Land for Peace has failed. Its time to give Peace or Land a try. [Archive]

hagg323

06-20-2002, 01:41 PM

I do believe that the solution and our messages must be balanced with full respect to these poor humans (hmm… it’s so hard, especially after tonight’s attack, damn it!) the same way that we demand respect to ourselves from them. A punishing system will not do it and will not deliver a long-lasting solution, which is what we should be looking for. Peace, Shpeace, a long-lasting solution should be our focus. Because we cannot afford looking at short-term solutions that only generate more frustrations even if not leading to more violence. This is what they think that they are doing: pushing us in the short-term to give up something, which we will never ever give up. They are wrong. Wrong in thinking, wrong in their tactics. Please let’s not follow this path too. We must look beyond the horizon of the present violence. The violence must be put off, forcefully and without any compromise, with a way more determinism than what our government has demonstrated up till now. There’s no other way. Terror has no logic to reason with and you cannot surrender to it. But they are people like you and me that you’re taking about, Stephen, and must be treated with the same ways that you want to be treated yourself, and your family, and your loved ones. We need to look at solutions that will lead to quiet (peace would be nice to have, not a must so soon) and economic prosperity to the region, one that will increase the standard of living and provide hope and unlimited opportunities to all newborns, Arabs and Jews alike. Suddenly, it seems like a long dream. It’s amazing how quickly the hope can return once the violence has ended. Talking about transfer from a standpoint of looking after everyone’s interests, is one thing, which I support because I simply cannot see any other logical solution and not because I choose it gladly. Talking about limiting other people and compressing them further inside this horrible pressure cooker simply won’t work. Not for the short term. Not for the long term. Not for me. Not for them. Not even for you.

takeo

06-20-2002, 01:41 PM

massive etnic cleansing of the occupied territories will change sporadic terrorism into a full war against a large colaition and worldwide embargo, land for peace (or better said implementation of the un-resolutions for peace) is the only way to go, it has not failed yet, because it has not been implemented yet.

NewsGuy

06-20-2002, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by hagg323
Talking about transfer from a standpoint of looking after everyone’s interests, is one thing, which I support because I simply cannot see any other logical solution and not because I choose it gladly.

Right, transfer of the Palestinians into an independent zone should absolutely not be seen as a punishment, but as a last-resort solution to save lives and allow the Palestinians to realize their national aspirations in a way in which they cannot carry on with their massacres of Israelis.

There is no need at all to "compress people into a pressure cooker." Jordan has vast expanses of vacant land, as does the Arabian desert, which is the Palestinians' historical homeland anyway. There, the Palestinians can live like kings, reunited with their brothers in freedom.

NewsGuy

06-20-2002, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by takeo
massive etnic cleansing of the occupied territories will change sporadic terrorism into a full war against a large colaition and worldwide embargo...

In case you haven't noticed from the daily massacres of Israelis, the Arabs have already launched a full-scale war of genocide against Israel.

The Palestinian war against Israel is supported by a coalition of Iran, Syria, Lebanon and alQaeda troops.

land for peace (or better said implementation of the un-resolutions for peace) is the only way to go, it has not failed yet, because it has not been implemented yet.

The UN resolutions have been implemented by Israel, but can never be completed due to the Palestinian war of terrorism against Israel.

We need to respect the Palestians' right to choose their own destiny and listen carefully to them. They have rejected all UN resolutions and have chosen to go to war instead. Therefore, we must proceed from this point of reality with new strategies to end the violence.

wallace2132

06-20-2002, 02:52 PM

visit http://www.geocities.com/munichseptember1972/default.html

alexbmn

06-20-2002, 03:11 PM

what really puts me into a foul mood that when Sharon finally decides to implement a new strategy that has a chance of being successfull immeditely there's discord and disapproval from others.Ben Eliezer is not happy and Mofaz(who proposed the same identical idea a couple of weeks ago is suddenly not happy as well.With such democratic atmosphere nothing will be done.

takeo

06-20-2002, 04:00 PM

"They have rejected all UN resolutions and have chosen to go to war instead. "

The Palestinian leadership, as well as all political groups except Hamas and Jihad have accepted all un-resolutions, even the ones recognising israel.

Israel has not accepted:

UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 (1974)

"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";

UN General Assembly Resolution 52/62 (1997):
"reaffirms that the Palestine Arab refugees are entitled to their property and to the income derived therefrom, in conformity with the principles of justice and equity."

UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948) of 12 December 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..."

UNSC 242 specifies in paragraph 3 "...all member states in their acceptance of the charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter," which established the principles upon which members are required to act in comformance of the purposes of the organisation, specified in Article 1. Among the principles of Article 2 is "members must fulfill their Charter obligations in good faith."
UNSC 242 calls for the "withdrawal of Israel's armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."

And what about the numerous un-resolutions to condamn israeli settlements...

http://www.peacenow.org.il/English.asp?Redirect=4&CategoryID=45

"United Nations Security Council Resolution 242
22 November 1967

The Security Council,

Expressing, its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member states in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict,
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible."

Res 101 (Nov 24, 53): Expressed 'strongest censure' of Israel for the first time because of its raid on Qibya.
Res 106 (Mar 29, 55): Condemned Israel for Ghazzah raid.
Res 111 (Jan 19, 56): Condemned Israel for raid on Syria that killed 56 people.
Res 127 (Jan 22, 58): Recommended Israel to suspend its no-man's zone in Jerusalem.
Res 162 (Apr 11, 61): Urged Israel to comply with UN decisions.
Res 171 (Apr 9, 62): Determined 'flagrant violation' by Israel in its attack on Syria.
Res 228 (Nov 25, 66): Censured Israel for its attack on Samu in Jordan.
Res 237 (June 14, 67): Urged Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees.
Res 248 (Mar 24, 68): Condemned Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan.
Res 250 (Apr 27, 68): Called on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem.
Res 251 (May 2, 68): Deeply deplored Israel's military parade in Jerusalem and declared invalid Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as its capital.
Res 256 (Aug 16, 68): Condemned Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation'.
Res 259 (Sep 27, 68): Deplored Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation.
Res 262 (Dec 31, 68): Condemned Israel's attack on Beirut airport destroying the entire fleet of Middle East Airlines.
Res 265 (Apr 1, 69): Condemned Israel for air attacks on Salt in Jordan.
Res 267 (July 3, 69): Censured Israel for administrative acts to change status of Jerusalem.
Res 270 (Aug. 26, 69): Condemned Israel for air attack on villages in southern Lebanon.
Res 271 (Sep 15, 69): Condemned Israel's failure to comply with UN resolutions on Jerusalem.
Res 279 (May 12, 70): Demanded withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.
Res 280 (May 19, 70): Condemned Israeli attacks against Lebanon.
Res 285 (Sep 5, 70): Demanded immediate Israeli troop withdrawal from Lebanon.
Res 298 (Sep 25, 71): Deplored Israel's change of status of Jerusalem.
Res 313 (Aug 8, 72): Demanded Israel stop attacks against Lebanon.
Res 316 (June 26, 72): Condemned Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon.
Res 317 (July 21, 72): Deplored Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted from Lebanon.
Res 332 (Apr 21, 73): Condemned Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon.
Res 337 (Aug 15, 73): Condemned Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty.
Res 347 (Apr 24, 74): Condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanon.
Res 425 (Mar 19, 78): Called on Israel to withdraw its forces unconditionally from Lebanon.
Res 427 (May 3, 78): Called on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Res 444 (Jan 19, 79): Deplored Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peace forces.
Res 446 (Mar 22, 79): Determined Israeli settlements as a 'serious obstruction' to peace, and called on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions.
Res 450 (June 14, 79): Called on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon.
Res 452 (July 20, 79): Called on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories.
Res 465 (Mar 1, 80): Deplored Israel's settlements and asked all member States not to assist Israel's settlement programme.
Res 467 (Apr 24, 80): Condemned Israel's military intervention in Lebanon.
Res 468 (May 8, 80): Called on Israel to rescind illegal expulsion of two Palestinian Mayors and a Judge, and to facilitate their return.
Res 469 (May 20, 80): Strongly deplored Israel's failure to observe the Council's order not to deport Palestinians.
Res 471 (June 5, 80): Expressed deep concern at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Res 476 (June 30, 80): Reiterated that Israel's claims to Jerusalem are 'null and void'.
Res 478 (Aug 20, 80): 'Censured in the strongest terms' Israel for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'basic law'.
Res 484 (Dec 19, 80): Declared it imperative Israel re-admit two Palestinian mayors.
Res 487 (June 19, 81): Strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility.
Res 497 (Dec 17, 81): Decided Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demanded that Israel rescind its decision forthwith.
Res 498 (Dec 18, 81): Called on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon.
Res 501 (Feb 25, 82): Called on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops.
Res 508 (June 6, 82): Demanded Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and un-conditionally from Lebanon.
Res 515 (July 29, 82): Demanded Israel lift its seige of Beirut and allow in food.
Res 517 (Aug 4, 82): Censured Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demanded Isreal withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
Res 518 (Aug 12, 82): Demanded Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon.
Res 520 (Sep 17, 82): Condemned Israel's attack into West Beirut.
Res 573 (Oct 4, 85): Condemned Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO Headquarters.
Res 587 (Sep 23, 86): Took note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urged all parties to withdraw.
Res 592 (Dec 8, 86): Strongly deplored the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops.
Res 605 (Dec 22, 87): Strongly deplored Israel's policies and practices denying human rights of Palestinians.
Res 607 (Jan 5, 88): Called on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requested it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Res 608 (Jan 14, 88): Deeply regreted that Israel had defied the UN and deported Palestinian civilians.
Res 636 (July 6, 89): Deeply regreted the Israeli deportation of Palestinians.
Res 641 (Aug 30, 89): Deplored Israel's continuous deportation of Palestinians.
Res 672 (Oct 12, 90): Condemned Israel for violence against Palestinians at Jerusalem's Haram Al-Sharif.
Res 673 (Oct 24, 90): Deplored Israel's refusal to cooperate with the UN.
Res 681 (Dec 20, 90): Deplored Israel's resumption of deportation of Palestinians.
Res 694 (May 24, 91): Deplored Israel's deportation of Palestinians and called on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
Res 726 (Jan 1, 92): 'Strongly condemned' Israel's decision to resume deportation of Palestinians from 'Palestinian territories... including Jerusalem.'
Res 799 (Dec 19, 92): Deplored Israel's mass deportation of some 400 Palestinians and called for thir immediate return.

elke

06-20-2002, 04:23 PM

Next time, I'll just save this and copy/paste the response:

WHERE ARE THE RESOLUTIONS CONDEMNING THE ARAB VIOLENCE?

WHERE ARE THE RESOLUTIONS CONDEMNING SYRIAN OCCUPATION OF LEBANON?

AND WHILE WE ARE AT IT, WHERE IS THE ARAB ACCEPTANCE OF THESE SAME RESOLUTIONS, WHICH ALSO CALL ON THEM TO DO THINGS.

takeo

06-20-2002, 04:38 PM

Elke, there is no occupation of Libanon, as there is no uS-occupation of SA.
The PA and many Arab states accept all UN-resolutions, including the one recognising Israel and the ones condamning violence against civilians.

elke

06-20-2002, 04:40 PM

As promised:

WHERE ARE THE RESOLUTIONS CONDEMNING THE ARAB VIOLENCE?

WHERE ARE THE RESOLUTIONS CONDEMNING SYRIAN OCCUPATION OF LEBANON?

AND WHILE WE ARE AT IT, WHERE IS THE ARAB ACCEPTANCE OF THESE SAME RESOLUTIONS, WHICH ALSO CALL ON THEM TO DO THINGS.

Ask the Lebanese, not the government prostitutes, but the Joe on the street whether there is - or isn't - occupation by Syria.

takeo

06-20-2002, 06:26 PM

"WHERE ARE THE RESOLUTIONS CONDEMNING THE ARAB VIOLENCE? "

just one, there are many more: ( i posted a whole list in a discussion with newsguy once on this forum)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1916000/1916236.stm

Did you talk to joe on the street?
there doesn't seem to be much protest against syrian presence, not in the democratically elected parliament, in the government, or in the streets, but than again Syria isn't destroying houses, building syrian settlements, walls, curfews, imposing its will upon libanon, and their presence is officially legal, as they were invited by the government, much like us-troops in SA.

Even before Yasir Arafat's statement on 13 April 2002 condemning terrorism Arafat had repeatedly condemned suicide bombings both in Arabic and in English. Here are just two examples obtained from BBC monitoring.

1. On Palestinian TV, on 28 March 2002, at 20:08 GMT, Arafat stated in Arabic:

"On this occasion, I would like once again to reiterate our condemnation of yesterday's operation in Netanya, in which a number of innocent Israeli civilians were killed and wounded. This operation constitutes a deviation from our policy and a violation of our national and human values. I affirm our commitment to working toward an immediate cease-fire, as we informed General Zinni. We highly value his efforts. We informed him that we are ready for the immediate implementation of the Tenet's work plan without conditions, and without prejudicing any of its articles. Also, we have informed him of our readiness to implement the Mitchell Report recommendations in cooperation with the four-way US-Russian-European-UN committee headed by Gen. Zinni."

2. On December 16, 2001, in a speech on the occasion of Id al-Fitr in Ramallah (Gaza Palestine Satellite Channel Television, in Arabic, on 16 December 2001 at 16:00 GMT) Arafat stated in Arabic:

"Today, I emphasize once again the complete and immediate halt to all armed operations. Once again, I call for a complete halt to all operations, especially suicidal operations, which we have always condemned. We will punish all those who carry out and mastermind such operations. This also applies to the firing of mortar shells, which have no objective but to provide an excuse for the Israeli attacks on us, our people, our children, and our women. Any violation of this decision will be considered an attempt to harm the higher national interests of our people and of our Arab nation."

alexbmn

06-20-2002, 06:57 PM

Ella forget it ,its pointless .

L@mplighterM

06-20-2002, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by takeo
"WHERE ARE THE RESOLUTIONS CONDEMNING THE ARAB VIOLENCE? "

just one, there are many more: ( i posted a whole list in a discussion with newsguy once on this forum)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1916000/1916236.stm

Did you talk to joe on the street?
there doesn't seem to be much protest against syrian presence, not in the democratically elected parliament, in the government, or in the streets, but than again Syria isn't destroying houses, building syrian settlements, walls, curfews, imposing its will upon libanon, and their presence is officially legal, as they were invited by the government, much like us-troops in SA.

Even before Yasir Arafat's statement on 13 April 2002 condemning terrorism Arafat had repeatedly condemned suicide bombings both in Arabic and in English. Here are just two examples obtained from BBC monitoring.

1. On Palestinian TV, on 28 March 2002, at 20:08 GMT, Arafat stated in Arabic:

"On this occasion, I would like once again to reiterate our condemnation of yesterday's operation in Netanya, in which a number of innocent Israeli civilians were killed and wounded. This operation constitutes a deviation from our policy and a violation of our national and human values. I affirm our commitment to working toward an immediate cease-fire, as we informed General Zinni. We highly value his efforts. We informed him that we are ready for the immediate implementation of the Tenet's work plan without conditions, and without prejudicing any of its articles. Also, we have informed him of our readiness to implement the Mitchell Report recommendations in cooperation with the four-way US-Russian-European-UN committee headed by Gen. Zinni."

2. On December 16, 2001, in a speech on the occasion of Id al-Fitr in Ramallah (Gaza Palestine Satellite Channel Television, in Arabic, on 16 December 2001 at 16:00 GMT) Arafat stated in Arabic:

"Today, I emphasize once again the complete and immediate halt to all armed operations. Once again, I call for a complete halt to all operations, especially suicidal operations, which we have always condemned. We will punish all those who carry out and mastermind such operations. This also applies to the firing of mortar shells, which have no objective but to provide an excuse for the Israeli attacks on us, our people, our children, and our women. Any violation of this decision will be considered an attempt to harm the higher national interests of our people and of our Arab nation."

HOW ABOUT POSTING THE SPEECHES HE MADE SINCE THE BEGINING OF THE YEAR TO THE PRESENT. NOT SNIPETS !!!

christian

06-21-2002, 01:22 AM

Takeo,

I agree that Israel should accept land for peace. But disagreement on any negotiation, the consequence of negotiation will encourages more terrorist attack. In a way, the terrorist organization views as a way to gain a political means.

The agreement should be reach, after the israeli settlements withdrawl from the gaza and w. bank. In order words, Israel should confer with Arafat. Arafat should implements some actions.

Israel should use soft tactics as a war weapon, such as Economic development, education, law, secular views, etc

In singapore, the government uses soft and hard tactics, to complement each other. They use secular law, education, money, etc. Brute force is the last procedure, to support law, education, economy. Thus, extreme islamic law doesn't even acceptable to most muslim. Even the singapore muslim despise the middle east islamic law. They rather be governed by secularism.

In Hong Kong, the first 100 years, chinese people hates the british opium humilation. However, british develops a superior system in HK. In HK, people rather lives under the british, than the mainland china. In Hk, British develops trade, economy, education, law,etc. Gradually, the imperialistic empire influence the perspective of chinese people. Before, the british, HK is a rocky island without any resources, except the fisherman port.

The secular view, such as freedom of speech, many muslim enjoys living in HK. They rather live under the HK a foreign land, than living in harsh dictatorial islam. My point of view is secularism. Secularism is the only way to influence the ME.

The reason the Palestinian youth rebels, they don't have any hope to redirect their attention. There aren't jobs in Palestinian refugee's camp.

In my conclusion, israel should implements soft tactics as a war weapon against Islam. The hard tactics occupation only causes grievance and pain. Once the Islamic people understand that freedom in Israel. The attitude of ME will change drastically.

The hard occupation methods only causes more terrorist. It is time israel, should implements soft methods. If they do. If my judgement correct. At this moment of time, many palestinian rather lives in Israel than in Palestinian state. Many muslim in ME rather live in Canada, or Australia. They hates the harsh condition in their own country.

takeo

06-21-2002, 05:33 AM

"In Hk, British develops trade, economy, education, law,etc. Gradually, the imperialistic empire influence the perspective of chinese people. Before, the british, HK is a rocky island without any resources, except the fisherman port.
"

I agree with most what you said, if Israel would have annexed the occupied territories and provided for the palestinians the same living standard and rights as the israeli palestinians or the jewish israeli than most likely we wouldn't have the current problems of terrorism.

lomplighter, Arafat condamned terrorist attacks on civilians since the beginning, i don't know where to find all the speeches he made on internet that we could see in television, can you give me one speach of him in wich he clearly agreed to violence against civilians? (and please not the "martyrs-speech", which is only an israeli interpretation, but no approval of violence)

Mediocrates

06-21-2002, 05:36 AM

Actually no - Arafat talked about terrorism on the other side of the Green Line. The last two murderous assaults were on the inside of the Green Line. So you and he are in agreement. Jews inside the Green Line, Jews of any kind, are legitimate targets to you both. Bully for you.

takeo

06-21-2002, 05:58 AM

in one of the speeches i provided, he even condamned mortar attacks against settlements...
i don't know exactly what Arafat believes or thinks, but for me i condamn all attacks on unarmed civilians, even settlers within the green line. I think however that attacks against responsibles for the occupation is legitimate, military and politicians, both inside and outside the green line.
i think israel has the right to attack hamas, jihad or even PFLP members in self-defense, but not to destroy, seize, etc. property of palestinian civilians, and not to destroy the pa-facilities and of course not to occupy the westbank and Gaza, which is one of the main reasons for the palestinian resistance.

besides, i read that arafat is even prepared to make concessions about jerusalem and the refugees once the peace-talks start. the only obstacle for peace is now sharon and Likud who refuse to negociate about the refugees or a palestinian state, or even refuse to negociate all together even to stop the violence on both sides.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13741-2002Jun19.html

"Associated Press
Thursday, June 20, 2002; Page A18

GAZA CITY, June 19 -- More than 50 Palestinians took out a full-page newspaper ad today condemning suicide bombings, a move that sparked debate at a time when most Palestinians support the attacks as an effective way to strike at Israel.

The ad in al-Quds, a leading Palestinian daily, appeared a day after a suicide bomber killed 19 Israelis and himself on a Jerusalem bus and hours before a second bomber killed at least seven people at a bus stop this evening. In the ad, the Palestinians urged the militant groups behind deadly assaults on Israeli civilians to "stop sending our young people to carry out such attacks."

The signatories included Hanan Ashrawi, a leading Palestinian spokeswoman and legislator, and the Palestinians' senior official in Jerusalem, Sari Nusseibeh, along with other prominent figures regarded as moderates. The ad urged other Palestinians to join them.

Others who signed the statement were noted Gaza human rights activist Eyad Serraj, newspaper editor Hana Siniora, prominent economist Mohammed Ishtaya and Mamdouh Nofal, a security adviser to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

© 2002 The Washington Post Company"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1657-2002Jun17.html

"By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 18, 2002; Page A15

The Palestinian Authority has presented the Bush administration with the written outline of a peace proposal with concessions over two of the most contentious Arab-Israeli issues, the status of Jerusalem and refugees, while insisting that Israel retreat to its pre-1967 borders for the formation of a Palestinian state.

The plan, given to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on Friday by Palestinian Planning Minister Nabil Shaath, closely follows the lines of a Saudi Arabian initiative approved by 22 Arab governments in March, while incorporating elements of aborted Arab-Israeli negotiations conducted during the waning days of the Clinton administration.

Responding to the proposal, a senior State Department official said: "We're encouraged that they're looking at how to achieve two states living side by side."

The Palestinian plan comes as President Bush is putting the final touches on a new proposal of his own, expected to be presented in a speech today or Wednesday, in which he has said he will outline the "way forward" toward his goal of Palestinian statehood. Although Bush spent the weekend at his Crawford, Tex., ranch, Vice President Cheney chaired a meeting Saturday about the Middle East attended by Powell, CIA Director George J. Tenet, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and White House national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who participated via video-conference call from California.

Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, the architect of the Arab initiative, told a group of visiting U.S. journalists yesterday that he hoped there would be an independent Palestine before the end of Bush's first term. Abdullah, whose foreign minister met with Bush and Powell late last week, spoke with Bush by telephone Sunday.

But an Israeli official, dismissing the Palestinian plan and any proposed timeline for statehood, said "nobody believes the lovely words" coming from the Palestinian Authority led by Yasser Arafat. "Nobody is talking about final status now," said the official, who voiced confidence that Bush's statement would concentrate on the need for Palestinian security and governmental reforms before any final status discussions.

In an interview published over the weekend in the San Jose Mercury News, Rice offered one of the administration's most dismissive assessments of Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to date, saying that the Palestinian administration "is corrupt and cavorts with terror . . . [and] is not the basis for a Palestinian state moving forward."

In response, Arafat said in Ramallah yesterday that "we are implementing only what our people want us to do, and we do not take orders from anyone."

An initially tepid White House statement yesterday about Israel's construction of a fence along the West Bank became more critical of Israel as the day went on. Asked whether the fence-building was "helpful," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that although "all parties have to be aware of the consequences of their actions," Israel "has a right to defend itself."

Later in the day, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that any attempt to establish a border "really has to be done through direct talks" rather than unilateral action. "We do remind the Israelis that offering hope to Palestinians, offering them a decent life, an end to the barriers, is an important part of achieving security and peace," Boucher said. First lady Laura Bush said in an interview on American Urban Radio Networks: "I don't think that a fence will be some long-lasting sign of peace."

Among the ideas Bush has been considering is the declaration of a provisional Palestinian state, with final border negotiations to begin only after there is real Palestinian reform. But U.S. allies in Europe and in Arab capitals have warned against allowing Israel to turn the need for reform into a precondition for political talks.

The two-page Palestinian document presented to Powell was approved by other senior Palestinians, as well as by the Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian governments, a source close to the Palestinian Authority said. Its main elements include Israeli withdrawal to the June 4, 1967, armistice line, with an allowance for minor, reciprocal adjustments and security cooperation arrangements in which "international forces will play a central role." Israel has rejected such plans.

For the first time in a Palestinian proposal, there is no specific demand for a "right of return" for Palestinian refugees to what is now Israel; the proposal calls for "a just and agreed solution" to the problem. Although it reiterates that East Jerusalem would be the capital of a Palestinian state and West Jerusalem the Israeli capital, it says "the Palestinian side will transfer sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter and the Wailing Wall section of the Western Wall in East Jerusalem to Israel." Israel has ruled out any Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem.

The proposal acknowledges the need for "internal Palestinian restructuring, which have already [been] embarked on in the political, financial and security fields," with the latter following ideas suggested by Tenet. The proposal calls for a "fixed timeline" along with "guaranteed diplomatic involvement . . . to ensure that the process does not stall."

© 2002 The Washington Post Company"

christian

06-21-2002, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Actually no - Arafat talked about terrorism on the other side of the Green Line. The last two murderous assaults were on the inside of the Green Line. So you and he are in agreement. Jews inside the Green Line, Jews of any kind, are legitimate targets to you both. Bully for you.

Actually, the upper hand is on israel, providing with American support. If israel uses soft occupation, like the brits. Israel will never have terrorism. Moreover, the palestinian would love israel occupation. The problem lies with zionist ethnic cleansing movement. The zionist perspective is to repeats their forefathers in Joshua or Moses time. This is very unrealistic. Since, ethnic cleansing works in 4000 years ago. It doesn't work in this age of information, UN resolution, post- imperialistic era,etc

Dear zionist,
The only way to stop terrorism, is to apply soft tactics. If you recalls in the new testament of bible as a example. The christian is persecuted in the roman empire. More christian dies in the persecution of Rome. Gradually, Christian develops education, law, and trade. Eventually, the christian controls the roman empire. Because all the government offical is christian. Only christians is massively literated and educated at that time.

Nobody likes hard tactics, like ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc. Israel will never reach that far. Only education of the masses, trade and development will redirect the Palestinian attention.

If japanese will the WWII. The entire population of chinese will become japanese. Of course, this example is extreme. It is a good example, for Israeli's to converts Palestinian in a human way.

If israel develops Palestinian economy, trade and law. More Palestinian will love Israel. This is my personal experience with british. Because no amount of hatre, everyone has to be back on daily living, such as food, water and roof. Eventhough, some nationalist chinese despise british. There are more chinese in love with european british. The british basically gives HK chinese, food, roof, water, trade, economy, international creditials, etc.
Thus, no one really hates the brits. Everyone loves british occupation. Even the mainland chinese, loves to across the HK. There is so much freedom in HK. Every mainland chinese desire is to live here.

secrets
The HK chinese doesn't like returning to mainland china. They rather live in British occupation. No amount of nationalism can affect the reality of daily life, such as work, food, water, roof, and trade,etc

Mediocrates

06-21-2002, 06:18 AM

I guess we're starting to see a new trend. The left and the apologists for murders tried painting us with the 'racist' brush until it blew back in their faces so now we see the general and liberal application of the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' in the faint hope it will embarass and shame us. Well it won't and do you know why?

Because by your own words and beliefs and through whatever tortured process you call reasoning, a free and independent Palistine is as ethnically, culturally, religiously, linguistically pure as the most racist and 'cleansed' societies on earth. You would truly make the Serbians proud with your lebensraum.

Mediocrates

06-21-2002, 06:24 AM

takeo if you think that women and children living inside the Green Line are the same kind of legitimate target as irregular terrorists attacking them then perhaps you see birthrates in and of themselves as weapons. Should we sterilize Palistinians as a legitimate defense?

I didn't think so, either.

SteveMetch

06-21-2002, 07:07 AM

I lived in Hong Kong as a teenager and experienced first hand how people, who embrace a secular public view, can work together. Even if the majority of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza would like nothing better than to be the Chinese of British Hong Kong there are still too many Islamics for the murders to stop. The Islamics must be killed and or deported first. No true peace is possible secular or otherwise until this happens. True peace in the Middle will have to be built on the grave of Islamism. The racist cultures of Japan and Germany of World War 2 had to be utterly destroyed before peace was possible. Islamism by its very nature will never submit to secular authority except through violence.

NewsGuy

06-21-2002, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by takeo

Res 101 (Nov 24, 53): Expressed 'strongest censure' of Israel for the first time because of its raid on Qibya.
Res 106 (Mar 29, 55): Condemned Israel for Ghazzah raid.
Res 111 (Jan 19, 56): Condemned Israel for raid on Syria that killed 56 people.
Res 127 (Jan 22, 58): Recommended Israel to suspend its no-man's zone in Jerusalem... [/B]

Takeo,

I admit I get a kick out of your low-level propaganda and disinformation tactics. Very amusing. Did this king of stuff actually ever work in places like the good old USSR or Cuba, etc?

I especially like your usual tactic of listing a huge list of completely irrelevant data, intended to create the impression that you are somehow pointing to proof that your opinions are correct.

How does the UN condemning Israel for attacking terrorist targets in Gaza amount to a violation of UN reolutions?

How does a "recommendation to Israel" amount to a violation of UN resolutions?

We already know that the vast majority of UN recommendations and condemnations are the product of Arab and French corruption of the UN process. That's really no news.

Basically, these and the rest of the ridiculous list you just provided, have nothing at all to do with my question to you.

Ther fact is that Israel has complied with the UN Charter, giving it the right to take military action to defend itself from the Arab war of terrorism, and Israel has always been in compliance with UN Resolution 242, etc., which guarantees Israel secure borders.

It is the Arabs who are guilty of violations of the UN charter and resolutions, and they are also guilty of crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and attempted genocide.

Batman

06-21-2002, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by takeo
The PA and many Arab states accept all UN-resolutions, including the one recognising Israel and the ones condamning violence against civilians.

Have you checked your facts?
If you look at the history of the Arab-Palestinian-Muslims you will see that they have never removed the clauses that call for Israel's destruction from the PA covenant, dating back to 1964 BEFORE any 'occupation' ever took place. The maps they have on their walls, their logo, and their school text books, all show that ALL of israel belongs to the Palestinian-Arab-Muslims.

The Palestinian Liberation Organization, was created by THE ARAB LEAGUE (the dictatorships of the Arab world) with Yasser Arafat as its leader in 1964 BEFORE ANY SO CALLED 'OCCUPATION' BY ISRAEL and since 1964 the PLO Charter has called for the destruction of Israel. The following is a summary of the PLO Covenant Articles STILL calling for Israel's destruction:

***The establishment of Israel is "null and void" (Article 19)
***The destruction of Israel is a desideratum (Article 21)
***Armed struggle is the only way to achieve Palestinian political goals (Article 9)
The Jewish People has no national identity nor connection to the Land of Israel (Article 20) ***Israel's existence is a threat to all the Peoples of the world and is comparable to the Nazi regime (Article 22).

Incidentally, Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Arabs have voting powers. The Arabs do not complain of any problem with any Arab government that gives them no voting rights. Why? Why are the Jews and Israel the only problem while the Arabs have more rights there than in any Arab country?

Additionally please see: http://www.jewsweek.com/editorial/298.htm
"Arafat admitted in 1998, when interviewed by Egyptian television, that he respected the Oslo Treaty in the same manner that Muhammad did the treaty of Hudaybiyah ..." as well as in 1995: http://www.dvjc.org/culture/dromi1.shtml

Additionally, if you care to, please see the Palestinian-Arab children training to kill videos which has been going on for the past 10 years and the crop of suicide murderers who are killing Israeli-Jews are those children you see in some of the videos who have grown up to go and blow themselves up and who have been brainwashed by the Palestinian-Arab state organized (US and EU funded) television programs and propaganda.
See at: http://www.mideasttruth.com

and read "Why Israel Is The Victim And The Arabs Are The Indefensible Aggressors In the Middle East " at:http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/horowitz011702.asp

When you put all these facts together, and you see that killing Jews has been the ongoing rule in the history of the world, and that the world can and was silent, it is not unimaginable for a Jew to understand this Arab-Palestinian situation as the NEW ANTI-SEMITISM, where by the European Nations can dupe themselves to hate Jewish Israel on account of the Palestinians-Arabs, thus escaping any feelings of guilt, past or present.

L@mplighterM

06-21-2002, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by takeo
in one of the speeches i provided, he even condamned mortar attacks against settlements...

Less than two weeks ago (June 08, 2002) Arafat gave a speech in which he threatened a massive explosion that would destabilize Western Civilization.

Part of speech:

In a speech broadcast today, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat threatened that if Israel does not retreat from PA-ruled areas that there will be a "disastrous explosion that will impact stability of the whole world."
Link:

http://www.jpost.com/NASApp/cs/Cont...d=1022691099038

This speech was made June 08, 2002 what excactly dont you understand ?

L@mplighterM

06-21-2002, 08:33 AM

Arafat Hits Bombings
In Papers
But won't say it on TV

By DEBORAH BLACHOR
Special to The News

JERUSALEM

alestinian leader Yasser Arafat condemned the latest suicide attack in the newspapers yesterday but canceled a television appearance to call for an end to the so-called martyr missions.

Complete story:

http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-06-21/News_and_Views/Beyond_the_City/a-155092.asp

takeo

06-21-2002, 11:50 AM

lomplighter, the link you provided is not correct.

So what exactly did arafat say that can proove he agrees with violence against civilians (since 1993)?

""disastrous explosion that will impact stability of the whole world." it is a warning, it doesn't mean that this is what he wants, on basis of most of his speeches i would say on the contrary.

Batman, this was the past, the same past when israel even refused to give any autonomy to the Palestinians. since the 90's the charter of the plo has changed, and palestinian officials have repeatedly recognised the existance of Israel within its 1967 borders.
http://www.nad-plo.org/permanent/sumpalpo.html

When referring to the Oslo-agreements, untill 2000 the main violaters were israel, who didn't stop one second to build new settlements, and delayed the proposed time-table.
I really don't care for the obvious propaganda-sites that you gave me, if you refere to neutral or established sites i will take it serious.

"When you put all these facts together, and you see that killing Jews has been the ongoing rule in the history of the world, and that the world can and was silent, it is not unimaginable for a Jew to understand this Arab-Palestinian situation as the NEW ANTI-SEMITISM, where by the European Nations can dupe themselves to hate Jewish Israel on account of the Palestinians-Arabs, thus escaping any feelings of guilt, past or present."

anti-semitism was a serious problem in the past in Europe, but not any longer, at least not in Western Europe. Here racism against Arabs is much more widespread than against jews. Most French and Europeans have absolutely nothing against Jews, but they don't like the policy of Israel of oppression of millions of palestinians. Besides, anti-semitism is not the only racism in the world, and the jews were not the only victims of WWII. the gypsies have suffered as much for example, but they never received their own state and have far less sympathy from the world than the jewish community. I really don't like the fact that some people abuse the genocide as a free ticket for avoiding any criticism.

newsguy, this type of propaganda you are referring to is used by people like you, for example arafat mentioning the word "martyr" or a french diplomat saying that israel "is a little ****ty country" is apparently more important than real facts and UN-resolutions.

"I especially like your usual tactic of listing a huge list of completely irrelevant data, intended to create the impression that you are somehow pointing to proof that your opinions are correct. "

this are not irrelevant data, because you stated that
"The UN resolutions have been implemented by Israel, but can never be completed due to the Palestinian war of terrorism against Israel. " (ok, some of the un-resolutions i listed have not been violated by israel but expressed dissatisfaction with israeli policy, but most have been violated)
this list and the quotes of other un-resolutions proove the contrary, most un-resolutions have not been implemented by israel.
than suddenly when it becomes clear that you can't proove your case in this way, you start delegitimising the UN:
"We already know that the vast majority of UN recommendations and condemnations are the product of Arab and French corruption of the UN process. That's really no news. "

"It is the Arabs who are guilty of violations of the UN charter and resolutions, and they are also guilty of crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and attempted genocide."

SOME Arabs are guilty of violating un-resolutions, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, but i don't know any case of attempted genocide (as if those suicide-murderers have the aim of killing all Jews...)
ISRAEL is responsible for violating the un-charter (i mentioned above WHY the un-charter is violated by israel) un-resolutions, crimes against humanity and etnic cleansing (some decades ago). Israel is not yet guilty of attempted genocide.

"I guess we're starting to see a new trend. The left and the apologists for murders tried painting us with the 'racist' brush until it blew back in their faces so now we see the general and liberal application of the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' in the faint hope it will embarass and shame us. Well it won't and do you know why?
Because by your own words and beliefs and through whatever tortured process you call reasoning, a free and independent Palistine is as ethnically, culturally, religiously, linguistically pure as the most racist and 'cleansed' societies on earth. You would truly make the Serbians proud with your lebensraum."

that's bS, first the palestinian people is composed of Muslims, (in all forms), Christians, and atheists, only a minority is integrist/fundamentalist.
second, the jewish settlers can't be etnicaly cleansed because the lands and houses where they are living are illegal, because aquired under foreign occupation and by illegal seizure of palestinian properties. Before 1967 not one of them lived in the occupied territories. the Palestinians however lived in those territories for 1000's of years, and certainly the last generations. there existance in palestine is legal according to international law and the UN (the israeli settlers are not).
You can't say that if france or the us decides to repatriate Bosnians or mexicans to their country of origin because they lived illegally in the country for some years, it would be etnic cleansing. However, repatriating all black americans to africa or germanophone french to Germany would be etnic cleansing, because those people have the right to live in the us and France.

"takeo if you think that women and children living inside the Green Line are the same kind of legitimate target as irregular terrorists attacking them then perhaps you see birthrates in and of themselves as weapons. Should we sterilize Palistinians as a legitimate defense?

I didn't think so, either."

I never said that women and children are legitimate targets, read my posts!

"I lived in Hong Kong as a teenager and experienced first hand how people, who embrace a secular public view, can work together. Even if the majority of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza would like nothing better than to be the Chinese of British Hong Kong there are still too many Islamics for the murders to stop. The Islamics must be killed and or deported first. No true peace is possible secular or otherwise until this happens. True peace in the Middle will have to be built on the grave of Islamism. The racist cultures of Japan and Germany of World War 2 had to be utterly destroyed before peace was possible. Islamism by its very nature will never submit to secular authority except through violence."

The islamists are a small minority of the Palestinians, and Islam exists as well in Malaysia where chinese and malaysians live together in relative harmony. Why? because neither of the two etnic groups is discriminated. The problem with Germany and Japan was not racism but the regime in power, that were expansionist and racist (much like israel today), not the people.
But in Palestine the government is not Islamist and recognises the right of israel to exist.
The PA will certainly deal with islamists the same way that secular autorities in Syria, Jordan, morocco, Egypt, etc. dealth with Islamists, however any foreign interfearance will only be accepted if it is non-repressive and beneficial for the population, like the british autority in HK, fighting Islamists is the duty of the Palestinians themselves, which they can only start to implement once they have their own state.
By the way most palestinian groups are not fundamentalist (the PFLP, Al-aqsa, fatah...)

Mediocrates

06-21-2002, 11:57 AM

Got Deconstructivism?

takeo

06-21-2002, 02:47 PM

http://www.nandotimes.com/world/story/441362p-3531441c.html

"Israel's defense minister said Thursday he visited two failed suicide bombers in jail to try to understand their motives and felt both were driven by despair."

Mediocrates

06-21-2002, 02:55 PM

In a society that frames its very existence in terms of victimhood that is not hard to understand. Any mass murderer who is not a sociopath would probably feel despair. Depression is anger turned inward.

I am unmoved by this any more than the boy who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan.

What is important is that from a tactical perspective these people can not be released and turned back on the group which sent them. In fact it would be dangerous to release them at all. It also means that they are at the bottom of the food chain of terrorism are probably of little use to interrogators since their despair probably precluded them from taking an active role in the planning of their attacks. They are pawns.

BTW I read that some of the murderers have severe illnesses like cancer and AIDS. Was this the case here and if so might that contribute?

elke

06-21-2002, 03:03 PM

There is nothing really new in that article: various Israelis and Jews have expressed these same sentiments many times before. Suicide murders are STILL non-justifyable, and are STILL a crime, whatever the underlying causes are.

Charles Manson was also an abused child, who went from foster home to foster home, and was beaten, etc. That still does not justify his murdering all those people. He is still in jail, and will remain there for the rest of his miserable life.

I am all for reforming criminals. I am all for education, love, caring, and all that good stuff. However, just like you don't reward a sick child for a tantrum because s/he is sick, you can't reward people who are throwing a monumental tantrum, complete with many, many unjustified murders, by giving them what they want as a result. They need to learn, for their own good as well as for everyone else's, that if they want the niceties of civilization, they need to abide by the rules of that civilization.

takeo

06-21-2002, 03:23 PM

the problem is that desperate people lost their believe in the civilisation as they know it, and further punishment will only create more desperate people.
People use suicide-bombing because they don't see any other alternative.
untill 2000 suicide-bombers were Islamic fanatics, but the more violent israeli reactions (first killing people trowing stones, next destroying PA-buildings, next destroying Jenin, etc.) the more non-religious people committed suicide-bombing. Since the election of sharon the number of suicide-bombers "exploded".

We are not talking about "reforming criminals" but about avoiding new crimes! Why do you think Israeli Palestinians, or French Arabs, don't commit suicide-murders?

"In a society that frames its very existence in terms of victimhood that is not hard to understand. Any mass murderer who is not a sociopath would probably feel despair. Depression is anger turned inward. "

that's right, but one can say that also the jewish community frames its very existence in terms of victimhood.
The best option for avoiding more crimes is by taking the reason away why so many people feel despair...

the best solution for any problem is the "carrot and the stick", but the Sharon-solution is only stick and no carrot... it doesn't work, not with delinquent youth, and not with the Palestinians.

elke

06-21-2002, 03:45 PM

The Jewish community is not asking the world to solve their problems. We are going out and solving them ourselves.

I still don't understand what the proposition is: give up, give in, let them have whatever they want, just so that they weren't desperate? And then, next time it does not work out for them - say, their garbage is not removed in a timely fashion, or whatever - and all they have to do to summon a garbage man is to kill a few dozen people?

The idea of a sovereign Palestinian state occurred to me in the early '80s, when my High School Palestinian friend and I brainstormed together, - without getting nasty, I might add.
However, now for the first time in 18 years, I am doubting the realistic chances for that solution to work. The reason is not the individual suicide bombings, but rather the whole culture of these murderers. Since all their problems will NOT magically disappear the minute there is an official Palestinian state, they need to learn to WORK THEM OUT, instead of SHOOTING THEM UP.

takeo

06-21-2002, 04:20 PM

"The Jewish community is not asking the world to solve their problems. We are going out and solving them ourselves. "

The Palestinians are not asking the world either to solve their problems, they solve them themselves... (if it's the right way remains to be seen, for both israeli and palestinians...)

"I still don't understand what the proposition is: give up, give in, let them have whatever they want, just so that they weren't desperate? And then, next time it does not work out for them - say, their garbage is not removed in a timely fashion, or whatever - and all they have to do to summon a garbage man is to kill a few dozen people? "

the late removal of garbage will not make people desperate, except psycho's, but every normal people will be desperate faced with a situation as the palestinians, living in occupied territories for decades, banned from their homeland, fences everywhere, hostile israeli settlements where used to be olive gardens, etc.

"The idea of a sovereign Palestinian state occurred to me in the early '80s, when my High School Palestinian friend and I brainstormed together, - without getting nasty, I might add.
However, now for the first time in 18 years, I am doubting the realistic chances for that solution to work. The reason is not the individual suicide bombings, but rather the whole culture of these murderers. Since all their problems will NOT magically disappear the minute there is an official Palestinian state, they need to learn to WORK THEM OUT, instead of SHOOTING THEM UP."

not all the problems facing the palestinians will suddenly disappear, but in the end gradually the palestinian society will become normal. If even Libanon could become a relatively normal peacefull country in only a couple of years, why can't the Palestinians?
anyway, by maintaining the current situation the problems will only become worse FOR SURE, so really, there is no alternative.
Once the roots of violence taken away, the violence itself disappears too, and this is even more obvious in Palestine where people fight for a well-defined goal.

elke

06-21-2002, 05:03 PM

First of all, I don't think that the Palestinians have a very well-defined goal. Those polls we all love to trash show very disjointed, sometimes outright contradictory, opinions on the subject.

The Palestinians indeed are expecting the world to solve their problems. They want international monitors, Israeli jobs, European aid, Arab and Muslim support, and Iranian arms. Their abuse of the institutions such as UN and international Human Rights organizations knows no equal anywhere in the third world.

By most generous estimates, approximately 700,000 people left Israel in 1948. Among them, was my friend's grandfather. He had a vinyard in Galilee "for 30 years", she said. He left because he was afraid: he was not chased out by the big, bad Palmachniks. This is "from the horse's mouth", so to speak.

If there are 4,000,000 now, even assuming that all of the original refugees are still alive, 700,000 it is. The rest are generational descendants, who have no more right to be there than I do: after all, my ancestors were chased out of there too.

The average life expectancy in the Palestinian areas is around 72. In Cambodia it is 57, in Congo it's 47, and in Ethiopia it's 45. The average infant mortality in the Palestinian areas is 21 per 1000 live births, in Cambodia 73, in Congo - 66, and in Ethiopia - 106. But yet, the Palestinians are desperate and the others aren't? If they are, then indeed garbage pickup will draw them towards violence. That's not civilized behavior, and it cannot be condoned under any circumstances.

L@mplighterM

06-21-2002, 05:31 PM

If murderers (Palestinians) feel hopelessness it’s not due to Israel’s actions. I think that the defense minister was on a futile path because there’s no way to understand the motives of a sociopath or psychopath.

I’m sitting here wondering why I should bother with my personal campaign of attempting to counter Arab lies. Why criticize Blair’s wife and Ted Turner when an Israeli Government official takes a similar position? Is he the only one in the Government that’s listening to Palestinian sob stories and taking it in? This is a powerful piece of propaganda for Islam and most likely saved the Islamic PR machine millions.

With friends like that who needs enemies?

How many more Jewish lives is his story going to cost?

takeo

06-21-2002, 06:09 PM

I'm sure Al-quaida paid him some considerable $

what Israel needs is a purge to eliminate all moderates and traitors, as first step in the "final solution" for the "Palestinian problem"...

:rolleyes:

"First of all, I don't think that the Palestinians have a very well-defined goal. Those polls we all love to trash show very disjointed, sometimes outright contradictory, opinions on the subject. "

i think the goals are well-defined for the majority of the Palestinians, about the means to reach those goals there is more disagreement.

"The Palestinians indeed are expecting the world to solve their problems. They want international monitors, Israeli jobs, European aid, Arab and Muslim support, and Iranian arms. Their abuse of the institutions such as UN and international Human Rights organizations knows no equal anywhere in the third world."

on the contrary the world intervened, even when Arabs and Palestinians didn't want any foreign assistance as in the 40's and 50's. The international institutions did their work according to their charters and helped the victims of the conflict. Fortunately the world intervened, if not the conflict might have escalated to a chronic regional war or the Palestinians might have been totally etnic cleansed from the occupied territories. Let's also not forget that israel could never survive without US-aid and us-support... and that israel would not exist in the first place without the balfour-declaration.

"By most generous estimates, approximately 700,000 people left Israel in 1948. Among them, was my friend's grandfather. He had a vinyard in Galilee "for 30 years", she said. He left because he was afraid: he was not chased out by the big, bad Palmachniks. This is "from the horse's mouth", so to speak. "

OK, so he was also entitled to return to his country, refugees and people evicted both have the right to return to their land, if not there is etnic cleansing. Also new generations have the right to return, this is according the Geneva-conventions.
When the Jews were evicted from israel 2000 years ago, there wasn't unfortunately any international legislation or un.
And i'm very doubtfull that you can proove that most of your ancestors have their roots in Israel... as all the palestinian refugees can proove, most even still have the documents somewhere in their house.

"The average life expectancy in the Palestinian areas is around 72. In Cambodia it is 57, in Congo it's 47, and in Ethiopia it's 45. The average infant mortality in the Palestinian areas is 21 per 1000 live births, in Cambodia 73, in Congo - 66, and in Ethiopia - 106. But yet, the Palestinians are desperate and the others aren't? "

so according to this kind of logic, the Cubans are very happy because their average infant mortality is less than 20 and average life expectancy 77... they don't have any reason to complain...

I'm sure the cambodians are desperate, i went to the country several times and my girlfriend is cambodian, life is worth absolutely nothing, people get killed every day, the police only comes if you promise them hard cash in advance (murder going on or a robbery, doesn't matter),...
people steal from army bases with a risk of around 60% of being shot, they don't care... desperate societies will always be extremely violent. it is the most desperate country i visited.
I have other examples as well (Guatemala for example, extremely violent)

"If they are, then indeed garbage pickup will draw them towards violence. That's not civilized behavior, and it cannot be condoned under any circumstances."

yes, some circumstances draw people to violence, even "civilised" western people. (look what happened in WWII)

elke

06-21-2002, 06:33 PM

So, right and wrong are the matter of a bunch of words on a piece of paper, called "Geneva Conventions"? Geneva Conventions, as well as other laws, are nothing more than codified modes of behavioral principles. Many a time there have been laws on the books one can hardly consider "right".

From what I have seen, the Geneva Conventions would fit my personal definition of right, it's true. However, again, as any laws - and as we have discussed at least once before, - laws are notoriously vague and subject to interpretation. Obviously, they would be interpreted differently by opposing parties, that's why negotiations are in order for situations that are "grey".

Actually, I would love to see a cacophony of opinions on the Palestinian side. It would be refreshing, for a change. What I see, admittedly from the imperfect polls, is a remarkable similarity in the "means" department (large majority supporting the suicide murders), when the conflicting goals get a relatively homogenous amount of support. Provided the exact same group of people is asked all these questions (which is a given in a poll, usually), the same person should not be able to give the same support to two diametrically opposed concepts.

L@mplighterM

06-21-2002, 07:35 PM

As far as I?m concerned every time Arafat orders a Palestinian murdered for allegedly collaborating with Israel he?s violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

PART III
Article 6
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court.

As far as I?m concerned passing information etc. regarding upcoming attacks or the location of bomb factories should not be punishable by death.

Further although the above is applicable and enforceable by the UN don?t hold your breath because they aren?t coming to get Arafat.

As far as I?m concerned the Geneva Convention has no bearing on current issues. Let the frog read it in its entirety. START FROM THE BEGINNING!

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 75 U.N.T.S. 31, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.

CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
Article 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Mediocrates

06-21-2002, 07:42 PM

Except that, takeo what we have and what we will have is the elevation of terrorism as a legitimate tool of foreign policy.

Water dispute? Air lane rights?, port disputes?, trade imbalances?, currency fluctuations?, unemployment?, unfair election?, the bank ran out of money?

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom - a few dead Israelis and voila, the oppressed get some attention and the help they so desperately need. Why bother entering into any treaty when hands off bombing and passive aggressive "what can we do we're only some poor Palistinians!!" continues to work so well as a proxy for foreign policy? If I could get the UN to plow my streets I probably would.

elke

06-21-2002, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by Mediocrates
If I could get the UN to plow my streets I probably would.

Now, and what would you do with plowed streets? :)

elke

06-21-2002, 08:20 PM

Takeo, you are wrong about the land rights, for a couple of reasons.

1. My friend's grandfather had a vinyard "for 30 years", she said. Which means that he has had it since 1918, not from time immemorial. I don't know how he got it, she never told me - she may not have even known! But the fact remains that it was not "generation to generation" business you speak of.

I don't know; but from everything I read and hear, this seems to be a representative scenario - so - I have my doubts that many Palestinians have any legitimate paperwork to prove their ownership of land.

2. If they were "chased off" or "ran in fear", what makes you think that they would have been able to grab the land title? If they did, obviously they were not in nearly as much fear, nor chased nearly as hard, as my first landlord when he and his family escaped from an attacked kibbutz with nothing more than the clothes on their back. So, which is it?

3. Ah, and the most important one: most of the people who lived in the area did not own any land. Most of the area was owned by the absentee landlords and the colonizers - the Turks and later, the Brits. The arable land was worked by what were in effect, feudal serfs, who were NOT owners of the land.

Mediocrates

06-21-2002, 08:31 PM

Fortunately the world intervened, if not the conflict might have escalated to a chronic regional war or the Palestinians might have been totally etnic cleansed from the occupied territories.

Do you write romance novels? Dial back on the Tolstoy, dude.

so according to this kind of logic, the Cubans are very happy because their average infant mortality is less than 20 and average life expectancy 77... they don't have any reason to
complain.

Would you like a Merlot to wash down those words? By your very hand you typed that Cubans have it better than virtually all other Caribbean countries - by virtue of the Great Castro and his revolution. Any maybe that's even true but don't complain abou it later on.

Mediocrates

06-21-2002, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by elke

Now, and what would you do with plowed streets? :)

1) Roadkill in the spring and summer - deer and opossums mostly
2) It DOES snow here - this year about a foot and 2 years before that 2 feet. The problem is that it comes in one blast and even with 2 inches of snow they close everything because they don't have any equipment. And even if they did, the reflectors embedded in the pavement would get torn out.

Our winter weather problem is ice and flooding. Followed by lightening followed by microbursts, more flooding, hail, twisters, fire, humidity, hurricanes and flooding and back to ice again.

elke

06-21-2002, 08:46 PM

OK, sounds like just the right kind of a job for UN! :D Except that all they'll do is pass a resolution to condemn the roadkill for having the effrontery to die in the street, never mind the cars. ;)

takeo

06-22-2002, 03:06 AM

"So, right and wrong are the matter of a bunch of words on a piece of paper, called "Geneva Conventions"? Geneva Conventions, as well as other laws, are nothing more than codified modes of behavioral principles. Many a time there have been laws on the books one can hardly consider "right". "

The Western democracy is based upon the rule of law...

"From what I have seen, the Geneva Conventions would fit my personal definition of right, it's true. However, again, as any laws - and as we have discussed at least once before, - laws are notoriously vague and subject to interpretation. Obviously, they would be interpreted differently by opposing parties, that's why negotiations are in order for situations that are "grey". "

most laws, including the geneva-conventions leave not so much place for interpretation. An armed robber could never legitimise his act by interpreting any law for example...

"Actually, I would love to see a cacophony of opinions on the Palestinian side. It would be refreshing, for a change. What I see, admittedly from the imperfect polls, is a remarkable similarity in the "means" department (large majority supporting the suicide murders), when the conflicting goals get a relatively homogenous amount of support. Provided the exact same group of people is asked all these questions (which is a given in a poll, usually), the same person should not be able to give the same support to two diametrically opposed concepts."

I didn't see major contradiction in those polls, yes people supported suicide-bombing, but at the same time they would accept peace with israel, even if many are sceptical that there will ever be peace with israel. (because they have some experience the last 3 decades...)

"As far as I?m concerned every time Arafat orders a Palestinian murdered for allegedly collaborating with Israel he?s violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights "

OK, but in that case the car-bombs and "targetted elimination" carried out by israel is equally illegitimate to the quoted part of the geneva-conventions...
however the collaborators of israeli terror have had a trial before being executed... (one can wonder the the standard of those trials of course)

"PART III
Article 6
1. Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
2. In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out pursuant to a final judgement rendered by a competent court. "

"As far as I?m concerned the Geneva Convention has no bearing on current issues. Let the frog read it in its entirety. START FROM THE BEGINNING! "

actually israel is not a signatory (one can wonder why... it is in the nice company of other countries like North Korea who haven't signed it either...) but palestine on the other hand is a region where the geneva-convention should be applied because palestine and before them Egypt and Jordan did sign the geneva-conventions.

"Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 75 U.N.T.S. 31, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950.

CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 1
The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
Article 2
In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peacetime, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof ."

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention declares that "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies".

Systematic torture, in violation of articles 27, 31, 32, and 147;
Collective punishment, including home demolition, closures and restrictions on movement, in violation of articles 33 and 53;
Prolonged closures that lead, for example, to loss of income from employment, without providing alternative sources of income for the residents in violation of article 39;
Massive establishment of settlements and the transfer of Israeli settlers to occupied territory, in violation of articles 49 and 53;
Detention and imprisonment of residents of the occupied territory in detention centres located within Israel, in violation of article 76;
Administrative detention of thousands of Palestinians for prolonged periods, grossly exceeding the provisions of article 78, in violation of article 49;
Revocation of residency rights in occupied East Jerusalem, in violation of article 47;
Expropriation and exploitation of the natural resources, including water, in the occupied territory to meet the needs of the occupying power, in violation of article 55.

With regard to the Palestinian Authority and its limited self-rule, Israel as the occupying power remains bound by the provisions of the convention "for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such power exercises the functions of government in such territory". also

"protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present convention by any change introduced, as a result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the occupying power, nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory".

"Except that, takeo what we have and what we will have is the elevation of terrorism as a legitimate tool of foreign policy. "

isn't it already the case? and didn't israel do exactly the same?
What do you think the attacks on libanon and tunisia, and on plo-members in Europe were? What do you think car-bombing is?

"Water dispute? Air lane rights?, port disputes?, trade imbalances?, currency fluctuations?, unemployment?, unfair election?, the bank ran out of money? "

all this kind of problems can be solved in a peacefull way, occupation apparently not.

"Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom - a few dead Israelis and voila, the oppressed get some attention and the help they so desperately need. Why bother entering into any treaty when hands off bombing and passive aggressive "what can we do we're only some poor Palistinians!!" continues to work so well as a proxy for foreign policy? If I could get the UN to plow my streets I probably would."

if israel would have stopped the occupation decades ago and accepted UN-resolutions and international mediation we wouldn't be in this situation right now and probably there wouldn't be hamas, PFLP or even fatah.

takeo

06-22-2002, 03:29 AM

"1. My friend's grandfather had a vinyard "for 30 years", she said. Which means that he has had it since 1918, not from time immemorial. I don't know how he got it, she never told me - she may not have even known! But the fact remains that it was not "generation to generation" business you speak of. "

Doesn't really matter, it was their winyard and they got expropriated in an illegal way. Besides, they may not have had possetions for generations, but most likely they lived there as legal citizens for generations!

"2. If they were "chased off" or "ran in fear", what makes you think that they would have been able to grab the land title? If they did, obviously they were not in nearly as much fear, nor chased nearly as hard, as my first landlord when he and his family escaped from an attacked kibbutz with nothing more than the clothes on their back. So, which is it? "

Your landlord can claim his property back or ask for compensation, under both international and Israeli law, and he probably did.

"3. Ah, and the most important one: most of the people who lived in the area did not own any land. Most of the area was owned by the absentee landlords and the colonizers - the Turks and later, the Brits. The arable land was worked by what were in effect, feudal serfs, who were NOT owners of the land."

I would argue with that, the Arab system of property wasn't as in Russia dominated by the clergy or noblesse, but by individual families of peasants.

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

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

Item 64 of that same report stated:

"The above statistics of population and of land ownership prove conclusively that the Arabs constitute a majority of the population of the proposed Jewish State, and own the bulk of the land"
(Source: Doc. C74 UNSCOP Report to the UNGA, Documents on Palestine, vol. 1, pp. 165, PASSIA, December 1997).

Mediocrates

06-22-2002, 04:52 AM

Do all supranational laws subsume national laws irrespective? You seem to indicate that is the case in every case.

elke

06-22-2002, 05:08 AM

The rule of law the Western Democracies are based on, is an evolving proposition. The key here is the method of how new laws are passed, and how old ones are expunged from the books - not necessarily the laws themselves. There have been numerous laws, in all the Western Democracies, that did not pass the muster of time and changing mores - and even, arguably, morals (such as slavery and segregation laws in the US).

most laws, including the geneva-conventions leave not so much place for interpretation. An armed robber could never legitimise his act by interpreting any law for example...

That's because you are not a lawyer. :) Laws leave PLENTY of room for interpretation, if you know what you are looking for. In your example above, try to define "armed" and "robber", and see if everyone agrees with your interpretation. THEN try to apply those definitions to a real situation, and see what happens.

Actually, the latest polls suggest that 51% - over half - support a Palestinian state in the whole historical Palestine. By the same token, about 45% believe in the negotiations. Negotiate what? Do they really think that they will be able to negotiate the demise of Israel with the Israelis?

They were legal bedouins and such, who came over to the "historic Palestine", who knows from where, when the Jews came, - searching for a better life. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't give them an "inalienable" right to be there, certainly no more than the Jews who actually were the cause of their migration in the first place.

I would argue with that, the Arab system of property wasn't as in Russia dominated by the clergy or noblesse, but by individual families of peasants.

And you would argue wrong. Among other things, because in Russia this was true prior to 1861, but not after. In the Ottoman Empire this was true until its collapse in 1918.

christian

06-22-2002, 06:07 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elke
[B]The rule of law the Western Democracies are based on, is an evolving proposition. The key here is the method of how new laws are passed, and how old ones are expunged from the books - not necessarily the laws themselves. There have been numerous laws, in all the Western Democracies, that did not pass the muster of time and changing mores - and even, arguably, morals (such as slavery and segregation laws in the US).

That's because you are not a lawyer. :) Laws leave PLENTY of room for interpretation, if you know what you are looking for. In your example above, try to define "armed" and "robber", and see if everyone agrees with your interpretation. THEN try to apply those definitions to a real situation, and see what happens.

So, by your definition of law, Geneva convention shouldn't apply in Kosvo either.

What you mean is geneva convention doesn't apply to Israel.

However, geneva conventions does apply to Yugoslavia, S. Africa, somolia, etc..

Actually, the latest polls suggest that 51% - over half - support a Palestinian state in the whole historical Palestine. By the same token, about 45% believe in the negotiations. Negotiate what? Do they really think that they will be able to negotiate the demise of Israel with the Israelis?

Is it so hard to understand? If Israel treats the Palestinian with secularism. Israel is without problems today.

In southeast asia, islam slaugther people called infidel. Just 30 years ago, malaysia is under going secularism. In one generation, the hatre of infidel is rapidly diminish. Although, there is some grudges with chinese and india. Now, the singapore islam despises the radical islamic law in middle east. However, there is always few extremism. This is not a majority.

Israel should develope Palestinian into another Turkey, inside of israel. The israelis people have all the resources to develop another turkey.

Let me remind you. In 1700's, turkey isn't so friendly with the west either. Yes. They call the european a infidel.

Look what secularism can do for you.

elke

06-22-2002, 06:27 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by christian
So, by your definition of law, Geneva convention shouldn't apply in Kosvo either.

What you mean is geneva convention doesn't apply to Israel.

However, geneva conventions does apply to Yugoslavia, S. Africa, somolia, etc..

Actually, no. As I understand it, the argument here is over the "occupied territories" vs. "disputed territories". Certain Geneva Conventions are only applicable to the "occupied", which Israel does not agree is the case with the West Bank and Gaza. This is the grey area we are speaking of.

Is it so hard to understand? If Israel treats the Palestinian with secularism. Israel is without problems today.

In southeast asia, islam slaugther people called infidel. Just 30 years ago, malaysia is under going secularism. In one generation, the hatre of infidel is rapidly diminish. Although, there is some grudges with chinese and india. Now, the singapore islam despises the radical islamic law in middle east. However, there is always few extremism. This is not a majority.

Israel should develope Palestinian into another Turkey, inside of israel. The israelis people have all the resources to develop another turkey.

Let me remind you. In 1700's, turkey isn't so friendly with the west either. Yes. They call the european a infidel.

Look what secularism can do for you.

As the wise Book says, "for everything there is a season". (I am not sure what you are referring to here: a bi-national state or developing the independent Palestinian state into "another Turkey". I'll assume the latter).

This is, no doubt, the ultimate long-term goal of at minimum, large majority of Israelis. However, it's patently impossible as of this moment. If you notice, it took 300+ years, plus a crushing military defeat for Turkey to come around to such views.

There is going to come a time when the Israelis and the Palestinians will be the best of friends, of a kind that no nebulous peace treaty would ever be able to create. This will take time, energy, and right decisions on the part of both parties. If you think that the Palestinians are "justified" in not trusting the Israelis because of the incursions, etc; how can you explain away the distrust the Israelis have for the Palestinians' tactics for the past 100 years? All is not lost, but we do need to be patient. There needs to be some sort of "cooling off", taking of responsibility for own problems, and truce. Secularism is not a panacea for all the problems, although it is indeed a good recipe.

christian

06-22-2002, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by elke

As the wise Book says, "for everything there is a season". (I am not sure what you are referring to here: a bi-national state or developing the independent Palestinian state into "another Turkey". I'll assume the latter).

This is, not doubt, the ultimate long-term goal of at minimum, large majority of Israelis. However, it's patently impossible as of this moment. If you notice, it took 300+ years, plus a crushing military defeat for Turkey to come around to such views.

There is going to come a time when the Israelis and the Palestinians will be the best of friends, of a kind that no nebulous peace treaty would ever be able to create. This will take time, energy, and right decisions on the part of both parties. If you think that the Palestinians are "justified" in not trusting the Israelis because of the incursions, etc; how can you explain away the distrust the Israelis have for the Palestinians' tactics for the past 100 years? All is not lost, but we do need to be patient. There needs to be some sort of "cooling off", taking of responsibility for own problems, and truce. Secularism is not a panacea for all the problems, although it is indeed a good recipe. [/B]

I disagree with you. Secularism is not a magic formula. However, in this case, it does applies to Palestinian situation.

There are few point. The jewish media never seek to understand.

1)Palestinian doesn't have a day time job in the refugee camps. Their jobs are in Israel. If a man can't bring bread and butter to home. The palestinian man will blame it on the israel occupation.

A person without a job, carries m-16, because there is no job. Resistance soldiering is a best job.

2) Settlements is viewed as an act of invasion.

If integration and education applies to all spectrum of israelis and palestinian. Settlement wouldn't be a problem. It will be viewed as economic activity. IN HK, there are many foreign live here. We don't view them as an act of invasion. We welcome them, because the foreigner is producing many economic activity.

3) Many zionist doesn't agree that palestinian have lived in Israel for centuries. Thus, Palestinian has the right to return.

Although, the right of return shouldn't be included in any negotiation, because of social structure. At least, Israel should act softly,to compensate their weakness, such as building jobs for palestinian, building university for gaza and w. bank, building traffics,etc

Many countless examples secularism is successful

1) HK is divided from China in the Opium war. Many chinese despise the british back then. There is terrorism acts in china. It is called "boxer" rebellion. It is designed to wipe out the foreigners. In order to ensure the empire control over HK, britain applies the wages law, education, trade. Eventually, every local chinese is busy with making money. The HK stock exchange is making money for local chinese. No body gives a damn about nationalism. Everyone pay taxes. YEs. There is some grudges aganist britains occupation. The benefits is far outweigth the grievance.

2) Roman empire successfully conquers all the land of europe. All the roman people is not from Italy. In fact, rome is a multicultural society. They integrates arabs, spain, gaul(france), germans, into their army. The government of rome applies law, education and trade. Thus, the empire is flourish over the continents.

3) Malaysia is a islamic state. Before secularism, malaysia is just like another islam fundamentalist. After secularism, the moderate islamic class grows. Eventually, it replaces the old guards and extremist. Many malaysian islam doesn't agree with taliban rules of islamic law. Eventhough, some party supports tailban type of laws. It never wins the majority of malaysian population. The benefits of secularism is a lot to lose.

4) Many palestinian likes to live in Israel, because the freedom of israel creates. If israel provides education, trade and economy to the neighbour. It will eventually influence the daily life of Palestinian. No amount of nationalism can change the reality of life such as food, water, house and trade.

Mediocrates

06-22-2002, 10:21 AM

A person without a job, carries m-16, because there is no job. Resistance soldiering is a best job.

That's patently absurd as a general statement.

And according the UN and PA the median income for a Palistinian working inside the disputed lands is marginally higher than for Palistinians working on the other side of the Green Line. At least through 2000 for which statistics are collected. And the aggregate figure is roughly half compared to Israelis. Compared though to their neighbors in next door Arab lands the Palistinians in disputed lands earns far more than Palistinians living in those Arab countries at least as far as someone living there is willing to call themselves Palistinian.

Mediocrates

06-22-2002, 10:24 AM

If integration and education applies to all spectrum of israelis and palestinian. Settlement
wouldn't be a problem. It will be viewed as economic activity. IN HK, there are many foreign
live here. We don't view them as an act of invasion. We welcome them, because the foreigner is producing many economic activity.

That might true if it applied but it doesn't -Israelis are not occupying anything. There are Jewish suburbanites living in Jewish suburbs. They are 'occupying' Israel.

elke

06-22-2002, 02:32 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by christian
[B]I disagree with you. Secularism is not a magic formula. However, in this case, it does applies to Palestinian situation.

Which part of my statement do you disagree with? You just paraphrased what I said. The only difference is that I don't think that it's possible right now - which is the only thing I can think of you could be disagreeing with, based on the statement above.

There are few point. The jewish media never seek to understand.

By "Jewish media", may I assume you mean "Western"? Or are the two concepts the same in your mind?

1)Palestinian doesn't have a day time job in the refugee camps. Their jobs are in Israel. If a man can't bring bread and butter to home. The palestinian man will blame it on the israel occupation .

Wait a minute: what should be blamed on the "occupation": the fact that most of the jobs they have are in Israel or that they lost these jobs due to their intransigence?

A person without a job, carries m-16, because there is no job. Resistance soldiering is a best job.

Only if it's paid for by the likes of Saddam Hussein and/or Mr. Arafat is "resistance soldiering the best job". Otherwise, I doubt it.

I pass a homeless man, obviously without a job, on my way to work every single day. I have never seen an M-16 anywhere near him. Riddle me that!

2) Settlements is viewed as an act of invasion.

Well, I wonder how the suicide murders should be viewed? As an act of love? :rolleyes:

If integration and education applies to all spectrum of israelis and palestinian. Settlement wouldn't be a problem. It will be viewed as economic activity. IN HK, there are many foreign live here. We don't view them as an act of invasion. We welcome them, because the foreigner is producing many economic activity.

Sure, in the future. At this point, unfortunately, there is a "Jihad" on, in case you haven't noticed. When your house is burning, you don't worry about your furniture: you run for your life first!

3) Many zionist doesn't agree that palestinian have lived in Israel for centuries. Thus, Palestinian has the right to return.

This sentence is a non-sequitur. I have not one clue what you are trying to say here.

Although, the right of return shouldn't be included in any negotiation, because of social structure. At least, Israel should act softly,to compensate their weakness, such as building jobs for palestinian, building university for gaza and w. bank, building traffics,etc

I am not sure what you are trying to say here, either. Please clarify.

Many countless examples secularism is successful

You don't have to convince me that secularism is a good thing, it's the other side you have to convince. Even if I don't think that it's a cure-all, I do think that it's essential.

1) HK is divided from China in the Opium war. Many chinese despise the british back then. There is terrorism acts in china. It is called "boxer" rebellion. It is designed to wipe out the foreigners. In order to ensure the empire control over HK, britain applies the wages law, education, trade. Eventually, every local chinese is busy with making money. The HK stock exchange is making money for local chinese. No body gives a damn about nationalism. Everyone pay taxes. YEs. There is some grudges aganist britains occupation. The benefits is far outweigth the grievance.

I don't know much about this subject, so I can't really intelligently duscuss it. However, I do know that different nations have different experiences, and their nationalistic aspirations are based in large part, on such collective background.

2) Roman empire successfully conquers all the land of europe. All the roman people is not from Italy. In fact, rome is a multicultural society. They integrates arabs, spain, gaul(france), germans, into their army. The government of rome applies law, education and trade. Thus, the empire is flourish over the continents.

Where did you get this information? The Romans actually fought a WAR to prevent the Italians from becoming Roman citizens! Rome was NOT a multicultural society, in the sense "multicultural" is understood today. Arabs were a bunch of nomadic tribes in Roman times, of no interest to them whatsoever - and Spain and Gaul were "Provinces" of Rome, as was Judea later.

There were some individual Romans who tried to do right by the indigenous populations in the Provinces, but mostly Rome was interested in the taxes and levies that could be collected there. There was really little actual rule of law in the Provinces, and mostly if you wanted to take a Roman to court, you had to make your way to Rome itself, and then do it with the man's peers.

3) Malaysia is a islamic state. Before secularism, malaysia is just like another islam fundamentalist. After secularism, the moderate islamic class grows. Eventually, it replaces the old guards and extremist. Many malaysian islam doesn't agree with taliban rules of islamic law. Eventhough, some party supports tailban type of laws. It never wins the majority of malaysian population. The benefits of secularism is a lot to lose.

I guess I don't really understand what you mean by "secularism". To me, this is the concept that promotes tolerance between people, because the individuals are not completely convinced that their religion is the One and Only True Path. This is an ATTITUDE, and as such, it has to GROW. It cannot be imposed from outside of the individual, let alone from outside of a given society. The outside world can influence the attitudes, by both "stick" and "carrot"; but it must be internalized by the persons involved, which takes a long time.

4) Many palestinian likes to live in Israel, because the freedom of israel creates. If israel provides education, trade and economy to the neighbour. It will eventually influence the daily life of Palestinian. No amount of nationalism can change the reality of life such as food, water, house and trade.

Yes, you are right about that. Eventually, as I said, the Israelis and the Palestinians have the potential of true friendship. This is indeed the goal to strive for. However, just like trying to jump to the moon was...premature a hundred years ago, when all we could manage was a Zeppelin, so it is now premature to expect the Israelis and the Palestinians to go from 0 to 60 in no time flat.

Mediocrates

06-22-2002, 03:10 PM

Settlements is viewed as an act of invasion.

So? I hear MTV and the rest of the West is viewed as cultural invasion that help cause 911. We should evacuate the premises?

Jews living in YESHA is viewed as an envious reminder of how bad and backwards their own chosen lot in life really is.

Vic

06-22-2002, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by elke
[QUOTE]Originally posted by christian
A person without a job, carries m-16, because there is no job. Resistance soldiering is a best job.

Only if it's paid for by the likes of Saddam Hussein and/or Mr. Arafat is "resistance soldiering the best job". Otherwise, I doubt it.

I pass a homeless man, obviously without a job, on my way to work every single day. I have never seen an M-16 anywhere near him. Riddle me that!Just like a certain Mr. A. wants everyone to believe:Q: How do you explain this [terror] phenomenon, that has no parallel in the world?

Arafat: "I will give you one example. When the first days, `Gaza and Jericho first', when [Yitzhak] Rabin was (pressed) to close Gaza. The first time he sent me NIS 15 million, and the second time NIS 10 million, and a third time NIS 12 million. I talked to him the first time `Why you are sending me this money?' He said `job creation, otherwise they'll be against you and against me.' Look, now are you following what is going with our laborers in Gaza? We are trying to give a part of salaries for this month but we haven't gotten our money (from Israel)." ;)
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=179034&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=179034

elke

06-22-2002, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Vic
Just like a certain Mr. A. wants everyone to believe: ;)
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=179034&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y&itemNo=179034

Mr. A is full of "Mr. S". What is he doing: paying salaries in M-16s? "Oh, I am sorry, I am fresh out of cash; but here is a nice, shiny new rifle I can give you. Go ahead, shoot some food!" :D

Batman

06-22-2002, 05:58 PM

l
Batman, this was the past, the same past when israel even refused to give any autonomy to the Palestinians. since the 90's the charter of the plo has changed, and palestinian officials have repeatedly recognised the existance of Israel within its 1967 borders....
http://www.nad-plo.org/permanent/sumpalpo.html

I know you'd like to think that the web site you present above is not a propaganda tool. Just because it is structured to appear serious, wordy and well thought out does not make it any less a PROPAGANDA TOOL BY THE PLO. The facts are still the same:
"the original charter is still displayed by the Palestine legation to the UN and other Palestinian bodies. "

The Palestinian National Covenant
The Palestinian National Covenant is the founding charter of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), adopted at the PLO's founding congress in May 1964. The Covenant sets forth the organization's stated aims and goals. Almost all of the articles in the Covenant explicitly or implicitly deny Israel's right to exist and reject any peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

For example, these articles:

Article 19: The establishment of Israel is fundamentally null and void, whatever time has elapsed ...

Article 15: [We call for] the liquidation of the Zionist presence in Palestine

Article 22: The liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence and will contribute to the establishment of peace in the Middle East ...
The Covenant also denies the existence of the Jewish people as a nation and any ties that it might have to the Land of Israel [Article 20: "Nor do Jews constitute a single nation"]. It declares in Article 9 that "armed struggle is the only [emphasis added] way to liberate Palestine".

The bottom line is that the Palestinian National Covenant calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. The Israelis, quite naturally, thought that the inflammatory language should be changed before they could consider the PLO to be a serious "partner for peace".

What did Yasser Arafat agree to do?
In a letter dated September 9, 1993 -- part of the Oslo Accords -- signed by Yasser Arafat as Chairman of the PLO, Arafat agreed that:

... the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators

... those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid

... the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.
But nothing was done to change the Covenant. The requirement was restated in another letter from Arafat to Rabin which accompanied the May 4, 1994 Agreement on the Gaza Strip and Jericho Area (the Cairo Agreement), but no action was taken by Arafat and the PLO.
Because the changes were not made, the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement (Oslo II) made the requirement even more specific:

ARTICLE XXXI (9) The PLO undertakes that, within two months of the date of the inauguration of the Council, the Palestinian National Council will convene and formally approve the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant, as undertaken in the letters signed by the Chairman of the PLO and addressed to the Prime Minister of Israel, dated September 9, 1993 and May 4, 1994.
What actions were taken by the PLO to live up to its agreements?
The Oslo II agreement was signed on September 24, 1995 but the change was not made within the time period specified. On April 24, 1996 there was a vote by the PLO's Palestine National Council. The vote was widely reported in the media as having repealed the clauses of the PLO Charter which deny Israel's right to exist and call for its destruction through violence. The governments of the United States and of Israel welcomed the vote, stating that it marked the fulfillment of the Palestinian obligation on the Covenant.

But, again, that was not actually the case. The PNC action, which has not been officially fully disclosed, only stated an intention to make changes at a future date and did not specify, in detail, the changes that would be made. The matter was referred to a legal committee for study. No specific anti-Israel clauses in the Covenant were declared officially abrogated. Moreover, the process was incomplete because the PNC did not draft a new Covenant. After winning the election in May 1996, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu declared the failure to revise the Covenant to be a violation of the agreements by the Palestinians.

In the 1997 Hebron Agreement, it was specifically noted, again, that the PLO was commited to, "Complete the process of revising the Palestinian National Charter." Thereafter, Arafat and the PLO governing bodies insisted that they were in compliance based on the PNC vote in 1996, but legal analysts do not agree . In January 1998, Chairman Arafat sent letters to President Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair purporting to "put to rest" concerns about the PNC resolution and setting out a list of articles supposedly canceled or amended by the decision. But personal statements by Arafat have no legal effect; only a vote of 2/3 of the PNC can ammend the Covenant (Article 33) . On December 14, 1998, the Palestinian National Council, in accordance with the Wye Memorandum, which required compliance with the earlier agreements, convened in Gaza in the presence of US President Clinton and voted to reaffirm their decision to amend the Covenant. But, again, this was insubstantial window dressing. Their action didn't actually amend the Covenant and the Palestinian Authority remained in violation of the lengthening series of agreements.
Although the Palestinian National Council (PNC) has twice taken formal decisions to revise the Palestinian National Covenant (1996 and 1998) calling for Israel's destruction, the PNC Chairman, Salim Za'anoun, stated on February 3, 2001, in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper, that the Palestinian Covenant remained unchanged and was still in force [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 3 February 2001, as translated by MEMRI].

Former CIA Director James Woolsey said:

Arafat has been like Lucy with the football, treating the rest of the world as Charlie Brown. He and the PNC keep telling everyone they've changed the charter, without actually changing it.
This saga of the Covenant revision is an example of the lack of good faith on the part of Arafat and the Palestinian Arabs in the course of the Oslo peace process. But, it probably does not make a difference whether the Covenant is actually revised or not. The hatred and violence directed against Israel by the Palestinian Arabs does not originate with the piece of paper called the Palestinian National Covenant.