Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Sharon Wants Palestinian Casualties

By shellac in Op-Ed
Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 08:37:53 AM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

According to the Jerusalem Post and New York Times (free registration required), Ariel Sharon told reporters at the Israeli parliament that "The aim is to increase the number of losses on the other side. Only after they've been battered, we will be able to conduct talks."


Arafat is often accused of only giving lip service to stopping attacks by Palestinian militants, but in the court of public opinion Sharon is clearly making himself out to be the warmonger. The most recent lull in the cycle of violence (instated at Arafat's pleading) was broken in January with an Israeli targeted assassination starring Sharon as judge, jury, and executioner.

Sharon calls for a new leader within the Palestinian Authority. His ideal leader puts Israeli security ahead of all other things, while ignoring his own intransigence with regard to the security of Palestinians. No country in the world would tolerate helicopter gunship assassinations within its borders or such cruel rhetoric from a neighboring country's leaders, but pseudo-autonomous Palestine is being forced to.

Sharon is understandably upset at the recent increase in violence, but it would be a better course of action for him to accept that both sides are not blameless in this conflict and to work towards a peaceful situation rather than escalating the situation. If one is to believe he earnestly wishes to end the conflict, Sharon's statement to reporters defies logic.

Perhaps Israeli citizens will elect somebody who is less of a hawk and has more diplomatic skills as Sharon's administration weakens, though I fear the opposite might happen.


(As a side note, does it disturb anyone that the Jerusalem Post captures the real story with its headline, "Sharon: We'll hit PA until it begs for mercy", while the NYTimes is running with "At Least 17 Palestinians Killed as Israel Retaliates". The New York Times headline is not exactly untruthful, but it contains a lie by omission. It ignores the most significant development in the recent Israeli-Palestinian violence, which is Sharon's increased war rhetoric. I know many who would not read past the New York Times headline, and I myself was somewhat shocked about the actual contents of the article after perusing the headlines. Is this just poor journalism?)

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Jerusalem Post
o New York Times
o broken in January
o Sharon's administration weakens
o "Sharon: We'll hit PA until it begs for mercy"
o "At Least 17 Palestinians Killed as Israel Retaliates"
o Also by shellac


Display: Sort:
Sharon Wants Palestinian Casualties | 220 comments (212 topical, 8 editorial, 1 hidden)
What we need... (3.15 / 20) (#3)
by John Thompson on Mon Mar 04, 2002 at 09:55:24 PM EST

is to develop a gigantic Valium bomb we can drop on the Israelis/Palesinians, Hindus/Muslims, Protestants/Catholics, etc.

The CIA (4.00 / 1) (#142)
by HongPong on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 01:02:09 AM EST

...is rumored to have ordered million of doses of LSD back in the day for much a similar purpose, to drop on Moscow to get the Soviets very confused and presumably more relaxed. However, I doubt that already jumpy Soviets would be relaxed by giant bald eagles materializing and such.
--
hongpong.com-- Sublime agitation
[ Parent ]
unconventional bombs... (3.00 / 1) (#143)
by martingale on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 01:10:29 AM EST

Oh yeah? I still remember the 80's debacle with the nude bomb....oh wait, that was a movie, sorry.



[ Parent ]
When war isn't over fought over turf, (3.60 / 15) (#4)
by Apuleius on Mon Mar 04, 2002 at 09:58:28 PM EST

it's fought over scalps. This war has the funny rule whereby Israelis are not allowed, for reasons of diplomacy and logistics, to gain territory in battle, and the PLO is not able to gain territory at all. So it's all about the scalps. Arafat is using the same strategy.




There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
As for the assassinations. (3.05 / 18) (#5)
by Apuleius on Mon Mar 04, 2002 at 10:04:19 PM EST

When this conflict began, Israel had a special unit trained for arresting Hamas terrorists within the West Bank & Gaza, called the Duvdevan unit, which was composed of elite soldiers brave and competent enough to carry out these dangerous operations. In the months that followed, the PA gained enough photographs of Duvdevan soldiers that they are no longer able to perform arrest missions.

This reduces Israel's options to these: 1. get Arafat to arrest the Hamas men. That is futile. Arafat releases them whenever he feels like it, and even when they are in jail, he allows them to continue communicating with Hamas men on the outside and coordinate operations. 2. Let them run wild and continue their operations against Israeli civilians. To anyone who advocates that we should do this, I ask what color the skies are on your planet. 3. Assassinate them Hey, at least we are targetting murderers. These Hamas men, on the other hand, target our children.




There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
Explain that (3.23 / 13) (#7)
by medham on Mon Mar 04, 2002 at 10:57:09 PM EST

To the woman and her three children killed yesterday, in your prayers. The part about Hamas men targeting your children, I mean.

It was a brave, tough act carried out with hard-won Israeli equipment and intelligence, no doubt.

If you are really an Israeli, I suspect you know that Sharon has made it impossible for Arafat to crack down on Hamas--if he was ever in fact capable of doing so. The Israeli press is much more open about this, though I only read the English.

Israel doesn't have the ability to end this conflict with violence.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

Okay, here's the explanation: (2.53 / 15) (#8)
by Apuleius on Mon Mar 04, 2002 at 11:04:17 PM EST

Better you than my kids, habibti. You married a guy, knowing he was a Hamasnik, and that his organization was devoted to killing civilians. You knew he would kill my young cousins if he got the chance, and thought nothing wrong with that. You knew that when you drove in his truck. Too damn bad for you.




There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Thank you (3.12 / 8) (#9)
by medham on Mon Mar 04, 2002 at 11:11:45 PM EST

This is why the violence isn't going to stop.

We'll quit selling you toys if you simply try to kill them all or push them into Jordan, you know.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

You're welcome. (1.60 / 5) (#73)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:24:24 AM EST

You have the causality wrong. Quit selling us toys and we'll no longer have any reason to play nice.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Hmm (4.00 / 2) (#122)
by John Milton on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 06:27:47 PM EST

What an interesting hostage situation. If we refuse to give you weapons to kill the Palestinians, you'll kill them. It's times like this that I'm really sure that the world is insane.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
Yes, the world is insane. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 07:49:40 PM EST

That is why the State Department gives us aid: so they can hold us back. They've been using this card since 1956.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
On the other hand (3.00 / 1) (#146)
by Delirium on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 04:17:19 AM EST

If the U.S. had followed suit when France stopped selling Israel arms in 1967, Israel might've had some more serious problems.

[ Parent ]
Wrong timing. (4.00 / 1) (#160)
by Apuleius on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 01:41:05 PM EST

In 1967 the Israeli army had plenty of French arms. 1982 was the first time the US could instantly choke Israel.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
And of course, the kids chose ... (3.00 / 1) (#131)
by pyramid termite on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 08:22:17 PM EST

... to have them as parents, too.
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
War without quarter (5.00 / 1) (#132)
by ariux on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 09:18:42 PM EST

Too damn bad for you.

I can't agree. Kill the guy, sure - but take real care to spare his family, and his neighbors.

Not only is this the moral thing to do, but it's also tactically necessary. Failing to draw a big solid distinction and killing innocents as a result fuels the dedication and manpower of Israel's enemies.

[ Parent ]

is the status quo. (1.66 / 3) (#133)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 09:26:18 PM EST

Anyhow, this got a little moot when it turned out the IDF was attacking PA policemen near the woman and kids, rather than targetting their vehicle. And yes, the kids' death is a tragedy. But as for the woman, she knew the man she married was devoting himself to killing Israeli civilians. That makes her death borderline poetic justice.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Good line (4.50 / 8) (#12)
by Weezul on Mon Mar 04, 2002 at 11:32:27 PM EST

<i>Israel doesn't have the ability to end this conflict with violence.</i><p>

The problem is that many Israelis do not feal they have the ability to end it with peace offers. They have tried very seriously to make peace offers, but it has never worked. So they ellected a mad man (Sharon) to kill a lot of people. I'd love say they were stupid and reactionary to ellect Sharon, but I know I'd do the same thing in their shoes.

Anyway, I think Sharon is right that there is no real hope for peace in the short term. Not with Arafat in power (and not with Sharon in power). Perhaps a real war would give the civilians on both sides the chance to regain the sences.. and get rid of their leaders?

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
[ Parent ]
If only (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by spaceghoti on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 05:43:08 AM EST

Perhaps a real war would give the civilians on both sides the chance to regain the sences...

If only the world worked this way. Unfortunately, the only thing I've ever seen violence do to people is to crystalize pre-existing conditions. People didn't walk away from Germany or Korea with a newfound well of common sense. They justified their actions and feelings by telling themselves and their neighbors what monsters the enemy was. It happens today, with Serbia and Afghanistan. War hasn't cooled things down for them, it's only destroyed lives and property. Those who survive are glad the fighting has stopped (when it does), but they're no less hostile and bitter than before. If anything, they blame other people for disrupting their lives.

I don't know what it's going to take to settle affairs between the Palestinians and Israelis. Traditionally I tend to side with the Israelis, but now I'm just sorry for them both. Whatever the provocation, neither side seems capable of stopping short of outright genocide, and I can't support that for anyone.



"Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical." -Saavik, ST: Wrath of Khan

[ Parent ]
Ending things with violence. (5.00 / 6) (#77)
by katie on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:27:54 AM EST

"Israel doesn't have the ability to end this conflict with violence"

Oh yes they do. That's the REALLY worrying thing.

They're in a situation where they can, with apparent impunity, drive armoured convoys into Palestine, dismount, establish a perimeter, demolish buildings, mount back up and drive away again.

Israel has won wars against trained military forces with armour and air support.

Killing everyone in Palestine is something they can do the minute they have the political willpower. They could probably do it before anyone else could get themselves sorted out to intervene. There'd be recriminations, motions against them in the UN. All sorts of things like that. Really, the only thing stopping those armoured convoys from just shooting every man, woman and child in the territories is their lack of will.

If Hamas keeps killing their children in pizza restaurants, they might just get that will.


That's a horrifying thought. It couldn't happen? It's been done before. We even have a term for it.
And that's why someone needs to find a solution before it happens.



[ Parent ]
RE: Ending things with violence (4.00 / 2) (#99)
by peregrin on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 02:02:19 PM EST

the only thing stopping those armoured convoys from just shooting every man, woman and child in the territories is their lack of will.

What, the same "lack of will" that prevents the US from pulvarizing Afghan cities into readioactive glass? Or maybe it's just that killing several million civilians didn't even cross anyone's mind.
Trust me, the Israelis, more than any other people, have a very strong feelings about genocide.

[ Parent ]
Genocide (4.00 / 1) (#155)
by katie on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 07:31:59 AM EST

Oh I'll believe they do. But what worries me is how limited their patience might be before it starts looking like a good option - after all members of their government are now advocating bombing shopping malls.

An yes, it's the same "lack of will". To be honest I'm surprised the US response has been as restrained as it has.


[ Parent ]
the great advantage.. (3.00 / 1) (#163)
by Weezul on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 03:06:05 PM EST

..of Hamas is that the Israelis are actually a very liberal people. They have some of the only well working truely socilist suc-societies in the world. They seem to continuously make peace offers in the face of people who want to drive them into the see. trust me, the U.S. would have wiped the Palisitinans out years ago and it would have come out smelling realitivly clean, ala the Native Americans. I don't think it's really very likely that the Israelis would commit genocide without seeing a real threat to themselves, ala chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. OTOH, a terrorist attack on Israel with a meapon of mass distruction could result in a pseudo-genocidal responce.

Actually, the thing I'd be more affraid of is that some rich western individual would descide to take matters into his own hands. It would not be very difficult for a sufficently rich individual to worm his way into control over Palistinian water supplies.. and insert people who would release lethal slow acting toxins at some point in the future. A western group bent on genocide (and with sufficent resources) could be absolutly devistating.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
[ Parent ]
Leave the children out of this. (4.57 / 7) (#28)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:36:58 AM EST

Both sides are rightly outraged about their children been killed in the mindless violence.

Both sides seem pretty oblivious when it comes to kill children from the other side. Oh you know, is the war. It is regrettable but unavoidable to kill children from the other side, but it is the most hineous crime if our children are killed. Well, no and yes I would say (both are getting what you are inflicting, what could be more macabrely fearer than that?). The problem is that both sides believe that both affirmations are true when told loud.

No side has any moral ground to even mention the welfare of the children. Both sides have shown with facts, not with retoric, that they do not care about such niceties.
---
"At eighteen our convictions are hills from which we look;
at forty-five they are caves in which we hide." F. Scott Fitzgerald.
[ Parent ]
This is why the conflict goes on... (4.33 / 3) (#33)
by eyeflare on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 05:13:39 AM EST

And it's the same reason the conflict in Northern Ireland goes on:

We are allowed to kill you it is an act of war and if civilians get caught in the middle that's just war, but if you kill us or our civilians it is an atrocity.

Neither side sees that they won't get sympathy from the opposition for their civilian losses as long as they inflict further such on the other side.
"There is no way to peace; peace is the way." -A. J. Muste
[ Parent ]
Jails -- are they any left?! (4.66 / 3) (#39)
by beak on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 06:18:57 AM EST

    1. get Arafat to arrest the Hamas men. That is futile. Arafat releases them whenever he feels like it.
Or even if they are arrested, Israel bombs the jail they are in in an assasination attempt, misses the 'target', and allows them (and any other prisoners) to escape... Or it bombs any jails and police stations just to 'put pressure'.

I cannot see how Israel can insist that the PA should provide security for Israel, while it attacks the very infrastructure that is required for this task.



[ Parent ]

Ummm, no. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by ffalcon on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:17:40 AM EST

Or even if they are arrested, Israel bombs the jail they are in in an assasination attempt, misses the 'target', and allows them (and any other prisoners) to escape...
When the jails are bombed the PA release all the prisoners . . . except those accused of collaborating with Israel.

[ Parent ]
Doesn't matter. (2.50 / 4) (#75)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:25:16 AM EST

Arafat was playing the revlovling door game long before Israeli retaliation against the jails.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
targeting children (4.40 / 5) (#51)
by ooch on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 09:56:00 AM EST

Only yesterday the Israeli tried to assasinate a Hamas leader of whom they knew he allways picks up his children from school at a certain time. Unfortunately, yesterday his wife picked the children up, so now besides having four children dead, we have a hamas leader bound for revenge. So, don' start taking the moral highground on the issue of targeting children.

[ Parent ]
Moral High Ground (4.00 / 5) (#72)
by jethro on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:21:09 AM EST

When the Israeli military kills children and/or civilians, the facts are not hidden from the media or the Israeli people. It is immediately labeled as a grevious error and causes embaressment to the military, and the Israeli people as a whole (yes, we feel terrible about it). Effors are taken to prevent these occurances.

The Israeli military does not target children. In contrast, Palestinian terrorists do target children, and other innocent civilians. They do this on purpose, and celebrate when innocent children are killed (the terrorist groups, not all Palestinians, mind).

This is where the moral high-ground is for me. The choice is between (A) We killed children by mistake, we feel horrible about it and we apologize, and (B) We killed more of the infadel children who were our opressors, rejoice!

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
[ Parent ]
Jewish terrorist group just targetted children. (3.66 / 3) (#101)
by ooch on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 02:59:47 PM EST

There goes your moral high-ground: A Jewish terrorist group just claimed a terrorist attack on a palestinian school in east-Jerusalem. Accordingly because of the Israeli children killed in the last few days.

I do not believe it is a mistake when a tank targets an ambulance, I do not believe it is a mistake when a tank fires at an civilian car filled with women and children. They hoped to assasinate a Hamas-leader, thinking he was picking up his children from school.

If the Israeli's do have a moral high-ground, it is still very very low ground.

[ Parent ]

There goes *his* moral high ground? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
by ariux on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 09:37:40 PM EST

People who share a word are not necessarily alike. In fact, by assuming otherwise, you fall into the same trap that the worst of the locals do.

If this were Kach vs. Hamas in a big empty room, I'd happily just lock the door and wait for the gunfire to die off inside.

The problem is, the butchers on both sides are dragging entire populations, complete with farmers, lawyers, traders, doctors, and babies, into this pointless bloodbath; and the many who hate the bloodshed haven't yet figured out that the extremists, all the extremists, are their real enemies.

The reason the silent, hurting majorities haven't figured this out is that, like you, they are blinded by the words "Arab" and "Jew."

[ Parent ]

not sure (4.00 / 3) (#189)
by poemofatic on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 09:37:56 AM EST

if you're trolling or not, but i'll bite.

Israel does target civilians, and has in many ways:

IDF has a policy of firing high caliber rounds into apartment buildings which are in "the general direction" from which sniper fire is observed. Many of the 1000+ Palestinian deaths occured this way, as people were killed sitting in their living rooms.

IDF snipers also shoot into the homes of buildings which adjoin settlements, killing civilians.

IDF tanks shoot at cars and ambulances in city intersections, killing civilians.

IDF jets fire missiles at apartment complexes, often lkevelling them entirely. This kills civilians.

IDF soldiers shoot into crowds of protestors, with live ammunition, killing civilians.

To quote from a recent Human Rights Watch report (2001 report):

Within three weeks, more than 120 Palestinians were killed and over 4,800 injured in clashes with Israeli security forces that began on September 29. Most of the deaths were the result of excessive, and often indiscriminate, use of lethal force by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers, police, and border police against unarmed civilian demonstrators, including children.

Moreover, IDF planes and jets routinely destroyed homes and flats in Lebanon, not to mention the shelling of Palestinian refugee camps which has gone on for about 40 years.

Check Amnesty International, or Human Rights Watch for details if you're not actually trolling.

On a strategic level, that Israel targets civilians is a no brainer. It wants land, but not the people on the land.
--Hence the ethnic cleansing of 1948, which was spurred by a few well publicized massacres of civilians.
--Hence the policy of shooting the refugees who tried to return to their lands after the ceasefire. That's killing civilians.
--Hence the targetting of the population in the invasion of Lebanon (1978, 1982)

In fact, the generals/prime-ministers understand this, that their war is basically against civilians, and so when Sharon speaks of "hitting them hard," he is not referring to some mythical Palestinian Army, but to Palestinian civilians, who as a whole, don't appreciate living without rights under military rule. If you realize this, then some facts will start to make sense. Namely, that about half of the Palestinians killed were murdered in their own homes, not participating in any demostration. That about half of those killed were children, aged 16 or less. And 80% of those killed by Israeli soldiers were unarmed.



[ Parent ]

Arafat (3.85 / 14) (#10)
by Weezul on Mon Mar 04, 2002 at 11:20:32 PM EST

First, I should say that I dislike Sharon and I don't think he is a very good leader for Israel. Still, the conflict would move closer to resolution if Arafat was removed from power. Indeed, Israel dose not need to (or want?) install a leader who "values Israeli security" as you wrongly claim. All Israel needs is to let he Palistinians actually ellect leaders and keep on ellecting leaders every few years! Shure, the palistinians might ellect terrorists the first time arround, but the Palistinians would eventually ellect peace supporting leaders.. as the Israelis have done so many times in the past.

I think Israeli and Palisitinians would have already managed to simultaniously ellect real peace supporters if the Palistinians did not have Arafat running the whole show. Dictators just don't make good peace negotiators. Especially, when they know they might get deposed for making a deal. Ellected officials need to answer to the general public, not just the millitary (or terrorists in the palistinians case).

btw> The best opertunity would be for some Islamic group to be the ones to kill Arafat. At least that way he could do some good, by appearing to die for the cause of peace. If Israel deposes him, there will be a time period where the fighting just goes on and on and on, but the peace process would still be in sight if the PA had ellections periodically. I'd say it would even by progress if Israel (a) killed Arafat, (b) promisses not to attack the PA during the ellection month, and (c) kept that promis.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
Re: Arafat (4.00 / 4) (#63)
by jethro on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:51:38 AM EST

btw> The best opertunity would be for some Islamic group to be the ones to kill Arafat. ... If Israel deposes him, there will be a time period where the fighting just goes on and on and on
No matter who kills Arafat, Israel will most definately be blamed for it. Even if the HAMAS kills Arafat. Hell, Israel will get blamed if Arafat dies of natural causes. Hell, Israel will get blamed even if Arafat publically commits suicide, live on TV, after reading a brief statement saying "Don't blame Israel for this".

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
[ Parent ]
not really anything new (4.44 / 9) (#11)
by cicero on Mon Mar 04, 2002 at 11:29:52 PM EST

David Ben-Gurion was notorious for saying this sort of thing. It was his view that as long as the palestinians (or the arabs in general) felt that they had a chance of success with their rebelion, then peace would not be possible. It would be only after they "realized" the futility of resistance that they would be able to come to an agreement. I can provide quotes later if you're interested.




--
I am sorry Cisco, for Microsoft has found a new RPC flaw - tonight your e0 shall be stretched wide like goatse.
It is a war, you know (3.50 / 12) (#15)
by uriyan on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 12:03:21 AM EST

First of all, Israel (Ariel Sharon and about 80% of Israelis) maintain that the desire for security comes before all: Israel is not going to negotiate with people (e.g. Yasser Arafat) who consider it legitimate to combine diplomacy and terrorism. Remember it's his own Fatah that is responsible for the lion's share of attacks, on both civilians and soldiers. There can be no negotiations as long as Arafat's own forces continue acts of violence.

Secondly, if the Palestinians really want to wage a war against Israel (as they have been doing for quite a while now), they must not complain about Israel's attacks. It doesn't matter who's right or wrong in the conflict - as long as they continue to kill soldiers and civilians, Israel will continue to target their soldiers and civilians might get hurt as well. It is only ironical that the Palestinians could have been in their own state by now, but have done anything on they behalf to prevent that.


gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


Civilization (3.66 / 6) (#20)
by marx on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 02:45:42 AM EST

There can be no negotiations as long as Arafat's own forces continue acts of violence.

And there can be no negotiations as long as Sharon's forces continue acts of violence.

So you'll have an endless war until everyone is dead. Way to go.

Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
[ Parent ]

Not quite (3.66 / 3) (#34)
by kzin on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 05:22:54 AM EST

There's another option: both Israeli and Palestinian military acts can stop, and we'd have some sort of a tense but quiet ceasefire. Negotiations can start afterwards, there's no rush, because stopping violence by both sides does not necessitate returning to the negotation table immidiately as you imply. There have been several attempts for such ceasefires, but the Palestinians supported them halfheartedly at best.

Sharon's policy has always been "no negotiation under fire", while Arafat is saying "come to negotiate, and we'll talk about stopping the violence as well". That is, Israel should at least open the way for concessions additional to those already made in previous agreements before a serious ceasefire. Since most Israelis have very little trust for Arafat, to say the least, this offer usually sees very little Israeli popular support.

[ Parent ]

Arafat's negotiations (4.66 / 3) (#36)
by spaceghoti on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 06:00:25 AM EST

Arafat has been negotiating for years, and the negotiations keep breaking down because Palestinians keep escalating violence again. Israel accuses Arafat of using terrorists as bargaining chips in his negotiations, and world opinion seems to agree (or it did, if my memory serves). Now Arafat is facing a leader elected to respond to violence with violence, and that's what's happening. I can't say I approve of any of it, but I know Arafat has very little credibility with his negotiations.

Personally, I believe Arafat needs to pull back the Palestinians before anyone will take his promises seriously. Whatever fault lies with Israel (and they are not blameless), I think Arafat needs to make the first concession.



"Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical." -Saavik, ST: Wrath of Khan

[ Parent ]
Several corrections (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by idanso on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 09:10:15 AM EST

I would say that neither side fully supported the "ceasefires".

In all previous "ceasefires", there were serious violations by BOTH the Palestinian side and the Israeli side.

Point is, the Israeli media barely mentioned our own cease fire violations, so it always seems "the palestinian fault".

Also, ceasefires are easy to enforce on the Israeli army, because there is one major military entity, tightly controlled by the government.

In the palestinian side, there are several major military entities(Hamas, Fatah), so for a ceasefire to work, they must all agree to keep it.

It happened in the past, however, Sharon soon broke it by "targetted killing" of militias leaders(And soon promised us "a new wave of terrorism")




[ Parent ]
What kills cease-fires: (4.00 / 1) (#135)
by ariux on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 09:42:53 PM EST

On the Palestinian side, terrorism; on the Israeli side, land confiscations and property destruction.

If either side would start confining their military action to action solely against the opposing military, a respite for the broader populations might develop.

[ Parent ]

Cease-fire? (3.66 / 3) (#40)
by uriyan on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 06:29:05 AM EST

And there can be no negotiations as long as Sharon's forces continue acts of violence.

There's something that's called cease-fire, you know. The difference between Israel and the Palestinians in the cease-fires that have been declared so far was that Israel actually ceased fire, and the Palestinians released more terrorists from prisons, who then attacked Israel prompting for an Israeli response.


gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


[ Parent ]
Israel breaks cease fires too... (3.50 / 2) (#42)
by beak on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 07:35:49 AM EST

Some recent cease fires which were adopted even by the hard-liner groups not affiliated to Arafat such as Hamas, were broken by the Israelis performing a 'targetted killing' in the lull, triggering a revenge attack.

[ Parent ]
Targetted killings (4.00 / 1) (#80)
by katie on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:31:11 AM EST

I know the "it's his fault, no it's his" game gets a bit boring, but I seem to remember someone getting shot? A tourism minister or something?




[ Parent ]
Zeehvi (none / 0) (#216)
by Vs on Mon Mar 11, 2002 at 02:43:33 PM EST

Yes, he was tourism minister, but he was extremely right-wing and favoured more settlements in the occupied territories. You can find more on him on BBCs site.
--
Where are the immoderate submissions?
[ Parent ]
Ha Ha Ha! (2.00 / 2) (#49)
by idanso on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 09:27:12 AM EST

Actually it's kind of sad.

Every month or so Sharon finds a new "cure" for terrorism.

After many negotiations we reach some kind of a cease fire accepted by most if not all palestinian militias.

Then we in Tel-aviv and Jerusalem can finally walk safely in the streets.

The next thing, Sharon starts a set of "targetted killing".

A few days later Sharon gets the expected results, Hamas send some suicide bombers, and the ceasefire he so hated is over.


[ Parent ]
Israelis cease; Palestinians fire. (2.40 / 5) (#89)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 12:55:16 PM EST

That's how a cease fire works in the region.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Do you mean seize? (1.00 / 1) (#138)
by martingale on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:48:47 PM EST

Israeli [settlers] seize [disputed land], Palestinians fire [on them].

Oh well, and I thought I wasn't going to troll back...



[ Parent ]
Pharoah, Pharoah! (4.57 / 7) (#17)
by John Milton on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 01:29:46 AM EST

Anyone else noticed that Let My People Go is only inspiring when you're singing it. Seriously, I'm not too fond of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. I'm the first person to support a Palestinian state, but even I can't blame Israel. Arafat's attempts at peace haven't gotten anywhere. It would be different if he was trying for peace instead of chumming around with the radical factions, but he's not.

Maybe a little violence will convince those on both side to try for peace. Maybe not. Really, I don't care any more. I've used up all my sympathy for both sides, and I really don't care what they do to each other anymore. They deserve all of the sorrow that they inflict on each other. It's not even worth sorting out their claims, because their exactly alike. They both point fingers at the other sides violence whilst claiming that their own is merely self-defense.

It's interesting that nation of Israel's defining historical characteristic was their unwillingness to be ruled. They sat uneasy underneath every empire and government that would have them. They would have survived underneath the Babylonians if they had just paid tribute instead of their futile attempts to revolt. From the Maccabees to their pioneering efforts in terrorism against the Roman oppressors to their hostile takeover of the Jewish homeland, they seem to have more in common with the Palestinians than they think. Perhaps that's where the hatred lies. Maybe they see a little too much of themselves.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


black and white in a grey world (4.66 / 6) (#64)
by killmepleez on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:53:24 AM EST

Maybe a little violence will convince those on both side to try for peace. Maybe not. Really, I don't care any more. I've used up all my sympathy for both sides, and I really don't care what they do to each other anymore. They deserve all of the sorrow that they inflict on each other. It's not even worth sorting out their claims, because their exactly alike. They both point fingers at the other sides violence whilst claiming that their own is merely self-defense.
in lamenting the hopelessness of the "us vs. them" mentality, you have adopted an "us vs. them" mentality. it does not serve the discussion to stipulate that "they deserve all the sorrow that they inflict on each other", unless you can provide us with evidence that the sorrow in question has only been experienced by murderous Israeli warhawks and murderous Palestinian bombers. yet this is not the case, neither for friends enjoying an afternoon drink at the cafe nor for families whose homes become targets for political gain. how is it that you have become convinced that every human being living in israel/palestine is violent beyond redemption and seeks only to inflict further suffering on their fellow humans?

when one can no longer see any solution, it is easy to find "sour grapes" justification for not caring anymore. the dissonance between What Is and What Could Be often makes naive romantics into the deepest cynics. i frequently fall into the same state, especially as it pertains to perpetual racial / ethnic / religious violence. i only intend to remind you, as i must always remind myself, that, if we are to hold to any standard of decency [whether it be human worth due to an endowment as creatures of God or whether it be human worth due to a secular understanding of civil liberties], we can ill afford to tell ourselves that it is alright to throw up our hands because it really doesn't matter anyway.

because if things really are that hopeless, we should welcome the terrorists' bombs and the governments' guns as blessed relief from an evil world.

__
"I instantly realized that everything in my life that I thought was unfixable was totally fixable - except for having just jumped."
--from "Jumpers" in The New Yorker, October 13, 2003.
[ Parent ]
Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#125)
by John Milton on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 06:38:04 PM EST

It was a generalization. I'm not saying that the individuals deserve any of that. I was just throwing up my hands at what seem to be two groups of children. The problem isn't people not seeking peace or people not wanting peace. The problem is one of people seeking peace while other people aren't and people seeking peace when the people who are aren't in power. When Israel and Palestine both have leaders seeking peace at the same moment we'll see an end to this. Until that simultaneity occurs, our best efforts are just damage control.


"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should Treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." -Elizabeth Cady Stanton


[ Parent ]
What is it about the middle east? (4.62 / 8) (#18)
by Hopfrog on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 02:18:14 AM EST

Why do we keep hearing about this conflict? What is so important about it, when as many people are dying in Congo, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, Western Sahara, etc?

These other countries also have dictators, also have terrorists.

Hop.

Because (5.00 / 7) (#19)
by streetlawyer on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 02:21:44 AM EST

It involves Israel, which is a country with a large population of expatriate Americans and Britons, which has nuclear weapons, and which is (full all its millions of faults) the only democracy (if you can call it a democracy) in the region that supplies some ungodly percentage of the world's oil. I'd love to read more articles about Congo and Sri Lanka. But given how hard it is to get major news outlets to care about foreign news at all, I'll take what we get.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
"Civilised" (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by Vs on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 03:20:58 AM EST

To sum things up, it's "civilized" by the latest definition.
--
Where are the immoderate submissions?
[ Parent ]
Only Middle Eastern Democracy? (4.66 / 3) (#37)
by beak on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 06:03:00 AM EST

I hear the line that Israel is good and deserves to be the friend of the west because it is the only middle eastern democracy being parrotted many times...

In fact, there is at least one country in the middle east who is a democracy, and has regular free and reasonably fair elections: Lebanon (and Turkey depending on your definition of 'Middle East). But this gets always gets forgotton about...

In addition, I feel that the rules of it's democracy makes the situation worse than it is: the only way to from a government in Israel is to form a coalition with the extreme right wing parties that hold the balence of power. This leads to these parties having perhaps a disproportionate voice in the government... (for an example, see the comments from Avigdor Liberman in the security cabinet who wants to bomb Palestinian shopping centers and petrol stations [from Israeli Radio via BBC News]

As an aside, the people of South Lebanon got to vote for the first time in 20 years last year... Guess who was preventing them from voting before?

[ Parent ]

Civil War? Syrian Occupation? (5.00 / 3) (#61)
by sonovel on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:49:53 AM EST

Did I guess right?

I mean the Civil War started before Israeli occupation, so Israeli occupation didn't destroy the democracy.

Also, Israeli occupation has ended but Syrian occuparion continued afterward. I think it is still ongoing, right?

Why do we never hear about the Syrian occupation?

Is is because many in the middle east hate Israel and Jews much more than they love their neighbors?



[ Parent ]
Syrians in lebanon because... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by beak on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 01:25:27 PM EST

This is getting a bit off topic, but...

The Syrian soldiers in Lebanon are as much of an occupation force as US soldiers in Saudi Arabia...

Their original prescence of the Syrians was supposedly requested by the government during the Civil war. Noone in power has yet formally asked them to leave (but their visible influence has decreased a lot in the last few years).

There are a lot of Lebanese that don't want the (currently 20,000) Syrian soldiers in Lebanon, nor the influences in foreign policy. However, there are also those that are in favour.

The Civil war didn't destroy the democracy -- it didn't even change the basic rules of it! (And no, Israel didn't cause the civil war, but perhaps the existance of Palestinian refugees helped it to occur).

So... my point/question still stands: why does Lebanon always get forgotten about when 'The only middle eastern democracy' is parroted around...

[ Parent ]

Whoa (4.50 / 2) (#82)
by thenerd on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 12:02:46 PM EST

I checked out the BBC news link and found this incredible stuff:

Israel radio said Mr Liberman went further, urging the bombing of Palestinian civilian targets such as shopping centres and petrol stations.

This would force the Palestinians to surrender and to agree to a cease-fire, he said.

Foreign Minister Shimon Peres' reply was harsh. He warned that "if the ministers were to pursue that course of action, they would end up like Milosevic at the Hague," the radio reported.

"I do not care", Mr Liberman replied.

Well hey, that's rational. Thanks Mr Liberman, that really helps!

thenerd.

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't be so excited over this if I were you (4.00 / 2) (#192)
by IdentityCrisis on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 10:02:03 AM EST

Knowing liberman, he is one of the most stupid and fascist MPs in Israel.
His statements are so unrealistic and fascist that most ignore them over here.


[ Parent ]
Almost no Americans OR Britons (sorry) (4.00 / 1) (#154)
by nidarus on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 06:20:32 AM EST

Almost all of the Jewish population in Israel is composed of expatriates from eastern Europe, Ethiopia, Argentina, and Arab countries (such as Marocco and Yemen).

The amount of repatriates from English-speaking countries is miniscule.

[ Parent ]

About 146,000 (4.00 / 1) (#156)
by i on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 07:55:15 AM EST

from UK, North America (that's US and Canada) and Oceania (that's AU and NZ mostly). More than, say, from Argentina (52,000) or Ethiopia (78,000). Source: www.cbs.gov.il

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]
Oil,oil,oil! (3.00 / 1) (#24)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:24:28 AM EST

Your car, your car, your car.
Your heating, your heating, your heating.
Your flight to $FAVORITE_VACATION_SPOT

Wait that the Democratic Republic of Bananatustan gets oil and then you'll see that the world notices it.

Seriously, Chechnya, Sri Lanka and many other places affect people around the world in a smaller scale. What happens in the middle east can affect many countries around the world, as it actually did in the 70s.
---
"At eighteen our convictions are hills from which we look;
at forty-five they are caves in which we hide." F. Scott Fitzgerald.
[ Parent ]
Oil? (3.50 / 4) (#27)
by eyeflare on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:31:58 AM EST

There is oil in Israel / Palestine?

Israel "depends on imports of crude oil, grains, raw materials, and military equipment." From CIA Factbook.

Blaming stuff like this on vested oil interests is a gross oversimplification of the issue. Cultural bonds and an effect on the lives of us in the west are more probable causes for the medias high level of attention to the Middle East.

<sarcasm>And of course, all the media is owned by the Zionist conspiracy anyway</sarcasm>
"There is no way to peace; peace is the way." -A. J. Muste
[ Parent ]
Oh pleeeease. (4.00 / 1) (#29)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:41:27 AM EST

Israel sits close to several oil producing countries that mostly sympythize with the Palestinian cause.
---
"At eighteen our convictions are hills from which we look;
at forty-five they are caves in which we hide." F. Scott Fitzgerald.
[ Parent ]
True, but... (4.00 / 2) (#32)
by eyeflare on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:55:26 AM EST

However, have you ever seen any notices of problems sourcing oil from these same countries? Despite the wests overwhelming support for Israel?

I think the oil interest angle is valid regarding Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, and other areas of the world. But in regards to Israel, I don't see it as very important. Unless a full scale war breaks out between Israel and Palestine (and possibly neighboring countries) and for some unexplicable reason the Israeli military wouldn't be able to annihilate the opposition. Not likely to happen since the power balance is clearly in Israel's favor.

Remember also that the neighboring countries who sympathize with the Palestinian cause finance this sympathy with US and European money. By way of selling oil to us.

In my longwinded way I'm trying to say that the oil supply from the Middle East is in no danger of running dry.
"There is no way to peace; peace is the way." -A. J. Muste
[ Parent ]
ever heard about recent history? (4.00 / 1) (#185)
by linca on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 08:43:01 AM EST

You know, in 1973, the OPEC countries, mainly from the middle east, forming a near-monopoly on oil production, decided to quadruple the price of Oil. Because of troubles in Israel. Same thing happened in '79. That's what stopped the prosperity of the 60's. The world economies were in crisis ; BTW, that is the crisis that put back the free-trade theories of economics back into fashion. So yes, events in Israel can have an influence on you...

[ Parent ]
So the U.S isn't motivated by oil? (4.50 / 2) (#57)
by sonovel on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:44:39 AM EST

If this conflict is important to the world becaue of oil, it shows hat the U.S. doesn't really care about oil.

After all, the U.S. would have a lot better relations with the oil producers if it didn't support Israel.

How do the "U.S. only cares about oil" people respond to that?

[ Parent ]
Oil (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by katie on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:59:22 AM EST

Ah yes, consistency. That most elusive of argument contents.

In the early days, the US support for Israel was not a little coupled to the fact that the US army, while storming across Europe kept finding things... that would rather not have repeated.

I think they felt a little guilty about not having arrived a couple of years earlier.

Since then, it's been more that they've always been on Israel's "side" (In the sense they give them tanks, whereas they give the arab countries trade credits).


To be honest, I can see a time, not too far from now when the US just gets bored of trying to hold the two sides apart and getting blamed for doing that.

Without any moderate control over the Israelis and the Palestinians in the mood they're in these days, things could degrade rather fast - the Israel they face today is not led by moderate people any more - If Arafat loses control of the bits of the Palestinian "military" he's currently holding back, all hell could break loose, because he does seem to be the sole voice of moderation in the region.

I think the Palestinians think the rest of the Arab world is going to ride to their rescue at that point. But personally, I'd suspect Israel's Arab neighbours are already bored of losing wars with them.

The Palestinians might be in for a very unpleasant shock when their "support" turns out to be limited to Muslim extremists burning US flags and firing AK47s into the air.

Either that or they simply don't care, and either of those would be dangerous.


[ Parent ]
If you think this is about OIL... (4.00 / 2) (#60)
by Ressev on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:46:50 AM EST

then you need to learn more about the region.

Israel actually gave up land that contained oil to Egypt (the Sinai Peninsula). There is not one drop of oil in Israel that is not imported. There was one humorous article in the Jerusalem Post recently that joked that when the Palestinians get a state they will find oil.
"Even a wise man can learn from a fool."
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." - Mark Twain
[ Parent ]

Because (1.00 / 1) (#46)
by FredBloggs on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 09:02:24 AM EST

it helps explains why 2,800 people died in the WTC incident, thats why.

[ Parent ]
WTC (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by Ken Arromdee on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 01:00:48 PM EST

Bin Laden's major complaint wasn't about Israel, it was about the US presence in Saudi Arabia (and he just wanted to replace *that* with a government at least as bad if not worse).

When he got around to mentioning Israel to gain more Arab allies, his expressed desire was to destroy it completely. Of course just having a Palestinian state and peace between Israel and Palestinians would not have mollified him.

[ Parent ]

Bin Laden is irrelevant (3.00 / 1) (#150)
by FredBloggs on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 05:16:11 AM EST

I`m not sure he even mentioned the Palestinian cause before September 11th. So the Palestinians who danced in the streets were hardly thanking him.



[ Parent ]
simple (4.50 / 2) (#184)
by poemofatic on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 08:37:02 AM EST

1) It's more appropriate that we talk about Israel than the Congo because we bear more responsibility for what happens there:

We send 5 billion/yr in military aid and loans. So when the F-16's bomb apartment buildings in Ramallah, they are our F-16's. When Apache Helicopters fire missiles into Gaza, those are our Apache Helicopters.

US policy basically created Israel, by forcing the members of DP camps after WWII to emigrate to Israel, as well as sending Israel massive military aid during the wars of 1948, 56, 67, 73, 78, 82.

2) Isreal has an advanced arsenal of nuclear weapons, as well as biological and chemical weapons. Moreover, Israel has exported the bomb to South Africa, and so has contributed to nuclear proliferation. Finally, Israel developped the bomb with US aid in the form of nuclear reactor plants + taxpayer cash.

3) It is our client state in the middle east, which has lots of oil. They usually do what we tell them to, so US public opinion has weight in the region.

4) A billion muslims are very angry about this, causing much violence. Many of this muslims are wealthy and influential, and live in Saudi Arabia. Most of the bombers in 9/11 were Saudi born.

5) the tyrannical leaders of said muslims, who control the oil, have to keep their populace in line, while maintaining the flow of oil. Their job is made more difficult because of Israel's occupation, and so middle east stability is threatened that way, too.

6) Many of the Jewish immigrants (remember: no room for the Palestinians to return) are European, and so we identify more with them than with the Congolese.

7) A lot of Christians in the US view the state of Israel as a somewhat holy entity, portending signs of the end of the world. They (effectively) believe that whatever Israel does must be unquestioningly supported, because God is on their side, so they have religious reasons for being interested in this part of the world.

8) Moreover on a cultural level, we (Americans) identify, with Israel. In many ways, we pretend to be Israel.

We circumsize our babies

We revere the 10 commandments (not the "7 laws of Noah", which are for gentiles)

Moses (Charleton Heston) is a white American.

That's why we are talking about Isreal.

[ Parent ]

hmmm (5.00 / 2) (#194)
by IdentityCrisis on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 10:17:02 AM EST

You have some fundumental mistakes in your post:

1. USA has not forced people in the DP camps after WWII to immigrate to Israel, United States didn't allow jewish immigration from Europe before the war , after the war, most of the people in the DP camps did not immigrate to Israel.

Israel did not get any military aid from the United States during the wars of 48,56 and 67
most of Israel's weapons in 48 were from Czechoslovakia and at 67 were mainly from France.

2.Israel did not develop the bomb from US aid, Israel has developed the bombed far before the US aid had started.
The nuclear reactor in Dimona was actually constructed with the help of France.

3. Israel has hardly any oil, as far as I know there's no export of oil from Israel.

4. There is no connection between fundumental terrorists like Bin Laden and ideological terrorists like the Palestinian organisations. Laden's major reason was the USA presence in Saudi Arabia.


[ Parent ]
close (2.00 / 1) (#200)
by poemofatic on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 03:59:51 PM EST

but not quite

1) The US forced jewish members of DP camps to either stay in their home countries or emigrate to Israel. Emigration to the US was forbidden, specifically in order to encourage immigration to Israel. Since most members of DP camps were not jewish, your point #1) is true, but misses the point.

2) The US was one of the first nations to recognize Israel in 48 and did provide military support, although czechoslovakia provided more official aid. most aid was not "official" i.e. govt. to govt. but private, and a large amount of private aid came from the US. by 67, the IDF was basically a branch of the US Army. Not saying that other countries didn't give aid, but it's off the map.

3) The US not only sent supplies and helped fund Dimona, but intentionally crippled the inspectors who were sent there, and helped to cover up the true purpose of the plant.

4) I never said it had oil. The arabs have oil. Israel occupies arab land. That's the point.

5) What planet do you come from? Bin Laden also widely condemned Israel, and the anti-us sentiment he tapped into is largely fueld by our rabid pro-israel position. Talk to any Saudi, Pakistani, or Egyptian, and ask him why Bin Laden is so popular. There is not just one reason, but american support of the occupation is a big part of the total reason.

[ Parent ]

not quite (4.00 / 1) (#209)
by IdentityCrisis on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 12:34:55 AM EST

1. I have a map on an atlas showing jewish immigration post-WW2, most of them immigrated to the United States.
2. Czechoslovakia didn't offer any aid, they've sold weapons. The money from the USA was not a formal aid, it was private money of jewish contributors, and it was still not enough to fund a nation's war campeign.
3.The USA at no point funded dimona, you might want to read the book "Israel and the Bomb"
4.Israel's arab occupied territories contain no oil whatsoever, the Sinai Peninsula contained a small amount of oil , but it was returned in the 79' peace with Egypt.
5. It is pretty obvious that Bin Laden blamed Israel in order to gain support in the Arabian world.
If he was so upset of Israel, why didn't he attack Israel?



[ Parent ]
correction (4.00 / 1) (#210)
by IdentityCrisis on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 12:54:28 AM EST

What I meant was:
USA has never funded the Israeli nuclear program with money.
USA's support is being silent about Israel's nuclear program.


[ Parent ]
Replace them both (4.41 / 12) (#22)
by RandomPeon on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 03:46:13 AM EST

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Arafat and Sharon both need to go ASAP. They need to go off to the Elder Statesmen Club and build houses with Carter.

Can there really be peace when one side is led by an unrepentant former terrorist and the other is led by an unrepentant war criminal? As bloodthirsty warmongers go, Sharon and Arafat are among the worst. They don't trust each other and I really can't blame them - nobody does.

There's hope if some unlikely things happen. If campaign finance reform is ever enacted, the Israelis will lose a tremendous amount of support from the US government overnight. That would result in a real third party brokering a peace process, hopefully among leaders who are better than subhuman.

I agree, but.. (4.50 / 6) (#31)
by Weezul on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:47:18 AM EST

..I've got my doubts about the claim that the U.S. could pull support for Israel and things would change.

The first thing to notice is that pulling support for Israel would mean also pulling support for Egypt. I think the deal is that support for both nations is somewhat tied to their being peaceful neighbors. I don't know that they need the support to be peaceful neighbors today, but it might also open the door for an Islamic fundamentalis government to come to power in Egypt and go to war with Israel.

The second thing to notice is that the Israelis need to maintain a significant standing army to deal with the historical threat from their neighbors. I think they have maintained this army for most of their existance without U.S. support. (Even supposing they need our support today, removing that support could tempt their neighbors to try once more.) The final point about this standing army is: When you got an Army just hanging arround you may as well kill people with it as bullets are cheap. (The U.S. is the execption to this rule as it uses 2 million dollar cruise missles where other countries would just risk personel)

This dose not mean that there could not be "hick ups" in our support for Israel, say after Sharon dose something really bad, but these could only be used to correct the very worst of behaviors without risking bigger trouble.

Luckily, there is an option that dose not involve dropping support for Israel. Support a democratic Palistinian Athority (i.e. not the current Arafat dictatorship); perhaps as an independent nation.. or 2 or 3 independent nations. I'm not shure how one dose this without supporting terrorists, but I'm shure we could figure something out eventually. It might work if we let the Israelis over see our support for the PA, as the Israeli opinion about who is a terrorist should really be the opinion you lissen to when giving potential terrorists money.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
[ Parent ]
US Support. (4.00 / 3) (#69)
by katie on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:15:52 AM EST

Actually, the thought I had was that the US could ditch support for Israel's military for a year - it won't reduce their strength THAT much.

They can use the money to buy the settlements out. The settlers get, say, $1/4 million each on condition that their next home is inside the UN resolution borders.

Yeah, a few people won't want to move right then, but I suspect it'll look like a good option the minute the US hands the land it's just bought to the Palestinians...

Tada - one side has a massive military. The other side gets the security buffer & lots of palestinians get nice homes. And the funny thing about people with nice homes is that they lose interest in backing people who blow up nice homes...



[ Parent ]
I Agree. (4.66 / 3) (#43)
by idanso on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 07:54:39 AM EST

Both of them, As well as the rest of both gangs should be sent to some island where they will be able to kick each other's butt freely.

Or even better, send both Sharon and Arafat to stand on trail for war criminals. And I'm saying that as an Israeli(My position is quite of a minority nevertheless. Most of the israelies believe to the transparent lies of Sharon).

[ Parent ]
Wow (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by RandomPeon on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 08:35:35 AM EST

And I'm saying that as an Israeli

I live in a US city which has fairly large Muslim and Jewish populations. I've given up on reading opinions and letters in the paper about the Israel-Palestinian situation - I just look at the author's name, determine the ethnicity, and read the first paragraph. There's never a new argument made. And I've never seen anyone think outside of their group's box. It was quite depressing, but now I have something to hope for.

[ Parent ]
Really? (4.66 / 3) (#124)
by cpt kangarooski on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 06:37:44 PM EST

Huh. I'm Jewish, though American, not Israeli. While neither side smells like roses, I tend to find myself more sympathetic to the Palestinians. I suppose I just prefer underdogs or something.

Certainly I don't care for the idea of Jews oppressing anyone though -- if anyone knows the folly of perpetuating such a thing, it should be us.

I could tolerate having Israel and Palestine as seperate countries if it was done properly... but I'd be far, far happier to see a single secular state established that didn't treat any particular ethnic or religious group differently, and where both had opportunities to hold power together.

I just don't 'spect I'll see such a miracle.

At any rate, I seem to recall having read a book within the last year that claimed that American Jews are increasingly growing disenchanted with Israel. I'll be damned if I can remember the title, though.

--
All my posts including this one are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
[ Parent ]
Sharon will go, but Arafat could stay a while (3.66 / 3) (#55)
by sonovel on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:38:40 AM EST

Sharon will be replaced by democratic means.

Arafat is a dictator and will stick around until he is deposed by violence or dead.


[ Parent ]
Sharon going is not a good thing (4.00 / 1) (#152)
by ehhh on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 05:42:49 AM EST

Take it from someone who lives in Israel and sees the political situation from a first hand prespective:

In the last elections, Sharon won with an outstanding 67% majority. That was due to the fact that most (67%) of our population thought Ehud Barak was too eager to compromise, and they did not trust him.

Now, after over a year of Intifada, the situation has only worsened. People I know, who were peace supporters and believers, have lost hope, and think war is the only solution.

In the upcoming elections, which will take time about a year from now, it seems the winner will be Binyamin Netanyahu, our good old warmonger.
He is plotting his way back into politics, and he already has many supporters even though he is not an official candidate (yet).

As things appear, he will win the elections, and we will have an all out war on our hands.
Personally, I think i will be moving away...


Make it idiot-proof, and someone will build a better idiot.

[ Parent ]

US medias (3.81 / 11) (#23)
by Betcour on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 03:52:08 AM EST

I've noticed that the US medias are largely in favor of Israel - they always seem to downplay Palestinian death while making big titles of Palestinian terrorism.

And speaking of terrorism, doesn't it bother anyone that Sharon and the US medias call Palestinians who shoot at Israelian soldiers terrorists ? As far as the rules of war are concerned, shooting at enemy soldiers is fair game and cannot be called terrorism !

It's not a war... (4.83 / 6) (#25)
by eyeflare on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:26:27 AM EST

and the palestinians are not recognizable as enemy soldiers. They are pretty much like the Taleban (not supposed to be inflammatory, making a parallell) in that they are not wearing insignia or uniforms (not including the Palestinian police, but not much shooting from them lately). The Israeli soldiers are recognizable as soldiers, and obvious targets wherever they go.

That said, both sides in the conflict are just wrong and should stop the insanity!
"There is no way to peace; peace is the way." -A. J. Muste
[ Parent ]
...and it is weird that it isn't. (4.66 / 6) (#79)
by thenerd on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:30:18 AM EST

I don't understand some of this.

On the one hand, Arafat has to 'stop the violence'. This is like President Bush being unequivocally made to stop murder. How could he if he wanted to? If Arafat, in all sincerity, said to whoever he is supposed to speak to in these situations, 'you will stop killing now, or I will hunt you down', the bombings would still carry on. This is because people are making their own decisions on whether to do these things, not looking to Arafat.

And yet, the palestinians are looked down on as not being soldiers. Maybe that is because they aren't, and Arafat isn't 'commanding' them like they are soldiers, to 'stop the violence', because they are just people who are so fed up of being marginalised, who out of desperation try to hurt the other side.

thenerd.

[ Parent ]

do I understand you correctly? (4.00 / 5) (#97)
by minra on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 01:56:04 PM EST

That said, both sides in the conflict are just wrong and should stop the insanity!

If you really consider both sides equally at fault, then you consider it wrong to defend your home from annexation and takeover by force and terror. If that is true, please let me know where you live.

Oh, and any resistance you offer will be considered 'terrorism'. Fair 'nuf?

Thanks!

[ Parent ]

No you don't (4.00 / 1) (#145)
by eyeflare on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 04:09:40 AM EST

Here's what I think should be done, and it's pretty simple:

1. The Palestinians stop the attacks on innocent civilians, especially as they have begun targetting victims in such a way as to incite the maximum amount of outrage on the Israeli side. Such as Hasidim jews.

2. The Israelis stop razing PA infrastructure.

3. The Israelis decommission (yeah, I see this as mostly a military venture) the settlements on the Gaza strip and the West Bank.

4. The Palestinians get back the land they lost in the 1967 land grab.

5. The palestinians grant Israelis the right to work and live in PA controlled areas, as Palestinians de facto have those rights on Israeli territory (if circumscribed since the intifada begun, understandably).

Guess what? None of those solutions seem to be possible in the public discourse of the conflict, although all of these are desired by both sides according to insiders and the leaders of the Arab League. Go figure.

And if you try to take my house my dobermann will get pissed off. I may be a pacifist, he's not ;)
"There is no way to peace; peace is the way." -A. J. Muste
[ Parent ]
Agree (none / 0) (#218)
by minra on Tue Mar 12, 2002 at 04:10:37 PM EST

agree.

No question the palestinians look like apes. That's cause they are the niggaz in this situation.

Desperately poor, cramped into refugee camps, disenfranchised, facing a blood foe with 100 times the military resources. Hmmm.

You and I would probably be suicide bombers if we grew up under those conditions.

[ Parent ]
Not only that. (4.00 / 6) (#30)
by Tezcatlipoca on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:44:23 AM EST

If anybody points out perceived faults of the Israeli goverment sooner or later somebody will call you antisemite or something of the sort.

In the mind of many Israel can do no bad.
---
"At eighteen our convictions are hills from which we look;
at forty-five they are caves in which we hide." F. Scott Fitzgerald.
[ Parent ]
Yep (4.25 / 12) (#47)
by FredBloggs on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 09:07:31 AM EST

Its often amusing to see words like `brave` and `terrorist` used differently, depending on whether or not you agree with the aims of the people concerned.
Someone who sits on a hill risking his life shooting at israeli solders is a `terrorist` and a `coward` - an American who drops bombs on people from 30,000, and who is at no risk of anything other than friendly fire (a risk we perhaps shouldnt underplay) is `brave`.
Funny old world.



[ Parent ]
But you're not allowed to say that. (3.00 / 1) (#50)
by Ranieri on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 09:44:15 AM EST

An american radio presenter (don't remember the name but it was a rather well-publicized case) got his buttocks handed to him for making a similar remark during the 9-11 aftermath.
--
Taste cold steel, feeble cannon restraint rope!
[ Parent ]
bill mahr.. (4.00 / 1) (#52)
by beez on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:15:14 AM EST

Bill Mahr of the show Politically Incorrect made a statement to that effect on his show, saying that it takes a whole LOT of courage to hijack a plane full of civilians and fly it into a building, as opposed to flying well out of the range of ground fire and dropping bombs on people you'll never see.

I'm pretty sure he got his ass handed to him over that one.

[ Parent ]
Its a shame (3.00 / 1) (#81)
by FredBloggs on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:32:01 AM EST

he didnt have a dictionary handy then!

From Dictionary.com:

brave
adj. brav∑er, brav∑est

1)Possessing or displaying courage; valiant.


Or is the dictionary another document the American right-wing are overturning page by page?


[ Parent ]
Hmm...the American Right? (1.00 / 1) (#123)
by trg83 on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 06:34:07 PM EST

It's the American right that seeks to protect documents such as the Constitution. It's incredible how little respect it gets in our country sometime.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, (none / 0) (#149)
by FredBloggs on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 05:12:25 AM EST

the first and second amendments look pretty safe in their hands.

[ Parent ]
what we need to counter... (2.00 / 1) (#58)
by The Shrubber on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:44:43 AM EST

is for some of that middle eastern oil wealth to go towards hirinng some very big Western ad agencies to explain the Palestinian point of view to the American people... there's got to be one or two guys down there willing to plunk down the millions and millions and millions for this, eh?

[ Parent ]
better yet (none / 0) (#59)
by The Shrubber on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:46:40 AM EST

what we need is to setup a non-profit agency specifically to direct this operation, not just rich oil wealth, but people willing to chip in for this sort of thing... justice on the information front

[ Parent ]
If the Palestinians want better PR, (2.87 / 8) (#88)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 12:54:09 PM EST

perhaps they should stop conducting terror attacks.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
And yet... (4.00 / 4) (#67)
by katie on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:07:25 AM EST

Of course, Al-Jazeera (however one spells the Anglicised form) is noted for it's restrained and well biased reporting of the whole thing.


I have to say, sitting in the UK with access to Sky News, ITN News, BBC News 24 and being able to compare those with CNN... the US media is... erm. How can I phrase this? Looks like it's made by the US government... the "free world" version of Pravda?

[Whereas, in a touch of humour, the BBC news technically actually *IS* made by the UK government.]



[ Parent ]
Nitpick (4.00 / 2) (#84)
by UncleMikey on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 12:46:55 PM EST

'Media' is already a plural of 'medium'. 'Medias' is a nonword.

[ Parent ]
Oh, yeah, right. (2.50 / 4) (#117)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 05:45:24 PM EST

Like when a Palestinian sniper shot a 10 month old Jewish baby in Hebron and the headline was "Toddler Dies in West Bank." For more about the "pro Israeli bias", see here.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Has anyone else noticed (3.60 / 5) (#41)
by ragnarok on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 07:25:55 AM EST

that Prez Bush came out and said that Arafat isn't doing enough to stop the Terror? Or is it just me?

We had the recent IDF incursions into Balah and Jenin refugee camps, and their reduction to rubble. We had the deaths of the mother and children in a car - obviously terrorists according to the Jerusalem Post style journalism - and a doctor in an ambulance - gee, those anaesthetics and scalpels are explosive in the wrong hands, aren't they!!! Just think how Terrifying the man waving a packet of asprins is - when he's in the sights of your gun!

It seems to me the only way Arafat could stop the Terror is if some kind European state sent him a jackpot of anti-aircraft missiles and anti-tank bazookas - or did I get it wrong, and was he actually elected by the Israelis and Americans to rule the Palestinians? I thought somehow that it was the Palestinians whose job that was.


"And it came to healed until all the gift and pow, I, the Lord, to divide; wherefore behold, all yea, I was left alone....", Joseph Smith's evil twin sister's prophecies

Yes, we've noticed plenty. (2.60 / 5) (#87)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 12:52:22 PM EST

The IDF incursions were done in order to 1. try to capture some Hamas men and 2. destroy Hamas basement bomb factories. They were perfectly justified. THe death of the woman is tragic, but then, she married a man knowing his career was devoted to killing Israeli civilians. Too damn bad for her. And as for the ambulances, Arafat's Tanzim militia has been using vans marked as ambulances for the transportation of armed men and weapons. So, ambulances do not get to bypass Israeli roadblocks any more. This ambulance driver was stupid enough to try to bypass the roadblock. Too damn bad for him too.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
morally bankrupt (3.00 / 2) (#104)
by ooch on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 03:20:20 PM EST

THe death of the woman is tragic, but then, she married a man knowing his career was devoted to killing Israeli civilians.

The death of his sister was tragic, but then, she was the sister of a man knowing his career was devoted to killing Israeli civilians. The death of his four children was tragic, but then, they were the children of a man knowing his career was devoted to killing Israeli civilians. You are morally corrupt when you try to downplay the deaths of innocent civilians like that. Do you honestly believe that being married to a potential murderer is enough ground for the death-penalty?

This ambulance driver was stupid enough to try to bypass the roadblock. Too damn bad for him too.

You are actually calling an ambulance driver living up to his hippocratic oath stupid? That man had the duty to help anyone who he could proffesionably help, and he was brave enough to risk his own life for it. People like that are my only hope for this region. It are the attitudes like yours which Hamas uses to justify its attacks on innocent civilians.

[ Parent ]

She was the sister? (1.60 / 5) (#108)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 03:54:09 PM EST

That does change it. Makes her stupid for driving his vehicle but not morally culpable for the guy's actions. As for the ambulance driver, he knew that the Israeli soldiers demand to inspect ambulances too. His reckless attempt to bypass the roadblock makes his death his own stupid fault.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
morally bankrupt (3.00 / 2) (#116)
by ooch on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 05:44:09 PM EST

THe death of the woman is tragic, but then, she married a man knowing his career was devoted to killing Israeli civilians.

The death of his sister was tragic, but then, she was the sister of a man knowing his career was devoted to killing Israeli civilians. The death of his four children was tragic, but then, they were the children of a man knowing his career was devoted to killing Israeli civilians. You are morally corrupt when you try to downplay the deaths of innocent civilians like that. Do you honestly believe that being married to a potential murderer is enough ground for the death-penalty?

This ambulance driver was stupid enough to try to bypass the roadblock. Too damn bad for him too.

You are actually calling an ambulance driver living up to his hippocratic oath stupid? That man had the duty to help anyone who he could proffesionably help, and he was brave enough to risk his own life for it. People like that are my only hope for this region. It are the attitudes like yours which Hamas uses to justify its attacks on innocent civilians.

[ Parent ]

Self defense is not immoral. (2.00 / 4) (#121)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 06:02:49 PM EST

And that is what is going on.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Not Quite... (none / 0) (#118)
by the trinidad kid on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 05:46:52 PM EST

The British papers are reporting the the Israelis have admitted that their soldiers were attempting to kill Palestinian policemen and that the wife of the Hamas man, her children, and the father and child in the car behind were not the targets.

[ Parent ]
Yes, just saw that on JPOST. (1.00 / 1) (#120)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 06:01:33 PM EST

Took a while for the news to come out.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
History Repeats itself (4.54 / 22) (#44)
by the trinidad kid on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 08:26:19 AM EST

We've been here before. Sharon launched Operation Peace In Galilee in 1983 - the aim was to drive the PLO out of Palestine and then the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories would just fall in line.

Thousands, no tens of thousands died, Arafat and the PLO went to Tunis and ... the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories ended up in the first intifada.

When the opportunity to impose a peace settlement comes along (after the Gulf War with the Soviet Union on the way out) we get the multilateral peace conference at Madrid. The Israelis don't want the PLO there so they allow the Occupied Territories to be represented by 'Jordanians' (read Hanan Ashrawi). The new Palestinian leadership were smart, well informed and well briefed and they wouldn't roll over.

Suddenly the Israelis rediscover the PLO. Arafat sends a personal team to Oslo and they cut a deal. The Declaration Of Princicples they agreed had been rejected by the Madrid team. Arafat's negotiation strategy had the following flaws:
  • the talks were conducted in English - which neither he nor his team spoke
  • they took no legal advice
  • none of the negotiators had been in Palestine since 1967 and had never even seen a settlement
  • the Palestinians had no access to maps

The Oslo process then kicks off with all the big issues relegated to the 'final status' negotiations and in the meantime the Israelis set about creating 'facts on the ground' - ie settlement and military roads. (more details about the backgound to Madrid/Oslo and the 'facts on the ground' can be found here.)

This is the map of Israeli redeployments so far.

This map shows the settlement pattern during the peace process. Note the little inset map on the left that shows the settlement trends over time.

The Israelis are inching towards a 'final status' in which Palestine consists of a small number of areas under Palestinian rule embedded in a matrix of Israeli 'security' zones. This map shows the 'generous' offer of Barak and Sharon's lattest plan. Note that Barak offered around 42% of the Occupied Territories now - the the option of talking about another 40-odd% later on, not quite the generous "97% in your hand, take it or leave it, best offer ever..." touted.

Sharon is looking for someone (or someones) to 'sign the deal' - the problem he has got is that a Palestinian state is not on offer - that is a Palestinian state in the normal sense of the world. A state that:
  • is not divided into little chunks (currently 258 little chunks)
  • a state that is not subject to economic blockade. This report shows that Gaza was totally locked down for 197 days in the first year of this intifada and partially locked down for another 162 - giving a 'generous' 6 days without any blockade.
  • a state that has borders with another country other than its traditional enemy. None of the current Israeli proposals even offer a Palestine in less than 2 pieces (West Bank and Gaza)
  • a state that is not occupied by another country - oh sorry that will be resolved at the 'final status'


There is no route to peace through a policy of grinding the Palestinians into dust and chopping Palestine into postage stamps and building a Palestinian Government with less powers than a kindergarten teacher.


Thanks... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by Doktor Merkwuerdigliebe on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:20:00 AM EST

Thanks for the maps. I had been wondering what all those proposals looked like.

Also Sprach Doktor MerkwŁrdigliebe...
[ Parent ]
So? (4.00 / 3) (#90)
by Ken Arromdee on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 12:55:23 PM EST

The 1948 partition had the whole place in pieces too.

[ Parent ]
The map of the 1948 Partition Plan (4.50 / 2) (#112)
by the trinidad kid on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:34:17 PM EST

is here. It is nothing like the current situation.

[ Parent ]
The fall 2000 peace plan (5.00 / 4) (#129)
by Adam Tarr on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 07:52:58 PM EST

If you expect Sharon to offer a reasonable long-term peace plan, you're dreaming. Sharon was elected to forcibly prevent the Palestinians from supporting terrorist activities against Israel. His "buffer zones" plans and the like should not be seen as a peace plan, they should be seen as war plans. In that context, they seem reasonable.

You show a lot of maps, but this one is the one that interests me. The map of the 2000 peace offer from Barak. (Why is it called "Barak-Sharon?" Did Sharon really have much of a hand in this plan?)

Look carefully at this for a moment. Only the light blue areas (NOT the blue triangles) are actually annexed by Israel. 94% of the West Bank goes under full civil control of Palestine, and 100% of Gaza. I don't think anyone can argue that, from a territorial perspective, this was an unreasonable plan. Palestine was even compensated for the losses in territory by being allowed to annex an equal share of Israel (the section in the Southeast corner, lengthening Palestine's border with the Jordan river).

The major sticking points in this plan were the status of Jerusalem, and the right of return. The right of return is a fairly duplicitous suggestion, since the Jews lost so much land and property (in Palestine, and to a lesser degree in the rest of the Arab world) in the decades leading up to 1948. (Note how in the arguments against Israel, history always seems to begin in 1967.) What has happened is an exchange of peoples akin to the exchanges between Greece and Turkey after the World Wars. Trying to undo this is just opening up a powder keg.

The status of Jerusalem is a bit more sticky, but I still don't see what the issue was. The Palestinians were offered civil control over virtually all the Palestinian sections of Jerusalem. What is so important about getting more than that?

If you're answer is "Jerusalem is the natural and historic Palestinian capitol" then you're ignoring history. The Palestinian people did not exist before 1967. There was never a non-Jewish state with Jerusalem as its capitol in the thousands of years since David founded the city. Nor was there any effort to establish one in the years 1948-1967. The Palestinian people deserve self-determination; I do not deny that. But to tie this to some romantic notion of a Palestinian state that has never been is not only silly, but a serious impediment to the existence of a Palestinian state. That state could be over a year old by now, but in stead we have hundreds of dead Palestinians (not to mention dead Israelis). Does anyone here really think that that loss of life was worth it for the pursual of an arbitrary ideal?

If the plan had been accepted, the casting of the Palestinians as an oppressed people would no longer be accurate or customary. This is both saddening and telling. It is saddening because, but for Arafat's wrong-headedness, we could have had peace. It is telling because, for many on the Palestinian side (and, sadly, a few on the Israeli side as well) this is not about ending the conflict in a peaceful manner. It is about driving the other from the land.

My only hope is that Sharon or his sucsessors somehow manage to quell the violence, and Arafat disappears from the scene. Then, perhaps, someone who truly wants peace for his/her people will rise to the head of the Palestinians. All that leader has to say is "we accept the Barak plan of 2000", and (provided the violence is at low ebb) public support in Israel will back it.

[ Parent ]

Weird (4.50 / 2) (#136)
by ariux on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:19:00 PM EST

I've now seen actual conflicting information. The last thing I saw presented as a map of Barak's proposal kept a strip of territory along the Jordan river, meaning that Palestine (except for a bit of Gaza seacoast) would be 100% surrounded by Israel. The map in your link says otherwise, giving Palestine a border with Jordan. Which is accurate? (And how do we know which is the accurate one?)

[ Parent ]

Clarification (5.00 / 1) (#170)
by the trinidad kid on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 06:34:40 PM EST

The map shows both proposals - the Barak plan (the so-called 97%) and the Sharon plan (about 42%).

Currently the Palestinians Authority has control over about 17% of the occupied territories with the rest being subject to 'final status' negotiations - that is in theory they 'might' be on for 100%.

The Barak plan is for the Palestinians to get 42% 'now', 3% goes to Israel and the remainder is subject to 'final status' negotiations. That 3% includes Jerusalem, the Jordanian and Egytpian borders. The Barak plan also closes down the issue of the right of return - no putting off of that to 'final status'.

The point is that whilst we have been waiting for final status the Israelis have moved thousands of settlers into the West Bank and Gaza. By the time we get to 'final status' the Israelis will have created 'security issues' in big chunks of the remainder of the West Bank that will have to be 'resolved' by concessions to the Israelis. So Barak offered what?

I have dealt with this issue in greater detail here

[ Parent ]
So what is the main issue here? (5.00 / 1) (#174)
by Adam Tarr on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 11:14:54 PM EST

First of all, if I read the map right, that 42% is almost exclusively in three large chunks. Yes, there are numerous smaller islands floating around, but it's very close to just three pieces, with only very minor adjustments (the sort of thing that seems reasonable to expect had negotiations continued) needed to make one contiguous territory in the West Bank.

What you say about these sticking points may be true... but that's not what people heard about as the divisive issues of the 2000 negotiations. The issues that got the most press were the "right of return" and naming East Jerusalem the capital. I have argued that both of these should not be the goal of the negotiations from the Palestinian perspective. I think their goal should be simple: Establish, in the West Bank and Gaza, a territory that contains the vast majority of the Palestinians; and where they have self-determination, can move freely, and are free to partake in trade and diplomacy with their neighbors.

Everything else, from military to the capital to the exact borders, should be subservient to these goals. As far as the way the people live their lives, these are the goals that matter.

[ Parent ]
I am sorry... (1.00 / 1) (#183)
by the trinidad kid on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 07:47:30 AM EST

If the right of return is not an issue what is to happen to the 3 million Palestinian refugees?

Given that Israel won 78% of pre-1948 Palestine, and the Palestinians accepted that loss in 1988 in the Algier declaration, why does peace depend on Israel getting more, another slice? And how is this Israeli statement that they only want a little bit more construed as reasonable?

The Palestinians already have 90% of the population in the 17% of the Occupied Territories that are Area A - 258 pieces, 80% less than 2kms square. One comparison is a prison where 100% of the prisoners control 95% of the territory of the prison but are still not free.

The Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories over the last 9 years since Oslo have been a massive expansion of settlements. They contol the water and allocate 80% to the settlers. In Hebron 40% of the town (pop over 100,000) has been allocated to 400 Israeli settlers.

We hear about Israel's 'security' concerns, but the Israeli military have killed nearly 1,000 Palestinians in this latest intifada - the Palestinians have genuine security concerns as well.

I have written a much longer critique of the Madrid/Oslo 'peace process' here.


[ Parent ]
Spin...Spin....Spin Spin Spin (2.00 / 4) (#53)
by Ressev on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:15:24 AM EST

Too little, too late, again.

While I disagree heavily with the PLO/Fatah I find that Sharon has made another tactical mistake. I strongly believe Netanyahu would have been a better leader in this agression started by the Palestinians. If it were not for the LAME foreign policy under the Clinton administration, we would really not have seen 9-11 or the current "intefada".

The Jerusalem Post is one of the best news sources in that region. Far better than than the New York Times.

But, as for the current violence. Sharon should have continued the targeted killings of terrorists, while keeping his forces imposing. It would have the effect of showing restraint while actually dealing with the terrorist issue that Arafat loves so much. But hey, who said the Israelis know PR as well as Arafat?

As for Netanyahu, by the time, later this year, that Sharon is booted from office, hopefully he will be elected. I doubt that anyone from Labor will get in though.

Clinton's (just like Europes) tendancy to placate the terrorist in the hopes that the terrorist will just go away or be honorable (as if a terrorist IS honorable) created 9-11 and the current bout of Palestinian violence. The idea that you give up Land (tangible) for Peace (intangible) is ludicrous. The Israelis are no innocents either. They should have done more to promote the idea that "soon" there will be a Palestinian State and forbidden any settlement building so deep in the West Bank and Gaza. It would have made for a good jesture towards the Palestinians. Meanwhile, they also should have keept their promises to the Israeli Arabs.

The PLO/Arafat should have immediately sought to re-educate and undo the anti-semetic propoganda that the "Palestinian" people were being spoon feed from birth. Arafat should have also spoken in Arabic what he spoke in english: peace. Instead he continued to build up the Palestinians with the notion that the Jews will be overcome and that the State of Israel will cease to exist (throught the Palestinian womb - Arafats proclaimed greatest weapon and the use of violence and blood).

The Israelis are not blameless, but I assure you they would not have started an intafada had Arafat taken the deal at Camp David in 2000. Arafat is an obsticle to peace, always has been and always will be. Get rid of Arafat, replace Sharon with Netanyahu and scrap the sham that is Oslo for something more realistic, timeline orientated, and goal intensive.
"Even a wise man can learn from a fool."
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." - Mark Twain

One thing (3.50 / 4) (#65)
by flimflam on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:53:31 AM EST

While I vehemently disagree with much of what you say, I don't really have the time to respond to most of your points. However, I do have to say that I'm really sick and tired of the notion that Arafat was unreasonable for rejecting the Camp David accord. It really was not a reasonable solution to the situation. It would have left Palestine as a partitioned state, unable to function completely autonomously. It sounds reasonable only to those unfamiliar with its details. (Of course Sharon's current proposal of having buffer zones is even more insultingly ridiculous. I can understand the logic of having a buffer between Palestine and Israel [though I don't agree that there should be one], but between Palestine and Jordan? It's like Israel wants its own version of Bophutatswana -- a nominally independant state that in reality is not autonomous).


-- I am always optimistic, but frankly there is no hope. --Hosni Mubarek
[ Parent ]
Very nice logic (3.33 / 6) (#54)
by murklamannen on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:18:43 AM EST

If we kill, maim and demolish the houses of the Palestinains they will surely become friendlier towards Israel!

The people who are commiting terrorist attacks are killing themselves in the process anyway, so why would they be afraid of getting killed by the Israelis?
They're probably happy to get shot by an Israeli soldier, in their minds it ensures four virgins in heaven.

Works better than you think. (1.20 / 10) (#78)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:27:56 AM EST

We're the niggers of the Palestinians. And the only niggers they're going to respect are ornery, trigger happy ones.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Debasement (3.66 / 3) (#111)
by medham on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:28:07 PM EST

When you write things like this, you lower yourself, those whom you claim to represent, all of the comment's readers, and the world generally.

The analogy is just stupid. It would make even Podhoretz cringe (for probably a wide variety of reasons). If you mean to say something like "The Palestinians only respect power," you can express such fatuousness in far more accurate and less offensive ways.

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
[ Parent ]

As if opinion matters. (2.20 / 5) (#113)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 04:48:12 PM EST

What matters is whether or not my neighbors, relatives and compatriots survive. Unlike you, we do know what rung we occupy in the Muslim World's social ladder, and we're not going to hide this.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
k5 readers (4.50 / 2) (#141)
by martingale on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 12:10:20 AM EST

What medham is getting at is that K5 readers want to (ideally) read informed, well reasoned and well written opinions, not five second soundbytes. There are plenty of other forums with different goals which people also read.

Will your well written opinion matter in the ongoing conflict? Probably not, but it sure as hell matters here.



[ Parent ]
Wow (3.00 / 2) (#165)
by minra on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 03:31:18 PM EST

Every once in a while I discover a short, pithy statement that is so utterly wrong it takes my breath away.

This one is just choice. Thanks Mr Schwarz.

Here's a crazy idea I'd like to pitch to Israelis. How about trying to get along with people?

Of course that means when you want a chunk of land, you BUY IT from the owner, rather than KILLING HIM.

Just another one of those wacky libertarian free-market ideas. I know, it'll never work.

Neat web-site, by the way. I like your style.

[ Parent ]

Yes, wow. Truth is nastier than fiction. (3.00 / 2) (#166)
by Apuleius on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 04:15:21 PM EST

Getting along with people, you ask? The Orthodox Jews of Hebron tried that. They had good relations with the Arabs, until one day in 1929, a guy showed up on a motorcycle, went to the mosque, told a rumor of a massacre of Arabs in Jerusalem (false, of course), and within two hours 63 Jews were dead. Why? Because none of them were armed.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Stop the presses! (none / 0) (#219)
by minra on Tue Mar 12, 2002 at 06:45:39 PM EST

Some Palestinians killed some Israelis!

[ Parent ]
The one and only comment that I will make on this (4.00 / 3) (#56)
by eliwap on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:39:23 AM EST

In my opinion there is two ways to get the peace process back on track.

1. The peace camps on both sides demand that their own leadership end their complicity in the violence, not the oppossing sides, and keep on demanding it until it stops.

2. Get rid of the terrorists forcibly. Get International peacekeepers into the Palestinian territories to teach them how to police and govern themselves under a "Marshal Plan."

You guys decide whats going to work.

As for me, I am very tired of this debate and reading about and listening to two old men trying to prove that they still have testosterone as they piss against the wind.

"Understanding is the basis of communications. Enlarge your mind to multiple points of view. The world is infinitely larger than your huge ego. -- Hey I said that :)"

They tried a less hawkish government (4.30 / 10) (#62)
by the original jht on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:50:20 AM EST

It was run by Ehud Barak. That's when the intifada started up again (after Arafat rejected an offer that would have gotten them virtually everything they were looking for). I think the Israeli voters looked at the results of a dovish government and decided to vote one in that would hit harder.

I have my own suggested plan that wouldn't work, since it's too sensible:

- Strict partition, with all settlements tossed out of the West Bank. Give the whole West bank to the Palestinians.

- Let them keep Gaza if they want, too.

- Jerusalem gets to be the capital of both nations, with the Old City under international administration.

- The Golan goes back to Syria, but with international troops on the Golan in between.

- No right of return. The Palestinians get one state out of this - they shouldn't get two.

- Jordan pitches in a portion of the East Bank if need be. A large number of Jordanians are Palestinian (and vice-versa), anyhow.

Normalized relations would be a requirement as part of this, but in exchange the PA would get a full UN seat.

The historical Palestine encompasses present-day Israel, plus much of Jordan and the Sinai as well. There's no need to slice off any of the Sinai as part of it (it's mainly desert anyhow), but I see no reason why Jordan shouldn't be part of the equation. The Palestinians have a stronger claim to that land than the relatively recent Hashemite dynasty.

The biggest problem with all this is that both sides have extreme factions - the Palestinian factions being much more willing to kill for the cause (the Israeli extremists mainly want to build settlements in the disputed land to try and force Israel to keep it). However, the mainstream Israeli population wants peace and/or separation. The mainstream Palestinians want Israel. As long as this is the case, peace will be difficult if not impossible. When the average person on one side will settle for half and the other sides' average person wants it all, agreement will never happen.


- -Josh Turiel
"Someday we'll all look back at this and laugh..."

Barak was a hawk that looked like a dove. (none / 0) (#68)
by idanso on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:13:54 AM EST

What you said id what the mainstream like telling people.

Mind you, It was Ehud Barak who decided to leave Camp David instead of continuing the negotiations.



[ Parent ]
There was no generous offer (4.25 / 4) (#74)
by beak on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:24:27 AM EST

Small point, but Arafat never rejected a generous offer at Camp David: There was no offer, and the non-offer suggested was not at all 'generous', requiring Arafat give up a further 20% of the West Bank, leaving a mess of islands of palestinian settlements within areas of israeli control...

Although Ehud Barak preached peace, withdrawal, Palestinian state etc and succesfully gave the impression of being a 'nice guy', in the background he was always increasing settlements, confiscating land and demolishing Palestinian houses. It is no wonder the latest Intifada started with this kind of 'partner for peace'!

ref: Gush Shalom, specifically: 12 Answers to 12 Conventional Lies, and, Baraks 'offer' - a Flash presentation

In fact Barak is now under investigation for his part in triggering the current intifada

[ Parent ]

The bottom line, though (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by the original jht on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 01:48:06 PM EST

The Israelis have had a willingness to compromise to one degree or another. Land for peace has been a staple of negotiations with various opponents since Begin and Sadat. I agree that for a full peace to happen someday the settlement issue must be resolved, and that means they must go.

But that's not the problem. It's tough to negotiate when only one partner compromises. The pattern with the PA has been of "more, more, more" - though the Israelis have encouraged it, too. The flip side is that the Palestinian leadership says one thing for the benefit of the Western audience (we can share, we just want peace and a place to live) and another thing entirely to their own people (we will not rest until we drive the Jews into the sea). If the PA wants to ultimately get anything at all, they are going to have to give up something, too. I happen to think that the most reasonable things to give up are control over Jerusalem (by internationalizing it) and the right of return. If the Israelis give up full control over Jerusalem and agree to dismantle the settlements, we could theoretically have a workable solution.

The ideal compromise generally leaves both sides with less than everything they want - that's why it's called a compromise. The Israelis need to understand this, but the Palestinians are having a lot more trouble dealing with that fact.

And if they don't come to grips that most of a loaf is better than no loaf, they're either going to die by the tens of thousands in a war or be forcibly ejected and partitioned off. Neither of which is a very good answer, I think.

- -Josh Turiel
"Someday we'll all look back at this and laugh..."

[ Parent ]
Oh, that offer certainly was generous. (1.25 / 4) (#103)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 03:14:33 PM EST

That "mess of islands" was enough to allow the Palestinians to pursue any peaceful sodial, political, or economic aspirations they have. The "mess" does not allow them to pursue any military aspirations, true enough, but then again, any peace deal with them implies that their miltiary aspirations are nil, no?


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Social, economic and political aspirations? (none / 0) (#119)
by the trinidad kid on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 05:49:29 PM EST

I have dealt with this in great detail elsewhere.

[ Parent ]
Re: They tried a less hawkish government (4.00 / 3) (#76)
by Vs on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:27:08 AM EST

They tried a less hawkish government

It was run by Ehud Barak. That's when the intifada started up again (after Arafat rejected an offer...

I do not believe that you're omitting an important detail on purpose, but you're nonetheless omitting it:

Although it was the time of Barak's government, it was Sharon's provocative visit to the Al-Aqsa precinct [Monde Diplomatique's timeline] that started this whole mess. I don't know if 'the government' was in any way involved in deciding to allow this visit, disallow it or simply judging if it would be a good idea.

But I can imagine without any difficulties that it might have been very hard for the government to contain the ensuing mess, up to the point where things get out of control.

Although I mostly understand your proposal, I'm still in doubt w/r/t the Palestinians' right to return.
--
Where are the immoderate submissions?
[ Parent ]

Bzzt. You're wrong. (2.50 / 4) (#85)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 12:47:28 PM EST

The violence began hours before Sharon's visit.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
What a difference (2.33 / 3) (#94)
by idanso on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 01:26:22 PM EST

War criminal visiting the Temple mount, a place holy to the muslim.

What did he expect? "Ahalan Uha Sahalan"(We welcome you in Arabic)?

So the police shot 5 people dead, The next day you have people protesting these 5 dead people, so you shoot them as well, and that is how the whole thing began.

[ Parent ]
Proof? (2.00 / 1) (#178)
by Vs on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 03:54:47 AM EST

You comment looks like you want to point out that the protests where indeed independant from Sharon's visit.

Even if I'm mistaken, where's the difference between knowing Sharon's decision to make his visit and indeed making this visit?
--
Where are the immoderate submissions?
[ Parent ]

War (3.10 / 10) (#83)
by zastruga on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 12:43:02 PM EST

As usual, any response to an article by shellac must begin with a factual correction. Palestinian terrorists, not Israel, broke Arafat's "ceasefire". The one, by the way, that featured the capture of the Karine A. HAMAS claimed reponsibility for killing four Israeli soldiers inside Israel on January 10th, 2002.

It's telling that shellac calls what's happening in Israel a "cycle of violence" and "conflict" but never "war". It's telling that he thinks there still exists a route to peace that doesn't entail the decisive defeat of one side or the other. shellac: Peace was tried. The Palestinians killed it. Now it's war. And the way war ends, the way war has always ended, is with one side victorious and one side vanquished. Root for the Palestinians if you like and strain every perverted fiber of your corrupt moral faculties to justify their barbaric methods, but for God's sake at least grasp that you can't go on killing a country's citizens and not expect a war with that country.

For my part, I am going to root for Israel, and if its superior power allows it to inflict more pain on Palestinian terrorists than Palestinian terrorists can inflict on it, then I say go to it. The Palestinians started this war, the Palestinians asked for this war. Let them fight like men or animals, but Israel will end this war.

Fantasist that you are, shellac, you should have no trouble imagining that Israel might end this war by surrendering and withdrawing unilaterally. What do you think would happen then? Do you really think that with no more "occupation" to "resist", "resistance" against Israel might end? All those wars the Arabs fought against Israel they fought only to "liberate" the Palestinians from Israeli oppression and give them their rights? With the same instinct those exemplary Arab nations have for the liberation and rights of their own citizens?

And if it happened like this, and the Palestinians, to no one's surprise, used their future Palestine to attack Israel, what will Israel do then? Would you be upset if they fought back? What if in the course of defending themselves, they occupied said Palestine? Would this occupation be illegal, too? Would you be there, shellac, to propose the very same brilliant solutions to the very same intractable problems? Well, then, Israel: trade the real security of land for the imaginary security of Arafat's promises of peace, and fear not. For the burning light of shellac's moral eloquence will overawe your enemies and keep your children safe!

shellac, I know it's impossible for you to conceive of this "conflict" as anything but a war of liberation, with moral points appropriately divided between "oppressors" and "freedom fighters". For you -- and those who think like you -- to conceive of it any other way would force you to confront the fact that you are supporting murderers. Of course, given that you side with cowards, there's small hope you yourself possess the courage to realize that you, in excusing, justifying, condoning, ignoring, or downplaying terrorism, license its use, not just in Israel, but everywhere. The simple, eternal, and oft-ignored lesson is that whoever does not condemn terrorism as a paramount evil and does not fight it with all his strength but instead offers moral evasions, allows its continuation. Anyone can invent rights and anyone can kill for those rights, but murder is murder is murder, though the eloquence of your defense thereof match shellac's.



Define Terrorism (3.60 / 5) (#92)
by idanso on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 01:16:21 PM EST

I mean, preventing from people food supplies, limiting their right of freedom, beating them, treating them like dogs, and bombing their cities from airplane are all kinds of terrorism.

Now who's the terrorist here? Both our fucking prime minister Sharon and his friend Arafat.

Spread your fucking racist progdagenda elsewere.

[ Parent ]
Are You Sick? (3.00 / 2) (#114)
by zastruga on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 05:17:03 PM EST

Do you really equate what Israel is doing with what the Palestinians are doing? I can give reasonable answers to every charge you level at Israel. 1) Provide evidence beyond blind assertion that Israel is depriving Palestinians of food. 2) Israel justifiably limits Palestinians freedom because some of them use it to infiltrate Israel and kill Israelis there. This isn't too different from Venezuala doing what it can to limit the "freedom" of Colombians to enter their country. 3) Beating is hardly killing. 4)Ask yourself, what would happen to a Palestinian who got lost and accidentally drove into Israel? When Israelis have done the reverse, they have been lynched. 5) Bombing empty buildings is the least Israel can do. Now, you may certainly disagree with any of the reasons or justifications I have provided and find them very weak. But if you really want to equate any of the things you've listed with terrorism, you'll have to provide at least an equally plausible justification for the terrorist who consciously walked into a crowd of mothers and babies to kill them, as happened in Jerusalem this past Saturday.



[ Parent ]
HAMAS = Palistine? (4.33 / 3) (#98)
by Funk Soul Hacker on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 02:00:42 PM EST

One group attacks isralis, and that makes apropriate any action against any palistinan?


--- Right about now, Da Funk Soul Hacker
[ Parent ]
Yes. (2.33 / 3) (#102)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 03:12:53 PM EST

When the Palestinian Authority and the general population refuse to take any action against Hamas, they all get held responsible.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
According to your logic (4.00 / 2) (#105)
by idanso on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 03:31:46 PM EST

The Israeli government and the general population refuse to take any action to end the occupation, therfore they all get held responsible.





[ Parent ]
That is the Palestinians' logic, is it not? (2.25 / 4) (#109)
by Apuleius on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 03:55:08 PM EST

What is the difference?


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
...or at least of the terrorist subset... (4.00 / 1) (#137)
by ariux on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 10:35:05 PM EST

...of Palestinians. The vast majority of the millions of them have somehow inexplicably failed to blow themselves up in Tel Aviv bistros yet.

Of course, the few who do commit this crime, think much as you think: there is no difference between my enemy and the man living next to him.

[ Parent ]

Eh? (4.00 / 2) (#157)
by A Trickster Imp on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 08:37:35 AM EST

Israel took a cue from the US government. "Palestinian Authority, arrest and stop the terrorists within your borders, or share in their fate."

Whether that's right or wrong is not my point. It is, however, a better explanation of what's going on.

They can't attack the terrorist locations they don't know about, so they attack PA and Arafat's buildings. "We don't know where these terrorists are, but you guys sure as hell do, so prove you want peace by doing something about it."


"or share in their fate"







[ Parent ]
Eh - back (2.50 / 2) (#186)
by linca on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 09:04:18 AM EST

Palestinians terrorrists are doing quitethe same. "Israel citizens, make your government stop this occupation, or share your government's fate"

This is no more nor less morally justified than what the Israel gov. is doing ; Israel citizen can, and could have, elected peacemongers ; they didn't.

[ Parent ]
"Doing my part", though I'd rather not.. (3.80 / 5) (#106)
by jet_silver on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 03:42:31 PM EST

Check out the foreign-aid-per-capita my country supplies to Israel: about a third of the US foreign-aid budget according to

www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

And we appear to be getting plenty of barbarism for our money. When you fire on kids, I don't care -who- you are, you are a fucking barbarian.

Israel will end this war.

Then may they go get on with it, but how dare you, zastruga, suggest that only the Palestinians are behaving barbarically; suggest Israel will end this war without the help of its Uncle; or suggest someone is not 'doing his part' when US (at least) taxpayers are being mulcted to pay the tab for one pack of barbarians to kill another? You should realize when you criticize shellac by saying "to conceive of it any other way would force you to confront the fact that you are supporting murderers" that who the murderers are can only be told from context. Your comment can with equal validity be asked by a Palestinian and have equal moral force.

Let it be war, then, but I'd much rather it be conducted without my (involuntary) funding. Nobody's in the right, everybody's behaving abominably and I'm deeply embarrassed that my country is paying for it.
"What they really fear is machine-gunning politicians becoming a popular sport, like skate-boarding." -Nicolas Freeling
[ Parent ]

Response (4.00 / 4) (#130)
by shellac on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 08:10:47 PM EST

There are other posts here that I think are more deserving of a response than this one. But you are naming names (8 times I think) so I guess you are trying to get personal with me. Fine.

I stand by my claim that Israel broke the most recent lull in violence. That particular incident which you linked to was one of only a few in the span of several weeks. As the article mentioned, Israel had an almost immediate violent response. The Israeli gunship attack was unprovoked. Plot a graph of the violence and you will notice a major upswing after the helicopter attack, and then you will see where I am coming from.

Now Israel did say that they conducted the attack to prevent a "spectacular" terrorist operation. If they are going to violate Palestinian sovereignty, it would be nice if they elaborated on that. And nevermind the legality and morality, what was with the timing of the attack anyway?

The rest of your response touches on racism and is rife with misleading and one-sided propaganda. Peace was tried. The Palestinians killed it.... The Palestinians started this war, the Palestinians asked for this war. A comprehensive peace, including Palestinian statehood and withdrawal of settlements, has never been tried, and Sharon started this whole deal himself on the Temple Mount.

I do support Israel's right to defend itself if attacked by independent Palestine or any Arab country. Thats not the situation, and thats not even the point of my story. Sharon wants to kill Palestinians not the terrorists that are attacking. Your racist point of view precludes you from making that distinction however.

I do not think I am a fantasist about peace, but people like you give me pause. You are for some reason brainwashed by the rhetoric of one side of the conflict. Open your eyes and help to put an end to this.

[ Parent ]

As an aside (4.00 / 8) (#86)
by Ken Arromdee on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 12:50:21 PM EST

A lot of people have responded to much of this article, but I have one more thing to add.

The aim is to increase the number of losses on the other side. Only after they've been battered, we will be able to conduct talks.

"No one ever won a war where he died for his country. You win a war when you make the other guy die for his country." --George S. Patton.

What does he think war *is*?

The Lesson the_trinidad_kid Doesn't Draw (4.13 / 15) (#100)
by zastruga on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 02:35:28 PM EST

For all who wail "War is not the answer!", please at least consider some history:

  • In the late 60's and 70's, Palestinian (then simply Arab) fedayeen infiltrated from Egypt to attack southern Israel. Ariel Sharon, with his famous Unit 101, did not appease them but killed them. After Egypt lost in 1973, the terrorism stopped and Egypt eventually signed a peace treaty with Israel.
  • In the late 60's, Arafat and his Merry Band of Fedayeen were also launching terrorists strikes from Jordan. Israel did not appease them but killed them. Then Jordan did the same. Since then, not much terrorism has come from Jordan.
  • In the late 70's and early 80's, having been kicked out of Egypt and Jordan, the Palestinian terrorists set up shop in Lebanon, using it as a base to launch terrorist attacks into Israel. As in Egypt and Jordan before, Israel did not appease them there either, but killed them, as the_trinidad_kid points out. Now, Palestinian terrorism no longer comes from Lebanon.
  • Before the Oslo Agreements, a negligible number of terrorist atrocities originated in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel invited Arafat and Company back with a promise they wouldn't get up to their old tricks. Israel did not respond militarily to the terrorist atrocities committed against it in the 90's, but instead appeased Arafat for the sake of everyone's favorite will-o'-the-wisps, Peace. To the shock of no historically-aware individual, terrorism subsequently escalated to unseen levels of barbarity.
  • Wherever Israel fought terrorism, terrorism stopped. Wherever Israel appeased it, it only increased. Just like America not seriously responding to the embassy and U.S.S. Cole bombings discouraged bin Laden from destroying the WTC not at all.

    Israel was a naive fool, but she is getting back to her senses now. Appeasement is now the answer. And if one leg of the elimination of terrorism is a strong military response, then the other, and even more important, leg is the refusal of all civilized nations to allow terrorism to succeed. In short, it is our absolute obligation to deny terrorists any hope that they can achieve their ends through terrorism. When no one any longer overlooks terrorism because he thinks the cause it serves is just, when terrorists know with total certainty that killing innocents will only hurt their cause, only then will terrorism end. Sharon is doing his part -- are you doing yours?



    You said it (4.00 / 2) (#107)
    by medham on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 03:48:32 PM EST

    Appeasement is now the answer.

    Hate it when things like that get past the censor.

    The real 'medham' has userid 6831.
    [ Parent ]

    Ah, History (3.50 / 2) (#115)
    by the trinidad kid on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 05:36:48 PM EST

    • Sharon's Unit 101 began in the Gaza region in the 50s (not the 60s and 70s). They are particularly remembered for the massacre at the refugee camp at El-Bureig in August 1953. They went on to attack Jordan in October and at Quibya killed sixty-nine civilians, two thirds of them women and children - machine gunning them in their houses. Peace on the Southern border didn't come for another 16 years after 2 more wars. In the interim (ie the 1967 war) Israel lumbered itself with a million Palestinian refugees when it conquered Gaza from Egypt.

      Note to zastruga - they're still there.

    • In the 1960s there was continual war across the Israeli-Jordanian border (ie in what is now the West Bank - it wasn't captured by Israel until 1967 - when they attacked Jordan).

      The PLO was formed in 1965. Yasser Arafat took it over when Fatah Unit, under his personal command, inflicted a rare defeat on an Israeli Army armoured unit. Israel captured about half of Jordan (what is now the West Bank) and drove a significant part of the population into Jordan which (unsurprisingly) collapsed into civil war which the King won (with some help from Israel and the US and the Brits, etc.)

      Note to zastruga - the 2 million Palestinians 'captured' from Jordan in 1967 are still there.

      The Palestian 'catastrophe' moved to Lebanon to add to the Palestinian refugees there since 1948. (Lebanon was later to fall apart in 1976 and continue in pieces since then.)

    • The Egyptians and Syrians attacked Israel in 1973 - Israel captured the Golan Heights which they still hold and as a result of which Israel and Syria remain in a state of cold war.

    • Israel first invaded Lebanon in 1978 creating 350,000 new refugees, some of whom were already Palestinian refugees from 1948. When the peace that this was going to bring mysteriously failed to materialise, Israel invaded much of the rest of Lebanon in 1983 in a operation called Peace For Galilee. Around 20,000 people were killed for small Israeli casualties. These include the 2,000 people butchered at Sabra and Chatila.

      Note to zastruga, what was Sharon doing that night?

    • "Before the Oslo agreement there was negligible terrorist activity originated in the West Bank and Gaza". Funny that, I thought there was a little thing called the intifada - remember that. Oh yes, but only 18 Israelis died between 1987 and 1990.

      Note to zastruga the 841 Palestinians (234 killed by other Palestinians) - do they count in this analysis?

    It is possible for a strong military power like Israel to physically move millions of Palestinian people with the predictably disastrous consequences for whatever country they can be moved to, but that doesn't bring anyone (Israeli or Palestinian) peace or end terrorism. Indeed doing it is terrorism.

    The Palestinians have played a bloody enough part in this roadshow of hell, nobody disputes that, but Israel has not been backward in bringing down chaos and murder on the region.

    The latest attempt to bring peace to the Middle East by sending tanks and aircraft into refugee camps inhabited continuously since 1948 is many things, but likely to bring peace is not one of them.


    [ Parent ]
    Let's get the facts straight (4.00 / 1) (#139)
    by uriyan on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 11:53:04 PM EST

    Sharon's Unit 101 began in the Gaza region in the 50s (not the 60s and 70s)

    Unit 101 was set up to fight Fedayin infilitrators, who were massacring Jewish civilians. Since the Egyptians actively backed them and trying to convince them otherwise was to no avail, Unit 101 attacked both military and civilian targets. But why do you ask for Israel to respect the civilians of the other side when the other side does not respect Israel's?

    Yasser Arafat took it over when Fatah Unit, under his personal command, inflicted a rare defeat on an Israeli Army armoured unit. Israel captured about half of Jordan (what is now the West Bank) and drove a significant part of the population into Jordan which (unsurprisingly) collapsed into civil war which the King won (with some help from Israel and the US and the Brits, etc.)

    Never heard that; Mr. Arafat's first activities were related to blowing up Israeli water pipes in the north, with not so much success.

    The Egyptians and Syrians attacked Israel in 1973 - Israel captured the Golan Heights which they still hold and as a result of which Israel and Syria remain in a state of cold war.

    Incorrect. The Golan Heights were captured in 1967; Israel and Syria are in a cease-fire that is in place since the spring of 1974.

    Israel first invaded Lebanon in 1978 creating 350,000 new refugees

    Again incorrect; first incursion (Operation Litani) included Israeli forces going in about 30 kilometers (up to the Litani river) and then returning within several weeks. It was aimed against terrorists that infiltrated Israeli territory and shelled it. Among other things, they're responsible for the deaths of more than 40 schoolchildren at Maalot. The second invasion was in 1982.

    Note to zastruga the 841 Palestinians (234 killed by other Palestinians) - do they count in this analysis?

    The question which side has more casualties is irrelevant to the question which side is responsible for the war. As you may know, Palestinians are masters of suicidal attacks and not only using bombs.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Hmm. (3.00 / 1) (#140)
    by ariux on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 12:05:10 AM EST

    why do you ask for Israel to respect the civilians of the other side when the other side does not respect Israel's?

    Why does Israel ask the other side to respect civilians if Israel itself does not?

    Plus, it's counterproductive, because it turns nonthreatening civilians into more desperate, dangeous killers, by giving them nothing to lose.

    [ Parent ]

    It's the 50s we're talking about (4.00 / 1) (#144)
    by uriyan on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 02:44:08 AM EST

    Why does Israel ask the other side to respect civilians if Israel itself does not?

    We're talking about events of the 1950s, when the Egyptians and Jordanians deliberately initiated a wave of terror attacks against Israeli civilians. My argument was that Unit 101 units were not morally unjustified.

    As to current events, unlike the Palestinians, Israel does not target civilians deliberately. Of course, innocent casulties occur, but Israel does not send suicide bombers to blow up Palestinians just because they are Palestinians.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    They do (1.00 / 1) (#151)
    by marx on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 05:24:46 AM EST

    Of course, innocent casulties occur, but Israel does not send suicide bombers to blow up Palestinians just because they are Palestinians.

    Yes they do. Israel just blew up a Palestinian school. I don't think it was a suicide bomber though.

    Join me in the War on Torture: help eradicate torture from the world by holding torturers accountable.
    [ Parent ]

    No they don't (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by uriyan on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 02:01:16 PM EST

    Israel just blew up a Palestinian school

    This senseless act of violence was condemned by just about everyone in the Israeli government and public. Israel's military forces do not intentionally target civilians. It kind of contrasts when Marwan Barghouti (one of the chiefs of Arafat's security agencies) tells with pride about a fallen comrade and deputy that "fought the occupation" by making drive-by shooting attacks against civilians.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    History (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by the trinidad kid on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 06:18:42 PM EST

    There are two significant errors in my first post:
    • Firstly I totally ommitted the 1956 war where Israel, France and the UK attacked Egypt - which was just me being in a hurry...
    • Secondly, you're correct Israel occupied the Golan Heights in 1967, in 1973 the Syrians penetrated Israel defences and recaptured part of the Golan Heights, only for the Israelis to overcome them and drive on into Syria. I apologise for my mistake...

    In relation to the invasion of Lebanon, the Israelis pretended to withdraw from South Lebanon, which 'fell' under the control of Major Haddad's South Lebanese Army. Here is Robert Fisk's description of South Lebanon then:
    ...when you visited Haddad's little realm with its Israeli-made roads, its Israeli beer for sale in the shops, its Israeli food and Israeli-registered cars and Hebrew road signs, it was occasionally possible to believe that this was Israel rather than Lebanon.


    How would you describe Israeli-Syrian relations if not cold war?

    In relation to the first intifada are you seriously suggesting that Palestinian masters of suicide bombings managed to kill 609 of themselves whilst killing only 18 Israelis? It seems that the Palestinians are guilty when they murder other people (as they did at Ma'alot and Damur and that the Palestinians are also guilty when they are killed in their hundreds as they were during the first intifada, and in their thousands in Lebanon (along with thousands of innocent Lebanese as well).

    I am not disputing that the Palestinians have been violent - but so have the Israelis.

    [ Parent ]
    Two sides to a war (3.00 / 3) (#110)
    by mickwd on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 03:55:21 PM EST

    "The aim is to increase the number of losses on the other side. Only after they've been battered, we will be able to conduct talks".

    Unfortunately, this doesn't do you much good if your opponents have a similar strategy - you just end up with more dead people on both sides.

    Who and why Sharon is targeting (4.20 / 10) (#126)
    by gutigre on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 06:45:55 PM EST

    I think most people reading this article are familiar with the names "Hamas" and "Islamic Jihad". Until recently these were the two groups responsible for most terrorist attacks inside Israel.

    From 1996 to 2000, Israeli pressured Yasser Arafat and the PA to eliminate Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Because the US and other countries backed Israel on this point, and because it was in Arafat's interest to eliminate political rivals, the PA arrested many terrorists. A significantly lower number of bombings took place between 1997-2000 than between 1994-6 (though still many more than before the PA was established).

    In 2000, after the Camp David peace talks failed and almost every country blamed Arafat for being too inflexible, the PA changed tactics, deciding to use violence to get the Israeli concessions that negotiation had not led to. The model was Israel's withdrawal from its South Lebanon security zone, in the face of continuous attacks from the Hizbullah militia and no national consensus on why Israel should have been in Lebanon in the first place. In late 2000, in a successful attempt to get a violent movement started, Arafat freed all Hamas and Islamic Jihad members from his jails.

    The immediate effect, as expected, was a series of deadly bombings and shootings throughout Israel. Though the number of Israeli causalties never matched the number of Palestinians who died while rioting or attacking Israeli army positions, the attacks succeeded in causing immense pain, though most Israelis reacted by hardening their views instead of calling for surrender and withdrawal.

    Over time, targeted assassinations of Hamas/Islamic Jihad leaders, along with roadblocks limiting Palestinians' ability to enter Israel, managed to stabilize if not reduce the number of attacks by these groups. They have played very little part in the latest wave of violence. Instead, the "Al-Aksa Martyrs' Brigade" has largely taken their place.

    Unlike "traditional" terror organizations, the "Al-Aksa Martyrs' Brigade" is secular (despite the religious emphasis in its name). It is the most violent wing of the Tanzim, a larger organization which tends to limit its attacks to soldiers and settlers (two groups whose murder Europe and Arab coutries tend to condone). The Tanzim, in turn, is directly responsible to Yasser Arafat.

    Let's get back to the article, whose highlight is a quote from Sharon:

    "The aim is to increase the number of losses on the other side. Only after they've been battered, we will be able to conduct talks"
    When he only had to fight Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two opposition groups, Sharon could (and did) choose to limit his attacks to targeted killings, multiple arrests, and the invasion of bomb factories and the like. Now that the PA (through the Tanzim) is directing its full ability to staging terror attacks in downtown Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, more drastic measures are needed. And since the PA has chosen to become a terrorist organization itself, it will have to change radically before Israel can agree to negotiate with it again.

    All this has occurred since Arafat's initial decision to use violence, instead of negotiation, to further what most everyone agrees are legitimate Palestinian requests.

    If any one positive conclusion can be taken from the current Middle East mess, it is that Palestinian leadership in its current form cannot provide peace. When the Palestinians get a democratic, freely elected leadership which does not insist on "martyring" its citizens in attempt to destroy Israel, only then will a peace agreement be reached.

    No right to humiliate people (3.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Vs on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 06:18:32 AM EST

    So you do think Israeli forces may
    • humiliate people with checkposts
    • plow farmland
    • destroy civil houses (what makes them thinks it's their right to demolish them if terrorists live there?)
    • destroy public buildings, including the airport
    • shoot at children throwing stones (with the aim to at least hit the legs)
    • drop bombs in densly populated areas
    • assassinate people
    I really do not understand you, nobody (especially no government) on this whole f*cking planet should ever be allowed to do that, regardless whatever righteous claims he has or goals he's persuing.
    --
    Where are the immoderate submissions?
    [ Parent ]
    One side is forgotten (2.71 / 7) (#127)
    by deggial on Tue Mar 05, 2002 at 06:50:36 PM EST

    Strangely, nobody talks about the root of the conflict.
    Paltestinians live under military occupation; the international community ask the PA to behave as supplementary militia to IsraŽl: to ensure the security and impunity of its foe.
    The fundamental question: anyway, are the calls for the destruction of IsraŽl right? As far as I know, the land has been taken by Zionists through terrorism (even assassinating the UN envoy...), force and intimidation. The land is still taken today, to create 'buffer zones' and all. Almost all of IsraŽl is built on stolen land.
    One must face it: IsraŽl has been created by idealists, discarding the voice of the inhabitants the land. The real name for that is deportation. As long as the the palestinians recieve no compensation for the spoliation of the land and deportation, destruction of IsraŽl will be a legitimate goal.
    This said, all the burden lies on IsraŽl to build goodwill and a possibility of regional integration. Instead of that, we see more hawkish speech and arrogance from israeli officials.

    tis the way of war and civilizations (4.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Niarb on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 04:57:29 AM EST

    All of the US is on stolen land...and for that matter so is ALL of the Americas. Should the Indians seek the destruction of the Anglos in the north, the Spanish and Protegees in the south?

    And if you just go a bit further back in history (can no one see beyond June 1967? Or '48)the land around Israel was originally Jewish land... you know, after Moses left Egypt? Then Christianity sprung up and spread. Most of the Mid East and northern Africa was Christian land. Then in 600 or so BC, Islam sprung up and quickly conquered the mid east, northern Africa and even drove up into Europe into Spain and at a couple of times lay siege to Vienna.

    So by your logic, the Mid East should be turned over to the Christians, or to the Jews, or actually it should be turned over to who ever was there BEFORE the Jews.

    Ridiculous? Yeah. I agree. So is you statement.

    In 1967 the Palestinians attacked Israel, tried to drive them into the sea. But they got their asses kicked and lost land. If they hadn't tried to do that in the first place they would still have their land.

    Look at your statement and insert any of the following "One must face it: (The U.S.; Islam; Isael), has been created by idealists, discarding the voice of the inhabitants the land. The real name for that is deportation. As long as the the (Native Americans; Christians; Palestinians) recieve no compensation for the spoliation of the land and deportation, destruction of (The U.S.; Islam; Israel) will be a legitimate goal."


    [ Parent ]
    Tis the way of war and civilizations (3.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Niarb on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 05:02:11 AM EST

    All of the US is on stolen land...and for that matter so is ALL of the Americas. Should the Indians seek the destruction of the Anglos in the north, the Spanish and Protegees in the south?


    And if you just go a bit further back in history (can no one see beyond June 1967? Or '48)the land around Israel was originally Jewish land... you know, after Moses left Egypt? Then Christianity sprung up and spread. Most of the Mid East and northern Africa was Christian land. Then in 600 or so BC, Islam sprung up and quickly conquered the mid east, northern Africa and even drove up into Europe into Spain and at a couple of times lay siege to Vienna.


    So by your logic, the Mid East should be turned over to the Christians, or to the Jews, or actually it should be turned over to who ever was there BEFORE the Jews.


    Ridiculous? Yeah. I agree. So is you statement.


    In 1967 the Palestinians attacked Israel, tried to drive them into the sea. But they got their asses kicked and lost land. If they hadn't tried to do that in the first place they would still have their land.


    Look at your statement and insert any of the following "One must face it: (The U.S.; Islam; Isael), has been created by idealists, discarding the voice of the inhabitants the land. The real name for that is deportation. As long as the the (Native Americans; Christians; Palestinians) recieve no compensation for the spoliation of the land and deportation, destruction of (The U.S.; Islam; Israel) will be a legitimate goal."


    [ Parent ]
    Wrong logic (3.00 / 1) (#158)
    by deggial on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 08:54:20 AM EST

    Most of the people you talk about have reached a settlement. They have no or few revendications. Plus a factual error: Christianity and Islam didn't chase anyone away. In fact, it was empires, with a great inner diversity; nobody was forced to move.
    Add an absurdity: Zionists seized the land with a claim going back to 130 AD... Recognizing the legitimity of the Zionist claim is recognizing the right of Native Americans to expel the rest of the US, of the Tsigans to get their own independent state in India, and to define France as the celtic land...
    Then, back a few hundred years, seizing the land and killing or chasing the people was a accepted practice. The term "genocide" did not exist back then. Deprotation was OK since the 40s (think of greek's exile from Turkey).
    We are speaking about the modern era, and not trying to repair historical errors. An era where there's a right for peoples to live peacefully on their land... You must use the current refences for Human Rights when deling with the issue. Using these references, the right to a homeland was granted to Zionists who lived far away from this homeland on a claim, as I stated, dating back to 130AD, and denied to the people who lived on the land, who occupied the land SINCE 130AD... This is a batant violation.
    Yeah, sure, go back to 1500BC, the Hebrews had a right to commit a genocide... Didn't humankind change since then?
    THus definitely, IsraŽl has no right to exist. The problem becomes a bit complicated as today Israelis cannot be held responsible of their heirs deeds. The solution lies IMHO, in a strong will from IsraŽl (the state, as a moral person) to acknowledge its past errors, pay for what can be paied for (the land) and build confidence.

    Oh, on a side note: US are build on a systematic violation of treaties and genocide... as most of America, sadly. Yeah, genocide's not complete, there's still thanksgiving. :)
    Other side note: IsraŽl launched a "preventive attack" in june 1967... There was no such thing as a palestinian atack. The only time arab countries attacked (first) was 1973.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually... (2.00 / 1) (#168)
    by the trinidad kid on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 05:57:21 PM EST

    ... the Israelis attacked Syria, Egypt and Jordan in 1967...

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (4.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Peaker on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 09:34:54 PM EST

    The war was initiated by the arab countries.

    [ Parent ]
    Suppose you are right, so f_ what? (2.50 / 2) (#181)
    by pepperpusher on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 05:37:02 AM EST

    Suppose you were a german 20y.o. boy and your parents would have told you that today, what is known as france on the map was germany 50 yrs ago, would you take a bomb and blow yourself up with a few french 10yrs old kids? Does land == blood? can we transfer all israelis out to somewhere to gain peace? And when you say in the news "the violence in the mid-east" remember that there are only arab terrorist! Now I'm ot a racist, and I say even they are killers and animals (we've seen the ramallah lynch made by 1000 ppl on the streets, would it happen in a sane land to sane people?) To make my point strong I advise you to look at this page. funny, I don't recognize 1 israeli face ;)
    FBI.GOV's Most Wanted Terrorists

    [ Parent ]
    Re: "remember that there are only arab terror (3.00 / 1) (#211)
    by shellac on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 01:31:52 AM EST

    There are jewish terrorists too. They had much to do with the creation of Israel.

    In fact, they are still around today. Scroll down to the last paragraph and read: Just after the school day began this morning, a bomb went off in the playground of an Arab school in the Arab south Jerusalem neighborhood of Sour Baher. A teacher was moderately injured, and at least eight children suffered light injuries from flying glass, Israel Radio reported. The radio said an anonymous caller told police that "Revenge of the Infants"--a previously unknown group--took responsibility for the attack. The group was believed to consist of Jewish extremists.

    You claim not to be racist but your comments and misinformation suggest otherwise.

    (The confused grammar in the subject is pepperpusher's not mine.)

    [ Parent ]

    true, there are. but the ratio is 1/1000 (none / 0) (#220)
    by pepperpusher on Thu Mar 14, 2002 at 11:11:00 AM EST

    army attack on terrorist infrastructures may kill "innocents". If you have an al-quaida neighbor and your gov. doesn't do a thing to catch him you might get killed because of him. true. Baruch goldstein killed around 40 real innocent arabs at a mosque. he's a real MF son o.a.b. true. Even americans and germans have criminals and insane ppl among them. the ratio is the important thing. the gov. support for those groups is the important issue. Arab terror is something that happens 3-4 times a day here. israely terror happens once in a year maybe.

    [ Parent ]
    Bollocks to all that (2.33 / 6) (#153)
    by mirleid on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 05:55:01 AM EST

    I see people trying to discuss this issue as if the Israelis and the Palestinians are on equal terms vis-a-vis their right to be on what once used to be called Palestine.
    The fact of the matter is that one of biggest concessions ever was made by Araft: in the scope of the Oslo agreement, he actually signed a document that recognised Israel's right to exist.
    This has been one of the biggest issues all along, and the fact of the matter is that Israel was founded on territory gained through terrorism. So much so that Sharon cant travel to the UK due to his participation in the terror war against the Brits.
    Pragmatically speaking, both of the sides need to be convinced to live with each other, since deporting either side elsewhere is not really an option (not to mention being a Human Rights violation and something that Milosevic is being tried in the Hague for).
    Just dont give me that bullshit about the poor Israelis defending their country (each isnt rightfully theirs in the first place) or the about the terrorist methods used by the Palestinians to try to get their own country back (through the same methods the Israelis originally used): there is no moral high ground on this subject, this is simply a conflict run by butchers who are willing to use win through attrition...

    Chickens don't give milk
    Objection... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by uriyan on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 02:11:32 PM EST

    ... in the scope of the Oslo agreement, he actually signed a document that recognised Israel's right to exist

    I don't see this as much of a concession, after all you don't need a document recognizing your right to live - as the Arab denial of Israel's right to exist extends to the denial of each individual Jew's right to live.

    much so that Sharon cant travel to the UK due to his participation in the terror war against the Brits.

    Actually he can; he also planned to do this in a week or so but cancelled his visit due to the recent upsurge of violence. In addition Ariel Sharon never participated in terrorist activities agaisnt the British (he was a member of the Haganah, which never even directly attacked British soldiers).

    which isnt rightfully theirs in the first place

    Define "rightfully theirs": what makes a country suddenly "rightfully of its owners"? Is the United States "rightfully of the Americans"? They actually have a worse case about this than the Jews: the British didn't say at every wedding for the last 2,000 years "next year in D.C.". So if there's a criterium what is "rightfully someone's", you've certainly not hit it.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Please... (1.50 / 2) (#164)
    by mirleid on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 03:20:40 PM EST

    I don't see this as much of a concession, after all you don't need a document recognizing your right to live - as the Arab denial of Israel's right to exist extends to the denial of each individual Jew's right to live.

    This has nothing to do with the right of Jewish people to exist (which, as it so happens, they have-and so do the Palestinians). This has to do with the right of the entity commonly known as Israel to exist and occupy a certain section of what used to be called Palestine before 1945. Acknowledging that the Israel entity (not the people that live on it) have a right to exist is a major concession.

    Actually he can; he also planned to do this in a week or so but cancelled his visit due to the recent upsurge of violence. In addition Ariel Sharon never participated in terrorist activities agaisnt the British (he was a member of the Haganah, which never even directly attacked British soldiers).

    I have the reference to Sharon's actions against the British stashed away somewhere. I'll post it here as soon as find it. In the mean time, maybe you should have a look at this

    So if there's a criterium what is "rightfully someone's", you've certainly not hit it.

    Yeah, you're right regarding the definition. Putting it unequivocally, I mean to say that Isrealis occupied what was Palestine by force, forcing into exhile the people that already live there, and were only allowed to do so because the world was on a guilt-trip regarding what Hitler had done to the Jewish people (which, dont get me wrong, was an all-out attempt at wiping them out: I'm not an holocaust-denier, or condoner). If somebody would have attempted to do the same thing nowadays, they would be unequivocally classified as terrorists (like the IRA or ETA).

    Chickens don't give milk
    [ Parent ]
    Cite the Bible as authority (3.00 / 1) (#172)
    by entropist on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 08:00:03 PM EST

    When people trot out the ancient occupation of the lands of Palestine by the Hebrews as justification for "Greater Israel" remind them that the same book shows their God authorizing Assyria's conquest of all the Northern Kingdom and later the Babylonian conquest of the Southern Kingdom. The last statements of YHWH on the subject of who owns Palestine appear to strongly indicate that Hafez Assad of Syria ought now to control the northern portions of Israel and Saddam Hussein of Iraq should now control the southern areas. And what about the Midianites' ancestral rights to their lands -and Shunamites' and the Jebusites' rights- rights granted them by their prior occupation as well by their respective Gods, just as Jews now claim Palestine by right of their ancient occupation and by reason of their God's decrees? If we are going to abide by either of those as principles, we cannot apply them in one case and ignore them in other cases and still call it principle. If we're going to promote the eldest claim to the land as the privileged principle for modern ownership, then shouldn't all of Israel revert to the Canaanites?

    Hmmm I wonder who their closest living descendants are? Well we know they were Semites but not Jews, which appears to leave only one modern ethnicity as a candidate...

    If this more divine approach to justice appears unpalatable to present day Israelis then maybe they should resign themselves to giving the Palestinians land for a sovereign, contiguous state in the West Bank, be done with it, and count themselves lucky for getting off so lightly.

    [ Parent ]

    Straw man! (3.00 / 1) (#176)
    by uriyan on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 11:47:25 PM EST

    When people trot out the ancient occupation of the lands of Palestine by the Hebrews as justification for "Greater Israel"

    You've got a straw man fallacy here. I've never claimed the Bible as the justification for a "Greater Israel". I actually never claimed the Bible at all, nor did I mention the words "Greater Israel". For me, the existence of the Jewish state and its borders are two very different things. What I did claim (and you were too blind to read) is that Israel's right to exists is at least as good as the United States' right to exist. Try do disprove that.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Foot shooting (3.00 / 1) (#180)
    by mirleid on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 04:45:02 AM EST

    What I did claim (and you were too blind to read) is that Israel's right to exists is at least as good as the United States' right to exist.

    Now, one being just as good as the other doesnt imply that either of them are any good, right? The fact of the matter is that the US was founded on land captured/conquered/whatever from the natives that already lived there. After wiping out a substantial part of the indigenous population through several different means (including germ warfare), there was no opposition to settlement. This was done 200+ years ago, and you can reasonably claim that people then did not know any better. At least the native Americans today have some square miles of desert and a few casino licenses to show for it, whereas the Palestinians only have the desert part (yep, I know, the Gaza strip is on the Mediterranean shore, but I'm sure you understand what I'm saying).
    The point is, people in the 20th century *should* know better, only more so a body of people that had just been at the wrong end of an deportation/extermination policy. The Palestinians are not the native americans of yore, they have the technological means and the backing to fight back. And fight back they do. The real point is that a territorial dispute is at the heart of the problem, and this dispute can not be settled unless some arrangement is found that makes both sides feel either equally good or equally bad. In the mean time, you continue to justify the actions of Israel as if it were some country defending its borders. THAT is the problem, the so-called country is *not* a country in the eyes of a vast majority of people that lives in the territory it occupies...

    Chickens don't give milk
    [ Parent ]
    I must disagree (4.00 / 1) (#187)
    by uriyan on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 09:12:33 AM EST

    At least the native Americans today have some square miles of desert and a few casino licenses to show for it.

    The Palestinians today could have a state which would be about 4,000km2 in area and reasonably consistent. Ironically, they also have a casino in Jericho.

    The point is, people in the 20th century *should* know better

    The Jews did not displace the Arabs forcefully from most locations that they'd left, and many of the Arabs' disasters were inflicted on them by themselves (e.g. the citizens of the villages in the Jerusalem corridor, the only that were ever directly targeted, were expelled because they made their living by intercepting, destroying and pillaging Jewish traffic to Jerusalem).

    In the mean time, you continue to justify the actions of Israel as if it were some country defending its borders

    Israel is not defending its borders; it's defending its citizens. There can be no peace until the Arabs learn that each and every Jew has a right to life. As to the territorial aspect, Palestinians could have had their land long ago; their violence is targeted at getting more than that.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    One last time... (1.00 / 1) (#193)
    by mirleid on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 10:07:29 AM EST

    Israel is not defending its borders; it's defending its citizens.

    The same justification can be used by the Arab terrorists when justifying their actions. "Isrealis have killed my fellow-countrymen, lets kill a few of them too"...

    As to the territorial aspect, Palestinians could have had their land long ago; their violence is targeted at getting more than that.

    Look, you're not doing them a favor by giving them what is theirs. The Jewish people started settling in that land around 1882 (Russian Jews), after the Ottoman Turks re-took control of the region from the Vice-Roy of Egypt. The Arabs were there all along, saw Jewish people settling in that land in increasing numbers over the next 60 years. The fact of the matter is that Jewish people settled in that land, settle being the operative word, meaning, coming to live there from somewhere else.

    Chickens don't give milk
    [ Parent ]
    Israel has a right to survive (4.00 / 1) (#198)
    by uriyan on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 02:45:17 PM EST

    The same justification can be used by the Arab terrorists when justifying their actions. "Isrealis have killed my fellow-countrymen, lets kill a few of them too"...

    Does not a sovereign country have right to defend its citizen? The U.S. doesn't seem to strike the issue of terrorism off its agenda; on the contrary, it seems to treat it quite seriously, as does Israel.

    The fact of the matter is that Jewish people settled in that land...

    First of all, much of the lands that the Jews settled upon were bought for money from the Arabs, who sold them. Secondly, there's always been a Jewish presence in the Land of Israel; the fact that for various reasons more Jews chose to return to the land that they never fully abandoned does not decrease in any way their right to it.

    Finally, it is not because of the Jews' fancies that they chose to immigrate to Palestine - the rest of the world forced them to by not preventing the Holocaust; therefore the rest of the world should not be surprised so much by the fact that the Jews actually want to survive.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Allow me to disagree (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by uriyan on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 11:58:08 PM EST

    This has to do with the right of the entity commonly known as Israel to exist and occupy a certain section of what used to be called Palestine before 1945

    First of all, the date is 1948, not 1945. Secondly, the Arabs have shown as much delight at the killing of individual Jews (e.g. Hebron Massacre of 1929, much of the 1948 War) as of organized attacks aimed at trying to destroy the young state. In fact, the Arab leader of that time (Hajj Amin Al-Husseini) is known to have had negotiation with Hitler and is rumoured to have asked for speeding the "final solution". So it's not just the state of Israel that is at stake

    I mean to say that Isrealis occupied what was Palestine by force, forcing into exhile the people that already live there

    The history of the 1948 War of Independence is much more complicated than what you call "occupied ... by force". It was a war of the Arab majority against the Jewish minority, and the price for Jewish defeat would be going to the Mediterranean. It wasn't a fair play, but the odds were on the Arab side. The Jews accepted the (extremely unfavorable) 1947 UN partition plan, the Arabs didn't.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Of dates and motivations... (1.00 / 1) (#179)
    by mirleid on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 04:31:08 AM EST

    First of all, the date is 1948, not 1945.

    Look, the date for what? Not that it really matters in the context of this discussion, but dont you think that maybe we should try being a little more constructive? As far as I'm concerned, things in Palestine started going south after the end of WWII in terms of that territory being in dispute, so, thats why I mention 1945. Good enough?

    Secondly, the Arabs have shown as much delight at the killing of individual Jews (e.g. Hebron Massacre of 1929, much of the 1948 War) as of organized attacks aimed at trying to destroy the young state. In fact, the Arab leader of that time (Hajj Amin Al-Husseini) is known to have had negotiation with Hitler and is rumoured to have asked for speeding the "final solution". So it's not just the state of Israel that is at stake

    First of all, I always said that nobody involved in this stupid conflict is right. There are murderers on both sides of the divide, as well as good and brave people. Also, you seem to be implying that the Israelis are fighting for their lifes for the Palestinians want to kill every last one of them. If that is that the case, shouldnt you consider that the Palestinians wouldnt be trying to do that (assuming that they are) if the Israelis werent there in the first place? That is the root of the problem: the land has been de facto occupied by Jewish people, without regard for the fact that other people already lived there and different ideas regarding what to do with it.

    The Jews accepted the (extremely unfavorable) 1947 UN partition plan, the Arabs didn't.

    OF COURSE the Arabs did not accept the partition. They had lived on the bloody land for ages, then somebody came along saying that they had to give up a part of it to somebody else. As far as they were concerned, it was *theirs*.



    Chickens don't give milk
    [ Parent ]
    Not quite (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by uriyan on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 09:13:05 AM EST

    ... shouldnt you consider that the Palestinians wouldnt be trying to do that (assuming that they are) if the Israelis werent there in the first place?

    Well, you seem to be implying that the Jews belong elsewhere, and resolve their "Jewish question" in some other matter. However, as things turned out to be, the only real solution that the rest of the world invented for the "Jewish question" was their complete extermination. Obviously that is morally unacceptable, although somehow moral works only one way among most anti-Zionists.

    OF COURSE the Arabs did not accept the partition

    By 1947, the land was inhabited by 1.2 million Arabs and 0.6 million Jews (a fair share of whom were born in Palestine); the Jews accepted about 20% of the lands, most of which they had acquired earlier. Jews had as much right to this land as Arabs; to bad that the latter did not recognize it.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Not quite indeed... (1.00 / 1) (#191)
    by mirleid on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 09:56:45 AM EST

    Obviously that is morally unacceptable, although somehow moral works only one way among most anti-Zionists.

    I hope that you are not implying that the "final solution" is acceptable to me (since I have made perfectly clear in my posts that it is not). If you are, you're simply being intelectually dishonest and trying to hide the fact that you simply do not have good enough arguments to counter mine.

    By 1947, the land was inhabited by 1.2 million Arabs and 0.6 million Jews (a fair share of whom were born in Palestine); the Jews accepted about 20% of the lands, most of which they had acquired earlier. Jews had as much right to this land as Arabs; to bad that the latter did not recognize it.

    Whether or not they had acquired the land is a moot point, since for some acquisition to be effective the seller has to have actual possession and not simply a mandate to oversee things (as was the case of the British). Another thing that you seem to be overlooking (or maybe just not finding it in your interest to mention) is that the main reason that the Arabs did not accept the land partition was that, included in the partition deal was that the Arabs would be evicted from the land that would be attributed to the Jewish, which is akin to ethnic cleansing (you know, one of the charges Milosevic is facing???).



    Chickens don't give milk
    [ Parent ]
    Indeed... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by uriyan on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 03:00:57 PM EST

    I hope that you are not implying that the "final solution" is acceptable to me

    I am not implying that. However I do mean to imply that if you negate all other options, even if you're not aware of that, you are actually sentencing the Jewish people to extinction.

    Whether or not they had acquired the land is a moot point, since for some acquisition to be effective the seller has to have actual possession and not simply a mandate to oversee things (as was the case of the British).

    Let's look on one such transaction: a Jew paid money and bought a field from an Arab. The government changes. Whose land is it, the Jew's, who paid money for it, or the Arab's? As to state land, twice as much was handed out to Arabs than to Jews, and I have no reason to believe that the Mandate authorities were biased towards the Jews.

    Arabs would be evicted from the land that would be attributed to the Jewish, which is akin to ethnic cleansing.

    First of all, I am not aware of such a requirement (frankly, it looks quite odd to me - even when the state of Israel was created as it was, after a bloody war, it did not deport those Arabs that remained, nor did it confiscate their property). As to "ethnic cleansing" (that is, mass killings of civilians), unlike its Arab neighbors, Israel has never done that.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    ethnic cleansing? (1.00 / 1) (#202)
    by poemofatic on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 07:19:48 PM EST

    are you nuts? What about 1948? 700,000 Arabs were driven from their homes, by Israeli massacres. This is ethnic cleansing, exactly like what happened in Kosovo.

    Israel made a pact with Jordan, to split the palestinian controlled areas between them. The difference being, that Israel was much more brutal in it's conquest of the eastern palestinian lands, since it's goal was to cause a panic and drive out as many arabs as possible. Hence the border wars, which directly followed, as many of the arab refugees tried to return to their farms and were faced with a policy of being shot on sight. This was in violation of UN resolutions to guarantee their right to return after the ceasefire. The refugees then formed armed bands, but not before Israeli bands penetrated the egyptian and jordanian frontiers, in an effort to cause further ethnic cleanisng and drive the palestinians even farther from the Israeli border.

    Both invasions of Lebanon were also examples of ethinc cleansing -- of palestinians -- in another attempt to drive palestinian refugee's farther from Israel's borders. The massacre at Sabra wasn't some accident -- you need some massacres, preferably with a lot of publicity -- in order to achieve ethnic cleansing. What do you think Sharon, the acknoweledged master of this, meant when he said "The palestinians should remember 1948"?

    [ Parent ]

    Amazing how biased one can be (4.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Peaker on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 09:25:11 PM EST

    are you nuts? What about 1948? 700,000 Arabs were driven from their homes, by Israeli massacres. This is ethnic cleansing, exactly like what happened in Kosovo.

    Israel didn't drive them out, the Arab neighbours promise to 'ethnically clean' the region and their explicit REQUEST of the local arabs to leave drove them out.

    Israel made a pact with Jordan, to split the palestinian controlled areas between them. The difference being, that Israel was much more brutal in it's conquest of the eastern palestinian lands, since it's goal was to cause a panic and drive out as many arabs as possible. Hence the border wars, which directly followed, as many of the arab refugees tried to return to their farms and were faced with a policy of being shot on sight.

    Do you have a single example of this?

    This was in violation of UN resolutions to guarantee their right to return after the ceasefire.

    Which, like many other UN resolutions, was unacceptable and meant a death sentence to the Israeli state.

    The refugees then formed armed bands, but not before Israeli bands penetrated the egyptian and jordanian frontiers, in an effort to cause further ethnic cleanisng and drive the palestinians even farther from the Israeli border.

    Your fantasy stories about ethnic cleaning should be backed by more facts and references if you want them to be taken with any seriousness

    Both invasions of Lebanon were also examples of ethinc cleansing -- of palestinians -- in another attempt to drive palestinian refugee's farther from Israel's borders.

    Both? In fact, the invasion of Lebanon was an attempt to drive Arafat's headquarters of terrorist strikes against Israeli civilians away from Lebanon.

    The massacre at Sabra

    Which was carried out by Lebanese

    wasn't some accident -- you need some massacres, preferably with a lot of publicity -- in order to achieve ethnic cleansing.

    Your absurd claim that Israel wanted ethnic cleaning is beyond laughable. If Israel had wanted ethnic cleaning, then it could have ethnically cleaned the entire region. Israel is the military superpower of the middle east.

    What do you think Sharon, the acknoweledged master of this, meant when he said "The palestinians should remember 1948"?

    "acknowledged master of this"? You don't cease to amaze with these idiotic statements. Even if Sharon did know the massacre was going to happen, and did not stop it, how is he the master of the massacre, when it was carried out by Christian Lebanese?

    Perhaps he meant: "Israel will defend itself and survive any attempts to destroy it"?

    Your oppinion is so rediculously biased, your attempt to demonize Israel with false facts so absurd, that I can't grasp how many extremist islamic propoganda sites you've unskeptically read..

    [ Parent ]

    reply (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by uriyan on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 12:30:47 AM EST

    700,000 Arabs were driven from their homes, by Israeli massacres

    Historians agree that the Arabs were driven from their homes by propaganda; the minority claims that it was Zionist propaganda, and the majority that it was Arab (e.g. the Iraqi Prime Minister saying "the Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down"). There were cases of attacks against civilians by Jewish forces in response to the sack of Gush Ezion, but they were stopped after Israel was created and IDF became an army in May 1948.

    Israel made a pact with Jordan, to split the palestinian controlled areas between them. The difference being, that Israel was much more brutal in it's conquest of the eastern palestinian lands, since it's goal was to cause a panic and drive out as many arabs as possible.

    You probably need to learn some history. What are the "pact with Jordan" and "eastern Palestinian lands"?

    This was in violation of UN resolutions to guarantee their right to return after the ceasefire.

    For most countries, internal matters (e.g. continuous existence) come first and international matters (e.g. U.N.) come second. This is particularly so considering the fact that the U.N. has an Arab majority, whose sole activity is attacking Israel.

    The refugees then formed armed bands, but not before Israeli bands penetrated the egyptian and jordanian frontiers

    Guess what, Unit 101 was created to counter fedayin attacks, ergo the attacks were before it was created.

    Both invasions of Lebanon were also examples of ethinc cleansing -- of palestinians -- in another attempt to drive palestinian refugee's farther from Israel's borders

    I see your logic: for 30 years Israel has been ignoring Lebanese refugees. Then PLO comes and starts shooting rockets into Israel. Then Israel begins "ethnic cleansing". The massacres of Sabra and Shatila have been debated elsewhere, but your point is laughable, as it was an attack of Christian Arabs on Muslim Arabs.

    What do you think Sharon, the acknoweledged master of this, meant when he said "The palestinians should remember 1948"?

    That rather than denying Israel's right to exist and suffering a humiliating defeat, they should try to accept the partition offer.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    On the eviction thing (none / 0) (#212)
    by mirleid on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 04:23:44 AM EST

    ...please have a look at this, on the section named Conflict between Arabs and Zionists

    Chickens don't give milk
    [ Parent ]
    The wrong partition plan (none / 0) (#213)
    by uriyan on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 06:38:19 AM EST

    ... objecting particularly to the proposal that the Arab population be forcibly transferred out of the proposed Jewish state.

    That proposal, as far as I understand, was never a part of the 1936 Peel Commission's recommendations per se. And moreover, the 1947 U.N. partition plan, which is the one that we are discussing, did not include plans for eviction.


    gantse jahr fraylech... gantse jahr fraylech...


    [ Parent ]
    Not as simple as that (none / 0) (#217)
    by mirleid on Tue Mar 12, 2002 at 04:30:12 AM EST

    ...since, as you can ascertain from checking the UN records, all of the neighbouring countries voted against that resolution because they felt that the rights of the majority of the legal residents of the region where being ignored (basically, the partition was being made on a de facto basis)...

    Chickens don't give milk
    [ Parent ]
    Israel left in 2000, elections held in 1992 (3.00 / 1) (#159)
    by sonovel on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 01:03:43 PM EST

    Israel left Lebanon in 2000, yet elections were held in 1992 and on, so to me it seems the civil war was the biggest cause of the failure of democracy in Lebanon.

    Of course Israeli occupation distorted the democracy, just as Syrian occupation now does.

    Syria may have come into Lebanon at least partially to help peace. However, their role now seems a little more sinister, especially the role of the drug trade and the Bekaa valley.

    My readings of the history and documents like the Taef Agreement and Arab Summit Resolutions (1978, 1982, 1989) seems to indicate that Syria should have left Lebanon years ago. So it is hard for me to swallow that Syria is there just to help out the poor Lebanese.

    Once again, why is this information of no seeming interest?

    The control by the dicatorship of Syria of a chunk of Lebanon can't be good for Lebanese Democracy. Why then is it always Israel's fault?



    Oops (none / 0) (#175)
    by sonovel on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 11:23:32 PM EST

    Comment was in response to a post in a thread, it makes no sense here. DOH!

    [ Parent ]
    Here is my solution to the entire conflict (2.00 / 5) (#167)
    by Hoo00 on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 05:09:30 PM EST

    It is cruel, but it's just a thought. Basically, we poison the entire region for the next 200 years. Everyone has to leave, but nobody dies. That way, we can decide the outcome after 2202 when everyone is more civilized and rational. Of course, you will still have the problem of those who rather die than leave and those who dig underground to seek shelter. Well, at least, the war ended.

    If there was a god, god had sinned. Intead god should have had sent a meteorite straight at Jerusalem.

    The patient has cancer (none / 0) (#205)
    by Peaker on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 09:01:57 PM EST

    kill him!

    [ Parent ]
    Time for your medcine (none / 0) (#215)
    by GRiNGO on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 06:40:49 PM EST

    Take a few pills and lie down... youll be ok in the morning

    --
    "I send you to Baghdad a long time. Nobody find you. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings


    [ Parent ]
    A Brief Update (4.33 / 3) (#171)
    by shellac on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 06:44:16 PM EST

    According to this wire story, it appears as though the Bush administration also does not take kindly to Sharon's words. Pretty surprising coming from this administration.

    Sharon wants more casualties to the terrorist (2.00 / 4) (#173)
    by pepperpusher on Wed Mar 06, 2002 at 09:47:19 PM EST

    Get real people. Make a test:
    Get a "I hate jews" tshirt in arab/english and walk with it in tel aviv. Now, put on a "Peace Now" " (in arab + hebrew) t-shirt and go to ramallah. The chances you'll stay alive are those of me getting karma 5. Really. When you read the news, read between the lines ppl. Debka

    Very astute of you (2.33 / 3) (#190)
    by poemofatic on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 09:56:40 AM EST

    ..to notice an asymmetry. I'll try to flesh it out for you:

    The Palestinians in the west bank..

    live under military occupation

    are not allowed to own or buy land

    are not allowed to change their names

    are often forced to live under 24 hr+ curfews

    are routinely tortured

    are more likely to be killed by Israeli's than the other way around

    live under a seige, surrounded by trenches and humiliating police roadblocks

    work as cheap labor for the Israeli's

    are entitled to 80 liters of water a day

    are not allowed to dig wells

    have their apartments blown up by artillery

    have their homes demolished

    are subject to extra judicial assassination

    are blackmailed into being informants

    While the Isreali Jews

    drive through "bypass" roads, unencumbered by checkpoints

    are less likely to be killed by Palestinians

    ..in the west bank, they are allotted 80% of the water, and sell the excess -- when they are so inclined -- to the arabs.

    are allowed to change their names

    are usually not punished if they kill palestinians, or sometimes they are fined a shekhel.

    are given govt. subsidies to buy and own land

    do not live under curfews

    are not routinely tortured

    hire palestinians as cheap labor

    dig wells on palestinian land and take the water

    build settlements atop land razed from palestinians

    are protected by the courts

    I hope this will help explain to you why general behavior in Ramallah differs from that in Tel Aviv.


    [ Parent ]

    Such a bullshit (3.00 / 2) (#195)
    by pepperpusher on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 11:02:48 AM EST

    Like saying the afghans suffer from US military occupation and that's why they blew up the WTC. No terrorists == no roadblocks. you respect the law == it protects you.

    [ Parent ]
    problem is (3.00 / 1) (#201)
    by poemofatic on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 06:29:28 PM EST

    it's not true. Not even relevant, really. The conditions I described have nothing to do with whether someone breaks the law or not. They are racial laws. So, for instance, a convicted murderer, who has enough jewish blood, is allowed to buy land and receive govt. subsidy for it. But a palestinian, who has killed no one, is not allowed to buy or own land at all. The amount of water allotted to a person is also determined by their racial makeup, not if they committed any crimes. The legal and political system does treat Israeli and Palestinian lives differently. So a settler who murders a palestinian is rarely brought to trial. If he is brought to trial, he is fined only a small fee. On the other hand, a palestinian who kills a settler has a high likelihood of being assassinated without a trial, and will certainly face long periods of jail time and torture.
    The law does discriminate based on race, as does the army. To quote a recent Human Rights Watch report:
    Israeli security forces have committed by far the most serious and systematic violations. We documented excessive and indiscriminate use of lethal force, arbitrary killings, and collective punishment, including willful destruction of property and severe restrictions on movement that far exceed any possible military necessity.

    The Israeli government refuses to investigate alleged violations committed during "war-like situations," in contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law.

    There are many people (yourself?) who think this is ok, that Jewish settlers, because they are Jews, have a right to confiscate and live on Arab land. But even if you do hold such views, you should at least be honest enough to face the consequences of your beliefs. Namely, what is to be done with the 2 million Palestinians? Israel cannot annex the land, because it tries to maintain purity of Jewish blood, and doesn't want 2 million Arab citizens. It cannot (yet) get away with mass deportation. So the logical consequence of the aforementioned (racist) belief is that the Arabs must be imprisoned, in small shanty towns, surrounded by barbed wire and checkpoints. They are released to serve as laborers, and punished collectively when some of them "get out of line" and commit violence. In this context, Sharon's cries of "putting them in their place" make sense. He is a prison warden. But when I point out the prison like conditions, it's you who lie when you say that the prisoners are locked up because they misbehaved. They are locked up because of their race.

    [ Parent ]
    All true (4.00 / 2) (#203)
    by ariux on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 08:45:50 PM EST

    Before you draw the obvious implication from problem A to solution B, though, consider - let's say the land that is Israel were tomorrow given to Palestinians to rule. That parliament surely wouldn't pass any nasty racial laws - after all, its clear history of victimhood places such a parliament beyond the possibility of moral reproach. Or, er, would it...? Oh dear.

    Thus the problem.

    [ Parent ]

    the fear of the oppressor. (4.00 / 1) (#214)
    by poemofatic on Fri Mar 08, 2002 at 02:01:33 PM EST

    is always payback. But it's disingenous to use that as an excuse for continued occupation.

    Yes, there might be payback to the settlers if the IDF pulls out, but then why put even more settlers into the west bank? Why build even more bypass roads? Why confiscate more land? During Oslo, Israel spent 1.5 billion USD building new bypass roads in the west bank. Barak's govt. alone started the construction on >50 settlements. 50% of the palestinians are 18 or younger, and they'll have long memories. Why build more badwill? It may be that, for awhile, the two ethnic groups cannot live together. But the palestinians should have the same rights as Jews in terms of land ownership, movement, water, etc. So a good first step is to pull out of the west bank entirely. Maybe adjust the borders a la the Korean ceasefire. Ultimately, I'd like to see a one state solution, but that may not bee possible after what has happened, and continues to happen, to the 2 million who live under military occupation. But you can be encouraged from what happened in South Africa, because the black africans, when finally given rights, did not confiscate white land, or force the whites to work for them.

    So the point is that fear of reprisals is no reason to continue committing crimes. Eventually, just by demographics, the palestinians will be a large majority of the population both in Israel proper and in Israel+ west bank. Now is the time to start learning to live together, and the first step is to eliminate the racial laws, the ethnic group status on ID cards, stop subsidizing the settlers, stop shelling refugee camps, pull out the tanks and barbed wire. If necessary, two separate states with limited travel between them for a while. This of course, would mean that Israel has to find a new source of cheap labor, and also of water, and that the religio-racial ambitions of renewing a kigdom of david or rebuilding the temple takes a back seat to human rights and demographics.

    [ Parent ]
    Some corrections (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Peaker on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 08:53:40 PM EST

    "Assasinations without a trial" are specific assaults against terrorists - ticking bombs. It is known they are going to blow up many innocent civilians soon.

    "Racial laws": There are no racial laws (at least not ones as you're mentioning), the simple fact is that the Palestinians in occupied territories are not Israeli citizens. Israel is dying to get rid of the occupation almost as much as the Palestinians, but the Palestinians are not letting it, by not negotiating.<<P>Don't forget the Palestinian Authority, too.

    "Jewish settlers" are extremists and do not represent official policy

    "Fined by a shekkel" is bullshit, and Jewish murderers of Palestinians do time like all other murderers.

    "Tortured regluarly" is more unsupported bullshit

    "Their houses destroyed": The destroyed houses are those of terrorists of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

    "Barbed wire and checkpoints" are an attempt to prevent the many infilitrations of terrorirsts who come to kill innocent people.

    Learn the facts...

    [ Parent ]

    Ugh. (2.20 / 5) (#196)
    by SPYvSPY on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 12:55:18 PM EST

    God I can't wait until we get off fossil fuels and put the Arabs out of business. Then we can forget about them again. (Did I just say that?)
    ------------------------------------------------

    By replying to this or any other comment in this thread, you assign an equal share of all worldwide copyright in such reply to each of the other readers of this site.

    Whatever happened to the OLD rules? (3.50 / 2) (#197)
    by Gravaton on Thu Mar 07, 2002 at 12:56:44 PM EST

    Is it just me or didn't we used to do things differently? The entire history of mankind is filled with the shifts and rises and falls of empires and nations, borders changing and rulers switching. For thousands upon thousands of years this is how the history of man has worked, and now, suddenly, we're standing up and throwing out our arms and saying "STOP!!! STOP FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!! Nobody move, all nations are going to STAY WHERE THEY ARE and we will FIX YOU!"

    Not only does this fly in the face of historical wisdom it also defies sense and logic. Every other day there's a piece of news from either side. Sharon says this, Arafat says that. Each time a new tidbit comes up everyone stands up and rehashes everything they've said before and then sits down to carefully compose the opinions they will present on the occasion of the other side's retaliation. Noone really sits back and thinks of the myriad ways to view the big picture, all that is put forth are myopic and quantitative analyses of who did what to who when and why that is so terrible.

    How's about we start at the very begginning, right now. The facts right now are ISRAEL HAS THE LAND. They occupy it, it's that simple. So forget arguing over who was there first and when and why, because it's not going to make any difference. It seems people feel that if someone managed to honestly and politely explain to the Israeli government how the Palestinians were there first they'd simply say "Oh....sorry then!" and leave. Right, wrong, both are irrelevant when facing this fact. Fact #2, PALESTINIANS WANT THE LAND (Or maybe just access to it depending on the specific person's opinion). There's no point trying to get around this one either, while there may be some hatred and anti-semitism there it's probably (IMHO there) mostly a byproduct of the feeling that Israel has stolen their home from them. Hey, that'd make ANYONE miserable, so let's take that as fact too.

    So on one side you have an immovable object, and the other an irresistable force. Do you honestly expect anything BUT the immovable object to say "I'm not going to move" and the irresistable force to say "Well I won't be resisted"? They WILL smash into each other and there WILL be violence and people WILL die. And that's a terrible thing. But standing in the middle trying to figure out who hit who first or harder isn't going to help stop that. Each side needs its leaders to drop the rhetorical BS and actually sit down and talk. The world (with heavy and diverse representation from both Israel and the Palestinians) needs to sit down and talk and NOT GET UP until a decision that is agreeable and actually enforcible is agreed on (i.e. the Tennis Court Oath). Unfortunately I doubt this will ever happen as politicians get more political cash out of standing behind one side or the other then they'd get out of fixing the situation.

    To quote, "The world is always in a terrible situation." There will ALWAYS be bad things going on somewhere. But if we're really sincere about wanting to do something positive about them, we need to step not to one side or another, but BACKWARDS. We need to look at the overall situation as it stands and try to eliminate rhetoric and knee-jerking from our opinions. Heck, we need to eliminate opinion alltogether and try to find the best solution that is humane and workable. And that's all I have to say about that. :)

    Sharon Wants Palestinian Casualties | 220 comments (212 topical, 8 editorial, 1 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!