takeo's roadmap for peace (summary)

[Canajew]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Canajew]

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

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

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

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

Another effort at empty sloganeering rather than constructive dialogue.

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

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

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

And i don't believe in punishing an entire people

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

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

that's in fact typical stalinist policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Canajew]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your response reeks of ignorance.

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

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

[Canajew]

Originally posted by takeo
discussing it means compromising.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

do you have any links to sustain this claim?

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

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

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

the only thing changing was the israeli policy...

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

[Canajew]

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

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

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

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

operation defensive shield only had very temporarily results,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Canajew]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

as well as the putin-strategy in chechnia,

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

the soviet-strategy in afghanistan

same thing.

, the american strategy in vietnam

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

or the bush-strategy in iraq... )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Canajew]

it seems a very logival conclusion

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

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

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

still gaza-suicide bombers regularly rock Israel...

another lie. Are you addicted or something?

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

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

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

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

because of Arab pressure and the oil lobby?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Canajew]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yes they did, by recognizing israel in 1948.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[takeo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[takeo]

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

You have your causes and effects backwards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[takeo]

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

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

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

ok, perhaps, so what?

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

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

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

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

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

All right, but what's your point?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[takeo]

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

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

[danholo]

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

Immediately? Immediately!? I am just reading a/the history of the Six Day War by Michael B. Oren and this is why I choose to comment on this before Canajew comes back on-line to reply. I honestly have no idea why you have the nerve to tout this bull@#$%. Either you are a liar or just plain ignorant. Please prove to be the latter. This is utterly disguisting and can almost seen as propaganda... Immediately my ass. It seems that you know absolutely nothing about the Six-Day War and what lead to it. I am pretty sure Canajew here agrees with me.

If you ever have, indeed, read any book on this conflict it must be one of those books I looked at by Hirst where he "proves" that Israel is "evil" because of its revisionist historians who have to do something to satisfy their guilt - "We must have done something evil." - or that "The New Intifada: Resisting Israel's Apartheid" by that racist which has contributions by antisemitic self-hating Holocaust deniers like Chomsky or the late "exaggerator" Said and that other hater Robert Fisk. What "intellect".

All I can say to this is: "Oy vey!"

[Canajew]

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

they are not allies. Hamas and the PLO are allies - they have the same strategic goals. Netanyahu wasn't interested in 'destroying the peace process' he was interested in demonstrating the Palestinians had only fraudulently assented to it. And he was right.

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

you can punish people for the acts of others. Conspiracy to commit murder is still a crime even though you didn't really DO anything to anyone. Wars are fought against a collective group of people based on what their GOVERNMENT does. This happens all the time and is perfectly acceptable where the actions to which you refer have wide support among the population and where the population actively seeks to aid those who commit such acts.

Israel would likely address the moral issue over time, and 20 years after a peace I could easily see something comming out of Israel that is VERY conciliatory, but the actions of the Palestinians in this whole thing cannot and should not be ignored. On a relative scale of immorality the Israelis don't even come close.

it's not an invention, it was a huge injustice which should, at least symbolically, be restored.

the false symbol I was talking about was the fact that the al-aqsa mosque has nothing at all to do with the Koran. it was built in Jerusalem almost a century after Mohammed lived and died and it was called the al-aqsa mosque so that the guy who built it could claim religious authority for his power. In this was this is an invented fiction. It is not nearly as religious a site as they pretend it to be. That is the sybol, and that is what I would like them to address.

It's as if asking the jewish people to forget the genocide. of course the situation can't be turned around, it's too late, but at least israel could make some symbolic gestures and accept at least some part of the children and grand-children of those refugees, believe me, it would make a great difference in the eyes of the palestinians in their perception of Israel.

again, you miss my point. Barak offered for a fair number of 'returnees' and Arafat rejected this, still claiming a full right of return. And now that the palestinians have turned themselves into a cult of death paradise, that you cannot see that they might be viewed as undesirable by the Israelis is really not my problem.

You might not care what they think, but you also want a change in their mentality, this seems like a contradiction...

because there is a right way and a wrong way to change perceptions. Making concessions and goodwill gestures doesn't work. thats been tried already lots of times. Israel offered control over the temple mount, and that still wasn't enough to even make the Palestinians even THINK about making a real peace. And any concessions made while Arafat is still in control of the media will only be minimized and discounted, so that the Palestinians feel that not only were they not given anything but that Israel was taking stuff away. Just like you 'Balkanization' garbage fiction.

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

you seem to be missing the point that the Palestinians, through their widespread popular support for this suicide terror campaign, have completely obliterated any goodwill that the Israelis may have had, and that this goodwill cannot really be restored. they cannot come back because they are supporters and members of a society which is as immoral as possible.

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

so you are talking of demolishing houses of suicide bombers and not those destroyed for actual tactical military reasons. But I still disagree, as Israel only adopted this policy AFTER foreign govenrments began paying bounty money to all families of suicide bombers who 'martyred' themselves to target Isareli civilians. Seems fair that israel can impose an economic penalty to counteract this payment for crimes against humanity - and where's your precious security counsel on that - isn't paying people to engage in crimes agaianst humanity in a aforeign country something within its jurisdiction and that it should pay attention to? But of course it is broken so it is oblivious.

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

israel is not really completely comparable to any country as it seems to be the only democracy which has had to constantly fight agaisnt enemies whose declared goal it was to destroy the state and kill or exile all of its inhabitants. That you don't see this creating any sorts of undertsandable exceptions to 'business as normal' is a problem.

And when fighting those who adopt war crimes and crimes against humanity as a FIRST option, lesser crimes can easily be justified based on proportionality. Especially when the 'judiciary' of international law constantly ignores all the crimes committed against israel. Part of the social compact of law is that each individual is entitled to the protection of that law. The fact that the international community has done nothing to protect Israel or punish the perpatrators of crimes against humanity vitiates somewhat the moral claim of the international community to extend jurisdiction on house demolitions and other far less serious events.

[Canajew]

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

Israel's participation in the 1956 war was justified by - you guessed it - an Egyptian blocake of the straits of Tiran, not to mention the fact that in 1955 Egypt ramped up its sponsorship of 'fedayeen' terrorist raids into Israel. Just in this case other countries were also pissed off about its seizing of the Suez Canal and so Israel didn't have to go it alone. Israel achieved its objective by seizing Sharm el Shiek, breaking the blockade and then in the disengagement agreement agreeing to withdraw from the occupied portions of the Sinai as long as Egypt did not again block this international waterway. And when Egypt broke this agreement and made it abundantly clear that the next war would be a war of extermination, Israel took the whole Sinai, and only returned it when Egypt genuinely committed to not committing additional acts of war in the future.

Your lack of knowledge about these kinds of historical facts which are so central to the narative is disturbing, to say the least.

And what danholo said was bang on. You really should read the book he is talking about. While you will undoubtedly perceive the rigid academic integrity of the work to be wholly foreign to you and the 'authors' you like to base your assumptions on, it should be of quite a lot of value in getting you to at least SEE that there is a real side out there with REAL facts and REAL arguments, unlike yours with manufactured facts and faulty arguments (e.g. general assembly resolution X makes Y ILLEGAL - even though this is impossible)

this are all assumptions and no reasons for war.

for you, speaking 35 years after the fact and not facing down the barrels of thousands of tanks and hundreds of planes. Back then, and again you really should read something so you have at least some clue what you are talking about, Israel and Israeli leaders were GENUINELY concerned with their own survival. This has been documented and is available for all to observe, if they want to, of course.

The US has moved its troops on several occasions very close to the north-korean border, does this give the northkoreans the right to attack? Israel should have waited and prepared for war, but by invading first Israel made itself the occupier and aggressor in the opinion of the world.

with respect, the opinion of the world doesn't really mater if you're dead and so international opinion doesn't really factor in here. Egypt did everything it could to posture for war, and if Israel believed Egypt and Nasser and responded, its Nasser's fault. Anyways, he did intend to carry though so all this is moot.

come on, please, you should know better instead of using this word anti-semitism! you seem intelligent enough to know that criticising israel's policy and anti-semitism are not the same (could be the same, but certainly not always)

well gee, then maybe you should hold off making stupid comparissons of the Israelis to the Nazis. In this case criticizing Israel and being antisemetic is CLEARLY the same thing, as you impute Nazi motives to israeli actions.

Israel wanted Lebensraum, some months ago i published some quotes from Israeli politicians about this "extra space needed for Israel". Even today some highranking people worship the "eretz israel" idea and others favour a massive etnic cleansing of the occupied territories. All it needed was a valid excuse to grap more lands, Nasser provided them with such an excuse. You might be insulted by this as it doesn't fit in your framework but i would think about it, can you garantee me a 100% that it wasn't one of the reasons to start this invasion?

No it was not a reason (though admittedly gaining control over Jerusalem was a separate concern and partly driven by territorial ambitions - i.e. they have denied us access for so long, it would be great to fix that).

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

maybe, but things are different today than they were in the 80s. had the Palestinians been interested in genuine peace (back then they still even Declared their goal to be Israel's destruction - now they only pretend that it isn't) then they would have had it at Camp David, but they were not and they have become the most depraved society on earth, so things have changed. Deal with it.