Why sooner or later, Palestine must be established - -Part 2

[Blue Moon]

Oh Isreal.
Don't give in. Don't be mislead. Don't be weak.
The Jewish people have survived hatred, death, pograms, and attempted genocide for thousands of years because of belief in God, faith, and determination. Don't believe you have to give in to popular world opinion and risk your children and the four thousand year-old dream that so many millions of your ancestors were tortured and oppressed and died for - - Isreal.

Fact: You will be endangering Israel by permitting a Palestinian state at this time. Wake up !!! Look at what's happening in the northern portion of your country - - the Lebanese border.
That's all you need, a Palestinian state headed by Arafat, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, ect . . ., next to one of your geographically most vulnerable points, fully armed with tanks, aircraft, bombers, heavy artillary, with, perhaps, a few chemicals, and maybe even, at least, a "dirty bomb" or two, or three, or fifty to top it off.

Fact: most of the world will still hate, dislike, or, at best, begrudginly indifferent to Isreal and the Jewish people if you allow a Palestinian state.

Fact: most of the Arabic world will still want you dead. They hate you. They hate what you stand for. Read the PLO charter carefully - - Arafat never repudiated in fact. You must focus on this. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah - - they will not stop slaughtering your wives, your mothers, your fathers, your children. Their level of hate is actually probably more sincere and heartfelt than that professed by the average German or even Nazi in the 1930's and 1940's - - Hitler brilliantly used the Jews as a propoganda scapegoat to help foster the Treaty of Versaille- downtrodden German population into a pack of wide-eyed, foaming-mouth supporters for expansionism and war. The West Bank and Gaza Arabs, on the other hand, have much more practice at hating Jews, and their educational and propoganda Jew-hating techniques would make Hitler proud.
Fact: The West Bank and Gaza Arabs - - and let me be clear here, I mean as AS A GROUP, AS A SOCIETY - - I DO NOT MEAN ALL ARABS INDIVIDUALLY - - are not emotionally, or politically, or culturally developed or stable enough to manage and operate a democracy - - a democracy which would provide hope and opportunity and thwart the hate-filled brainwashing by the Arab leaders who divert the populations focus from their own corruptness and evil doings.

"Peace" will only come through one of two events:
1) Isreal will militarily defeat the terrorists and their supporters to the extent the U.S. and Russia defeated Hitler and Japan in WWII.
Once compltely defeated and terrorists, and their sympathizers, and supporters and trainers wiped out, the West Bank and Gaza Arabs will have no choice but to enter into the 21st Century.

2) The U.S. and Isreal will 1) depose Arafat through one way or another, 2) install a puppet regime until the region is ready for real democratic elections, 3) wipe out the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, ect . . . in the territories, 4)wipe out the terrorist training, funding, and support enterprises in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, ect . . . 5) infuse billions of dollars into the region through careful money management, to enure the money is actually spent on building real schools and universities that don't preach hate (by the way, we need to take care of this in the U.S. too !!! It's a BIG problem here ), as well as hospitals, and developing the regine econimically - - in short, giving hope.

Either way, a lot of people are going to die. But that is how nations are built, and enemies conquered and tamed. This is the real world ? Stop singing "Koombayah" and "Let's Give Peace A Chance." If you don't, you and your children, mothers, fathers, and wives will continue to be slaughtered.
Fact: there are real monsters out there, children. You may lose it all by putting your head in the sand, and being desperate, and cowardly, and foolishly being sold the big lie: that the Arafat traveling, Jew-killing circus will leave town if you just give him more.

LISTEN CAREFULLY ISREAL: MILLIONS ARABS HATE YOU AND WANT YOU DEAD. REALLY DEAD. THEY ARE THE ONES IN CONTROL IN THE WEST BANK AND GAZA. GIVING IN TO A PALESTINIAN STATE AT THIS TIME WILL NOT PLACATE HAMAS, JIHAD, ARAFAT, THE PLO, HEZBOLLAH, OR THE TERRORIST TRAINERS, FUNDERS, AND SUPPORTERS IN IRAQ, IRAN, LEBANON, SYRIA, LIBYA, SAUDI ARABIA, KUWAIT, ECT., ECT., ECT., (I don't care what that duplicitous oil pimp from Saudi Arabia told President Bush).
NEWS ALERT: YOU ARE IN DANGER, AND ONE ELEMENT USED IN WARFARE IS DECEPTION AND TRICKERY. LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE REGION - - THINK OF THE GRAND MUFTI AND HITLER - - THINK ARAFAT IN THE '70'S, THE 80'S, THE 90'S. HE IS PLAYING YOU LIKE A FOOL. ARE YOU GETTING THIS ISREAL ?

[takeo]

This last post is a typical example of lunatics trying to monger hate, fear, war againts a whole region, etnic cleansing and oppression and the diabolisation of a whole society.
It represents pure nazism.
As a true fascist the autor uses the basic instincts (fear) of people and also lies (for example that the PLO has never recognised israel) to bring his lunatic message and spread hate and propose unrealistic violent solutions. His solution would certainly lead to the end of Israel or in the worst case to WWIII.
Palestinians will fight people as you who ignore all their rights at an own peaceful country untill the death, and they should, and i'm sure neither do you represent the israeli people, israel doesn't need defenders like you...

Get it in your head that you can never defeat the whole world, the only way to receive peace is by giving the Palestinians their basic rights and return stolen property and land. Also you are evil because you compare palestinians with Hitler. In fact you should compare yourself with Hitler, you want the oppression of an entire people by unlimited violence and oppression, because they are standing in the way of of the "four thousand year-old dream " (remember the Tirth Reich...)
in fact i shouldn't even bother answering such trolls, but sometimes it just makes me angry reading this.

[Mediocrates]

I recommend you read this piece on strategy vs. crisis management:

http://www.israeleconomy.org/strategic7/crisis.htm


It's rather long (21 pages) but not overly difficult to cover. One salient point is to remember that 'conflict resolution' has to be aware of it's own failures and to understand that there are cases that require military resolution. It doesn't necessarily fit with anyone's world view or poltical bent, but there it is.

I'd also recommend you read this:

http://www.israeleconomy.org/political1/peace.htm

A strategic analysis of the peace process. Again not terribly long at 44 pages though I admit I've only given it a quick look so far. It seems right up the alley of some of the folks here. The only thing you have to lose is your ignorance.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
This last post is a typical example of lunatics trying to monger hate, fear, war againts a whole region, etnic cleansing and oppression and the diabolisation of a whole society.
No, that post from Blue Moon contains true facts that scare the heck out of Leftists like yourself, Takeo.

Of course there are millions of Arabs who want all Israelis and probably all Jews dead and gone. Who says that? Not only Blue Moon or myself, but the Arabs themselves say this publicly. How can you deny these realities?

[L@mplighterM]

Nice post Blue Moon.

[takeo]

True facts???
come on, maybe SOME Arabs or Palestinians want to kill all jews, a very small minority, most just want a normal life and want to cooperate with jews (many jews still live in for example tunisia or Morocco) or even with israel, on the condition of course that the fundamental rights of the palestinians are no longer ignored.

this kind of grouce exaggerations and hate-mongering is not serving the interests of the middle East and are NOT based on facts.

here some sincere and one of the best analysis of the peace-process and the conflict from the palestinian point of view, scientific and based on facts:
http://mural.uv.es/kelfa/esworks.html

you should all read this to have a better understanding of the other side you like to present as evil.

of course it didn't surprise me that lomplighter has found a soulmate...

[cerulean]

Originally posted by takeo


here some sincere and one of the best analysis of the peace-process and the conflict from the palestinian point of view, scientific and based on facts:
http://mural.uv.es/kelfa/esworks.html

you should all read this to have a better understanding of the other side you like to present as evil.


Ah, takeo, you can hardly link to Edward Said's work without me wanting to mention my long-ago thread, my first on IsraelForum.

The Lies of Edward Said: http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=209

Edward Said has pathological lying problems, like many of his allies.

[takeo]

of course, whatever contradicting the views of JP and pro-israeli supporters are lies...
I don't thinke E. Said is lying, but for sure lies are no monopoly of the palestinians and their supporters, they are used by Sharon, the jP and on this forum on daily basis. (for example one obvious lie always returning "arabs started the war in 1967" among many others).

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by takeo
here some sincere and one of the best analysis of the peace-process and the conflict from the palestinian point of view, scientific and based on facts:
http://mural.uv.es/kelfa/esworks.html



I read garbled memoir of a meeting with Sartre in the late 70's but fail to see the connection.

As with most things Said, he offers little in an actual Palestinian perspective besides dressing up blame. For example this excerpt of one of the articles in that URL:

(quote)
.....it has become increasingly difficult to say what Arafatism actually is, what its ideas, what its vision and contents are made of. No one at all doubts that the Palestinian situation today is indelibly marked by his command of it, and that his style -- which, in a perceptive biography of Arafat, Said Abu Rish devastatingly characterises as a mix of sloppiness, improvisation, lack of study or preparation, and secrecy -- has simply overwhelmed everything in its path.....
(unquote)

This is very telling. Why? Because to Arafat it's representative of charisma. To the rest of the world it's representative of paranoid monomania. But one would expect dictators to be paranoid. Machiavelli told us this 500 years ago.

[cerulean]

Originally posted by takeo
of course, whatever contradicting the views of JP and pro-israeli supporters are lies...
I don't thinke E. Said is lying, but for sure lies are no monopoly of the palestinians and their supporters, they are used by Sharon, the jP and on this forum on daily basis. (for example one obvious lie always returning "arabs started the war in 1967" among many others).

Said lied about his entire life, for starters. He personally throws rocks at IDF soldiers, for another. Are you excusing him on the basis of what you think some pro-Israeli supporters have done? Don't you have higher standards for your luminaries?

As for "arabs started the war in 1967," that is of course true. Perhaps the difficulty here is a confusion in terms.

Define "started."

Define "war."

Define "1967."

[Mediocrates]

Res 242 was authored in large part by Arthur Goldberg, former US Supreme Court Justice and US UN ambassabor at the time. It neither says anything about which territory nor does it say land for peace nor does it say anything about any stable conditions that have to be met by Israeli beforehand nor does it say anything about PLO continued terrorism as an acceptable state of affairs. According to 242 Israel is not actually occupying anything other than Israel.

So all the apologists should shut up and learn to read for meaning or get a lawyer to translate it into terms they can understand.

[Blue Moon]

Re: reply post #2: Takeo

I saw a lot of outrage in your reply. Good. Wake up.
Have a cup of coffee, splash some cold water on your face.
Now go read some accurate historical accounts of the Middle East,
and the history of the Jewish people, and then tell me with
a straight face that most of the Arab countries, including the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, are not serious Jew-haters, and don't want to see the destruction of the state of Israel. More importantly, tell me with the same straight face how the Islamic Fundamentalist movements and terrorists don't post a clear death threat to Israel, and tell me that it, in fact, it is not the clearly stated goal of many such groups to see the destruction of Isreal and elimination of the Jews - - a Palestinian state is only a mechanism towards this end.

By the way, what have the fellow Arabic countries done for the West Bank and Gaza refugees recently ???? Think Jordan.
Think Lebanon. Do you know what the phrase "opportunity puppets" means - - good, I don't either, I just made it up
(smile) :)

Back the ever-so serious argument:
I missed your factual analysis refuting the two ultimate scenarios I set forth.

Sarcasm aside, my head was in the sand too, for a long time.

Believe it or not, I wished for a real peace treaty at Oslo.

Believe it or not, I became enraged and felt sorrow when an insanse Isreali settler machine gunned down many Muslims
in a Mosque years ago, and when an Israeli missile killed many
innocent Arabs.

Believe it or not, I have a non-so special feeling for Sharon
with respect to the Saabra camp incident in Lebanon.

But, my friend, Israel is a nation, a soveriegn, just like the United States, with a paramount duty to protect itself. Unfortunately,
it is time to say, enough is enough. This is becoming a slow war of attrition against Isreal. This is a question of Israel's ultimate survival. Isreal - a country for whom millions of Jews died and were tortured and persecuted for, for thousands of years - - beginning a long, long, long time before Islam was even created.

You are offended by my reference to the Nazi's ???
Unfortunately, your response somewhat reveals the extent of your knowledge (or lack thereof) of Middle East and Jewish history.You ever hear of the Grand Mufti ? You've obviously heard of Adolph Hitler. Who traveled to Berlin during WWII and met with the Nazi's and Hitler, and helped convince Hitler to not expel the Jews in Europe to Palestine, but instead gas them, cook them,
and use their skin for lampshades ? Who helped convince the British to turn back Jewish refugees fleeing the ovens in Europe ?
You'll get the daily double if you can correctly answer that.

You grossly underestimate the number of Arabs that hate Israel and the Jews, and the West and the United States for that matter. I suggest, for many reasons, you carefully read not only about the history of the Middle East during the 20th century, but also listen to and read broadcasts of mainstream media and propoganda from many Arabic countries. Your mouth will drop open. Your ignorance of the blood lible is actually scary.

A few years ago, you could have enriched your life by visiting the special museum Arafat and his buddies built, commemorating the slaughter of the innocent people trying to get a bite to eat in a Pizza Parlor - - yep, that's right, simulated body parts, blood, and all.

Oh, I almost forgot, what group of people were caught on film dancing joyfully in the streat upon learning that almost 3,000 human beings in New York were incinerated and slaughtered on 9/11 ? Gee, after the Saabra camp incident, the Isreali Supreme Court essentially criticized Sharon - - and I somehow missed the footage of Isreali citizens dancing in the streets - - of course not, most were enraged at Sharon.

Number 2: try this experiment. Research what they say about Israel and Jews in many mosques in the Middle East. Now compare what is being taught in most Jewish Temples.
Now explain to me how it is that "God" is worshipped and respected so differently.

I'm sorry, #2. I wish the world was as safe for Isreal as you apparently think it is. But when the Russian wall came-a-tumbling down, the few sane people in the military and intellensia warned us that the new "enemy" of the millenium will fanatical Islamic terrorists. And, unfortunately, they were right.

And unfortunately, the innocent West Bank and Gaza Arabs are lead and brainwashed with blood libel by, you guessed it, fanatical Islamic terrorists.

I wished it were different, I truly do. I do hope for democracy and prosperity the Arabs in the region, but Isreal must survive, and, for at least today, a Palestinian state will prove to be nothing more than a Trojan Horse for insane, fundamentalist Islamic terrorism.

#2: Final point: please articulate how Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al-Quada- and the rest will stop attacking Israeli citizens if the West Bank and Gaza Arabs are given a state, and please articulate why the resulting Palestinian state will not arm itself with tanks, missles, and fighter jets, and bombers, and use these items for even more devastating terrorist attacks on Israel ??? And how could you even have a Palestinian airport, from which another misguided Arab could take off in a small plane loaded with explosives and fly into the nearest Israeli hi-rise ?

Here's a sincere "Shalom" from a "lunatic" to ya !
- Later

[Vic]

Does anyone here realize that takeo is actually a Jew himself:
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=5394#post5394 ?

[takeo]

ani znayut tchto ya evreyskiy

actually that's the reason why i am on this board and interested in the Middle East problems, as you too i suppose.

[takeo]

"I read garbled memoir of a meeting with Sartre in the late 70's but fail to see the connection. "

Read the other links which are more interesting for this discussion.

"As with most things Said, he offers little in an actual Palestinian perspective besides dressing up blame. "

No actually, on the contrary to you, he is making an objective analysis and tries to find the weak and good points of every person, ideology and party, not only of the other side. (of course from a personal point of view, as all writers by the way)






"Said lied about his entire life, for starters. He personally throws rocks at IDF soldiers, for another. Are you excusing him on the basis of what you think some pro-Israeli supporters have done? Don't you have higher standards for your luminaries? "

No, but before accusing anyone of being a lier look at your own heroes and the people who you defend.
By the way, how do you know for sure where the man is born? all this fuss around his personal life is because they find his writings deeply disturbing, so start to make personal attacks, the good old autoritarian way.



"Define "started."

Define "war." "

A war is started when some country launched the first military attack on the others territory, i think we all agree on that, don't we???
as japan launched the war against the US by attacking pearl harbour.






"Res 242 was authored in large part by Arthur Goldberg, former US Supreme Court Justice and US UN ambassabor at the time. It neither says anything about which territory nor does it say land for peace nor does it say anything about any stable conditions that have to be met by Israeli beforehand nor does it say anything about PLO continued terrorism as an acceptable state of affairs. According to 242 Israel is not actually occupying anything other than Israel.
So all the apologists should shut up and learn to read for meaning or get a lawyer to translate it into terms they can understand."

for the billionth time: "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;" (ps: the resolution was in 1967, so guess what territories they are refering to...)
(but as well: "For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;)
(For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;)


and now occupation-apologists shut up and learn to read!

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/b86613e7d92097880525672e007227a7/59210ce6d04aef61852560c3005da209!OpenDocument

according to the Geneva-conventions, armed resistance againts occupation is legal.

[Vic]

Originally posted by takeo
and now occupation-apologists shut up and learn to read!

http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/b86613e7d92097880525672e007227a7/59210ce6d04aef61852560c3005da209!OpenDocument

according to the Geneva-conventions, armed resistance againts occupation is legal.
Where does it stand here that the joyous targeted butchering of civilians that is going on now is a legal means of "resisting occupation"?

[takeo]

I'm sure i did read more accurate historic reports on the Middle East and jewish history than you did...


"and then tell me with
a straight face that most of the Arab countries, including the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, are not serious Jew-haters, and don't want to see the destruction of the state of Israel."

Some want it, some are certainly not jew-haters, which i know not only from books but as well from personal experience. Some want the destruction of Israel(because it caused a lot of suffering on the original population) but most would be happy with an own palestinian state next to israel.


"More importantly, tell me with the same straight face how the Islamic Fundamentalist movements and terrorists don't post a clear death threat to Israel, and tell me that it, in fact, it is not the clearly stated goal of many such groups to see the destruction of Isreal and elimination of the Jews - - a Palestinian state is only a mechanism towards this end. "

Some groups indeed have this goal, but NOT arafat nor the Palestinian autority, and most palestinians don't see the palestinian state as a goal to the destruction of israel but as a goal on its own to have a norma life.

"By the way, what have the fellow Arabic countries done for the West Bank and Gaza refugees recently ???? Think Jordan.
Think Lebanon. Do you know what the phrase "opportunity puppets" means - - good, I don't either, I just made it up
(smile) "

jordan has now 70% of her population that are palestinian refugees etnically cleansed from israel. Is this nothing???
Lebanon has 200000 and has suffered hard because of their presence which caused israeli interfearance.

"Back the ever-so serious argument:
I missed your factual analysis refuting the two ultimate scenarios I set forth. "

just search a bit on this forum and you will find, more than once, my factual analysis on scenarios very similar to yours.



"Believe it or not, I wished for a real peace treaty at Oslo."

Well, it's time to change again...



"Believe it or not, I have a non-so special feeling for Sharon
with respect to the Saabra camp incident in Lebanon. "

"But, my friend, Israel is a nation, a soveriegn, just like the United States, with a paramount duty to protect itself."

of course, i won't argue, but israel doesn't have the duty to occupy westbank and Gaza... protecting itself should happen with legal means that will actually stop the attacks, not by creating more hate and ennemies.


"Unfortunately,
it is time to say, enough is enough. This is becoming a slow war of attrition against Isreal. This is a question of Israel's ultimate survival. Isreal - a country for whom millions of Jews died and were tortured and persecuted for, for thousands of years - - beginning a long, long, long time before Islam was even created. "

Zionism was not based upon 1000's of years of Jewish religious presence but is a modern nationalist ideology.
This war is against the occupation and the suffering of the palestinians, it is a war against the injustice done to millions of palestinians. It may have been once a war for the destruction of israel (because the territory claimed by israel was alread inhabited by other people) , but not any more, now most palestinians have settled with the idea of the existance of israel and want the same what the world wants: settlement of the refugee-problem, end of occupation.

"You are offended by my reference to the Nazi's ???
Unfortunately, your response somewhat reveals the extent of your knowledge (or lack thereof) of Middle East and Jewish history.You ever hear of the Grand Mufti ? You've obviously heard of Adolph Hitler. Who traveled to Berlin during WWII and met with the Nazi's and Hitler, and helped convince Hitler to not expel the Jews in Europe to Palestine, but instead gas them, cook them,
and use their skin for lampshades ? Who helped convince the British to turn back Jewish refugees fleeing the ovens in Europe ?
You'll get the daily double if you can correctly answer that. "

Actually Palestinians are not responsible because the Brittish send jewish refugees back, nor were they responsible because hitler wanted a genocide against the Jews. I don't think the visit of the great-mufti did impress Hitler much (in his eyes Arabs and niggers were underhumans too), if you read his speeches since the 40's it's so clear what he had in mind for the jews...
Of course the Moufti hated zionism for obvious reasons (his land being colonised by newcomers) but that doesn't mean he was an anti-semite.
Moreover do YOU know that zionist organisations made a deal with nazi-germany in the 30's so that Jews from Germany and Czech could come to palestine and take their money with them? (it was somewhere on this forum you can search it) this deal was very much criticised by progressive nazi-hating jews all over the world.

"You grossly underestimate the number of Arabs that hate Israel and the Jews, and the West and the United States for that matter. I suggest, for many reasons, you carefully read not only about the history of the Middle East during the 20th century, but also listen to and read broadcasts of mainstream media and propoganda from many Arabic countries. Your mouth will drop open. Your ignorance of the blood lible is actually scary. "

actually i'm sure i know much more Arabs than you do, and none of them has ideas like that, most of them hate that fanatic people who broadcast hate, as you do too on the other side. but the mainstream arab media is not broadcasting hate to jews and the West, for example Al-jazeera is in fact quite moderate and shows as well the suffering of israeli victims, it is more moderate than many israeli newschannels and newspapers.



what happened on 11/9 and in pizza-restaurants was strongly condamned by most palestinian-supporters as well as by most Arabs and Palestinians as well. Arafat was one of the first to condamn both attacks, and he personally gave blood for the victims of 11/9.

"Number 2: try this experiment. Research what they say about Israel and Jews in many mosques in the Middle East. Now compare what is being taught in most Jewish Temples.
Now explain to me how it is that "God" is worshipped and respected so differently. "

i don't know what is taught in both religious places, i know that both religions can and are interpreted in an extreme or moderate way. (some rabbi's are very extremist as well)

"I'm sorry, #2. I wish the world was as safe for Isreal as you apparently think it is. But when the Russian wall came-a-tumbling down, the few sane people in the military and intellensia warned us that the new "enemy" of the millenium will fanatical Islamic terrorists. And, unfortunately, they were right. "

actually i think the new ennemy is american unilateralism and the division between the rich part of the world and the poor part, which is growing every day. (and is responsible for more desperation, war, and refugees from the poor parts of the world, and more hate) fundamentalism is a serious danger for islamic countries, but not for the west and not really for israel. (actually fundamentalism in SA is very profitable for the US, a dictatorship oppressing its people and providing cheap oil all under the barrier of islam, how convenient!!)
most palestinians fighting israel do not fight israel because they are fundamentalist but because they want rights for their own people. only some are fundamentalist. Osama bin laden was a lunatic, but quite isolated and he carried out his attack on 11/9 with little support from the islamic world. such attacks could and did happen as well by lunatic us-born extremists as well.

[takeo]

"And unfortunately, the innocent West Bank and Gaza Arabs are lead and brainwashed with blood libel by, you guessed it, fanatical Islamic terrorists. "

No, hamas-support is less than 20%, many who fiight israel are not even religious (pflp).

"I wished it were different, I truly do. I do hope for democracy and prosperity the Arabs in the region, but Isreal must survive, and, for at least today, a Palestinian state will prove to be nothing more than a Trojan Horse for insane, fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. "

on the contrary, a lack of palestinian rights and a lack of palestinian state will be a constant source of support for fundamentalism and terror against israel. Once people are satisfied and have an own state, they will no longer support terrorists but start building an own life.

"#2: Final point: please articulate how Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al-Quada- and the rest will stop attacking Israeli citizens if the West Bank and Gaza Arabs are given a state, and please articulate why the resulting Palestinian state will not arm itself with tanks, missles, and fighter jets, and bombers, and use these items for even more devastating terrorist attacks on Israel ??? "

Well, very simple, of course palestine will arm itself against a possible israeli attack, but palestinians know that if they want peace and build up their state (for which they fought so long) they have to provide israel security(now they have nothing to loose, but in case of an independant palestinian state they will have a lot to loose). also palestinians would loose al foreign support if they would use their new state to attack israel.

Also most palestinians are sick and tired of war, i can assure you, now they fight israel because they have nothing to loose, war or ongoing occupation and living on isles of palestinian self-controll that can be sealed off any moment, it doesn't make much difference, but once they have acquired a peacefull state, they will harshly punish anyone trying to endanger that peace and give israel a new excuse for interfearing by attacking israel.
but anyway to make sure 100% the safety of israel would be garanteed, foreign troops can be placed to insure the demilitarisation of the border area.



"And how could you even have a Palestinian airport, from which another misguided Arab could take off in a small plane loaded with explosives and fly into the nearest Israeli hi-rise ? "

well, the pa, in an independant state at least, would have enough means to prevent that.
actually no planes are taking off from egypt or Jordan as well, do they? israel gave back the sinai in a mutual treaty and got peace with egypt in return. the same will happen with palestine

[takeo]

nowhere, of course this is unhuman and illegal,
but resisting the occupation force and responsible politicians is allowed.

[Mediocrates]

"actually i think the new ennemy is american unilateralism and the division between the rich part of the world and the poor part, which is growing every day. (and is responsible for more desperation, war, and refugees from the poor parts of the world, and more hate)"

The biggest income gap between rich and poor in terms of multiples, is in non western countries like Taiwan, Brazil, central Africa. I believe the last copy of the atlas that I have that tracks this puts the US certainly in the top ten. There is at least one EU country there as well but I forget which.

Unilateralism is the response to EU driven-by-committee-PC-homgenized-non-stance-ism. You might hate our opinions but at least we see the world as more than suppliers and customers.

[takeo]

no, on the contrary, the whole american foreign policy is driven by economic interests, own safety and geo-political strongholds.
they don't care ethical concerns as for proliferation of mines, etc. which are questioned by the EU.

I mean the gap between the poor countries and the rich countries. There is certainly a serious gap too in most thirth world countries, but in general these countries are still poor, even when the rich are taken into account. I went to Guatemala and indeed the gap is extreme, which is also a consequence of unlimited capitalism and free market, as well as the growing gap between poor and rich countries.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by takeo
no, on the contrary, the whole american foreign policy is driven by economic interests, own safety and geo-political strongholds.
they don't care ethical concerns as for proliferation of mines, etc. which are questioned by the EU.

I mean the gap between the poor countries and the rich countries. There is certainly a serious gap too in most thirth world countries, but in general these countries are still poor, even when the rich are taken into account. I went to Guatemala and indeed the gap is extreme, which is also a consequence of unlimited capitalism and free market, as well as the growing gap between poor and rich countries.

Globalization is indeed a very complex issue. For every maquilladora that hires Mexican labor at 50% wage premium there is a textile mill that forces pregnant women to work 20 hr days. I doubt that is a uniquely western problem.

[takeo]

it is not, but it is for sure a problem created by radical capitalism and unlimited free-market and enforced by imf-policy in the 90's.

[Mediocrates]

it doesn't say which territoritories and was worded that way specifically, for the billionth time it is still true that lawyers write words with care for every one and every missing one.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by takeo
it is not, but it is for sure a problem created by radical capitalism and unlimited free-market and enforced by imf-policy in the 90's.

What the IMF typically does is transfer economies to cash-import-export economies. What can happen for example is that subsistance farmers convert to cash farming, which is not always a good thing to do.

[takeo]

I think (and i'm not alone in this opinion) that the biggest mistake they made was to ask the total opening of the economy, which flooted those poor countries with foreign products and destroyed any local production. Also the total privatisation let to an economy increasingly in foreign hands, but usually WITHOUT a strong increasement in investment or technology (the only possible advantage of foreign companies controlling the economy).
Also less tax-revenues means less to invest in better roads, etc. or in education etc. all important for the economy and general well-being.


"it doesn't say which territoritories and was worded that way specifically, for the billionth time it is still true that lawyers write words with care for every one and every missing one."

for the billionth time "territories gained in the recent conflict" is pretty obvious to me and i guess to any unbiased lawyer!
all occupied territories were gained in 1967, so...

[Skogan]

The wording was highly disputed at the time it was signed precisely because it was seen as ambigous.

The gap between the rich and poor countries isn't caused (IMO) because the poor countries are getting poorer. It's because the rich are getting richer.

Are you just giving an explaination for the tension, or are you saying that the rich countries are morally responsible for the position of the poor countries.


Skogan

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
it is not, but it is for sure a problem created by radical capitalism and unlimited free-market and enforced by imf-policy in the 90's.
LoL!!!
"Radical capitalism and unlimited free market" are supposed to be bad things??

Hey Comrade Takeo, did you tell them yet that you are a real-life Communist party activist? Because I think that would be relevant here...

[takeo]

"Radical capitalism and unlimited free market" are supposed to be bad things??

Yes, that's right (i said radical capitalism and unlimited free-market)

those are the ones responsible for the widening gap and the chronic poverty of poor countries. actually a mix of state-interfearance and free market proove to be the best solution for thirth world-countries as is prooven in Vietnam and China with booming economies(and are the few asian countries not affected by the asian crisis). countries who applied the ultra-liberal imf-programms failed, such as most african nations, most latin-american nations (most spectacular case Argentine, which was a develloped country before) and some asian nations as the philippines, indonesia or Thailand .

it is right by the way that the gap is growing primarily because rich countries are getting richer, but in a world economy the wealth of the rich countries is partly responsible for the poverty of other countries. You know- economic competition, domination of the markets, low prices for basic products, dumping etc.
in a total free market those poor countries have no real chance to devellop because they can never compete against the multinationals and have no money for industrialisation, especially because the us and other rich countries make the rules in the WTO and international economy and allow themselves to have trade barriers while poor countries have no such rights.

[Skogan]

it is right by the way that the gap is growing primarily because rich countries are getting richer, but in a world economy the wealth of the rich countries is partly responsible for the poverty of other countries. You know- economic competition, domination of the markets, low prices for basic products, dumping etc. in a total free market those poor countries have no real chance to devellop because they can never compete against the multinationals and have no money for industrialisation, especially because the us and other rich countries make the rules in the WTO and international economy and allow themselves to have trade barriers while poor countries have no such rights.

It's my impression, though I could be wrong, is that rich countries are responsible for causing more wealth in poor ones, rather then less. They don't have the infrastucture to produce the hi tech goods that we do, so they are not missing any income there. In fact, we allow them to purchase items that wouldn't be on the market but for our existance, and these item make there economies more effiecient.

Most rich countries don't produce their own low-tech items. They either buy them from the poor countries, or at least produce them there, creating more employement. (Not that these are the best jobs in the world, but they are better then whatever alternative they may have.) This allows benefits poor countries.

Poor countries typically are ones, who for one reason or another, fell behind a few years in production technology. Man has been on the planet a long time, for one country to be within 100 years of the production capability of another is really pretty remarkable, statistically. But imagine how inefficeint the U.S. was 100 years ago. Even a 20 year lag in production muturity means a distinct competitve disadvantage, considering the employment of electronics in modern production.

Beyond that, internal government policies and natural resources matter a great deal. 100 years ago, when all the world was market was agrarian, single family farms, government policies weren't as important. Today, if a dictator spends him money enriching his own coffers, rather then ensure a stable energy supply, the countries economy will suffer.

I don't know much about the WTO, or how it effects the poorer countries, you may have a point there.

But I could be completely wrong on all of that.

Skogan

[elke]

Beyond that, internal government policies and natural resources matter a great deal. 100 years ago, when all the world was market was agrarian, single family farms, government policies weren't as important. Today, if a dictator spends him money enriching his own coffers, rather then ensure a stable energy supply, the countries economy will suffer.

Absolutely! Beyond that, they also line their military coffers in order to stay in power. Since you can't eat guns, it presents a problem.

The Third World's main problem is education. Education leads to more efficient labor force, even when the jobs are not "white collar".

[takeo]

of course that's right, but for good education you need money... and poor countries don't have much money to spend on education (by the way yes many are also involved in war, corruption and bad leadership, which seems to be a typical consequence of poverty, no money=corruption on all levels)

but good education isn't enough, Russia and Ukrain have very good education, as countries as morocco, but if there isn't a good industry and economic quality, or those have collapsed (Russia) than it means educated people can find no jobs and will massively emigrate to rich countries.


"It's my impression, though I could be wrong, is that rich countries are responsible for causing more wealth in poor ones, rather then less. They don't have the infrastucture to produce the hi tech goods that we do, so they are not missing any income there. In fact, we allow them to purchase items that wouldn't be on the market but for our existance, and these item make there economies more effiecient. "

the problem is that they would be much better if they could make those items themselves, but because of massive imports and lack of capital they can not. They can purchase anything, but it won't help their economy, only the economy of the productor nation, In fact the proximity of rich countries can also be bad for the economy, for example mexico and middle america suffer from massive american imports while most of the economy (and so most of the profits) are american and return to america. the same happens in Morocco or Romania for example, their products can not compete against european products.

"Most rich countries don't produce their own low-tech items. They either buy them from the poor countries, or at least produce them there, creating more employement. (Not that these are the best jobs in the world, but they are better then whatever alternative they may have.) This allows benefits poor countries. "

the problem is that rich countries rule the market and they make the price of low-tech items, A VERy low price (for example roasted coffee beans), the jobs created by this are not any better than the jobs created by own companies, very low wage (i saw it myself in united fruit company in guatemala).

"Poor countries typically are ones, who for one reason or another, fell behind a few years in production technology. Man has been on the planet a long time, for one country to be within 100 years of the production capability of another is really pretty remarkable, statistically. But imagine how inefficeint the U.S. was 100 years ago. Even a 20 year lag in production muturity means a distinct competitve disadvantage, considering the employment of electronics in modern production. "

the problem is poor countries in the current world-economy have big problems of reaching the levels of the rich countries, the system is not encouraging them to do so.
Russia for example, 12 years ago, had a little distance with western countries, today after 12 years of world-capitalism, the distance has become much bigger.
china adapted to the world economy, which is necessary to attract investment from rich countries (in that you are right) but on its own conditions, only companies offering hi-tech investment are allowed into China and free trade only with mutual agreements(so much american products in china versus so much chinese products in the us, wile most thirth world just have to open theoir economy without preconditions). It has worked much better than in Russia or eastern europe, and than in total free-market countries in latin america, asia or africa.

[christian]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by takeo

china adapted to the world economy, which is necessary to attract investment from rich countries (in that you are right) but on its own conditions, only companies offering hi-tech investment are allowed into China and free trade only with mutual agreements(so much american products in china versus so much chinese products in the us, wile most thirth world just have to open theoir economy without preconditions). It has worked much better than in Russia or eastern europe, and than in total free-market countries in latin america, asia or africa.

Education, resources, investment and stability are essentials for developing country. A immediate democracy is bad for developing third world, because most of the developing world is under educated with illiterate of 70% or more. Stability means market must be stabilized without political interference.

The reason of successful chinese economy

1) investment
2) education
3) stability
4) chinese abroads-southeast asia, n. america
5) Historical values-chinese is good at trade and businesses for centuries, til the communist government.

[elke]

"ani znayut tchto ya evreyskiy"

Why Russian, Takeo? Just curious... :confused:

As far as the situation in FSU is concerned, the reason it's a mess is that while the educational level of the citizens is very high, most of them have no clue regarding life in a free society. This is the adjustment period: they will be OK in the end.

When I came to US in 1980, we lived in a Russian community in Brooklyn, NY. For the majority of people there - ourselves included - it was a long, tedious, difficult adjustment to even live in a one-family house rather than in an apartment building. And the structure, the laws, the possibilities were already in place. In Russia today, these institutions are still to be built and nobody really knows how to build them.

Also, many of the ills of today's Russia - graft, crime, etc. - were there before the collapse of the USSR as well. It simply wasn't reported on, because there was no one inside to report on it.

[Mediocrates]

in another thread he/she indicated that he/she is either a russian emmigre to france or his/her parents were

[Blue Moon]

Interesting stuff, ain't it ?

We could sit around for hours, days, weeks pondering what if's, pointing fingers, and wringing our hands. Hey, isn't that exactly what we be doin ??? Unfortunately, however, people are being, and continue to be slaughtered at this moment, as we and the media indulge in endless, self-gratifying pontification. At some point, we have to get up out of our chairs, throw our coats on, brave the cold, and get to work. That means facing reality.

Reality:
1. The vast majority of Israeli's, as well as American Jews, want peace. The vast majority of Israeli's would happily give up the West Bank and Gaza, in exchange for a stable, non-threatening, democratic Arab state in the West Bank. And, it makes good economical, as well as political sense.

2. At this particular point in time, those Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza not hell-bent on destroying Israel do not have the ability to thwart the martyr's from hell and their families, who would pack off their own children strapped with explosives to maim innocent civilians. Even if you believe that Arafat and Co.
did not (a) encourage, and/or (b) organize, and/or (c) finance the 60 or so homicide bomber attacks over the last 19 or so months, or the grenade and machine gun attacks, or the lynching of the Israeli soldiers and others (and, if you believe that pink elephants doing-cartwheels in the sky have special magical powers), the fact remains that the murders continue unabated. That's the bottom line, the murders continue. You can talk till your blue in the face giving me all of the excuses . . . it doesn't matter. The murders continue. Thus, once again - - let's just get to the "bottom line" here - - even if we assume the leaders of the West Bank and Gaza Arabs WANT to stop the attacks, they are powerless to do so. Leaders of Hamas and others have repeatedly stated time and time again, they want all of Israel, period. And, to top it off, the whole pile of you know what is being encouraged, organized and funded with the help of Arab countries, such as Iraq, Iran, Syrian, Lebanon, and, believe it or not, Saudi Arabia. These countries have been using the West Bank and Gaza Arabs as pawns in their "Destroy Isreal" chess-game for years and years.
- By the way, do you believe that Al-Queda and Bin Ladin have no relationship, whatsoever, to the terrorist organizations operating in the West Bank and Gaza ? Do you really believe that the ultimate goal of all of these Islamic fundamentalist-terrorist clubs is to give the West Bank Arabs their own country, and that once that is done, they will trade in their C-4, nails, rockets, machine guns, and flight-training manuals (missing, of course, the chapters on how to land . . .) in exchange for business suits and
college textbooks, and become investment bankers ???

So, to sum it up, the terrorist murders will continue even if the West Bank Arabs are given a state. Let's put it all together now (to the tune of "Imagine" by John Lennon, in the key of "Eb" - - a one, and a two, and a three, and a four . . .

The majority of Israel is willing to have an independant Arab state on the West Bank, but cannot, for security sake (think of Hamas with tanks, rockets, access to planes, chemicals, "dirty bombs, ect . . .) permit such to occur until the terrorist clubs are wiped out. Period.

If you don't get it yet, I will now dutifully pull the string and listen to you repeat the knee-jerk mantra: "occupation, occupation, occupation.
- (can you imagine a new Disneyland ride designed after "It's a Small World", where the little puppets from all over the world are singing in 80 different languages (including that cute little Dutch girl with the pigtails and wooden shoes):

Verse: "I'ts an O-cu-pation, a Sha-ron, sin.
I'ts a "massacre but don't look where we've
been . . . "
(you fill in the pre-chorus __________")


Chorus: It's Occupation, after all;
Occupation, after all;
Occupation after all;
it's a Sha-ron, sin . . ." )

Are we done singing yet ? Good, let's get back to reality.
3. Faced with absolute certainty of more terror attacks unless
the terrorist regimes in the West Bank, Gaza, Iraq, Iran, Syria,
Saudi Arabia are crusshed, there are (as I've stated in another post), only two alternatives for Isreali security.

The first one can be assisted by those Arabs who wake up, and face the reality:
Get rid of the terrorists, and we can have our own country.
Don't get rid of the terrorists, and we will continue to sing "It's
an Occupation" until we have to stop singing because the
Israelis are going to be pushed to the point where REAL
military force is used - - you know, the U.S. calls it "War".

So, the West Bank Arab supports in this forum would do much more for those innocent Arab civilians by organizing opposition to Arafat, Corrupt Inc. and the other terrorists (ooops, did I imply that Arafat, Corrupt Inc. was somehow linked to terrorists ?
I must apologize - - wait, Frank Sinatra is singing "New York, New York, and the pink elephants are doing a tango . . . ) and help establish a more stable regime that, hopefully someday soon, will permit real democratic elections (i.e. voting without fear of being executed by a member of Arafat, Corrupt Inc.), and provide real hope for the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza.

Gotta go. : )

[takeo]

no problem, i tought vic was russian.
i think in Russia it's not a transitional period as it is in for example czech republic or eastern Germany. Russian economy is now on a LOWER level than before, even after 12 years, which is not normal for a transitional period, and even if there is some progress under Putin it doesn't seem to change into a western country but has more in common with the thirth world.
of course you can not compare your situation with a whole country, what you experienced and my parents too was a culture shock, but Russia is still Russia, it is not because it became capitalist that the whole society and mentality will change, Russia will not change into another france or america.

i think the reason for the chinese success are not so much the chinese abroad or chinese mentality (untill the 40's one of the pooreest countries in the world) but a very succesfull economic policy since the 70's.


"the murders continue unabated. That's the bottom line, the murders continue"

yes, so does the settlement-policy and the occupation, and israel's ruling party just said it will nEVER accept a palestinian state.

"And, to top it off, the whole pile of you know what is being encouraged, organized and funded with the help of Arab countries, such as Iraq, Iran, Syrian, Lebanon, and, believe it or not, Saudi Arabia. These countries have been using the West Bank and Gaza Arabs as pawns in their "Destroy Isreal" chess-game for years and years. "

Syria, SA and egypt have proposed a plan for peace which included the recognition of israel, israel didn't even bother to discuss the plan...

"By the way, do you believe that Al-Queda and Bin Ladin have no relationship, whatsoever, to the terrorist organizations operating in the West Bank and Gaza ? "

that's at least the opinion of most middle-eastern analysts and the white House, but if you have better sources...

"Do you really believe that the ultimate goal of all of these Islamic fundamentalist-terrorist clubs is to give the West Bank Arabs their own country, and that once that is done, they will trade in their C-4, nails, rockets, machine guns, and flight-training manuals (missing, of course, the chapters on how to land . . .) in exchange for business suits and
college textbooks, and become investment bankers ??? "

some will, some won't. those who won't will be persecuted for brining instability in a peacefull country(as Islamic extremists are currently persecuted in Egypt or syria)

"The first one can be assisted by those Arabs who wake up, and face the reality:
Get rid of the terrorists, and we can have our own country.
Don't get rid of the terrorists, and we will continue to sing "It's
an Occupation" until we have to stop singing because the
Israelis are going to be pushed to the point where REAL
military force is used - - you know, the U.S. calls it "War". "

the thirth possibility would be israel negociating to end the occupation in exchange for an end to terrorism. occupation is for the palestinians as important or more important than terrorism for israel.

Again, no proove that Arafat even supported terrorism against innocent people while it is certain that israel is involved in car-bombings, etc.
If you want peace than stop blaming Arafat and start negociations with the elected leader of the palestinians about the end of the war without pre-conditions.
If israel will not negociate palestinians will not (or can not) stop the armed struggle.

[Vic]

Takeo is right about me: I grew up in Moscow - greetings from the Commies, NewsGuy ;), hi, elke :) (I have written this in the "your background" thread and deleted the post shortly afterwards - it was much too long, with unimportant details). I've missed the "Russian" post, given the speed this thread grows with.

Vy by uzh vyuchili russkiy kak sleduyet, nu kto zhe pishet "chto ya yevreyskiy"? A zaodno i angliyskiy. I uspokoytes'. Iz tekh, komu vy pytayetes' dokasat', chto vy khoroshiy chelovek, nesmotrya na to, chto vy yevrey, etot forum vsye ravno pochti nikto ne chitayet ;)

Takeo's background surprised me, as well as - in this context - some of the replies to his/her posts.

[Batman]

Before anything is done the United Nations must reform to represent ALL the people and that means JEWS and ISRAEL too.
Otherwise the greatest farse-conspiracy organization ever created will continue to dance to a tune far worse than Springtime for Hitler!

Consider this:

The United Nations must be held accountable. The world cannot be silent and continue to let this organization assume a position of world leadership, using our tax money ($11 billion annually by US !) to support it, with its center location in New York City, while continually declaring a political war against Israel and supporting terror against Israel.

After the most recent MASSACRE in Rishon Letzion which killed 16 people and wounded 60, the U.N. had the audacity to CONDEMN ISRAEL the very next day. The vote was 74-4 with 54 abstentions. There were no votes condemning Palestinian terrorism.

Why they still have not called an emergency "security council" meeting about the MASSACRE in Israel? Didn't they call several such meetings to help their Palestinian terrorists? In fact, we want to know WHY there has never been an emergency meeting after Jews have been massacred by the friends of the U.N.? While on the topic, we don't recall Mr. Annan calling for an emergency meeting after 9/11. Doesn't the U.S. taxpayer give $11 billion to this corrupt organization annually?

Until the U.N. calls an emergency meeting of the security council to condemn the MASSACRE of Jews, VOTES on it with an unconditional resolution, and sends a team to inquire how these massacres took place and what human rights violations were committed by the PA, it is violating all that it is supposed to stand for. And, by the way, why hasn't anyone heard from the U.N. Mideast "peace envoy", Terje Larsen, about this?

Confronted with evidence of illegal Palestinian mines, mortars and missiles, no U.N. official questioned how it was that bomb factories could exist in U.N.-managed refugee camps. Either the U.N. officials were unaware of the bomb factories -- a fact that would suggest utter incompetence -- or more likely, the U.N. employees simply turned a blind eye.

If the United Nations is to be reflecting the values of peace, justice and unity, we must gain momentum and grow in numbers to reflect our disgust with the present betrayal of these common human values.

URGE THE UN TO INVESTIGATE PALESTINIAN TERROR IMMEDIATELY (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/303588867 )
Call Fred and his staff and demand to know what criminal logic was behind this. Yes, Annan issued some tepid and banal "condemnation" for the media, but frankly, it just does not cut it. Annan only minces words when Jewish lives are taken, but he is very graphic when condemning Israel.

United Nations: - Fred Ekherd (Annan's spokesman)
PH# 212-963-5128 FAX# 212-963-7055 EMAIL: inquiries@un.org

[takeo]

izvinite ya nimnogo govoru po-ruski, no ya starayus nauchitsya, i ya ne starayus nichigo dokazat

[takeo]

The UN is condamning israel because its violates the UN-charter, the geneva-conventions, etc. all laws who were not made specifically against israel. Israel is not above the law, if it is ready to agree to observe those laws and stop occupation and negociate about the etnic cleansed people, than there will be more goodwill for israel.
It also condamned palestinian violence against civilians, and it condamned the terrorism on 11/9.
But those acts are committed by terrorist groups, while israel acted as a state.
The UN acted much worse against countries as Iraq (or yougoslavia) who committed similar violations as israel, but got punished much harder.
So before shouting the un is biased look why the un is condamning israel...

[Skogan]

I think Takeo is closer to right on this then most of the posters want to admit, (except the part about Iraq's violations being similar to Israel. I don't find any support for that in either quanity or quality of the violations.) Israel may have good reasons for reacting the way it does, but that does not mean it is acting consitantly with international law.


Skogan

[Pathfinder]

What is he right about? Putting Russian posts on an english only forum? Or is it the "etnic cleansing"? Where did that come from? Which Geneva conventions did they violate that were not acts of self-defense? Give me specific events, time, place and detail and we will debate it. He just continues to spew out vague accusations and rhetoric so his conversations become a never ending:

You did it!
Did not!
You did it!
Did not!
You did it!
Did not!
You did it!
Did not!
You did it!
Did not!
You did it!
Did not!
You did it!
Did not!

Kinda Pointless.

Skogan if you agree with him, which of his rhetoric do you agree with? Give us a specific act or event and we will debate. How about the "etnic cleansing." Give us an example of that.

[Skogan]

My agreement with Takeo was on the points he made in the post above mine. My last sentence, that israel may have good reason to act the way they do, was pointing to the fact that the best arguements in favor of Israel's actions don't come from international law, but from its need to survive.

While the U.N. does critcize Israel, I don't think the source is that they love the arabs and hate the jews. I agree with Takeo that the main source of criticism comes from the violation of international law. That will be criticised, even if you can justify it on the need to survive.

The second point the Takeo makes, that I agree with, is that modern countries are always held to a higher standard then despotic regimes. Not many criticised the afgans for killing U.S. soldiers, but did criticise the U.S. for the relatively leniant treatment of it's cuban detainees. Does that make it right? Maybe not, but the source is not anti-israel bias, as above posters would suggest.

I also agree with Takeo that U.N. did infact condem the 9/11 attack and (I believe, but am not certain) the use of suicide bombers.

You ask which violation did Israel make that wasn't an act of self defense. The geneva convention applies, even if it is an act of self defense. It was written presupposing a conflict in which people would be defending themselves.

I really believe that Israel's best arguement is necessity, not based on international legal standards. But if you want to debate I'll throw one out.

Defend the Israel's continue failure to allow the Right of Return on the basis that it is consistant with:

1. Customary International Law,
2.UN Resolution 194, which specifically applies the right of return to the Palestinian refugees. Paragraph 11 states "that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors 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."
( Israel's admittance to the UN as a member state, through Resolution 273, was conditioned on acceptance and implementation of Resolution 194. Therefore, Israel is bound, as a condition of membership in the UN, to implement 194 and to facilitate the return of the Palestinian refugees.)
3. Geneva conention's assumption that the right of return exist.

Once again, im not saying that Israel SHOULD let all palistinians return. I'm saying that the legal defense against it is weak.


Skogan
Skogan

[Gatorade]

Is Resolution 194 still recognized?

I only see 242 and 338 being mentioned in the newspapers.

Resolution 242 requires Israel to work toward "achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem"

Why wouldn't creation of an independent Palestinian state meet this requirement?

[Skogan]

I've never seen anywhere that 242 abrogates, (rather then supplements) 194, but this is not my specialty. I think arabs generally try to use 242 to bind Israel to 194, under the rational that it incorporates it by its language. I didn't rely on that though, because I found that arguement weak. Instead I relied on 273, Israels agreement to 194 as a condition to entrance into the U.N. as justification why 194 is binding on Israel.

But there is also the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which says: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."

And Security Council Resolution 237 which called upon the government of Israel "to facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of hostilities.

And Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states, "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country". Which implies they have the right to return right now, not when Israel feels it is safe.

I'm not sure to what extent these later resolutions are binding on Israel however.

I maintain that Israel best defense to this is necessity, not legal.


Skogan

[Blue Moon]

Are we just shouting at the wind here ?

Mr. Takeo, I don't have time tonight to go point to point with you to answer your somewhat ambiguous responses to the, at least I hope, factual assertions in my posts. But, both you and the Palestinian pundits I read about and see on TV are not helping the West Bank and Gaza Arabs by refusing to at least address the real world here. Instead, you keep chanting the "It's a Small World Song" (occupation, occupation, occupation).

I fear that if a bus was headed right at you at 100 mph, you'd try argue with the bus about it's right to be there, rather than doing something concrete to solve your crisis.

Forget, for just a moment, PLEASE, about "occupation, occupation, occupation." We can argue about over coffee one day until Starbucks closes. Right now, the Palestinian people have both proverbial and literal guns at their heads because of the terrorist attacks.

Israel is now a country, a sovereign, with a powerful military force and nuclear capability. Driven to desparation, they will
finally have to resort to what any other country defending itself has, and would.

Palestinian supporters can no longer dictate the terms of the debate ? The Arabs are not on the same military playing field. Put another way, the lives of the West Bank and Gaza Arabs are in the hands of Israel. Just stop and think about this reality. Isreal is being driven to desparation. Why do you think that even many historical doves supported Sharon ?? It's called fear, it's called desparation, its called sick and tired of the @#*#%@. And desparate enough, Israel will act to defend itself with brutal force, despite the hypocritical cries of foul from the EU and UN. You see, faced with possible destruction, Isreal will risk being ostracized and sanctions. Why, because you can't sell or buy things IF YOU ARE DEAD.

Takeo, the fundamental error in your somewhat disjointed thesis is consistent with most of the Arab pundits. But what you folks don't understand is:
- this ain't Burger King, and you don't get it your way.

The West Bank Arabs and Gaza Arabs cannot state the
terms of the conditions under which they must get their act together.

You and other sympathizers state the following equation as if it was reality - but it is fundamentally false. You wish the Arabs were in the position to say, as you repeatedly do:

"you do what we say (relinquish your control of the West Bank and Gaza) or we will continue terrorist attacks."

But, as my grandma used to say, "wish in one hand, pish in the other, and see which one fills up the quickest . . ."

Your delusional assumption of equal bargaining power is dangerous to everybody. Because, as brutal as they are, Isreal can, at least for the time survive such attacks. But the Arabs cannot survive a massive military action by Israel.

The reality is simple: the gloves are off, and the equation
is the opposite of what you want. It is the following:

If you don't stop murdering our civilians, you'll long for the day that Israel was (in your words - - however false in history and fact )simply "occupying" you.

A simpler way stated:
Stop wagging your finger while you shoot the guy 100 times stronger than you in the kneecaps. Injure him enough, and he will be forced to stop listening to your rheotric and (with great reluctance and sadness) will kill you.

Can you factually refute the following ?:

1. Permitting an independent state for the West Bank Arabs will not stop terrorist attacks by Islamic fundamentalist Arab terrorists organizations, such as Hamas.

2. Once it becomes a state, Palestine will arm itself with more than homicide bomber-type explosives. It will obtain tanks, aircraft, and missles. The extremist terrorists will thereafter have more opportunities to obtain access to such weapons (and, perhaps, even chemicals and dirty bombs) and use them against Israel.

When you can assure Isreal that #1 and #2 are false, then
Isreal can (as it desperately wants to) help create a trustworthy,
secure Palestinian state.

Please stop with the what if's and your upside down equations The Arabs have a choice, and its very simple:

1. Indicate a desire and willingness to replace the current ineffective and corrupt leader and his regime, and install a regime sincerely committed to democracy, and prosperity for Arabs, or

2. Face a brutal attack from which the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, (and, perhaps, some other Arab countries) may never recover.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Skogan

Once again, im not saying that Israel SHOULD let all palistinians return. I'm saying that the legal defense against it is weak.
You have quoted it:
2.UN Resolution 194, which specifically applies the right of return to the Palestinian refugees. Paragraph 11 states "that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date...

I'm not an expert on international law. Are UN resolutions legally binding?

[Skogan]

There are 4 issues with whether International law is binding. The first is if the Nation agree's to be bound by it. Usually, your not bound to a law unless your a signator to it. Thus, resolutions against Israel have no effect but condemnation unless Israel has agreed to that law. The U.S. often signs treaties and resolutions, but then adds the language that says it is not bound by it.

Second, what is the effect of that law in the Country itself. In the U.S. treaties we sign, (which would include international laws we are signators to) have the same effect as a congressionally passed statute, (Its a constitution thing). Islamic countries, however, claim that their higher law comes from Allah, and thus they can never be bound or give legal effect to anything that conficts with his will.

Third, customary international law is unwritten, customs that the majority of nations have agreed to. These are binding on a nation if they have adopted the practice in general.

Fourth, "law" is only as binding as the ability to enforce it. If you don't recognize the authority of the courts jurisdiction, and the court has no ability to enforce it on you, then the matter is moot.


What Israel needs to be careful of is the recent E.U. and world courts. In the U.S., we have started to allow CIVIL LAWSUITS by individuals against countries that repress their right to seek redress there. It the citizen wins, the U.S. freezes the assets of that country and awards it to them. I believe this was done by some Bosnians, and a suit is ongoing with victims of 9/11.

I can imagine Palistinians bringing a class action suit against Israel in a European forum, (claiming the Israeli courts are unfairly discriminatory), basing it on International Law, claiming the right to compensation for the land and property lost due to their inability to return. If they won, the E.U. would freeze Israeli assets there and award them to the P.L.O.


Skogan


Skogan

[Mediocrates]

I suppose if they needed that pretext they could. Or they could simply declare this that or the other and pretend they have no agenda other than the freedom of man in general and nobody in particular.

They could be any number of things. Retract their recognition of Israel, retract UN resolution 181, even declare war on Israel. They see so much further than we because their statue of Justice is not blindfolded.

Clearly the intent of international law and it's practice are nearly 180 degrees from one another. The intent of international law, that is not administrative such as air traffic, admiralty, etc. is to support some kind of collective blind equality. But in practice it winds up a politically agendized process without the 'due' part in front of it.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by takeo
The UN is condamning israel because its violates the UN-charter, the geneva-conventions, etc. all laws who were not made specifically against israel. Israel is not above the law, if it is ready to agree to observe those laws and stop occupation and negociate about the etnic cleansed people, than there will be more goodwill for israel.
It also condamned palestinian violence against civilians, and it condamned the terrorism on 11/9.
But those acts are committed by terrorist groups, while israel acted as a state.
The UN acted much worse against countries as Iraq (or yougoslavia) who committed similar violations as israel, but got punished much harder.
So before shouting the un is biased look why the un is condamning israel...

There’s no evidence that Israel violated anything. Show me the charges. Show me the convictions.

All you blow is hot air.

Israel hasn't violated a thing, you're like a broken record.

[ibrodsky]

The only thing that should be "established" in the West Bank and Gaza is rule of law and civilized behavior.

It's time for Israel to formally annex portions of the West Bank and Gaza, build a wall, and start planning massive retalitaion to future terrorist attacks.

Personally, I now favor taking it all and expelling the "Palestinian" Arabs. They have convinced me, through their evil deeds, that there is nothing to negotiate with them and no chance of ever living in peace with them.

[takeo]

OK, this is really too much to answer to, but i'll try to be short.

first: I have provided on this forum links to the Geneva-conventions and UN-resolutions time after time. about the UN-resolutions, skogan did a good job (there is also un-resolution "242 which has been mentioned and quoted so much on this forum that i'm not going to do it again, use the search-engine)

But here it goes (again): geneva-conventions:


"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. "

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states that:

"(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country"
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

and the Fourth Geneva Conventions (1949) prohibits:
"individual or mass forcible transfers ... regardless of their motive"
and calls for evacuated persons to be: "transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased."
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 (1974) upholds:

"the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return";
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/be25c7c81949e71a052567270057c82b/025974039acfb171852560de00548bbe!OpenDocument

UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948) :

"refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors 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 the loss or damage to property..."
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/04ab3be25dc29c3c852560e500669826!OpenDocument

about the "and life at peace": there are enough palestinians wishing to live at peace in israel, noone would have any problem if israel excludes the members of terrorist organisations of returning to israel.

is this all hot air?
I would like to know what legal defense YOU have for your arguments...







As you know israel was legal and internationally recognised by a un-resolution, so if you consider those un-resolutions not legally binding it is like a knife cutting on both sides...

[takeo]

Israel's justification of military occupation under the rubric of "security" is an attempt to equate a political aspiration with a legal right. "Security" may be a political bargaining chip, but it is not a legal basis for Israel's continued presence in the occupied territories. Israel arguments stands logic on its head: it was after all Israel's own refusal to withdraw from the occupied territories that led to the 1973 war. Secondly, the more settlements established on occupied territory, the more land is needed to provide "security". There then can never be, under this logic, any withdrawal or trading land for peace.
Of course you may shout that israel has no choice but to protect itself, but, even if you don't consider the lack of any constitutional right, nobody ever prooved that the occupation was necessary for the protection of israel, israel gave back the sinai to egypt in a legal treaty and has never been attacked from that side again.
But "occupation" is not just a theoretical concept that can be discussed over a coffee, for the palestinians it is daily reality, and for them the end of occupation is just as urgent and necessary as the end of violence for israel.
And please don't treaten the palestinians with israel's superior military force, because that kind of logic will lead the palestinians to desperate acts as suicide-bombing civilians (which they would never do if a normal military victory against israel was possible).
palestinians are indeed in an equal position to israel, their rights and concerns for an end of occupation are as important and legal as the cocerns of israeli for an end to violence, so their is equal bargaining, if you are not ready to accept that you will be an obstruction to peace.
And the nazi ideas about bombing all palestinians or expelling them are as dangerous for israel as for the Palestinians. Any such action will lead to a general embargo that would destroy israel's economy and possibly as well to a nuclear war with all Arab and muslim countries (but i'm sure the US will pressure israel so much with hard treats that it would revoke it's decision before such a war erupts). Without us-military and economical support and the hostility of the rest of the world (well-earned in that case) israel is lost and dead.

There was also never a rule of law since the occupation, Jewish settlers who killed palestinians have in most cases not been punished, because the occupation is not only illegal to international laws but the occupied territories are no part of israel either were israeli laws are applied. Israel always refused to have any rule of law in those territories, to make their occupation more easy, so don't complain about a lack of rule of law in the occupied territories!



"1. Permitting an independent state for the West Bank Arabs will not stop terrorist attacks by Islamic fundamentalist Arab terrorists organizations, such as Hamas. "

it may not stop them completely, but as i indicated before, it will seriously contain them, people would be no longer concerned by attacking their occupier but by building their own state and live their own lifes in the new enviironment. terrorists would no longer be a usefull tool to fight their oppressors but they would become ennoying for the majority of Palestinians aND for the PA.
Israel can concentrate also on its own borders and no longer protect colonies which put their people and soldiers in danger in hostile area. As a legal state that recognised israel palestine would be in the same position as Jordan or Egypt and could no longer affort to attack israel without consequences, it would make any israeli reaction legal.

"2. Once it becomes a state, Palestine will arm itself with more than homicide bomber-type explosives. It will obtain tanks, aircraft, and missles. The extremist terrorists will thereafter have more opportunities to obtain access to such weapons (and, perhaps, even chemicals and dirty bombs) and use them against Israel. "

So what? israel is not bombed by tanks is it? and in any case israel will still have military superiority, palestine will not risk its independance by attacking israel, which is for sure a lost case.



"Please stop with the what if's and your upside down equations The Arabs have a choice, and its very simple:

1. Indicate a desire and willingness to replace the current ineffective and corrupt leader and his regime, and install a regime sincerely committed to democracy, and prosperity for Arabs, or

2. Face a brutal attack from which the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, (and, perhaps, some other Arab countries) may never recover""

No, this is a fake choice, israel can not decide who will be the leader of the palestinians, it has to negociate with those leader or face more violence and international isolation. any brutal genocidal attack on the palestinians will have even more brutal consequences for israel

[Skogan]

Takeo, I don't think you give enough credit to the threat that giving a Palastinian state would create to Israel. You say that it wouldn't be a threat, but the evidence doesn't support that. There is a clear hostility to the concept of Israel, not just the occupation. It is declared in both the official and unofficial rethoric of many arabs.

My point, with which I think a few others would agree is that regardless of the legality, Israel can not (and should not) give back the area until it is safe.

Just because something is Illegal doesn't mean it is immoral. (See Martin Luther King, Ghandi, etc.) This is especially true with international law, which is famously fadish. Similar to the relationship between an object and its shadow, there is a link between law and justice, but it is not exact. They are not the same. Sometimes the "right" thing to do is violate a law.

If abiding by International law meant a hostile foreign power would over take France, what would it do? What would any country do? It is clear that any country would violate international law if its survival depended on it.

Now, you say that it would not threaten Israel's existance. I, and most of the others here, are not convinced of that. So I invite you to provide support for that arguement. If you can make a good point, Ill agree with you. But so far your defense of that is minimal, in my opinion.

A secure Israel is the precursor to a free palastinian state. Without the prior, there is no reasonable hope for the latter.


Skogan

[takeo]

of course i can not look in the future, but all logical indications are leading to the likelyhood of less violence and less danger for israel than today.
I think i made it clear on this thread and other treads which indications, i will repeat them shortly:
1. israel can use all its military to protect and enforce its own border, and a foreign military presence and demilitarised zone will create additional safety for israel.
2. most palestinians don't have the destruction of israel as their goal, only some extremists who always prosper in war but are isolated in peacefull conditions(as in 1993), once their goal is reached they will no mor reason to fight israel.
3. much less people and states (for example syria and SA offered recognition of israel) would support terrorism against israel
4. palestinians are no military match for Israel
5. palestine, as a real state, would have heavier duties and more international pressure to stop completely terrorism against its neighbour, especially when it recognised israel.
6: after a treaty with egypt was signed, violence against israel from egypt ceased completely.. after israel withdrew from Libanon, without any treaty and in the worst possible circumstances, violence almost ceased too, or at least sharply diminished, even if a terrorist organisation much more radical than the PLO now had power near the israeli border.

there are no international laws that would legitimate an invasion of France...
I think international laws can not be violated unpunished, if not they are meaningless and should be abolished, you can't punsih one country for violating international laws and allowing another to do so. No international laws are permitting the destruction or invasion of a recognised country.

[elke]

1. israel can use all its military to protect and enforce its own border, and a foreign military presence and demilitarised zone will create additional safety for israel.

If fighting terrorism through military means is ineffective now, what makes you think that it would suddenly become effective when different borders and/or different nationalities are arrived at?

2. most palestinians don't have the destruction of israel as their goal,

Again: numbers, numbers, numbers. Most polls I have seen are rather confused. Depending on the day, PMS, whatever, different polls give different answers to this question. Given the life-and-death nature of this situation for Israel, mistakes cannot be borne.

only some extremists who always prosper in war but are isolated in peacefull conditions(as in 1993), once their goal is reached they will no mor reason to fight israel.

If the reports are correct, the reason it was relatively quiet was that Arafat made "100% effort" to contain the extremists.

3. much less people and states (for example syria and SA offered recognition of israel) would support terrorism against israel

Conceivable in the case of SA, but I don't believe Syria for a moment. In addition, how can anyone be sure that these governments will remain in place?

4. palestinians are no military match for Israel

True, but the response in Item 1 applies...

5. palestine, as a real state, would have heavier duties and more international pressure to stop completely terrorism against its neighbour, especially when it recognised israel.

True, but the question remains: will they do it? CAN they do it?

6: after a treaty with egypt was signed, violence against israel from egypt ceased completely..

This is debatable.

after israel withdrew from Libanon, without any treaty and in the worst possible circumstances, violence almost ceased too, or at least sharply diminished, even if a terrorist organisation much more radical than the PLO now had power near the israeli border.

This is also debatable.

[Mediocrates]

". palestine, as a real state, would have heavier duties and more international pressure to stop completely terrorism against its neighbour, especially when it recognised israel. "


The definition of state sponsored terrorism includes that which is directed against other states. So like Iran and Syria one would expect the PLO to simply export their terrorism and expertise not merely against Israel but against the US, UK and anywhere the call of war is heard.

[takeo]

"Again: numbers, numbers, numbers. Most polls I have seen are rather confused. Depending on the day, PMS, whatever, different polls give different answers to this question. Given the life-and-death nature of this situation for Israel, mistakes cannot be borne. "

There are no real numbers of course and people sometimes change their mind because of new israeli aggressions, but it is clear that the PA, which is still the most popular in polls and most probably the representative of the palestinians in an independant state, has accepted the state of Israel.


"If the reports are correct, the reason it was relatively quiet was that Arafat made "100% effort" to contain the extremists. "

Yes, and he could do so much better in an independant state with more moral autority among the palestinians (gained independance for them) and with more means at disposal.


"Conceivable in the case of SA, but I don't believe Syria for a moment. In addition, how can anyone be sure that these governments will remain in place? "

Yes, syria has proposed this to Israel only one week ago. You can of course never be sure those governments stay in place, but the same can be said about the israeli government. by the way the sheiks and assads have ruled the countries for decades it is not likely to change quickly.




"6: after a treaty with egypt was signed, violence against israel from egypt ceased completely..
This is debatable. "

why? do you know any example of the contrary?






"The definition of state sponsored terrorism includes that which is directed against other states. So like Iran and Syria one would expect the PLO to simply export their terrorism and expertise not merely against Israel but against the US, UK and anywhere the call of war is heard."

that is pure speculation, by the way it has been years ago if at all any of those countries you mention have ever engaged in terrorism. With such arguments you can criticise anything anytime.

[elke]

As far as the Egyptian front, there are reports of shooting across the border, sporatically. It does not seem to be a major problem, nor a major provocation, but it does happen. Probably, some trigger-happy soldiers with a warped sense of humor...

With Syria, it's a joke: they don't understand the concept of "negotiation". In 2000, the "negotiations" broke down because they wanted Israel out of the Golan in order for any "negotiations" to begin. Whatever it is they offered, will probably meet the same fate; unless Prince Abdullah has more influence on them than we know.

Democracies tend to make more stable governments than autocracies, historically. This is because they tend to express the majority's opinions. They may not be able to move with lightning speed, nor are they usually capable of the optimal solution to problems. They are, however, the best defense against utter stupidity.

[L@mplighterM]

I could tear your posted garbage to pieces.

For starters there was no clearly established borders in 1948.

Further it was established at the UN that Israel has a right to establish secure borders. Attempts have been made to settle this issue for years and Arabs have consistently turned down all offers.

It’s all of Israel or nothing as far as they are concerned.


Bold posted by takeo:
UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948) :

"refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors 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 the loss or damage to property..."

Well it’s clearly not practical for them to return home at this point in time.


Time and time again you post little snippets instead of presenting the whole picture. I know it’s difficult for anyone to grasp it all (even for me) but really why only present articles that are to your advantage.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM


Time and time again you post little snippets instead of presenting the whole picture. I know it’s difficult for anyone to grasp it all (even for me) but really why only present articles that are to your advantage.


Look who's talking. You are the one posting worthless articles, calling upon all people of the west to fight Islam.

[Jorge]

Quote from Skogan 05-23

Takeo, I don't think you give enough credit to the threat that giving a Palastinian state would create to Israel. You say that it wouldn't be a threat, but the evidence doesn't support that. There is a clear hostility to the concept of Israel, not just the occupation. It is declared in both the official and unofficial rethoric of many arabs.

My point, with which I think a few others would agree is that regardless of the legality, Israel can not (and should not) give back the area until it is safe.

Regarding your statement that the evidence doesn't support the assumption of Takeo that it may not pose a threat
for Israel. I don't see how can we have any evidence since that State has not yet been established. What some people have is an
inference, from the present situation they infer what may happen
and may be, just may be, they are infering wrongly.

The one evidence we have is that, right now, without a Palestinian State, terrorism is rampant and that Israel, in spite
of all his military might, has not been able to curb it. It takes a lot of "if's" to assume that terrorism, in its present form,could reach a higher level after the palestinians create their State. I say in its present form, because some people in this Forum (and a lot of
people outside it) assumes another sort of terrorist attacks from within a future Palestinian State: with artillery, missiles, biological weapons and what not. I think they miss the point that other
neighbouring States, which are our declared adversaries, like Syria and Lebanon, do not use those tactics. As a matter of fact, the evidence points out to the fact for more than 30 years the frontier
with Syria has been absolutely quiet. After the israeli withdrawal
from Lebanon the attacks from Hizbullah dropped abruptly.
Why should a Palestinian State behave differently?

As Takeo has repeatedly pointed out, terrorist attacks
against Israel could not serve the best interests of a future
Palestinian State. No one expects that terrorism will suddenly
evaporate after Independence Day, but there are no solid reasons to expect that it will intensify.

I'd take exemption also to the claim that Israel can not (and should not) give back the area until it is safe.


When is it going to be safe? When the army kills or jails all the actual and future terrorists? When, after the Second Coming, palestinians will suddenly look at israelis as their dearest friends.
It might be safe only after the conflict is solved or is in the way
of being solved and the first step in this direction is the creation
of a Palestinian State.

[takeo]

great post Jorge,

Lomplighter you are a specialist in quoting small parts of the whole to proove your point.
The parts i quoted are the ones relevant for this discussion.

Yes there were clearly established borders in 1948, the borders of the state of Israel, recognised by the UN.

"Further it was established at the UN that Israel has a right to establish secure borders. Attempts have been made to settle this issue for years and Arabs have consistently turned down all offers. "

sure, secure borders which mean they must be free of attacks, but nowhere is said that secure borders means that israel could draw its own borders.
which attempts are you refering to? Certainly not by Israel, which always refused even to talk about (as carter proposed during camp david) the issue untill 1993!
the only offer was in 2000 but israel was still not prepared to negociate over the matter, just a take it or leave it proposal.

"With Syria, it's a joke: they don't understand the concept of "negotiation". In 2000, the "negotiations" broke down because they wanted Israel out of the Golan in order for any "negotiations" to begin. Whatever it is they offered, will probably meet the same fate; unless Prince Abdullah has more influence on them than we know. "

Syria tried to discuss about the Golan Heights but what i remember is that those talks didn't have as a pre-condition the withdrawel (what was further left to discuss?) and the fact that israel was not prepared to give up all the occupied territories of the Golan heights, only parts of it.
Syria, along with SA and Egypt, proposed a peace-plan only weeks ago wich included recognition of Israel.

"Democracies tend to make more stable governments than autocracies, historically. This is because they tend to express the majority's opinions. They may not be able to move with lightning speed, nor are they usually capable of the optimal solution to problems. They are, however, the best defense against utter stupidity."

this is not always true, sometimes dictatorships, especially ones that are stable for decades, can have a long-term and stable policy, whereas in countries with a multi-party system, every while the coaltion or party in power changes, the policy can change too. sometimes this is in the best interest of a country, sometimes it is not. even multi-party elections can't protect a country from utter stupidity.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Morpheus



Look who's talking. You are the one posting worthless articles, calling upon all people of the west to fight Islam.


I've called on no one to fight Islam.

[Mediocrates]

terrorist attacks against Israel could not serve the best interests of a future Palestinian State. No one expects that terrorism will suddenly evaporate after Independence Day, but there are no solid reasons to expect that it will intensify.


Is that what you mean by land for peace? In exchange for about a third of the country, Israel gains.....well, nothing at least not in terms of any change in what happens on the ground.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Jorge
Regarding your statement that the evidence doesn't support the assumption of Takeo that it may not pose a threat
for Israel. I don't see how can we have any evidence since that State has not yet been established. What some people have is an
inference, from the present situation they infer what may happen
and may be, just may be, they are infering wrongly.
If by "inference" you mean that people now learn and predict from past acts of the Palestinians what their future acts will be, then that is a valid basis for making conclusions that are reasonable.

You say that the Palestinians have not yet been rewarded with their own state, but in 1948, when Israel was formed, a Palestinian state was also formed by the UN. The record shows that the Palestinians immediately gathered the other Arabs and marched into Israel in an attempt to commit genocide against the Israelis.

Since then, the Palestinians have never let even a single day go by without acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians.

Moreover, the flawed Oslo agreement gave the Palestinians independence over ALL their major population centers, and an active negotiation process aimed at granting the Palestinians national independence. What was the result? Non-stop terorrism till this very day.

As soon as the Israeli army pulled out, the Palestinians immediately began not to build a democracy or a viable economy, but instead, they began to build missiles factories, homemade grenades and a homicide bomber infrastructure. Weapons by the ton smuggled in through underground tunnels from Egypt to Gaza, fishing boats laden with heavy weapons, and the Karine A with its 50 ton cargo of RPGs, anti-tank missiles, C4, and much more.

This leads me to conclude, or to "infer" if you will, that handing over to the Palestinians more land and more freedom to develop a huge terrorist machine is a bad idea. I don't think it necessary at all to give them independent enemy state status to experiment if that would sway them to stop their Jihad-genocide against the Jews.

Instead, I would wager on dismantling some Palestinian settlements and transfering some of the Palestinian population elesewhere, so that a defensible, terrorist-proof border can be maintained. That's the solution to the Palestinian problem, not land rewards.

[takeo]

"Is that what you mean by land for peace? In exchange for about a third of the country, Israel gains.....well, nothing at least not in terms of any change in what happens on the ground."

terrorism will not evaporate but it will surely be less than today because for all the reasons mentioned earlier.
most palestinians would have no more reason to fight israel the most important one and most Arab neighbouring states would stop sponsering terrorism against israel.

that would leave only a handfull of extremists with almost no foreign support (except maybe iran or iraq), and for them it would be much harder to find a good environment and support for terrorism in palestine and the Arab world as today.

"You say that the Palestinians have not yet been rewarded with their own state, but in 1948, when Israel was formed, a Palestinian state was also formed by the UN. The record showsthat the Palestinians immediately gathered the other Arabs and marched into Israel in an attempt to commit genocide against the Israelis.
Since then, the Palestinians have never let even a single day go by without acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians.
Moreover, the flawed Oslo agreement gave the Palestinians independence over ALL their major population centers, and an active negotiation process aimed at granting the Palestinians national independence. What was the result? Non-stop terorrism till this very day.
As soon as the Israeli army pulled out, the Palestinians immediately began not to build a democracy or a viable economy, but instead, they began to build missiles factories, homemade grenades and a homicide bomber infrastructure. Weapons by the ton smuggled in through underground tunnels from Egypt to Gaza, fishing boats laden with heavy weapons, and the Karine A with its 50 ton cargo of RPGs, anti-tank missiles, C4, and much more.
This leads me to conclude, or to "infer" if you will, that handing over to the Palestinians more land and more freedom to develop a huge terrorist machine is a bad idea. I don't think it necessary at all to give them independent enemy state status to experiment if that would sway them to stop their Jihad-genocide against the Jews.
Instead, I would wager on dismantling some Palestinian settlements and transfering some of the Palestinian population elesewhere, so that a defensible, terrorist-proof border can be maintained. That's the solution to the Palestinian problem, not land rewards."

As you know palestinians never gained real independance because israel always blocked it, in 1948 (ok, the Arabs started the war because they didn't wanted to share their historical homeland, but after the war israel did not restore the international plan but instead took much more), and since 1968 israel took it all.
the oslo agreements were not providing independance just some little islands of palestinian souvereignty that would eventually in 1999 lead to a palestinian state (that was however untill Netanyahu spoiled the party). but since 1993 things remained relatively quiet, even if israel continued with the building of illegal settlements and didn't commit itself to the timetable it agreed upon. So land for peace has worked, even in those limited and unfair 90's agreements. land for peace has equally worked with Egypt AND even without any negociations or peace-talks at all the withdrawel of libanon, with missiled aimed at a large part of israel, against all predictions, diminished seriously the violence.

So all indications would indicate that peace-talks with the palestinians (and the world community) about the end of the conflict would be a positive thing for both israel and the Palestinians.
But of course for you it doesn't matter if the war ends or not, you believe out of ideological principles that Westbank, gaza and eastern jerusalem belong to israel, and for that reason you are even prepared to conduct a massive etnic cleansing of the original population on territory that is by no single state recognised as part of israel. not only depriving their rights as it is today, but fysically removing them is your solution. For sure i admire your honesty, i think many members of likud think the same but consider it bad propaganda to say it openly (if not, what solution do they have for the palestinian problem without ever having a palestinian state?)
you can discuss about the content of fascism, but if this isn't fascism than i'm spiderman.

[Blue Moon]

Today, yet another homicide bomber murdered innocent civilians, including a 2 year old-baby, near an ice cream parlor in an open mall in Tel Aviv. A few weeks ago, another psychopath wiped out a 15 year-old boy and a 50 year-old man playing chess in a park.

While, as I've stated in previous posts, I, like the majority of Israeli's and Jews in America, would hope someday for a safe, sane, and prosperous Arab state in Gaza and the West Bank,
nothing of the sort should happen until a responsible regime is put into place and the psychopath Islamic fundamentalist-terror regimes in the West Bank, Gaza, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, ect . . . are wiped out.

The rhetoric I read and hear from West Bank and Gaza Arab supporters, including in this forum, are becoming more and more pathetic. Instead of taking responsibility and really brain-storming as to how to install a responsible and sane democracy in the territories and rid the area of the terrorist vermin, all I read is finger pointing, twisted and distorted recitations of your self-serving versions of "history", and more and more
bull@#*%.

When it was pointed out how a Palestinian state at this time would pose an increased danger to Israel, one poster came up with the incredible response: How do we know, we haven't tried it ? (- - said one military officer to the other while looking at the beautiful, peace offering of the Trojan Horse outside the castle walls .............................................)

How do we know ? We know because we are dealing with a regime that, at absolute minimum, either directs and/or supports and/or refuses and/or has proven itself incapable of stopping the murder of innocent non-combatants.

How do we know ? Because the terror groups hate Jews, hate Israel, hate the U.S., and hate Western Civilization in general.
Oh, I'm sorry, I was only dreaming that three airplanes containing mostly Saudi Arabian (you know, that same country whose leader came over hear and allowed our tough talking president to give him oral sex ) terrorists slammed into the World Trade Center, our Pentagon, and tried to wipe out the White House - - purposefully incinerating and annhilating thousands of innocent people minding their own business.

And, as no West Bank and Gaza Arab apologists have or can refute, groups like Hamas have openly and consistently promised they will continue their depraved slaughter even if
a Palestinian state is continued - - until the day Israel is no more. Oh, they say, Jews can live in their Islamic state under Islamic law. What @#@*. Is this the same Islamic paradise like we find in Saudi Arabia - - where a couple of Christians were jailed and sentenced to 150 flogging lashes (eventually cancelled) and kicked out of the country because they dared to posses a bible and a few Christian CD's ? Is this the same country where a woman who cried she was raped was recently sentenced to death because to have been raped, she must have "fornicated" with her attacker, and she didn't have the requisite four male eyewitnesses to confirm the rape ?

Speaking of Western Civilization: I just noticed that one of the primary posters in this forum from France. Another poster even said that this man from France is Jewish.
Quite ironic, isn't it buddy ?
What is it that one of France's special diplomats revealed about how France thinks of Israel - - what was that quote of his at a not so long ago dinner function ??? - -
Oh, yeah, now I remember it: "That #@*#@ little country."
So you still haven't learned what much of the world thinks of
Jewish people. Did you ever hear of WWII ? Did you ever learn about how France cared for and looked after its Jewish population in the face of the Nazi extermination program ??? And being from France, the grand prince of anti-semitic European countries . . . you should be ashamed of yourself.


Pull your heads out boys. There are thousands of sick Arabs who
are basically telling not only Israel, but the U.S. and much of the civilized world the following: "If you don't do what we want, when we want it, we will resort to the most viscious, disgusting, cowardly, putrifying acts of all: we will murder and maim your innocents" - - a revolting case of the worst type of blackmail.

Personally, I don't care what your "needs" are. I don't care what your land claims are. I simply don't care. Targeting 2 year old babies makes you sub-human scum. And to brainwash your own children to do your sadistic dirty work makes you even worse.
And to think, you would slaughter even babies so you can, you believe, go to heaven and #@%* 72 (or whatever number is promised these days) virgins makes you more sick and depraved than my little brain can even fathom.

You cannot negotiate with a sick mind.
This isn't civilization. This is a throwback to the dark ages.
Much of the Middle East Islamic region has a history of
Jihad ever since the split of the religion into two factions.
Read your Middle East history. I want your land. Jihad.
You don't worship God right. Jihad. You don't look right. Jihad.
Your camel urinated in my backyard. Jihad.

The funamentalists seem to be rapid animals who happen, unfortunately, to possess human genes.

And, to think, you apologists spread the same ignorant, cyclical, cat-chasing-it's-tail rhetoric in defense of the baby-murdering terrorists. You have no credibility. Why don't you put your cheap talk where your mouth is - - w