Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hortlund on May 19, 2003, 02:28:38 AM
-
I mean really...
With the removal of Saddam and the feverish backpaddling of Syria, the chance of peace in Israel is probably better than it has ever been.
You have all the major players agreeing on one simple plan. You have a clear time table, one with clear benchmarks. You have political will from Israel, you have a new Palestinian leader.
So what do they do? 4 suicide bombers in 3 days?
F*ck em.
If they want to screw this peace deal too so they can keep killing jews from time to time in some insane suicide bombing...f*ck em.
The thing I'll never understand is their almost absurdly idiotic PR-tactics though. Gulf War I? Side with Saddam. Intifada v2.0? Gun down 10 month old infants. Suicide bomber targets? Women with children. Peace in sight? Send in the next wave of suicide bombers.
So do you Pal-defenders note the relationship between the IDF easing the grip on the Pals ever so little and new suicide bomber attacks? Heh, did it take 2-3 days after the Israelis opened up the West Bank until the suicide bombings resumed?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You have all the major players agreeing on one simple plan. You have a clear time table, one with clear benchmarks. You have political will from Israel, you have a new Palestinian leader.
So exactly how dumb are you?
I am fully aware that reality has never been an obstruction whenever you start another of your rants but with this statement you're down to a new low...
-
If there's a palestinian state and peace with Israel,what are they going to do? Work?
As long as this crap is going on there, they're (the guys behind the scenes) getting fat sums of cash to carry on their so called struggle for freedom.And those poor idiots who are tougt from birth ,that their one and only porpose in life is to kill jews are happy to go and do the slaughter while their leaders' bank accounts are getting ever bigger.
-
If there's a palestinian state and peace with Israel,what are they going to do? Work?
Some already do, when they're not having their shops bulldozed because they are deemed 'illegal' (nothing to do with suicide bombings BTW). Or when they are having their houses bull-dozed to make way for 'buffer zones' aka Jewish settlements (and again, nothing to do with bulldozers for suicide bombings program either).
Has the I"D"F stopped using helicoptor gunships on crowds of civilians in 'follow-up' attacks yet? How about the statistics regarding gun shot wounds of Palestinian children and the distribution of head shots in those figures? Have they changed?
The truth is there will always be nutters on the Palestinian side - but the ridiculous tarring of a whole nation with the same brush is very old. OTOH, the new Palestinian leadership needs to go in hard against Hamas et al.
Oh yeah, Arafat and Sharon need to be dropped off a cliff somewhere too.
-
The Palastinians don't wan't a state..They wan't the destruction of Israel.
-
So what do they do? 4 suicide bombers in 3 days?
The role of Palestinians is to be a weapon used against Israel by other powers. What the Palestinians want is not relevant.
ra
-
The Palastinians don't wan't a state..They wan't the destruction of Israel.
The role of Palestinians is to be a weapon used against Israel by other powers. What the Palestinians want is not relevant.
Both statements are 100% correct
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
Both statements are 100% correct
This statement is 100% wrong also.
Or you can speak for 100% of the Palestinian ?
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
The Palastinians don't wan't a state..They wan't the destruction of Israel.
We have a winner.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Some already do, when they're not having their shops bulldozed because they are deemed 'illegal' (nothing to do with suicide bombings BTW). Or when they are having their houses bull-dozed to make way for 'buffer zones' aka Jewish settlements (and again, nothing to do with bulldozers for suicide bombings program either).
Has the I"D"F stopped using helicoptor gunships on crowds of civilians in 'follow-up' attacks yet? How about the statistics regarding gun shot wounds of Palestinian children and the distribution of head shots in those figures? Have they changed?
The truth is there will always be nutters on the Palestinian side - but the ridiculous tarring of a whole nation with the same brush is very old. OTOH, the new Palestinian leadership needs to go in hard against Hamas et al.
Oh yeah, Arafat and Sharon need to be dropped off a cliff somewhere too.
killing Jews is ok with you though...is that correct....or do I sense that you blame the Jews for the plight of the PALS?
What say you regarding Jordan and the PALS or the other Arab states and the lack of support they have offered the PALS?
Bush wrong again Dowding or who exactly is to blame....let that wisdom flow so the common man can share in your understand of geopolitical issues. Spell it out for the simple minded....please.
To show the restraint the Jews have shown in dealing with this mess, I can't say the US or any other nation would stand down to the extent Isreal has if they were being systematically murdered....it has been made clear to Isreal the intention of most Arab nations in that region....they have and are trying to give this peace a chance.
What about Camp David Dowding....whose fault was that farce?
-
Dowding,
Please explain to me how and why Palestinian children are allowed to throw rocks at heavily armed and seemingly trigger happy soldiers?
When you do STUPID things BAD things can happen.
I'm a parent. I won't let me kids go outside our condo by themselves because there is an idiot who drives very badly in our development and I am worried that they will be hit. Why do these people allow their kids to go and play with the nasty soldiers?
-
Originally posted by Curval
I'm a parent. I won't let me kids go outside our condo by themselves because there is an idiot who drives very badly in our development and I am worried that they will be hit. Why do these people allow their kids to go and play with the nasty soldiers?
In the hopes of swaying the opinions of impressionable young Brits? :D
It makes for good television afterall.
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
In the hopes of swaying the opinions of impressionable young Brits? :D
It makes for good television afterall.
They put their kids in dangerous situations, but not before they call the camera crews out to film it all.
-
Anyone who thinks that either the Pals or Israelis are blameless in their little war is an idiot.
Both sides have elements who's existence are dependent on this conflict. Both sides have their elements that would sabotage a peace if it meant anything less than the subjugation of the other side. Both sides have killed innocent civilians.
-
Originally posted by Lance
Anyone who thinks that either the Pals or Israelis are blameless in their little war is an idiot.
Both sides have elements who's existence are dependent on this conflict. Both sides have their elements that would sabotage a peace if it meant anything less than the subjugation of the other side. Both sides have killed innocent civilians.
Both sides are to blame, correct but I'd lay the blame around 90% on the Palastinians. They are the one's who teach their kids since birth to hate Jews.
-
My post was a response to Hortlund's assertion that the Palestinians are to blame for the mess.
To me, it looks like there is blame on both sides. Anyone who doesn't recognise that is biased in favour of one side or other.
Rude - Try harder Rude. To be nice I'll say I expect better from you. I'll ignore the usual trash and cut through the crap:
What about Camp David Dowding....whose fault was that farce?
Have you even read what was put on the table at Camp David? Let's hear what you understand by it.
"The Camp David Peace Deal... by Rude"
Please continue. Refer to yourself in the third person if you like.
-
Ra nailed it on the head and then some.
What you are seeing is not the palestinians, but probably some syrian, saudi,alqueida/etc led effort to keep the situation "fluid". As long as Israel is under siege with terrorrist attacks, as long as israel is shown on tv bulldozing over towns and yuppie activist foreigners, their image, and the USA's by association will keep being soiled. Not to mention it helps lots to have a scapegoat so your own uneducated, starving, ANGRY population ... helps to keep them angry not at your own islamic dictatorshipwhatchamacallit elitist government, but at the evil west and the zionist monsters who, being thousands and thousands of miles away, are 100% responsible for them not having water or books or freedom.
Pass me the hammer Ra!
-
Originally posted by Dowding
My post was a response to Hortlund's assertion that the Palestinians are to blame for the mess.
To me, it looks like there is blame on both sides. Anyone who doesn't recognise that is biased in favour of one side or other.
Rude - Try harder Rude. To be nice I'll say I expect better from you. I'll ignore the usual trash and cut through the crap:
Have you even read what was put on the table at Camp David? Let's hear what you understand by it.
"The Camp David Peace Deal... by Rude"
Please continue. Refer to yourself in the third person if you like.
Gee Dowding....guess little tidbits like these....ya know Rude still thinks your a putz....you would never apologize nor admit you were wrong. Rude says that when ya think you know it all, that's when ya stop learning.
Essentials of the Camp David II Proposals by Israel
1. Palestinian Statehood and Conditions
A Palestinian state would be established in most of the West Bank and all of the Gaza strip, with these conditions:
The state would not have an army with heavy weapons,
The state would not make alliances with other countries without Israeli approval and would not allow introduction of foreign forces west of the River Jordan.
Israel would be allowed deploy troops in the Jordan Valley if Israel were to be threatened by invasion from the east.
Israeli aircraft could overfly Palestinian airspace.
Israeli would install early warning stations in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley and other areas.
Palestinians would control border crossings with Jordan and Egypt along with Israeli security observation.
The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians.
Israel would lease areas in the Jordan Valley or maintain temporary sovereignty over them for up to 25 years.
2. Refugees
The Palestine refugee problem would be solved in the following way:
Israel would not accept any legal or civilian responsibility for their displacement.
Israel would allow the return of around 100,000 refugees under “humanitarian” grounds in the form of family reunions and considers such a step as compliance with UN Resolution 194.
According to one source, the Palestinian State would be limited in the number of refugees it could absorb to half a million refugees according to a fixed timetable. This is not confirmed by other sources and is problematic, since a much larger number of refugees, well over a million, already live in camps in Gaza and the West Bank.
An international fund would compensate refugees. Israel, the U.S. and Europe are to contribute. According to one source, this fund would also provide compensation to Jews who were forced to leave their possessions in Arab countries when they fled to Israel.
3. Jerusalem
Palestine would obtain sovereignty over suburbs in the north and the south of Jerusalem that would be annexed to the West Bank, including Abu Dees, Alezariye and eastern Sawahre.
Within East Jerusalem, in (Beit Hanina-Shuafat), there would be a civilian administration affiliated with the Palestinian Authority with the possibility of linking it to West Jerusalem through a municipality covering both sectors. The Palestinians would run a branch municipality within the framework of the Israeli higher municipal council while depriving them from planning and construction jurisdictions.
The proposals allowed for Palestinian, Arab, Islamic and Christian administration of holy sites in the old city of Jerusalem. The Palestinians would be allowed to hoist the Palestinian flag over the Islamic and Christian shrines along with a safe passage linking northern Jerusalem, which would be annexed to the West Bank, to those areas so that Palestinians and Muslims would not pass through lands under Israeli sovereignty.
4. Land Area of Palestine
The initial area of the Palestinian state would comprise about 73% of the land area of the West Bank and all of Gaza. The West Bank would be divided by the road from Jerusalem to the Dead Sea and a corridor on either side of it. This would form two relatively large Palestinian areas and one small enclave surrounding Jericho. The three areas would be joined by a free passage without checkpoints, but the safe passage could be closed by Israel in case of emergency. According to Palestinian sources, there would be another division between the area north of the Ariel and Shilo settlements along the trans-Shomron highway built by Israel.
In later stages (10-25 years) Israel would cede additional areas, particularly in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley, to bring the total area to slightly under 90% of the area of the West Bank (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).
The major settlement blocks adjacent to Jerusalem and in the Jerusalem corridor would be annexed to Israel: Efrat, Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Edumim. The town of Ariel and the corridor along the trans-Samaria highway would be annexed to Israel. The Jewish settlement town of Qiriat Arba would remain under Israeli administration in the heart of Palestinian territory, with a single road through Palestinian territory reaching it from the south. Isolated Jewish settlements including the settlement in Hebron, would come under Palestinian jurisdiction and would probably be abandoned.
-
Rude says....90% is not a serious enough beginning to end the suffering of the Pals. Rude says killing all of those dirty Jews would make Dowding a happier putz.
PLUMMETING POPULARITY, AILING AUTOCRAT, MISSING MONARCH...
But since then, several key supports have fallen out of place. In the mid-1990s, as the popularity of Arafat's corrupt and undemocratic rule began to suffer and the prominence of the Hamas Islamist terror organization grew, the Palestinian leader sought to bolster himself by taking a harder stand on Jerusalem, particularly on the Temple Mount. The Tunnel battles and the fight over the Israeli "Har Homa" project, which Arafat sought to connect with Christian sites in nearby Bethlehem, threw gasoline on the fire.
Then, earlier this year, Syrian leader Hafez Asad finally refused any territorial compromise with Israel, terminating Syrian participation in peace negotiations. When he died shortly afterward, the ailing autocrat placed the weight of his prestige permanently on the rejectionist side of the ledger.
Even more significant was the death of King Hussein the previous year. The Jordanian monarch not only had sponsored the Palestinian presence at Madrid, he signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, and repeatedly threw his support to the peace process at crucial moments. Only by coming along himself was he able to persuade Arafat to attend an emergency summit in Washington after the Tunnel battles, which restored high-level contacts after the apparent demise of the peace process. During the negotiation of the Hebron Accords in 1996, and at the talks at the Wye Plantation in 1998, when he was deathly ill, Hussein again showed up to persuade Arafat to cease holding out and sign, endorsing the outcomes with his personal presence.
King Hussein offered crucial cover when the Palestinian leader might not have acted otherwise; now that he is gone, no one has the stature and the inclination to do the same. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who could certainly play the same role, has instead sought to stiffen Arafat's spine.
... A PERIPATETIC PRESIDENT ...
Neither was President Clinton's approach to mediation ideally suited to producing a deal. Departing the scene all too often, staying fully engaged in national and international politics, the President allowed himself to be excessively distracted. By not clearing his schedule, Clinton essentially declined to take the time to hold the parties' feet to the fire until a deal emerged. The summit nearly broke apart when the President departed for the G-8 summit in Okinawa, an occasion that history will soon forget. Finally, at his insistence, negotiations were pushed to a conclusion on Monday night.
At the first Camp David summit, President Carter famously stood in the door to prevent Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin from walking out. President Clinton, by contrast, walked out. This eventuality was painfully foreseen at the outset by former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Sam Lewis during a National Public Radio interview:
"I've never seen in Clinton the sort of single-minded dedication and almost obsession with carrying an issue through to an endgame that Carter showed at Camp David... Now Clinton gets restless in between meetings and he's talking about coming back and forth. So it's hard for me to see that he's going to be as single-minded as I think you need to be in this situation to get over what are really tough, tough issues."
...WEAK WILL
But to understand Yasser Arafat's situation is not necessarily to forgive his decision. Despite all these complications, what Bill Clinton offered and Ehud Barak accepted did give Arafat grounds for loudly proclaiming victory, and going home in triumph. After all, "formal custodial status" on the Temple Mount, recognized by all parties, smacks of control by right, not by suffrage. Arafat could have taken the risk. Failing that, he could have made a counter-offer, insisting on more explicit forms of sovereignty in more parts of Jerusalem. But rather than negotiate, Arafat stood on his opening position. After the last difficult late-night session with Clinton, he dispatched a note stating his firm objection to the American proposal. There was nothing left to say.
WHAT NEXT?
Despite the brief statement issued Tuesday affirming the parties' recognition of the need to avoid taking unilateral steps, Yasser Arafat has returned home without retreating from his insistence that he will declare a Palestinian state on September 13, the anniversary of the 1993 Declaration of Principles and, in his view, the expiration date of the Oslo process. The outcome of this step would be unpredictable, and potentially catastrophic for the Palestinians. Clearly enough, Arafat senses that time remains to do a deal. He may even believe that no deal should be done before the last moment, with maximum concessions extracted.
There are considerable risks to this approach. As Prime Minister Barak seeks to rebuild his shattered coalition, no guarantees exist that the reconstituted Israeli government will be as free to negotiate as the last. The possibility also exists that new elections will soon be forced upon the Prime Minister, terminating the negotiating process for the time being, perhaps closing the window of opportunity for some time. Whatever the form of the next Israeli government to negotiate with the Palestinians, it is unlikely to offer the same flexibility and daring that Ehud Barak brought to Camp David this July. (Rude says this was the mother of all understatements)
Should that prove the case, Palestinians would be well advised to recall that the American proposal at Camp David represented at least the third proposal for the partition of the former Palestine Mandate over the course of the century, each of them accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs. Each version, in turn, has left the Arab side with progressively less land. The next offer, whenever it comes, is not especially likely to deviate from this pattern. If the present Palestinian leadership is not prepared to accept the best offer going for territory, self-determination, and control of important symbolic areas, perhaps new leadership is needed.
-
BTW Dowding...would you please remind us all of the most recent independent Palestinian peace proposal to be brought forward to either Isreal or the US by the PLO itself?
My post was a response to Hortlund's assertion that the Palestinians are to blame for the mess.
As to this, who is accountable on the Palestinian side for these little bombs going off, which kill those awful Jewish people?
Or do they get a free ride for what they say and do like you?
Rude thinks a straight and honest answer is not to be forthcoming.
-
That's better. A little self-satisfied conceit goes a long way.
Wrong about what exactly? My opinion is my opinion. You can't have a 'wrong' opinion. That's an oxymoron.
Here's one of the biggest sticking points:
"The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians."
So basically the Palestinians would have no say in the provision of a resource fundamental to life in so many ways. "Do what we say Pals, or we cut it off!" How else could that be interpreted?How can that be acceptable? How is it an improvement?
"The three areas would be joined by a free passage without checkpoints, but the safe passage could be closed by Israel in case of emergency.
Basically Israel can, at will, control movement within the Palestinian State. The 'emergency' part is a sweetner; the pill is still bitter. I ask again, how can that be acceptable? How is it an improvement?
They are the two major sticking points IMO.
-
BTW Dowding...would you please remind us all of the most recent independent Palestinian peace proposal to be brought forward to either Isreal or the US by the PLO itself?
Where's the reciprocal one from Israel? Exactly, there isn't one yet. If it weren't for US pressure there wouldn't even be a road-map to one. Sharon would happily continue to run that hamster-wheel.
As to this, who is accountable on the Palestinian side for these little bombs going off, which kill those awful Jewish people?
Why? Are you going to ask your congressman to send this person a letter? Good on ya, mate. These are extremist nut-cases. You might say that Arafat holds the ultimate responsibility - but like I said, he should take a long walk of a short plank as far as I'm concerned.
Condemning terrorists, and particularly these types of terrorists, is a given in my book. Israel, OTOH, is a supposedly civilised state. I would hold them up to higher scrutiny because of that claim. However, the blame game would be a dead heat in my eyes.
You can do what you like.
BTW - Putz? Oh my. Name calling doesn't win arguments Rude. Neither will making out that I'm a Nazi.
-
You're right....the suffering of the innocent majority of Palestinians should continue while Arafat and you seek the perfect solution....no starting point could possibly benefit either party.
I was talking with Rude and he said "tell Dowding thanks for the cheap entertainment on an otherwise serious Monday morning"
-
well, do remember israel is literally being asked to give away its land to a people hell bent on killing them. Not to mention they are surrounded by before mentioned people's "big brothers"
there was never a state of palestine, so the palestinians are going now something akin to what the Israeli went through for thousands of years: a people with no land.
You dont see Jordan or Egypt being asked to give away their territory eh?
The pill is bitter for both sides.
-
And with those scathing, hurtful remarks, you bid me adieu?
Arafat is going. Soon he will be gone. With a little luck, I'll be able to say the same about Sharon. It's a shame the bad blood flowing between them isn't their own.
-
Where's the reciprocal one from Israel? Exactly, there isn't one yet. If it weren't for US pressure there wouldn't even be a road-map to one. Sharon would happily continue to run that hamster-wheel.
Nice dodge....just as Rude expected, no honest reply offered.
BTW...are you really a Nazi or an anti-semite...there's a difference ya know, or at least Rude tells me there is.
-
The third person thing is more than creepy. Funny though.
I'm actually a Nazi and a jew hater. Hitler is my hero and your KKK my brothers-in-arms.
Nice dodge....just as Rude expected, no honest reply offered.
How is it a dodge? I'm pointing out that it's an intractable issue - both sides are unwilling to concede anything, nevermind make a move.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
The third person thing is more than creepy. Funny though.
I'm actually a Nazi and a jew hater. Hitler is my hero and your KKK my brothers-in-arms.
How is it a dodge? I'm pointing out that it's an intractable issue - both sides are unwilling to concede anything, nevermind make a move.
I asked you a simple question which you apparently refuse to answer....when did the PLO ever offer up a plan for peace to the Isrealis....in other words, please tell us of what the PLO has done to promote any peace in that region?
-
It will be a scary day when the Isrealis decided to remove the safety.
Remember in the 60's (I think) when Isreal was attacked. Remember that they not only fought a 3 front war but also started to invade and occupy at least one of the attacking countries.
Scary, indeed.
The Palestinians are lucky up to this point.
-
I had a freind in college that used to talk in the third person when he was angry... when you started to hear it, it was time to run.
Mazz thinks Rude is right...
-
Rude say's he appreciates your support Mazz and he assures me that he is not a violent person.:)
-
I have problems attributing the actions and motives of a small, ultra-extremist Palestinian minority to the entire Palestinian population. Clearly the extremists understand that it only takes repeated suicide bombings to derail the best efforts of moderates on both sides.
I find it difficult to believe that the new moderate Palestinian prime minister, who has spoken out vehemently against terrorism and the intifada in the past, would condone the terrorist bombings in light of very real peace prospects. We're witnessing a political power struggle between moderate and extremist elements in the Palestinian society that plays itself out through suicide bombings in Israel.
Ultimately, I get the sense that two things must happen for peace to occur. First, the Palestinian authority must deal as much as possible with extremists -- including Arafat, who clearly pushes terrorism as a means to undermine the ostensibly Democratic Palestinian government. And second, given Palestinian security efforts, the Israelis must be willing to accept that certain extremists may succeed in committing suicide bombings during the peace process, and they must essentially ignore these bombings as desperate acts of an increasingly desperate minority.
Well, my thoughts anyway.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Both sides are to blame, correct but I'd lay the blame around 90% on the Palastinians. They are the one's who teach their kids since birth to hate Jews.
I've got to disagree with you there. Israel has killed 2 times as many Palestinians as Palestinian terrorists have killed Israelis. If you could somehow determine a blame percentage (heh!) it would be closer to 50/50 than 90/10.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
So do you Pal-defenders note the relationship between the IDF easing the grip on the Pals ever so little and new suicide bomber attacks? Heh, did it take 2-3 days after the Israelis opened up the West Bank until the suicide bombings resumed?
Cant help but notice that no one answered to that one...
Dowding?
-
The new Pal "leader" has even less power/control than the old one did
Israel has to do what they have to do to protect their citizens from the pal nutjobs
and as long as these nut jobs are considered heroes by the pal community, the comunity gets what is coming ...
-
Originally posted by Dowding
To me, it looks like there is blame on both sides. Anyone who doesn't recognise that is biased in favour of one side or other.
Or in other words...you are right, and anyone disagreeing with you is just plain wrong and biased?
Heh, I remember arguing with guys like you in grade school.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Some already do, when they're not having their shops bulldozed because they are deemed 'illegal' (nothing to do with suicide bombings BTW). Or when they are having their houses bull-dozed to make way for 'buffer zones' aka Jewish settlements (and again, nothing to do with bulldozers for suicide bombings program either).
[/b]
Yes, the poor innocent palestinians have their homes and shops (?) bulldozed by the evil Israelis. Cry me a river rag-boy.
Has the I"D"F stopped using helicoptor gunships on crowds of civilians in 'follow-up' attacks yet?
[/b]
Heh, never mind the "have they stopped"-part. You should focus more on the "has it ever happened"-part. And please dont come dragging with some lame example of how a IDF helo takes out a car with a terrorist leader in it and there is X number of collaterals.
How about the statistics regarding gun shot wounds of Palestinian children and the distribution of head shots in those figures? Have they changed?
[/b]
Who knows. What are the statistics and where did you get them? http://www.palestinianfightforfreedom.com?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
The new Pal "leader" has even less power/control than the old one did
It looks like Abbas has some powerful allies for peace.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/801833.asp?0cv=CB10
Quoting:
"But Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said on Monday that Israel would consider expelling Arafat if he blocked efforts by his new prime minister to halt militant violence against Israelis.
'If we see that in the future Arafat continues to be a main obstacle to the peace process, and (Abbas) is ready to fight terror and sit at the negotiating table, then there will be no alternative but to think about steps to deport Arafat,' he said at a security affairs symposium."
Israel has to do what they have to do to protect their citizens from the pal nutjobs
[/B]
Including, it would appear, supporting the very man you've just described as irrelevant.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Lance
I've got to disagree with you there. Israel has killed 2 times as many Palestinians as Palestinian terrorists have killed Israelis. If you could somehow determine a blame percentage (heh!) it would be closer to 50/50 than 90/10.
So the body count determines the blame?
So in Iraq where the US killed something like 10 000 times as many Iraqis as Iraqis killed coalition soldiers...what does that tell us about the blame?
-
Hortlund, if you want to eat the crap that is Israel being blameless in the cycle of violence over there, then that is your perogative. I am afraid I will have to refuse the invitation to dine with you, however.
I see both sides as being murderous scumbags. Palestinian terrorists kill some Israelis, the Israeli govt. goes out and makes sure to fill some body bags, and vice versa. What is happening there is a cycle, with both parties on opposite sides helping to push the wheel in the same ****ed-up direction. Can any of us say with 100% certainty which one is pushing harder? No. But I don't think its a stretch to say they both have a significant hand in it. The body count I mentioned is an indicator of this.
Or is Israel justified in killing any number of people as long as most are terrorists?
-
Originally posted by Lance
I see both sides as being murderous scumbags. Palestinian terrorists kill some Israelis, the Israeli govt. goes out and makes sure to fill some body bags, and vice versa.
[/b]
Do you see a difference between a suicide bomber killing a bunch of schoolkids and an IDF Helicopter taking out a terrorist leader in a car? Because I do.
What is happening there is a cycle, with both parties on opposite sides helping to push the wheel in the same ****ed-up direction. Can any of us say with 100% certainty which one is pushing harder? No. But I don't think its a stretch to say they both have a significant hand in it. The body count I mentioned is an indicator of this.
[/b]
Lets just say that that is your theory, and I think you are full of sh*t and leave it at that shall we?
Or is Israel justified in killing any number of people as long as most are terrorists?
As long as they are aiming at terrorists, and as long as they dont use artillery in built up areas (you get the idea), they are justified. Collateral damage will always happen when the terrorists hide in schools, mosques, ambulances, appartment buildings...etc etc.
The pals can stop this any second. All they have to do is drop their little intifada and say "hey, we are sorry, please let us try to behave and we will stop trying to kill you". They have an alternative.
The Israelis? The IDF dropped the grip on the palestinians just one inch, and 4 suicide bombings occurred in 3 days. They dont really have a choice. They have to hold the pals by the balls, because when they ease that grip, the Pals tries to land another punch.
-
DA-DA-DA!!!
THIS THREAD HAS PRODUCED A NEW SIG!
100 brownie points to Batz!
:D :D :D :D
-
Do you see a difference between a suicide bomber killing a bunch of schoolkids and an IDF Helicopter taking out a terrorist leader in a car? Because I do.
Of course. We have one thing we can agree on. This is progress!
Now, to where we disagree. What makes the murder of a Palestinian civilian by an Israeli acceptable collateral damage and the murder of an Israeli citizen by a Palestinian a vicious act of terrorism? They are both murders of an innocent. They both create hate in the people that knew the person killed. They both make peace harder to come by.
You believe that Israel has done all it can to keep from killing non-terrorists, I think you are deluded. You want to absolve Israel from any and all civilian deaths, I think you are a fool. You think one side is pure good and the other pure evil, then I know you are a blathering idiot for whom figuring out the submit reply button must have been a great mental achievement.
But, by all means, keep the faith! Oh, and uh, wipe your chin.
-
in other words, please tell us of what the PLO has done to promote any peace in that region?
You might as well ask "...what has the UDF done to promote peace in NI?" It's a stupid, loaded question. You're desperate to make the conceptual leap that says the PLO represents the 'will of the people'.
Hortlund - I wrote:
To me, it looks like there is blame on both sides. Anyone who doesn't recognise that is biased in favour of one side or other.
Are you saying there is no blame on the Israeli side?
You should focus more on the "has it ever happened"-part. And please dont come dragging with some lame example of how a IDF helo takes out a car with a terrorist leader in it and there is X number of collaterals.
The killing of the Hamas leader a few months ago. His car was hit by a missile, killing all the occupants as it travelled through a suburb. A crowd gathered. Within quarter of an hour a helicopter appeared and fired more missiles into the car killing 'collaterals' (as you so clinically call them) including children. The whole thing was filmed by Channel 4 news team.
Yes, the poor innocent palestinians have their homes and shops (?) bulldozed by the evil Israelis. Cry me a river rag-boy.
What's with the (?)?
Israelis flatten West Bank shops (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2680777.stm)
DMF makes an excellent point I think:
I have problems attributing the actions and motives of a small, ultra-extremist Palestinian minority to the entire Palestinian population. Clearly the extremists understand that it only takes repeated suicide bombings to derail the best efforts of moderates on both sides.
I find it difficult to believe that the new moderate Palestinian prime minister, who has spoken out vehemently against terrorism and the intifada in the past, would condone the terrorist bombings in light of very real peace prospects. We're witnessing a political power struggle between moderate and extremist elements in the Palestinian society that plays itself out through suicide bombings in Israel.
Ultimately, I get the sense that two things must happen for peace to occur. First, the Palestinian authority must deal as much as possible with extremists -- including Arafat, who clearly pushes terrorism as a means to undermine the ostensibly Democratic Palestinian government. And second, given Palestinian security efforts, the Israelis must be willing to accept that certain extremists may succeed in committing suicide bombings during the peace process, and they must essentially ignore these bombings as desperate acts of an increasingly desperate minority.
Well, my thoughts anyway.
-- Todd/Leviathn
Hamas et al have only one way of maintaining their power over the people - continued bloodshed. They've seen their ranks swell hugely as the cycle has accelerated - the leadership, who obviously doesn't like doing the dirty work and leaves that to impressionable kids, will not give this power up without a struggle.
-
Originally posted by Lance
What makes the murder of a Palestinian civilian by an Israeli acceptable collateral damage and the murder of an Israeli citizen by a Palestinian a vicious act of terrorism?
The same thing that makes the killing of an Iraqi civilian by US forces acceptable collateral damage.
Plus...one act you describe is essentally manslaughter...the other is murder. Big difference.
-
With the removal of Saddam and the feverish backpaddling of Syria, the chance of peace in Israel is probably better than it has ever been.
You have all the major players agreeing on one simple plan. You have a clear time table, one with clear benchmarks. You have political will from Israel, you have a new Palestinian leader.
Israel hasn't agreed to the plan.
Phase 1 of the road map calls for an end to settlement activity. Powell raised it with Sharon last week, and Sharon's response was settlement growth must continue. His exact remark was "do you want them to have abortions?" (Settler women)
So do you Pal-defenders note the relationship between the IDF easing the grip on the Pals ever so little and new suicide bomber attacks? Heh, did it take 2-3 days after the Israelis opened up the West Bank until the suicide bombings resumed?
What makes you think the Israelis opened up the West Bank?
They had specific warnings of suicide bombings in Tel Aviv last Tuesday, and imposed heavier than normal security. See:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=292500&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
From what I understand, the latest bomber in Jerusalem was disguised as a religous Jew, and probably came in through the usual back door in to Israel, along the roads reserved for settlers. They have very few checkpoints.
The Palastinians don't wan't a state..They wan't the destruction of Israel.
Evidence for that? The PLO adopted the "two state" solution in 1988, and have held to it ever since.
well, do remember israel is literally being asked to give away its land to a people hell bent on killing them.
I haven't heard anyone suggest Israel gives up any of it's land to the Palestinians. They are currently disputing the West Bank and Gaza, which are not Israeli land.
BTW Dowding...would you please remind us all of the most recent independent Palestinian peace proposal to be brought forward to either Isreal or the US by the PLO itself?
The Palestinians have of course been calling for negotiations ever since Taba broke up just before Sharon was elected. Sharon actually ruled out substantive negotiations at all during his first term, always saying talks could begin "after the next election"
The Palestinians also supported the Saudi peace plan, and have endorsed the roadmap, which Israel has still failed to do.
But to understand Yasser Arafat's situation is not necessarily to forgive his decision. Despite all these complications, what Bill Clinton offered and Ehud Barak accepted did give Arafat grounds for loudly proclaiming victory, and going home in triumph. After all, "formal custodial status" on the Temple Mount, recognized by all parties, smacks of control by right, not by suffrage.
The Palestinians have 3 main "wants" out of the peace process.
Their own state on 100% of the West Bank and Gaza (which means approx 22% of the area of Palestine immediately prior to partition, despite being 50% of the population)
The right of return for their refugees displaced during 1948.
Sovereignty over the Temple Mount.
Bartak offered them 75% of their territorial demands, but with major conditions, like no territorial integrity, waqter rights etc. He offered them 0% on refugees, and 0% on Temple Mount.
Israel has 3 major "wants" from the peace process.
Security
No right of return for Palestinian refugees
Retention of existing settlements
Barak's plan fullfilled all of those for Israel (security as much as can be achieved)
Barak didn't actually make any concessions to Arafat. Giving up the bulk of the West Bank and it's population is actually one of Israel's goals. They know they cannot continue to rule over a rapidly increasing Arab population indefinately, and the only alternatives to a Palestinian state are the expulsion of 4 million Arabs at gunpoint, into surrounding countries that won't take them, or a "final solution". Neither is acceptable anymore. (Look what happened to Milosevic when he tried something similar)
-
Originally posted by Lance
Now, to where we disagree. What makes the murder of a Palestinian civilian by an Israeli acceptable collateral damage and the murder of an Israeli citizen by a Palestinian a vicious act of terrorism? They are both murders of an innocent. They both create hate in the people that knew the person killed. They both make peace harder to come by.
[/b]
To put it bluntly is that the suicide bomber is aiming at the schoolchildren, while the IDF helicopter pilot is aiming at a car containing a known terrorist.
You believe that Israel has done all it can to keep from killing non-terrorists, I think you are deluded.
[/b]
LOL nope, Ive never said anything even remotely close to that.
You want to absolve Israel from any and all civilian deaths, I think you are a fool.
[/b]
I've never said that either.
Ok, how to explain this...hmm...
Lets start with the collaterals
The terrorists are hiding among the civilian palestinians. They set up their bomb factories in normal appartment buildings, they hide in schools, mosques, crowds. They move around alot, ans when they do they make sure to stay in crowded streets. Now, suppose Mossad gets a fix on one of these guys. They know that the bad guy wont loiter around for long, and they really cant go in on the ground, because there are hundreds of lookouts, and besides, they will probably be pinned down in horrible streetfights ala Jenin if they do.
So that leaves the options "let him go", or "take him out using helos/aircraft. "Let him go" really isnt an option. So that leaves take him out, and that leads to collateral damage.
Why do you blame the collateral damage on the Israelis? If the pals wanted to minimize collateral damage they could try to stop hiding among the civilians.
Over to the kids.
I dont know if you have kids. I have two sons. Suppose Russia invaded Sweden and occupied us. Suppose some sort of resistance was created. Suppose this resistance movement figured out a great way to oppose the Russian occupation... Lets throw rocks at their tanks and soldiers.
What do you figure the odds are I would let my kids take part in that rock throwing?
-
The Palistinians have nothing but civilians. I'm amazed that Israel has been as restrained as they have been dealing with these civilians.
-
Heh, then we agree that Israeli's have killed Palestinian civilians, Israeli's have not done everything possible to not kill Palestinian civilians, and Israel is at least somewhat responsible for the civilians they kill?
Wow, that almost sounds like Israel has some culpability in the crisis. Perhaps they are even to blame somewhat for the hate that is directed toward them. But I suppose that is just me.
Regarding your kids and your hypothetical Russian invasion of Sweden. I would guess you would not let your kids go. However, if you did and they were killed, I would not place all of the blame on you or your kids for their death. The tanks should not be there in the first place.
-
Hortland I agree 100% with everything you have written here. I am not a Jew I do not really care much about the middle east but I certainly reconize bull **** when I smell it and Dowding is just full of it as usual.
-
Lets break it down to basics, and get rid of the use of civilians:
- the Palestinians have clear military targets to strike
- the Palestinians choose to strike 'non-combatants'
- the Israeli's have unclear targets to strike, combatants include woman and children hard to distinguish from non-combatants
- the Israeli's primarily target combatants however they usually manage to hit collateral non-combatants in the process
- identifying dead Palestinians as combatant/non-combatant is next to impossible
- identifying dead Israeli's as combatant/non-combatant is easy
- if the Israeli's actively targetted Palestinian non-combatants then the casualty rates would be much higher than 2:1 (50:1?)
If the Palestinians chose to engage combatant targets perhaps their cause would have more sympathy. But they don't.
At the end of the day, both sides hate each other so much its doubtful anything other than a huge wall will suffice. And even then Hamas are still likely to hound the Israeli's by launching mortar or missile rounds across any such no mans land.
From a purely analytical point of view, this conflict will not cease until one side ceases to exist. Statistically and logically thinking sooner or later the terrorist organisations will manage to unleash some sort of WMD upon the Israeli's (be it chemical, nuclear, or biological). That will be the turning point in this conflict.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
If the Palestinians chose to engage combatant targets perhaps their cause would have more sympathy. But they don't.
If they really wanted to win, they would use a tactic that has shown promise,.... Has terrorism ever worked as a means to independance?
If the PLO had followed the tactics of Ghandi, they would have been celebrating 30 years of independance by now. Civil disobedience should work much better now that there is live TV. Ghandi only had newspapers, radio, and Movietone news.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If they really wanted to win, they would use a tactic that has shown promise,.... Has terrorism ever worked as a means to independance?
If the PLO had followed the tactics of Ghandi, they would have been celebrating 30 years of independance by now. Civil disobedience should work much better now that there is live TV. Ghandi only had newspapers, radio, and Movietone news.
it worked in 1948
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Lets break it down to basics, and get rid of the use of civilians:
- the Palestinians have clear military targets to strike
- the Palestinians choose to strike 'non-combatants'
- the Israeli's have unclear targets to strike, combatants include woman and children hard to distinguish from non-combatants
- the Israeli's primarily target combatants however they usually manage to hit collateral non-combatants in the process
- identifying dead Palestinians as combatant/non-combatant is next to impossible
- identifying dead Israeli's as combatant/non-combatant is easy
- if the Israeli's actively targetted Palestinian non-combatants then the casualty rates would be much higher than 2:1 (50:1?)
If the Palestinians chose to engage combatant targets perhaps their cause would have more sympathy. But they don't.
At the end of the day, both sides hate each other so much its doubtful anything other than a huge wall will suffice. And even then Hamas are still likely to hound the Israeli's by launching mortar or missile rounds across any such no mans land.
From a purely analytical point of view, this conflict will not cease until one side ceases to exist. Statistically and logically thinking sooner or later the terrorist organisations will manage to unleash some sort of WMD upon the Israeli's (be it chemical, nuclear, or biological). That will be the turning point in this conflict.
You talk as if there was a Palestinian army and airforce.
Tronsky
-
Hortland I agree 100% with everything you have written here. I am not a Jew I do not really care much about the middle east but I certainly reconize bull **** when I smell it and Dowding is just full of it as usual.
Is that the sum total of your thoughts on this matter? Thanks for your input.
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
You talk as if there was a Palestinian army and airforce.
Tronsky
So you need organized nation state type militaries to concentrate your nationalistic/liberation movement on predominantlty military targets?
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
You talk as if there was a Palestinian army and airforce.
Tronsky
How so? (not being sarcastic, I just don't see that in what I say).
-
the Israelis must be willing to accept that certain extremists may succeed in committing suicide bombings during the peace process, and they must essentially ignore these bombings as desperate acts of an increasingly desperate minority
This is very logical exept:
Do you know of a democraticly elected goverment who can say such a thing to it's citizens?
The US declared war on terrorizm and attacked two countries in the last 3 years after one attack on it's citizens. (OK, a lucky attack that did more damage than planned, plus a few minor incidents with US troops abroad).
Generaly you people are using too much logic, it'll only make your brain hurt. Logic doesn't apply here - it almost stopped working here about 3000 years ago with the introduction of monoetheism and completly stopped when two other monoetheistic religions were created.
As long as "god" or "holy" are involved, there will be no reasoning.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by straffo
it worked in 1948
Elaborate please.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
So do you Pal-defenders note the relationship between the IDF easing the grip on the Pals ever so little and new suicide bomber attacks? Heh, did it take 2-3 days after the Israelis opened up the West Bank until the suicide bombings resumed?
Dowding? Nashwan? Why are you dodging this one?
-
If Israel is blameless then how do you explain these:
Bombing of a refugee camp by an F16.
This is terrorism, plain and simple.
A 200,000 people town with 150 Jewish colons.
Dumb people no doubt, would you settle in a town populated by Al-Quaeda supporters? I wouldnt.
Then when those colonists get attacked they send in the tanks to protect those "illegal" colonies.
Yeah, Israel is blameless :rolleyes:
You seem to forget that most Palestinians live in poverty.
They have no hope for a better future, which makes it easy to convince them to blow themselves up since they have nothing to live for. The only way this conflict can be settled is for the Palestinians to start believing in a better future. For that they need jobs and security just like the Israelis.
The Palestinians fanatical leaders are brainwashing people. Those are the ones that must be elimated.
Problem is, people are very sentimental about religion.
Religion is not based on logic.
Maybe they need to get rid of religion ;)
That would solve the problem instantly :cool:
There as been more violence during Sharon's time as PM then any other PM.
Killing innocents just reinforces the terrorist leaders' claims that Israel as to be destroyed.
If you lost your girlfriend to Israel you would probably hate them. Which would make you more vulnerable to brainwashing.
Innocents dying only helps the violence continue.
Its a vicious circle, someone as to change their ways.
Otherwise it will never end.
There is no balck or white, its all in shades of grey.
-
Logic doesn't apply here - it almost stopped working here about 3000 years ago with the introduction of monoetheism and completly stopped when two other monoetheistic religions were created.
Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot would agree with you. Man must become more rational or there will be nothing but slaughter.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Elaborate please.
Oops ... I should have wrote it helped not it worked.
As far as I reming the Irgoun is in the genealogie of the Likoud.
btw I don't remember wasn't count Bernadotte swedish ?
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
What makes you think the Israelis opened up the West Bank?
They had specific warnings of suicide bombings in Tel Aviv last Tuesday, and imposed heavier than normal security. See:
[/b]
Again, it might be smart to consider using non-palestinian sources sometimes? Israel closed off the west bank this Sunday. After three suicide bomber attacks within 24 hours. The bastards. They closed the Gaza strip almost as soon as they opened it though...I wonder why...
From what I understand, the latest bomber in Jerusalem was disguised as a religous Jew, and probably came in through the usual back door in to Israel, along the roads reserved for settlers. They have very few checkpoints.
[/b]
Yeah... imagine a rolleyes emoticon here.
Apparently there are roads in Israel that are marked "for settlers only" and those roads are not as heavily guarded by the IDF... So let me guess, the terrorists put up a sign that says "settler" on their car, and they are waved through?
Evidence for that? The PLO adopted the "two state" solution in 1988, and have held to it ever since.
So what the PLO has been doing since 1988 is their version of the "two state solution"? One "state" sends in suicide bombers and other terrorists to kill as many civilians as possible in the other state? Just exactly how naive are you anyway?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Elaborate please.
]
I think Straffo's talking abou the Irgun, remember - King David Hotel, deir Yassin etc?
Also IRA have partly acheived their goals (not united Ireland, but partially independent N.I and withdrawal of UK armed forces (phased)).
Negotiating with terrorists can pay dividends as many in NI will tell you. Problem is terrorists end up on unemployment register and go into extortion, drug dealing, racketeering and organised crime.
No solutions in the middle east for the time being, until someone actually works out what the problem *really* is.
But bringing your children up in atmosphere of hate and violence is only going to result in more hate and violence.
Ironic that is all taking place in the holy land, where a hippy once preached a doctrine of non-violence and love for fellow man. Even more ironic is that this should be the state religion of most of the countries pouring arms into the region.
(remember guys, Jesus is not only the Son of Yahweh, but a profit [edit- I mean Prophet of course]of Allah too (he was actually executed for non payment of income tax - undeclared second job)
-
Yes, but anyone arguing that the jewish terrorist attacks pre 48 was a reason for the creation of Israel should do some reading on the jewish situation in Europe in 1933-1945.
I'd say the state of Israel was created despite the jewish terrorist attacks. And it was created because of the enormous and collective "ooops...we ****ed up...sorry" -feeling all of Europe and the US had after 45.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yes, but anyone arguing that the jewish terrorist attacks pre 48 was a reason for the creation of Israel should do some reading on the jewish situation in Europe in 1933-1945.
Never said that.
And I know what happened during this period (in fact who can ignore that ?)
I'd say the state of Israel was created despite the jewish terrorist attacks. And it was created because of the enormous and collective "ooops...we ****ed up...sorry" -feeling all of Europe and the US had after 45.
Surely, but is it a good reason ?
If you look at the importance of the ultra-orthodox (aka settler) in Isreal governement you will see one of the key problem (not that it make the Palestinian innocent nor excusable).
-
true bounder.
The Israelies had 3 organizations that operated vs. the brits and the palestinians:
the "hagana" (defence) - was primarly a "passive" organization. stocked up on ammunition in the settelments for their defence (also stealing guns from the brits) and smuggled illegal imigrants. about 70% of the israelies were were active or affiliated with this organization. Led by Ben-Gurion and later became the governing party. It's last remenants are todays "labor" party.
the "etzel" (N.M.O - National Military organization) - were activly fighting the british forces. had plenty of attacks on british HQ and other military targets. Also kidnapped a few officers. Most Israelies might disagree, but some of these actions count as terrorizm. Less then 20% were affiliated with that organization. Led by Menahem Begin (past prime minister) and it's remenants are the "Likud" party (now in power).
the "Lehi" (I.F.F - Israel freedom fighters) - the most extreemist of the three, Led by Itshak Shamir (also past prim minister). qualify as a terrorist organization.
The BIG difference is that the dominating faction - the "hagana" was trying to controll the other two organization. It handed some of their leaders to the british (was called the "season" as in hunting) and was generaly against terror attacks against the british. The hope was that the PLO would do the same and controll the "Hamas" and "Jihad". It didn't and is sending suicide bombers of it's own.
In this case, the diplomacy and defense only tactic won. Independance was gained with the blessing of the UN.
Bozon
-
I didnt mean to say that you meant that straffo.
-
Very interesting, Bozon.
Your post was thousend times more "informative" than any of Hort's racistics rants.
Since I know you have lived on your skin the situation, what are your thoughts about it?
What can be the way to get rid of the religious part, expecially on palestinian side, since IMHO, once the terror is stopped the extreme right will be under control in Israel?
You see the light at the end of the tunnel, or is a matter of annihilation of one part of the equation?
Please, share.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I didnt mean to say that you meant that straffo.
I prefered to write it before we enter one of our successfull (end entertaining :D) hatred discussion ;)
To keep the signal/noise ratio to a believable level :D
-
Originally posted by Naso
Hort's racistics rants.
wtf..?
And if you're going to insult me, at least have the decency to do it in English.
-
I had no Idea you danced this well Dowding...let's try again.
What efforts on the PAL side have been made to bring their people a better life?
Could it be the hatred of Jews taught in their schools or perhaps the guided admiration of suicide bombers?
This is my point.....both parties hold blame to one degree or another....the difference being that the pal leadership has brought more strife upon their own people thru the lack of compromise. In life, the are few absolute or immediate solutions to problems....many look good on paper, but theory is far from execution.
The common pal is simply a pawn used or sacrificed for the gain of a few corrupt leaders and special interests terror groups.
What amuses me is your comments are slanted towards a look what the mean old Isreali's are doing to those poor innocent pals.
The whole of the problem is the condition of mens hearts...not just in the middle east, but everywhere that deceit, pain and abuse rear their ugly heads....further, you nor I along with the winded fury of typed words on this BBS will ever bring closure to what problems plague the Middle East.
Enough said by me...feel free to offer your qualified rebuttal.
-
I had no Idea you danced this well Dowding
dammit, that's my line!
-
The Pals are going to lose any sympathy remaining for their cause through the actions of the radicals.
The new "road map for peace" may or may not be the best possible solution, but it was a start.
Now, it's just another non-starter. The war continues and most likely with even less sympathy for the Pal side.
How long before it's simply open warfare and mass slaughter?
Sorta looks like it's the inevitable option.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The Pals are going to lose any sympathy remaining for their cause through the actions of the radicals.
The new "road map for peace" may or may not be the best possible solution, but it was a start.
Now, it's just another non-starter. The war continues and most likely with even less sympathy for the Pal side.
How long before it's simply open warfare and mass slaughter?
Sorta looks like it's the inevitable option.
I actually agree with Rush we he says this conflict, like most any major conflict, will never be resolved until one side acheives complete victory.
In other words, one side is going to have to crush the other before a peace can be worked out.
-
What can be the way to get rid of the religious part,
kill god?
I actually agree with Rush we he says this conflict, like most any major conflict, will never be resolved until one side acheives complete victory.
In other words, one side is going to have to crush the other before a peace can be worked out.
/QUOTE]
Impossible.
one side is already as crushed as it can be. if you keep banging someing against a rock after you've already flattened it, you will only break your arm. that's what is happening to Israel.
There's a slight chance of peace in the region, but the most probable scenario is that Israel will slowly decline as a western country till no one will care what happens with it.
and the palestinians know that.
Bozon
-
What can be the way to get rid of the religious part,
I don't believe the conflict is religious, it's fueled by politics and hatred . Very little of what is going on there has religious causes.
-
Originally posted by bozon
There's a slight chance of peace in the region, but the most probable scenario is that Israel will slowly decline as a western country till no one will care what happens with it.
and the palestinians know that.
Bozon
The real weird thing is that I agree with you :(
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
wtf..?
And if you're going to insult me, at least have the decency to do it in English.
Touchè? :D
OK!! OK!!
I'm sorry, I've pushed too much...
BTW, you are the last one that can whine about insulting people.
A post made by you without some light or heavy namecalling is a rarity.
Strange... with your thin skin... you still.... naa, nm...
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I don't believe the conflict is religious, it's fueled by politics and hatred . Very little of what is going on there has religious causes.
Can't agree with you on that one Nukester...
This entire conflict stems back to biblical times and a fight over who really owns the "Holy Land". It has it's causes in religion, and the politics and hatred are the effects.
-
Originally posted by GrimCO
Can't agree with you on that one Nukester...
This entire conflict stems back to biblical times and a fight over who really owns the "Holy Land". It has it's causes in religion, and the politics and hatred are the effects.
Add economie to the equation.
I wonder what wil be the future of Isreal when the arab will be majority ...
-
Originally posted by bozon
kill god?
Eh... difficult target.... elusive...
one side is already as crushed as it can be. if you keep banging someing against a rock after you've already flattened it, you will only break your arm. that's what is happening to Israel.
:(
There's a slight chance of peace in the region, but the most probable scenario is that Israel will slowly decline as a western country till no one will care what happens with it.
and the palestinians know that.
Bozon
I dont understand completely, can you elaborate "slowly decline as a western country" ?
I am afraid to have guessed what you meant... but... just want to be sure.
-
Again, it might be smart to consider using non-palestinian sources sometimes?
Haaretz is a Palestinian source now? A newspaper owned by a Jewish Israeli family, staffed almost entirely by Jewish Israelis, published in Hebrew?
Israel closed off the west bank this Sunday
They imposed another total closure after the bombings, but they can't sustain total closures for long. Food aid has to get in, etc. The normal situation is partial closure, and that wasn't lifted.
Yeah... imagine a rolleyes emoticon here.
Apparently there are roads in Israel that are marked "for settlers only" and those roads are not as heavily guarded by the IDF... So let me guess, the terrorists put up a sign that says "settler" on their car, and they are waved through?
Most of the paved roads in the West Bank are forbidden to Palestinians. They are more heavily guarded by the IDF, because they are used by settlers, who often face ambush.
A terrorist simply buys, makes or steals Israeli licence plates, and the IDF rarely stop a vehicle with Israeli plates to check. The settlers have a lot of political power, and several hours wait at a border crossing for them isn't acceptable.
Jews in the territories recieve Israeli licence plates, Arabs don't, so it's easy to differentiate between a settler's car and a Palestinian's, unless they are using false plates.
So what the PLO has been doing since 1988 is their version of the "two state solution"? One "state" sends in suicide bombers and other terrorists to kill as many civilians as possible in the other state? Just exactly how naive are you anyway?
How naive do you think the PLO leadership are? Naive enough to think a few terrorist attacks can force 4 million Israelis to abandon their country?
Hamas doesn't want a settlement, so they will always try to send bombers, but the PLO do want a settlement. Hence during the Oslo period throughout the mid - late nineties, the PLO didn't launch terrorist attacks.
After Oslo broke down, and it became clear Barak wasn't going to offer a deal acceptable to the Palestinians, they resorted to attacks and demonstrations against Israeli targets in the territories, which were put down very brutally.
See the ICT's report on causalties: http://www.ict.org.il/
(Before claiming this is another Palestinian source, look at the board members of ICT, every one a senior ex military or government figure in Israel)
From their report on casualty figures:
"Graphs 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 suggest that the al-Aqsa conflict, up to late July 2002, can be divided into four phases:
An initial phase characterized by very high Palestinian fatalities and relatively low Israeli fatalities; "
"The first phase of the al-Aqsa conflict began on 27 September 2000, and ended in late December 2000. At that time Palestinian fatalities tapered off sharply, and remained generally lower until the next September. December 21, 2000 has been chosen as the last day of this first phase. As a first approximation, we can label this phase of the conflict the “real or apparent popular uprising” phase (leaving room for uncertainty as to whether this “uprising” was genuinely spontaneous, or was manufactured by Palestinian leaders), as most of the fatalities appear to have occurred as the result of Palestinian mass demonstrations or riots, and the Israeli response to them"
(My emphasis)
This is my point.....both parties hold blame to one degree or another....the difference being that the pal leadership has brought more strife upon their own people thru the lack of compromise. In life, the are few absolute or immediate solutions to problems....many look good on paper, but theory is far from execution.
The common pal is simply a pawn used or sacrificed for the gain of a few corrupt leaders and special interests terror groups.
Certainly by the terror groups, but not really by the Palestinian leadership.
Arafat and the PLO could, and did, ensure their own wealth and power by running the territories for Israel's benefit. One of the goals of Israel from Oslo was to use the PLO to run the territories on their behalf. It was often described as using the PLO as the IDF's subcontractor, to do the dirty work the IDF was getting international condemnation for.
The problem was the Palestinians increasingly saw the PA as corrupt, and not working in their interests, and began to turn to Hamas.
The BIG difference is that the dominating faction - the "hagana" was trying to controll the other two organization. It handed some of their leaders to the british (was called the "season" as in hunting) and was generaly against terror attacks against the british.
The Hunting Season was followed by the United Resistance, in which the Haganah controlled the other orginisations, and allocated them targets, including the King David Hotel.
Even the Hunting Season was carried out mainly as part of an internal struggle to maintain leadership in the Jewish community. A British report on the men turned in concluded:
"Unfortunately, the Jewish Agency's lists of so-called terrorists continues to include numerous people who have no terror connections, but politically speaking are undesirable to the Jewish Agency. This adds to the difficulties the police has in separating the sheep from the goats"
And during the United Resistance, when the Jewish Agency was organising terrorist attacks, they issued a statement to say:
"It is a tragedy that matters in Palestine have reached such a pass. The Jewish Agency abhors the use of violence as a weapon in the political struggle, but realizes that its ability to impose restraint has been severely tested by the continued policy (of the British government), which the Jews regard as fatal for them."
Sounds just like Arafat, condemning violence whilst organising it.
-
How dumb are (some?) swedes?
After so many years not to realise that there is no common political entity "palestinians" but rather a mix of groups with widely warying agendas?
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.
--
"Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" - A Report of The Project for the New American Century (Chairman Willian Kristoll). September 2000.
If we have an influential group in US, closely linked to the administration that admitted in 2000 that some event like 9/11 would greatly advance its agenda, why is it so surprising that there are some palestinians, palestinian-linked foreign influences or even some israelis who's agenda would not be advanced by some suicide bombings and retaliations?
miko
-
Y'all seem to be missing the real joke here. That Dubya and his cronies think that, after all these years of hatred and bloodshed they can come in with a "blueprint" and everyone will make happy-happy. Makes Camp David look like a complete success by comparison.
-
Originally posted by Rude
I asked you a simple question which you apparently refuse to answer....when did the PLO ever offer up a plan for peace to the Isrealis....in other words, please tell us of what the PLO has done to promote any peace in that region?
why should the oppressed offer peace to the oppressor....
should be the other way round......
if I was the oppressed and you where the oppressor.....I'd go bomb the watermelon outta your house :eek: ....not offer you a peace plan.
-
Originally posted by Naso
Touchè?
That accent is going the wrong way Naso....I don't have a French keyboard.... it should be "/" not "\"...right Straffo?
-
Originally posted by Curval
That accent is going the wrong way Naso....I don't have a French keyboard.... it should be "/" not "\"...right Straffo?
yep :)
touché
at least he tried :)
-
Hey cool.
I was able to correct an Italian on his use of French accents on an internet BB. Thank goodness all that money I spent trying to learn French wasn't completely wasted.
:D :D :D
-
The wonder of Internet :)
-
The Hunting Season was followed by the United Resistance, in which the Haganah controlled the other orginisations, and allocated them targets, including the King David Hotel.
Even the Hunting Season was carried out mainly as part of an internal struggle to maintain leadership in the Jewish community. A British report on the men turned in concluded:
my point exacly Nashwan.
If the PLO intends to lead the palestinian to independence it cannot allow other extreemist organizations like "Hamas" and "Jihad" run around loose. It is convenient to the PLO not to deal with them and let the suicide bombing continue, thus dancing on both weddings.
It's a common practice in the middle east for a country to have some "other" organization taking the blame and clearing their responsibility. Just like Lebanon is not responsible to controll the "Hizballa" operating from it's border (and used as pressure tool by Siria) or Saudy-Arabia not responsible for El-Quida or the fact that almost all 9/11 terrorists were their citizens.
btw, King David hotel attack was done by the "Etzel" not by the "Hagana", plus they took the bother of calling the hotel and warning them (which was disregarded). Not that that makes it less a terrorist attack.
Bozon
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
How so? (not being sarcastic, I just don't see that in what I say).
Wasn't having a go at you...
Non-collateral...combatants..I should have been more specific I suppose and mentioned the it was all about the language.
I do find it odd however that people still struggle with trying to find a high moral ground as a necessity before an acceptable compromise can occur.
I find it also odd that some people would find this:
A Palestinian state would be established in most of the West Bank and all of the Gaza strip, with these conditions:
The state would not have an army with heavy weapons,
The state would not make alliances with other countries without Israeli approval and would not allow introduction of foreign forces west of the River Jordan.
Israel would be allowed deploy troops in the Jordan Valley if Israel were to be threatened by invasion from the east.
Israeli aircraft could overfly Palestinian airspace.
Israeli would install early warning stations in the mountains overlooking the Jordan valley and other areas.
Palestinians would control border crossings with Jordan and Egypt along with Israeli security observation.
The Israelis would retain management over water sources in the West Bank while approving a limited quota to the Palestinians.
Israel would lease areas in the Jordan Valley or maintain temporary sovereignty over them for up to 25 years.
acceptable, when they no doubt would not find it acceptable where they live.
Tronsky
-
To be honest Tronski it'd be easier for the Palestinians to take it a step at a time, ie accept or bargain within the terms offered. Establish peace. Establish sovereignty.
Once a stable solution is set up, start going for the 'extras'. IE instead of going to the world saying 'look what the Israeli's are doing' take the sales pitch to the Israeli people. A peaceful Palestinian nation would get a far fairer hearing.
Its a chicken and egg solution. IMHO the Palestinians have nothing to lose by accepting these terms and then trying to gain benefits in peace. Their people already live in poverty and low quality lifestyles.
But it'll never happen.
I still put money on the table that within the next 5 years we'll see a catastrophic terrorist attack made against the Israeli's, something that will be the ultimate peace through the retaliatory violence. Something like terrorists set off chemical or dirty bomb in Israel, Israel responds in similar vein to Palestinians, rest of the region gets involved. Dust settles, one way or another theres a sad peace.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
...that within the next 5 years we'll see a catastrophic terrorist attack made against the Israeli's, something that will be the ultimate peace through the retaliatory violence. Something like terrorists set off chemical or dirty bomb in Israel, Israel responds in similar vein to Palestinians, rest of the region gets involved. Dust settles, one way or another theres a sad peace.
less than 3 years - unless Israel gets tired of playing with the pals and their PC gloves come all the way off
I commend their tolerance and restraint
-
LOL, Straffo & Curval, thanks for the help :)
let's try...
"touché"
;)
A big hail to Al Gore that invented internet.
:D
-
Once a stable solution is set up, start going for the 'extras'. IE instead of going to the world saying 'look what the Israeli's are doing' take the sales pitch to the Israeli people. A peaceful Palestinian nation would get a far fairer hearing.
Its a chicken and egg solution. IMHO the Palestinians have nothing to lose by accepting these terms and then trying to gain benefits in peace.
What Barak offered was a final deal. Final, permament borders. There would be as much chance of the Palestinians gaining more land after that as Britain would have trying to negotiate the return of Calais now.
A peaceful Palestinian nation would get a far fairer hearing.
The problem is the West Bank is regard as part of Israel by the settler movement. They firmly believe it is their duty to God to settle the land. It doesn't really matter what the Palestinians do, they are in the way of that settlement.
I still put money on the table that within the next 5 years we'll see a catastrophic terrorist attack made against the Israeli's, something that will be the ultimate peace through the retaliatory violence. Something like terrorists set off chemical or dirty bomb in Israel, Israel responds in similar vein to Palestinians, rest of the region gets involved. Dust settles, one way or another theres a sad peace.
There are only 3 possible outcomes. Israel pulls out of the West Bank, Israel establishes Palestinian enclaves (Bantustans), as proposed by Barak, and Sharons favoured solution, or Israel ethnically cleanses 4 million Palestinians.
The first solution can work, but wether any Israeli government can carry it out now is doubtfull. Rabin was killed for far less.
The second solution is basically similar to the Oslo process, and that hasn't turned out too well, and the third solution transfers the Palestinians to Jordan, thus destroying Jordan and turning it in to a radical Palestinian state. It also brings closer the destruction of Israel, because they will lose a lot of support worldwide.
Retaliation against the Palestinians cannot subdue them long term, because their long term survival under Israeli occupation is not possible anyway. If you're heading for extinction, you will fight back.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
If you're heading for extinction, you will fight back.
if you are walking off a cliff, you turn around... unless you are considered a hero by your peers when you smash on the rocks below and there isn't anything else to live for as you have been taught your whole life your life's dream is to walk off the cliff.
-
Originally posted by Arfann
Y'all seem to be missing the real joke here. That Dubya and his cronies think that, after all these years of hatred and bloodshed they can come in with a "blueprint" and everyone will make happy-happy. Makes Camp David look like a complete success by comparison.
Whoa, Gronk! I know you don't like our President, but isn't that statement a bit reactionary? I don’t believe anyone in the Administration, either the President or his advisors, believes they can solve this problem overnight. That’s why their plan put forth last week spanned a time frame measured in years. It was meant to get the process going again, not end it in one fell swoop. Both sides seemed genuinely interested in pursuing that plan, or at least discussing it. Unfortunately, both Arafat and the new PA PM seem to be powerless to rein in the terrorist organizations they (or at least Arafat) spent their whole life creating and nurturing. Israel’s leaders likewise are trapped by their policy of retaliation. Holding back that retaliation after one or even two terrorist acts, in the name of peace, would probably be doable. Doing nothing in response to five such attacks in less than two days would be political suicide. Israel has tried restraint in the past, and it has brought them nothing but more attacks. That is not to say they have always shown restraint, or even reason in their response. As has been pointed out, both sides share the blame, as do a great many other countries (Western and Middle Eastern).
Gronk my friend, I’m tempted to include you in the category of political reactionaries who will find fault with our President no matter what he does (as many did with Clinton, or Bush Sr. or Teddy Roosevelt, etc.). Your derogatory choice of terms above adds credence to that assessment. Before the war, Bush was criticized for putting emphasis on Iraq, when things in Israel were so tumultuous. Now that he’s turning his attention more fully on Israel and the Palestinian issue, they criticize him for having the gall to think he can help in the peace process. What would you have him do? Should he do nothing? Would you not criticize him just as loudly in that case? I didn’t see anyone else, in the region or without, making any positive efforts to help the Israeli and Palestinians find their way out of the darkness. "Let go your hate, or consume you it will."
-
If Bush will help solving this problem in a just way, I promise to give him a Salute in "size 24".
Bozon:
I am still curious about what you said with "slowly decline as a western country".
You meant "become a violent third world undemocratic killing regime?".
In the case... I hope this scenario never never happens. :(
-
Originally posted by Naso
Bozon:
I am still curious about what you said with "slowly decline as a western country".
You meant "become a violent third world undemocratic killing regime?".
In the case... I hope this scenario never never happens. :(
I've studied my history. Israel is walking in a dangerous path. When a country or an empire gets ever more involved in trying to secure it's safty by investing more and more in it's army, it declins (unless it constantly occupie new territories). Economy would not allow keeping a huge army AND investing in production, infrastructure, science and culture.
Soon the thirst for "security" will surpass all, already invetments in culture and science are reduced to the bare minimum and economy is on the decline. Moral standards are on the decline as well. There used to be a time when every firing incident was investigated - today if there was a firefight and some palestinian gets killed, there's a slight chanse it will be mentioned at the end of some debriefing.
Also, all other burning issues in the society are shadowed by the struggle with the palestinian. Remember, that Israel is only 55 years old and it brought together people from all over the world, most of them from non-democratic countries. It was supposed to be a model socialist county, now america-style capitalist, with immigration laws based on the nazi definition of a jew.
The most fundamental question - what kind of country is it supposed to be, is not resolved.
The including of "democracy" in the answer to that is not that trivial.
Jewish strength was never in it's army. It always has been in education culture and moral standards. Israel is loosing that and if things would run in the current course, it will become just another toejamty backward 3rd world country just like all the countries that surround it - from Lebanon to Yemen, from Iran to Morroco.
from a country that have it's own space technology, world leader in advanced optics and medical equipment, a country of 5 million that 5 years ago produced more startup companies then entire western europe, it would be come another middle-eastern struggling state with no human rights whatsoever.
in order to avoid that, alot of people need to get real smart real quick. I know some of those people and it's a long shot.
But there's still hope.
Bozon
-
Bozon but you forget how many military subsidies Israel gets from the USA...
-
Wow, Bozon for president.
Exactly what I understud, and what was thinking myself.
---
Grun, I guess that what you pointed can only worsen the situation.
-
Israel, and all its neat economic/intellectual stuff bozon talked about developed and survives today because of Israeli military power and direct US military subsidies and support. And also remember how much of that Israeli industrial/scientific base traces ts roots to their defense industry.
-
Funny, I thought Bozon was agreeing with me.
Never mind, shouldnt you go hide from Al Queida or something GScholz?
-
Agreeing with you? On what exactly?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Lol! Let them come...
Stupid words. You should be more careful what you wish for.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Bozon but you forget how many military subsidies Israel gets from the USA...
Another common misconception.
The US military "aid" is one of the most destructive things to Israel. Israel does not get hard cash, but gets virtual money it can use to buy weapons in america.
The result is that Israeli industry is going bankropt since it's cheaper for the army to by from the US using "aid" money. Plus it makes Israel dependent on one supllier and the first thing the US does to bend Israel to it's will is to threaten shutting the aid down.
Also, the US can veto any deal Israel does with other countries. It can't even sell early-warning radars without US approval not to mention advanced missiles.
Another effect is that the US shuts down any development project that is going to compete with american industries.
the US is having both ends of the stick: "giving" money to it's own industries through a 3rd party, and making that 3rd party more and more dependant on america's "good will".
Israeli military industries bloomed in the 70's till the 90's, ever since France (which was the major arms supplier) gave it the boot. Israel retaliated with stealing the gunboats and the plans to the Mirage 5 fighter, that were supposed to be sold and setting up it's own industries.
Not one dared to tell the US "we dont want the military aid" just because what I mentioned before - it would be against the imidiate "security" interest. This is another example of how Israel declines slowly.
Bozon
-
Hmmm... interesting.
-
Originally posted by bozon
Israel retaliated with stealing the gunboats and the plans to the Mirage 5 fighter, that were supposed to be sold and setting up it's own industries.
Bozon
The Kfir... nice and better than his.... precedessor (?).
BTW, Bozon, even if you are Israeli, and served (or serving) the IDF, you are not entitled to express your opinion, because is in contrast with the lates Fox's TV specials.
;)
Jokes apart, Israel is the country were this kind of "aggressive commercial advertizing" is more evident... but France and UK apart, something like this has been made in a lot of countries in Europe, as a partial consequence of Marshall's plan.
But this is only commie propaganda.