Page 11 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 342

Thread: takeo's roadmap for peace (summary)

  1. #151
    that caused the current attitude. the same can be seen in chechnia, injustice causes cruelty, that has been a fact during the entire world-history.
    are you comparing israeli actions in the wb and gaza to Russian behaviour in Chechnya? How many people dies there? how many were civilians and how many combatants? How many cities were razed to the ground? How many people were raped or tortured? Compare these figures to Israel. Compare Israeli rules of engagement with Russian rules of engagement. Compare ANY of these things, just don't make such stupiud bald assertions. Your attempt at moral equivalence is sickening really, not from my perspective, but from the perspective of any Chechen who had to put up with such utter barbarity being compared with the Palestinians' treatment at the hand of the Israelis.

    Why do you think many israeli are so revengefull and absolutely uncompromising, in fact not very different from the palestinian attitude, because the jewish people suffered hardship and discrimination during its entire history!
    excpet that Israeli's historical treatments was indeed abhorent, while the Palestinians have manufactured much of theirs, included so many falsehoods within their narrative, and been consistently aggressive towards Israel. Palestinian suffering is the fault of their leadership. israel is just vdefending itself as it is fully entitled to do. Once the palestinians change tactics permanently, their suffering will abate.

  2. #152
    Originally posted by takeo
    and what if syria's intentions were just to recover the golan-heights in return for some kind of deal with israel? why would that be impossible?
    and what if I told you I have some valuable swampland in Florida that I may be interested in parting with for the right price?

    Why would that be impossible. use common sense.

    yes i do care. It's of course interconnected with a whole bunch of other requirements on both sides, which have by now been met by jordan and egypt. but i'll try to post it once i got trough yours posts...
    I've already looked into it. there is really little you can add of any substantive value. But look at it and come to your own conclusiosn, post them, and I'll explain to you why you are wrong. And the 'now implemented by egypt and jordan' garbage is just that - garbage. Some things have an expiry date. you cannot try to kill me for 50 years and then turn around and say, "remember that offer you made 50 years ago - I'll take it" Real life doesn't work this way.

    for whatever reason it's included in the roadmap, so that makes the roadmap unacceptable for you? and yet israel accepted it!
    well, the roadmap specified nothing, only said it was a topic for discussion. And we are discussing it. And after discussing it, my answer is no, that is ridiculous, and even were it not ridiculous very very few Palestinians are genuine refugees entitled to anything.

    Again, I took issue with the prcess of your argument, not its substance. You said the right was valid because it was included in the road map, and I said that given the reaons it was in the road map, the fact that it was in there provides absolutely zero support for the proposition that since it is in there it is a valid right.

    Your games will not work with me.

    independance of arab countries was a positive development for most countries, tunisia, egypt, syria, jordan, even iraq all did a lot better after than during colonisation. it won't be exactly an Arab tiger in a near future, altough if you look at lebanon how well they recovered only one decade after a devastating war...
    note that Arafat caused their war. Note also that you are the typical marxist in this - assume economic progress based on other exmaples that may or may not be relevant.

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

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

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

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

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

    the plo was never directly connected to the killing of innocent civilians as far as i know... [/B]
    Well, you are wrong then. The PLO was involved in tons of them, only Arafat tried to keep Fatah a little seperate so he could deny involvement in the actions of Black September and the Like.

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

  3. #153
    Originally posted by takeo
    [B]all right, this means that the israeli army is a terrorist organisation as well... it destroyed houses that belonged to fAMILY (family is still civilian, including babies and elderly, and people who might not agree at all with the crime of their relative) of suicide-killers
    sorry, I thought it would be clear enough to any right thinking person that the purposeful targeting of civilians means targting their physical integrity. And the fact that you could attempt to draw a moral equivalency between tareting the lives and physical well being of Israeli civilians was just as much terrorism as targeting the possessions of the Plaestininas. This is beyond stupid.

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

    it also means that the us used terrorism as a tool in Vietnam, laos and cambodia...
    I don't know, but if the United States purposely targeted civilians (for death or seriousn bodily harm) for political purposes, then yes, the US did engage in terrorism. What relevance does this have to the current discussion, though?

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

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

    so in that case how do you react to the negociations barak and clinton restarted with arafat during his last weeks in office?
    political reasons, a last desperate chance at achieving the impossible - peace with a party who did not desire it.

    Since sharon rose to power more israeli died and israel was a less secure place to live, so do you still think his policy is the right one?
    didn't I make it very clear that I did not want to see this sort of stupid argument? I'm pretty sure I did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    suppose just for one minut that barak's last negociations were succesfull and ended or at least diminished the attacks, wouldn't that have been preferable over the current situation?
    suppose for just a minute that aliens would have landed and magically solved everyones problems by creating two parrallel yet overlapping universes where each party could get all of their demands? Would this not also be preferable to the current situation?

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

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

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

  4. #154
    i'm not going into details about why camp david failed or why the intifadeh started,
    I'm pretty sure I know what you think, and am equally sure you are wrong. I don't really need to see what you actually said to make this conclusion, it stems from the content and general validity of your other observations.

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

    with hundreds of deadths as a result,

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

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

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

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

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

    this led to the creation of al-aqsa and the reactivation of hamas and jihad and to an unprecedented gulf of bloodshet, which was only made worse by the destruction of the pa, which meant the pa lost its grip on palestinian society.
    I agree that attacking the PA rather than Hamas et al right from the beginning was a mistake, but Israel wanted to show the PA that it must change its strategy of confrontation, as the PA was the recognized authority for the Palestinian territories. But if we could do it all over again, I would suggest targeting the terrorists, 'political' leaders or not, right from the very beginning, including sending in ground forces to arrest and kill them.

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

    today most suicide bombers come from territory occupied by israeli troops, so who's to blame now for not stopping the terrorists??? Israel also rejected all peaceproposals and cease-fires ever since. [/B]
    THE CEASE FIRE OFFERS WERE ALL SHAMS. Everyone seems to know this but you. And once the wall that you and yours are so hostile about is completed, I would expect successful terrorist attacks to decrease substantially, just like in Gaza

  5. #155
    Originally posted by takeo
    so in fact what you want is them give up all their demands, even those supported by unsc-resolutions...
    no, i was only saying that if you come up with stupid statements of bright line principles then I can come up with equally stupid bright line principles.

    yes, israel is legally bound, you may claim not so, many people will claim israel is bound, and in fact not a single state recognises israel's possession of those lands.
    recognition by states and legal obligations are different things. So maybe you should start referring to it as the unsupported occupation or the condemned occupation or something which actually says what is true, and stop calling it the illegal occupation, which it is not. Words matter.

    So never ever the palestinians will give up those legitimate demands, if that's what you're after you can just as well stop all negociations and prepare for decades of war...
    Again, I made these statements to illustrate the stupidity of your bright line statements (Israel must do X Y Z or else)

    apparently eastern jerusalem, the westbank and your aversion to a few 100's of 1000's of palestinians coming back to their homecountry is worth more than peace
    couple of things.

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

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

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

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

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

    ... fine so be it, it means war is the only solution for the palestinians to achieve their goals, and if israel is unwilling to let go the occupied territories it really deserves war(and it is perfectly legal for palestinians to target military and political targets in israel and the occupied territory).
    their goals being the liberation of all of historic palestine, or only those that stop at the armistance lines? Does this include the goal fo flooding Israel with palestinian 'refugees'?

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

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

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

    as i said some small adjustments are possible, if israel is willing to give parts of israel in return, but never will the palestinians agree to a partition of the remaining land they and the entire worldcommunity now consider as palestine, including of course eastern jerusalem.
    of course, and even then they won't stop. But if they are never going to stop anyways, why should Israel give them anything?

    they already did so, at least the official government
    they did not really. they mouthed the words but they never internalized the validity of the message.

    morally israel isn't either in a very bright position, for example not allowing the refugees to return to their homes in 1949 is, according to me, in violation with human principles and human rights and with morality as well.
    oh. According to you, eh? my mistake.

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

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

    So is the israeli threatment of palestinians since the 1967-occupation, destroying or expropriating their houses for building settlemens, threating them as second-rate citizens under constant occupation, adhering their territory to israel without accepting them as israeli citizens and giving them citizens rights, etc all this is morally totally unacceptable and made israel the bully in the eyes of the international public opinion, while in 1949 it was still widely regarded as the victim.
    How many Jewish homes in the West bank and Gaza were either expropriated from or built on Palestinian homes? I would suspect its pretty small, but you seem to imply it is every single one, so I will leave it to you to justify this assertion.

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

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

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

    ok, i accept this, so you accept that your theory is only one of the possible interpretations. From my point of view "territories occupied during the latest conflict" is clear enough... (which other territories could they refere to, than the ones occupied in 1967???)
    not my theory, it belongs to those who were involved in the negotiations and the legal scholars who have properly looked at it. Your clear to me reading is not correct, so either you will have to, once again, jetteson truth so that you can feel good about your consistent world-view, or you must recognize the flaw in your thinking and remedy it. I know what Arafat would do, what would you?

    what counts is the un recognising israel based on its borders during that time, each time the un recognises a country it does so within the borders they currently occupy, unless stated otherwise. when the us recognised china it explicitly stopped recognising taiwan as an independant state, so did the un.

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

    you give your own interpretation to the word "secure", but who says those weren't secure and who says they don't mean "certain", "stable", etc.
    you must ascribe the interpretation to the term as it was meant to be applied at the time. Looking at the way in which this resolution was formulated and the behind the scenes discussions, it is clear that the word secure, coupled with the purposeful removal of the word ALL, resulted in a resolution which required Israel to withdraw to different, secure (unlike the previous borders, which were uniformly recognized to not be secure and defensible) borders.

    says who? Israel only once almost lost a war, and it was in its current borders!
    says no one. this was just another stupid statement which parallelled your stupid statement but replaced statements about Plaestinians with statement s about Israelis.

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

    you seem rather inclined to keep parts of the westbank and the entire eastern jerusalem, and refuse to compromise over the matter of refugees. this is essential, it means no peace is possible, at all.
    really? why not? because the Palestinians will not give up? Why should the Israelis give up? For a peace that the Palestinians do not really want? For a peace that the palestinians will not really abide by?

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

  6. #156
    I hope you'll agree that palestinian elections would be rather difficult in the current situation!
    what, with the rampant stifling of dissent and the absence of any sort of independent media or judiciary? I completely agree. Until Arafat dies no election will ever be held where he doesn't get a despotic 80 or 90 percent of the vote.

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

    besides, according to AI 1000's of palestinians are in israeli jails for years already without even the prospect of a trial...
    and I'm sure they are all innocent too, just arrested without any intelligence on them whatsoever, just to be mean. Stupid.

    I believe Arafat

    and he represents the entire part of the palestinian society ready to compromise with israel
    I do not believe this.

    but only at its conditions, not as a puppet of Israeli wishes and desires, fighting israel(but not its citizens) if it refuses to do so.
    more lies. they are completely willing to fight Israeli civilians, and have demonstrated themselves to be so involved time and time again (corporate veil be damned - the corporate veil is what allows a company like Dow Corning to get away with terrible conduct engaged in by a subsidiary, like Dow Chemicals).

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

    I think anyone targetting Arafat is in reality targetting those entire group of palestinians, ready to compromise but not unconditionally, and is opposed to peace if that would mean the sacrifice of giving up the occupied territories.
    you are wrong about this. About as wrong as could be. Attacking Arafat is an attempt to bring forth people who are genuinely interested in peaceful coexistence. Arafat is a terrorist and a mass murderer of civilians. And he is an obsticle to peace.

    I'm a bit disappointed that you are among them.
    am I now? I don't want the palestinians to compromise, or I don't want peace? Or maybe your lack of understanding of the real issues prevents you from perceiving things properly?

    this discussion isn't about arafat personally, by the way he'll soon die anyway, and i fear what will happen next, perhaps infighting and hamas and jihad compltetely taking over, which ends aLL hope for peace.
    there is, right now, no hope for peace, other than the wishful thinking pie-in-the-sky type of hope. Only with an upheaval within Palestinian society will there be ANY chance that peace may be possible in the future, but, of course, were Hamas et all to seize power the chances of peace would be roughly equivalent to the chances for peace under Arafat.
    Last edited by Canajew; 10-09-2003 at 02:26 PM.

  7. #157
    Originally posted by takeo
    [B]yep, that would be interesting. kyoto is only a small step towards solving the problem, but if the us doesn't join in surely neither will Russia and other poorer countries and nothing will happen to stop the greenhouse-proces...
    see, I think that kyoto is a step backwards and is only good for its propaganda/profile raising value. Allocating emmission permits will not work because the allocation of permits involves the international allocation of assets worht TRILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of dollars. Kyoto was extrmely small and involved far less massive sums, and agreemnt still wasn't really possible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ok, it depends, but my point is that not all democracies are transparent (russia for example, if it's a democracy after all) but of course in general democracies are a bit more transparent than dictatorships
    I know, but don't compare the US to Syria because they both 'lack transparency'. And the 'a bit better' is a lie, there are transparency indeces drawn up by international economic institutes which clearly demonstrate that democracies are far more transparent than dictatorships. On the margins the difference smay be small, but this would involve comparing the best dictatorship to the worst democracy and would not really be a proper method of analysis.

    China's policy is ethical in its own very special way. high and more brutal sanctions aren't necessarily unethical, isn't it?
    difficult question. Should people be killed for graft? How about for dissent or whistleblowing? What is the proper trade-off between assessment of economic benefits and assessment of violence against citizens by the state?

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

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

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

    But yes, a difficult issue.

    how do you know a 100% it's a lie?
    history, reading, observation of behaviour.

    if it didn't happen in 35 years it will never happen, since israel uses the wrong methods, in order to gain respect from the palestinians they must threat them as equals and human beings,
    it is not about getting respect, it is about excizing the cult of death and instilling within the Palestinians a sense of civil society, one that lots of not free people have.

    the Brittish said the same, but at the same time THEY were the true masters and once gone their "democratic" government usually collapsed with the colonial power. the same happens in iraq, the current government is nothing but a strawman and certainly not representing the iraqi population.
    irrelevant. just because someone uses a false explanation in the past does not mean that every use of that explanation in the future is also false. The brits were imperialist. the always have been. teh Americans on the other hand, have always been hostile to empire, and certainly have never been interested in emulating the brits on this.

  8. #158
    I've been reading Alan Dershowitz' book "the Case for Israel" and he mentions several times that Palestinians were offered a state in 1937, -47, and in 2000-01. Every time they rejected the offers and resorted to violence instead. Like after Camp David, Arafat begun his terror war and who got the sympathy?! The Palestinians for murdering Israelis and because Israelis were fighting this. Dershowitz's book is great! Occasionally it does point out some defects with Israel but things like the Palestinian leadership siding with Nazis during the Second World War, when Jews sided with the British, Palestinians actually gained from it and were offered a state!!!!

  9. #159
    Senior Member Mil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Chicago, IL
    Posted by Danholo:

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

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

  10. #160
    Originally posted by Mil
    Posted by Danholo:

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

    In 37? This is a first time I hear of this.
    the Peel commission report was issued in 1937, if I am not mistaken, and this commission recommended a two state solution, with the Jewish state only ocmprizing a MINISCULE proportion of what it does today, and the Arabs who now call themselves Palestininas still rejected it.

  11. #161
    Originally posted by Mediocrates
    Spare me any response. I wish you death. [/B]
    You really think this sort of talk is acceptable? Not very nice, you know.

  12. #162
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    N Carolina
    Too bad. I've heard this nonsense from him for more than a year.

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

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

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

  13. #163
    Originally posted by Mediocrates
    Too bad. I've heard this nonsense from him for more than a year.
    but aren't you a moderator? Would this be tolerated from others? Should it be tolerated from others?

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

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

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

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

  14. #164
    Senior Member Mediocrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    N Carolina
    Originally posted by Canajew
    but aren't you a moderator? Would this be tolerated from others? Should it be tolerated from others?

    Probably not. Roma Locuta Causa Finita.

  15. #165
    Originally posted by Mediocrates
    Probably not. Roma Locuta Causa Finita.
    Odd you quote St. Augustine.
    Although he used a couple 'est's.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts