willingly fall as a Martyr." (PATV March 10, 2002)

A concert honoring Idris has been broadcast repeatedly, as recently as July 24 this past summer, as a constant reminder - Wafa is the Palestinian heroine: "My sister Wafa... you chose Martyrdom, in death you have brought life to our will."

All this promotion led to a string of mostly unsuccessful suicide bombings by women and eventually to the bombing in Jerusalem by Ayat al-Akhras, a 17-year-old girl, whose victims included a teenage girl.

THE PA THEN turned these two successful killers into symbols for girls. PA summer camps for girls were named for Idris and Akhras, both last year and this year. This is particularity disturbing as it is natural for children to see another teenager being honored as a role model.

Idris has become so popular that even non-terror items appear now in her name: "The Shabiba student movement, 'the Martyr Wafa Idris cell' in the Al-Quds Open University, celebrated the completion of a course in democracy and human rights." (Al-Hayat al-Jadida, August 11, 2002)

It is important to note that just as the PA condemned last week's suicide bombing by Hanady Jaradat, it condemned Idris's attack in English while turning her into a heroine in Arabic: "The Palestinian leadership, on Sunday strongly condemned the suicide attack which took place in west Jerusalem..." (WAFA January 27, 2002)

Sadly, this campaign to turn female suicide bombers into role models is succeeding. In an interview after the first two suicide bombings by women, young girls on TV debated not the willingness to commit such atrocities but only the age at which it should be done: [19-year-old] Sabrine: "It's true that we're sad about children who have died, but at the same time we must be happy because the Shahids go to paradise. Ayat al-Akhras was 17 when she blew herself up. A girl of 17 is fully aware."

TV moderator: "Sabrine, are you for it or against it?"

Sabrine: "Of course I support blowing up, it is our right. Maybe no one will sympathize with us when they hear that children blow themselves up, but that, that's called heroism."

Moderator: "Sabrine, is it natural that Ayat al-Akhras explodes herself?"

Sabrine: "Of course its natural..."

[11-year-old] Walla: "What she said about Ayat al-Akhras - that it was her right - she's correct in supporting it... Ayat was a girl... 17 years old. She could learn more - finish her education. Then, when no more boys are left, and after she's finished her education, she can carry out operations." (PA TV, June 9, 2002)

Based on past PA actions, and not its empty condemnations, terrorist and murderer Hanady Jaradat will join the ranks of Idris and Akhras, and become a part of the PA lexicon of killers to be honored, adored and emulated. She will become a new role model for young Walla and Sabrine. And we will soon be hearing about the Hanady Jaradat summer camp for girls, and the new Hanady Jaradat course in democracy and human rights.

The writer is director of Palestinian Media Watch.

[takeo]

Netanyahu is an ally of Hamas? What are you smoking?

yes, he is, as yousaid yourself, hamas' actions led to his election while his policy led to renewed popularity of hamas.



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...

the right of return of people who have been ethnically cleansed iS a right and has nothing to do with a political agenda. even if it were a political agenda, it still doesn't mean that those people don't have the right to return. Ever the decades this became a highly symbolic question and palestinians aren't going to back down on this. But to respond the issues you raised further, only a few 100's of 1000's should be eligible to settle in israel since many will stay in their current sites and others can't proove a direct link that all of their ancestors lived in current Israel. a few 100's of 1000's means that israel's demographic balance won't be disturbed and that palestinians won't become a majority in israel. they won't disturb the economy either, on the contrary they will be a wellcome cheap labour force in Israel.




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'.

but nevertheless bothare warcrimes, and israel as a modern western state can't be compared to a terrorist organisation as hamas. the fact remains that israel purposely targetted civilians, and still does so.

So the invasion of 1967 was legitimised because Egypt blocked an israeli harbour? Which law of war legitimises this? Do you think that occasional shelling and the blockade legitimise a fullblown invasion? it's like Hitler using some cross-border shelling near the polish border as an excuse to start the invasion and occupation of poland...



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.

Israel should have liberated those areas according to international conventions, but didn't offer so, not once!!!! so please don't blame the palestinians. Since 1993 the plo and the palestinian autority recognised Israel, it effectively made peace with israel. Some terrorist activities continued which were used by israel as an excuse to continue the occupation, doing so they only reinforced the terrorist groups.


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.

if they are only an excuse, why doesn't israel dismantle them, to get rid of this palestinian excuse? in fact settlements are essential, since they prevent israel from withdrawing from the occupied territories. Which message do you think the constant building of illegal settlements gave to the palestinians who still believed in peace during oslo. the same message the suicide killers gave to the israeli still believing in peace...

[takeo]

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.

israel will never be able to change the palestinian society, israel as a much-hated outsider will NEVEr accomplish so. Reform can only come from the moderate parts of the palestinian society, which israel alienated or downright persecuted during the last couple of years. Those moderates can only survive if israel is sincere about leaving the occupied territories and offers new peace-proposals.




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?

ok, but the difference is that those groups don't target israel from Syrian soil, and it isn't even clear if those organisations are financed by Damascus. But even if they were, syria has the right to do so since they are still officially at war with israel, a situation that will last untill israel returns the golan-heights. But there was some kind of mutual understanding not to attack each other's territory, Israel violated this, which means syria now has the right to attack israel as well.
so, to return to your example, does this mean that you would have accepted a nicaraguan missile hitting us-territory? Would you accept Cuba to shell Miami when another bomb explodes in havana and the responsability of one of the miami-based terror-groups has been clearly demonstrated? please answer this question straight.



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)

how do you know, what makes you so sure??? what's your proove?



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.

you are doing exactly the same concerning arafat, and violating your own rules...


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.

i assume you refere to the children and grand-children of the refugees? according to international law children and grand-children of refugees have the right to return as well. (for example in bosnia)



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.

prooves, prooves... i only hear israeli allegations not confirmed by any prooves...



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.

that's abolute BS and i can proove it.

By 1930, all the land capable of being cultivated by the indigenous Palestinians with the resources available to them was already under cultivation (Frances Newton, Fifty Years in Palestine, Coldharbor, 1940, p. 253).

Sir John hope Simpson undertook a comprehensive studying of Palestinian agricultural potential in 1930. He concluded that

"it has emerged quite definitely that there is at the present time and with the present methods of Arab cultivation no margin of land available for agricultural settlements by new immigrants"

(Palestine, Report on immigration, land settlement and development, Sir John Hope Simpson, cmnd 3686, His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1930).

Subcommittee II of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, established in September 1947 issued a report in November 1947 which stated under item 63:

"The village statistics for 1945 prepared by the Palestine administration and showing the position as at 1 April 1945 furnish interesting data regarding land's ownership in Palestine. The total Arab land ownership is given in dunums (4 dunums equals approximately 1 acre), as being 12,574,774, as against a total Jewish ownership of 1,491,699. [...] The following figures are of particular interest:
CATEGORY OF CROPS OWNERSHIP

Arabs Jews (in dunums)

Citrus 135,368 139,728
Bananas 1,843 1,079
Plantations 1,052,222 94,167
Taxcable cereals (categories 9-13) 5,653,346 869,109
Taxcable cereals (categories 14-15) 823,046 67,839


Item 64 of that same report stated:
"The above statistics of population and of land ownership prove conclusively that the Arabs constitute a majority of the population of the proposed Jewisch State, and own the bulk of the land"

(Source: Doc. C74 UNSCOP Report to the UNGA, Documents on Palestine, vol. 1, pp. 165, PASSIA, December 1997)."

[takeo]

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).

ok, fine


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.

The british controll was never linked to the Jewish question originally and noone ever agreed before WWII to give all of the current israel to the Jews, the balfour-declaration was something very different, sharing the land between jews and palestinians.



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.

no BS, what israel did was expanding israeli law in palestinian territories, which is illegal. an israeli citizen in France will be subjected to French law. It is as illegal to move your own population in occupied territories, as literally stated by the 4th geneva-conventions and many different special unsc-resolutions....




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?

see above...



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.

Israel's neighbours jordan and egypt already acted in accordance with 242, except Syria (and lebanon) which can't because israel still occupies a part of syria.




you did not answer my question. Would that have made US actions legitimate?

if they were supported by the unsecurity council, yes.




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 disfunctional, because it resists israel's violations?




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.

but sometimes a wider problem can only be solved at local level. As long as the occupation continues, the cult of death will continue as well. and the palestinian suffering is great propaganda for al-quaida and other extremist groups worldwide, after travelling a bit in the muslim world i would say it's their main propaganda-tool.



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.

BS, the situation during the mid 90's could have evoluated in full peace, and hamas wasn't as strong as today, many palestinians still believed in peace with israel, as well among the higher levels. You are very blind not to see this, and i have been to palestine before the current intifadeh, many people believed in oslo but they felt cheated as israel didn't fullfill its obligations and settlements just kept growing in area that was supposed to be palestinian... (i saw this with my own eyes by the way, how settlements were expanding bEFORE the current intifadeh, a main source of palestinian hate against israel).


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?

actually i don't care so much, since both israel and the us made peace with arafat in 1993. By the way i challenge you to find one proove of arafat's involvement in a terror attack against civilians.


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.

that's bs, the plo, fatah, and the pa, all leading palestinian institutions, have recognised israel on many occasions.

[takeo]

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.

this are just stories to legitimise the israeli warcrimes against civilians during this war. and even if those were true it still doesn't legitimise the israeli crimes against civilians.


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.

They are not stupid, they know only struggle will give them their independance and land, that's why they had two intifadehs. the people who fought colonialism also knew that only violence would give them freedom. Their only mistake is to target civilians.



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.

the wall will protect colonies but as well include a large number of palestinian villages...
it is therefor less effective to protect ISRAELI territory.



Israeli Arabs are civilized people.

Why do you think so, because they have been threated civilised as well, they haven't been expropriated, occupied, had civilian rights, etc. unlike the palestinians on the other side of the green line which react the same way they had been threated by the israeli for decades...



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.

no, they have special rights since their ancestors lived there.




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.

still the inhabitants of the golan-heights want to return the golan heights to syrian control. By the way syrians and even the majority of palestinians are nice people too.



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.

Syria on the other hand will never stop and recognise israel untill Israel ends the occupation of the golan heights. (nor will any other syrian government in the future)



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.

Bush said that Saddam's demise would stop terrorism, exactly the inverse happened. perhaps palestinians receive some donations from Syria and Iran, but you can bet on it that even without Syrian or iranian support palestinians will continue to fight, most of the weapons they have by the way are homemade and the most financial contributions come from Saoudi arabia. The problem will be solved in jerusalem, not in damascus, bagdad or teheran.

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.

As long as israel occupies a part of Syria Syria has the right to support anti-israeli groups. And israel invading syria will only broaden the conflict and create another palestine/ Iraq...



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.

Syria should attack israeli military installations in the golan-heights.




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?

i already explained above...





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.

the bombing of Dresden was a warcrime, as well as expelling civilian german population by the soviets. Nothing the nazi's did can legitimise those acts.



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 ...

today the golan heights are a part of syria according to the international community and the UN...


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.

what i mean is that historical claims are not important, what is important is legality (unsc-resolutions, etc.) and the wish of the current people inhabiting those areas. Greece can claim back constantinople with strong historical claims, but that's nonsense in the current conditions...

[takeo]

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.

annihilation isn't the same as extermination, annihilation of israel doesn't mean extermination of the people living there (not that i support annihilation, but i think it's important to make the distiction). But anyway, Syria has to change its position, but ONLY if israel returns the golan-heights.



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.

give me please one example of legal occupation of territory since the establishment of the UN???



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.

you should read the geneva-conventions, which obliges any occupying power to take care of the wellbeing of the occupied subjects. the pa only exists since 1993...


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?

as i said the pa only assumed power in 1993... what about the 26 years before???



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.

so this means gaza and westbank are officially not a part of Israel according to the israeli constitution???
yopur above analysis again shows that threating "enemy citizens" with respect made them act more civilised... but still, this doesn't make the israeli annexation of Golan and eastern jerusalem any less illegal. (illegal because the golan heights are a part of syria)



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.

that's right, but nowhere is stated that captured territories can be occupied for decades on a row... any longer as the war requires


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.

yes, but who says that he actually had those terrorists under his controll?


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.

yes he did so, on many occasions.


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.

Arafat didn't crush hamas because they're too powerfull in the palestinian society, and he doesn't want a civil war. but his objectives and means are very different from those of hamas. by the way arafat recognised israel on many occasions.


just as there was no terrorism beofre occupation?

less, but the situation isn't comparable since neither jordan nor egypt recognised israel.



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.

you can't deny that since the israeli withdrawel from lebanon the war on israel's northern border ALMOST ceased, not completely, but a great improvement compared to a few years ago. so wathever your rethorics, the fact remains that israeli withdrawel had positive consequences, just as israeli withdrawel from the occupied territories, even unilateral, will improve the situation.



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.

on the contrary, Europeans don't like leaders who lie at them about non-existant WMD, such as Bush and Blair. Blair's carreer is finished, Iraq will be his political graveyard. Americans seem to be more tolerant for lying politicians. (hardly surprising if they elect "the terminator" as governer of california)

[takeo]

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.

have you ever been to palestine? palestinians aren't the people you imagine them to be based on the television images. Of course decades of oppression made them bitter and hard and very anti-israel, and the propaganda reflects that, but on the other hand articles in the palestinian media questioning official corruption in the government, and articles were Gush Shalom-members explain why they are committed to the palestinian side. so really not as fanatic and anti-semitic as you would think. However some radical groups broadcast much more radical views.



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?

because the rethorics of the pa are really moderate, while the general palestinian mood nowadays is that israel only understands one language, the language of violence. this is an unfortunate consequence of the israeli policy of the latest years.



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?

you don't know much about the palestinian society it seems, it isn't as simple as you put it forwards.




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.

but without palestinian agreement you'll never reach peace, and that is the purpose, or isn't it?


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?

they had it untill israel destroyed most of it in 2001 and 2002... but they didn't yet have a real functioning state, which also means controlling the borders, an integrated territory, a real army, an own currency, etc.



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.

when did israel offer to give back the entire occupied territories? i can't remember it...


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.

it's not that one-sided, if israel had been serious during the oslo-process there would have been peace now and a palestinian state. if israel had offered them a palestinian state back in the 70's it would also have spared them a lot of trouble. so hamas is only a part of the whole mess, not the only problem.



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.

yes indeed, since the PA would do so during a mutual agreement with israel. So if one side fails to observe this agreement the other is no longer obliged to observe it either. it works the other way around as well by the way.




so the deal is over. the Palestinians will never comply with anything, so there is no chance of a deal. So what now?

yes they will, if israel would right now offer a total withdrawel of all the occupied territories on the condition that palestinians stop terror right away, i'm sure terror will stop, completely. But the problem is that israel doesn't want to withdraw!!!




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.

yes they have, in 1948.


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.

yes but you can hardly say that palestinians have been deported for their own safety... and by the way this deportations isn't forever just temporarily allowed.



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.

yes, if israel wants help in its struggle against terrorism, it should comply to the demands of the international community.


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.

no, that's different, i do not support those actions, but noone has to help israel fighting them if israel continues its current counterproductive policy.


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.

the pa could be a great help if they had sufficient means (the ones other arab leaders dispose of, which means a real state) and the will to fight terror. Both will be possible if Israel gives in to the demands of the international community.




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.
.

what i mean is that palestinian migrant workers are not responsible for the suicide-attacks, so it 's no excuse to forbid palestinians working in israel.

[takeo]

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.

ok, that seems reasonable...


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.

both palestinians and israeli need to put an end to their feelings and forget the past, that's the only solution, in all conflicts all over the world. Get over it and work together towards the future.



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.

the failure of oslo and camp david and the second intifadeh was partly israel's responsability. And i don't believe in punishing an entire people, that's in fact typical stalinist policy, and the punishment of the germans after WWI led to the rise of Hitler...
palestinians are entitled to what they were entitled to since many decades.


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?

the jewish religious sites are in palestinian territory, that's fact you can't change. greek historical and religious sites are all over Turkey, their historical ennemy, which now attracts millions of tourists, what's the problem?



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.

the pre-1967 border is the real border between israel and palestine, and the war will go on as long as israel accepts this (with some minor adjustments perhaps, but certainly not including all the israeli colonies) the problem is that settlements are mostly built on the most fertile areas and use lots of water, so if israel wants to annex those it will have to hand over equally fertile areas.



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?

no, it wouldn't, by the way kouweit was used to launch numerous attacks against iraq unautorised by the international comminty.





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.

as i said, ANY syrian government will only stop supporting terrorism if israel hands over the golan heights. and an israeli (or American) occupation of syria will result in a whole new battlefield, a whole new largescale intifadeh, another great gift to al-quaida and the likes where they can show their skills. and most of all: an enormous burden on the already poor israeli budget...



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.

perhaps, but only because we would really offer them independance in return for an end of terrorism, unlike Israel.


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.

We have learned how to deal with the Arab world, and quite succesfully, today relations between Europe and most Arab countries are good, and we even succeeded in the democratisation of some Arab countries such as lebanon or morocco. we also managed to appease libia, wich is today ready to integrate in the international community and renounce terrorism. The israeli or Bush-approach probably would have made libia another battlefield such as palestine or Iraq.



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.

that's bs, really. not a single Arab state bombs its own citizens, closes its cities, destroys their houses and denies them any civilian right at all.


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.

the fact that Palestinians who were treated as human beings by the israeli (the israeli palestinians) react much more civilised than the ones who have been treated as animals for decades is a clear indication that the israeli polecy is responsible for the current mentality in the occupied territories.

[takeo]

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.

discussing it means compromising.


note that Arafat caused their war. Note also that you are the typical marxist in this - assume economic progress based on other exmaples that may or may not be relevant.

They have no independent judiciary. their executive branch is corrupted to the core. the have no infrastructure, no education (other than terrorist education and brainwashed hatred), no civil society, no free press, no free markets, a ridiculously corrupted economic regime, and, to top it all off, no one within the PA, especially Arafat, has shown any inclination to treat any of these things as a priority. And don't blame this on Israel, they showed just as little inclination when they had control under Oslo.

as the studies of Said show it's absolutely clear that the palestinian economy didn't have a real chance to devellop during oslo, the palestinian economy lacked real external borders and roads controlled by the palestinians. But still during the 90's the economy improved considerably compared to the earlier decades. the pa HAS education, infrastructure etc. perhaps not enough but it existed untill israel literally swept it away with bulldozers and tanks... not exactly the brightest move...



Economic growth does not happen in a vacuum. It takes very particualr circumstances for it to be facilitated. The palestininas are about as far on the development chart as the Syrians or the Iranians, who, if you didn't know, have never really done such a good job at fostering ANY economic progress.

actually syrian and iranian living standards are MUCH higher than palestinian ones. of course it could be better but compared to most of their neighbours iran and syria did well.


And they did not really do 'a lot' better as you said. they did marginally better, but they were seriously hurt by a decrease in investment from the colonial power (especially the UK) and were sriously hampered by corruption and faulty economic policy. And they are still wallowing in their own poverty, unless they found enough oil to make this a little better for a little while.

that's simply not true, just look at the indications of the undp. Arab countries generally improved quite a lot since the 50's, but serious problems remain. Some countries are almost up to Western level such as Tunisia or lebanon (without oil)


It never ceases to amaze me that those who are so vociforous on the left about promoting socialist economic ideology have so slight a grasp on the actual realities of markets and economics. Just assume all will be good in the future and leave it at that? Seems a lot like the utopian ideologies that have cost millions of lives and been economic catastrophes in the past hundred years (marxism, naziism) and will continue to do so in the future (Islamism Wahhabiism et al).

nevertheless communist or socialist-oriented economies in the thirth world did generally better than capitalist liberal ones...





you do not seem to get it, so I will lay it out in small words. Closures started because Palestinians would not stop sending terrorists to slaughter Israeli civilians. The purpose of closures is not to intentionally harm civilians but to prevent terrorists from killing Israelis. The fact that civilians are harmed (again in the economic sense rather than in terms of real harm to their physical integrity, which should be a proper conception of terrorism for any reasonable person) is a byproduct, but it was not the intent.

but it's a serious byproduct, some palestinians are near to starving, and it doesn't proove to be a very efficient measure, on the contrary it has been used in the past as a punishment.



I don't know, but if the United States purposely targeted civilians (for death or seriousn bodily harm) for political purposes, then yes, the US did engage in terrorism. What relevance does this have to the current discussion, though?

yes it did (if you are interested in this subject i can provide you with quite some information and titles ) . The relevance is that your theory can be applied on your allies as well as your ennemies. i have a difficult time imagining you condemning the terrorist policy of the US!



worse for whom? For Israelis, I think, the potential that a palestinian state with full control over its borders and without any constraints as to their munitions, armaments or tactics would be far worse than the state of affairs today is very real, and that you cannot even recognize this only reinforces the impression I get from you that you really do not understand Israelis at all, and certainly do not understand their mentality in acting the way they do. But we understand your position very clearly, and reject it because it will not work and will only risk more harm to Israel. How many times must Israel stick its neck out so that the world community can try another 'peace' plan?

a palestinian state would offer israel numerous advantages, the most important one an end to the terror, and a peace-deal as signed with egypt or jordan, which prooved to be very succesfull.



yes I can prove that the PA was in systematic and complete violation of the Oslo agreement, but not now as I lack sources at the moment. But the fatc that Arafat had over 10,000 more 'police' than he was supposed to and the fact that he smuggled in terrorists in his car THE FIRST TIME he entered the Palestinian territory, are a couple of good examples. there are, undoubtedly, scores more, and if we include all the broken promises he made to Arab leaders as head of the PLO (like he will not try to subvert their regimes, he would not use their land as a launching pad for Palestinian terrorism against israelis) material violations would surely count in the hundreds.

do you have any links to sustain this claim?


didn't I make it very clear that I did not want to see this sort of stupid argument? I'm pretty sure I did.

it's a perfectly logical question, since sharon raise to power more israeli civilians died. i think it would be reasonable to think that there's some kind of connection... (after all the man promised to bring peace!)




Again, just because X+Y people died today while only X dies yesterday, it does not follow that the strategic choices of the political actor were bad ones. you fail to follow the most important rule for this sort of this: KEEP EVERYTHING ELSE CONSTANT. Unless you can account for other factors in your model or effectively keep them the same, you cannot just look at the conclusion today and the conclusion yesterday and say the startegy must have been a bad one.

the only thing changing was the israeli policy...


Lets complicate the model a little bit. Say that there is a ramp-up period for terrorism (a reaosnable assumption as it takes time and resources to train and deploy terorrists). now if the former leader followed the peace track and ignored a ramp-up to terrorism, does it not follow that, all else the same, terorirst attacks will be higher in the future than back then?

nope, the kind of terrorism used by hamas and co. doesn't need much ramping up. They have scores of candidates and material can be easily made or acquired. they can attack whenever they have the opportunity and want to.



Lets also look at the strtegic decisions of the other side, as, while there is almost certainly an interaction effect between Israeli and PA actions, the other side's actions can directly impact on the bottom line figure that is at issue (i.e. casualty figures). So, the PA strategy changed about the same time as they launched their little war, though almost surely before-hand based on the logistics involved in starting such an operation.

the pa strategy changed when the israeli started to target the pa (still under barak), it changed even more since Sharon excluded all negotiations.




this is BEFORE Sharon took office, so the proper comparrison must be what would have happened if Sharon had not been elected and the Palestininas continued with their strategy compared to what actually did happen under Sharon. And the numbers seem quite clear. before Defensive Shield Israeli casualty figures were FAR HIGHER than they have been AT ANY POINT SINCE, and there is no reason to believe that absent such a response these figures would have declined by themselves.

operation defensive shield only had very temporarily results, and the only reason why there were a few less attacks during the last months was the hudna. sharon was also responsible for ending this hudna, perhaps barak would have respected this cease-fire.

[takeo]

Seems to me that Sharon's strtegy, when looked at this way, is a relatively good one, unless some other strategy could have been employed to cause the PA to change their strategy away from terrorism and violence (this is just basic game theory type stuff and anyone interested in international politics, especially leftists with their generally deficient knowledge of economics and, dare I say it, basic math, should verse themselves in it). And from everything that I and that the Israelis have seen, the only way to get the PA to moderate their strategy is either to appease them or remove their capability for imposing such significant costs on the Israeli population base.

the pa has already been seriously damaged, so i suppose you mean hamas, jihad, etc.
israel will never succeed to remove the capacity of those organisations without palestinian cooperation. even those walls are useless, since quite some terrorists come from Gaza where walls have already been erected.


Now, appeasment, the preferred European strategy when dealing with this sort of thing, will only further entrench the PAs terror strategy the next time they want something, as it has been shown to be an effective strategy to achieve whatever desires they might have.

bS, the european strategy, as for example in northern ireland, is to deal with the main problems on which terrorism is based, in this case the occupation of palestine. as opposed to the tatcher- and sharon-strategy of eradication of the resistance, which fails miserably in any war where terrorists are worriers have the support of the population.




Defeating them, on the other hand, will surely take more time and be more costly in the immediate term and indeed in the sort-run, but as time goes on (as we have observed) an increasingly aggressive strategy is very efective at disrupting the palestinian terrorism apparatus.

years of Sharon-government haven't stopped terrorism, so clearly this theory stinks!!! (as well as the putin-strategy in chechnia, the soviet-strategy in afghanistan, the american strategy in vietnam or the bush-strategy in iraq... )




Although, diminishing attacks would not necessarily have been better - you end up with a Syria or Hizbullah like situation where the enemy continues to target you but they already have what they wanted.

even this would be a great improvement compared to the current situation. How many israeli citizens died near the border since israel gave up the occupation of southern lebanon?


Israeli police shooting of Israeli Arab protestors was indeed a disgrace, as the judiciary has pronounced in Israel, and it will not be repeated. However, your characterization of this war as a people's uprising is fundamnetally inaccurate - it was a war strtegically developed and purposely implemented by Israel's 'peace partner'. And those 'street rioters' had guns this time, not stones, and they were firing from within crowds at Israelis.

I think it was a popular uprising, one that the pa couldn't stop (and perhaps didn't want to stop). But it's clear it started as a spontaneous popular uprising (i'm not surprised either, i have visited the area only one year earlier)


civiaan deaths or paramilitary/terrorist deaths? What time period was this for? At what point had over two hundred ('hundreds' must mean at least 200) Palestinian civilians been killed in clashes with Israeli military forces. how many of these were killed by Plaestinian crossfire (like that poor Mohamed al-dura boy), or killed as collaborators?

during the first weeks of the intifadeh 100's of palestinians died, this is just a fact. perhaps some were killed in the crossfire but at some occasions israeli soldiers just shot on people throwing stones, which had been recorded by the camera's.




You may like to call these deaths a 'result of Israeli occupation' but the but for cause of them was the war, not the occupation. For had there been no war, even were the occupation to have continued, the people would not have died in this way.

that's bullocks, it's the same as saying if polish or Russians wouldn't have resisted the nazi-invaders there would have been less casualties



And I question your figures, you need to provide a timeline with them and some sort of verification so that I can indeed conclude that the al-asqa brigaes (a terrorist suicide squad, but no matter) was formed after this.

ok, fine i will (i already did so by the way in discussions with newsguy, i'll try to find those)


Also, when was this group formed? When did Hamas get the green light to attack Israeli civilians? When did the incitement of the PA glorifying suicide bombings and Jew killing begin? Did it ever stop? Do you not think this would have ANYTHING to do with Palestinian casualty figures?

it seems a very logival conclusion


I agree that attacking the PA rather than Hamas et al right from the beginning was a mistake, but Israel wanted to show the PA that it must change its strategy of confrontation, as the PA was the recognized authority for the Palestinian territories. But if we could do it all over again, I would suggest targeting the terrorists, 'political' leaders or not, right from the very beginning, including sending in ground forces to arrest and kill them.

by targetting the pa instead of the real terrorists israel sent the wrong message to the palestinians that in fact they declared war against the entire palestinian society. this in return led to an enormous increase in the popularity of terrorist groups.


THE CEASE FIRE OFFERS WERE ALL SHAMS. Everyone seems to know this but you. And once the wall that you and yours are so hostile about is completed, I would expect successful terrorist attacks to decrease substantially, just like in Gaza

still gaza-suicide bombers regularly rock Israel...



First, you are a big fan of symbolism and the like for the Plaestinians, but Jerusalem is THE symbol for the Jews. You must reconcile these positions.

yes, but for palestinians as well, that's why Jerusalem must be divided as it was before 1967. why do you think that not a single embassy resides in jerusalem? palestinians will never agree with an agreement wich gives the entire jerusalem to Israel, palestinians want eastern-jerusalem (or at least the palestinian quarters) as their capital. there can be found a compromise, but at least some parts of jerusalem will return to the palestinians, if you don't accept this it means a solution is absolutely impossible.



Second, the Israelis will return most of the wets bank, just not all of it. those areas which are inhabited by israelis should remain Israeli. Compensation can be worked out.

nope, the settlements must be disbanded as required by several unsc-resolutions, if not peace is impossible. perhaps some near israel's border can be integrated in return for parts of israel, that would be possible.


And fifth, a point that I have made many times already, the trade-off is not this or peace, because the Palestinians are not prepared to make genuine peace and cease all hostilities, so even were all of their demands met I am almost positive that incitement and violence would continue.

perhaps, the wounds don't heal so easily, but i'm sure terrorism would cease.





So they can fight legally all they want (note, of course, that their primary strategy of choice is to target NONCOMBATANTS, making your littl eproposition above more or less irrelevant) and Israel can legally fight back.

indeed, i'm sure soon enough the israeli voters will get tired of paying for the military operations in the occupied territories and suffering daily losses, a bit like the resistence American occupation troops are now facing. (which i support a full 100% by the way)




So who will give first? For Israel to give in measn its destruction. For the Palestinians to give in it means they will only get most of what they want, not all of it. See where I'm going with this?

no, for israel it would mean peace and secure borders as with egypt and jordan (not necessarily warm relations tough) for the palestinians it would mean to have an independant state according to the pre-1967 borders, giving up most of their original homeland.




How many Jewish homes in the West bank and Gaza were either expropriated from or built on Palestinian homes? I would suspect its pretty small, but you seem to imply it is every single one, so I will leave it to you to justify this assertion.

I don't know exactly, but it is listed on the gush shalom website. not so may houses but many gardens, yards and other propery has been expropriated, which is totally illegal for an occupying power to do. And why exactly, if israel is only interested in the occupied territories for security reasons as you claim???

[takeo]

Israel is looked on badly because of the success that the Arab propaganda machine has had, starting with their initiatives in the UN in the 50s and 60s. Also, Arab oil has made a big difference in gettin gpeople to tow the line. And since the whole 'globalization' thing became such a hot issue, they got support by demonstrating to a bunch of close minded simpletons that porotesting against the suffering of womena dn the exporting of jobs was exactly the same as protesting against the only country in the middle east where citizens are equal before and under the law and defending itself from suicide terrorism.

all citizens aren't equal in israel. palestinian israeli citizens can't marry someone who doesn't have the israeli nationality except if he or she is a jew, but jewish israeli citizens can. clear discrimination and racism. besides the israeli treatment of the palestinians is much more than just defense, and the images of palestinian houses destroyed, closed borders, tanks shooting at stone-throwing children, demolishion of houses etc. all made israel less than sympathic. Israel also refused to commit to several un-resolutions which made it effectively an outlaw.



did they recognize Israel's borders at the time? i don't know. Do you?

yes they did, by recognizing israel in 1948.





what, with the rampant stifling of dissent and the absence of any sort of independent media or judiciary? I completely agree. Until Arafat dies no election will ever be held where he doesn't get a despotic 80 or 90 percent of the vote.

how would you organise elections in such conditions? do you think israel would cooperate? (a necessary condition for elections to succeed since israel occupies a large part of israeli towns)



another lie. they were, aside from the violations against israelis, mostly against political dissenters and those who would dare expose PA corruption or question the direction of Arafat's intifadeh.

that's simply not true, most prisoners in pa-cells were membes of the military wing of hamas and jihad.


you are wrong about this. About as wrong as could be. Attacking Arafat is an attempt to bring forth people who are genuinely interested in peaceful coexistence. Arafat is a terrorist and a mass murderer of civilians. And he is an obsticle to peace.

attacking arafat means brining hamas to power, it's as simple as that.



am I now? I don't want the palestinians to compromise, or I don't want peace? Or maybe your lack of understanding of the real issues prevents you from perceiving things properly?

you are not interested in real peace because you refuse to negociate with the palestinian leadership.



there is, right now, no hope for peace, other than the wishful thinking pie-in-the-sky type of hope. Only with an upheaval within Palestinian society will there be ANY chance that peace may be possible in the future, but, of course, were Hamas et all to seize power the chances of peace would be roughly equivalent to the chances for peace under Arafat.

this imaginary upheaval will never happen, and hamas would be by far worse than Arafat. Hamas would use the entire palestinian infrastructure in its battle against israel, without anyone restraining them and without being bound by foreign friends, hamas would have even more potential and means than nowadays.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
yes, he is, as yousaid yourself, hamas' actions led to his election while his policy led to renewed popularity of hamas.


this does not mean they are allies. In case you didn't know, Netanyahu's 'goals' do not entirely consist of his political success, rather they comprise a set of objectives on the ground. I would suggest that these are quite different from the goals of Hamas (which, if you didn't know, include the destuction of Israel and the expulsion of her Jewish citizens) and that as a result it would be a lie to call them allies. Hamas and Arafat are allies, even though they disagree on things like timing, corruption, religion etc, but because they both share the same goal of destorying Israel, they are allies.



the right of return of people who have been ethnically cleansed iS a right and has nothing to do with a political agenda.


again, show me something like this. i have put forward many reasons why this is not true. this is also just a bald faced assertion and not really releant anyways because the Plaestinians were hardly 'ethincally clensed' and, in fact, the vast vast vast majority of those actually ethnically clensed are not entitled to return as of right, especially after this kind of terrorist campaign.



even if it were a political agenda, it still doesn't mean that those people don't have the right to return.


you're right. the fact that they do not have a right of retun has nothing to do with the political agenda. They don't have it for a host opf other reasons.



Ever the decades this became a highly symbolic question and palestinians aren't going to back down on this.


with respect, after the palestinians launched this unnecessary war whose primary doctrine is to target innocnet isralei civilians, i really don't care too much about their willfully manufactured and false symbols. They invented it, they can uninvent it.



But to respond the issues you raised further, only a few 100's of 1000's should be eligible to settle in israel since many will stay in their current sites and others can't proove a direct link that all of their ancestors lived in current Israel. a few 100's of 1000's means that israel's demographic balance won't be disturbed and that palestinians won't become a majority in israel. they won't disturb the economy either, on the contrary they will be a wellcome cheap labour force in Israel.


but Israel doesn't want them because their society has so embraced this cult of death. They must be a cost to backing the loosing side in war after war after war. They started this war and they lost. A right of retun is unacceptable to israel and always has been and there has never before been any legal support to suggest that such a right exists. Whether Israel's demographics are, for you, undisturbed enough, is irrelevant. Isarel does not have to take these people in (not even back, just in) and those who are the most active proponents of this use it as a code word for the destruction of israel. Unless they give up this ludecrous demand they will never see an agreement they will perceive as acceptable, and there will be no peace. As you so obviously desprately desire peace, you will no doubt make future best efforts to educate the palestinians and their supporters about both the legal invalididity of a 'right' of return, and the extremely dim potential there is for peace were this demand not given up.



but nevertheless bothare warcrimes, and israel as a modern western state can't be compared to a terrorist organisation as hamas.


what kind of drivel is this. Destroying homes used by terrorists to smuggle weapons is not illegal, neither is the destruction of homes used as firing positions or to hide weapons. Destroying homes of the families of suicide bombings is a negative economic measure taken to counteract the funds received by that family from Arab supporters BECAUSE their child blew up innocnets.

And your mporal equivalence is as misplaced here as it can be.

And wasn't it you I took to task about equivalence between murder and theft? Crimes against the person are always more morally aggregious than crimes against property. Stop these sorts of intellectual games please, it only further reinforces my suspicioin that you are not interested in a real dialogue, rather only to hone your rhetorical skills.



the fact remains that israel purposely targetted civilians, and still does so.


lies. Civilian infrastructure is only targeted with cause, while civilian persons are never PURPOSELY targeted. And I note here your round condemnation of Palestinian terrorism, which you have clearly recognized here is far more aggregious and consist of far more and far worse war crimes. Oh, but of course you noted no such thing, rather you tried to draw equivalency between dispatching murderers to butcher children in their beds with destroying a home used to smuggle weapons or searching an ambulance because bombs and bombers have been smuggled inside.

Also, please address the Palestinian war crime of hiding 'military' personnel in civilian clothing and civilian areas. And please relate this war crime to the subsequent deaths of innocents when the Israelis try to take these militants out, which it is fully entitled to do.

Or just avoid the question alltogether, don't learn anything, and come back with the same slogans, the same tired old arguments, the same diversionary tactics and rhetorical dishonesty. But don't expect much of a response. At some point I assume I will get tired of this sort of thing.



So the invasion of 1967 was legitimised because Egypt blocked an israeli harbour? Which law of war legitimises this?


2 things. First, the disengagement agreement between Egypt and Israel from the '56 Suez war specified that any blockade was to be interpreted by israel as an act of war. by signing this agreement Egypt was bound by this position, in effect creating an offense that would effectively nullify the disengagement agreement and allow Israel to rightfully attack to remedy this blockade.

Further, blockades are internationally recognized as acts of war, so even failing this inclusion in the disengagegement agreement was not strictly necessary, but at least it allows me to avoid demonstrating this too, as only one cause of war is necessary, i do not have to prove there were multiple ones (even though there clearly were).

Further, Egypt forced the UN to withdraw, and Nasser and Asad went on and on about how they were going to destory Israel and exterminate its population. There were plans drawn up for the extermination of Tel Aviv's population, and Egypt moved all its armaments to Israel's border. To say that this did not amount to an act and declaration of war is to wilfully blind one's self to reality.



Do you think that occasional shelling and the blockade legitimise a fullblown invasion?


yes. Do you think that a nation which is unwaveringly hostile towards its neighbour and continuously sends terrorists and artilery to target civilians and their population centres should be allowed to continue to do so ad infinum without any threat of penalty? Do you think that international law shopuld permit this kind of terrorism and prevent any sorts of defensive measures other than guarding one's borders? And this was not a 'full blown invasion'. Cairo was not seized, only the Sinai, a relatively tangential portion of Egypt. Similarly the Golan for the Syrians and the west bajnk for the Jordanians. A full blown invasion is something far greater and would have necessitated the occupation of Damascus, Cairo and Amman.



it's like Hitler using some cross-border shelling near the polish border as an excuse to start the invasion and occupation of poland...


you really think so? You want to rethink this, or would you like everyone to confirm their suspicions that you are an anti-semite? implying that the Israelis used this as a pretext so what? they would exterminate the local, population and enlarge their leibenstraum?

I was going to deal with this but I won't. It does not deserve a response. Don't be so stupid please.



Israel should have liberated those areas according to international conventions, but didn't offer so, not once!!!! so please don't blame the palestinians.


false. And who were they supposed to offer it to? the PLO, the unreformed international terrorist group? Again stupidity masquerading as intelligent thought.



Since 1993 the plo and the palestinian autority recognised Israel, it effectively made peace with israel.


what the hell is the matter with you? Is all you are going to do is repeat old slogans even though they have been shown to be invalid assertions, faulty argumnet s or just plain wrong. How many times do I have to tell you that just because the Plaestinians renounced violence in English and then proceeded to indctrinate their people in the worst anti-sdemitism, provide the worst of disinformation to put Israel in the worst possible light, and to turn a blind eye to the terrorism that was being planned and perpatrated not only right under his nose but also in his office is not sufficnet to conclude they wanted peace.

Recognizing Israel is not peace. Don't be stupid.

[

[Canajew]

Some terrorist activities continued which were used by israel as an excuse to continue the occupation, doing so they only reinforced the terrorist groups.


I can't keep responding to everything saying it is stupid, yet you keep making stupid assertion after stupid assertion. So rabin and Peres were plotting to subvert the peace process that they wanted so badly? Barak, by offering almost everything the palestinians were wanting, he secretly wanted them to reject it so that his political career could be over and so that the palestinians could launch a new war that they had planned to launch even before negotiations were concluded.

You have your causes and effects backwards.



if they are only an excuse, why doesn't israel dismantle them, to get rid of this palestinian excuse?


because of DETERRENCE. you do not buckle to terrorists. Doing so harms the long term interest of the population to security. Stop ignoring what you don't like.



in fact settlements are essential, since they prevent israel from withdrawing from the occupied territories. Which message do you think the constant building of illegal settlements gave to the palestinians who still believed in peace during oslo.


well gee. I'm pretty sure it sent the exact message that Arafat wanted to send through his micromanaged state controlled media, which both lied about the magnitudes of everything, but also wilfully misrepresented Israeli positions in order to make them appear devious.



the same message the suicide killers gave to the israeli still believing in peace... [/B]

what, don't ever give the Palestinians anything because they will just use it to stab you in the back - thank's I already got that one.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
israel will never be able to change the palestinian society, israel as a much-hated outsider will NEVEr accomplish so.


I would tend to agree with this. But it must be fixed ex ante, or any 'peace' agreement is doomed to failure.



Reform can only come from the moderate parts of the palestinian society, which israel alienated or downright persecuted during the last couple of years.


but of course the fact that Arafat and his security apparatus and his media appeased the extremists and persecuted the moderates, accusing them of being traitors, had nothing to do with it? Wilful blindness will not win you any arguments here.



Those moderates can only survive if israel is sincere about leaving the occupied territories and offers new peace-proposals.


but if they cannot or will not do anything to stop the extremists then it doesn't really matter if they are a trivial or non-trivial small part of the palestinian society which is run by extremist facist ideologues. That they exist is not enough, and unless they can do anything to help the israelis with their valid security concerns (which started the whole thing, and certainly started the re-occupation of March 2002) the encouragement of their expansion is hardly the most pressing goal.



ok, but the difference is that those groups don't target israel from Syrian soil,


but this is a lie, of course, and irrelevant. If they have logistic offices in Syria, then they are indeed 'targeting' from Syria, regardless of from where the actual bomber starts out. And whether or not they actually do nay targeting from that country is irrelevant, merely training them there is sufficient.



and it isn't even clear if those organisations are financed by Damascus.


only to those who will deny themselves reality, or those for whom reality is denied to them, like all those living under despotism and who derive their world-view from the state directed 'news' media..



But even if they were, syria has the right to do so since they are still officially at war with israel,


I've got you going in circles. If Syria is still at war with Israel, then why does it even matter that this group is a terrorirst organization (which it is) and Syria is harbouring them (which it is)? If they are still at war then Israel does not need any reason, by your logic, to strike what it perceives to be a threat eminating from this country with whom israel is at war. Cuts both ways.

But Israel does not even have to rely on the continued hostilities. these organizations target Israeli civilians. that you cannot or will not recognize this is part of the problem. As they target isareli civilians (a war crime) Israel is fully justified, both morally and legally, to take action to both punish those who enageg in such terrorism and deter that state from continuing to support terrorism. i would not be in favout of dropping bombs at random over Damascus (which would be similar to what the Syrians and terrorists do when they attack Israel - attack civilians first) but a response targted at the terrorist infrastructure is certainly justified.



a situation that will last untill israel returns the golan-heights.


AT LEAST until then, and almost certainly beyond, but for those like you who believe the terms Syrian and peacenik are synonamous, the realm of self delusion will allow you to see this as the sufficient condition for peace, when it is only really, at most, a necessary condition and even this is arguable. It is clearly not a sufficient condition for peace. the Syrians must do lots of things in exchange, and they have never been willing to do them.



But there was some kind of mutual understanding not to attack each other's territory, Israel violated this, which means syria now has the right to attack israel as well.


this 'understanding' was broken first by Syria - see professor Morgan's arguments. To harbour terrorist whom you KNOW will act to attack Israeli civilian targets is to be just as culpable as doing it yourself, especially where you actively support them in their aims and goals and operations.

Please look at all effects, not just the ones you like.



so, to return to your example, does this mean that you would have accepted a nicaraguan missile hitting us-territory?


what is it attacking? A missile against a military facility may well have resulted in an escalation, but it is quite different from a missle targeted at New York or Miami.

Also, there is a difference, I think, between regimes which purely desire to maintain power and subject the population to a democratic government genuinely interested in the well being and security of its people. So Iraq would not have been able to use this excuse because of an attack against the Kurds, for example, because Iraq and Hussein did not actually care about these civiulians, and any excuse clearly would have been just that - an excuse. But for Israel, a democracy clearly concerned with the protection of its citizens, such an attack is clearly justified.



Would you accept Cuba to shell Miami when another bomb explodes in havana and the responsability of one of the miami-based terror-groups has been clearly demonstrated? please answer this question straight.


my straight answer: were this bomb targeted against those who set off a bomb in Cuba, and were the American government to have refused to stop such acts and arrest the perpetrators and future perpatrators, then yes Cuba would be justified in attacking those who attack it. this does NOT mean they could just drop a bomb on a civilian population or engage in nay other acts of terrorism, but that a response designed to both stop the person who is carrying out these attacks and provide a deterrent for others who would also be likely to engage in such actions, would, in my opinion, be acceptable (though really stupid looking at the balance of power and the American administration).

Straight enough? Its as straight as I could get it, any more oversimplification and a conclusion would not really be meaningful. Who is being attacked and why they are being attacked are important considerations.



how do you know, what makes you so sure??? what's your proove?


I put up about a quarter of it about Arafat's early years, the evidence gets both more voluminous and more obvious for the rest, but as I work, it takes quite a bit of time to put them all in. But read Yassir Arafat: A political biography and there should be enough 'prooves' to suffice. If I get the time I will continue to put in examples of why i would trust Saddam hussein before I trusted Yassir Arafat. Why do you believe him, when everything he says is inconsistent with what he does, what he causes to be taught to his people, and what he says to his people in Arabic?

[Canajew]

you are doing exactly the same concerning arafat, and violating your own rules...


What I have already disclosed above is sufficient to label him a war criminal, and what is to come is enough to do it many many times over. And I never refer to him as a war criminal even though I think he is, while you will always refer to Sharon as a war criminal (which is a fairly dubious charge, especially were the magnitude of the offece and the actor's moral culpability looked at) while never referring to Arafat as such. it reeks of intellectual dishonesty.



i assume you refere to the children and grand-children of the refugees? according to international law children and grand-children of refugees have the right to return as well. (for example in bosnia)


thats not true. In Bosnia the relevant agreement may have been different, but as a general principle International law does not recognize children of refugees ot be refugees. I am also, of course referring to all those who would qualify under the UNRWA definition of terrorism, as having worked in Israel for two years, who would not qualify as real refugees belonging to that nationality. Being a transitroy labourer on a Jewish far for a couple of years hardly qualifies a person for a right of return. And you ignored my substantive argument, I assume because you have no legitimate way to deal with it.



prooves, prooves... i only hear israeli allegations not confirmed by any prooves...


There are tons and tons of proofs. You just need to look for them and be prepared to accept them when they are valid. That Arafat smuggled people in the trunk of his car is a fact. It is in the biography i noted above. that he misrepresented the Clinton plan as a plan of cantonization of plaestine (which is completely false) in his desription of it to his people and to arab leaders is a fact as attesed to by Clinton and a comparrison of Clinton's outline of the plan in Haaretz with Arafats speaches about it in Arabic. I don't waste my times with documenting everything with you because I know it doesn't really matter and that no proofs will ever be accepted by you if you don't like their implications.

And don't accuse me of the same thing, I incorporate lots of different facts which I don't like into my world-view.



that's abolute BS and i can proove it.

By 1930, all the land capable of being cultivated by the indigenous Palestinians with the resources available to them was already under cultivation (Frances Newton, Fifty Years in Palestine, Coldharbor, 1940, p. 253).


Again, this is a stupid argument. given that technology and techniques, as well as resourcefulness and access to foreign capital, which were available to the Jewish citizens of the Yishuv, much of the barren lands of palestine became cultifiable and productive. the Arabs were living in the middle ages - largely illiterate, feudal, depending on labour intensive agricultural techniqes and oblivious to the role of technological advancement to productivity, and the Jews who farmed the land were well educated, ideologically driven, and had resources and insights available to them that the Arabs lacked.

Your statement above proves nothing at all except that the palestinians could not cultivate the land that the Jews were cultivating, and that thus the claim of 'dispossession' is a misnomer. Again a demonstration of how the left's lack of understanding of economics and development blind them to reality and prevent them from properly assessing arguments.



Sir John hope Simpson undertook a comprehensive studying of Palestinian agricultural potential in 1930. He concluded that

"it has emerged quite definitely that there is at the present time and with the present methods of Arab cultivation no margin of land available for agricultural settlements by new immigrants"


again, irrelevant to the proposition which was made initially, that the israelis depended on swampland and barren wasteland and other non-cultivated lands to build the bulk of its farm infrastructure. Well, not really irrelevant, rather it actually ADDS support to the claim you wish to disprove.



"The village statistics for 1945 prepared by the Palestine administration and showing the position as at 1 April 1945 furnish interesting data regarding land's ownership in Palestine. The total Arab land ownership is given in dunums (4 dunums equals approximately 1 acre), as being 12,574,774, as against a total Jewish ownership of 1,491,699. [...] The following figures are of particular interest:
CATEGORY OF CROPS OWNERSHIP

Arabs Jews (in dunums)

Citrus 135,368 139,728
Bananas 1,843 1,079
Plantations 1,052,222 94,167
Taxcable cereals (categories 9-13) 5,653,346 869,109
Taxcable cereals (categories 14-15) 823,046 67,839


Item 64 of that same report stated:
"The above statistics of population and of land ownership prove conclusively that the Arabs constitute a majority of the population of the proposed Jewisch State, and own the bulk of the land"


again, when you speak of ownership you ignore the fact that 'Arab lands' included the negev and other unfertile swampland and were not productively used. This figure would, I suspect, also include the west bank and gaza, whose figures would have to be removed.

Also, what role should racist exclusionary policies have in evaluating these figures? You are against racism, no? When Jews were forbidden to purchase land owned by Arabs, was this not a distortionary factor which you would have to compensate for when comming up with these numbers, or does de facto Arab aparthide pass the test?

Also, what about the fact that the Arabs backed the losing side in a world war that changed all the rules and resulted in no borders being sacred? The Grand Mufti was a big supporter of Hitler, and he certainly did not aid the allies as the plaestininan Jews had.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
ok, fine


so don't repeat. Precision with language is particularly imporant in this debate as the Plaestinians have adoipted as one of their PR tactics the manipulation of language to allow them to draw moral eqivalency between terrorism targeting innocnet civilians for death and Israel 'terorrism' of targeting those involved in terrorism or in road closures. just like you have repeatedly.



The british controll was never linked to the Jewish question originally and noone ever agreed before WWII to give all of the current israel to the Jews, the balfour-declaration was something very different, sharing the land between jews and palestinians.


Even absent this point, the larger narrative is unaffected. Isarel was entitled to self determination, and the UN agreed to it in a real 2/3 majority type of thing, perhaps the only time the UN has acted as a functional international institution. israeli responses to efforts to destroy it were justified and necessary, including the capture of the west bank, gaza, the sinai and the golan.



no BS, what israel did was expanding israeli law in palestinian territories, which is illegal.


Rights and responsibilities are two different things. And because the areas were occupied Israel could allow its citizens rights to be respected by the foreign territory (in this case, jordan)

And you call it illegal. Any support for this, I really don't want to waste my time looking for it if you haven't come up with anything to support this assertion. For others I would, but you have made exactly this kind of false assertion many times before, and, just like Arafat, you repeat falsehoods often enough and I will infer that it is normal policy to make such false assertions and stop taking these assertions at all seriously.



an israeli citizen in France will be subjected to French law. It is as illegal to move your own population in occupied territories, as literally stated by the 4th geneva-conventions and many different special unsc-resolutions....


you are wrong about the geneva conventions, about UNSC resolutions I don't know, but 242 and 336 are certainly not the ones you are talking about?

Anyways, I am not a big believer in settlements, but I do think they are (1) not really the issue at all, rather Israel's existence as an independent Jewish state is and (2) of questionable legality at best - they are not necessarily illegal, and the extraterritorial application of domestic laws is also not necessarily illegal.



see above...


but 'above' was only rhetoric and no actual arguemntative support for this assertion. So yield or respond. What makes them 'illegal' settlers and 'illegal' settlements?



Israel's neighbours jordan and egypt already acted in accordance with 242, except Syria (and lebanon) which can't because israel still occupies a part of syria.


So there is peace with Jordan and Egypt. Syria, AGAIN!!! having refused to recognize Israel's right to exist because Israel seized a buffer zone in a war that Syria and her buddies started because they did not want to recognize Israel and wanted to see it destroyed, is not now justified in rejecting israeli overtures because Israel holds this territory.

And Egypt and Jordan reached this 'acceptance' by disowning the Palestinians and the obligations that would have flowed from this, while Israel could not obviously so do with some other group. So really you are discussing a fiction.



if they were supported by the unsecurity council, yes.


good. So now at least everybody knows not to take you seriously. What a stupid assertion. So the UNSC says that under no circumstances am I to try to stop someone from trying to kill me and my family and therefore I should not do anything for self defence? Abjectly retarded.



why is it disfunctional, because it resists israel's violations?


no, because it is dysfunctional as a political decision making body, and Israel is the clearest example of its dysfunction. there are lots of reasons for its dysfunction, but as discussions are supposed to be give and take and you don't really give as much as you divert and obfuscate, I will not avail myself of this particular argument at this time. Were you to offer some "concessions" maybe I will rethink in the future.



but sometimes a wider problem can only be solved at local level. As long as the occupation continues, the cult of death will continue as well.


even then, it is most unliely to stop. Disagree? And if you do agree, why should Israel risk its neck again for a peace which is exceedingly unlikley?



and the palestinian suffering is great propaganda for al-quaida and other extremist groups worldwide, after travelling a bit in the muslim world i would say it's their main propaganda-tool.


well gee, if they can be used for propaganda then surely the best thing to do is give into their demands. that will end all propaganda value, right. Stupid.



BS, the situation during the mid 90's could have evoluated in full peace,


Lies. The PA controlled media never tried to sell Oslo, and was directed to be actively hostile against it. From the beginning the media was used to strengthen the extremist views held by Hamas et al as well as many if not most within the PA. Peace would not have been possible unless 'peace' meant giving the PLO exactly what it wanted, which would have resulted in Israel's destruction through the immigration of millions of hostile 'refugees' (the full right of return which has always been aserted by Arafat)



and hamas wasn't as strong as today, many palestinians still believed in peace with israel, as well among the higher levels.


and then the PA purposely lied to them about everything so that they would again perceive Israel to be unmitigatingly evil.



You are very blind not to see this, and i have been to palestine before the current intifadeh, many people believed in oslo but they felt cheated as israel didn't fullfill its obligations and settlements just kept growing in area that was supposed to be palestinian... (i saw this with my own eyes by the way, how settlements were expanding bEFORE the current intifadeh, a main source of palestinian hate against israel).


it was incitement which magnified this. i do not disagree that they were a provocation, but in contrast to Israeli attampts to MINIMIZE the public impact of Palestinian provocations, the PA wilfully misrepresented facts, events and proposals in order to inculcate the most hostility within its population as pssible. this is evident from the fact that, at the 'outbreak' of what you believe the sart of the intifadeh, the visit of Sharon to the temple mount, PATV began its incitement by stating that Israel was planning to destroy the mosques and that every Plaestinian must resist this, even though the PA security minister had given his assent to the visit. You may see the impact of this propaganda on the people, but you do not seem to see where it came from and the poisonous effect it has on everything.



actually i don't care so much, since both israel and the us made peace with arafat in 1993. By the way i challenge you to find one proove of arafat's involvement in a terror attack against civilians.


there are many disclosed above, and I will disclose many more in the future. (why don't you deal with the Araft initiated attempt to attack a tel aviv beach during the first intifadeh, where the captured deputy commander of the operation said that he was told to kill everyone, "women, children, elderly people".)

This will not change your position, though, and you might as well admit this up front? Why not? because those who document them are Jewish Zionist copnspirators, or just so that you can go on living with yourself.

that you will deny such a basic reality is to undermine any position you espouse to anyone on the other side of this ocnflict. Another reason why you 'peace' plan is nothing of the sort and completely incapable of bringing any real peace.



that's bs, the plo, fatah, and the pa, all leading palestinian institutions, have recognised israel on many occasions. [/B]

in words, not in deeds and not in actions. they never changed their textbooks to make them recognize Israel, and in fact they have moved them in the other direction, towards more hostility and more denial and ore dehumanization. You may believe their lies, but why should I? I know better.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
this are just stories to legitimise the israeli warcrimes against civilians during this war. and even if those were true it still doesn't legitimise the israeli crimes against civilians.


no, not stories, documented facts. if you didn't notice Israel has a free press and free inquiry while the Arab states and the palestinians surely do not. All else the same, this means that infdormation comming out of israel is more credible than stories comming out of the Arab world.

That you will not recognize them as facts is kind of disgusting, really, a sort of see no evil hear no evil state of affairs where anything which is not consistent with your world-view is a 'story' no matter how extensive the documentation, while those statements you like do not have to meet any sort of objective standrads of validity.



They are not stupid, they know only struggle will give them their independance and land, that's why they had two intifadehs. the people who fought colonialism also knew that only violence would give them freedom. Their only mistake is to target civilians.


they are stupid. Were they to have really renounced terrorism and been prepared to compromize on the right of retun they would have had a free state by now. They are stupid because failure after failure after failure is ignored and never does it occur to them that a change of tactics may be necessary. they are stupid because they so blindly follow arafat down his path of death and destruction notwithstanding his corruption and the lack of his efforts to build any meaningful institutions, follow the rule of law with an independent judiciary or anythingelse he was supposed to do.

If what they want is the destruction of israel, maybe they are not so stupid. but, if as you attest, they really want a two state solution, then they are truly stupid because they are not aware of the fact that terrorism and armed insurrection will not make Israel make peace with them, and will only make peace a more remote option. And they are stupid, of course, because they are badly educated.



the wall will protect colonies but as well include a large number of palestinian villages...

it is therefor less effective to protect ISRAELI territory.


nice job of at least trying to formulate a proper argument, but your conclusion does not follow from the premise. Try again, if you like, but try to make a sound argument this time - your conclusion does not really flow from your premise.



Why do you think so, because they have been threated civilised as well, they haven't been expropriated, occupied, had civilian rights, etc. unlike the palestinians on the other side of the green line which react the same way they had been threated by the israeli for decades...


no, I think its primarily because they have been properly educated in a free and democratic society, because they are better educated and have a higher standard of living (and the reason the plaestinians have such a low standrad today is because of the intifadeh and because of dysfunctional PA management of the economy in the interwar years) and, most importantly, because they have not been BRAINWASHED INTO KILLING MACHINES AND SUPPORTERS OF KILLING MACHINES. this is a big deal, if you haven't noticed. The palestinians were not nearly as uncivilized in the late 60s and 70s and even the 80s as compared to when Arafat got his propaganda hooks into them. Propaganda is THE main answer, not the occupation, not the provocations and not anything else. That children are tought to aspire to be suicide bombers is not something the Israelis are resonsible for.



no, they have special rights since their ancestors lived there.


well good. Keep repeating meaningless slogans and paradigms, keep ignoring any actual leagl or moral obligations, and keep ignoring the undamental relaities on the ground.

You did not address any of my points you only repeated a demonstrably false slogan over and over Arafat-style.



still the inhabitants of the golan-heights want to return the golan heights to syrian control.


do they? Maybe a referendum, then, when peace is really on the table. Syria will agree to allow those presently living there to vote on allegiance, and if they vote to stay in Israel Syria both makes peace AND gives up its claim.



By the way syrians and even the majority of palestinians are nice people too.


syriansd maybe, they are all brainwashed subjects of their governments, so under the programming they may very well be decent people. Palestinians, on the other hand, while some are undoubtedly very nice and educated and intelligent, most are stupid and reactionary and patently immoral. they are not nice people. People who support suicide bombings PURPOSELY TARGETING INNOCENTS are not nice people.



Syria on the other hand will never stop and recognise israel untill Israel ends the occupation of the golan heights. (nor will any other syrian government in the future)


and even then it won't stop, just like I've said over and over and over...



Bush said that Saddam's demise would stop terrorism, exactly the inverse happened.


wow. So if one person says he is doing something for a reason which does not materialize then EVERY person who makes the same assertion must also be telling a falsehood. Again, stupid. You need to look at the data in Israel (which is readily available) when assessing Israeli policy, and Israeli policy has worked quite well.



perhaps palestinians receive some donations from Syria and Iran, but you can bet on it that even without Syrian or iranian support palestinians will continue to fight, most of the weapons they have by the way are homemade and the most financial contributions come from Saoudi arabia. The problem will be solved in jerusalem, not in damascus, bagdad or teheran.


my point was that you have to solve it EVERYWHERE. Solving it in Jerusalem will not be enough.

and they will continue to fight until Israel is destroyed. So what is Israel to do except fight back or surrender. they must demonstrate that an alternative is possible.



As long as israel occupies a part of Syria Syria has the right to support anti-israeli groups. And israel invading syria will only broaden the conflict and create another palestine/ Iraq...


blah balh, menaingless slogans.



Syria should attack israeli military installations in the golan-heights.


and then Israel should dismantle both Syria's terrorist infrastructure and the Syrian military, both in Syria and in Lebanon.



i already explained above...


I do not believe that you did. Indulge me then (I have repeated the same arguments to you over and over without any sort of recognition of them so maybe I'm due)



the bombing of Dresden was a warcrime, as well as expelling civilian german population by the soviets. Nothing the nazi's did can legitimise those acts.


So then why is Palestinian terrorism legitimate in your eyes. you said it yourself that if Israel did not give them what they wanted you would allow them to again target innocnet Israelis.



today the golan heights are a part of syria according to the international community and the UN...


but not in reality, only in law, a law based on history which doesn't matter...



what i mean is that historical claims are not important, what is important is legality (unsc-resolutions, etc.) and the wish of the current people inhabiting those areas. Greece can claim back constantinople with strong historical claims, but that's nonsense in the current conditions... [/B]

ok, well since the right of return is not legal and neither is the requirement for a full withdrawal, then we can do away with the palestinian historical claim of a right of return.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
as the studies of Said show it's absolutely clear that the palestinian economy didn't have a real chance to devellop during oslo, the palestinian economy lacked real external borders and roads controlled by the palestinians. But still during the 90's the economy improved considerably compared to the earlier decades. the pa HAS education, infrastructure etc. perhaps not enough but it existed untill israel literally swept it away with bulldozers and tanks... not exactly the brightest move...


I skipped ahead because I have to go but I MUST point out how patently ridiculous this is. Edward Said is a LINGUIST, and a leftist at that. He know nothing of economics and development and certainly is not involved in any sort of development law or development economics initiatives,a nd from what I am aware he has never in any other context addressed economic devdelopment issues, which of couse makes any assessment by him less than worthless.

Just because Edward Said said that the PA economy did not have a chance is not ANY evidence for the actual posibility that this is true. It had no chance because Arafat was a corrupt despot who not only did not even try to put in functional institutions but actively fought against them.

And during the 1990s, after Arafat took control, the state of the economiy got continuously worse, with a minor exception in the mid 90s, and of course collapsed completely after arafat launched his little war.

You will believe the dumbest of assertions made by people who have been demonstrated to put their vested position ahead of academic integrity and objective assessment. It makes me want to rethink engaging in any sort of continuing dialogue, as besides for your diversion and rhetoric, you seem genuinely disinterested in any sort of real meaningful intellectual exercise.

And since the Iranian revolution gross domestic production has decreased EVERY SINGLE YEAR. like the typical leftist, you assume that an econommy need not be managed effectively in order for it to produce progress. Another reason not to vote for the reactionary left.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
[B]annihilation isn't the same as extermination, annihilation of israel doesn't mean extermination of the people living there (not that i support annihilation, but i think it's important to make the distiction). But anyway, Syria has to change its position, but ONLY if israel returns the golan-heights.


your distinction is disingenuous, annihilation of the country means the killing and expulsion of her population.

Syria has to changhe its position in tandem with a return of the golan, with the ultimate return to be effected only when this reform of position is genuinely complete. And even then, returning such a strategic plateau to such an intransigent enemy will require much confidence building by the Syrians, and I think this is impossible while the Bathists rule.



give me please one example of legal occupation of territory since the establishment of the UN???


Israel's occupation of the west bank and gaza. Even kofi anan got a rebuke from the un's legal department the one time he called the occupation 'illegal'.



you should read the geneva-conventions, which obliges any occupying power to take care of the wellbeing of the occupied subjects. the pa only exists since 1993...


I have read them (well, large portions of them anyways). Israel invested heavily in the territories and in civilian infrastructure pre 1987 and while this slowed in the first intifadeh, when Arafat and his despotic cabal took over it was their responsibility to create a proper environemnt for investment and developoment and they completely and abjectly failed to do anything remotely approaching this, and no blame which you might ascribe to israel is sufficient to explain the abject failure of the PA to work towards proper development, start resettling people living in 'refugee' camps in the PA contolled areas in better accomodation or anything like that.



as i said the pa only assumed power in 1993... what about the 26 years before???


as I said, between 67 and 87 much investment was undertaken and indicators all increased. After Arafat, of course, numbers collapsed as he monopolized control of industry, oversaw a system involving wide-scale corruption and inefficiency, which embezzeled hundreds of millions of dollars targeted at exactly the kind of development you seem to be such an advocate for, and which created a hostile business environemnt by ignoring any sort of rule of law and running his little authority like a mafia.



so this means gaza and westbank are officially not a part of Israel according to the israeli constitution???


I do not believe so, no. they were not annexed to Israel and while they may be contolled by her, and this control may have been authorized by statute, this is quite different than saying they are officially part of Israel. And from what I am aware, Israel does not have a constitution, only a set of basic laws which have been elevated to constitutional status. And none of these, from what i am aware, have anything to do with territoriality.



yopur above analysis again shows that threating "enemy citizens" with respect made them act more civilised... but still, this doesn't make the israeli annexation of Golan and eastern jerusalem any less illegal. (illegal because the golan heights are a part of syria)


you have already mentioned many times that it is illegal because it is part of Syria, and I have already explained to you why this is not so. Unless you can actually ARGUE against it rather than just repeating your old and tired statements and catch phrases, then little response is necessary. jerusalem is a different issue and somewhat trickier, as ALL of Jerusalem really legally belongs to the United Nations, no? So the palestinians aren't really entitled to any of it either, then, which is of course a position which you would reject. And since the United Nations did not hold up its end of any agreements or plans to protect Israel from the Arabs and to protect Israel's citizens from terrorism, their claim looses some moral weight.

And you changed the subject in order to avoid points you didn't like, rather than accepting them and moving on.



that's right, but nowhere is stated that captured territories can be occupied for decades on a row... any longer as the war requires


but this war requires a longer occupation, as giving in now would only ensure that Arafat and his little gang of thugs would try to arm themselves to the teeth to finish this pesky zionist entity once and for all. So for security and to protect Israel in the next stage of this yet-to-be-finished war, the territories must be held until the PLO and the rest of the Palestinians are really interested in arriving at a mutually acceptable peace. And they must also first give up their right of return, because a peace that does not make this explicit is an agreement which will allow for the Arabs to ignore the cessation of hostilities portions and focus on finishing what they started with a right of return.



yes, but who says that he actually had those terrorists under his controll?


don't waste my time with this drivel. Arafat, known as the 'teflon terrorist' in the 1970s, has been widely shown to be complicit in terrorism, and I have provided numerous examples already. That you would ignore all evidence (while at the same time clutching at the least of evidence to label Sharon a 'war criminal') reeks of a double standard and purposely imposed falsehood. Arafat has always had a 'governing style' of allowing decentralized decision making in order to allow himself a petty excuse that he 'knew nothing' of what these groups did, notwithstanding the fact that when they did something he didn't like, he could almost always get them to fall in line, which shows that by choosing not to condemn and circumscribe and punish behaviour, he was condoning and encouraging it. But there are lots of proofs, you just have to be prepared to see them. See my list above for a start.



yes he did so, on many occasions.


no he has not. that you would buy the pack of lies he is selling is unsurprizing, but please don't make it seem like we all should buy them too. We know better and will not be fooled again.



Arafat didn't crush hamas because they're too powerfull in the palestinian society,


really? In 1995?



and he doesn't want a civil war. but his objectives and means are very different from those of hamas. by the way arafat recognised israel on many occasions.


bull. His objective is the same, the destruction of Israel. Both organizations seem to pay little attention to any real nation-building so to talk of different goals with respect of an Islamic vs a secular state from the river to the sea is not a real difference as they both primarily seek Israel's destruction. their methods are also the same, using propaganda and brainwashing to get its citizens to engage in acts of terrorism against civilians and to always portray israel as wicked and inherently evil. The only difference is that Arafat and Hamas sometimes do not agree on timing, with Arafat wanting to wait until concessions are made by the other side before terrorism is restrated, while Hamas wants to do away with any pretext of pretending to make peace or pretending to implement ceasefire after useless ceasefire and get on with destroying Israel, public relations be damned.



less, but the situation isn't comparable since neither jordan nor egypt recognised israel.


so terrorism against civilians was ok because they didn't recognize Israel. Your position is disgusting. And it was not meant to be 'comparable' it was meant to show why an occupation was necessary. And don't say it wasn't, it clearly was based on the number of attacks and the targets.



you can't deny that since the israeli withdrawel from lebanon the war on israel's northern border ALMOST ceased, not completely, but a great improvement compared to a few years ago.


I can completely deny it. the war may be in a state of relative clam, but Hizbullah has gotten stronger, has increased its arsenal, and poses more of a threat to Israels security now than it did before. The numbers game is not the be all and end all of analysis. Sometimes you must look at everything, including the risks in the future, which are far higher today with Hizbullah-land in southern lebanon than before.

[Canajew]

so wathever your rethorics, the fact remains that israeli withdrawel had positive consequences, just as israeli withdrawel from the occupied territories, even unilateral, will improve the situation.


This is incorrect. unilateral withdrawal from the west bank and gaza will result in the PA becomming both a terrorist haven and a massive importer of weapons the acquisition of which would be made in an attempt to destroy Israel. That you do not actually genuinely perceive the need of the Palestinians to make real genuine peace in exchange for Israeli concessions is a big part of the problem. Until you and others realize this, your preciuous palestinians will never have a state of their own.



on the contrary, Europeans don't like leaders who lie at them about non-existant WMD, such as Bush and Blair.


but they love leaders who lie to them about terorrism and about the commitments they make without any intention to implement them, like Yassir Arafat.



Blair's carreer is finished, Iraq will be his political graveyard. Americans seem to be more tolerant for lying politicians. (hardly surprising if they elect "the terminator" as governer of california)

and by the way, Chirac is from what I can see a far worse human being than anyone here that you mentiuoned, and particularly tony blair. tony did what he believed was right, Chirac does what he believes will get him the most tail and will piss off those he wants to antagonize the most. He is a corrupt philanderer and an open and vocal supporter for the most brutal regimes in the world.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
have you ever been to palestine? palestinians aren't the people you imagine them to be based on the television images.


No. But it doesn't matter. Its not the TV images as much as the polls, the published works, the vocal support of terrorism and the destuction of Israel, the corruption, the intellectual disonesty both among themselves and in discourse with outsiders, and, of course, the cult of death which manifests itself with streets named after suicide bombers who TARGETED CIVILIANS, soccer tournaments sponsored by the PA with names of suicide bombers as team names, images of suicide bombers plastered on walls and shops and in schools, and all the rest that make me conclude that the Palestinina culture is severaly broken. Some might be nice people, but as a collective, they are among the least civilized most barbarous and immoral people on earth.



Of course decades of oppression made them bitter and hard and very anti-israel, and the propaganda reflects that,


you have your cause and effect backwards again. because of the propaganda the hatred was magnified far more than it would have otherwise. The anti-Israel propaganda spewed out by the PA and its organs as soon as they took control in '93 and continuing to this day purposely misrepresented Israeli positions so that popular anger could be mobilized against Israel. The 'oppression' as you call it is mostly a result of anti violence measures that were only undertaken subsequent to manifestations of the palestininas' barbarity.



but on the other hand articles in the palestinian media questioning official corruption in the government,


then the author gets thrown in jail, of course.



and articles were Gush Shalom-members explain why they are committed to the palestinian side.


i.e. more propaganda.



so really not as fanatic and anti-semitic as you would think. However some radical groups broadcast much more radical views.


you ignore the rampant anti-semitism that permiates Palestinina media, text and broadcast, from the most populist newspaper to the 'highest' of academic journals. Address this please.



because the rethorics of the pa are really moderate,


their rhetoric in english is moderate but the palestinians know, of course to ignore this, but in Arabic Arafat calls for a million martyrs and makes nonesense inflamatory statements about how the Clinton plan proposed cantonization of the west bank. He is not a moderate. you want peace you deal with it.



while the general palestinian mood nowadays is that israel only understands one language, the language of violence.


exactly. because the palestinians are stupid. israel only understands non-violence and pleas for tolerance and understanding. Every time they get violent it sets back their cause in Israeli public opinion. Were the Europeans not so gutless in this regard, they would have realized that violence is not the answer, but as you guys love to excuse their actions, they think they are making some progress with their attrocities.



this is an unfortunate consequence of the israeli policy of the latest years.


bull. polls have continually shown that a majority of Palestinians want all of 'hisotric palestine' while of those that would accept a two state solution, many of these are in favour of using this state as a launching pad for the eventual destruction of Israel. Again, you can tell these lies to yourself and you can pawn them off on your supporters, but they will not work with people who know better.



you don't know much about the palestinian society it seems, it isn't as simple as you put it forwards.


from what i can see, you really don't have much of a clue either. Believe the lies and ignore the reality - great way to make an objective assessment. And you know nothing about Israeli mentality (and from what I can see, American mentality as well) and this is for you to deal with and is really inexcusable, considering Israel is a free society where anything and everything is publishable. Read stuff you don't think would fit your world view. Start with the book on Arafat, read Alan Dershowitz' book and maybe some hisotries not written by propagandists and then we can talk.



but without palestinian agreement you'll never reach peace, and that is the purpose, or isn't it?


no, the purpose is to protect Israel from external threats to her existential existence and to her civilian population. if peace can achieve this goal then great, but peace is not the ultimate objective if it does not provide for these things.

And it has been my position all along that even with nominal oral Palestinina support for a peace agreement, peace would still not be possible, so given this why bother with peace unless it will bring the objective.

And you didn't really respond to my proposals and I must again note your apologetics for the PURPOSEFUL targeting of innocents, which pervade all of your writings.



they had it untill israel destroyed most of it in 2001 and 2002... but they didn't yet have a real functioning state, which also means controlling the borders, an integrated territory, a real army, an own currency, etc.


more lies. Where was the independent judiciary? Where was the single unified security apparatus? Where was the business law, the environmental laws, the anti-corruption laws and all the other institutions of a functional state or national entity? They made zero progress towards any of these even beofre 2000 when they launched this war (and blaming Israel for responding is preposterous). Their schools still taught the most base anti-semetic propaganda, their media still was allowed to publish the most extreme of positions while moderate positions were discouraged by the PA and they still embezzeled hundreds and millions of dollars which were targeted for development. Don't blame Israel for the PAs failings from '93 to 2000. these failings were a large reason why this war was started, and a big reason why the palestinians have not been moderated by self-governance. To ignore this is to wilfully ignore a problem that is fundamental in arriving at a real eventual solution. unless you deal with this, no peaceful tranquil palestinian society will ever evolve, and therefore 'peace' is not an option.



when did israel offer to give back the entire occupied territories? i can't remember it...


didn't you JUST say that negotiations involve compromise? But only for the Jews, eh? Your thought process is nauseating and a testament to Plaestinina brainwashing.

You are basically replaying the old slogan that Israel must do everything and then the Palestinians will accept peace. It doesn't work that way. They want the land back, they'll get most of it. Barak offered a swap so that the land-area they would get would be the same as the entire area, but they ha already decided to launch their little war by then and we all know what happened.



it's not that one-sided, if israel had been serious during the oslo-process there would have been peace now and a palestinian state.


so Peres and rabin were not serious? get real. barak didn't offer the Plaestinians almost everything they wanted? More lies. Ask Clinton he published on what his Clinton proposals were, and Barak accepted them as a starting point for negotiations while Arafat refused as they did not include a full right of return, then turned around and LIED to the Arab world about the contents of that plan.

Really, get bent.



if israel had offered them a palestinian state back in the 70's it would also have spared them a lot of trouble. so hamas is only a part of the whole mess, not the only problem.


yeah right. then the PLO, which had still not been willing to recongize Israel could have used the west bank and gaza as a terrorist base instead of lebanon and tunis. What's wrong with you?!?

[Canajew]

yes indeed, since the PA would do so during a mutual agreement with israel. So if one side fails to observe this agreement the other is no longer obliged to observe it either. it works the other way around as well by the way.


again, didn't you JUST mention that international law was paramount, and even under the most extreme circumstances you would still not allow for violations of international law? yet here you are, not two seconds later, suggesting to me that crimes against humanity should be permitted if Israel does not give the palestininas everything they want.

the Plaestinians are not not not permitted to engage in attacks targeting civilians for death under ANY circumstances. The Israelis don't do it (and please don't come back with another lie) and there is no excuse for the palestinians to do it. How about this - every time there is an attempted suicide bombing Israel annexes a percentage of the west bank? So one violation flows directly from the more aggregious crime against humanity. Sounds fair, no?

And your position really does make me sick - Palestinians should be allowed to massacre any Jews they want anywhere in the world so long as their demands are not met in full? I am starting to see what Mediocrates was feeling, though I would recommend administrative detention as a first resort.



yes they will, if israel would right now offer a total withdrawel of all the occupied territories on the condition that palestinians stop terror right away, i'm sure terror will stop, completely.


I do not believe you and neither do any right thinking Israelis. Neither does Hamas whose goal it is to destroy Israel and replace it with an Islamic state, nor will those who demand a full right of return. So really youn are lying here or have again wilfully blinded yourself to reality. Either way, I'm not buying.



But the problem is that israel doesn't want to withdraw!!!


go figure. I don't either, given circumstances. Withdrawal now will only make things worse.



yes they have, in 1948.


lies and misrepresentations. there was no ethnic clensing, organized or otherwise, absent a few particular circumstances which were dependent on security and defensive issues (while, of course, Israelis were fighting not to be exterminated) there was no foprcible deportation of any population. Most Palestinians ran because of Arab propaganda about rapes and the like, because they were told to, or because they were afraid even before they had seen any israeli forces. the rape accounts were were complete lies, of course, but you would, i assume, either believe the lies to be true or would pretend those lies were never uttered in the first place.



yes but you can hardly say that palestinians have been deported for their own safety... and by the way this deportations isn't forever just temporarily allowed.


I don't care. time and circumstance change things. the barabrity of the Arabs in general and the Plaestininas in particular has vitiated any rights that they may or may not have had. Deal with it and get back to me on a functional peace proposal, otherwise stop wasting my time.

And that you would wilfully ignore the fact that war crimes were the standard routine practice for the Arab armies and that genocide has always been a central goal of theirs and of the Plaestinians seriously undermines any credibility you might have had (not that you would have had much, your arguments are seriously defficient qua arguemnts).



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 targeting Israeli civilians.

yes, if israel wants help in its struggle against terrorism, it should comply to the demands of the international community.


what the f is the matter with you? No really? Some sort of mental disturbance? Abuse as a child? Exclusion from your preferred social group? Abandonment by a parent figure (maybe a Jewish one?) What could make someone so broken? I mean, you're not nearly as stupid as most other leftists, but you are still fundamentally broken. You believe that palestinians should be allowed to purposely target Jewish children but Israel should not target those who would target these children. You believe that international law is paramount and rail against 'collective punishment' yet you support the most collective form of punishment of all - targteing for death random civilians. You say you want peace but are completely unwilling to contemplate the most basic compromises which would be necessary in order to bring peace about. you are an intellecual fraud and while it has taken me more time to see it than others here, I have seen it.



no, that's different, i do not support those actions, but noone has to help israel fighting them if israel continues its current counterproductive policy.


yes you do support these actions, you support their continuation and you support those who perpatrate them. And if the PA doesn't 'help' Israel then it has outlived its usefulness as an Israeli creation (it was created, to FIGHT terrorism, if you recall back to Oslo) and should be completely destroyed and Arafat either killed or arrested and tried Eichmann-style. Crimes against humanity are not justified, and that you would ask the world community to wilfully turn its back on these crimes is as much proof as I could ever need that you are hypocritical in your mouthed support for the absolutism of international law, that you are a supporter of terrorism and terrorist tactics and that you are, like the Plaestinians, among the least civilized and most depraved people on earth. So mazel tov - good for you.



the pa could be a great help if they had sufficient means (the ones other arab leaders dispose of, which means a real state) and the will to fight terror. Both will be possible if Israel gives in to the demands of the international community.


they had the means in the early 90s and did nothing. they opened the gates to the terrorists and they do not have standing to now turn around and say "we don't have the power". that's like a person convicted of murdering his parents claiming leniency in sentencing because he is an orphan. It doesn't work that way.



what i mean is that palestinian migrant workers are not responsible for the suicide-attacks, so it 's no excuse to forbid palestinians working in israel.

I don't care what you mean. Preventing entry is a good way to stop terrorists from entering. Stop the terrorists and something can be worked out, but for you to suggest that Israel should just pretend this exercise in depravity and barbarism never happened is beyond retarded.

[danholo]

What's wrong with you?!?

He doesn't like countries that sponsor democracy, liberty and freedom of speech. He'd rather defend North Korea, like ANSWER, because they are "victims of American imperialism" (in other words: Rhetorical bull@#$%) and accuse Israel and America of all the mistakes they made but not the deliberate actions and neglect for humanity by Arab regimes or other POS countries.

What really bugs me is the intentional Soviet incitement of violence in 1967. Where did all those Soviet lies about Israel "concentrating forces in the Golan" come from? Was it intentional? A conspiracy theory? Nasser did nothing after he learned that, in fact, there were no forces amassing anywhere. I'm just exited because I'm reading this book: "Six Days of War" by Oren. It's a great peace of work. Maybe takeo should read it as well.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by danholo
What's wrong with you?!?

He doesn't like countries that sponsor democracy, liberty and freedom of speech. He'd rather defend North Korea, like ANSWER, because they are "victims of American imperialism" (in other words: Rhetorical bull@#$%) and accuse Israel and America of all the mistakes they made but not the deliberate actions and neglect for humanity by Arab regimes or other POS countries.

What really bugs me is the intentional Soviet incitement of violence in 1967. Where did all those Soviet lies about Israel "concentrating forces in the Golan" come from? Was it intentional? A conspiracy theory? Nasser did nothing after he learned that, in fact, there were no forces amassing anywhere. I'm just exited because I'm reading this book: "Six Days of War" by Oren. It's a great peace of work. Maybe takeo should read it as well.

Oren's book is great, and its amazing how many new sources he got access to, how many primary actors he directly interviewed, and how well he analyzed and summarized the information he collected. An example of top notch scholarship driven by academic integrity and pursuit of truth rather than Said-style propagandizing.

And what you mentioned are manifestations of the fact that there is something wrong with him, not the actual problems themselves. They do indeed demonstrate something is wrong, but they do not go into what that might be or how these wrongs contributed to such intellectual dysfunction.

I would assume its similar to all those who, from a distance, supported facism in the 30s and 40s and communism in the 30s 40s 50s and 60s. Some sort of internalized anger or feeling of of alienation, though from what I can see of the reactionary left it has much to do with feelings of belonging and wanting to impress elements of a (similarly ignorant) peer group. Or maybe its just some clinical form of dementia.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
ok, that seems reasonable...


well if it seems so bloody reasonable, why do you constantly refer to road closures as collective punishment TARGETED AT innocnets? It doesn't make any sense - it is done to keep out terrorists and it does just that. So innocnets suffer economically as well. If you wern't aware they do not have a 'right' to a job inside Israel.



both palestinians and israeli need to put an end to their feelings and forget the past, that's the only solution, in all conflicts all over the world. Get over it and work together towards the future.


Fa la la la la. you avoid confronting the terrorism that I put right in front of you while at the same time making some nonesense statement about love and peace and understanding, like its supposed to form by magic or some other fanciful inkling in people's minds. You say well the Israelis should get over their gross sense of betrayal and violation, while you never really say the Plaestinians should do the same with, for example, their made up 'right' of retun, or their desire to ethnically clense the wb of Jews.

Another effort at empty sloganeering rather than constructive dialogue.

you are right, of course, with your perscription (why don't we all just get along ;) ), but without specifying how this is to come about it is nothing more than fanciful guesswork. And since you have rejected all of the observations regarding the casues of this conflict that do not put all of the blame on Israel, your solutions are unlikely to be remotely successful. I have been trying to propose lots of problems that need attention. you reject all that have to do with the dysfunction within Plaestinina society, and you magnify and exploit all those relating to Israeli failings, reversing causes and effects, manipulating time-lines and introducing things you know or ought to know are lies in order to support your unsupportable positions.



the failure of oslo and camp david and the second intifadeh was partly israel's responsability.


yes, if they had never dealt with Arafat and crushed mis movement instead maybe the Palestinians would have realized compromize is necessary and that they should focus on building theor own nation rather than destroying Israel.



And i don't believe in punishing an entire people


yes you do. Suicide bombings targeted against random civilians is the ULTIMATE form of collective punishment, and you are, from what I have seen here, an ardent supporter of the right of suicide bombers to conduct 'business' with impunity and without fear of punishment by the PA.

Also, where such srimes against humanity are SUPPORTED, both tacitly and actively, by a majority of the population, then surely the population, while not necessarily responsible for such actions, is certainly in need of being accountable for the organizations it puts in the field. And given that 70%+ of the palestininas supported suicide bombing against civilians in 2002, surely 'collective' punishment becomes less of a concern, especially when such punishment is economic or restrictive in nature rather than physical violence. Because they hope to gain from such terrorism (which they clearly do) and they support the actual commission of terrorist acts, therefore it is legitimate to otherwise harm their interests in response to such attacks.



that's in fact typical stalinist policy


its far more than just stalinist. And again you miss the point about matters of degree. Collective punishment involving wholesale massacres are more aggregious than collective punishment involving an embargo on dual use military equipment. Those like the sanctions on Iraq are in the middle, as they resulted in the suffering of countless innconets, but the purpose was not to punish Iraqis but to prevent the regime from getting weapons the world thought it shouldn't. Sometimes purpose matters, though admittedly if it could have been better tailored to do this such sanctions may indeed have been bad, though they were not really collective punishment as the aim was not to punish but to constrain.



and the punishment of the germans after WWI led to the rise of Hitler...


in part (its more complicated than that) but I agree with this.



palestinians are entitled to what they were entitled to since many decades.


no they are not. I steal your bike. You rape my wife. You were, pre-rape, entitled to the return of your bike and damages, but after your conduct you are not really 'entitled' to anything anymore, other than a viscious beating.

They have been targteing Israeli civilians for FIVE DECADES now. Surely this means something in the greater scheme of things. And sometimes over time options become less and less feasible, until their actual implementation would be nothing short of ridiculous. Like a replacement warranty on a discontinued product.

the palestinians may have been able to return in 49 had Israel been recognized by her neighbours and aggression ceased, but it did not, it continued for decades because of the Arabs and because of this the 'entitlement' to return was lost as Israel fought defensive war after defensive war and continued to suffer from anti-civilian terrorism. By the time 2003 rolled around, this right was as dead and burried as any other 60 year old contingent right whose contingency never arose.



the jewish religious sites are in palestinian territory, that's fact you can't change.


ok. Jerusalem is in Israeli territory and this YOU cannot change. So what now? A pissing contest?

How about this. you recognize for a tiny little second that the Plaestinians must respect the holy sites of others. Now how can you ensure they do so? israel has been as respectful of Muslim religious sites as could possibly be hoped (Arab propaganda notwithstanding - more lies) while the Arabs desacrated Jewish holy sites both in pre-1967 Arab occupied Jerusalem (all of it was illegally occupied back then you know) and in the west bank since the launch of this war. they also, after being given authority over the temple mount, started building more underground mosques ON TOP OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS SITES.

You think this should be dealt with in an agreement and that the Palestinians should be held to a proper standard, or is this another situation where you think Israel should just 'trust' the palestinians to do what's right?



greek historical and religious sites are all over Turkey, their historical ennemy, which now attracts millions of tourists, what's the problem?


is Turket destroying them? if so then there is a most serious problem. This comparison is disingenuous and asking 'what's the problem' is insulting. The palestinians must allow Jews access to these sites in any peace agreement, and there must be an enforcement mechanism to ensure they don't renege as they have on all the other commitments they have ever assumed.



the pre-1967 border is the real border between israel and palestine


says who? They were and are armistance lines. At the time a final peace agreement is signed the border between these nations will be deliniated. until then the border is 'disputed' and the occupied territories 'disputed' as well. Israel has the best legal claim on these lands (comparred to Jordan, Egypt and every other sovereign nation) while the Palestinians have the best moral claim (as a right to self determination in areas where they are both disenfranchized and a minority).

But the final borders must take into account Israeli security concerns, and the palestinians must accept a limit on troops and armaments. You would disagree on 'natural justice' grounds, I assume. Spell it out for me.



and the war will go on as long as israel accepts this (with some minor adjustments perhaps, but certainly not including all the israeli colonies)


and even then it won't stop, as I've repeated maybe a thousand times.

[Canajew]

the problem is that settlements are mostly built on the most fertile areas and use lots of water, so if israel wants to annex those it will have to hand over equally fertile areas.


maybe but for this to be a possibility there must be negotiation, and for there to be negotiation, the palestinians must permanently give up violence against civilians and indeed all violence as strategic alternative options. Unless they do so Israel will not make peace with them and they will not get anything they want. And Israelis use more water and their land is far more productive because their farming techniques are better and their businesses are run better. While land choice and quality would, I assume, also play a role, maybe even a significant role, to imply that just comparing X to Y is proper is disingenuous.



no, it wouldn't, by the way kouweit was used to launch numerous attacks against iraq unautorised by the international comminty.


yes it would. if Kuwait had launched THOUSANDS of attacks against Iraqi civilians, Iraq would have been fully justified in responding and indeed occupying the area until they agreed to stop.

And what are you talking about with reference to kuwaiti attacks on Iraq? I haven't heard anything about that, but remain open to the possibility. I do not pretend that my 'allies' are nice people when they clearly are not. thus my position on France, for example.



as i said, ANY syrian government will only stop supporting terrorism if israel hands over the golan heights.


well too bad for them then. Terrorism is a crime against humanity. they must stop this if they want their land back. they don't stop, they don't get. Its as easy to undertsand as this, and you takeo, renound for your views on the infallability and inviolability of international law, surely see that crimes against humanity cannot under any circumstances be rewarded, and that these crimes must be punished by the international community and repeatedly condemned by the UN security council. But of course only Israeli violations count, however minor, while Arab violations never do, no matter how aggregious.



and an israeli (or American) occupation of syria will result in a whole new battlefield, a whole new largescale intifadeh, another great gift to al-quaida and the likes where they can show their skills. and most of all: an enormous burden on the already poor israeli budget...


maybe. But this is not necessarily an excuse to let a cancer fester. Chemotherapy isn't always pretty, and sure does involve some short term costs and even some long term ones, but just ignoring the problem is hardly a better solution. Syria, like the rest of the Arab world, needs to be fixed. Fixed by the Americans, fixed by the Israelis, maybe, but fixed they must be. I support the least intrusive means necessary to do so, and I would support action by armies who are the least likely to stir up such opposition. As such, I nominate the French to take responsibility for its abject failures as colonialist powers and to rise up and seize Syria and return it to her people. Whenever you're ready...



perhaps, but only because we would really offer them independance in return for an end of terrorism, unlike Israel.


what? garbage. They didn't want their own state back then, their express goal, which was shared by ALL of them, was the destruction of ALL of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinina state, murdering or expelling all Jewish Israelis. THAT was their goal in 1972 and that was their goal in 1992. That is also their goal now, but back then even THEY hadn't put up the pretext that all they wanted was their own litle state, so how you could assume that was their position is beyond me.

You did not offer them a real state in the 1970s. you watched them hijack airplanes, murder olympic athletes and murder Jewish civilians all over the world, and just let them out to do it again. Yoiu can engage in revisionist history all you like but you will not be able to get around this sorry little set of facts. Europe is substantially responsible for the prevalence of terrorism today.



We have learned how to deal with the Arab world, and quite succesfully, today relations between Europe and most Arab countries are good, and we even succeeded in the democratisation of some Arab countries such as lebanon or morocco.


ha! you have learned to appease the Arab world and ignore its barabarity and intrangencies (much like the US and Saudi Arabia just you do it with ALL of them). you may have a good relationship with the despots who run Iran, and you may have good relationships with butchers like saddam hussein, but this is hardly a ringing endorsement for your position. Appeasing these people will not advance the goals of peace and democracy. Morocco is run by a forward looking leader who would be among the best in the Arab world regardless of your involvement, and you cannot take credit for it. Lebanon descended into chaos in part because of your appeasment of the PLO and your refusal to stop them from undermining a peaceful and relatively prosperous Lebanon before it was destroyed by a civil war largely started and caused by the PLO and her allies.

Your relationships with the Arabs are good because you will lie for them, and you will bvelieve their lies without question, because you wilfully ignore their human rights violations and because you are eager to trade military and civilian technology with the worst of dictators. Hardly a ringing endorsement. seems that your 'close relationship' with Arab states is more of an indictment of Europe than evidence of the correctness of its stance.



we also managed to appease libia, wich is today ready to integrate in the international community and renounce terrorism.


whoopdy frikin do. Libya still calls for Israels destruction and I would suspoect is still involved in terrorism. It is still run by a megalomaniac who has no compunction about killing and torturing his own people. It is still as non democratic as it could possibly be, and is still a destabilizing force in the world.

but of course only time will tell how much of a mistake making friends with such god-awful regimes is.



The israeli or Bush-approach probably would have made libia another battlefield such as palestine or Iraq.


maybe, but isolation seemed to work pretty well, while with iraq Europe did all it could to undermine that isolation, which only made the prospect of war more necessary.



that's bs, really. not a single Arab state bombs its own citizens, closes its cities, destroys their houses and denies them any civilian right at all.


lies. all lies. Saddam Hussein launched poison gas against his own people. Syria killed, what, 20,000 people by pretty much wiping out a town because some opposition (terrorists) were located there. Kuwait kicked out EVERY SINGLE PALESTINIAN after the gulf war.

As for civil rights no Arab anywhere else in the middle east has nearly as many civil rights as Israeli Arabs. not one. None have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion (in Saudi Arabia Shiites are treated, "like Jews" and Arab Christians may not have bibles). None have the right to vote, none have the right to freedom from rampant government corruption which is equivalent (in effect) to expropriating homes.
None have really any civilian rights at all, at least as the term 'civilian rights' usually applies.

Torture, which you so like to point out Israel used to do, is no longer practiced by Israel because the Supreme Court said it was not acceptable and Israel is governed by the rule of law. In contrast, even 'moderate' countries like Jordan employ the most barbaric of torture techniques, and the United States has 'outsourced' some of its torture work that would not pass muster in the American Courts (where standards are LOWER than in Israel) to Jordan. And Jordan is nothing when compared to Egypt, Saudi Arabis, Syria or any of the other tin pan dictatorships that dot the region.

Your response reeks of ignorance.



the fact that Palestinians who were treated as human beings by the israeli (the israeli palestinians) react much more civilised than the ones who have been treated as animals for decades is a clear indication that the israeli polecy is responsible for the current mentality in the occupied territories. [/B]

no it is not. It is clear evidence that brainwashing and forcefeeding a captive population on hatred and dehuminization of the other, as Arafat has done unabated since he established control over the PA and its media in 1993, will succedd in making these people and their society into a backwater of intolerance and oppression. Israeli Arabs are in a better state because they were not taught by their leaders to hate, to kill, to destroy. They were tought to get an education and enjoy a quality of life that would be unavailable to them anywhere else in the middle east. AND ALL BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T TRY TO KILL ALL THE JEWS.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
discussing it means compromising.


well alright. Considering that legally they are not entitled to any sort of 'right' of retun, we can maybe compromise and allow for limited family unification. How's that? You start from a position of falsehood and make 'concessions' of something to which you are not entitled and then turn it around and say where's ymy compromise? Absurd.

And the Palestinians were the ones who started this war because they were not prepared to compromise. Look it up - there are books on this you know.



as the studies of Said show it's absolutely clear that the palestinian economy didn't have a real chance to devellop during oslo, the palestinian economy lacked real external borders and roads controlled by the palestinians. But still during the 90's the economy improved considerably compared to the earlier decades. the pa HAS education, infrastructure etc. perhaps not enough but it existed untill israel literally swept it away with bulldozers and tanks... not exactly the brightest move...


I dealt with this beofre, but if you skipped ahead this is still one of the stupidest things I've seen in a long time. So a linguist looks at an economy and says it wouldn't have worked. makes sense to me - I mean he's a LINGUIST after all :confused:



actually syrian and iranian living standards are MUCH higher than palestinian ones. of course it could be better but compared to most of their neighbours iran and syria did well.


but they are both backwaters who are suffering from acute stagnation (Iran for more than 20 years now) because they have not placed any emphasis on running their economies properly. And none have come anywhere close to Israel's progress, which while you may like to ascibe this to some sort of zionist conspiracy, is due to better govenrment, better social structure, better education, better workers and better technology as well as better goals and the basic institutions - rule of law, private property etc...



that's simply not true, just look at the indications of the undp. Arab countries generally improved quite a lot since the 50's, but serious problems remain. Some countries are almost up to Western level such as Tunisia or lebanon (without oil)


yeah. Arab countries are doing super - a model for the world. They are still firmly 'third world' countries, and have moved less than the Asians have, particularly in the past 10 years.



nevertheless communist or socialist-oriented economies in the thirth world did generally better than capitalist liberal ones...


Debatable, but there are certainly many advantages to socialist style initiatives in particular contexts - the Israelis and their Kibutzes are a great example of how socialist leanings can be good at the beginning of a development curve. But once countries become mature and their infrastructure robust, moving towards capitalism is generally preferred (though one must always be aware of market failures in either the production or provision of goods and services (like health care or roads) and adjust policy accordingly)

But I can comfortably state that the Arab-scialist experiment was a dismal failure compared to, say, the Israeli initiative or even where they would have been had they not adopted command and control style economies.

Also I should point out that the data on command economies are wrong not only because they are often doctored, but because budgets and accounts do not take into account deteriorations of either the environment or infrastructure. So while numbers may have been relatively flat for the USSR, as time went on its infrastructure crumbled and its environemnt deteriorated. While its GDP may have been the same the nation was clearly 'worse off'. this is why it is important to remember that economic indicators are just that - indicators, and that a more robust inquiry must be made to see the real state of the economy.

And I wasn't saying that the left's ideology or political economy is wrong - there is much i agree with (I'm an independent thinker sort of guy doesn't matter if a left wing or a right wing idea as long as it works).

I was saying that leftists as a whole generally HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT when it comes to economics. And I fully stand by this statement, especially as it applies to the leftist masses rather than a small minority of its intelligista (while Said and Chomsky may qualify as intelligista they are hardly qualified to speak on economic issues which they have never learned to address).



but it's a serious byproduct, some palestinians are near to starving, and it doesn't proove to be a very efficient measure, on the contrary it has been used in the past as a punishment.


with respect, israel does a very good job at making sure no one starves. Even the Un has been forced to admit that no one starves, so for you to make such a claim is not of much consequence given your history of colourful claims.

And its also a byproduct that fewer bombers sneak in as civilians and when it comes to a little bit of hunger for a bunch of Palestininas who widely support terrorism and lionize terrorists in their culture it seems a relatively small price to pay. And none of them starve, none of them look anywhere close to starving Africans so don't pull this here. Again, we know better.



yes it did (if you are interested in this subject i can provide you with quite some information and titles ) . The relevance is that your theory can be applied on your allies as well as your ennemies. i have a difficult time imagining you condemning the terrorist policy of the US!


Again, why is this relevant. It should be pretty clear by now that I think for myself, that I arrive at my conclussions on my own and that i am interested in making universal statements, where possible, that apply to EVERYONE. I have never denied that Dresden was probably a war crime or that the Americans committed attrocities in Korea or anything else, and I am well aware of the fact that during the war on communism many attrocities were committed in the name of rightousness and many murdeous dictators were backed because of the presumed red threat.

So once again your presumptions are wrong, and why you arrived at this in the first place is something only you can ever know. when I provided a definition of terroirsm I meant for it to apply always and to everyone. maybe not back in time (as applying a term like terrorism to the roman conquest of gall, for example, seems a little silly) but certainly to all present actors.

However, what you call 'terrorist policies' are likely nothing of the sort (as I don;t know specifically what you are talking about, but I assume your conception of terrorism here is not that which I had proposed (the purposeful targeting of civilians with death or grievous bodily harm for political purposes) and thus I can make no statement on the ultimate validity of yuor statement, except to say that the American's policy in Iraq is NOT terrorism, neither is Israel's policy towards the palestinians or the Syrians.

So, now that you have attemopted to avoid dealing with the issue by diverting attention to a non-existent inconsistency, would you kindly actually deal with the issue (whatever that mght be - you search for it I've done enough)



a palestinian state would offer israel numerous advantages, the most important one an end to the terror, and a peace-deal as signed with egypt or jordan, which prooved to be very succesfull.


again I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU. As far as I am concerned, an independent palestinina state will not end terror. I do not believe this, and there is no reason to believe this other than wishful thinking. they will not stop with an independent state and given that they have acted in such a depraved manner in the past few years, is it not for them to show me wrong, to speak of reconciliation and peacible co-existence, and all the rest. they are more dangerous today than they were in 2000, and why they are closer today when they were obviously not close enough then is something you will have to explain because I just don't get it.



do you have any links to sustain this claim?


again, read Yassir Araft: A political biography. If I remeber to bring it to work I'll put the cite they included, but really you should read both that book and Michael Oren's on the six day war.



it's a perfectly logical question, since sharon raise to power more israeli civilians died. i think it would be reasonable to think that there's some kind of connection... (after all the man promised to bring peace!)


it is NOT a reasonable question because you internalize an inconsistent paramater and do not account for it. I laid it out pretty well in the last post and I do not really want to explain it again. That you cannot undertsand that more must be done for a proper comparisson is, I think, evidence of your inability to engage in rational analysis.



the only thing changing was the israeli policy...


that's another lie. Arafat started his little war, terrorism began anew and Israelis again began to suffer from it BEFORE sharon took office.

[Canajew]

nope, the kind of terrorism used by hamas and co. doesn't need much ramping up. They have scores of candidates and material can be easily made or acquired. they can attack whenever they have the opportunity and want to.


are you retarded? you think that no training is required, no logistics are required, no factories needed to be constructed or materials brought down the line. you think its zero to hero in 5 seconds flat? Come on man, even you can do better than this. Anyways, it was just an example of how looking at only one period can cause an error in analysis.



the pa strategy changed when the israeli started to target the pa (still under barak), it changed even more since Sharon excluded all negotiations.


more lies. The PA startegy changed when it gave the green light to terrorism before Sharon even got elected. You really need to start looking at things properly. because if all you believe are easily verifiable as lies you will end up with a ridiculous position (much as you have).



operation defensive shield only had very temporarily results,


more lies. the figures speak for themselves. the highest rate of Israeli casualties was in the month immediately preceeding the operation, while the second highest was the month Israel was forced to withdraw by the International community. Once re-occupation was effected permanently casualty figures and the rate of success of attacks declined significantly. Come on enough with the lies.



and the only reason why there were a few less attacks during the last months was the hudna.


you mean the one where they re-armed and improved their rocket technology? An illustration of how temporary calms are really not peace at all.



sharon was also responsible for ending this hudna, perhaps barak would have respected this cease-fire.

Israel had no cease fire with any of these groups WHOSE SELF DECLARED PURPOSE IS THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL. they continued to try to attack Israeli targets (were you to read Israeli media they report attacks on a more regular basis than in France and the rest, where they only report SUCCESSFUL attacks. Israel stopped lots in the interim and certainly many before the 'successful operation' in Jerusalem.

So, to sum up, you really must stop believing so many lies. It makes you look stupid and ignorant.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
the pa has already been seriously damaged, so i suppose you mean hamas, jihad, etc.


no, I mean the PA, as it is the head of the snake, as it were, and is ultimately responsible for the direction of this war and any attempts to pacify its own population which it wilfully inflamed in order to start this war.

but it applies equally well to the rest, and as the PA shows its intransigence and its refusal to moderate Israel will hammer in on the rest too. At some point the palestinians will give up, then they will have a chance at freedom and prosperity. But as they will not give up violence until then, absent defeat there really is nothing to save them from themselves.



israel will never succeed to remove the capacity of those organisations without palestinian cooperation. even those walls are useless, since quite some terrorists come from Gaza where walls have already been erected.


the only successful suicide bomber from gaza was a British guy who was helped by the ISM. Anyways Israel can take whatever actions it deems necessary. You have no credibility on acocunt of your lies, and why I should take your policy position with respect to the secutity implications of the security fence is a question that, perhaps, has no answer.



bS, the european strategy, as for example in northern ireland, is to deal with the main problems on which terrorism is based, in this case the occupation of palestine.


see, you've already screwed this up. As terrorism against Jews started well before the occupation of 'Palestine' it is not possible that the cause of terrorism is occupation. And where a majority of palestinians believe all of Israel is ocupied territories, your analysis breaks down as it becomes necessary to cease the 'occupation' of all of Plaestine in order for the problem to be resolved and for the palestininas to stop their terrorism, which is not a functional suggestion in any meaningful way. the problem was is and always has been Arab rejectionism. this has existed long before any occupation and continues today notwithstanding it.

Deal with this problem without employing the always fun circular 'end the occupation' and we'll try again.



as opposed to the tatcher- and sharon-strategy of eradication of the resistance, which fails miserably in any war where terrorists are worriers have the support of the population.


First the terrorists are not 'warriors'. they are terrorists whose goal it is to kill innocnet children in their beds. Second, that the population supports them is a further reaosn to FIGHT, not to appease. What kind of message does that send to the population about crimes against humanity targeted at the Jews? You think this will make everything better?



years of Sharon-government haven't stopped terrorism, so clearly this theory stinks!!!


it seems to be working rather well, considering. What is needed is really a full occupation and control over all borders and smuggling routes. you will of course be well aware of the fact that Suicide terrorism only began once Arafat was in control of gaza, opening up the area for the free range of terrorists and allowing them close access to Israeli population centres. Remove the independence of gaza and control entry of weapons and suddenly it is far more difficult to be a terrorist.

Anyways, regardless of what imaginary benchmark you choose, Sharon has done a better job at fighting terrorism than you give him credit, and had he not acted this way casualties would have progressed as they were before defensive shield and not dropped significantly as a result of it.



as well as the putin-strategy in chechnia,


please stop comparing Israel to Russia in Chechnya. the Russians killed hundreds of thousands of people and probably raped far more, and they bombed a civilian city into the ground. You can say that the real reason they failed was because they embraced terrrorism against civilians to get what they want - a policy that in all other cases but Palestine, has proven to be an abject failure throughout the history of warfare. had they only attacked the 'militants/insurgents/whatever' they likely would have fared far better.



the soviet-strategy in afghanistan


same thing.



, the american strategy in vietnam


oversimplification but the best example you provided. But appeasment would not have worked either, it would have just resulted in a faster surrender of the South to the dictaotrs in the North (who were comparable to the Dictator in the SOurth, maybe, which is why, again, it is the brutality which is directed against the CIVILIAN population which is the best indicator of failure, not the brutality directed against the combatatnts)



or the bush-strategy in iraq... )


you mean the whole save people from a brutal dictator thing? I could see how this might piss some people off...



even this would be a great improvement compared to the current situation. How many israeli citizens died near the border since israel gave up the occupation of southern lebanon?


you don't seem to get it. The numbers may have gone down, but Hizbullah is a more serious threat than it was before. Israel perceivesd it to be and whether you do or not is irrelevant.



I think it was a popular uprising, one that the pa couldn't stop (and perhaps didn't want to stop). But it's clear it started as a spontaneous popular uprising (i'm not surprised either, i have visited the area only one year earlier)


again, this is a lie. It was purposely started and there have been statements released to that effect. The documentary evidence is significant that this was planned beofrehand and that it was a strateguic decision to incite this 'spontaneous' uprising by broadcasting that Sharon has intended to destroy the al aqsa mosque. It takes YEARS to so brainwahs a population, and they certainly did a bang up job. So while to a casual observer it might LOOK like the uprising was spontaneous, it really wasn't anything of the sort. I assume you want documentation on this and I'll get it to you when I get it to you, but you can read too and you should read some of the books that document such facts.

Also, if anyone else knows how to cite these without me having to check, i would appreicate it



during the first weeks of the intifadeh 100's of palestinians died, this is just a fact. perhaps some were killed in the crossfire but at some occasions israeli soldiers just shot on people throwing stones, which had been recorded by the camera's.


an over-reaction no doubt, but the crowds were not throwing stones this time rather there were gunmen in them firing at israelis. I was just pointing out that once again you were exaggerated things, whther you did so purposely or you have internalized the exaggeration is of little consequence.



that's bullocks, it's the same as saying if polish or Russians wouldn't have resisted the nazi-invaders there would have been less casualties


no it is not because, as you undoubtedly are aware, the Nazis had a policy of Libenstraum, where they claimed these lands for themselves and intended to slowly starve and labour these people to death until the land was empty and could be settled by the Germans.

the Israelis, in 2000 offered the palestinians all of Gaza, a division of Jerusalem where the PALESTINIANS had control of the temple mount, the Arab and Christian quarters of Jerusalem, and all the Arab suburbs, and between 92 and 95 percent of the west bank (with land swaps reducing the total disparity to less) and this west bank area was contiguous - cantonization was a lie invented by Arafat. So they did not fight this war to avoid extermination by the Nazis, they fought it because they wanted all of their refugees to return to Israel and they wanted all of what they felt they were entitled to. So basically they just launched this war for some empty space and for the right to destroy Israel demographically.

So don't you go off about how launching this war was an act of self defence. it was nothing of the sort.

[Canajew]

it seems a very logival conclusion


so account for it in your arguments don't just assume it away until you are called on it.



by targetting the pa instead of the real terrorists israel sent the wrong message to the palestinians that in fact they declared war against the entire palestinian society. this in return led to an enormous increase in the popularity of terrorist groups.


again, they should have just attacked the terrorists directly, but Arafat was doing nothing to stop them and it was his responsibility and Israel hoped that by targeting these incidents of nationhood the palestinians would recognize that they indeed should also have been fighting terrorism. in retrospect a mistaken assumption, but the terroists were first allowed free reign by the PA so it is still their fault that Israel responded the way it did. Just like Hamas et al are responsible AT LAW for the civilian casulaties which occur because they hide in civilian clothing in civilian populations.



still gaza-suicide bombers regularly rock Israel...


another lie. Are you addicted or something?

And the CEASE FIRE OFFERS WERE STILL SHAMS - evasion will not get you around this.



yes, but for palestinians as well, that's why Jerusalem must be divided as it was before 1967.


in 2000 I would have agreed with you (wrongly, but I was more blinded by idealism and false press back then), but no longer. I do not trust them to remain non-violent and to continue to allow access to Jewish holy sites. Also they have made themselves into the most horribly depraved people on earth, and I would not feel comfortable on the same side of the wall as them, especially in their capital city. Sorry, sometimes you cannot kick someone in the face and then immediately say "I'll take what you offered before I kicked you" - it doesn't work this way.



why do you think that not a single embassy resides in jerusalem?


because of Arab pressure and the oil lobby?



palestinians will never agree with an agreement wich gives the entire jerusalem to Israel, palestinians want eastern-jerusalem (or at least the palestinian quarters) as their capital. there can be found a compromise, but at least some parts of jerusalem will return to the palestinians, if you don't accept this it means a solution is absolutely impossible.


I do accept it, really I do, but not now. For me to get there the Palestinians must prove themselves a peaceful people, and this will take a long time and they haven't even tried to start yet. Also they will not get back the entire old city, so unless they drop that demand peace is also impossible.

And unless you effectively give up the "right" of return, peace is also impossible as Israel will NEVER accept such a ludecrous proposition WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY LAW SO DON'T PRETEND THAT IT IS.



nope, the settlements must be disbanded as required by several unsc-resolutions, if not peace is impossible.


I like your idea of compromise. very similar to Arafat's. Why don't I adopt this style and see where it gets...

No settlements need to be dismantled. UNSC is a flawed institution and its resolutions on this are not made under the title which allows for binding resolutions, therefore these resolutions are mon-binding as pieces of law. So as there is no legal dictat to withdraw, I will not withdraw form any. Unless you recognize this there will be no peace.

you see how stupid arbitrary positions (which for you falsely rely on imaginary 'laws') will get us nowhere?

how about my approach: settlemnts should be dismantled based on their proximity to Israel and their interference with ordinary palestinian activities. Some on the border with Jordan should be maintained for a while until the paestinians prove themselves peacable and trustworthy, then they should be either disbanded or absorbed into palestine, with its inhabitants as free as any other Palestinian (who would also have to be free if anything like this is to work - Arafatistan will not be free no matter what - it is impossible). those that remain under Israeli control must be purchased form the palestininas, either with money or with Israeli lands.

As you are so fond of saying discussing means COMPROMIZING so where is your compromize on this one?



perhaps some near israel's border can be integrated in return for parts of israel, that would be possible.


contrast with your prior statement. now see how sloganeering and propagandizing can make your opponent trust you about as much as Israel trusts Arafat. You should have started with proposition 2 and only then made point 1 that integrity should be respected (though the red herring about UNSC (nonbinding) resultions undermines everything a little.



perhaps, the wounds don't heal so easily, but i'm sure terrorism would cease.


pardon me if I don't take your word for it. I do not believe you and neither do most Israelis. If you want peace you will have to address this. Whenever you're ready...



indeed, i'm sure soon enough the israeli voters will get tired of paying for the military operations in the occupied territories and suffering daily losses, a bit like the resistence American occupation troops are now facing. (which i support a full 100% by the way)


keep dreaming. the israelis have no place to go, and they are well aware of the fact that giving into terrorism will only make them less secure. They will pay for these operations for as long as they believe that the alternative is Israel's destruction. You must tell the Plaestininas this or there will never be peace.



no, for israel it would mean peace and secure borders as with egypt and jordan (not necessarily warm relations tough) for the palestinians it would mean to have an independant state according to the pre-1967 borders, giving up most of their original homeland.


again, more sloganeering, bad analogies and evasion. It would only mean peace and secure borders if the palestinians were committed to this, and they are not, nor have they ever been. You are living in a dream world of make-believe.

And 'most of their original homeland' is not really being 'given up'. you once again choose empty propaganda slogans over rational thought.



I don't know exactly, but it is listed on the gush shalom website. not so may houses but many gardens, yards and other propery has been expropriated, which is totally illegal for an occupying power to do. And why exactly, if israel is only interested in the occupied territories for security reasons as you claim???

I have not claimed this. Some in Israel had ideas about colonization, but I did not. Some of these things are necessary for security, and in order for there to be security it was necessary for people to live there. And so they did. Israel was interested in OCCUPYING THE TERRITORY IN THE FIRST PLACE purely for security (and for access to Jerusalem, which was denied and Jewish sites destroyed by the Arabs) while in time other objectives got tacked on as it became more and omre clear the Arabs were not interested in making peace in exchange for the land back.

And with respect, I really could not give a rats behind about a garden that was expropriated to build a wall to keep out terrorists. As for settlement encroachment on Palestinian settlements, it is a provocation but not nearly as severe as it is made out to be, and not nearly enough of a provocation to celebrate at the news that a guy broke into a house and murdered a 4 and 5 year old in their beds.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
all citizens aren't equal in israel. palestinian israeli citizens can't marry someone who doesn't have the israeli nationality except if he or she is a jew, but jewish israeli citizens can. clear discrimination and racism.


is this true or is it another lie and the real issue that those Palestinians (i.e. belonging to the palestinina political group and not Israeli nationals) who marry Israelis cannot then acquire citizenship in Israel, and do you not think that by virtue of the fact that the Arabs and the Palestininas have been at war to destroy Israel for now more than 50 years might provide some impetus for the govenrment passing a law that says an enemy citizen cannot become a citizen of the state?

Also, please address the fact that plaestininas, even when they are born there, are not granted ANY of the rights that the regular lebanese citizen has, and can you please explain why this is somehow less pressing or less important or less severe than the limited restrictions put on the palestinians and why you feel that issue can be shunted aside while Israel is your 'cause de vie'.



besides the israeli treatment of the palestinians is much more than just defense, and the images of palestinian houses destroyed, closed borders, tanks shooting at stone-throwing children, demolishion of houses etc. all made israel less than sympathic.


granted the images make Israel look bad, but you said yourself not to trust only the TV images. Destroying a Palestinian home will almost surely result in a picutre of an old Palestinian woman looking really sad in front of her home that was recently destroyed. Of course that picture does not show that she encouraged her son to go kill civilians or that the next day she will celebrate the news of another attack targeting civilians. You assume no one has any moral culpability in anything, and this is not proper. Also, the fact that the bomber's family gets thousands and thousands of dollars for his act is enough justificatiojn for imposing an economic penalty on the family.

Closed borders, as we have already discussed and which you admitted was 'reasonable', were and are a response to attempts by palestininas to infiltrate with the labourers and blow up innocnets. It is fully justified.

Not all defense is just firing back, a point which you do not seem to undertsand. This the 67 war was defensive even though israel fired first. Defence doesn't mean just absorbing punishment.



Israel also refused to commit to several un-resolutions which made it effectively an outlaw.


politics. Nothing more. the Arab states and the European appeasers will say almost anything (in a non-binding security counsel resolution, anyways) and will ignore the most blatant Palestinian crimes against humanity while focussing on the least of Israeli intrangencies, and this lack of focus and lack of impartiality, while maybe making Israel 'look' like an outlaw, it does not in fact make Israel in violation or outside of any real laws.



yes they did, by recognizing israel in 1948.


Maybe, but I am not sure this is true. they may have recognized the state and left the borders to some future date. I am not saying this because it may be good for Israel, I think it may not be, but only because I think something like this happened and I can't be sure and truth is more important than ideology. But if you are sure for a REAL reason, then ok.



how would you organise elections in such conditions? do you think israel would cooperate? (a necessary condition for elections to succeed since israel occupies a large part of israeli towns)


Were the terrorist groups excluded I am sure the Israelis would cooperate in facilitating elections. You may not believe so but Israel has always been interested in getting peaceful neighbours, they just haven't been to successful at finding any. Were real elections to be proposed (after, of course, terrorism is addressed by the PA and the politicians running for office) Israel would do all it could. As I have been saying for a long time, Israelis want peace, they just can't find a real partner on the palestinian side prepared to do the same.



that's simply not true, most prisoners in pa-cells were membes of the military wing of hamas and jihad.


I guess I'll have to take your word on this, I have no data and any data comming out of the PA would be less than worthless in this regard, but the PA regularly arrests people who express modearte views (i.e. collaborators) and others who draw attention to problems within the PA. Do you deny these are serious (i.e. non-trivial) problems of a fairly large magnitude?



attacking arafat means brining hamas to power, it's as simple as that.


but you see it really makes no difference. their goals are the same, just their methods are different. Arafat likes to pretend he's a nice guy to the west, while Hamas wants the west dead too. The chances of peace with Arafat are no more than chances of peace with hamas, so from this perspective choosing one or the other makes no difference.



you are not interested in real peace because you refuse to negociate with the palestinian leadership.


you don't undertsand. 'negotiate' is a misnomer as to negotiate requires someone on the other side both prepared to reciprocate negotiations and to agree to both be bound by and enfore the agreed upon negotiated result. And the existing Palestinian leadership will not do this. So they really arn't negotiations at all - they are just like Camp David and taba - Israel makes all the concessions and proposals, while the PA representatives try to be as constructive as they can while knowing that Arafat did not give them authority to agree to anything and that he had every intention to reject any eventual proposal.

Negotiating with terrorists is not impossible because of stubbornness, but rather because the terrorists will not be bound by anything and thus are incapabale of truly 'negotiating' anything except the terms of surrender.



this imaginary upheaval will never happen, and hamas would be by far worse than Arafat.


Not worse. maybe as bad as but in all likelihood a little better as the world will have a harder time denying reality with hamas than they do with denying reality about Arafat.



Hamas would use the entire palestinian infrastructure in its battle against israel, without anyone restraining them and without being bound by foreign friends, hamas would have even more potential and means than nowadays.

seems like you are describing Arafat and his PA to me - his security forces have been involved in hundreds of terrorist attacks, his media promotes the worst of incitement and the high up members of the other terrorist groups are and have been more or less untouchable by the Palestinian security apparatus.

If Hamas takes power Israel will destroy them as Arafat was supposed to do. then maybe moderates will rise to replace this madness with a functional government which is driven by pragmatism and the goal of improving the lives of Plaestininas, not of destroying their neighbour.

[takeo]

this does not mean they are allies. In case you didn't know, Netanyahu's 'goals' do not entirely consist of his political success, rather they comprise a set of objectives on the ground. I would suggest that these are quite different from the goals of Hamas (which, if you didn't know, include the destuction of Israel and the expulsion of her Jewish citizens) and that as a result it would be a lie to call them allies. Hamas and Arafat are allies, even though they disagree on things like timing, corruption, religion etc, but because they both share the same goal of destorying Israel, they are allies.

they are strategical allies, allies don't always have the same final goals but sometimes only immidiate goals, such as the destruction of any peace-prospects.



again, show me something like this. i have put forward many reasons why this is not true. this is also just a bald faced assertion and not really releant anyways because the Plaestinians were hardly 'ethincally clensed' and, in fact, the vast vast vast majority of those actually ethnically clensed are not entitled to return as of right, especially after this kind of terrorist campaign.

the current problems are totally unrelated to this issue, you can not punish people for the acts of others, this is morally and legally unacceptable. Many of these people have been etnically cleansed from their lands, and have always been denied access or even propper indemnation, this was morally wrong, evil, and if israel wants to come to terms with its past it should adress this question.



with respect, after the palestinians launched this unnecessary war whose primary doctrine is to target innocnet isralei civilians, i really don't care too much about their willfully manufactured and false symbols. They invented it, they can uninvent it.

it's not an invention, it was a huge injustice which should, at least symbolically, be restored. It's as if asking the jewish people to forget the genocide. of course the situation can't be turned around, it's too late, but at least israel could make some symbolic gestures and accept at least some part of the children and grand-children of those refugees, believe me, it would make a great difference in the eyes of the palestinians in their perception of Israel. You might not care what they think, but you also want a change in their mentality, this seems like a contradiction...



but Israel doesn't want them because their society has so embraced this cult of death. They must be a cost to backing the loosing side in war after war after war. They started this war and they lost. A right of retun is unacceptable to israel and always has been and there has never before been any legal support to suggest that such a right exists. Whether Israel's demographics are, for you, undisturbed enough, is irrelevant. Isarel does not have to take these people in (not even back, just in) and those who are the most active proponents of this use it as a code word for the destruction of israel. Unless they give up this ludecrous demand they will never see an agreement they will perceive as acceptable, and there will be no peace. As you so obviously desprately desire peace, you will no doubt make future best efforts to educate the palestinians and their supporters about both the legal invalididity of a 'right' of return, and the extremely dim potential there is for peace were this demand not given up.

Some palestinians said to me the right of return can be abolished under some conditions, many others don't agree with this. Every palestinian family has relatives who suffered from expultion and ethnic cleansing in the war or after the war of 1948, so this remains a giant scar on the soul of the palestinian people. of course a compromise is necessary, but if you refuse to compromise on this matter, it means it will be less likely palestinians and israeli will ever live on good terms with each other. I don't understand your logic, you seem to accept that this right of return will not destroy israel on some conditions, but you still refuse to accept it.



what kind of drivel is this. Destroying homes used by terrorists to smuggle weapons is not illegal, neither is the destruction of homes used as firing positions or to hide weapons. Destroying homes of the families of suicide bombings is a negative economic measure taken to counteract the funds received by that family from Arab supporters BECAUSE their child blew up innocnets.

no, it means punishing relatives and family of terrorists, retributing against their family since you can't punish the terrorists themselves, something which is specifically forbidden by the Geneva-conventions (as well as morally not acceptable i would say)


And wasn't it you I took to task about equivalence between murder and theft? Crimes against the person are always more morally aggregious than crimes against property. Stop these sorts of intellectual games please, it only further reinforces my suspicioin that you are not interested in a real dialogue, rather only to hone your rhetorical skills.

yes, but crimes against property of civilians is nevertheless a CRIME, comparable to burning down houses in the Balcans. It is unacceptable for a country wich claims to be a western democracy that respects human rights(and ok you can compare to syria, etc. but those aren't western democracies are they? But if you think Israel is more comparable to those countries than to the Western world that's YOUR conclusion not mine).


[QUOTE]2 things. First, the disengagement agreement between Egypt and Israel from the '56 Suez war specified that any blockade was to be interpreted by israel as an act of war. by signing this agreement Egypt was bound by this position, in effect creating an offense that would effectively nullify the disengagement agreement and allow Israel to rightfully attack to remedy this blockade.

Further, blockades are internationally recognized as acts of war, so even failing this inclusion in the disengagegement agreement was not strictly necessary, but at least it allows me to avoid demonstrating this too, as only one cause of war is necessary, i do not have to prove there were multiple ones (even though there clearly were).

I have to take your word for it, since i don't know the exact words of the disengagement agreement. still one can hardly say that the israeli reaction was appropriate, Israel could have reacted very differently to this Egyptian move. The fact that it immidiately responded with a military invasion (which in turn would lead to a war against jordan and syria as well) prooves that such a move was desired for quite some time. this seems typical for Israel, as well as for the Arab world, overreaction makes things worse. What's your excuse by the way for the israeli participation in the 1956-aggression?


Further, Egypt forced the UN to withdraw, and Nasser and Asad went on and on about how they were going to destory Israel and exterminate its population. There were plans drawn up for the extermination of Tel Aviv's population, and Egypt moved all its armaments to Israel's border. To say that this did not amount to an act and declaration of war is to wilfully blind one's self to reality.

this are all assumptions and no reasons for war. The US has moved its troops on several occasions very close to the north-korean border, does this give the northkoreans the right to attack? Israel should have waited and prepared for war, but by invading first Israel made itself the occupier and aggressor in the opinion of the world.




you really think so? You want to rethink this, or would you like everyone to confirm their suspicions that you are an anti-semite? implying that the Israelis used this as a pretext so what? they would exterminate the local, population and enlarge their leibenstraum?

come on, please, you should know better instead of using this word anti-semitism! you seem intelligent enough to know that criticising israel's policy and anti-semitism are not the same (could be the same, but certainly not always)
Israel wanted Lebensraum, some months ago i published some quotes from Israeli politicians about this "extra space needed for Israel". Even today some highranking people worship the "eretz israel" idea and others favour a massive etnic cleansing of the occupied territories. All it needed was a valid excuse to grap more lands, Nasser provided them with such an excuse. You might be insulted by this as it doesn't fit in your framework but i would think about it, can you garantee me a 100% that it wasn't one of the reasons to start this invasion?


false. And who were they supposed to offer it to? the PLO, the unreformed international terrorist group? Again stupidity masquerading as intelligent thought.

Israel, as an occupying power, could organise elections or elect an interim-government, or hand over the autority to the united Nations, as the Americans do in Iraq, in order to prepare independance. But the idea never ever crossed their mind, on the contrary untill the 80's the idea of ever relinquishing those territories was taboo in political Israel, untill the intifadeh scattered their dreams.

[takeo]

I can't keep responding to everything saying it is stupid, yet you keep making stupid assertion after stupid assertion. So rabin and Peres were plotting to subvert the peace process that they wanted so badly? Barak, by offering almost everything the palestinians were wanting, he secretly wanted them to reject it so that his political career could be over and so that the palestinians could launch a new war that they had planned to launch even before negotiations were concluded.

You have your causes and effects backwards.

Oslo didn't offer a solid timetable, and palestine effectively was a kind of bantustan of different small islands of palestinian jurisdiction. palestinians swallowed it, since they hoped this would only be temporary, but since barak's offer they knew it wouldn't be, since israel didn't offer any more. Barak's offer was disengenious(sorry if i missplelled the word), it wasn't acceptable to the palestinians, because most of the settlements, the international border and eastern jerusalem would continue to be under Israeli controll, leaving nothing more than miserable islands in the middle of israeli jurisdiction for the palestinians, indeed identitical to the southafrican Bantustans (an often referred to example). So the problem wasn't only the refugees.



because of DETERRENCE. you do not buckle to terrorists. Doing so harms the long term interest of the population to security. Stop ignoring what you don't like.

Yes sometimes you do so, and appeasement isn't always a bad thing, especially if you yourself aren't on very high moral grounds either.




but of course the fact that Arafat and his security apparatus and his media appeased the extremists and persecuted the moderates, accusing them of being traitors, had nothing to do with it? Wilful blindness will not win you any arguments here.

you always refer to traitors as being the real moderates. But who are those traitors in effective? those are people who worked together with the israeli security services to exterminate leaders of palestinian groups, in other words collaboratos of the israeli occupying force, and have been treated accordingly. Those people are only a very small tiny number of people and certainly not a political group, their main motivation was money. it only demonstrates your unawareness of the palestinian society. Like it or not, there is no political group more moderate in israeli society than the moderate wing of fatah. And perhaps they appeased the radicals, i agree this was a mistake (i mean in the 90's, today they can't do lost all their power to the radicals).


but if they cannot or will not do anything to stop the extremists then it doesn't really matter if they are a trivial or non-trivial small part of the palestinian society which is run by extremist facist ideologues. That they exist is not enough, and unless they can do anything to help the israelis with their valid security concerns (which started the whole thing, and certainly started the re-occupation of March 2002) the encouragement of their expansion is hardly the most pressing goal.

They can do something against the extremists ( they are the only ones by the way who can stop them) but only in the propper conditions, it means if israel would agree to political talks on the highest level etc. much like in the 90's. I agree they missed an opportunity to deal with the radicals back then but it could be one of the steps in any further peace-agreement. But if there isn't any talk or agreement at all how do you expect to change the situation?



I've got you going in circles. If Syria is still at war with Israel, then why does it even matter that this group is a terrorirst organization (which it is) and Syria is harbouring them (which it is)? If they are still at war then Israel does not need any reason, by your logic, to strike what it perceives to be a threat eminating from this country with whom israel is at war. Cuts both ways.

ok, but in that case Syria can strike at israeli military targets whenever it wants to. and perhaps it should, to put the issue of the Golan-heights back on the international table were it belongs.



AT LEAST until then, and almost certainly beyond, but for those like you who believe the terms Syrian and peacenik are synonamous, the realm of self delusion will allow you to see this as the sufficient condition for peace, when it is only really, at most, a necessary condition and even this is arguable. It is clearly not a sufficient condition for peace. the Syrians must do lots of things in exchange, and they have never been willing to do them.

What should the syrians do in exchange for being returned their own territory? Recognise israel and stop supporting terrorism, that's about it. Israel on its term must also recognise Syria by the way and its government.




Also, there is a difference, I think, between regimes which purely desire to maintain power and subject the population to a democratic government genuinely interested in the well being and security of its people. So Iraq would not have been able to use this excuse because of an attack against the Kurds, for example, because Iraq and Hussein did not actually care about these civiulians, and any excuse clearly would have been just that - an excuse. But for Israel, a democracy clearly concerned with the protection of its citizens, such an attack is clearly justified.

aha! Now i got you! So your arguments are only appliable for one kind of countries but not for others, and one kind of civilians have a larger value than other civilians... So the countries you consider to be democracies can retaliate, others can't. Fine, well lebanon is a democracy, and next time israel attacks lebanon I assume you would agree with lebanon retaliating with the destruction an israeli base. Or you wouldn't make any objections if the democracy venezuela would retaliate against a us-training camp for supporting oppositional armed forces... By the way Dr. morgan didn't make such a distinction, for him the rule was universal.



my straight answer: were this bomb targeted against those who set off a bomb in Cuba, and were the American government to have refused to stop such acts and arrest the perpetrators and future perpatrators, then yes Cuba would be justified in attacking those who attack it.this does NOT mean they could just drop a bomb on a civilian population or engage in nay other acts of terrorism, but that a response designed to both stop the person who is carrying out these attacks and provide a deterrent for others who would also be likely to engage in such actions, would, in my opinion, be acceptable (though really stupid looking at the balance of power and the American administration).

ok, this means castro has right now, according to you, the right to attack oppositional training camps in Miami!



I put up about a quarter of it about Arafat's early years, the evidence gets both more voluminous and more obvious for the rest, but as I work, it takes quite a bit of time to put them all in. But read Yassir Arafat: A political biography and there should be enough 'prooves' to suffice. If I get the time I will continue to put in examples of why i would trust Saddam hussein before I trusted Yassir Arafat. Why do you believe him, when everything he says is inconsistent with what he does, what he causes to be taught to his people, and what he says to his people in Arabic?

I generally prefere to read books and articles based on evidence instead of political propaganda. You made a lot of allegations indeed, but not once i saw a reference to prooves, sources, etc. is this available in the book, what are his sources, etc. this is all very important, as it is in the case of Sharon. (so i won't refere to him as war-criminal anymore, altough the indications against him are much stronger than in the case of Arafat)

[takeo]

thats not true. In Bosnia the relevant agreement may have been different, but as a general principle International law does not recognize children of refugees ot be refugees. I am also, of course referring to all those who would qualify under the UNRWA definition of terrorism, as having worked in Israel for two years, who would not qualify as real refugees belonging to that nationality. Being a transitroy labourer on a Jewish far for a couple of years hardly qualifies a person for a right of return. And you ignored my substantive argument, I assume because you have no legitimate way to deal with it.

I am referring to the refugees who lived for generations in what is today israel, and their family. Today i saw an interesting documentory of a little village near the coast of Haifa, they were spared as the only palestinian village since the jewish farmers nearby told the military to spare them as they were needed on the land, all the other villagers in the neighbourhood had to pack and leave!!! this is of course clear and uncut etnic cleansing.



There are tons and tons of proofs. You just need to look for them and be prepared to accept them when they are valid. That Arafat smuggled people in the trunk of his car is a fact. It is in the biography i noted above.

ok, perhaps, so what?


that he misrepresented the Clinton plan as a plan of cantonization of plaestine (which is completely false) in his desription of it to his people and to arab leaders is a fact as attesed to by Clinton and a comparrison of Clinton's outline of the plan in Haaretz with Arafats speaches about it in Arabic.

Arafat was right and it hardly makes him a terrorist by sharing this obvious truth with his people.


I don't waste my times with documenting everything with you because I know it doesn't really matter and that no proofs will ever be accepted by you if you don't like their implications.

i will accept them if you can refere to prooves, for example pieces of paper prooving Arafat payed hamas, etc. As there is evidence that Sharon personally helped the militia in Beirout who massacred many civilians in the 80's.
The only evidence i know is a piece of paper where Arafat pays some fatah-members who are, according to israel, involved in al-aqsa. the only problem is that israel can't show any prooves that those members effectively are members of al-aqsa. they have always by the way denied this allegation. you need to try harder if you want to convince me arafat's a terrorist. I don't exclude he might have been aware of terrorist acts before 1993, since he was the leader of the plo (but he certainly didn't controll all composing groups, and even less the dissenders).


Again, this is a stupid argument. given that technology and techniques, as well as resourcefulness and access to foreign capital, which were available to the Jewish citizens of the Yishuv, much of the barren lands of palestine became cultifiable and productive. the Arabs were living in the middle ages - largely illiterate, feudal, depending on labour intensive agricultural techniqes and oblivious to the role of technological advancement to productivity, and the Jews who farmed the land were well educated, ideologically driven, and had resources and insights available to them that the Arabs lacked.

All right, but what's your point?



again, irrelevant to the proposition which was made initially, that the israelis depended on swampland and barren wasteland and other non-cultivated lands to build the bulk of its farm infrastructure. Well, not really irrelevant, rather it actually ADDS support to the claim you wish to disprove.

but what i wanted to proove is that the palestinians were the large majority of the population there even in the 1930's.



again, when you speak of ownership you ignore the fact that 'Arab lands' included the negev and other unfertile swampland and were not productively used. This figure would, I suspect, also include the west bank and gaza, whose figures would have to be removed.

you contradict your own statements. You just said the jews were given the most unproductive lands...


Also, what role should racist exclusionary policies have in evaluating these figures? You are against racism, no? When Jews were forbidden to purchase land owned by Arabs, was this not a distortionary factor which you would have to compensate for when comming up with these numbers, or does de facto Arab aparthide pass the test?

it wasn't Apartheid. Jews were immigrants, foreigners, and immigrants do not have the same rights as people who lived there as established citizens. it's the same in the us and everywhere around the world, not just in Arab countries.

[takeo]

Also, what about the fact that the Arabs backed the losing side in a world war that changed all the rules and resulted in no borders being sacred? The Grand Mufti was a big supporter of Hitler, and he certainly did not aid the allies as the plaestininan Jews had.

what's your point? palestinians just supported the other side because they hated their colonial masters, as did most colonial people such as Indonesia etc. The palestinians weren't really involved in WWII and can't be helt accountable for this war, they were just outsiders and didn't participate. What a crasy idea it is to punish an entire people for such stupid reasons. You are obviously uneasy with the fact that untill the 40's the majority of the population and landowners was palestinian (which means that in the 40's a lot have lost everything they had and the state of israel is build on their blood and misfortune), it undermines your theory of israel as the victimised country...

[danholo]

Originally posted by takeo:
I have to take your word for it, since i don't know the exact words of the disengagement agreement. still one can hardly say that the israeli reaction was appropriate, Israel could have reacted very differently to this Egyptian move. The fact that it immidiately responded with a military invasion (which in turn would lead to a war against jordan and syria as well) prooves that such a move was desired for quite some time.

Immediately? Immediately!? I am just reading a/the history of the Six Day War by Michael B. Oren and this is why I choose to comment on this before Canajew comes back on-line to reply. I honestly have no idea why you have the nerve to tout this bull@#$%. Either you are a liar or just plain ignorant. Please prove to be the latter. This is utterly disguisting and can almost seen as propaganda... Immediately my ass. It seems that you know absolutely nothing about the Six-Day War and what lead to it. I am pretty sure Canajew here agrees with me.

If you ever have, indeed, read any book on this conflict it must be one of those books I looked at by Hirst where he "proves" that Israel is "evil" because of its revisionist historians who have to do something to satisfy their guilt - "We must have done something evil." - or that "The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid" by that racist which has contributions by antisemitic self-hating Holocaust deniers like Chomsky or the late "exaggerator" Said and that other hater Robert Fisk. What "intellect".

All I can say to this is: "Oy vey!"

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
they are strategical allies, allies don't always have the same final goals but sometimes only immidiate goals, such as the destruction of any peace-prospects.


they are not allies. Hamas and the PLO are allies - they have the same strategic goals. Netanyahu wasn't interested in 'destroying the peace process' he was interested in demonstrating the Palestinians had only fraudulently assented to it. And he was right.



the current problems are totally unrelated to this issue, you can not punish people for the acts of others, this is morally and legally unacceptable. Many of these people have been etnically cleansed from their lands, and have always been denied access or even propper indemnation, this was morally wrong, evil, and if israel wants to come to terms with its past it should adress this question.


you can punish people for the acts of others. Conspiracy to commit murder is still a crime even though you didn't really DO anything to anyone. Wars are fought against a collective group of people based on what their GOVERNMENT does. This happens all the time and is perfectly acceptable where the actions to which you refer have wide support among the population and where the population actively seeks to aid those who commit such acts.

Israel would likely address the moral issue over time, and 20 years after a peace I could easily see something comming out of Israel that is VERY conciliatory, but the actions of the Palestinians in this whole thing cannot and should not be ignored. On a relative scale of immorality the Israelis don't even come close.



it's not an invention, it was a huge injustice which should, at least symbolically, be restored.


the false symbol I was talking about was the fact that the al-aqsa mosque has nothing at all to do with the Koran. it was built in Jerusalem almost a century after Mohammed lived and died and it was called the al-aqsa mosque so that the guy who built it could claim religious authority for his power. In this was this is an invented fiction. It is not nearly as religious a site as they pretend it to be. That is the sybol, and that is what I would like them to address.



It's as if asking the jewish people to forget the genocide. of course the situation can't be turned around, it's too late, but at least israel could make some symbolic gestures and accept at least some part of the children and grand-children of those refugees, believe me, it would make a great difference in the eyes of the palestinians in their perception of Israel.


again, you miss my point. Barak offered for a fair number of 'returnees' and Arafat rejected this, still claiming a full right of return. And now that the palestinians have turned themselves into a cult of death paradise, that you cannot see that they might be viewed as undesirable by the Israelis is really not my problem.



You might not care what they think, but you also want a change in their mentality, this seems like a contradiction...


because there is a right way and a wrong way to change perceptions. Making concessions and goodwill gestures doesn't work. thats been tried already lots of times. Israel offered control over the temple mount, and that still wasn't enough to even make the Palestinians even THINK about making a real peace. And any concessions made while Arafat is still in control of the media will only be minimized and discounted, so that the Palestinians feel that not only were they not given anything but that Israel was taking stuff away. Just like you 'Balkanization' garbage fiction.



Some palestinians said to me the right of return can be abolished under some conditions, many others don't agree with this. Every palestinian family has relatives who suffered from expultion and ethnic cleansing in the war or after the war of 1948, so this remains a giant scar on the soul of the palestinian people. of course a compromise is necessary, but if you refuse to compromise on this matter, it means it will be less likely palestinians and israeli will ever live on good terms with each other. I don't understand your logic, you seem to accept that this right of return will not destroy israel on some conditions, but you still refuse to accept it.


you seem to be missing the point that the Palestinians, through their widespread popular support for this suicide terror campaign, have completely obliterated any goodwill that the Israelis may have had, and that this goodwill cannot really be restored. they cannot come back because they are supporters and members of a society which is as immoral as possible.



no, it means punishing relatives and family of terrorists, retributing against their family since you can't punish the terrorists themselves, something which is specifically forbidden by the Geneva-conventions (as well as morally not acceptable i would say)


so you are talking of demolishing houses of suicide bombers and not those destroyed for actual tactical military reasons. But I still disagree, as Israel only adopted this policy AFTER foreign govenrments began paying bounty money to all families of suicide bombers who 'martyred' themselves to target Isareli civilians. Seems fair that israel can impose an economic penalty to counteract this payment for crimes against humanity - and where's your precious security counsel on that - isn't paying people to engage in crimes agaianst humanity in a aforeign country something within its jurisdiction and that it should pay attention to? But of course it is broken so it is oblivious.



yes, but crimes against property of civilians is nevertheless a CRIME, comparable to burning down houses in the Balcans. It is unacceptable for a country wich claims to be a western democracy that respects human rights(and ok you can compare to syria, etc. but those aren't western democracies are they? But if you think Israel is more comparable to those countries than to the Western world that's YOUR conclusion not mine).


israel is not really completely comparable to any country as it seems to be the only democracy which has had to constantly fight agaisnt enemies whose declared goal it was to destroy the state and kill or exile all of its inhabitants. That you don't see this creating any sorts of undertsandable exceptions to 'business as normal' is a problem.

And when fighting those who adopt war crimes and crimes against humanity as a FIRST option, lesser crimes can easily be justified based on proportionality. Especially when the 'judiciary' of international law constantly ignores all the crimes committed against israel. Part of the social compact of law is that each individual is entitled to the protection of that law. The fact that the international community has done nothing to protect Israel or punish the perpatrators of crimes against humanity vitiates somewhat the moral claim of the international community to extend jurisdiction on house demolitions and other far less serious events.

[Canajew]

I have to take your word for it, since i don't know the exact words of the disengagement agreement. still one can hardly say that the israeli reaction was appropriate, Israel could have reacted very differently to this Egyptian move. The fact that it immidiately responded with a military invasion (which in turn would lead to a war against jordan and syria as well) prooves that such a move was desired for quite some time. this seems typical for Israel, as well as for the Arab world, overreaction makes things worse. What's your excuse by the way for the israeli participation in the 1956-aggression?


Israel's participation in the 1956 war was justified by - you guessed it - an Egyptian blocake of the straits of Tiran, not to mention the fact that in 1955 Egypt ramped up its sponsorship of 'fedayeen' terrorist raids into Israel. Just in this case other countries were also pissed off about its seizing of the Suez Canal and so Israel didn't have to go it alone. Israel achieved its objective by seizing Sharm el Shiek, breaking the blockade and then in the disengagement agreement agreeing to withdraw from the occupied portions of the Sinai as long as Egypt did not again block this international waterway. And when Egypt broke this agreement and made it abundantly clear that the next war would be a war of extermination, Israel took the whole Sinai, and only returned it when Egypt genuinely committed to not committing additional acts of war in the future.

Your lack of knowledge about these kinds of historical facts which are so central to the narative is disturbing, to say the least.

And what danholo said was bang on. You really should read the book he is talking about. While you will undoubtedly perceive the rigid academic integrity of the work to be wholly foreign to you and the 'authors' you like to base your assumptions on, it should be of quite a lot of value in getting you to at least SEE that there is a real side out there with REAL facts and REAL arguments, unlike yours with manufactured facts and faulty arguments (e.g. general assembly resolution X makes Y ILLEGAL - even though this is impossible)



this are all assumptions and no reasons for war.


for you, speaking 35 years after the fact and not facing down the barrels of thousands of tanks and hundreds of planes. Back then, and again you really should read something so you have at least some clue what you are talking about, Israel and Israeli leaders were GENUINELY concerned with their own survival. This has been documented and is available for all to observe, if they want to, of course.



The US has moved its troops on several occasions very close to the north-korean border, does this give the northkoreans the right to attack? Israel should have waited and prepared for war, but by invading first Israel made itself the occupier and aggressor in the opinion of the world.


with respect, the opinion of the world doesn't really mater if you're dead and so international opinion doesn't really factor in here. Egypt did everything it could to posture for war, and if Israel believed Egypt and Nasser and responded, its Nasser's fault. Anyways, he did intend to carry though so all this is moot.



come on, please, you should know better instead of using this word anti-semitism! you seem intelligent enough to know that criticising israel's policy and anti-semitism are not the same (could be the same, but certainly not always)


well gee, then maybe you should hold off making stupid comparissons of the Israelis to the Nazis. In this case criticizing Israel and being antisemetic is CLEARLY the same thing, as you impute Nazi motives to israeli actions.



Israel wanted Lebensraum, some months ago i published some quotes from Israeli politicians about this "extra space needed for Israel". Even today some highranking people worship the "eretz israel" idea and others favour a massive etnic cleansing of the occupied territories. All it needed was a valid excuse to grap more lands, Nasser provided them with such an excuse. You might be insulted by this as it doesn't fit in your framework but i would think about it, can you garantee me a 100% that it wasn't one of the reasons to start this invasion?


No it was not a reason (though admittedly gaining control over Jerusalem was a separate concern and partly driven by territorial ambitions - i.e. they have denied us access for so long, it would be great to fix that).



Israel, as an occupying power, could organise elections or elect an interim-government, or hand over the autority to the united Nations, as the Americans do in Iraq, in order to prepare independance. But the idea never ever crossed their mind, on the contrary untill the 80's the idea of ever relinquishing those territories was taboo in political Israel, untill the intifadeh scattered their dreams.

maybe, but things are different today than they were in the 80s. had the Palestinians been interested in genuine peace (back then they still even Declared their goal to be Israel's destruction - now they only pretend that it isn't) then they would have had it at Camp David, but they were not and they have become the most depraved society on earth, so things have changed. Deal with it.

[Canajew]

also, beofre getting to any particular points below, I just remembered another thing whihc may be pertinent to your view of collective punishment. There is something known as collective accountability which must also be addressed. Where actions are undertaken in the name of a people or in the name of a cause, and where those people or the supporters of that cause fully support and back these actions and these actions are patently immoral, such as the PURPOSEFUL targteing of innocents, as has been Palestinian policy since the 1960s, the cause or movement itself and the people who support it are collectively accountable for what people do it their name and 'collective punishment' which is really collective accountability, must be seen in this context.


Originally posted by takeo
Oslo didn't offer a solid timetable, and palestine effectively was a kind of bantustan of different small islands of palestinian jurisdiction.


but of course the MO of Oslo was to be Isarel provides limited autonomy to the PA who would then demonstrate that it could and in fact was abiding by its commitments under the agreement. then more area was to be ceded and the process repeated, until the Israelis trusted the palestinians enough to give them control over all Palestinian population centres, whcih was done. The bantunization which resulted from the Gaza-Jericho first plan was designed to be, and in fact would have been, quite temporary had the Palestinians actually abided by ANY of their commitments, which, if you didn't know, were commitments made in EXCHANGE for Israeli withdrawal. The palestininas didn't meet their conditions but you would like Israel to meet its contingent obligations even though these contingencies never materialized. you sound a lot like Arafat.



palestinians swallowed it, since they hoped this would only be temporary, but since barak's offer they knew it wouldn't be, since israel didn't offer any more. Barak's offer was disengenious(sorry if i missplelled the word), it wasn't acceptable to the palestinians, because most of the settlements, the international border and eastern jerusalem would continue to be under Israeli controll, leaving nothing more than miserable islands in the middle of israeli jurisdiction for the palestinians, indeed identitical to the southafrican Bantustans (an often referred to example). So the problem wasn't only the refugees.


you have bought a pack of lies with respect to Barak's offer. Read what Bill Clinton wrote; read what barak has written; read what israel's free press digs up on this. but please read. East Jerusalem would have been under almost full Palestinian control, with access for Israel to the western wall on Israeli controlled lands measuring two car widths wide. The west bank would have been contiguous and would not have involved any bantonization. Israel would have retained control over borders for a limited time, but this would have reverted after the Palestinians upheld their commitments (something you don't seem to like very much - mechanisms designed to get the palestininas to actually DO what they promise to do). Palestinians would have been given an easement over Israeli territory to allow travel between the WB and Gaza.

You may believe the BS propaganda about what Clinton's and Barak's proposals contained, but this is your ignorance and is not reflective of objective reality. When you see the facts as they exist rather than what you would like them to be or what others genuinely believe or what you were told by Arafat et al then we can talk about these things, but as long as you blindly follow the disinformation that was purposely put out there to get people like you to spew out these lies, we will not make any headway here, and I would think any real 'peace' is nothing more than a flight of fancy.



Yes sometimes you do so, and appeasement isn't always a bad thing, especially if you yourself aren't on very high moral grounds either.


??? So you kill my wife and I assault you in court. Should you be appeased in sentencing because I hit you? Stupid.

Appeasment is not a bad thing if it will be perceived as reconciliation rather than concessions and weakness and the Palestinians, driven by their corrupt PA media, will surely tell the 'Palestinian people' that any reconciliation efforts are concessions and demonstrate weakness and would push to renew fighting rather than tone it down. When time after time after time the effect you expect does not materialize, it is time to maybe rethink your paradigm. Appeasment of the Palestinians, a majority of which seek Isarel's destruction, will not in any way improve things for Israel or for Israelis.



you always refer to traitors as being the real moderates. But who are those traitors in effective?


you don't get it. the term 'collaborator' MEANS moderate in many circumstances rather than 'traitor'. they are called 'collaborators' not because they provide intelligence to the Israelis or because they betray their 'countrymen' but because they advocate a point of view that is incompatible with the extrmist line - you know things like terrorirsm is wrong and that the palestinians should compromize and give up this fake right of return and other things. these, of course, "undermine the legitimate struggle of the palestinian People" and are thus easily classified by the PA et al as 'collaborators'.

Anyways, how do you reconcile the point of view that the PA was NEVER strong enough to deal with the terror groups (even though they didn't try) while they have ALWAYS had the resources to do all they could to find 'collaborators' who were providing Israeli information on these terrorist groups that Arafat refused to act against. Seems incompatible with your positions both that the PA was powerless and that the PA did not provide any support or assistance to the terror groups, no?



Like it or not, there is no political group more moderate in israeli society than the moderate wing of fatah. And perhaps they appeased the radicals, i agree this was a mistake (i mean in the 90's, today they can't do lost all their power to the radicals).


I've been saying this ALL ALONG, but you miss my second point that as 'moderate' as these people are within their own dysfunctional society, they are not really moderates at all, just less extreme than the other extremists. I have said repeatedly that peace is not possible in part because there are NO moderates on the Palestinian side, and even those few who exist are powerless against Arafat and his corrupt cabal.



They can do something against the extremists ( they are the only ones by the way who can stop them) but only in the propper conditions, it means if israel would agree to political talks on the highest level etc. much like in the 90's. I agree they missed an opportunity to deal with the radicals back then but it could be one of the steps in any further peace-agreement. But if there isn't any talk or agreement at all how do you expect to change the situation?


I expect to change the situation the way Israel is acting right now. giving in to the palestinians will only cause this exact cycle of fake peace followed by 'popular uprising' (lol) to repeat itself in the next few years.

A sea change must occur within palestinian society and the only way for that to happen is for them to see how destructive this fighting has been FOR THEM and how it HAS NOT HELPED them in any way and that they CAN STOP fighting whenever they are ready to actually disucuss behaving themselves. Until then - no ice cream (they want to act like petty little children fine - treat them as such).

Change the situation slowly over time - you and the 'peace' supporters love making things all or nothing - either peace or war, either full or zero compliance. Keep at the terrorist organizations while making more of a diplomatic effort to get the Europeans to actually be PRODUCTIVELY engaged rather than destructively engaged, ready the israeli population for a time when the Palestinians might actually decide to civilize themselves and enter into at least the 19th century and then just wait for that to happen. Until it happens no peace is really possible, so why do anything before this primary necessary condition is at least addressed and recognized by the palestinians and the Europeans.

[Canajew]

ok, but in that case Syria can strike at israeli military targets whenever it wants to. and perhaps it should, to put the issue of the Golan-heights back on the international table were it belongs.


and again, as I have said, Israel can then dismantle the Syrian military, both in Syria and Lebanon, destroy its capacity to fund and support terrorist organizations, and then maybe subvert the baathist regime in the hopes of some actual progressive Arab (I've heard about them, just never heard from any)

Or, Syria can just stop supporting terrorist groups, stop funding terrorists and stop providing haven for those who have adopted as a primary strategy the purposeful targeting of innocnets in crimes against humanity and this whole thing can be avoided. After this is done, Syria can then make an offer for REAL peace with Israel, with all that entails, in exchange for return of most if not all of the Golan Heights. Seems a better option to me, but the chances of anything like this actually happening are slim to none as long as Asad and his gang of thugs hold their boots on the necks of the Syrian people.



What should the syrians do in exchange for being returned their own territory? Recognise israel and stop supporting terrorism, that's about it.


they must stop supporting terrorist crimes against humanity FIRST, and that you cannot see this is a big part of yuor dysfunction. They should make real peace, recognizing Israel's right to exist and allowing trade and diplomatic relations and the rest in exchange for the land back. They cannot be permited to use terrorism and the threat of terrorism as a bargaining chip. Unacceptable.



Israel on its term must also recognise Syria by the way and its government.


of course.



aha! Now i got you! So your arguments are only appliable for one kind of countries but not for others, and one kind of civilians have a larger value than other civilians... So the countries you consider to be democracies can retaliate, others can't. Fine, well lebanon is a democracy, and next time israel attacks lebanon I assume you would agree with lebanon retaliating with the destruction an israeli base. Or you wouldn't make any objections if the democracy venezuela would retaliate against a us-training camp for supporting oppositional armed forces... By the way Dr. morgan didn't make such a distinction, for him the rule was universal.


no, you misunderstand. For a national government to be able to genuinely state that its actions were taken to protect its civilians, it must actually CARE about those civilians. If it did NOT care, the protestations would be disingenuous. So in the 17th century the governor of Georgia would not be able to credibly justify military action based on the other's treatment of blacks, as the Georgian government couldn't really have cared less about them except as 'productive resources'. this is what I'm saying. it doesn't affect the legality of the action, but it does prevent them from using this "I Care" justification when in reality they do not.

The rule is universal, I only raised the point of CREDIBILITY when making statements. To say you are doing something to protect X when in fact you hate X and everybody knows that you hate X and even X knows that you hate X is a disingenuous falsehood and while the actions may still be legal, the real justification for acting could not possibly have been the treatment of X, because again, you don't care about X and could not have been motivated by a desire to protect it.

See the difference?



ok, this means castro has right now, according to you, the right to attack oppositional training camps in Miami!


maybe. I have no real idea what you are talking about here, but were people launching attacks against Cuban civilians Castro would certainly have justification to try to stop them wherever they might be, and if they were targeting governemnt or military I would think the answer would not really change as every government has the right to fight back, no?

When exactly do you think that countries signed away their right to self defence?

But again, should Castro try such a thing it would be his funeral.



I generally prefere to read books and articles based on evidence instead of political propaganda. You made a lot of allegations indeed, but not once i saw a reference to prooves, sources, etc. is this available in the book, what are his sources, etc. this is all very important, as it is in the case of Sharon. (so i won't refere to him as war-criminal anymore, altough the indications against him are much stronger than in the case of Arafat) [/B]

they are all in the book, but as there are quite a few op cit I really didn't feel like playing a research assistant or a librarian for the day so I just omitted them. you want them you can buy or borrow that book. And the indications against Arafat are FAR STRONGER than those against Sharon. I recognize both while you wilfully blind yourself to an entire set.

[takeo]

oh my, you're so quick! You don't even leave me the time to answer all your replies.

[takeo]

they are not allies. Hamas and the PLO are allies - they have the same strategic goals. Netanyahu wasn't interested in 'destroying the peace process' he was interested in demonstrating the Palestinians had only fraudulently assented to it. And he was right.

Hamas and the pa aren't allies neither in goals nor in methods. Netanyahu never gave the palestinians a chance to proove their allegiance to the oslo-plan, he just blocked it, which of course made the position of Arafat weaker and Hamas's position a lot stronger. both hamas and netanyahu never believed in oslo, they were allies against oslo.



you can punish people for the acts of others. Conspiracy to commit murder is still a crime even though you didn't really DO anything to anyone. Wars are fought against a collective group of people based on what their GOVERNMENT does. This happens all the time and is perfectly acceptable where the actions to which you refer have wide support among the population and where the population actively seeks to aid those who commit such acts.

Israel would likely address the moral issue over time, and 20 years after a peace I could easily see something comming out of Israel that is VERY conciliatory, but the actions of the Palestinians in this whole thing cannot and should not be ignored. On a relative scale of immorality the Israelis don't even come close.

"collective punishment" is simply not acceptable, and the only time i applied it in my classroom people were very offended, and for good reasons. Each and every individual has his own ideas and does not necessarily agrees with the actions of his brothers.
Collective punishment is a very dangerous notion, used by hamas. According to sheik Yassin most israeli support the oppression of the palestinian people and israel acts as a collective group.

israel should base its actions on facts and realities and not on feelings or hate. palestinians have enough reasons to hate Israel which is partly why many people still refuse to recognise israel, feelings get in the way of real-politics.



the false symbol I was talking about was the fact that the al-aqsa mosque has nothing at all to do with the Koran. it was built in Jerusalem almost a century after Mohammed lived and died and it was called the al-aqsa mosque so that the guy who built it could claim religious authority for his power. In this was this is an invented fiction. It is not nearly as religious a site as they pretend it to be. That is the sybol, and that is what I would like them to address.

but what's the importance of this question? Today it's a muslim holy site, perhaps it isn't so important as they claim it to be, but it nevertheless is still a huge and very old symbol of the islamic world.




again, you miss my point. Barak offered for a fair number of 'returnees' and Arafat rejected this, still claiming a full right of return. And now that the palestinians have turned themselves into a cult of death paradise, that you cannot see that they might be viewed as undesirable by the Israelis is really not my problem.

again views and perceptions can't interfear with real-politics.



you seem to be missing the point that the Palestinians, through their widespread popular support for this suicide terror campaign, have completely obliterated any goodwill that the Israelis may have had, and that this goodwill cannot really be restored. they cannot come back because they are supporters and members of a society which is as immoral as possible.

this are just perceptions and barriers for real peace. perceptions and feelings don't count, on neither side. Do you think French people jubilated when Germany became an equal member of Europe? Still it was a necessary step in European unification, whatever horrendous crimes the Germans committed.



so you are talking of demolishing houses of suicide bombers and not those destroyed for actual tactical military reasons. But I still disagree, as Israel only adopted this policy AFTER foreign govenrments began paying bounty money to all families of suicide bombers who 'martyred' themselves to target Isareli civilians. Seems fair that israel can impose an economic penalty to counteract this payment for crimes against humanity - and where's your precious security counsel on that - isn't paying people to engage in crimes agaianst humanity in a aforeign country something within its jurisdiction and that it should pay attention to? But of course it is broken so it is oblivious.

the question of foreign governments paying the families doesn't allow israel to just destroy their houses! those families didn't choose to make their son or daughter a suicide-killer neither did they ask those governments to give them money.
By the way don't you see this policy is very counter-effective? it just creates more hate and more volunteers, not less, and many of the suicide-bombers or family-members who declared on record before their suicide that they were at first not really in favor of tsuch actions but once their house was destroyed they changed opinion. Either israel should just kill the entire family and burn down entire illages (as the Russians do) to really create fear, or it should not engage in such kind of inhuman actions at all. with such actions they only create hate, no fear.



israel is not really completely comparable to any country as it seems to be the only democracy which has had to constantly fight agaisnt enemies whose declared goal it was to destroy the state and kill or exile all of its inhabitants. That you don't see this creating any sorts of undertsandable exceptions to 'business as normal' is a problem.

GB never reacted the same way in northern Ireland, nor does Spain in basque country. IF they did it would have resulted in a general uprising.


And when fighting those who adopt war crimes and crimes against humanity as a FIRST option, lesser crimes can easily be justified based on proportionality. Especially when the 'judiciary' of international law constantly ignores all the crimes committed against israel. Part of the social compact of law is that each individual is entitled to the protection of that law. The fact that the international community has done nothing to protect Israel or punish the perpatrators of crimes against humanity vitiates somewhat the moral claim of the international community to extend jurisdiction on house demolitions and other far less serious events.

international law is impartial and equal for all. Israel has to respect it as well as other countries, and israel violating it puts it on the same level of its attackers. and by the way destroying houses has no strategical advantage for israel but it damages its international reputation, i don't see any advantages at all.

[takeo]

Israel's participation in the 1956 war was justified by - you guessed it - an Egyptian blocake of the straits of Tiran, not to mention the fact that in 1955 Egypt ramped up its sponsorship of 'fedayeen' terrorist raids into Israel. Just in this case other countries were also pissed off about its seizing of the Suez Canal and so Israel didn't have to go it alone. Israel achieved its objective by seizing Sharm el Shiek, breaking the blockade and then in the disengagement agreement agreeing to withdraw from the occupied portions of the Sinai as long as Egypt did not again block this international waterway. And when Egypt broke this agreement and made it abundantly clear that the next war would be a war of extermination, Israel took the whole Sinai, and only returned it when Egypt genuinely committed to not committing additional acts of war in the future.

actually in 1955 israel cooperated with the colonial powers Brittain and france who claimed the suez-channel for themselves, israel in other words cooperated with colonialism as it still does.


And what danholo said was bang on. You really should read the book he is talking about. While you will undoubtedly perceive the rigid academic integrity of the work to be wholly foreign to you and the 'authors' you like to base your assumptions on, it should be of quite a lot of value in getting you to at least SEE that there is a real side out there with REAL facts and REAL arguments, unlike yours with manufactured facts and faulty arguments (e.g. general assembly resolution X makes Y ILLEGAL - even though this is impossible)

i have not read the book so i can't comment on this. But your arguments in general lack facts and consistency (such as at one point you refere to "moral" reasons, which is only reserved for one party, and on other occasions you refere to laws and agreements, but only when those laws are usefull in your rethorics. When they're not, they're considered useless and not important. You made terror the center of your rethorics, but refuse to look beyond, from a palestinian point of view) . But to return to the post of danholo, what precisely did israel do to prevent a war? why exactly would waiting for the other side to attack (if ever, you can't know this nor could the israeli politicians in those times could have known) have been worse?




with respect, the opinion of the world doesn't really mater if you're dead and so international opinion doesn't really factor in here. Egypt did everything it could to posture for war, and if Israel believed Egypt and Nasser and responded, its Nasser's fault. Anyways, he did intend to carry though so all this is moot.

no, it isn't rethorics that make a war, as i say what would have been wrong with preparing for war but not actaully attacking (perhaps the attack would never have taken place)?
Nasser never attacked israel for decades but always threatened to do so, so after decades israel should have known it was just rethorics. Israel just ignored the possibility of a status-quo, and as i assume this was on purpose.



well gee, then maybe you should hold off making stupid comparissons of the Israelis to the Nazis. In this case criticizing Israel and being antisemetic is CLEARLY the same thing, as you impute Nazi motives to israeli actions.

yes, but whenever parallels are drawn between palestinians and nazi's you accept it? Both comparisons are stupid, but not anti-semitic.
People who compare israel's policy to nazi-germany one's obviously hate both, wich doesn't make them a nazi.



No it was not a reason (though admittedly gaining control over Jerusalem was a separate concern and partly driven by territorial ambitions - i.e. they have denied us access for so long, it would be great to fix that).

I think it was one of the main reasons behind the invasion.



maybe, but things are different today than they were in the 80s. had the Palestinians been interested in genuine peace (back then they still even Declared their goal to be Israel's destruction - now they only pretend that it isn't) then they would have had it at Camp David, but they were not and they have become the most depraved society on earth, so things have changed. Deal with it.

So actually finally you admit that israel wasn't interested in handing over the occupied territories in the 70's or 80's, and did never care to find a solution to end this problem (never sought international assistence for example).

palestinians refused camp david which means they or the israeli will have to come up with another plan, it's as simple!

please don't continue telling that palestinians are today LESS entitled to their rights than before the oslo-agreement, it's nonsense, and another barrier to reach peace.

Bomb them into submission as seems to be your preferate technique won't work. After many decades palestinians continued their resistance and the current israeli policy only makes the gap wider and the determination stronger.
Oppression instead of talks leads to chechen-like situations and will never end the conflict. Even in Turkish kurdistan the turkish hard-handed reaction only had temporary results, kurds continue to feel oppressed and use any method to harm to turkish state, the Kadek ended its cease-fire by the way.

the current policy is a road to nowhere, and it wll harden the palestinian position instead of making it any less reconciliotary.

You don't seem to believe the palestinians want peace with israel, they want the destruction of israel according to you, so a lack of trust is one of your largest problems. You also want to punish them for "past crimes" without ever thinking about how the palestinians might feel... you use this as another excuse not to negociate with them.
this negative attitude only leaces place to a kind of colonial submission, a situation which has never ever worked to calm down people and make them more moderate.

[takeo]

again, didn't you JUST mention that international law was paramount, and even under the most extreme circumstances you would still not allow for violations of international law? yet here you are, not two seconds later, suggesting to me that crimes against humanity should be permitted if Israel does not give the palestininas everything they want.

personally i'm in favor of an end to terror under all circumstances, even if Israel is clearly not interested in peace nor negociations. An end to the terror attacks will show the entire world the good intentions of the palestinians and if Israel would still refuse to negociate the entire blame would be put on Israel. <edited by moderator: support for terrorism> It will lead to huge amounts of casualties on the palestinian side, but i think it will have better results than the current unacceptable palestinian strategy. <edited by moderator: support for terrorism> this will cause a huge turmoil in israeli society and eventually will lead to the growing demand of the israeli society to end the occupation, completely. I'm more and more pessimistic of any real peace with this government, so the palestinians must change strategy.






the Plaestinians are not not not permitted to engage in attacks targeting civilians for death under ANY circumstances. The Israelis don't do it (and please don't come back with another lie) and there is no excuse for the palestinians to do it. How about this - every time there is an attempted suicide bombing Israel annexes a percentage of the west bank? So one violation flows directly from the more aggregious crime against humanity. Sounds fair, no?

No, it doesn't sound fair it's another collective punishment and it will only lead to inverse results. According to the palestinians the israeli are searching for excuses to continue the occupation, so it won't change their mind.


And your position really does make me sick - Palestinians should be allowed to massacre any Jews they want anywhere in the world so long as their demands are not met in full? I am starting to see what Mediocrates was feeling, though I would recommend administrative detention as a first resort.

no, what i said is that if the israeli want HELP against terrorism it should give in to international demands. That's not the same as supporting terrorism.



lies and misrepresentations. there was no ethnic clensing, organized or otherwise, absent a few particular circumstances which were dependent on security and defensive issues (while, of course, Israelis were fighting not to be exterminated) there was no foprcible deportation of any population. Most Palestinians ran because of Arab propaganda about rapes and the like, because they were told to, or because they were afraid even before they had seen any israeli forces. the rape accounts were were complete lies, of course, but you would, i assume, either believe the lies to be true or would pretend those lies were never uttered in the first place.

this is a matter of facts and historical research. there is overwelming evidence that israel, directly and indirectly, ressorted to etnic cleansing in 1948. People don't leave their homes for no reason. As i said i just heard in a documentory that the israeli cleansed all the villages near haifa where the inhabitants had an anti-zionist record, this seems to have been the policy everywhere. and even the ones who fled violence, do you think it was morally and legally correct to deny them the return to their home after the war? Of course it wasn't, this was a crimes against over a million of people and the main reason why israel could not reconcile with its Arab neighbours after the war. Israel began the war as a victim of Arab violence but ended the war as the bad guys, responsible for massive etnic cleansing. israel never offered those people to return, perhaps during rethorics, but never effectively. And please don't use the Arab refusal to recognise israel as an excuse, it isn't. Israel could have taken those refugees independant of the policy of other Arab nations, it was their moral duty. Since that day israel is morally equivalent to other countries who conducted massive etnic cleansing. And yes israel had been attacked first, but this is no legitimation to take revenge against those civilians and deny them their rights and property.



I don't care. time and circumstance change things. the barabrity of the Arabs in general and the Plaestininas in particular has vitiated any rights that they may or may not have had. Deal with it and get back to me on a functional peace proposal, otherwise stop wasting my time.

If you don't care about their rights no use to talk at all, the weapons will talk instead. That's exactly why i do no longer believe in peace with this government. I'm all for the intifadeh, but not for its strategy to target civilians and resort to collective punishment of the entire population.


And that you would wilfully ignore the fact that war crimes were the standard routine practice for the Arab armies and that genocide has always been a central goal of theirs and of the Plaestinians seriously undermines any credibility you might have had (not that you would have had much, your arguments are seriously defficient qua arguemnts).


How do you know? You seem to assume things you don't know at all, relying on propaganda. please stop the propaganda, you can't possibly proove that palestinians want a genocide against israel. And yes war-crimes have been committed by arab armies, but by israel as well (there might be a difference in magnitude, still both committed warcrimes)




what the f is the matter with you? No really? Some sort of mental disturbance? Abuse as a child? Exclusion from your preferred social group? Abandonment by a parent figure (maybe a Jewish one?)

Again you are undermining your own credibility by resorting to the same kind of abuses you told me and others not to resort to, for example personal insults.


What could make someone so broken? I mean, you're not nearly as stupid as most other leftists, but you are still fundamentally broken. You believe that palestinians should be allowed to purposely target Jewish children but Israel should not target those who would target these children. You believe that international law is paramount and rail against 'collective punishment' yet you support the most collective form of punishment of all - targteing for death random civilians. You say you want peace but are completely unwilling to contemplate the most basic compromises which would be necessary in order to bring peace about. you are an intellecual fraud and while it has taken me more time to see it than others here, I have seen it.

I never supported terrorism against civilians, that's your own interpretation as many things are your own interpretation which just isn't the same as real facts...



And if the PA doesn't 'help' Israel then it has outlived its usefulness as an Israeli creation (it was created, to FIGHT terrorism, if you recall back to Oslo) and should be completely destroyed and Arafat either killed or arrested and tried Eichmann-style.

i would really support just a trial, on the condition that israel's leaders would be convicted as well for decades of occupation and etnic cleansing.



I don't care what you mean. Preventing entry is a good way to stop terrorists from entering. Stop the terrorists and something can be worked out, but for you to suggest that Israel should just pretend this exercise in depravity and barbarism never happened is beyond retarded.

but you act as if the immigrants are all of them terrorists, which is prooved to be a major lie.


He doesn't like countries that sponsor democracy, liberty and freedom of speech. He'd rather defend North Korea, like ANSWER, because they are "victims of American imperialism" (in other words: Rhetorical bull@#$%) and accuse Israel and America of all the mistakes they made but not the deliberate actions and neglect for humanity by Arab regimes or other POS countries.

You don't care at all for democracy, liberty and freedom of speech, if not you wouldn't support the latest crime against iraq, which was clearly inspired by a small group of hawks with giant interests and not by the public opinion (except in the us where most of the media is tied to the republican regime).
And you can not install a democracy by foreign intervention, the case of iraq makes this, once again, sufficiently clear. Besides the us was never interested in democracy anywhere in the world, they supported 100's of the most cruel dictatorships, among which in South-korea... so the words "democracy, freedom of speech and liberty" are just meaningless propaganda if it comes from defenders of the American policy.

[takeo]

I would assume its similar to all those who, from a distance, supported facism in the 30s and 40s and communism in the 30s 40s 50s and 60s. Some sort of internalized anger or feeling of of alienation, though from what I can see of the reactionary left it has much to do with feelings of belonging and wanting to impress elements of a (similarly ignorant) peer group. Or maybe its just some clinical form of dementia.

:rolleyes:
Millions of people are communist and continue to be communist, and those are mostly very normal people with an everyday life and normal jobs. It's not because in Northern America the term "communism" has such an evil image as a result of years of indoctrination that it's the same everywhere in the world. I have recently been to Georgia and it wouldn't be exaggerated to call 90% of the population communist, in fact anyone except the new maffia.
In Italy the communist party was the only one NOT engaged in massive corruption and the largest party in parliament which never had a chance to be a part of the government (guess who was behind it?) and untill today communism in Italy, as well as in Spain where the communist fought the regime of Franco while the us supported it since the 50's, has an excellent image. the same is true in latin America, where communism for most people is equal to liberation of the current pseudo-democratic governments ruled by the upper class (such as recently in Bolvia).
By the way social-democracy and communism have very common goals, only the tactics are different.

[Mediocrates]

You have been narc'd.

[danholo]

Originally posted by takeo:
it just creates more hate and more volunteers, not less, and many of the suicide-bombers or family-members who declared on record before their suicide that they were at first not really in favor of tsuch actions but once their house was destroyed they changed opinion.

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

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

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
Hamas and the pa aren't allies neither in goals nor in methods. Netanyahu never gave the palestinians a chance to proove their allegiance to the oslo-plan, he just blocked it, which of course made the position of Arafat weaker and Hamas's position a lot stronger. both hamas and netanyahu never believed in oslo, they were allies against oslo.


Hamas and the PA ARE allies in goals and even in methods, the only real difference is that Hamas is more dierect about what it wants and what it is prepared to do. And on a spectrum from allies to enemies, it is quite evident that Hamas and the PA are closer to being allies while Netanyahu and hamas are clearly enemies along almost every ground. Each wants the other destroyed unconditionally - hardly seem like allies.



"collective punishment" is simply not acceptable, and the only time i applied it in my classroom people were very offended, and for good reasons. Each and every individual has his own ideas and does not necessarily agrees with the actions of his brothers.
Collective punishment is a very dangerous notion, used by hamas. According to sheik Yassin most israeli support the oppression of the palestinian people and israel acts as a collective group.


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



israel should base its actions on facts and realities and not on feelings or hate. palestinians have enough reasons to hate Israel which is partly why many people still refuse to recognise israel, feelings get in the way of real-politics.


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



but what's the importance of this question? Today it's a muslim holy site, perhaps it isn't so important as they claim it to be, but it nevertheless is still a huge and very old symbol of the islamic world.


yes I know, and I have always been able to compromise on this, but my point was that the Palestinians and Arabs seem to love manufacturing false facts and inculcating false beliefs in their population. Why should israel bend to these false facts as soon as the palestinians internalize them - seems to reward dishonesty which is in general not the way to go.



again views and perceptions can't interfear with real-politics.


then why wont the PA crack down on terrorists? Real-politics requires this as a precondition to independence, and the sooner they act the sooner they can get results.

Also, note how quickly and effectively the 'dismantled' PA security apparatus arrested suspects in the bombing of Americans in Gaza and note that they never act this way when the target was children in Israel - this puts images to the lie that the PA is helpless to do anything to intercept, prevent or arrest terrorist attacks.



this are just perceptions and barriers for real peace. perceptions and feelings don't count, on neither side.


so then there is no reason for the palestinians to 'return' to Israel, as their perceptions and feelings don't count and in law they are entitled to no such thing.



Do you think French people jubilated when Germany became an equal member of Europe? Still it was a necessary step in European unification, whatever horrendous crimes the Germans committed.


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



the question of foreign governments paying the families doesn't allow israel to just destroy their houses! those families didn't choose to make their son or daughter a suicide-killer neither did they ask those governments to give them money.


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



By the way don't you see this policy is very counter-effective? it just creates more hate and more volunteers, not less, and many of the suicide-bombers or family-members who declared on record before their suicide that they were at first not really in favor of tsuch actions but once their house was destroyed they changed opinion.


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

{QUOTE]
Either israel should just kill the entire family and burn down entire illages (as the Russians do) to really create fear, or it should not engage in such kind of inhuman actions at all. with such actions they only create hate, no fear.
[/QUOTE]

not nearly 'inhuman', but no matter. It is not about creating fear, it is about credibly demonstrating that their actions which impose negative externalities on isareli civilians will necessarily also have a negative impact on their families. And hatred is created more by the PA and its media apparatus than by anything isarel actually does or omits to do. Israel makes sure that NO ONE starves and in Jenin provided all different sorts of services while it was searching for militants (during the "massacre") and of course got no credit for doing anything nice, so why should it do anything nice in the future when anything it does will just be portrayed as weakness by the PA and its media.



GB never reacted the same way in northern Ireland, nor does Spain in basque country. IF they did it would have resulted in a general uprising.


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



international law is impartial and equal for all.


no its not. Inasmuch as the security council makes laws and inasmuch as this is a flawed institution which has demonstrated its willingness to hone in on the most minor of Israeli violations while ignoring the VAST majority of attrocious Arab and Palestinian violations, internatyional law is NOT applied equally to all and is therefore not at all impartial.



Israel has to respect it as well as other countries, and israel violating it puts it on the same level of its attackers.


not true. Again contrast murder with j-walking.



and by the way destroying houses has no strategical advantage for israel but it damages its international reputation, i don't see any advantages at all.

you don't need to. the Israeli government's strategists have determined it is a good policy, and as they are far better versed on the facts as they exist I would put my faith in their opinion before yours.

[Lowell]

Originally posted by takeo
:rolleyes:

By the way social-democracy and communism have very common goals, only the tactics are different.

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

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by takeo
personally i'm in favor of an end to terror under all circumstances, even if Israel is clearly not interested in peace nor negociations. An end to the terror attacks will show the entire world the good intentions of the palestinians and if Israel would still refuse to negociate the entire blame would be put on Israel. Once this happened the palestinians are free to attack israeli military, political targets anywhere in Israel and i would say, anywhere in the world. And the palestinian could restart their intifadeh in the original sence throwing stones and targetting israeli military, as during the first weeks of the intifadeh. It will lead to huge amounts of casualties on the palestinian side, but i think it will have better results than the current unacceptable palestinian strategy. Also the israeli palestinians should be engaged in this intifadeh and start with massive protests and aid the palestinians in their intifadeh, as during the first weeks of the second intifadeh. israeli palestinians would also be an excellent help in the targetting of military targets anywhere in Israel. this will cause a huge turmoil in israeli society and eventually will lead to the growing demand of the israeli society to end the occupation, completely. I'm more and more pessimistic of any real peace with this government, so the palestinians must change strategy.

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

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

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

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


No, it doesn't sound fair it's another collective punishment and it will only lead to inverse results. According to the palestinians the israeli are searching for excuses to continue the occupation, so it won't change their mind.

Of course, after all the lies you take what the Palestinians' leaders say on faith...


no, what i said is that if the israeli want HELP against terrorism it should give in to international demands. That's not the same as supporting terrorism.

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

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


this is a matter of facts and historical research. there is overwelming evidence that israel, directly and indirectly, ressorted to etnic cleansing in 1948. People don't leave their homes for no reason. As i said i just heard in a documentory that the israeli cleansed all the villages near haifa where the inhabitants had an anti-zionist record, this seems to have been the policy everywhere. and even the ones who fled violence, do you think it was morally and legally correct to deny them the return to their home after the war? Of course it wasn't, this was a crimes against over a million of people and the main reason why israel could not reconcile with its Arab neighbours after the war. Israel began the war as a victim of Arab violence but ended the war as the bad guys, responsible for massive etnic cleansing. israel never offered those people to return, perhaps during rethorics, but never effectively. And please don't use the Arab refusal to recognise israel as an excuse, it isn't. Israel could have taken those refugees independant of the policy of other Arab nations, it was their moral duty. Since that day israel is morally equivalent to other countries who conducted massive etnic cleansing. And yes israel had been attacked first, but this is no legitimation to take revenge against those civilians and deny them their rights and property.

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

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

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


If you don't care about their rights no use to talk at all, the weapons will talk instead. That's exactly why i do no longer believe in peace with this government. I'm all for the intifadeh, but not for its strategy to target civilians and resort to collective punishment of the entire population.

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

At what point would you admit that killing Israeli civilians, and dancing in the street to celebrate it, is what the Palestinians are all about?

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


How do you know? You seem to assume things you don't know at all, relying on propaganda. please stop the propaganda, you can't possibly proove that palestinians want a genocide against israel. And yes war-crimes have been committed by arab armies, but by israel as well (there might be a difference in magnitude, still both committed warcrimes)

Admittedly, you are an expert on propaganda. You sound more like Comical Ali than a rational human.


I never supported terrorism against civilians, that's your own interpretation as many things are your own interpretation which just isn't the same as real facts...

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


You don't care at all for democracy, liberty and freedom of speech, if not you wouldn't support the latest crime against iraq, which was clearly inspired by a small group of hawks with giant interests and not by the public opinion (except in the us where most of the media is tied to the republican regime).
And you can not install a democracy by foreign intervention, the case of iraq makes this, once again, sufficiently clear. Besides the us was never interested in democracy anywhere in the world, they supported 100's of the most cruel dictatorships, among which in South-korea... so the words "democracy, freedom of speech and liberty" are just meaningless propaganda if it comes from defenders of the American policy.

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

Your view of the world is perverted. Fortunately, there are few people sufficiently insane to pay any attention to your backwards-thought.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by takeo
:rolleyes:
Millions of people are communist and continue to be communist, and those are mostly very normal people with an everyday life and normal jobs. It's not because in Northern America the term "communism" has such an evil image as a result of years of indoctrination that it's the same everywhere in the world. I have recently been to Georgia and it wouldn't be exaggerated to call 90% of the population communist, in fact anyone except the new maffia.
In Italy the communist party was the only one NOT engaged in massive corruption and the largest party in parliament which never had a chance to be a part of the government (guess who was behind it?) and untill today communism in Italy, as well as in Spain where the communist fought the regime of Franco while the us supported it since the 50's, has an excellent image. the same is true in latin America, where communism for most people is equal to liberation of the current pseudo-democratic governments ruled by the upper class (such as recently in Bolvia).
By the way social-democracy and communism have very common goals, only the tactics are different.

You have even outdone yourself this time, Takeo.

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

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

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

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

Get a life: Marxism is for losers.

[takeo]

Fa la la la la. you avoid confronting the terrorism that I put right in front of you while at the same time making some nonesense statement about love and peace and understanding, like its supposed to form by magic or some other fanciful inkling in people's minds. You say well the Israelis should get over their gross sense of betrayal and violation, while you never really say the Plaestinians should do the same with, for example, their made up 'right' of retun, or their desire to ethnically clense the wb of Jews.

the palestinians should get over their sence of betrayal and violation, that's right, but only if their rights are restored. the same way israeli will only get over their sence of betrayal and violation once terrorism stops.
By the way, the colonists living in the WB are no legitimate citizens, so removing them from their illegal settlements isn't etnic cleansing.




you are right, of course, with your perscription (why don't we all just get along ), but without specifying how this is to come about it is nothing more than fanciful guesswork. And since you have rejected all of the observations regarding the casues of this conflict that do not put all of the blame on Israel, your solutions are unlikely to be remotely successful. I have been trying to propose lots of problems that need attention. you reject all that have to do with the dysfunction within Plaestinina society, and you magnify and exploit all those relating to Israeli failings, reversing causes and effects, manipulating time-lines and introducing things you know or ought to know are lies in order to support your unsupportable positions.

I don't put all of the blame on israel, many Arab and palestinian decisions made things worse, i have admitted this in the past (as well as many israeli decisions) . But you on the other hand should stop blaming the palestinians for everything, and most importantly look at what israel can do to improve the situation. And the israeli government is in a much more powerfull situation than the palestinians currently.
I'm not reversing cause and effect, but it's not really the most important question who started first. The question is did palestinians responded appropriately to israeli decisions and vice-versa? in fact the blame question isn't important, both sides are to blame, what's important is what could we do next to improve the situation? both parties have an attitude of "they started first, so they have to make the first move" Well it doesn't work like this, a peace-process is a living proces, it needs both sides to engage equally and at the same time. if the only israeli reaction is bombing, closures etc. than for sure the palestinians won't change either and both sides are digging in, that's what happens currently and this policy doesn't have a solution.




Also, where such srimes against humanity are SUPPORTED, both tacitly and actively, by a majority of the population, then surely the population, while not necessarily responsible for such actions, is certainly in need of being accountable for the organizations it puts in the field. And given that 70%+ of the palestininas supported suicide bombing against civilians in 2002, surely 'collective' punishment becomes less of a concern, especially when such punishment is economic or restrictive in nature rather than physical violence. Because they hope to gain from such terrorism (which they clearly do) and they support the actual commission of terrorist acts, therefore it is legitimate to otherwise harm their interests in response to such attacks.

this is a twisted logic, on both sides. since the palestinians think that the majority of israeli support sharon's government and occupation it makes it easier for them to support collective punishment. but it's wrong, you can not target the entire population.



no they are not. I steal your bike. You rape my wife. You were, pre-rape, entitled to the return of your bike and damages, but after your conduct you are not really 'entitled' to anything anymore, other than a viscious beating.

it's not comparable, what israel did was stealing their houses and belongings...
still even after i riped your wife i would still have the right to have my bike back, and we both would be convicted in court, you for stealing, i for rape...



ok. Jerusalem is in Israeli territory and this YOU cannot change. So what now? A pissing contest?

no it isn't, only western jerusalem is Israeli territory, the other part is occupied.


How about this. you recognize for a tiny little second that the Plaestinians must respect the holy sites of others. Now how can you ensure they do so? israel has been as respectful of Muslim religious sites as could possibly be hoped (Arab propaganda notwithstanding - more lies) while the Arabs desacrated Jewish holy sites both in pre-1967 Arab occupied Jerusalem (all of it was illegally occupied back then you know) and in the west bank since the launch of this war. they also, after being given authority over the temple mount, started building more underground mosques ON TOP OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS SITES.

The Jewish religious site should be part of any deal signed, and any israeli citizen should have the right to visit it.


You think this should be dealt with in an agreement and that the Palestinians should be held to a proper standard, or is this another situation where you think Israel should just 'trust' the palestinians to do what's right?

see above...



says who? They were and are armistance lines. At the time a final peace agreement is signed the border between these nations will be deliniated. until then the border is 'disputed' and the occupied territories 'disputed' as well. Israel has the best legal claim on these lands (comparred to Jordan, Egypt and every other sovereign nation) while the Palestinians have the best moral claim (as a right to self determination in areas where they are both disenfranchized and a minority).

Israel doesn't have any legal claim on these lands. And as i said the un recognised israel in its armitice line borders, which makes it the official border of israel.


But the final borders must take into account Israeli security concerns, and the palestinians must accept a limit on troops and armaments. You would disagree on 'natural justice' grounds, I assume. Spell it out for me.

If the palestinians would accept a limit on troops and armaments, i might agree, on the condition that israel demilitarises its part of the border as well and signs a non-aggression threaty with the palestinians. You can't make one-sided unequal threaties.
The final borders can be changed, but only if israel gives land in return. And from a security point of view it might be very wise to dismantle most of the settlements, which are practically indefendable from israel.


maybe but for this to be a possibility there must be negotiation, and for there to be negotiation, the palestinians must permanently give up violence against civilians and indeed all violence as strategic alternative options. Unless they do so Israel will not make peace with them and they will not get anything they want. And Israelis use more water and their land is far more productive because their farming techniques are better and their businesses are run better. While land choice and quality would, I assume, also play a role, maybe even a significant role, to imply that just comparing X to Y is proper is disingenuous.

the problem is that settltments were established in the most fertile areas, so it's not just better techniques. And also they receive more water supply than the palestinian areas, which is another deliberate choice and not a consequence of better techniques (besides its not fair to compare the techniques since palestinians do not have acces to capital or technology whereas the settlers do have such access)



yes it would. if Kuwait had launched THOUSANDS of attacks against Iraqi civilians, Iraq would have been fully justified in responding and indeed occupying the area until they agreed to stop.

fine, it means Iraq should receive a part of kouweit, the us and gb launched attacks from kouweit against iraqi civilian infrastructure on many occasions.


And what are you talking about with reference to kuwaiti attacks on Iraq? I haven't heard anything about that, but remain open to the possibility. I do not pretend that my 'allies' are nice people when they clearly are not. thus my position on France, for example.

kouweit personally didn't, but it allowed others to do it from its territory, which is about the same thing as you stated yourself.



well too bad for them then. Terrorism is a crime against humanity. they must stop this if they want their land back. they don't stop, they don't get. Its as easy to undertsand as this, and you takeo, renound for your views on the infallability and inviolability of international law, surely see that crimes against humanity cannot under any circumstances be rewarded, and that these crimes must be punished by the international community and repeatedly condemned by the UN security council. But of course only Israeli violations count, however minor, while Arab violations never do, no matter how aggregious.

but on the other hand israel must stop the occupation if it wants peace, you see it's a cycle...

[takeo]

As for civil rights no Arab anywhere else in the middle east has nearly as many civil rights as Israeli Arabs. not one. None have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion (in Saudi Arabia Shiites are treated, "like Jews" and Arab Christians may not have bibles). None have the right to vote, none have the right to freedom from rampant government corruption which is equivalent (in effect) to expropriating homes.
None have really any civilian rights at all, at least as the term 'civilian rights' usually applies.

lebanese citizens have more civil rights than arab israeli, who do not have equal rights as jewish citizens of israel in some areas. So clearly once again your rethorics is based on perceptions and general propaganda rather than on facts.




Torture, which you so like to point out Israel used to do, is no longer practiced by Israel because the Supreme Court said it was not acceptable and Israel is governed by the rule of law. In contrast, even 'moderate' countries like Jordan employ the most barbaric of torture techniques, and the United States has 'outsourced' some of its torture work that would not pass muster in the American Courts (where standards are LOWER than in Israel) to Jordan. And Jordan is nothing when compared to Egypt, Saudi Arabis, Syria or any of the other tin pan dictatorships that dot the region.

ok, but compared to other western democracies the human-rights situation in israel and the us is much worse. (such as arrests without trial, etc.)



no it is not. It is clear evidence that brainwashing and forcefeeding a captive population on hatred and dehuminization of the other, as Arafat has done unabated since he established control over the PA and its media in 1993, will succedd in making these people and their society into a backwater of intolerance and oppression. Israeli Arabs are in a better state because they were not taught by their leaders to hate, to kill, to destroy. They were tought to get an education and enjoy a quality of life that would be unavailable to them anywhere else in the middle east. AND ALL BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T TRY TO KILL ALL THE JEWS.

But palestinians started to hate the israeli long before 1993, because they were oppressed by israel. While the israeli palestinians got more chances and were treated with respect. It's not just propaganda you know, people are smarter, they react according to their own personal experiences, which were good in the case of the israeli palestinians and very bad in the case of the other palestinians in the occupied territories.

[danholo]

Originally posted by takeo:
And also they receive more water supply than the palestinian areas, which is another deliberate choice and not a consequence of better techniques (besides its not fair to compare the techniques since palestinians do not have acces to capital or technology whereas the settlers do have such access)

When living standards become higher, water consumption increases - a lot. This is a fact. Israeli living standards, settlers included, are much higher then those of the Palestinians, thus why Israelis are given more water by quantity and percentage wise.

Palestinians are not starving nor are they dying of thirst and it is the PA's position to provide these people with water in the first place - instead they provide funding for those who blow up people. On the other hand Israeli and Palestinian water resources have been the only area which has not been effected during the intifada and still both experience co-operation. Nobody's short on water although its scarce and Israel has even used its own resources to provide water for Palestinians.

As I see it, the water question is merely a propaganda tool against Israel to claim that "it's stealing water" just in the mind of deligitimizing Israel's existence. If not, I have no idea what the purpose for these accusations is. But Israel is not stealing water nor has the PA even made accusations because of this.

[takeo]

an entire part of my response got lost.

let's just summarise:

European position towards Arab and Middle Eastern countries resulted in better bilateral relations and almost no terrorist attacks against Europe. Our (and the clinton-administration's) policy towards iran led to the rise of the moderate khatami who wants to democratise and reform his country, while the current us-approach led to a renewed radicalisation.
we fully understand since colonialism that involvement is not the same as interfearance and that European interfearance was in fact nothing more than a pretext for economical and geo-political interests and had negative consequences for the colonised society, the same for current us-interfearance (let alone israeli interfearance...). Democratic evolution can only come from inside the society and this won't happen by bombing the country into submission or imposing economic sanctions, quite on the contrary. democratisation needs a peacefull stable international environment to succeed, perhaps another reason why the middle East remains infested with dictators. the us-invasion of iraq has resulted in terrorism, anarchy, civil war and fundamentalism, as we all expected, and not in democratisation.

But we however never effectively supported dictatorships by training their troups and militia and giving them military support as the us did on many occasions (guatemala, Turkey, etc. )

i reminded you that hassan II of morocco was a ruthless and corrupted dictator supported by the us (and you too apparently, which makes your condemnation of libian human rights-abuses, certainly not any worse than in morocco, hypocritical) His son appears to be more oriented towards Europe and is less autoritarian and cruel, yet of course he's still a dictator.

[danholo]

European position towards Arab and Middle Eastern countries resulted in better bilateral relations and almost no terrorist attacks against Europe.

Yeah.. And it's very important just to have stability and bilateral relations with despots so Europe can be "unharmed". It's nice to have these relations while the Arabs are still suffering from oppression by their rulers. I find European and US appeasement of Arab regimes sickening - and I have no idea how the situation can be fixed. I sure hope Iraq will work, just for the sake of the Arabs. Am I the only one that really cares?!

[sharonbn]

takeo,

I want to remind you that support for terrorism counts as a violation of the rules of IsraelForum. You may express your opinions and criticism of the Israeli gov't and policy, but under no circumctances will you be allowed to call for violence against civilians.

I found it necessary to edit one of your posts here, on which you stated your support for Pal terrorism.

I urge you to consider your words carefully.

sharonbn, moderator

[Mediocrates]

So in Short:

European bias against Israel and generally institutionalized antisemtism.

Good for Europe, good for Arab states.

The Remedy for the Future?


More of the same, of course.



Hassan II - superdoubleplus ungood Bad Guy. Supported by USI (United States of Infidels).

All the other Arab monsters supported by EUistan. ..... I refer you to my prior answer.


I'm sorry that I don't have time to write 10 or 20 thousand sweet sounding lies around that so as to give it the shroud of respectibility, but I'm rather short of time today.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
personally i'm in favor of an end to terror under all circumstances, even if Israel is clearly not interested in peace nor negociations. An end to the terror attacks will show the entire world the good intentions of the palestinians and if Israel would still refuse to negociate the entire blame would be put on Israel. <edited by moderator: support for terrorism> It will lead to huge amounts of casualties on the palestinian side, but i think it will have better results than the current unacceptable palestinian strategy. <edited by moderator: support for terrorism> this will cause a huge turmoil in israeli society and eventually will lead to the growing demand of the israeli society to end the occupation, completely. I'm more and more pessimistic of any real peace with this government, so the palestinians must change strategy.


while I am not entiely happy about having to stand up for takeo's position, I feel it important to note that the <edited by moderator: support for terrorism>[/COLOR] (Note: I put in this red part, it was not censored from my post) sections were not really support for terrorism at all. takeo called for continued violence against military and political targets, and while this is certainly not my position and I do not support takeo's assertion that this is the correct approach, and in fact I think it rather foolish and EXTREMELY counter-productive, this is not terrorism and it seems a violation of principles to censor these portions on the grounds of 'support for terrorism' when in fact no such terrorism was advocated or supported in these statements.

He should be as entitled to make these statements as I am to say that Israel should take out every single Plaestinian military, paramilitary and terrorist organization and that Israel should completely destroy the entire Syrian military and political apparatus.

I am not allowed to call for the butcher of palestininas (nor do I at all want to), and no one should be permitted to call for the butcher of Israeli civilians (and I do note that takeo, while rejecting my assertion that he has made such statements, has indeed made several statements in this thread which advocate international non-interference with palestinian terrorist crimes against humanity and advocating that the PA should, in effect, use terrorism as a bargaining chip in wresting compliance from Israel).

But the particular statements that were excised from his text do not appear to consitute terrorism by any sort of objective definition of the term, and the censoring of these portions seems unfounded.

Our arguments are far stronger than his, we do not need to misrepresent and omit portions of his to make ours seem better.

[Canajew]

takeo, how do you deal with this fact:

On August 3, 2000, The New York Times published a story by reporter John Burns, headlined "Palestinian Summer Camps Offer Games at War."

"Last summer," (meaning the summer of 2000 - BEFORE CAMP DAVID FAILED) Burns wrote, "some 27,000 Palestinian children participated in the camps, where they receive weeks of training in guerrilla warfare, including operation of firearms and mock kidnappings of Israeli leaders. A common theme in the camps was preparation for armed conflict: 'slitting the throats of Israelis' is one of the children's exercises at these camps."

Fighting broke out only later, on September 30.

Given this (and the story I got the above quotes from is at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1066287148796&p=1006953079897 but the Times Article is no longer available), do you not see the face put to the lie that the Plaestininas were involved in a 'spontaneous uprising' and that the PA had not prepared for such an event?

Training 27,000 kids at 'war games' summer camps is hardly a demonstration of goodwill towards Israel, especially while the 'peace process' was ongoing. From this it is easier to see that this 'peace process' was really nothing of the sort but an opportunity for Arafat and his followers to prepare for another stage of their war. While this piece of information is hardly 'proof' of anything (other than the depravity of the PA but we already knew that) it is another piece of information which makes up the larger body which constitutes such proof.

Incitiement is the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed ex ante before another 'peace process' is entered into.

[takeo]

I want to remind you that support for terrorism counts as a violation of the rules of IsraelForum. You may express your opinions and criticism of the Israeli gov't and policy, but under no circumctances will you be allowed to call for violence against civilians.


exactly where, in which sentence, did i support terrorism against civilians and what part did you edit and, more importantly, how do you consider this to be a call for terror against civilians? I think i have the right to know why, and to criticise your decision if I didn't support terrorism against civilians, wich is apparently the case.
I called for violence against israel's military and political institutions as long as it takes to end the occupations, and I clearly condemned all terrorist acts against civilians.

I would also like to remind you that some members here constantly violate the rules of the forum by constant personal insults (which i choose not to answer or return), racist insults against Arabs and other people, and direct calls for genocide, etnic cleansing or violence against civilians. (for example lomplighter or gilgameSS). Most of them have not been censored, while my call for violence against israel's military and political institutions, NOT civilians, has been censored. this seems like a double standard, since it's obvious you have more personal sympathy for people supporting the extermination of palestinians than for people supporting an intifadeh WITHOUT harming civilians. This leaves me no other choice than to conclude that you're only interested in applying the rules of the road when it serves your personal preferences. Actually I haven't violated the rules at all, I just made some bold statements which weren't calls for violence against civilians but nevertheless bothered you.
I wouldn't mind to be censored if i made an insult or another violation (it happened before) but it really bothers me in an unfair case like this one. It's the first time it happens to me (altough yehudi and others already complained to me about this) and I hope it will be restored and i will receive an apology if not it seriously undermines the impartial credibility of this forum. Untill know i was really surprised and positive about the fact that this forum allows free speech for all, even if the majority of the administrators consist of ultra-right wing hawks, which is reflected in the articles on israelforum and their personal posts. This makes this forum more valuable and interesting than other ones dealing with the same subject.



Hassan II - superdoubleplus ungood Bad Guy. Supported by USI (United States of Infidels).

All the other Arab monsters supported by EUistan. ..... I refer you to my prior answer.


I'm sorry that I don't have time to write 10 or 20 thousand sweet sounding lies around that so as to give it the shroud of respectibility, but I'm rather short of time today.

so in fact you don't care at all... in this case stop blaming Europe!



while I am not entiely happy about having to stand up for takeo's position, I feel it important to note that the <edited by moderator: support for terrorism>[/COLOR] (Note: I put in this red part, it was not censored from my post) sections were not really support for terrorism at all. takeo called for continued violence against military and political targets, and while this is certainly not my position and I do not support takeo's assertion that this is the correct approach, and in fact I think it rather foolish and EXTREMELY counter-productive, this is not terrorism and it seems a violation of principles to censor these portions on the grounds of 'support for terrorism' when in fact no such terrorism was advocated or supported in these statements.

thank you canajew for your intellectual honesty which stands above your personal opinion.



I am not allowed to call for the butcher of palestininas (nor do I at all want to), and no one should be permitted to call for the butcher of Israeli civilians (and I do note that takeo, while rejecting my assertion that he has made such statements, has indeed made several statements in this thread which advocate international non-interference with palestinian terrorist crimes against humanity and advocating that the PA should, in effect, use terrorism as a bargaining chip in wresting compliance from Israel).

no, i just said that if Israel want help from the international community or the pa, it should change its current policy. it's not the same as supporting terrorism and it's not even my own opinion, which was demonstrated in the censored post.



"Last summer," (meaning the summer of 2000 - BEFORE CAMP DAVID FAILED) Burns wrote, "some 27,000 Palestinian children participated in the camps, where they receive weeks of training in guerrilla warfare, including operation of firearms and mock kidnappings of Israeli leaders. A common theme in the camps was preparation for armed conflict: 'slitting the throats of Israelis' is one of the children's exercises at these camps."

Well, it's an indication that palestinians were preparing for the intifadeh, but what's the value of this source (i mean how credible is it)? Anyway when i was there i had the general impression that serious trouble was ahead, and so did many palestinians i talked with, except the officials of the PA.


Given this (and the story I got the above quotes from is at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satell...p=1006953079897 but the Times Article is no longer available), do you not see the face put to the lie that the Plaestininas were involved in a 'spontaneous uprising' and that the PA had not prepared for such an event?

this should be seriously investigated by people who haven't already made up their conclusion. still if you see how it started you can bet on it that it started without any preparation or organisation. But perhaps you're right that the pa not only did nothing to prevent it, but encouraged it. But i'm very confident that the PA did never prepared for suicide bombers, all of which were conducted by people hostile to the pa.


Training 27,000 kids at 'war games' summer camps is hardly a demonstration of goodwill towards Israel, especially while the 'peace process' was ongoing. From this it is easier to see that this 'peace process' was really nothing of the sort but an opportunity for Arafat and his followers to prepare for another stage of their war. While this piece of information is hardly 'proof' of anything (other than the depravity of the PA but we already knew that) it is another piece of information which makes up the larger body which constitutes such proof.

I think that the failure of Camp david led to the conclusion, generally in the palestinian society and leadership, that israel would never give them what they want without another intifadeh. as barak made it clear that they wouldn't get any more than what has been offered in Camp david.


Incitiement is the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed ex ante before another 'peace process' is entered into.

But incitement isn't the core problem, and i think i'm in a good position to know, since i've been there exactly one year before the outbreak of the new intifadeh. people were really fed up with Oslo, that couldn't fullfill the great promises made in the 90's. That's why the position of the PA was seriously crambling and its popularity plumetting. the mood in the streets was that the pa, and their institutions, including the media, were bought by israel and too moderate. They didn't believe palestinian state media ranting on about the positive results of oslo. It's clear something was needed to restore the prestige of the PA and perhaps that's the reason Arafat had hard demands (rightly so i think) in camp david which were not fullfilled, to avoid another failure like oslo, and that's probably the reason why the pa joined and/or encouraged the uprising after the failure of camp david.


Yeah.. And it's very important just to have stability and bilateral relations with despots so Europe can be "unharmed". It's nice to have these relations while the Arabs are still suffering from oppression by their rulers. I find European and US appeasement of Arab regimes sickening - and I have no idea how the situation can be fixed. I sure hope Iraq will work, just for the sake of the Arabs. Am I the only one that really cares?!


it's an internal Arab affair and really noone in the Arab world asks the us, Europe and even less Israel to interfere. By the way the most of Arab dictators are supported by the us as well (to name a few, the king of morocco and jordan, Saoudi Arabia, Mubarak, kouweit, Oman, Emirates, etc.) while the only democracy in the Arab world is frown upon by the US and Israel (Lebanon)
Iraq won't work, I'm sure, colonialism failed already in the past, because foreign powers are never really interested in the wellbeing or opinon of the occupied regions. Afghanistan failed as well, and Kosovo or somalia failed as well. Foreign intervention is only possible if the society itself came to a conclusion supported by the majority and asks for foreign support to help them in this devellopment.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
actually in 1955 israel cooperated with the colonial powers Brittain and france who claimed the suez-channel for themselves, israel in other words cooperated with colonialism as it still does.


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

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



i have not read the book so i can't comment on this.


you really should. It's the first of its kind which depends on wonderful documentation and goes into the relationship between Nasser and his militayr chief in more detail than has ever appeared elsewhere.



But your arguments in general lack facts and consistency (such as at one point you refere to "moral" reasons, which is only reserved for one party, and on other occasions you refere to laws and agreements, but only when those laws are usefull in your rethorics.


while it may appear to you that this kind of thing constitutes a lack of consistency, it is not so. I am not, nor have I ever really been, an absolutist. Sometimes law is the proper baseline, while sometimes ethics is. I believe that the Palestinians are entitled to their own state on moral grounds (i.e. a right to self determination in those areas where they are not Israeli citizens and constitute a majority of the inhabitants). This is not a legal argument, as in law I do not believe that IN LAW they are entitled to anything.

I tend to use law not so much to prove the validity of something but only in RESPONSE TO those who make arguments that the law in fact made those actions illegal and thus illegitimate. If you argue that something is illegal it is perfectly legitimate to point out that this is not so and that in fact the law supports my side.

But ultimately both laws and morality matter. Laws include legislation, international treaties, customary laws like the law of the sea, and the case law which forms the precedent base. Where, however, 'laws' are based on obviously flawed processes, I will point this out in order to demonstrate that such laws should not be given as much weight in argument as other, more validly enacted laws.

Anyways, I don't remember ever voting to allow the international legality of an action depend on the will of ther communist party of China and the Baathist party in Syria. Before the security council gets real legitimacy this type of issue needs to be addressed. I have less problem with being bound by the consennsus of the democratic world than the consensus of a bunch of dictators and despots.

And with respect to the Syrians, th Egyptians etc., international law was CLEARLY on the side of Israel in making war and in violating their sovereign integrity or whatever, and in this case it is not hard at all to use the law, as the law is in this area as plainly evident as could be, while in other areas where things are more difficult to determine from a legal point of view (like whether the territories are occupied or disputed - I think they are both) morality becomes more of an issue in settling things in the grey area.

Does this distinction help at all?



When they're not, they're considered useless and not important. You made terror the center of your rethorics, but refuse to look beyond, from a palestinian point of view) . But to return to the post of danholo, what precisely did israel do to prevent a war? why exactly would waiting for the other side to attack (if ever, you can't know this nor could the israeli politicians in those times could have known) have been worse?


my response would just be to quote from the book that danholo mentioned. You really should read it, the narrative is quite better than anything that had ever been released before.



no, it isn't rethorics that make a war, as i say what would have been wrong with preparing for war but not actaully attacking (perhaps the attack would never have taken place)?
Nasser never attacked israel for decades but always threatened to do so, so after decades israel should have known it was just rethorics. Israel just ignored the possibility of a status-quo, and as i assume this was on purpose.


again, your assumption is wrong, but I do not think it my place to summarize facts from readily available texts. You lack an understanding of Israeli knowledge and beliefs at the time, and you must want to inform yourself in order to better understand, so I would suggest reading the book. Agaian Michael Oren, Six Days of War: The Reshaping of the Modern Middle East (and the book is not blindly pro-Israel - the author calls it as he sees it by an evaluation of the evidence.)



yes, but whenever parallels are drawn between palestinians and nazi's you accept it? Both comparisons are stupid, but not anti-semitic.


but here's the interesting thing - many comparissons between the Palestinians and the Nazis ARE quite apt. They both have as a central feature the most rabid of antisemitism, they both involve the mass propagandizing of entire populations into the most racist of mental frameworks, and they both wanted, ultimately, to kill all the Jews. Plus, of course, many of the palestinians' beliefs and views were shaped by the relationship between the Mufti and Hitler, as Arafat based many of his philosophies and doctrines on the Mufti and his beliefs and actions.



People who compare israel's policy to nazi-germany one's obviously hate both, wich doesn't make them a nazi.


I don't get this What are you trying to say? It doesn't make them a nazi, it makes then an intellectually dishonest potential antisemite, at worst, and a radically misinformed outside observer at best.



I think it was one of the main reasons behind the invasion.


well, so try to inform yourself better and maybe this can change. Without reading the best history of this recent conflict ever made available, your views would constitute no more than mere speculation, and why should these speculated positions be given any weight?



So actually finally you admit that israel wasn't interested in handing over the occupied territories in the 70's or 80's, and did never care to find a solution to end this problem (never sought international assistence for example).


no, what I said was that firstly the Israelis could not have done anything with the PLO, as the PLO was a worldwide terrorist group. Israel wanted to deal with Jordan and Egypt but they refused, so israel was stuck with no one to deal with. And there was 'international assistance' in the 'resolution' of the 56 conflict, but they were demonstrated to be suieless as when Nasser told them to leave so that he could invade, they left. Not quite the kind of thing to install a sense of confidence in international assistance, no?



palestinians refused camp david which means they or the israeli will have to come up with another plan, it's as simple!


or the Palestinians will have to WAKE UP TO REAL LIFE and actually prepare themselves to COMPROMISE on something.



please don't continue telling that palestinians are today LESS entitled to their rights than before the oslo-agreement, it's nonsense, and another barrier to reach peace.


inasmuch as the Palestininas base their claims on moral grounds (which they do as their legal claims are not particularly strong) their subsequent immorality will have an impact on what they are entitled to. Had there been no fighting after 48 and the Israelis still kicked these people out, they would have a better case for returning than if they had actively supported the invading Arab armies no? (not implying this was the case - only trying to demonstrate the interaction between moral actions and moral entitlements).

And you may like to call it a barrier to peace, but you must understand that Israelis will not and should not have to contemplate taking in a bunch of depraved Palestininas. Maybe 10 or 20 years after the conflict is resolved but certainly not up front. It wouldn't be 'practicable' and therefore is not required by law.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
[B]personally i'm in favor of an end to terror under all circumstances, even if Israel is clearly not interested in peace nor negociations. An end to the terror attacks will show the entire world the good intentions of the palestinians and if Israel would still refuse to negociate the entire blame would be put on Israel. <edited by moderator: support for terrorism> It will lead to huge amounts of casualties on the palestinian side, but i think it will have better results than the current unacceptable palestinian strategy. <edited by moderator: support for terrorism> this will cause a huge turmoil in israeli society and eventually will lead to the growing demand of the israeli society to end the occupation, completely. I'm more and more pessimistic of any real peace with this government, so the palestinians must change strategy.


did you ever think that concilliationn and an appeal to Israelis inherent humanity would be the best strategy to adopt, and if not, why not, based on the large level of support the pace camp had during even the bad days of Oslo?

The strategy you propose will only allow the demon that you believe sharon to be to do all different sorts of things to set back the cause that you seem to advocate.

If peace is indeed possible, it will ultimately depend on the Palestininas and whether they are prepared to act like civilized human beings and to give up their desire to 'liberate all of historic palestine'.



No, it doesn't sound fair it's another collective punishment and it will only lead to inverse results. According to the palestinians the israeli are searching for excuses to continue the occupation, so it won't change their mind.


well its not about changing minds - especially where the enemy media is doing all it can to make sure any 'change of minds' are in the direction they want only.

It's also not collective punishment if these lands are uninhabited, if they were inhabited I would completely agree with you, but if the land is barren or uninhabited then it belongs to the govenrment and ALL the people, and thus it is the PERFECT mechanism for holding societies collectively accountable for their collective actions. Thus it is not the terrorism in itself which would provide justification for this (as the terrorists themselves are particular people and groups) but rather the widespread popular support, both through words and actions, which makes the society collectively accountable for the positions it espouses and thus makes collective accountability with a mechanism like this quite appealing from a normative justice perspective.



no, what i said is that if the israeli want HELP against terrorism it should give in to international demands. That's not the same as supporting terrorism.


no, what you saud was that the terrorists should be ALLOWED to engage in terrorism and that the international community and the PA should do nothing to stop it. While you may be able to justify PA non-intervention (but not really), your position with respect to international support essentially says that the international community should allow collective punishment (the death penalty no less) for non compliance by the government of Israel with their dictats. There should be help against terrorism targteed against civilians NO MATTER WHAT, from both the PA and from the international community.

And while you have not 'supported terrorism' and I don't think I said this, you do support ALLOWING terrorism, and this is in effect the same thing.



this is a matter of facts and historical research. there is overwelming evidence that israel, directly and indirectly, ressorted to etnic cleansing in 1948. People don't leave their homes for no reason.


but of course you must be able to recognize that were they to have fled because of the lies that were spread about rapes, because of lies about fictional massacres, because of calls for evacuation by Arab mayors and the like were not 'ethnically clensed' and thus the quantity of people must be removed from the equation as these people were not ethnically clensed (like the Jews in Hebron were, for example, but I'll digress)



As i said i just heard in a documentory that the israeli cleansed all the villages near haifa where the inhabitants had an anti-zionist record, this seems to have been the policy everywhere.


seems, of ocurse based on Arab propaganda. I am not of the belief that no such things occured, especially where the local population was, as you said, hostile to the Zionists while at the same time those same zionists were in militarily undefensible positions and at real risk of extermination, but this widespread phenomenon that you describe is a complete fiction.



and even the ones who fled violence, do you think it was morally and legally correct to deny them the return to their home after the war?


if there was a recognition of Israel's right top exist, peace agreements and a real cessation of hostilities, then I would say yes, but as this was not the case, my answer is no. The war might have been technocally ended by the armistance, but there was no recognition of Israel, teh foreign countries reserved their beligerency rights and Israel was still in a dangerous position. Also, of course, Israel was kept quite busy integrating the almost one million Jews that were terrorized and ethnically clensed from the Arab world.



Of course it wasn't, this was a crimes against over a million of people


this is an out and out lie. The estimates of number of refugees ranged from about 450,000 to about 800,000, so talk of more than a million is a clear lie. Further, as you must exclude all those who left for reasons I listed above and only focus on thsoe forced from their homes by israel, this numkber becomes much much smaller, I would guess less than 100,000, which is far less than the number of jews kicked out of Arab countries.



and the main reason why israel could not reconcile with its Arab neighbours after the war. Israel began the war as a victim of Arab violence but ended the war as the bad guys, responsible for massive etnic cleansing. israel never offered those people to return, perhaps during rethorics, but never effectively. And please don't use the Arab refusal to recognise israel as an excuse, it isn't. Israel could have taken those refugees independant of the policy of other Arab nations, it was their moral duty. Since that day israel is morally equivalent to other countries who conducted massive etnic cleansing. And yes israel had been attacked first, but this is no legitimation to take revenge against those civilians and deny them their rights and property.


whatever. To many falsehoods and ignored facts in here to attempt coherent response. Would take far too long.

[QUOTE]
If you don't care about their rights no use to talk at all, the weapons will talk instead. That's exactly why i do no longer believe in peace with this government. I'm all for the intifadeh, but not for its strategy to target civilians and resort to collective punishment of the entire population.
[/UOTE]

but these two things are EXACTLY the same thing. The 'intifadeh' is all about targeting civilians and it always has been. To support one necessarily entails support of the other.

[Canajew]

Bomb them into submission as seems to be your preferate technique won't work.


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



After many decades palestinians continued their resistance and the current israeli policy only makes the gap wider and the determination stronger.


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



Oppression instead of talks leads to chechen-like situations and will never end the conflict. Even in Turkish kurdistan the turkish hard-handed reaction only had temporary results, kurds continue to feel oppressed and use any method to harm to turkish state, the Kadek ended its cease-fire by the way.


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



the current policy is a road to nowhere, and it wll harden the palestinian position instead of making it any less reconciliotary.


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



You don't seem to believe the palestinians want peace with israel, they want the destruction of israel according to you, so a lack of trust is one of your largest problems. You also want to punish them for "past crimes" without ever thinking about how the palestinians might feel... you use this as another excuse not to negociate with them.


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



this negative attitude only leaces place to a kind of colonial submission, a situation which has never ever worked to calm down people and make them more moderate.

This negative attitude leads to a proper assessment of the situation. Wishful thinking and willful blindness may make for a more politically correct view of the conflict, but sometimes it is very imprtant to call things as they are, and assess things without reliance on such wilful distortions of reality.

[Canajew]

How do you know? You seem to assume things you don't know at all, relying on propaganda. please stop the propaganda, you can't possibly proove that palestinians want a genocide against israel. And yes war-crimes have been committed by arab armies, but by israel as well (there might be a difference in magnitude, still both committed warcrimes)


the goal of the war was to kikll or kick out all the Jews. The Palestinina leadership was not only a staunch supported orf this, but the Palestinina leadership's position was that this was not extreme ENOUGH and that the Jews should all be exterminated. The Mufti had many of the same positions on the Jews as Hitler, and his people followed his will (or he would kill them, but from the position of an outsider at risk, this point doesn't really matter).



Again you are undermining your own credibility by resorting to the same kind of abuses you told me and others not to resort to, for example personal insults.


sorry. The support for terrorism stuff was too much. That, when coupled with the 'arguments' which you put forward set me off.



I never supported terrorism against civilians, that's your own interpretation as many things are your own interpretation which just isn't the same as real facts...


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



i would really support just a trial, on the condition that israel's leaders would be convicted as well for decades of occupation and etnic cleansing.


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



but you act as if the immigrants are all of them terrorists, which is prooved to be a major lie.


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

Terrorist hide among civlians. Unless the government of those civilians stoip this practice, the Israeli govenrnment must assume that terrorists will attempt to infiltrate in every civilian entry and must act accordingly. They are not all terrorists, but unless I can tell the difference I don't really care.



You don't care at all for democracy, liberty and freedom of speech, if not you wouldn't support the latest crime against iraq,


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



which was clearly inspired by a small group of hawks with giant interests and not by the public opinion (except in the us where most of the media is tied to the republican regime).


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



And you can not install a democracy by foreign intervention, the case of iraq makes this, once again, sufficiently clear. Besides the us was never interested in democracy anywhere in the world, they supported 100's of the most cruel dictatorships, among which in South-korea... so the words "democracy, freedom of speech and liberty" are just meaningless propaganda if it comes from defenders of the American policy. [/B]

first, democracy was forcible imposed in Germany, Japan, Italy and other places after WWII. Second, I have not been a supporter of American actions to support dictators and I criticize this sort of thing fairly often. I am not a blind supporter of the Americans as you are of the Americans and Israelis enemies. Talk of democracy was indeed just propaganda from American policy makers in the 50s and 60s and 70s, but hopefully Clinton changed that and now the Americans will slowly but surely gravitate away from suppoprt for corrupt oppresive despots. This is not only a wise foreign poliucy move, but is really the only moral position to have. To propose that despots and tyrants continue to be allowed to oppress their subjects is hardly a more moral position than support for American backing of these regimes.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
:rolleyes:
Millions of people are communist and continue to be communist, and those are mostly very normal people with an everyday life and normal jobs. It's not because in Northern America the term "communism" has such an evil image as a result of years of indoctrination that it's the same everywhere in the world. I have recently been to Georgia and it wouldn't be exaggerated to call 90% of the population communist, in fact anyone except the new maffia.
In Italy the communist party was the only one NOT engaged in massive corruption and the largest party in parliament which never had a chance to be a part of the government (guess who was behind it?) and untill today communism in Italy, as well as in Spain where the communist fought the regime of Franco while the us supported it since the 50's, has an excellent image. the same is true in latin America, where communism for most people is equal to liberation of the current pseudo-democratic governments ruled by the upper class (such as recently in Bolvia).
By the way social-democracy and communism have very common goals, only the tactics are different.

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

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

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

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

[Mediocrates]

To give an overall sense of takeo's world:

http://nas.org/forum_blogger/forum_archives/2003_09_28_nasof_arch.htm

Edward Said's Dishonest Career (posted 10-13-03)

Edward Alexander, writing for the National Association of Scholars (Oct. 2, 2003):


Edward Said, longtime professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University, prolific author of "cultural" literary criticism and political polemic, former member of the Palestine National Council and advisor to Yasser Arafat, died in New York on 25 September 2003 at age 67.

If enormous influence in the academic world is a reliable indicator of intellectual distinction, then Said merited his reputation as one of America's intellectual eminences; but if reputation attests mainly to the irresistible attraction of foolish ideas, he did not. Said taught a whole generation of English professors to search for racism in writers (like Jane Austen) who did not think as the professors do. He induced a generation of Middle East scholars not only to believe that "since the time of Homer...every European, in what he could say about the Orient, was a racist, an imperialist" but to ridicule "speculations about the latest conspiracy to blow up buildings, sabotage commercial airliners and poison water supplies" as "highly exaggerated [racial] stereotyping" (this in a statement of 1997). By Said the Israel "specialists" in the political science departments were taught that "Immediately after the state of Israel was declared in 1948, every major Arab state -- Syria, Jordan, Egypt -- petitioned Israel for peace" and that after 1967 "Israel's occupation increased in severity and outright cruelty, more than rivalling all other military occupations in modern history."

His acolytes also found meat and drink in Said's pristinely ignorant and intellectually violent pronouncements about Jews. They are not, he claimed, really a people at all because Moses was an Egyptian (he wasn't) and because Jewish identity in the Diaspora is entirely a function of external persecution. The Holocaust (which destroyed most of the potential citizens of a Jewish state) was in Said's estimation a great boon to Jews because it served to "protect" Palestinian Jews "with the world's compassion." Prior to 1948, he asserted, "the historical duration of a Jewish state [in "Palestine"] was a sixty-year period two millennia ago." (In fact, as any normally attentive Sunday-school student knows, Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel lasted a thousand years.) Said's recitation of preposterous falsehoods about Judaism and Israel, so far from alienating Jewish liberals, seemed to be a magnet for them. Indeed, no troubler of Zion has ever been more justified than Said in claiming that many (at times it seemed all) of his best friends were Jews, ranging from the Israeli pianist Daniel Barenboim to the apoplectic scribbler of anti-Israel diatribes, Noam Chomsky....

Said's intense hostility to America also powerfully influenced that sizable contingent of our academics whose motto is "the other country, right or wrong." He called Operation Iraqi Freedom the crusade of an "avenging Judeo-Christian god of war," fitting into the pattern of America "reducing whole peoples, countries and even continents to ruin by nothing short of holocaust." And, as usual, he blamed the Jews for what he hated: "The Perles and Wolfowitzes of this country" have led America into a war "planned by a docile professionalized staff in ... Washington and Tel Aviv" and publicly defended by "Ari Fleischer (who I believe is an Israeli citizen)." (A New York Post journalist who attempted to find the source of Said's phony claim about Fleischer located it in the website of the White Aryan Resistance Movement.)

Far from making him an untouchable, Said's past membership in an international terrorist organization, his Disneyland versions of history, his thinly-veiled antisemitism and blatant anti-Americanism made him a star in the academic, literary, and intellectual worlds. He was elected president of the Modern Language Association; made a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences; adored by NPR and BBC; given countless awards, honors, visiting lectureships; and newspapers like the New York Times, the Guardian, and Ha'aretz were in thrall to him.

Said's career in his last years seemed to lurch from scandal to scandal. In the September 1999 issue of Commentary (see also the Summer 2000 issue of Academic Questions), Justus Reid Weiner revealed that Said had "adjusted" the facts of his life to create a personal myth, often told and poignantly embellished, to fit the myth of Arab dispossession. For decades he had presented himself as an exile, an Arab who grew up in Jerusalem but who, at age twelve, when Israel was established, was (along with his family) driven out of the Talbiyeh neighborhood of Jerusalem. In fact, as Weiner massively documented and irrefutably demonstrated, Said's tragic tale was largely a fabrication. He grew up in a wealthy section of Cairo, son of a Palestinian Arab who emigrated to the U. S. in 1911, became an American citizen, then moved to Egypt. Said was educated in Egypt, not Jerusalem. His family occasionally visited cousins in Jerusalem, and Said was born during one such visit in 1935.

[danholo]

Originally posted by takeo
it's an internal Arab affair and really noone in the Arab world asks the us, Europe and even less Israel to interfere. By the way the most of Arab dictators are supported by the us as well (to name a few, the king of morocco and jordan, Saoudi Arabia, Mubarak, kouweit, Oman, Emirates, etc.) while the only democracy in the Arab world is frown upon by the US and Israel (Lebanon)
Iraq won't work, I'm sure, colonialism failed already in the past, because foreign powers are never really interested in the wellbeing or opinon of the occupied regions. Afghanistan failed as well, and Kosovo or somalia failed as well. Foreign intervention is only possible if the society itself came to a conclusion supported by the majority and asks for foreign support to help them in this devellopment.

The problem with colonialism is that the colonialist country, who started an aggressive war with conquest in mind, sends its own civilian population to the conquered lands to settle there. America is not doing this. It is an undeniable fact that the Iraqis could have never achieved freedom with Saddam in power. If you can't acknowledge this fact, I can't help you. Unfortunately, for Arabs, this is extremely humiliating and most, if not all, of the "resistance" is carried out by B'athists and other foreign Islamists who want to either restore the former fascist regime or an Islamist hellhole - and you are rooting for these people and you claim to want "peace" and "advocate human rights"!!! If you would, you'd be on Israel's side in their respective conflict with the Arabs.

Now since America is attempting to set up a democratic society, extremely difficult in Iraq because they have no exprience with democacy or liberalism and, contrary to your beliefs, because doing otherwise would be disasterous to the US. Claiming the opposite shows mainly racism that Americans are complete idiots and have no concern for their own well-being or future of their children. While I mostly side with democrats I'm glad to see the congress passing the bill that will give tons of money for the reconstruction of Iraq. Those who voted for it, were an overwhelming majority, and positively so.

It's easy to say that the US is "imperialist" and Bush wants to "colonize" but doing that would be immensely counterproductive and those who are in power - the people - would never accept this sort of policy and because US is a real democracy, like Israel and France and unlike Lebanon, the President just can't do anything he pleases. The US has, unfortunately, appeased despots during the Cold War, and I am glad to see it is trying to disengage from this sort of behavior, and you should too, while your country is doing exactly the opposite.

[Canajew]

takeo,

you have mentioned on several occassions that the right of return should be granted by Israel in part because so few Plaestinians wish to avail themselves of this right were it made avaiable. What follows is a media analysis of the study which was conducted which arrived at that result.

As can clearly be seen from the reported results, the implications which you and others try to draw from this study are incorrect, and this would, I think, require you to reassess your position vis-a-vis this 'right of return'. You cannot credibly say that few Plaestininas would wish to avail themselves of this right, and you also would not be able to credibly say that these Palestinians who wish to return genuinely wish to integrate inot Israeli society.



Firm on 'right of return'
Oct 19, 2003
By MAX ABRAHMS
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1066481750421&p=1006953079865

Just as the self-proclaimed new historians burst onto the scene in the late 1980s, the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research's (PSR) July 2003 poll purported to upend the conventional understanding of the Palestinian refugee problem. The PSR poll, widely covered in the international media, surveyed 4,506 refugees living in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Jordan, and Lebanon regarding their attitudes toward the so-called right of return.

According to Dr. Khalil Shikaki, the renowned director of this Ramallah-based institute, while almost all Palestinian refugees (95 percent) want the "right of return," only a small minority (10 percent) wishes to actually "exercise" this option by moving to Israel.

Since "granting the right of return would in no way, shape, or form affect the demographic balance in Israel," Shikaki reasoned, "Israel can recognize the right [of return]."

From The Wall Street Journal to the International Herald Tribune, the political Right and Left gave his claims copious hearings and even accepted them as fact.

Shikaki's optimistic assertion that the Palestinian demand to relocate to Israel was largely a figment of the imagination dovetailed perfectly with the false euphoria surrounding the halcyon days of the road map.

If the right of return has an easy fix, then perhaps so too do the other "final-status issues," which can be held peacefully in abeyance, or better yet, resolved instantaneously through a single pollster's magical wand of enlightenment.

Yet Shikaki's provocative claims wilt upon closer inspection. The problem begins with the pollsters' methodology. Specifically, the framing of the poll makes relocating to Israel an unattractive prospect for the refugees since it stipulates a priori that only a "small number" of them will be allowed to "return," and that the fortunate few may have to wait "several years."

In another variation of the poll, Shikaki finds that only 1 percent of the respondents want to "return" to Israel. The catch is that the question stipulates that they would have to become "Israeli citizens." Clearly, these preconditions are anathema to the refugee population, helping to account for why such a small percentage of the respondents chose to exercise the right of return by moving to pre-1967 Israeli borders.

CONVERSELY, THE respondents who chose to settle outside the Green Line believed that in exchange they would receive unrealistically generous amounts of financial compensation. Of those who opted for financial compensation over relocating to Israel, two-thirds of the respondents assumed they were entitled to anywhere between $100,000 and half a million dollars – a wildly inflated sum.

Other data from Shikaki's poll are even more damaging to his thesis that "the Israelis can comfortably recognize the right of return without taking many risks."

When asked if there are circumstances in which "you would live with Israeli Jews in peace, security, and reconciliation," only 20% of the respondents from the West Bank and Gaza said "yes," while more than 79% said "no."

Furthermore, less than half of the respondents said that they would "live in peace in the Jewish state and respect Israeli law," upon "exercising" the "right of return."

Interestingly, these two questions have been entirely omitted from the translated copy of the poll posted on his organization's official Web site.

These figures are particularly worrisome since it is unlikely that the 95% of the respondents who agreed with the statement that the "right of return is a sacred right that can never be given up" are disinterested in exercising this demand as Shikaki claims. In fact, the term "sacred right" is code for Palestinian opposition to setting limits on relocating to Israel.

At Taba, Yasser Arafat said that his people could not accept compensation over relocation precisely because the "right of return" is "a sacred right." Similarly, Arafat's senior advisor, Nabil Shaath, told reporters after Taba broke down that the Palestinian negotiators could not restrict the refugees from moving to Israel because the refugee issue is a "sacred right."

Hence, while Shikaki may say that the 95% of the respondents who believe the right of return is a "sacred right" only want it to be recognized in principle, the Palestinian negotiators evidently use the term quite differently.

One can only assume that the respondents interpreted the term "sacred right" in the same manner as their leaders, denoting a commitment to move to Israel.

As such, the poll fails to show that if the Palestinians obtain the right of return, they would not one day decide to use it.

The writer, a Soref Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, specializes in US-Israeli relations and the Arab-Israeli conflict. This article is taken from a longer study in the current edition of the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
the palestinians should get over their sence of betrayal and violation, that's right, but only if their rights are restored.


but of course there you go again with the loaded term 'rights' which mean one thing in real life and another thing entirely for the plaestininas and their supporters. Given what they believe their 'rights' to be, what you propose above is impossible. Their 'rights' as they (mis)perceive them to be, can never be 'restored' (not that they actually existed in the first place).



the same way israeli will only get over their sence of betrayal and violation once terrorism stops.


will they? why should they? Ask yourself this: what changes within Palestinian society would be necessary for the Israelis to forgive what the palestininas have both done to the Israelis and said about the Israelis (i.e. all the hateful Propoaganda about the Jews). The israelis and Jews have come quite a long way in forgiving the Germans for what they did (not all Jews, of course, but I would suggest most Jews, while not all loving of all things German, surely recognize and treat Germans as potentially good people) but that was only possible because of the responsibility Germans took for their collective actions and because of the changes which were undertaken, both through external and internal pressures, with regards to German culture and beliefs. Were the Germany fo today to have the same ideologies, practices and beliefs of the Germany of 1944, I would suggest that the Jews would be no more forgiving or understanding of the Germans as they were in 1945.

Similarly with the Palestininas, if they do not change their cult of death martyrdom culture they will never be forgiven by the Israelis - and there seems little prospect of them ever doing this on their own. As a result, your little paradigm breaks down completely.

After answering this question, the next question is: what do you think the likelihood of ANY of these above things happening, EVEN IF the Palestinians were to gain some form of independence tomorrow. 'Why do you believe this' is also important in this context, as, again, the magical 'we'll all get along in the end' bit is insufficient.



By the way, the colonists living in the WB are no legitimate citizens, so removing them from their illegal settlements isn't etnic cleansing.


depends how you look at it - the Second and third generation people who were born and grew up in these settlements would indeed be ethnically clensed were you to force their removal.

Also, what sort of time factor do you have implicit in your calculus. Why were "Plaestinians" who moved to mandatory Plaestine in the 1930s as economic migrants entitled to live there (according to your fictional right of return) - they only lived there for at most 18 years before Israel was created and they left - while a Jewish settler who has lived in the west bank for 30 years not similalry entitled to such a 'right'?

I don't really agree either party is entitled or disentitled by virtue of this ground, but I would like you to map out this distinction for me because I'm pretty sure I don't buy it. Were an economic migrant from Syria entitled to a right of return after moving to Israel in 1944 (as they would according to your conception of the right of return and the UNRWA's definition of refugee) it seems that it must necessarily follow that a Jew who has lived in the west bank all his or her life would be entitled to AT LEAST AS MUCH as this economic migrant.

Also, how would you address the 'right of retun' of Jews to Hebron and other places from which they were forcibly expelled in the 20s and beyond?



I don't put all of the blame on israel, many Arab and palestinian decisions made things worse, i have admitted this in the past (as well as many israeli decisions) . But you on the other hand should stop blaming the palestinians for everything, and most importantly look at what israel can do to improve the situation.


from what i can see, the only way for Israel to 'make things better' is to more forcefully fight this war against the palestinina terrorists and others who seek israel's destruction. What you suggest Israel do would not make things better and would not make a solution more likely.

And everything really is the Palestininas fault in this particular manifestation of the conflict. They aimed to start a war, they propagandized their people into virulent automatons and then they launched their dirty little war. And all for 2% of the west bank and a right to flood Israel with millions of fake refugees. Israel didn't give in, but this hardly makes it Israel's fault. but to be fair I guess it is not ALL the Palestinians' fault - much of the blame falls on the rest of the Arab world too for locking Palestinian refugees into little camps, denying them employment and opportunity, and for inculcating them with the same virulent hatred that they have been teaching their own people since the 1040s.



And the israeli government is in a much more powerfull situation than the palestinians currently.


A little strange, for a communist, but you seem to not undertsand what it means to have power. Part of the reason imposing communism on populations and governments was so easy was because, while governments may have had the military power, the real power rested with the people (or a particular subset thereof) and this power allowed them to impose their wills on others.

Similarly with this conflict, you seem to lack the basic understanding that the power of the PA to inculcate this virulent cult of death is the same thing as the power to stop the peace process. For no matter what Israel does, this rabid hatred allows an effective veto for the Palestininas of all possible alternatives. So really the Palestinians have all the real power, while israel only has the power to appease the palestininas and get them to not exercise their veto by whipping their people into a frenzy. ultimately it is Palestinina rejectionism which has always proven to be the real barrier to any sort of compromise, and Israel has no power to eliminate this rejectionism, only the palestininas do.

And it would be naive to suggest that if only Israel treated the Palestinians better they would reciprocate with less hatred. this is untrue as has been demonstrated time and time again. Israel can say all it wants and it can do all it wants, but its actions and its motives will be misrepresented by the PA and its media and the Palestinians will again reject meaningful overtures. With a power base which consists of the miseducated and iognorant Palestinian masses, the real power in this conflict lies with the palestinians. unfortunately they have decided that their power would be best used in an effort to destroy Israel rather than in building a free prosperous state of their own.

[Canajew]

I'm not reversing cause and effect, but it's not really the most important question who started first.


you do reverse cause and effect every time you ascribe Palestinian actions to israeli RESPONSES to those actions. It just doesn't work that way.

And who started it first, I agree, is not of central importance, but it becomes important when a proper assessment of the situation is to be made, and where policy perscriptions are necessarily dependent on the facts as they exist. Incitement and terrorism, which were not a response to occupation at all but a response to israel's existence (as is clearly demonstraterd by looking at timelines and WHO STARTED everything) must be stopped FIRST. unless this happens the Israelis will not make peace as any 'peace' which the palestinians propose will be either unenforcable by the PA or will not be a genuine offer of genuine peace. The order of events matters just as much as precision of language. The idea is to arrive at the proper assessemnt of facts and then perscribe solutions based on these facts.



The question is did palestinians responded appropriately to israeli decisions and vice-versa? in fact the blame question isn't important, both sides are to blame


one line on this 'blame game' - this is the same type of fiction as the perported 'cycle of violence' - it is not really a cycle at all rather it is based on the goals and methods of a hostile foreign entity whose declared goal it is the desatruction of Israel (i.e. Hamas et al). they act and Israel does all it can to prevent them from acting. I know the Palestinians like acting and being treated like children, but this really is their fault, and the longer no one calls them on it the longer they will go on fouling their own nest.



what's important is what could we do next to improve the situation?


that's exactly right. And the best way to improve the situation is for the PA to try to defuse the time bomb which they embedded in their population. they didn't need oty propagandize to hatred another generation of Palestininas - they decided it would be best for them to do so. This time bomb of hatred and propaganda must be addressed first, terrorism must be both condemend and prevented, the PA media must start treating crimes against humanity as bad things (go figure) and then peace can be worked out. isarel and Israelis have been preparing themselves for peace for a long time. the palestininas never have. Try dealing with this without addressing these issues which i mentioned and let me know where you get. Without these being dealt with ex ante - as well as other things like explaining to the palestinians that they have been lied to by their leaders for decades about the imaginary right of return - peace will not be possible. israeli actions are meant to protect the lives of israeli civilians. They will not change unless the fact which caused the Israeli government ot need to protect these civilians changes as well. And these will not change until the Plaestinians civilize themselves.



both parties have an attitude of "they started first, so they have to make the first move" Well it doesn't work like this, a peace-process is a living proces, it needs both sides to engage equally and at the same time.


it also needs a willing party on the palestinian side who is prepared to both speak for the palestinian people (i.e. not make commitments and then turn around and say they can't enforce them because they don't have the right to speak for the palestininas) and is prepared to be bound by any eventual commitments it undertakes. And there is no evidence that such a party exists, so any talk of other steps is moot.



if the only israeli reaction is bombing, closures etc. than for sure the palestinians won't change either and both sides are digging in, that's what happens currently and this policy doesn't have a solution.


unless of course the Palestinians are defeated in their oiwn game. But they must lose first before they might be made to see differently. Until they perceive they have lost they will not change. you only think this doesn't have a solution because you do not believe either side can be defeated. the palestinian terrorists can, though, and the sooner they are the sooner the palestinians can have their own functional state - just they won't be allowed to adopt as a central goal of that state the destruction of Israel.



this is a twisted logic, on both sides. since the palestinians think that the majority of israeli support sharon's government and occupation it makes it easier for them to support collective punishment. but it's wrong, you can not target the entire population.


but of couse Israel doesn't TARGET the Palestinian population, rather they target particular terrorists and military people. Problem is targeting is not 100% precise and sometimes others get in the way - this is qualitatively different than TARGETING civilians. And when you speak of house demolitions and the destruction of groves, you must keep in mind that destroying things used by militants for cover is not collective punishment but a direct military action to harm the terrorists and is perfectly acceptable.

And a vast majority of palestinians, time and time again, support the PURPOSEFUL targeting of innocnet Israeli civilians, and the logic that this might have an implication for the accountability of that society is hardly a twisted logic - it is both a perfectly valid and perfectly sound argument. That it does not mesh with your perceptions and conclusions does not make it twisted.



it's not comparable, what israel did was stealing their houses and belongings...


some may have been stolen, others were abandoned. How any of this is different from the Jews who were much more focefully evicted and had far more economic resources confiscated from the rest of the Arab world, AND FROM THE WEST BANK, who DO NOT HAVE a right of return is beyond me.



still even after i riped your wife i would still have the right to have my bike back, and we both would be convicted in court, you for stealing, i for rape...


no, because there is no court for you raping my wife or for the Palestinian and Arab attempted genocide of Israeli Jews in the 1948 war. They would have got away with it scott-free and so private punishment beocmes valid. Anyways, much of this is not for spite or for the purposes of punishing these poeple but because it was necessary for Israeli security - still surrounded by hostile nation s who wished ot kill or expel its entire Jewish population. This would be like me stealing your bike to prevent you from riding it over to my house to rape my wife - you want it back even though you have made it abundantly clear for many years that you only want it back to better be able to rape my wife.

[Canajew]

no it isn't, only western jerusalem is Israeli territory, the other part is occupied.


No, its in Israeli control so why not deal with facts as they are. I am not really proposing this, but it was am exact reversal of one of your statements and was to be taken as such.

Anyways, as far as 'international law' goes (lol) BOTH sections of Jerusalem belong to the international community, no? So the palestinians really have no grounds to claim their half, inasmuch as they love basing all their claims on 'international law' (lol).



The Jewish religious site should be part of any deal signed, and any israeli citizen should have the right to visit it.


and how would you suggest this be enforced? What should Israel be allowed to do if the PA either does not allow entry or does not provide security for Israelis on religious business? What if they violate this commitment (I know, I know, I HUGE leap in logic, right) what can israel do to make them abide by it? the Palestinians have demonstrated time and time again that they will not abide by any commitments they undertake, and thus some sort of additional mechanism is required for israel to trust anything they say. So what is this mechanism to be? And please don't say 'international monitors' - all you have to do is assess the record of such monitors in the Israeli Arab dispute over the past 50 years and you will undertsand that this is equivalent to no mechanism at all.



Israel doesn't have any legal claim on these lands. And as i said the un recognised israel in its armitice line borders, which makes it the official border of israel.


first, again not sure that Israel was recognized within any borders by the UN, and i did not say the israelis had a legal claim to the land, rather that the Israelis have the bets legal claim for the land. No one may indeed have a legal claim (and in fact I think no one has enough of a claim and thus the moral imperritive for self determination of the local population should rule the day) but Israel has a better legal claim on this land than ANY OTHER SOVEREIGN NATION. Again, this may not be a particularly good claim or one that requires much deferrence, especially given the will of the local population, but Israel still does indeed have a better legal claim than anyone else.



If the palestinians would accept a limit on troops and armaments, i might agree, on the condition that israel demilitarises its part of the border as well and signs a non-aggression threaty with the palestinians. You can't make one-sided unequal threaties.


first, that's clealy not true that you cannot make one-sided unequal treaties. From a normative perspective you can make such a claim, but from an objective perspective there are unequal treaties all over the place. So you should have said it would not be FAIR to make unequal treaties, not that such treaties cannot exist.

Second, where the actions of the different parties and their concerns are different, their obligations must also be different. israel must retain a right to protect itself from terrorism eminating from a free Palestine if the palestinian governemnt refuses to act. As such, a non-aggression obligation on israel can only be made inasmuch as it is contingent upon Palestinian fulfilment of their obligations regarding security and terrorism. And Israel needs a militarized border because Israel has lots of other Arab enemies which must be protected against. While Canada can do with a demiliterized border, isarel is in a far more precarious position with its avowed enemies who teach their children similar rabid Jew hatred and continue to have as a goal the destruction of Israel and the killing or expulsion of her Jewish population.



The final borders can be changed, but only if israel gives land in return.


while this is nominally false as the borders indeed CAN be changed without giving the palestinians anything (it is not a theoretical impossibility) I would agree thta this SHOULD be a part of any eventual agreement - but again note that the longer the palestinians act like brutal depraved savages the less they are entitled to in this process. While I still agree with this, were the Palestinians to keep acting like this after the security wall is finished and Israel must act unilaterally to separate itself, I would be in favour of annexing all the land within its confines, with compensation to be paid out of the billions of dollars Jewish victims of terrorism are entitled to receive by way of civil damages from the palestinians and their authority for their perpetration and support of crimes against humanity and specific violations of civil protections - wrongful death and the like.

They want a better deal they better stop this cr@p now. Because terrorisma nd armed ressistance will only make their situation worse. Something you surely must be able to see.



And from a security point of view it might be very wise to dismantle most of the settlements, which are practically indefendable from israel.


I would tend to agree with you on this. But only, of course, at the end of the process, not the beginning.



the problem is that settltments were established in the most fertile areas, so it's not just better techniques. And also they receive more water supply than the palestinian areas, which is another deliberate choice and not a consequence of better techniques (besides its not fair to compare the techniques since palestinians do not have acces to capital or technology whereas the settlers do have such access)


why do you say it 'isn't fair' to compare the two. This isn't a pissing contest - its not about we do X better than you so we ARE better than you - I know the palestinians and the Arabs in general have a bit of an inferiority complex vis-a-vis the Jews (with the projection of hostilities and all the rest this entails), but this was only meant to demonstrate that alternative factors must be paid attention to when assessing these numbers. Anyways if the palestinians want more watter then they must negotiate for it - violence will not get them any more than they have.



fine, it means Iraq should receive a part of kouweit, the us and gb launched attacks from kouweit against iraqi civilian infrastructure on many occasions.


of course they were authorized to do so by the United Nations Security Council in BINDING resolutions (made under a different title of powers than those resolutions on israel), so as far as your line of strict adherence to international law goes this comparison would not be apt.

Plus this 'civilian infrastructure' you speak of was most likely nothing of the sort. you may take what the Baathists put out at face value, but this is not in any way dispositive of anything that actually happened.



kouweit personally didn't, but it allowed others to do it from its territory, which is about the same thing as you stated yourself.


except that it is entirely different. But yes, if the circumstances were the same, which they are not, then this would be the same thing as what I satted and the same remedy would be applicable.



but on the other hand israel must stop the occupation if it wants peace, you see it's a cycle...

again, this 'cycle of violence' is a fiction. And the occupation must stop for there to be peace, but this is ENTIRELY different then saying ending the occupation will RESULT in peace. It is a necessary condition, yes (absent genocide and the like, which is both impossible and completely unacceptable so I am not treating it as a possible option) but it is clearly not a suffiecient condition. In fact ending this occupation at the wrong time will only make peace less likely and reduce the safety of Israeli civilians.

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
lebanese citizens have more civil rights than arab israeli, who do not have equal rights as jewish citizens of israel in some areas. So clearly once again your rethorics is based on perceptions and general propaganda rather than on facts.

I dispute these facts, first of all, and second of all you seem to not care that Israel treats the Palestininas in the occupied territories better than the Lebanese treat their Plaestinians and Israel treats its Arab citizens far far better than the Plaestinians are treated in Lebanon, even if they were born there.

But please tell me why Lebanese Arabs have more civil rights than Israeli Arabs. I'd be interested in seeing this argument expanded. What are Lebanese ARabs allowed to do that israeli arabs are not, and what kinds of legal protections do lebanese Arabs have, both from the state and from each other, that the Israeli Arabs lack. Other than the policy of using JNF lands to settle Jews, I am aware of no such discriminatory treatement when it comes to civil rights, and in fact Israel is a FAR more tolerant and rights based society than any other surrounding state, Lebanon included.



ok, but compared to other western democracies the human-rights situation in israel and the us is much worse. (such as arrests without trial, etc.)


'arrest' is a term which should only apply to criminal matters. you do not 'arrest' an enemy soldier, you capture him. Similalry, as militant and terrorists are more analogous to soldiers than to criminals, they are also not properly 'arrested' but captured. When someone is suspected of being an enemy soldier there is a grey area, but the Israeli Supreme Court - one of the best and most independent of all western judiciaries (do you dispute this and why?) - when it rules such detentions to be permissible, clearly decided that in a relative weight of rights the rights of society trump those of peopel who are suspected of being enemy combatants IN WARTIME.

Human rights in Israel are quite a bit better than in other western democracies - thus Israel's progressive reputation for homosexual and other minority rights. human rights are not perfect - not in Israel and not in Canada, but both israeli ideals of freedom and rights and Israeli practices in dealing with these ideals are among the bast in the world, especially when Israel's real security concerns and the war which is being waged against ISRAELI CIVILIANS are taken into account.



But palestinians started to hate the israeli long before 1993, because they were oppressed by israel. While the israeli palestinians got more chances and were treated with respect. It's not just propaganda you know, people are smarter, they react according to their own personal experiences, which were good in the case of the israeli palestinians and very bad in the case of the other palestinians in the occupied territories. [/B]

people's personal experiences are quite often wrong - you study history this should be abundantly clear. And with the palestinians, whose 'experiences' are shaped just as much by old prejudices, continued ignorance and wilfully manipulated propaganda of course their 'personal experiences' are going to be negative. But this does not mean that they are correct in their assessment. They also may be of the belief that they are being treated worse than the Jews were treated by the Nazis. Many of them I'm sure do believe this, and many have said this. but they are clearly wrong, no matter what their 'personal experiences'.

Also, the treatment of Palestinians in the territories was largely dependent on the actions (or lack of compassionate actions) by their Arab bretheren. problem is that the people were tought it wasn't the fault of these Arab governemnts or their people but that all their suffering and hardship was Israel's fault. Again demonstrating that relying on 'personal experiences' and personal perceptions can often be to rely on falsehoods and mischaracterizations of actual events.

[Mediocrates]

Comparing rights across countries is meaningless. If you live in France you are not guaranteed to a trial by a jury of your peers nor are you guaranteed the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. If you live in many so called modern countries you are not guaranteed an attorney or Miranda rights. If you live in the US you are not guaranteed the Scottish 'third verdict' either.

Each system adapts to its own. Israel is a nation of laws - flawed or not they are open for anyone to examine. I suspect Lebanon suffers what I call the Wazoo Syndrome. Laws on paper if they exist at all, and how they are executed may have little to do with one another and are largely a function of whatever corruption is operating at the time. In study after study the Arab world pops to the top of 'Most Corrupt Region' lists which indicates to me that civil rights such as they are are untested or in a different context. You can't easily reconcile the notion of modern western secular civil rights with the Shiia inspired Hezbullah dominated theocracy in practice that exists in southern Lebanon. And since Takeo doesn't really consider Jews and other infidels worthy of living let alone civil rights - he would never consider for a moment that Jews (theoretically at least) in Lebanon would have zero civil rights at all or even if there was something wrong with that.

takeo's notion of justice reminds me of the old redneck Klan joke: "Ah loves all nigrahs, ah think everone should own one."

[Canajew]

takeo, on the topic of incitement and the relationship between the PA, incitement, violence and the perpetuation of the conflict, the below observations must be addressed.

Would you agree that it is safe to say that as long as Palestinian society holds these values and espouses these values for their children, that any actual cessation of hostilities against israel by them is impossible.

As for those who are a victim of this type of propaganda (i.e. the children) their 'personal experiences' are likely to not reflect objective reality but rather a blend of reality as it occured in their direct observational field (with LOTS of individual events within it that they cannot accurately explain) and the hateful propaganda with which they were imbued from birth.

And if you go to the site listed below you can view these media clips - so this CANNOT simply be dismissed as Israeli propaganda, rather it is an accurate portrayal of Palestinian media, Palestinian values and Palestinian culture.

Or do you think anything remotely like this would be acceptable in other cultures anywhere else?

"ASK FOR DEATH!"
The Indoctrination of Palestinian Children
to Seek Death for Allah – Shahada
by Itamar Marcus
Director, Palestinian Media Watch
http://www.pmw.org.il/new/ASK%20FOR%20DEATH.htm

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
"Ask for death" is the message that the Palestinian Authority [PA] has been conveying to its children since the start of violence in October 2000. In June 2002, two articulate 11-year-old girls were interviewed in the studio of official Palestinian Authority TV. Among other topics, they spoke of their personal yearning to achieve death through Shahada – Death for Allah – and of a similar desire they said exists in "every Palestinian child." It is striking that their desire for death was expressed as a personal goal, not related to the conflict with Israel. Having been convinced that dying for Allah is preferable to life, their goal in living is not to experience a good life, but to achieve the proper death – Shahada.

The following is a selection from their remarks:

Host: "You described Shahada as something beautiful. Do you think it is beautiful?"

Walla: "Shahada is very, very beautiful. Everyone yearns for Shahada. What could be better than going to paradise?"

Host: "What is better, peace and full rights for the Palestinian people, or Shahada?"

Walla: "Shahada. I will achieve my rights after becoming a Shahida."

Yussra: "Of course Shahada is a good thing. We don’t want this world, we want the Afterlife. We benefit not from this life, but from the Afterlife... The children of Palestine have accepted the concept that this is Shahada, and that death by Shahada is very good. Every Palestinian child aged, say 12, says ’Oh Lord, I would like to become a Shahid.’"
[PATV, June 9, 2002]

What has caused this compelling desire for death among these children, a desire that conflicts with the basic survival instinct of every human being?

During the more than two and a half years of armed conflict, the Palestinian Authority [PA] has been making a paramount effort to convince their own children that there is no greater achievement than to die for Allah in battle, known as Shahada. This has been done via the many mediums at its disposal, including children’s TV broadcasting, the educational system, cultural programs, directives from political and religious leaders and even encouragement from within the family.

In November 2000, a mere six weeks after the start of violence, Palestinian Media Watch published a report documenting the first indications that this was a PA goal. The official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, glorified children who were killed in confrontations and described their deaths as personal achievements. It wrote of a 14-year-old: "He responded to the call of Allah and achieved the Shahada he yearned…. He reached the highest levels with Allah…" The paper reported with admiration that the dead boy’s "classmates swore they would continue on the path of Shahada…" [PA official daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, November 9, 2000] Other children were said to have been disappointed at having merely been injured and not killed. An injured 13-year-old: "My goal is not to be injured, rather something loftier: Shahada." [PA official daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, November 8, 2000] Since then, Palestinian Media Watch has published numerous reports on the progress of this PA indoctrination of its children and on the varying methods the PA employs to portray death for Allah to its children, not only as an ideal, but, as something that is expected of them.

The Results of the Indoctrination

In recent months the success of the PA indoctrination efforts are apparent. The 11-year olds quoted above defining death for Allah as their goal in life and public opinion polls confirm the widespread acceptance of this sentiment. These polls show 80% of Palestinian children seek death as Shahids.

Still more grave are the cases in which 14 year-olds have fulfilled this PA directive, writing farewell letters to their parents proudly describing their desire to be Shahids, and embarking on suicide terrorist missions hoping to die. It must be emphasized: the children’s farewell letters have included phrases identical to phrases from the propaganda films produced by the PA, such as "Mother, don’t cry for me," showing a direct link between the PA propaganda and the children’s drive for heroic death.

THE RESEARCH
This paper documents the PA’s indoctrination of Palestinian children to seek death, and its effects on the children. With the exception of statements made by parents, all the indoctrination cited in this report is directed by the Palestinian Authority.

Part I:

The Indoctrination of Children to Seek Death

a. Short Propaganda Films for Children
b. Schools and Textbooks
c. Culture
d. Political Leadership
e. Parents and the Palestinian Public
f. Religious Leadership

Part II:

Results of the PA Shahada Indoctrination

a. Ages 6-9: Playing Death Games
b. Ages 10-13: Expressing Desire to Die
c. Ages 14-17: Shahada Missions

Part III:

Findings and Conclusions

Part I:

The Indoctrination of Palestinian Children
to Seek Death for Allah – Shahada

A. Propaganda Films for Children

Short propaganda film-clips for children, teaching them to see violence and Shahada – Death for Allah – as ideal values that are expected of them, are broadcast daily on PATV, often for several hours a day. The following are three examples from among hundreds:

The "Farewell Letter"
Film-Clip: "How Sweet is Shahada" for children
The Muhammad Al-Dura Clip: "Follow me" to a Child’s Paradise
1. The "Farewell Letter"
A propaganda film-clip designed to offset a child’s natural fear of death, portrays Shahada as both heroic and tranquil. The film’s hero, a nice looking schoolboy, leaves a farewell letter explaining his choice to achieve Shahada, describing the death he is seeking as pleasurable: "How sweet is Shahada." It was broadcast repeatedly in 2001-02, even three times a day.

The following are selections from the boy’s letter, which are sung accompanying scenes of the boy calmly heading toward his death:

"Do not be sad, my dear,
"And do not cry over my parting,
"Oh my dear father,
"For my country, Shahada…
"How sweet is Shahada
"When I embrace you, Oh my land!…"
"My beloved, my mother,
"My most dear,
"Be joyous over my blood
"And do not cry for me…"

The words "How sweet is Shahada when I embrace you, oh my land!" are sung as the child actor is seen in the above picture falling dead and "embracing" the land.
[PATV, hundreds of times since May 7, 2001. Recently September 27, 2002]

[Canajew]

2. The Film-Clip: "I am the Shahid, My Mother"

"I am the Shahid, oh my mother! I have inscribed my name with my blood…
"I have prayed for the land
"And I have responded to the promise
"And if I do not return, don’t cry for me my mother! (3x)
"Sound a cry of joy, sound a cry of joy, my mother!…
"I am the Shahid, oh my mother! I have inscribed my name with my blood!"
[PATV, many times in 2001-2002, beginning May 16, 2001]

3. The Muhammad Al-Dura Clip: "Follow me" to a Child’s Paradise
In a striking film-clip, the most famous child Shahid, Muhammad Al-Dura, whose death in a crossfire was captured by a cameraman and broadcast on television, calls to Palestinian children: "follow me" to paradise. Al-Dura, played in the clip by a child actor, is portrayed in paradise, going to an amusement park, flying a kite and frolicking on the beach. The aim of the soothing words and scenes is to eliminate a child’s natural fear of death: "How sweet is the fragrance of the Shahids… I go with no fear, no tears…"

The film-clip opens with the following invitation from Al-Dura displayed on the full screen:

"I am waving to you not to part, but to say ’follow me’"
[signed] "Muhammad Al-Dura"

The following calming words are from the film-clip:

Narrator: "How sweeis the fragrance of the Shahids,
"How sweet is the scent of the earth,
"Its thirst by the gush of blood
"Flowing from the youthful body."

Vocalist: "Oh father ’til we meet, Oh father, ’til we meet!
"I shall go with no fear, no tears,
"How sweet is the fragrance of the Shahids!
"I shall go to my place in heaven,
"How sweet is the fragrance of the Shahids!"

Choir: "How sweet is the fragrance of the Shahids!"

Vocalist: "Oh father ’til we meet, Oh father, ’til we meet!"
[PATV December 25, 2000, and many times since]

To view click here

B. Schools and Textbooks
The PA Ministry of Education’s textbooks portray Shahada as an ideal. For example, "The Poem of the Shahid" extols yearning for death, and includes the words: "I see my death, but I hasten my steps towards it…" It appears in schoolbooks for grades 5, 6, 7, and 12. The illustration below of a dead child appearing in a textbook published in September 2001, teaches the children to identify a child as the one who is yearning death.

1. "The Shahid" in Four Different Grades’ Curricula

"I shall carry my soul in my palm
And toss it into the abyss of destruction...
And then, either life, gladdening friends,
Or death, enraging the enemies.
By your life! I see my death,
But I hasten my steps towards it...
By your life! This is the death of men
And who asks for a noble death – here it is…"

[Our Arabic Language for 5th grade, p. 60, Our Beautiful Language for 6th grade, section 1, p. 47, Our Beautiful Language for 7th grade, section 1, p. 97, Arabic Language Improvement Guide for 12th grade, p. 84]

2. Textbooks Educate for Shahada

"The Moslem sacrifices himself for his belief, and wages Jihad [Holy War] for Allah. He is not swayed, for he knows that the date of his death has been predetermined and that his death as a Shahid on the field of battle is preferable to death in his bed…"

[Islamic Education, for 8th grade, page 176, by the PA Ministry of Education, based on a Jordanian book, CMIP Report]

3. In School
The following, one example among many from the PA official newspaper, shows a teacher’s supportive attitude toward his student’s seeking Shahada:

"The Shahid Wajdi Al-Hattab [9th grade] responded to the call of Allah and achieved the Shahada he yearned for... He would always say to his friends: ‘When I become a Shahid, give out cake... he attained what he yearned. He reached the highest levels with Allah… [Wajdi’s gym teacher said:] ’Wajdi asked me to give out cake if he becomes a Shahid…’ His classmates swore that they would continue in the path of Shahada…"
[PA official daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 9, 2000]

4. Higher Education: "We do not Love Life!"

Professor Issam Sissalem, Chairman of the History Department in the Islamic University of Gaza and host of an educational program on PA TV: "…Allah rewards those who offer Shahids for the sake of heroism and honor with great compensation. We are not afraid to die, and do not love life.…"
[PATV, Sep. 8, 2002]



C. Culture

Many cultural programs idolize Shahada and the Shahids – those who died for Allah. The regular PA TV programming includes song and dance accompanying scenes of violence and words glorifying willingness to die for Allah. The following are some examples of cultural PA TV broadcasts glorifying Shahda:

1. A Song of Praise to Wafa Idris, the First Woman Suicide Terrorist
A song honoring Wafa Idris, the first woman suicide terrorist, who blew herself up in the center of Jerusalem, was broadcast on PA TV three times in two weeks. The song extols and praises both Idris and her act of suicide terrorism. It calls her a "blossom" and a "heartbeat of pride" and applauds her choice of death: "You chose Shahada, in death you have brought life to our will."

The lyrics:

Vocalist: "My sister, Wafa,
"My sister, Wafa,
"Oh, the heartbeat of pride,
"Oh, blossom who was on the Earth and is now in heaven, (2x)
"My sister, Wafa, My sister, Wafa,
"Oh, the heartbeat of pride,
"Oh, blossom who was on the Earth and is now in heaven, (2x)
"My sister, Wafa…"
Choir: "Allah Akbar! Oh Palestine of the Arabs
"Allah Akbar, Oh Wafa!"
Vocalist: "But you chose Shahada,
"In death you have brought life to our will.
"But you chose Shahada,
"In death you have brought life to our will."
[PATV, May 12, 2002 and others]

To view click here.

2. Dancing and Singing: "I will Even Fall as a Shahid"
This song calls upon children to attack Israel with stones: "You will not be saved, Oh Zionist, from the volcano of my county’s stones." It reiterates the preparedness to die: "I will even willingly fall as a Shahid!," is sung to scenes of children throwing stones and participating in a frenzied "war dance." [See picture]

"Allah Akbar! [Allah is Great]
"Oh, the young ones…
"Shake the earth, raise the stones
"You will not be saved, Oh Zionist,
"From the volcano of my county’s stones. (2x)
"You are the target of my eyes
"I will even willingly fall as a Shahid!
"Allah Akbar! Oh, the young ones."

[PATV, many times in 2002, beginning July 24, 2002 as recent as Oct. 9, 2002]


D. Political Leadership

The Shahada mandate to children comes from the Palestinian political leadership. Arafat presents the actions of children who intentionally died as Shahids as model behavior. 14-year-old Faris Ouda died a week after having been broadcast on TV hurling stones at an Israeli tank. The story of his successfully achieving death was glorified in the PA official press: "On the day of his death Faris Ouda left his home with a slingshot, after having made himself a wreath decorated with photos of himself and having written on it ’The Brave Shahid Faris Ouda’…" He said to his mother: "Don’t worry, mother, Shahada is sweet…"
[PA official daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Nov. 30, 2000, Feb. 3, 2001]

Yasser Arafat has singled out Ouda as a role model for children. Addressing an assembly of summer camp children, he praised Ouda’s action, and called the children there "peers of Faris Ouda." Asked in a TV interview what was his message to Palestinian children, he cited Ouda’s suicide act, saying dead Palestinian children Shahids are "the greatest message to the world."

1. Arafat: Displaying Dead Palestinian Children to the World is "The Greatest Message."

Question: "Mr. President, what message would you like to send to the Palestinian people, in general, and, in particular, to the Palestinian children?"

Arafat: "…This child, who is grasping the stone, facing the tank, is it not the greatest message to the world when that hero becomes a Shahid? We are proud of them…"
[PATV Jan. 15, 2002]

2. Yasser Arafat: Palestinian Children are "Peers" of Faris Ouda. The Children: "Millions of Shahid’s Marching to Jerusalem!"

Newscaster: "The president said in his address to these boys and girls [in summer camp] that the [14-year-old] Shahid Faris Ouda and all the Shahids of our people constitute the fundamental and victorious power, Allah willing!"

Arafat to the children: "Oh, children of Palestine! The peers, friends, brothers and sisters of Faris Ouda. The peers of this hero represent this immense and fundamental power that is within, and it shall be victorious, Allah willing!... Onward together to Jerusalem! Onward together to Jerusalem!"The children respond, cheering and chanting: "Millions of Shahids marching to Jerusalem!"
[PATV Aug. 18, 2002]

3. Arafat’s Fatah Organizes Young Girls to Celebrate a Woman Suicide Terrorist.
In a Fatah demonstration, young girls were given posters of the first woman suicide terrorist, Wafa Idris, portraying the terrorist as a hero.

The poster’s text:

"The Fatah Movement... eulogizes with great pride its heroine Shahida... the Shahida Wafa Idris."
[Al-Ayyam, Feb. 1, 2002]

[Canajew]

E. Parents and the Palestinian public

In order to present Shahada-seeking as a popular and broad based phenomenon, the Palestinian Authority gives significant media exposure to parents who praise their children’s choice to die, and express gratification and joy with their Shahada. The PA media also highlights praise offered anonymously by the "man on the street" for acts of Shahada. The following are a number of examples.

1. Mother of a Shahid and the Palestinian Public Express Satisfaction with Shahada

:The mother of Ashraf Zwayed: "Praise to Allah... I hold my head high. The honor is mine; the pride is mine. I have a son who is a Shahid. And not only is my son a Shahid, but all the Shahids amy children, Praise Allah.... The honor is mine; the pride is mine."
To view click here

Man on the street #1: "Their death as Shahids is a source of great joy for us. They responded to the call of the country. May Allah’s mercy be upon all of them. They are Shahids, close to Allah, in a position of the highest status."

Man on the street #2: "Praise Allah for giving us the Shahada. We are a people who love the Shahada and love defending our country..." [PATV, September 24, 2002]

2. A Child’s Death – a Mother’s Day Present

The Mother of Abbas Al Awiwi: "The best Mother’s Day present I got this year was the death as a Shahid of Abbas.’ The mother of the Shahid Munib says to the mothers of Shahids on Mother’s Day: ’A blessed day and a blessed Shahada’." [PA official daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 21, 2001]

3. A Mother Encourages Her Son to Shahada

"She is interested in nothing, other than to encourage her sons to sacrifice and to die as Shahids for the sake of the land of Palestine."
[Al-Ayyam, November 1, 2000]

4. "Praise Allah, I Gave Birth to Heroes"– Mother of Dead Boys

"After Fatma read this passage [her son’s desire for Shahada] aloud, her expression took on a look of pride and honor at her sons’ sacrifice, and her own sacrifice. Then she said: ’Praise to Allah, I gave birth to heroes’…"
[’Voice of the Women’, Al-Ayyam, February 28, 2002]

5. For the TV camera, a Mother Sends her Son to be Killed
Some of the suicide terror attacks were preceded by a parting ceremony of the terrorist from his mother. One such ceremony was filmed of a 17-year-old terrorist, who later killed 5 Israeli teenagers before he was shot dead. The following are the TV narrator’s description of her hugs and kisses, and an interview after the attack, in which she explains her sending him to his death:
To view click here

Narrator: "In a silence filled with tears, with a mother’s warm longing, his mother embraced him good-bye, planting kisses on his cheeks before the moment of parting. She ordered him not to come back to her except as a Shahid."

The mother [after he was killed]: "I give my son to Jihad for Allah. This is a religious obligation for us. If I were to have compassion for him, or allow him to change his mind it would not be right. I do not want to follow my heart, a mother’s feelings. I mean: I sacrificed him for something greater. Even something like this is connected to motherhood. How? Because I love my son and I want to choose the best for him…"
[Arab News Network TV]



F. Religious leadership

In Islam, religious teaching is not limited to the realm of worship, as social and military activities are considered within Islam’s jurisdiction. Palestinian religious leaders have been a driving force, through their religion classes and their televised sermons, in calling for Palestinians to kill Jews, especially through suicide bombings. They teach that seeking death for Allah as a Shahid is every Moslem’s duty, and direct these messages to children as well. Religious rulings [Fatwas] have also established that children are obligated to participate in these activities. The following are a number of examples:

1. Children are Obligated to Shahada: Ruling of a Senior Religious Leader
Interview with Sheikh Hamed Al-Bitawi, Head of the Council of Sages of Religion of Palestine and Preacher in the Al-Aqsa mosque:

Question: "Is children’s participation in Shahada-Seeking missions permitted?"

Al Bitawi: "The sages say: ’They should go [on Jihad], the men and the women, and even the children’. In the time of the Prophet [Muhammad] it was shown that children, who had not reached maturity, participated in Jihad… We in Palestine have a great love of Jihad and Shahada, and that makes many children compete among themselves in carrying out Jihad and Shahada-seeking missions."

Question: "What is the obligation to be obedient to parents in cases where they insist their child not participate in the confrontations with the enemy?"

Al Bitawi: "…if the enemy conquers a portion of Moslem land, Jihad becomes a personal obligation on every Moslem man and woman… and as the Prophet said: ’One must not obey a creation [the objecting parent] and disobey the Creator [Who demands Jihad].’

The principle is that this son and others like him will take part in Jihad against the enemy."
[www.islamonline.net, September 28, 2002]

2. "The Moslem was Created to Die for Allah"

"The believer was created to know his Lord and to uphold Islam… to be a Shahid, or intend to be a Shahid. If the Moslem does not yearn Shahada, he will die as in the Jahiliya [pre-Islam faith]. We must yearn Shahada and request it from Allah. If we truthfully request it of Allah, He will grant us its rewards even if we die in bed… [Allah] has planted within our youth the love of Jihad, the love of Shahada. Our youth have turned into bombs, they blow themselves up among them [Israelis] day and night."
[Sheikh Ahmed Abdul Razek, PATV March 22, 2002]

3. Religious Leader: Fathers Should Send Sons on Suicide Terror Attacks

"Shame upon he who does not educate his children the education of Jihad…blessings upon he who dons a vest of explosives on himself or on his children and goes in to the midst of the Jews and says: Allah Akbar [Allah is Great]..."
[Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Madi, Friday sermon, PA television, June 8, 2001]

4. Preaching Suicide Terror Attacks to 14-Year-Olds

"I was uplifted when a youth said: ’Oh, Sheikh, I am 14 years old. I have 4 more years and then I will blow myself up among Allah’s enemies, I will blow myself up among the Jews.’ I said to him, ’Oh young child, may Allah let you merit Shahada and let me merit Shahada...‘ All the weapons must be aimed at the Jews, Allah’s enemies, the cursed nation in the Koran, whom Allah describes as monkeys and pigs, worshippers of the calf and idol worshippers… Nothing will deter them except the color of blood in their filthy nation… unless we blow ourselves up, willingly and as our duty, in their midst…’ May Allah make the Moslem rule over