Israel-Palestine: The Solution [Archive]

DanishDynamite

9th February 2004, 12:42 PM

Hutch:Ah, someone else who can see that there must be an end-game to all this at sometime in the future. I was beginning to think the rival camps here were so busy looking up links to pound each other with that nothing else would ever be discussed on this part of the board again. :eek: Welcome to JREF Politics. :)
I think the non-government Israeli/Palestinian group that published their work in 2003 is on the right track. At least they have made the radicals on both sides mad enough to denounce them (Arafat approves, but I take that as political posturing on his part, not as a serious interest, IMHO).Would you have a link to this group's program?
Basically, if I recall (I do have to do some work this afternoon and don't have time to find a link), the border would be around the 1948 lines, with some adjustments for a few of the long-term settlements, Jersusalam would be shared and the capital for both Israel and Palestine, the Holy sites would be under some international jursidiction (Japanese Shinto administrators and Hindu guards?), and the right of return would be very limited (perhaps some compensation). Also the Arab states would have to extend formal recognition to Israel, IIRC.Sounds reasonable so far. The problem is how this could be implemented.
In the end (years? decades?) this is probably what will happen. but that doesn't mean a lot of other options won't be tried in the meantime. Religion + Politics do not necessarily equal intelligence.There is no doubt that this situation will be solved at some point. Why not as soon as possible, is my question.
OK DD, now we see if the masses swoop down upon us...;) Let them swoop to their heart's delight. If they have no viable solution, they can stick their squabblings on "who started" in a certain dark place.

Grammatron

9th February 2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
3) As it stands Arabs, Jews and Christians enjoy free access to all holy places in Jerusalem. Leave Jerusalem under Israeli control, it's worked for decades. Don't fix something if it isn't broken.

Yes, but Jerusalem seems to be a very heated issue, therefore I think there must be some compromise on the matter if peaceful solution is to be reached.

DanishDynamite

9th February 2004, 12:47 PM

RCNelson:Both sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict have a world view in which their own side is preferred by God - in which their own side is given special privileges to live there in preference over the other side. As long as they hold this world view, there is no solution.

They will just keep on killing each other until they either stop believing in God or believe only on a God that loves both sides equally without preference for either side.This is a defeatist attitude. Assume for the moment that the majority on both sides don't actually wish to live in a perputual state of war.
This is a long winded way of saying: There is no solution and they will just keep on killing each other. Of course their can be a solution. If enough pressure is brought to bare, it is of course possible. The question is what is a possible?

DanishDynamite

9th February 2004, 12:50 PM

Grammatron:I think step one is an actual country called Palestine that takes controls, secures and removes the anarchy. Hold on. How can the first step be a country called Palestine? That would seem to be the goal?
Step two is Jerusalem sharing and the right of return and step three is borders. I believe that is the order it has to happen in or odds of a peaceful solution are very low.I don't quite understand your proposal. How can step 3 = borders if step 1 = country of Palestine?
]

Grammatron

9th February 2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Grammatron:Hold on. How can the first step be a country called Palestine? That would seem to be the goal?
I don't quite understand your proposal. How can step 3 = borders if step 1 = country of Palestine?

Well as it stands right now there are Palestinian territories which are more or less in Anarchy. If those territories were to become a country then Israel can negotiate with a country which handled its own security and cleaned out the terrorist problem for land concessions and things like that. I just don't see how any real negotiations can happen until there is a legitimate form of government, which can run Palestine.

DanishDynamite

9th February 2004, 12:56 PM

zenith-nadir:1) Remove Arafat and replace him with someone who is honest, able to fulfill treaty obligations and able to deal with the Hamas, PLFP, Islamic Jihad, Tanzim, Fatah and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade terrorists.How?
2) Israel will then be forced to pull back to the 1967 greenline.Why?
3) As it stands Arabs, Jews and Christians enjoy free access to all holy places in Jerusalem. Leave Jerusalem under Israeli control, it's worked for decades. Don't fix something if it isn't broken. What is wrong with sharing guardianship? Will the Palestinians accept the relinquishing of Jerusalem? It was my understanding that this was one of the two main obstacles.
4) Most of the "right of return" refugees who left in 1948 are five decades older and would fair poorly moving back into an alien culture and country. Therefore perhaps monetary compensation would be a better option.Excellent suggestion.
5) If you were born outside of 1948 Palestine you should become a citizen of the country you were born in. Like everywhere else on earth. Otherwise where do you suggest putting 4 million Islamic palestinian descendants inside jewish Israel? Sounds very reasonable.

DanishDynamite

9th February 2004, 01:02 PM

Grammatron:Well as it stands right now there are Palestinian territories which are more or less in Anarchy. If those territories were to become a country then Israel can negotiate with a country which handled its own security and cleaned out the terrorist problem for land concessions and things like that. I just don't see how any real negotiations can happen until there is a legitimate form of government, which can run Palestine. I've got a counter proposal. Why not demand that the Palestinians elect a Negotiator who will then have a mandate to negotiate for the Palestinians? Suppose the world community finally decided that this conflict was too bothersome to let continue and made such a demand? It seems to me that a lot of people (myself included) have a problem with Arafat. Force a monitored election, with adequate resources and access to television for every contender, in order to get a Negotiator with the People's mandate.

Hutch

9th February 2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Would you have a link to this group's program?
.

Just found one, Double-D.

www.fmed.org/documents/Geneva_Accord.html

Most of what I wrote above seems to be accurate, but the actual document is a bit long-winded and full of acronyms--as I read more and more I marvel again at things like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address--how relatively simple language can convey great thoughts...ok, I'm officially off my soapbox.

FYI, I also contributed to your locations thread at the Community site--we are a far-flung bunch on this board, aren't we?

Grammatron

9th February 2004, 01:06 PM

Nyarlathotep

9th February 2004, 01:13 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
RCNelson:This is a defeatist attitude. Assume for the moment that the majority on both sides don't actually wish to live in a perputual state of war.

It maybe defeatist, but I think RCNelson is right. I don't see any reason to believe that the problem will ever be solved short of one side suceeding in wiping out the other. I don't think they want to live in a perpetual state of war but both sides have become so intransigent that they consider giving an inch in concessions to the other side as total abject surrender. So they are going to keep fighting until one or the other side ceases to exist.

Hutch

9th February 2004, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Grammatron:I've got a counter proposal. Why not demand that the Palestinians elect a Negotiator who will then have a mandate to negotiate for the Palestinians? Suppose the world community finally decided that this conflict was too bothersome to let continue and made such a demand? It seems to me that a lot of people (myself included) have a problem with Arafat. Force a monitored election, with adequate resources and access to television for every contender, in order to get a Negotiator with the People's mandate.

Danish Dyno, I can concur with you, Grammatron, and zenith-nadir (and even more than a few Arabs) that it would be much easier if big-nose Yasser would go gently (or even go kicking and screaming) into that good night. Problem is three-fold. One, he was elected, if I recall right. Two, despite everything, he is still seen by the majority of Palestinians as their legitimate spokesman (or at least the one they can all mostly agree upon--like any politician, Arafat shows whatever face he needs to keep the majority on his side). Three, if he is eliminated by any other than the Palestinians themselves, then his successor will have no public support at all. So like the skunk at the tea party, I must needs fear that we will have to hold our nose and deal with him.

A note on the right to return. The Geneva Agreement goes along with much of zenith-nadir's wishes, limiting the number of returnees and offering compensation. Still, there will be problems--if the jewish people could dream of a homeland after leaving it 1900 years before, would the Palestinians forget their homes after only 50 years? (Oh boy, am I going to catch it!!)

DanishDynamite

9th February 2004, 01:44 PM

Hutch:Just found one, Double-D.

www.fmed.org/documents/Geneva_Accord.htmlSorry, Hutch, but that link just leads to a blank page.
Most of what I wrote above seems to be accurate, but the actual document is a bit long-winded and full of acronyms--as I read more and more I marvel again at things like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address--how relatively simple language can convey great thoughts...ok, I'm officially off my soapbox.No, from what I have read on this forum of those documents they are indeed very precise and eloquent. (Only Amendment 2 is a bit off :))
FYI, I also contributed to your locations thread at the Community site--we are a far-flung bunch on this board, aren't we? Just checked it out. Thanks, and yes quite a number of JREF'ers have seen the world. I could go on regarding easy access to transport, new forms of transport, etc, etc, but then I would be derailing. :)

DanishDynamite

9th February 2004, 01:46 PM

Grammatron:Well that sounds good but if the "Negotiator" -- why do I think of this being pronounced in Arnold's voice? :) -- has no control over the country I'm just afraid that any promises he makes would end up being empty. But he would implicitly and also explicitly have the power to negotiate. One could imagine that the finished result might need to be approved by a general referendum, in which case no one could doubt its legitimacy.

(Just throwing out ideas here)

Nikk

9th February 2004, 01:47 PM

OK a few not too closely linked observations and proposals:-

1.) Medium to Long Term Objective.............If europe could move from the massive destruction of WWII to the creation of the European Community in just 12 years (45 to 57) then there should be the potential for jews and arabs to set aside internecine warfare. Israel and its neighbours should see their long term future as part of a near/middle eastern community with free movement of people, capital, land purchase etc, etc. This means in the long term for Israel giving up the idea of a jewish state. All members of such a community would of course retain a substantial measure of independence as in the current EU.

2.) Short Term Objective ..........Some form of cantonal structure for Israel/Palestine. Palestine will be economically dependent on Israel so statehood is a diversion from the greater objective of a union of states.

a)Give every damn jew and palestinian a get out of jail free card. That is a multi purpose laisser passer to the civilised world, i.e. Europe, North America and Australasia. That way no one feels the desperation that comes from being locked in what is currently a human zoo. The Palestinians should in addition get the option of citizenship in the arab world. Needless to say anyone taking up the offer can come and go as they please.

b)Israel's borders to be set at 1967 boundaries, 10 year moratorium on removal of settlers in hope they will provide employment for Palestinians and it ceases to matter.

c) Limited right of return to Israel proper say 50,000 to 100,000 people max.

d) No special citizenship rights in Israel for jews outside the country unless matched by equal rights for refugees.

e) Jerusalem an international city under UN control ( or religious theme park run by Disney )

f) A UN force in the currently occupied territories to prevent settler/palestinian conflict for as long as necesary. It would probably have to come from elite US/European units.

g) Get young palestinians males into excellent secondary and tertiary education, ideally outside the region.

If some such proposal could be made by the EU and the US it might just jump start the process. Oh and to show even handedness lets send in the SAS and the US equivalent to assassinate Sharon and Arafat.

I will now resume my normal ill tempered bickering.

DanishDynamite

9th February 2004, 01:48 PM

Nyarlathotep:It maybe defeatist, but I think RCNelson is right. I don't see any reason to believe that the problem will ever be solved short of one side suceeding in wiping out the other. I don't think they want to live in a perpetual state of war but both sides have become so intransigent that they consider giving an inch in concessions to the other side as total abject surrender. So they are going to keep fighting until one or the other side ceases to exist. This is not a solution. Let alone a realistic solution. ;)

zenith-nadir

9th February 2004, 01:50 PM

DanishDynamite:

1)How to remove arafat?...other than a well placed laser guided paveway I do not know. I am always amazed at the ability of the palestinian people to remain optimistic after 30 years of Arafat's failures.

2)If the terrorism stops Israel would have no reason to be in the West Bank and Gaza, hence they would have to pull back to the green line as specified in the Roadmap.

Grammatron & DanishDynamite:

3)The problem with sharing guardianship of Jerusalem is that the Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem. It was never their capital, nor part of a palestinian country. Additionally the only Arabs in the Middle East with any semblance of civil rights are those who live under Israeli rule. Jerusalem should remain under Israeli control.

Hutch:

Still, there will be problems--if the jewish people could dream of a homeland after leaving it 1900 years before, would the Palestinians forget their homes after only 50 years? (Oh boy, am I going to catch it!!)

The problem is most of the Arab-palestinians who left in 1948 do not want to live in a jewish country. And after being away for 50 years the culture shock of living in 21st century Israel would be great.

The "right of return" is a huge white elephant....think about it folks. Where are these 4 million palestinian descendants going to live? Who's going to employ 4 million unskilled workers? Who's going to teach them hebrew?

The West Bank and Gaza areas are militant wastelands with no economy, Israel's economy is in the toilet due to the intifada.

You just can't promise 4 million descendants the "right of return" without working out what the hell they are going to return to.

Another Arafat promise that cannot be kept, and another crushing dissapointment for the refugees who have been promised this "right of return" endlessly.

Nyarlathotep

9th February 2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Nyarlathotep:This is not a solution. Let alone a realitic solution. ;)

My point being that there is no solution, unless you count staying out of it and letting them fight it out until one of them comes out on top as a solution. It's harsh but it's the only solution I see either side accepting.

DanishDynamite

9th February 2004, 01:53 PM

Hutch:Danish Dyno, I can concur with you, Grammatron, and zenith-nadir (and even more than a few Arabs) that it would be much easier if big-nose Yasser would go gently (or even go kicking and screaming) into that good night. Problem is three-fold. One, he was elected, if I recall right.Time to hold a new election.
Two, despite everything, he is still seen by the majority of Palestinians as their legitimate spokesman (or at least the one they can all mostly agree upon--like any politician, Arafat shows whatever face he needs to keep the majority on his side). After an enforced election campaign where every concievable candidate gets equal time, the Palestinians might feel otherwise.
Three, if he is eliminated by any other than the Palestinians themselves, then his successor will have no public support at all. So like the skunk at the tea party, I must needs fear that we will have to hold our nose and deal with him.He won't be eliminated by a non-Palestinian in the scenario I gave.
A note on the right to return. The Geneva Agreement goes along with much of zenith-nadir's wishes, limiting the number of returnees and offering compensation. Still, there will be problems--if the jewish people could dream of a homeland after leaving it 1900 years before, would the Palestinians forget their homes after only 50 years? (Oh boy, am I going to catch it!!) Luckily, I'm don't recall the historical background for the right-to-return. I'm a pragmatist.

DanishDynamite

9th February 2004, 02:00 PM

zenith-nadir:1)How to remove arafat?...other than a well placed laser guided paveway I do not know. I am always amazed at the ability of the palestinian people to remain optimistic after 30 years of Arafat's failures.Sorry to be rude, but I was asking for realistic proposals. I don't think using a guided missile to take out Arafat is all that realistic.
2)If the terrorism stops Israel would have no reason to be in the West Bank and Gaza, hence they would have to pull back to the green line as specified in the Roadmap.Once again, this claim that terrorism should first stop before negotians can take place is not realistic.

Do both sides want a peace or don't they? If so, what is a realistic way to get there?
Grammatron & DanishDynamite:

3)The problem with sharing guardianship of Jerusalem is that the Palestinians have no claim to Jerusalem. It was never their capital, nor part of a palestinian country. Additionally the only Arabs in the Middle East with any semblance of civil rights are those who live under Israeli rule. Jerusalem should remain under Israeli control.Forget the history of who did what to whom. Assume you have been placed in the position as Overseer-of-Achieving-a-Peace within 2 years. You have the world community behind you, and they don't give a rat's ass about who did what to whom. They simply demand a negotiated peace in 2 years. What is your plan?

DanishDynamite

9th February 2004, 02:03 PM

Nyarlathotep:My point being that there is no solution, unless you count staying out of it and letting them fight it out until one of them comes out on top as a solution. It's harsh but it's the only solution I see either side accepting. As I said to the zenith-nadir, suppose you are in charge of reaching a negotiated peace. You have the undivided world community's backing. You have two years. What is your plan?

DanishDynamite

9th February 2004, 02:10 PM

BTW, I find it interesting that "the usual suspects" in regard to Israel-Palestine discussions haven't made a peep. Says a lot, I think.

Solitaire

9th February 2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
So, which realistic scenarios have you come up with?

Only one based upon past history, that the area
of the occupied teritories continues to shrink as
it value on the open market makes it more valuable.

Some reading material on the subject: Tom's Journal (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/friedman_09-25.html) & Peace Plan (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/peaceplan_10-20.html)

Nyarlathotep

9th February 2004, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Nyarlathotep:As I said to the zenith-nadir, suppose you are in charge of reaching a negotiated peace. You have the undivided world community's backing. You have two years. What is your plan?

I wouldn't take the job. I don't think an outside force can ever bring peace to them unless and until they are willing to compromise on certain issues and until they themselves want peace. I don't think either side fulfills either of those criteria. thus nothing an outsider can do is going to have any effect.

If I HAD to give it a try, my response would be to try to 'stealth" peace onto both of them. Though the leadership of both sides seems to be uninterested in peace (except on their own terms) I am relatively sure that there are groups within both camps that are dedicated to bringing an end to the fighting. I would work with and support those groups, do what I can to get members of those groups into power on both sides. Making the atmosphere of the area more amenable to peace is the only thing I can see having a hope of suceeding. There are generations of ingrained hatred involved so I am pretty sure that I couldn't do it in two years, so I'd have to leave the rest up to my sucessor.

Cleon

9th February 2004, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
BTW, I find it interesting that "the usual suspects" in regard to Israel-Palestine discussions haven't made a peep. Says a lot, I think.

Not really. I'm reading it. I'm just contemplating an "ignore all Israel thread" policy.

There's just not much point. Certain people are dead-set on assuming that Palestinians are genocidal monsters, and those of us who know better will forever be taken as stupid/ignorant/naive/anti-semitic.

zenith-nadir

9th February 2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Nyarlathotep:As I said to the zenith-nadir, suppose you are in charge of reaching a negotiated peace. You have the undivided world community's backing. You have two years. What is your plan?

My plan would be this.

A) Send a U.N. force into the West Bank and Gaza to take control.

Not a U.N. force to separate palestinians and Israelis, a force to take control of the palestinian areas to stabilize them.

Here is why;

Heavily armed criminal gangs are turning West Bank and Gaza Strip into lawless shooting galleries (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1076195408386)

Palestinian terrorism is the number one issue keeping peace from becoming a reality. The terrorists control the West Bank and Gaza, if you oppose them you are killed. Anyone who talks peace with the "zionist entity" is an "enemy" of the terror organizations and they are summarily killed.

Israel cannot make peace with people who control the streets, are unable to listen to reason and yearn from a young age to "martyr" themselves.

B) Once the U.N. has control of the West Bank and Gaza, free and open elections should take place to choose legitimate representatives of the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith with the Israelis.

C) Once legitimate and honest representatives are chosen a Palestinian constitution can be written.

D) Once legitimate and honest representatives are chosen negotiations with the Israelis can begin.

E) Once negotiations with the Israelis begin and both parties act in good faith, then peace will become a reality.

zenith-nadir

9th February 2004, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Cleon
There's just not much point. Certain people are dead-set on assuming that Palestinians are genocidal monsters, and those of us who know better will forever be taken as stupid/ignorant/naive/anti-semitic.

Prove them wrong Cleon.

Provide examples of Palestinian peace movements, peace marches, palestinian public opinion polls and or outspoken Palestinian peace advocates.

DanishDynamite

9th February 2004, 02:40 PM

Sorry Nikk, I overlooked your post. :o

Nikk:OK a few not too closely linked observations and proposals:-

1.) Medium to Long Term Objective.............If europe could move from the massive destruction of WWII to the creation of the European Community in just 12 years (45 to 57) then there should be the potential for jews and arabs to set aside internecine warfare. Israel and its neighbours should see their long term future as part of a near/middle eastern community with free movement of people, capital, land purchase etc, etc. This means in the long term for Israel giving up the idea of a jewish state. All members of such a community would of course retain a substantial measure of independence as in the current EU. Excellent goal. But how in the world would this be achieved?
2.) Short Term Objective ..........Some form of cantonal structure for Israel/Palestine. Palestine will be economically dependent on Israel so statehood is a diversion from the greater objective of a union of states. Not sure I understand. Would Palestine be an independent country or a protectorate of Israel?
a)Give every damn jew and palestinian a get out of jail free card. That is a multi purpose laisser passer to the civilised world, i.e. Europe, North America and Australasia. That way no one feels the desperation that comes from being locked in what is currently a human zoo. The Palestinians should in addition get the option of citizenship in the arab world. Needless to say anyone taking up the offer can come and go as they please.Uh...is this realistic?
b)Israel's borders to be set at 1967 boundaries, 10 year moratorium on removal of settlers in hope they will provide employment for Palestinians and it ceases to matter.OK
c) Limited right of return to Israel proper say 50,000 to 100,000 people max.OK
d) No special citizenship rights in Israel for jews outside the country unless matched by equal rights for refugees.Why would this be neccessary?
e) Jerusalem an international city under UN control ( or religious theme park run by Disney )UN control? Why would this be a wish for either part. In the short term, perhaps, but in the long term, no.
f) A UN force in the currently occupied territories to prevent settler/palestinian conflict for as long as necesary. It would probably have to come from elite US/European units.For how long?
g) Get young palestinians males into excellent secondary and tertiary education, ideally outside the region.OK. But why only males?
If some such proposal could be made by the EU and the US it might just jump start the process. Oh and to show even handedness lets send in the SAS and the US equivalent to assassinate Sharon and Arafat.:)
I will now resume my normal ill tempered bickering. "Resume?". When did you stop? ;)

RCNelson

9th February 2004, 02:55 PM

DanishDynamite:
Of course their can be a solution. If enough pressure is brought to bare, it is of course possible. The question is what is a possible?
Well OK, if there is to be a solution at all, it would have to include both sides giving up belief in a God that favors their own side over the other side.

The Jews/Israelis believe that God gave the land to the Jews thousands of years ago. Likewise, the Muslims/Palestinians believe that Allah gave the land to the Muslims.

These are religious beliefs for which there is no political solution. Nobody is bringing pressure to bare against the religious roots of the problem. Flaws in religious world views are too sensitive to bring pressure to bare against them. It would be too politically incorrect to tell them they must reform their religious world view.

Meanwhile, all political attempts at solving the problem are futile since the problem is religious rather than political. It's a matter of incompatible religious world views.

If Europe and America are to really push things towards a solution, we must push for reform at the religious level. We must directly challenge certain backwards religious views held by the jews and Muslims.

Hutch

9th February 2004, 02:58 PM

Sorry on the link--got a C- in typing in 7th grade. :(

it's www.fmep.org/documents/Geneva_Accord.html

You can also find it at:

www.mideastinfo.com/documents/Geneva_eng.html

My bad

Hutch

9th February 2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

My point being that there is no solution, unless you count staying out of it and letting them fight it out until one of them comes out on top as a solution. It's harsh but it's the only solution I see either side accepting.

That is IF staying out was an option, Nyarlathotep. No US Government (Demican or Republicat) could afford to and survive.

If we let the radicals on each side dictate policy, then that is the only way. But if there are sane folks left (and the ones who worked in Geneva include Israeli Generals and Palestinian opposition leaders strike me as pretty sane) I don't feel we can abandon them to the insane ones.

Hutch

9th February 2004, 03:20 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by zenith-nadir

My plan would be this.

A) Send a U.N. force into the West Bank and Gaza to take control.

Not a U.N. force to separate palestinians and Israelis, a force to take control of the palestinian areas to stabilize them.

B) Once the U.N. has control of the West Bank and Gaza, free and open elections should take place to choose legitimate representatives of the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith with the Israelis.

C) Once legitimate and honest representatives are chosen a Palestinian constitution can be written.

D) Once legitimate and honest representatives are chosen negotiations with the Israelis can begin.

E) Once negotiations with the Israelis begin and both parties act in good faith, then peace will become a reality. [/QUOTE

You see, my Danish friend, this is what we face. Zenith-nadir (or Top-Bottom for short) cannot conceive of any type of peace without something first being done about the terrorists. Those on the Palestinian side can't conceive of any sort of peace talks without first removing the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. For those hardened to those opinions, it is impossible to find any argument that will convince them to compromise.

As one other poster (Nikk) mentioned, people can become friendly even after the most terrible of wars (see France-Germany, USA-Japan) but when the religious factor enters into it, it becomes that much harder (see N. Ireland and Bosnia for European examples). When God has promised you something, it makes it hard to compromise.

Still, there are some who will think out of the box..there is relative peace (albeit extremely fragile) in Belfast and Skopje and it is not an impossibility.

But Nyarlathotep is right in this--imposing it from outside will not work-the two sides must finally reach the decision themselves that this conflict must end. We can but be ready to be the "honest broker" when the time comes (I think that your country may be better able to play the role than mine)

]

zenith-nadir

9th February 2004, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Hutch
You see, my Danish friend, this is what we face. Zenith-nadir (or Top-Bottom for short) cannot conceive of any type of peace without something first being done about the terrorists.

Hutch, was the Nahariya/Avivim School Bus Attack, 1970, about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Lod Airport Massacre of 1972 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Munich Olympic Massacre of 1972 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Kiryat Shmona Massacre of 1974 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Maalot High School Massacre of 1974 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Tel Aviv Savoy Hotel attack of 1975 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Tel Aviv - Haifa highway attack of 1978 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking of 1985 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

Hutch, was the Leonardo Da Vinci International Airport massacre of 1985 about settlements in the west bank and gaza?

...and on and on and on....

It "is" about terrorism Hutch, to deny that is impossible.

Nikk

9th February 2004, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Sorry Nikk, I overlooked your post. :o

Nikk:Excellent goal. But how in the world would this be achieved?

My point here is that most proposals centre on new ways of dividing the slices of a very small cake, i.e. the current territory. In essence this is a zero sum game with an embittered loser for every winner. I am suggesting trying to get everyone to focus on a new objective, a new political structure with lots more opportunities i.e. more slices of the cake and thus bypass the zero sum problem. Note that most arabs currently are fed up with their governing elites and the proposal is designed to encourage the idea of arab unity which has great visceral appeal.

Not sure I understand. Would Palestine be an independent country or a protectorate of Israel?

By a cantonal structure I mean a loose federation. I see no point in full statehood if you are moving towards a larger EU type structure.

Uh...is this realistic?

We can fix part of it between ourselves. The idea is not ethnic cleansing but merely to encourage people to realise that they are not isolated. On reflection we would have to concentrate on the refugees of course as there is simply no room for more than a fraction to return.

OK

OK

Why would this be neccessary?

The idea is to move away from the outdated 19thC idea of Israel as a "Jewish" state with special immigration rights for jews who have no link to the country at the expense of palestinian refugees.

UN control? Why would this be a wish for either part. In the short term, perhaps, but in the long term, no.

Agreed; in the long term some special status analogous to the Vatican City might work. In the short term neither side would trust the other.

For how long?

Until some trust is built up. Note we are working here towards a situation in which Palestinians feel happy to move into jewish settlements and vice versa not necessarily to evacuate the settlements.

OK. But why only males?
:)

Because they are better shots. There's the cultural side too.

"Resume?". When did you stop? ;)

I realise the whole thing sounds utopian but sometimes a problem is insoluable without a paradigm shift. For all save the largest political units - the US, China, errm......nationalism has had its day and new structures must replace the nation state. Israel as I said above is a 19thC concept and so is Palestine together with the rest of the neighbours. Time for them to be encouraged to move on.

Bear in mind that in the home of Islamic fundamentalism, Iran, the theocrats have had to disqualify 3000 or so candidates in the next election because they are not Islamic enough and the younger section of the population is increasingly fed up with theocracy. So this particular philosophy is already showing signs of failure. Radical thinking of the type I suggest might help to put the boot in throughout the arab and indeed muslim world.

Nikk

9th February 2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Hutch
[QUOTE]Originally posted by zenith-nadir

As one other poster (Nikk) mentioned, people can become friendly even after the most terrible of wars (see France-Germany, USA-Japan) but when the religious factor enters into it, it becomes that much harder (see N. Ireland and Bosnia for European examples). When God has promised you something, it makes it hard to compromise.

]

Yes religion is a big problem of course. But on the muslim side Palestine was never a promised land, it was just where they lived. Jerusalem has great significance but that can have a special status.

On the Israeli side their proportional representational system overstates the importance of fundamentalists, there seem to be plenty of secular jews and non fundamentalist believers who would settle for a compromise solution.

I am sure jews are only too well aware that zealotry has led to the complete destruction of Israel once before.

Nikk

9th February 2004, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

It "is" about terrorism Hutch, to deny that is impossible.

Terrorism is a symptom of a more fundamental problem but it is true that the symptom makes the underlying problem worse. Much like a fever weakens the organism. But one must focus on the underlying problem not the symptom.

Every Palestinian could match your list with his or her own list. There is no neutral arbitrator to allocate blame to everyones's satisfaction.

Mycroft

9th February 2004, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
BTW, I find it interesting that "the usual suspects" in regard to Israel-Palestine discussions haven't made a peep. Says a lot, I think.

Well, assuming I’m included in your list of “usual suspects” I’ll have you know I’ve been monitoring the thread but haven’t posted yet because A) I’ve been in another thread with a lot of activity, and B) The question is thought-provoking and I wanted some time to think. Having had some time to think, I’ve come up with the following scenerios:

1) How I would like it to happen:

All of ten million people wake up one morning and decide that they’re tired of people getting killed and they’re overwhelmed with new feelings of peace, love, friendship and compassion for one another. They act on these feelings, the rest is just details.

2) How I think it would happen:

Sharon’s unilateral disengagement plan will prompt Arafat to unilaterally declare an independent state of Palestine. Naturally this will still involve conflicts over borders and Jerusalem, so this will require Palestinian-Arabs attacking Israelis at every point of vulnerability. This Palestinian-Arab/Israeli fighting is short lived (but bloody) as internal power struggles between Hamas and the Palestinian-Authority will erupt in a Palestinian-Arab civil war which will be make previous bloodshed seem like a playground scrape.

Israel will not have enough sense to stay out of this internal Palestinian-Arab fighting and will try to intervene for humanitarian reasons, which will be seen by the Arab world as Israeli aggression and maybe attempted genocide, which will prompt Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to attack Israel. Egypt and Saudi Arabia would start the fighting by attacking American forces within their own borders, which will take the US by surprise and they will lose most if not all of their forces.

The USA (God help us all if Bush is still in charge) will rattle sabres but be temporarily impotent until our aircraft carrier fleet is redirected to the region. By the time they get there, the issues are mostly resolved as once again the IDF prevails over amazing Arab military incompetence. Israel then offers the surviving Palestinian-Arabs humanitarian aid and help setting up their government, the Palestinian-Arabs take it, but curse Israel in the process, and the result is another Palestinian-Arab state with a territory that’s somewhat less that what Arafat turned down in 2000, a capital in the Gaza Strip, and not one inch of Jerusalem, except that the Arabs are still left in control of the Temple Mount.

3) The solution I would implement if I were made temporary diplomatic god of the region with the backing of the world behind me:

IDF forces within the territories would stand down and be replaced with UN forces. These IDF forces would be free to take up new positions within the Green Line. Sharon will be asked to retire, and the Knesset will be told to shut-up and be patient for a while.

The UN would arrest Arafat and drop him in some prison somewhere undisclosed with no contact with the outside world.

Terrorists and anyone with ties to terrorism would be given a brief time, maybe a month, to turn themselves in and receive amnesty. If they turn themselves in, they are detained until everything is resolved, and all previous crimes are forgiven. If they don’t turn themselves in, it’s open season when the amnesty period expires.

A two-states one-border solution is implemented. The Israeli government for Jews, a Palestinian government for Arabs, and everyone else gets to choose which government represents them. Each government is responsible for it’s own citizenry, taxation, education, social services, etc, with the Israeli government responsible for the defense of the overall territory. Jerusalem becomes the capital city of both governments.

Both Israel and Palestine are invited to have constitutional congresses to figure out the details of this arrangement ironing out such issues as how to draft laws that are compatible, and how to take care of public services for both peoples. Afterwards (or maybe before) new public elections are held for both groups.

A multi-ethnic law enforcement group is created to handle crimes between citizens of thee two nations.

It’s insane, yes, but could it work?

zenith-nadir

9th February 2004, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Nikk
Terrorism is a symptom of a more fundamental problem but it is true that the symptom makes the underlying problem worse. Much like a fever weakens the organism. But one must focus on the underlying problem not the symptom.Every Palestinian could match your list with his or her own list. There is no neutral arbitrator to allocate blame to everyones's satisfaction.

Nikk, I am afraid Palestinians cannot match having cafes, restaurants, stores, buses and malls being suicide bombed 117 times by Israelis since 2000.

But just for the exercise, using your moral equivalence theory Nikk, Al Qaeda was justified to attack the USA on 9-11 because a) it is not the underlying problem, and b) Al Qaeda could match equal injustices that the Americans have perpetrated.

Am I correct ot incorrect?

Hutch

9th February 2004, 05:44 PM

Mycroft, just a couple points on what otherwise is a post I concur with most heartily.

It would take something massive to allow Syria, Egypt and Saudi to attack Israel. Egypt would have to mass troops and move them across the Sinai--and since most of their military is now based on ours, cutting off logistics support would probably cripple them--and they know it. Syria shot it's bolt in 1973 and came closer than most know to dislodging the IDF from the Golan, but their equipment is out of date and the military force divided with their Lebanon involvement. Saudi would have to cross borders to reach Israel, and while I don't want to say much, they are no match for the IDF, even with the modern equipment we've sold them. Not lack of courage, just tactical and strategic limitations.

The US Military prescence in Egypt is limited and they work closely with the Egyptian military, who I believe could shield them until they could leave the country. Saudi would be harder because we have more troops there, but they are more mobile, they are far from centers of population, and we are moving them out to another location in the near future.

Your solution may work, but being imposed from without could lead to issues not being resolved, simply steamrolled over--with the pressure causing cracks. Still, one can hope.

Now, what's the latest from the Diogenes Club?

;)

Nikk

9th February 2004, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Nikk, I am afraid Palestinians cannot match having cafes, restaurants, stores, buses and malls being suicide bombed 117 times by Israelis since 2000.

But just for the exercise, using your moral equivalence theory Nikk, Al Qaeda was justified to attack the USA on 9-11 because a) it is not the underlying problem, and b) Al Qaeda could match equal injustices that the Americans have perpetrated.

Am I correct ot incorrect?

Well in the Intifada so far the score is very roughly 4000 dead palestinians versus about 1000 dead jews so of course their view is that they could match your list.

You don't seem to follow my point that there is no mutually acceptable neutral arbitrator to decide whether one set of killings is "justifiable" and another isn't. The Palestinians and many muslims feel just as strongly as you do that their "side" in the right. That is why I focus on measures which might remove the causes of terrorism rather than subject different concepts of justification to an analysis.

That said if I was in a position to attempt to impose the kind of plan I outlined in my earlier posts I would have no qualms about destroying palestinian or jewish groups which attempted to undermine it.

I suspect you feel that Al Q style fundamentalist terrorism is the same as Palestinian terrorism. I don't. Palestine/Israel is a fairly conventional if prolonged and immensly bitter colonial war over territory rather like the war in French Algeria which ended in the 60's. Once the arabs won and the French went home, that was it, end of problem. We can discuss Al Q in more detail some other time if you like. ;)

The Fool

9th February 2004, 07:23 PM

Any longlasting solution would have to address the Nationalistic desires of Israelis and palesinians. This would need to start with stable agreed borders. For this purpose Israel needs to clearly commit to a final border, the green line seems popular, why not use that?

This would require Israel to cease expansion both by military occupation and settlement. All land outside of this "final Israel" is then available for the formation of a palestinian state.....No fences, checkpoints or corridors....one piece of land.

This leaves the problem of gaza....an east and west pakistan model? I simply cannot see these two pieces of land becoming a viable single nation... A right of access corridor? yuck, what a can of worms... Two palestinian states? yuck again... two chunks is very messy but pacific Island nations manage it....

In the end 8 million palestinians are not going to simply go away. The shagging stuffup the "free world" has made of handling the collapse of the Ottoman empire and the fate of these unwanted people is coming home to roost. Lasting peace can only be achieved through a fair outcome for palestinians....like it or not.

What the palestinians would have given for Oil or a royal family with british or french connections.....They may have even got a nation in the first round of handouts instead of being required to wrestle the zionists for what was left over after the favors were handed out.

Schizobunny

9th February 2004, 08:15 PM

Well to me it just seems like they are killing eachother because they think the other one is going to attack them. If we could just get them to stop thinking the other one is going to attack them, but I don't know how this would be done.

demon

9th February 2004, 11:15 PM

For a start:
End the illegal and immoral military occupation.
Dismantle the illegal and immoral settlements.
Observe the borders, not those of Greater Israel.

The UN has passed scores and scores of resolutions Israel has ignored, or got their exceptional good friend America to veto. Masses and masses of them. Requesting observance of UN resolutions would be a good start, and something that can be reasonably "coherrently" demanded from the grass-roots.

The solutuon lies with the US if they had the will.

As for Arafat, he certainly has enriched himself at the expense of the Palestinians, however it is the Palestinians who should decide who is their leader or the same can be said about Sharon who is untrustworthy, possibly corrupt, and a complicit war criminal. Lets replace him with someone who is interested in peace and capable of dealing with the IDF and the Israeli Settler/terrorists? Or do you believe that it is utterly unnacceptable for an external agent to demand the removal of a democratically-elected leader of another country?

A few other suggestions:

1)A UN peacekeeping force enters to patrol the 1967 borders

2)Prisoners held without trial unconditionally released. Those convicted moved closer to their families in the occupied territories under Palestinian jurisdiction, with the right of appeal for those protesting innocence. Amnesty for those whose actions didn;t violate the Geneva convention.

3)Israel to immediately release Conscientious objectors it has jailed.

4)International task force to investigate war crimes on both sides, with a mandate to bring those responsible to justice.

a_unique_person

9th February 2004, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Most threads on this issue seem to be heavily into which part in the conflict is most to blame. Interesting, I suppose, but not very solution oriented.

I once (long ago) had a long debate with Cleo among others regarding what the main obstacles to a solution were. If I recal corectly, it was narrowed down to who gets title to Jerusalem and the Right-og-Return problem.

I was wondering if the posters who are wont to post on this subject have gone beyond the "who is most to blame" stage and have actually considered how this conflict might realisticly be solved.

So, which realistic scenarios have you come up with?

I recall Shemp stating that the State of Israel is doomed either way, as it is strategically in a dead end. I had not considered this alternative. One of the solutions that is now being pushed is the absorption of West Bank and Gaza into Israel, with the inhabitants becoming full Israeli citizens. (There is no alternative, such as the current proposal from Likud of creating Palestinian ghettos). In time, the majority of Israel will once again be Palestinians.

zenith-nadir

10th February 2004, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Nikk
Well in the Intifada so far the score is very roughly 4000 dead palestinians versus about 1000 dead jews so of course their view is that they could match your list.

Not one of those Palestinians died at the hands of an Israeli suicide bomber Nikk. Not one.

I see I am going to have to teach you the meaning of terrorism.

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Suicide bombing innocent men, women and children riding a bus or eating pizza or waiting in line at disco or playing in a pool hall is the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.

IDF soldiers fighting with Hamas, Fatah, Al Aksa, Islamic Jihad or Tanzim, terrorists on the streets of Jenin or Ramallah is not the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion.

Originally posted by Nikk
You don't seem to follow my point that there is no mutually acceptable neutral arbitrator to decide whether one set of killings is "justifiable" and another isn't.

Tell that to the families of the 9-11 victims Nikk. Tell them that because America has killed Al Qaeda terrorists in the past that "there is no mutually acceptable neutral arbitrator to decide whether one set of killings is "justifiable" and another isn't."

Originally posted by Nikk
I suspect you feel that Al Q style fundamentalist terrorism is the same as Palestinian terrorism.

Well the next time Palestinians blow up a family eating in a restaurant in Haifa I will be sure to tell their relatives that it is ok, palestinian terrorism isn't really terrorism. Nikk said so.

Originally posted by Demon
End the illegal and immoral military occupation.

Israel's military occupation ended demon. Israeli Defence Forces have redeployed from the Gaza Strip and most large population areas in the West Bank, the Palestinian Legislative Council has authority over all areas in Gaza and the West Bank except Israeli settlements and military locations.

Or didn't you hear about the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements in 1993 and the Oslo II agreement 1994.

Originally posted by Demon
Dismantle the illegal and immoral settlements.

How can an inanimate object be immoral?

Originally posted by Demon
The UN has passed scores and scores of resolutions Israel has ignored

And once again I must point out the Palestinian Charter for you.

The Palestinian Charter - Palestinian Ministry of Information (http://www.pna.org/mininfo/key/charter.htm)

Article 19:The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel is null and void from the very beginning

Palestinians reject U.N. Resolution 181 passed on November 29, 1947....therefore Demon in plain english the Palestinian "claim" to all following U.N. Resolutions is also "null and void".

Sorry to break the news to you, but I am sure you will continue to entertain us with a completely bizarre explanation why palestinians don't have to listen to the U.N. and Israeli do. :D

zenith-nadir

10th February 2004, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
Any longlasting solution would have to address the Nationalistic desires of Israelis and palesinians.

Here is a longlasting solution.

It is called The Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The Roadmap Full Text (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062.htm)

Here are the first twelve words in Phase 1 of The Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

"In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence"....That is what everyone around the world is waiting for.

After the "unconditional cessation of violence";

"Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation based on the Tenet work plan to end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services."
After "plans to end violence, terrorism, and incitement";

"Palestinians undertake comprehensive political reform in preparation for statehood, including drafting a Palestinian constitution, and free, fair and open elections upon the basis of those measures."

Countries are not handed out at the local gas station with every fill up.... you actually have to work to get a country and make the lives of it's people better by fulfilling the obligations put upon you as their leader.

So far the Palestinians have failed to live up to even the first 12 words of the Performance-Based Roadmap.

LuxFerum

10th February 2004, 03:40 AM

1) Clone Mohandas Karamchand G.
2) Plastic surgery to make him looks like Araft.
3) At night, when nobody is looking, kidnap araft and put the clone in his place.
4) wait.

Predictions:

1) With his new policy of civil disobedience, nonviolence, and the use of fasting as a form of protest, Israel will withdraw from the occupied territories.
2) West Bank and Gaza Strip will became 2 separated states, the first secular, the other an Islamic Republic.
3) West Bank develops nuclear weapons, and soon after Gaza Strip too.
4) Gaza Strip will recognise that the father of Gaza Strip’s nuclear weapons was engaged in nuclear proliferation activities.

The Fool

10th February 2004, 03:52 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
1) Remove Arafat and replace him with someone who is honest, able to fulfill treaty obligations and able to deal with the Hamas, PLFP, Islamic Jihad, Tanzim, Fatah and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade terrorists.

Good Idea... sounds easy, I'm not doing anything next week if Superman or Batman are not available... But seriously, Arafat is a tosser but he is the tosser with the job people are going to have to deal with him or wait for him to die. I see no reason why it would be easier to deal with those that come after him.

2) Israel will then be forced to pull back to the 1967 greenline.

why? What is stopping them from doing that tomorrow?

3) As it stands Arabs, Jews and Christians enjoy free access to all holy places in Jerusalem. Leave Jerusalem under Israeli control, it's worked for decades. Don't fix something if it isn't broken.
free access? I don't think so...
http://www.charleston.net/stories/110103/wor_01mideast.shtml
you often state things with calm assurance....do you not notice that often what is going on doesn't seem to match the picture you paint?

4) Most of the "right of return" refugees who left in 1948 are five decades older and would fair poorly moving back into an alien culture and country. Therefore perhaps monetary compensation would be a better option.

Hang in there and the passage of time will legitamise your occupation? This is standard colonial practice. If Americans were driven into Canada and mexico how much money would put that right? Tell them they will be better off being mexicans and canadians and bugger what mexico or Canada think about it too...

5) If you were born outside of 1948 Palestine you should become a citizen of the country you were born in. Like everywhere else on earth. Otherwise where do you suggest putting 4 million Islamic palestinian descendants inside jewish Israel?

once again this is simply not true. I don't know of any country that gives citizenship to the children of refugees, can you help me? Some (like Australia) do have limited programs that offer citizenship under various humanitarian schemes but it really is small numbers compared to the worlds oversupply of refugees....Can you tell us of the countries where children of refugees get citizenship? You say its "everywhere else in the world" shouldn't be hard to come up with a couple.

I completely agree with your condemnation of terrorism, These murderers do Palestinians no favors except keep them in the world news, which is what I suspect thier aim is... I fear if they had not been in the world news they would have already suffered "who remembers the Armenians" syndrome. There has got to be a better way for them to achieve the justice they seek...maybe superman and batman are the answer?

demon

10th February 2004, 04:25 AM

ZN:
I don't want to be mistaken here so let me address the UN point.
I don`t look to the UN, selectively or otherwise, to bolster the ethical case for anything. I used the UN to indicate the concensus that exists in the world considering the Occupied Territories and Settlements. Nothing more, nothing less.
Just because the UN 'legalised' ethnic cleansing in effect (let's just pass over the fact that the US strongarmed many newly-formed third world nations with threats and enticements to have the partition vote go your way. ), by calling for the removal of Palestinians from 50 percent of the land, when at that point they occupied 94% of the land, doesn't make it right.

BUT you won't reverse the proposition in order to attempt to understand this idiocy. Will you simply ignore it and again post up more irrelevant litanies and lists of Palestinian "terrorism"? You are deaf to the answers that's all. If the answer doesn't begin firmly within the frame of reference you demand.

Why do we know this is deafness? Because you simply would never grant that what is being done to Palestinians is right -if we did the thought experiment of putting Israelis in precisely the situation Palestinians are currently enduring. Yours is an essentially tribal, rather than ethical, argument. You would scream at the blatent butchery and enslavement going on - as you do at the relatively small amount of payback that the Palestinians inflict on you - if that butchery and enslavement was inflicted on your own.

So we know you are deaf to reason, because your arguments only work for you if the words 'Israelis' and 'Palestinians' are put in the context that they currently occupy.

What I said earlier directly answered the question you asked about the responsibility of Arab states - but was not set in the framework you demand. It was this - "YOU, the supporter of ethnic cleansing, do not have the moral standing to tell anyone whose responsiblity it is to clean up your heros' purges". To be more explicit, you must deal with your overwhelming responsibility here before you can credibly raise the question of others responsibilities.

Let's move back to your comments about the valiant little Israel absorbing all those Jews from the Arab world and the comparitive churlishness of Arab states in shouldering their own absorbtion. This, in your own mind, is what gives you some sort of moral high ground. "Look at how we did things? Now look at those hopeless Arabs!" This is truly a Zionist clarion call to the uprightness of Israelis - except it is casuistry.

At the time Israel took in these refugees, it was crying out for them, in order to boltser its aggression. So the situation is that you were not putting yourselves out to help them - you absolutely neeeded them.

Yet it`s much worse than this. It is not that you just opportunistically took advantage of this flight. Israelis largely engineered it - as is irrefutably documented in the Iraqi "pogrom" and Israeli airlift in the 1950s. So you inflicted misery on many of your fellow Jews, destroying their age old connection with Iraq Morocco, Egypt and toher places, in order to build your fascist project.

So your 'virtue' is really a pile of ashes in your mouth, but you try to inflict this Zionist narrative on Westerners at all points so that we know just how "inferior" Arabs are.

If I come from Jerusalem I come from Jerusalem, if I come from Nablus, then it`s Nablus I come from. I don't come from some sort of amorphous 'Arab' world...Palestinians come from Palestine.
Frankly, most European Jews these days have more European in them than Palestinians have Arab. So where does that leave Israelis? Why can't Europe soak you back up and leave the actual owners of Palestine alone? I mean, a huge number of Israelis carry both nationalities, so why don't you do the right thing and return to your countries in Europe and N America. Note how offended you suddenly feel? See how stupid this argument looks to you? Well it`s yours not mine; with the major difference that you are defending colonisers, oppressors and aggressors and I am defending their victims.
But this sort of reversal falls on deaf ears, since you are simply unable to apply to yourself what you wish to apply to others.

If your claim to the land of Palestine is historical, you have a short reign thousands of years ago in which to make this claim. Palestinians (Christian, Moslem and Jewish) have a claim that land that stretches back to your own glory days - but it is UNBROKEN. That Arabs subjected Palestine to their rule and then intermarried does not make Palestinians any less Palestinian than they are. You certainly don't object to this assessment of your 'Europeanness'. As far as you`re concerned, all that European blood doesn't make you less Jewish. Why should the Arab blood make a Palestinian less Palestinian?

I forgot, you`re incapable of applying your own morality to yourself.
To me, all the above have a certain irrelevance from a humanist point of view. I don't care whether you're a Jew, Arab or Christian. I care about one thing - does the person across from me support or engage in brutal and oppressive behaviour that puts their "group" above others at any cost - to the others. You certainly qualify for the first catagory.

I guess at bottom I'm not really addressing you because you are deaf. Yet I would like to thank you for opening this discussion, because it gives us such a great forum for getting out the truth that you cannot bear to face squarely. We get the chance to show people the outloook of a real Zionist, victimhood streaming out behind you, through your words. You are the vessel through which we can simply point others to the corruption, the degeneracy and inhumanity of the Zionist narrative.
__________________________________________________ __

Now back to the thread.

a_unique_person, that is a solution that is very attractive to some, but can you see it happening?
I can`t see a way of replacing the desire for Eretz Israel and those who seek it, with a democratic Israel that absorbs the West Bank and Gaza into Israel, "with the inhabitants becoming full Israeli citizens."
The building of the Wall would seem to indicate that the Likud`s Palestinian ghettos idea is a very real alternative.

The Fool

10th February 2004, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

So far the Palestinians have failed to live up to even the first 12 words of the Performance-Based Roadmap.

I notice you don't include the Israeli obligations.Both sides have failed to live up to the roadmap. Where is Israels "all necessary steps to help normalize Palestinian life" where is the "Israel withdraws from Palestinian areas occupied from September 28, 2000 and the two sides restore the status quo that existed at that time, as security performance and cooperation progress. Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report."

So far Sharon has said he will think about starting to talk about withdrawing settlements, or was it talking about starting to think about it?...I'm not sure. Either way....full speed ahead on the settlements.

Why is it Unreasonable to ask that the occupation end before the resistance to the occupation ends? If you say the Palestinians will continue anyway after the withdrawal then lets see....If they don't then maybe America Britain and Australia will consider occupying the west bank and gaza and relieve Israel of the job.

Mycroft

10th February 2004, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
once again this is simply not true. I don't know of any country that gives citizenship to the children of refugees, can you help me? Some (like Australia) do have limited programs that offer citizenship under various humanitarian schemes but it really is small numbers compared to the worlds oversupply of refugees....Can you tell us of the countries where children of refugees get citizenship? You say its "everywhere else in the world" shouldn't be hard to come up with a couple.

What country doesn't give citizenship to the children of refugees? The United States does, is this something that is uncommon? The thing is, once they are settled and certainly after a generation has passed, we don't call them refugees anymore.

I don't know how things are done in Australia, but if I were to visit your country, have a child on Australian soil (well, in a hospital, but you get the idea) wouldn't that child have a claim to Australian citizenship regardless of my own citizenship status?

zenith-nadir

10th February 2004, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by demon
blah...blah...blah...blah

I'll tell you what Demon. I have stated over and over that Israel is not perfect...that they make mistakes...that they do things that do not make sense...

I believe the key to peace in the middle east is the end of palestinian terrorism.

I believe that when your 'enemy' is literally on your doorstep with tanks and troops pointing guns in your face on a daily basis a rational man would take time to contemplate that they may have lost the battle and should explore alternative courses of action, like peaceful negotiation, instead of kicking it up a notch and sending in more suicide bombers.

Call me crazy.

___________________________________________

Originally posted by The Fool
I notice you don't include the Israeli obligations.Both sides have failed to live up to the roadmap.

No. Wrong.

The first twelve words in Phase 1 of The Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict are;

"In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence"....

That is clear as can be. It doesn't say "Israel immediately undertakes an unconditional cessation of violence".

The next part is;

such action should be accompanied by supportive measures undertaken by Israel.

Those "supportive measures" are;

1) resume security cooperation
2) normalize Palestinian life
3) withdraw from Palestinian areas
4) freeze all settlement activity

Israel cannot be supportive if the Palestinian's do not "immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence".

Here is step #1 & #2, in plain english just to be clear.

1) Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence.

2) Such action should be accompanied by supportive measures undertaken by Israel.

It is not written;

1) Israel should undertake supportive measures.

2) Then after supportive measures by Israel Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence.

epepke

10th February 2004, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Grammatron:Hold on. How can the first step be a country called Palestine? That would seem to be the goal?
I don't quite understand your proposal. How can step 3 = borders if step 1 = country of Palestine?

I don't necessarily agree, but even if the last step is a recognized country, the first step might be a governmental structure, with a real constitution, elections, so on and so forth, the things that the PLO isn't.

epepke

10th February 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft
What country doesn't give citizenship to the children of refugees? The United States does, is this something that is uncommon? The thing is, once they are settled and certainly after a generation has passed, we don't call them refugees anymore.

It's an Australian thing; there's a lot of public hostility to taking in refugees especially from Indo- and other -nesias, who come over in boats.

I don't know how things are done in Australia, but if I were to visit your country, have a child on Australian soil (well, in a hospital, but you get the idea) wouldn't that child have a claim to Australian citizenship regardless of my own citizenship status?

Dunno about Australia, but while someone born on US soil automatically gets to be a US citizen, this is rare amongst other countries.

Mycroft

10th February 2004, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by epepke
Dunno about Australia, but while someone born on US soil automatically gets to be a US citizen, this is rare amongst other countries.

I didn’t know that. It didn’t occur to me that being born in a country wouldn’t be considered a sovereign claim to that countries citizenship. You learn something new everyday, I suppose.

davefoc

10th February 2004, 10:55 AM

ZN's paraphrase of Demon's post:blah...blah...blah...blah

ZN, Demon in a few words provided one of the most straightforward, logical and heartfelt refutations of the kind of craziness that you spew that I have seen.

I felt lucky to be able to take part in a forum where people with Demon's skills contribute.

Your response was disgusting and disheartening. In case you have failed to notice even those that support some of your views on this forum have been embarressed by your dependence on illogic and mythology. Why do you post? Do you think any one here is impressed with your response to Demon?

Do you think anyone here is impressed with references to thousands of year old biblical mythology as a justification for your ideas?

epepke

10th February 2004, 10:57 AM

Zero

10th February 2004, 11:00 AM

So, no one is going with my "ice water and porn" solotion?:(

zenith-nadir

10th February 2004, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
ZN's paraphrase of Demon's post: ZN, Demon in a few words provided one of the most straightforward, logical and heartfelt refutations of the kind of craziness that you spew that I have seen.

Since you guys know it "all", and everyone else is "crazy", I suggest you start your own special message board.

Originally posted by davefoc
Do you think anyone here is impressed with references to thousands of year old biblical mythology as a justification for your ideas?.

I DON'T CARE what impresses you. Can you get that through your skull.

I don't go around telling people what to write, how to type it, the volume you should write it in and the content of what you write.

Allthough I am beginning to see that that is a common theme at JREF.

Cleon

10th February 2004, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Zero
So, no one is going with my "ice water and porn" solotion?:(

But that's your solution to everything...

Zero

10th February 2004, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Cleon

But that's your solution to everything... No it isn't...sometimes I suggest Wendy's Frosties instead of ice water.

Mycroft

10th February 2004, 01:22 PM

Automatic acquisition of citizenship on 10th birthday.
A child born in Australia on or after 20 August 1986, who did not acquire Australian citizenship at birth, automatically acquires it on their 10th birthday if they have been ordinarily resident in Australia for 10 years from birth. This provision operates regardless of the parent/s immigration or citizenship status.

http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/17nz.htm

Well, it seems that Australia grants citizenship to people who are born there, so it can't be all that uncommon. I haven't checked the other 140 nations in the world yet.

davefoc

10th February 2004, 01:53 PM

I think this idea has been put forward by several people but I'm not sure I have read exactly what is wrong with the idea. Admittedly the idea is simplistic and I am not trying to advocate it, just to ask what's wrong with it.

Israel, unilaterally declares peace.

It pulls back from the occupied territories.

It stops building its wall on disputed territory.

It announces its intent to the Palestinians to complete a wall that surrounds its own territory if terrorist attacks continue.

The US announces a foreign aid package, part of which is used to subsidize Palestinian security forces and the rest of which is used to subsidize the rebuilding of the Palestinian infrastructure and all of which is contingent on the end of terrorism in Israel.

The US announces that it will cease all foreign aid to Israel in a year if any Israeli settlements exist in the occupied territories.

There might be other parts of this package which might include compensating Palestinians who are not allowed the right of return.

The Fool

10th February 2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/17nz.htm

Well, it seems that Australia grants citizenship to people who are born there, so it can't be all that uncommon. I haven't checked the other 140 nations in the world yet.
this does not refer to refugees it deals with New Zealanders and thier australian born children... Australia and NZ have specific citizenship agreements. All thier unemployed come here to bgo to the beach and all our unemployed go there to ski ;)

BTW...If a pregnant woman on a tourist visa steps off a plane and gives birth on the tarmac is that baby an american citizen?

from:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/01/1062403450343.html

"Meanwhile a five-year-old girl, born in Australia to asylum seeker parents, has mounted a High Court challenge to laws that say she is not a citizen."

from:http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-rights-of-children-and-young-people/citizenship,-nationality-and-refugees/index.shtml
"Children born in the UK before 1 January 1983 are automatically British citizens irrespective of the nationality or immigration status of their parents. Children born in the United Kingdom after that date are British citizens only if one parent - or the mother only of a non-marital child - is a British citizen or is settled in the United Kingdom at the time of the birth. Children and young people may apply for British citizenship by application to the Home Office for registration."

The Fool

10th February 2004, 03:58 PM

Further reading on this topic tells me that America gives an absolute right of citizenship to anyone born on american soil and under the jurstiction of america.....Congratulations, I wish My country was like this. I am still far from convinced that this is the case "in the rest of the world" as ZN claims....It definitely is not in Australia nor in GB...

epepke

10th February 2004, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
BTW...If a pregnant woman on a tourist visa steps off a plane and gives birth on the tarmac is that baby an american citizen?

Probably. Except that we call it asphalt instead of tarmac.

Certainly, if she has gotten through customs. From birth, not at age 10 or some such.

[edited to add] Unless she's on an Indian reservation, which is technically not US soil. And there's a little park in Tampa which is technically Cuban soil; not sure what would happen there.

The Fool

10th February 2004, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by epepke

[edited to add] Unless she's on an Indian reservation, which is technically not US soil. And there's a little park in Tampa which is technically Cuban soil; not sure what would happen there.
Interesting about Native merican reservations...
In Australia, Indigenous people were not given citizenship of thier own country till 1967...yes, thats nineteen67...

Mycroft

10th February 2004, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by epepke

Probably. Except that we call it asphalt instead of tarmac.

Certainly, if she has gotten through customs. From birth, not at age 10 or some such.

[edited to add] Unless she's on an Indian reservation, which is technically not US soil. And there's a little park in Tampa which is technically Cuban soil; not sure what would happen there.

I didn't know that about Indian reservations. Are you sure? I mean Indians born on reservations get citizenship.

If I were to go to that Tampa park and buy a hotdog, would I be in violation of that State Department prohibition against spending money in Cuba and go to prison?

The Fool

10th February 2004, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

I didn't know that about Indian reservations. Are you sure? I mean Indians born on reservations get citizenship.

If I were to go to that Tampa park and buy a hotdog, would I be in violation of that State Department prohibition against spending money in Cuba and go to prison?
Can you legally buy Cuban Cigars in this park?

Mycroft

10th February 2004, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
Can you legally buy Cuban Cigars in this park?

I'm sure the State Department would frown on that. However, it should be legal to move the cigars to the park for storage, and then if something unknown happened to them causing them to be lost somehow...well, that sort of thing happens sometimes.

DanishDynamite

11th February 2004, 08:16 AM

Well, quite a plethora of possible scenarios. And a minimum of delving into historical justification. Thanks everyone.

It seems to me that a number of these scenarios are workable. They would, however, require the unified determined will of the "world community" to carry out.

Any thoughts on how this could be achieved? What would finally make the world's major players get together and say enough is enough? I mean, most of the world has become immune to the daily suicide bombings followed by retribution. What would it take, beyond the impossible dream of simultanously having enlightened leaders in every country, for this to occur?

rikzilla

11th February 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
ZN's paraphrase of Demon's post:

ZN, Demon in a few words provided one of the most straightforward, logical and heartfelt refutations of the kind of craziness that you spew that I have seen.

I felt lucky to be able to take part in a forum where people with Demon's skills contribute.

Your response was disgusting and disheartening. In case you have failed to notice even those that support some of your views on this forum have been embarressed by your dependence on illogic and mythology. Why do you post? Do you think any one here is impressed with your response to Demon?

Do you think anyone here is impressed with references to thousands of year old biblical mythology as a justification for your ideas?

Oh puhlese!

Z-N, Davefoc is one of Demon's cheerleaders. They've been thick as thieves in their political biases. Sure he feels lucky to have Demon in the forum.....however, I do not....with reason:

<iframe width="100%" height="400" src="http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=380124"></iframe>

Demon is an enemy of authority. He sees people in uniform as inhuman. An utterly despicable, contrarian, creep.

Now, to the question posed by this thread.... easy. You will need to find two leaders who are actually interested in implementing a peaceful solution. Israel has done it before with Begin @ Camp David. The peace with Egypt held. Why? Well not because Sadat loved Israel....but because he was a leader serious about making peace. His reward was death at the hands of Arab terrorists....Al-Qaeda's pre-cursor.

Z-N is correct. That first sentence of the "Road Map" is very telling...and shows very objectively that the Palestinian leadership has no intentions towards peace.

-z

davefoc

11th February 2004, 10:38 AM

DD,
After I wrote my scenario I went back and read through this page of the thread again. It seems like, at least with quite a few of the posters, there was something of a common idea.

That idea is that Israel act unillaterally to begin implementing a plan to remove itself from the occupied territories.

Why won't this happen?
1. ZN is exhibit number one. ZN and others here constantly put forth the idea that all violence needs to cease before Israel can begin to remove itself from the occupied territories. The problem of course is that violence isn't going to cease while it is driven by continued attempts by Israel to expand and to divide up the west bank into little pieces. That is not to say it will cease if Israel abandons its expansion plans, just that this is a necessary step for the beginning of the end of the violence.

2. The US. The US has been mucking about in Israel since the very beginning. It is now accepted lore here that the US actions have been based on some sort of moral imperative and the US has acted for good. People don't like to think that their country has made a grave mistake that has the prospect of having created a situation without any just or peaceful solution. So the US, especially during an election cycle, will continue to push on with its disastrous policies even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they have been largely responsible for the creation of a world destabilzing disaster.

Why peace might happen
I don't know. But the fact is that over time conflicts do end, it's just that some last a very long time.

I think as a younger generation of Israelis comes to grips with the nature of the founding of their country and develops a realistic view about the wrongs committed by both sides there will be more movement in Israel to act unilaterally to end the conflict.

It may be that a wall that was built within the recognized borders of Israel could put a kind of defacto end to the conflict. I understand that the wall built around Gaza seems to be working.

DanishDynamite

11th February 2004, 11:47 AM

davefoc:That idea is that Israel act unillaterally to begin implementing a plan to remove itself from the occupied territories.

Why won't this happen?
1. ZN is exhibit number one. ZN and others here constantly put forth the idea that all violence needs to cease before Israel can begin to remove itself from the occupied territories. The problem of course is that violence isn't going to cease while it is driven by continued attempts by Israel to expand and to divide up the west bank into little pieces. That is not to say it will cease if Israel abandons its expansion plans, just that this is a necessary step for the beginning of the end of the violence.I agree.
2. The US. The US has been mucking about in Israel since the very beginning. It is now accepted lore here that the US actions have been based on some sort of moral imperative and the US has acted for good. People don't like to think that their country has made a grave mistake that has the prospect of having created a situation without any just or peaceful solution. So the US, especially during an election cycle, will continue to push on with its disastrous policies even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they have been largely responsible for the creation of a world destabilzing disaster.While I would hate to be classified as yet another anti-American foreigner, I do think you have a point here.
Why peace might happen
I don't know. But the fact is that over time conflicts do end, it's just that some last a very long time.

I think as a younger generation of Israelis comes to grips with the nature of the founding of their country and develops a realistic view about the wrongs committed by both sides there will be more movement in Israel to act unilaterally to end the conflict. I think you are right. The question is whether we can wait this long?
It may be that a wall that was built within the recognized borders of Israel could put a kind of defacto end to the conflict. I understand that the wall built around Gaza seems to be working.I doubt it. It reminds me of the Berlin Wall which didn't stop anything except refugees.

demon

11th February 2004, 11:51 AM

"Demon is an enemy of authority. He sees people in uniform as inhuman. An utterly despicable, contrarian, creep."
ROTFLMAO! Can I be a PIKEY too Rik? Can I? Please let me be a PIKEY too!

zenith-nadir

11th February 2004, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
1. ZN is exhibit number one. ZN and others here constantly put forth the idea that all violence needs to cease before Israel can begin to remove itself from the occupied territories. The problem of course is that violence isn't going to cease while it is driven by continued attempts by Israel to expand and to divide up the west bank into little pieces. That is not to say it will cease if Israel abandons its expansion plans, just that this is a necessary step for the beginning of the end of the violence.

Settlements don't blow up Palestinian civilians. :hit:

Here is a map of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

http://www.mideastweb.org/fmep_israel_settlements_map1.gif

You can plainly see that the blue Israeli settlements are outside of Palestinian Autonomous Areas and hardly qualify as "expaning and to dividing up the west bank into little pieces. "

epepke

11th February 2004, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft
I didn't know that about Indian reservations. Are you sure? I mean Indians born on reservations get citizenship.

Not necessarily or automatically, which I think is what we were talking about. A substantial number of American Indians even today are not legally US citizens. This can cause problems; during Hurricane Andrew most of the aid was managed through the Federal military, and Indians were declared ineligible for aid due to not being citizens. A girlfriend of mine got to work the phones for an hour and directed some of the volunteers to the Indians anyway, though.

If I were to go to that Tampa park and buy a hotdog, would I be in violation of that State Department prohibition against spending money in Cuba and go to prison?

Heh. Beats me. Of course, I probably should have pointed out that the park is about the size of an apartment bedroom. It's basically a gate, a plaque, and some dirt.

rikzilla

12th February 2004, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by demon
"Demon is an enemy of authority. He sees people in uniform as inhuman. An utterly despicable, contrarian, creep."
ROTFLMAO! Can I be a PIKEY too Rik? Can I? Please let me be a PIKEY too!

I believe that you are suffering from some sort of mental pathology.

-z

Doubt

12th February 2004, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by epepke

Not necessarily or automatically, which I think is what we were talking about. A substantial number of American Indians even today are not legally US citizens. This can cause problems; during Hurricane Andrew most of the aid was managed through the Federal military, and Indians were declared ineligible for aid due to not being citizens. A girlfriend of mine got to work the phones for an hour and directed some of the volunteers to the Indians anyway, though.

Small hijack here.

All American Indians have citizenship by the same standards as anyone else in the US. It has been that way since 1924:

http://www.usconstitution.com/IndianCitizenshipAct.htm

The Indian Citizenship Act (1924)

SNIP

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non-citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.
Approved, June 2, 1924. June 2, 1924. [H. R. 6355.] [Public, No. 175.]

SNIP

Note: This statute has been codified in the United States Code at Title 8, Sec. 1401(a)(2).

Just a guess here. I think any problem to have been encountered after Hurricane Andrew probably happened because the reservations have not totally plugged themselves into the social welfare system. Social Security numbers could have been a big problem.

I now return you to the endless Middle East argument.

The Fool

12th February 2004, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Settlements don't blow up Palestinian civilians. :hit:

Here is a map of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

http://www.mideastweb.org/fmep_israel_settlements_map1.gif

You can plainly see that the blue Israeli settlements are outside of Palestinian Autonomous Areas and hardly qualify as "expaning and to dividing up the west bank into little pieces. "
oh please...stop, stop!!! The laughing is killing me... Look at your own map....what do you see? A viable palestinian state? or a multitude of little bite size plots that the occupying powers don't want? How can you look at that map and not see the west bank "divided into little pieces".

Mycroft

13th February 2004, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Doubt

Small hijack here.

All American Indians have citizenship by the same standards as anyone else in the US. It has been that way since 1924:

That jogs a memory. I seem to remember reading about the US military trying to recruit Indians in Canada to serve in the US Army. Something about their status as Indians making them eligable to serve even though they are Canadians.

a_unique_person

13th February 2004, 12:59 AM

a_unique_person

13th February 2004, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
I think this idea has been put forward by several people but I'm not sure I have read exactly what is wrong with the idea. Admittedly the idea is simplistic and I am not trying to advocate it, just to ask what's wrong with it.

Israel, unilaterally declares peace.

It pulls back from the occupied territories.

It stops building its wall on disputed territory.

It announces its intent to the Palestinians to complete a wall that surrounds its own territory if terrorist attacks continue.

The US announces a foreign aid package, part of which is used to subsidize Palestinian security forces and the rest of which is used to subsidize the rebuilding of the Palestinian infrastructure and all of which is contingent on the end of terrorism in Israel.

The US announces that it will cease all foreign aid to Israel in a year if any Israeli settlements exist in the occupied territories.

There might be other parts of this package which might include compensating Palestinians who are not allowed the right of return.

I think that this is the middle ground that most people have been hoping for, for the past 20 or so years.

Unfortunately, there are at least three obstacles that I can see that are insurmountable.

1) Likud will never stand for anything less than a continuation of the current settlement expansion process.
2) Palestinians are really p!ssed off with the whole deal, that they should even have to negotiate anything in the first place.
3) Water. Much of Israel's water comes from under the West Bank.

So while all peace processes seem to aim for what I would initially call a reasonable compromise, the one you have proposed, in practice, it doesn't cover the three points I have mentioned.

zenith-nadir

13th February 2004, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
oh please...stop, stop!!! The laughing is killing me... Look at your own map....what do you see? A viable palestinian state? or a multitude of little bite size plots that the occupying powers don't want? How can you look at that map and not see the west bank "divided into little pieces".

When I look at the map I see the West Bank. I see large grey areas that are Palestinian, I see small areas outside of the grey areas that are settlements.

I see neighbors that should be able to live in peace.

What I don't see is the conquest of the entire Palestinian Arab world. What I don't see is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. That is only for your eyes 'the fool'.

Cleopatra

13th February 2004, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

When I look at the map I see the West Bank. I see large grey areas that are Palestinian, I see small areas outside of the grey areas that are settlements.

I see neighbors that should be able to live in peace.

What I don't see is the conquest of the entire Palestinian Arab world. What I don't see is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. That is only for your eyes 'the fool'.

Your ignorance is shocking. According to the International Laws there shouldn't be any settlement in the West Bank. The settlements are illegal. Illegal. They shouldn't be there because they violate the International Law. That's why we must exchange the OT with the right of return.

There is no use in keeping the settlements and have the country overflowned by Arabs. Can you understand this?It's not safe to live with the Arabs. It's a simple thought. If you can't understand this let me know.

a_unique_person

13th February 2004, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Settlements don't blow up Palestinian civilians. :hit:

But a military occupation is an act of war. In this case, nearly 40 years of war. Many children have grown up to be adults, knowing only war.

The Fool

13th February 2004, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

When I look at the map I see the West Bank. I see large grey areas that are Palestinian, I see small areas outside of the grey areas that are settlements.

I see neighbors that should be able to live in peace.

What I don't see is the conquest of the entire Palestinian Arab world. What I don't see is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. That is only for your eyes 'the fool'.

I see a reposting bot with standard issue arguments. Shortly you will run out of material, once there is nothing remaining to cut and paste you will move on.

I will miss you when you are gone.

P.S. why do you always go missing when I post examples of things you claim do not exist? Is this a lie-n-run system?

Mr Manifesto

13th February 2004, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Your ignorance is shocking. According to the International Laws there shouldn't be any settlement in the West Bank. The settlements are illegal. Illegal. They shouldn't be there because they violate the International Law. That's why we must exchange the OT with the right of return.

There is no use in keeping the settlements and have the country overflowned by Arabs. Can you understand this?It's not safe to live with the Arabs. It's a simple thought. If you can't understand this let me know.

:clap: :clap:

Who thought I'd see the day?

epepke

13th February 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Doubt

Small hijack here.

All American Indians have citizenship by the same standards as anyone else in the US. It has been that way since 1924

That's interesting. It conflicts with some of the other things I've heard, so I guess I'll have to track that down.

zenith-nadir

13th February 2004, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Your ignorance is shocking. According to the International Laws there shouldn't be any settlement in the West Bank.

What international law Cleo?... provide the text and a link to the exact law that says "Israeli settlements are illegal". Document "your" claim.

This is a skeptic board remember?

The settlements may be "disputed", "hated", but until you can prove you claim by documenting the specific International Law Statute you claim "exsists" I chose not to believe one word you say.

Call me a skeptic, and you hate me so much, prove me wrong.

____________________________________________

U.N. Resolution 242 - 22 November 1967

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

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

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

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

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

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

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

nope, no words there that say jews can't live with Palestinian Arabs.

____________________________________________

Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention - August 12, 1949

"Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."

nope, no words there that say jews can't live with Palestinian Arabs. Nor is Israel deporting jews or forcibly transfering jews into the West Bank to live.

zenith-nadir

13th February 2004, 03:20 PM

Hmmmmmm...all I hear is crickets....

Is there anyone out there that can help me and link to the exact International Law Statute that specifies Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal?

The Fool

13th February 2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Hmmmmmm...all I hear is crickets....

Is there anyone out there that can help me and link to the exact International Law Statute that specifies Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal?

Article 49, paragraph 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civilian Persons, provides that the "occupying power (Israel) shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies (Palestine)." The provisions contained in the 1907 Hague Regulations protecting public and private property in occupied territory prohibits the confiscation of land for settlement construction.

Sorry I can't give you a link, try using a thing called a "search engine"...

P.S hows the lie-n-run tactics working out? Are you still claiming israel does not restrict palestinians from access to holy places in Jerusalem?

and you claim "chirping crickets" less than one hour after you posted? Lol...I disagree with Cleopatra on a lot of things but she is absolutelky right about you son...you are an Idiot.

davefoc

13th February 2004, 04:33 PM

OK, ZN I'll bite.

This is a link to a UN resolution:

Security Council Resolution 446, March 22, 1979
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ba123cded3ea84a5852560e50077c2dc!OpenDocument

This is a summary from this site:
http://www.jatonyc.org/UNresolutions.html

Israel's settlements in Palestine are Illegal.
"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

I suppose you have some point here like all the UN resolutions against Israel occupation of the territories not part of Israel prior to 1967 even including a few that actually got adopted because the US didn't veto them don't count as international law because ???

davefoc

13th February 2004, 05:31 PM

Hmm,
First let me say that I do not know of any intentional lies by ZN and while I don't agree with his views with respect to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict I have not before or now seen any intentional acts to deceive.

But I was courious enough about this dispute to investigate a little bit further.

It seems that ZN is essentially putting forth the view of this site:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_4thgeneva.php

The site makes a variety of arguments of why article 49 doesn't apply. Among them:

The land was captured from the illegal occupiers in the 1967 war and is therefore part of Israel and therefore Israeli's can live there and article 49 doesn't apply.

I kind of like this argument. If it were true, all problems are solved, the Palestinians are now part of greater Israel and they then would have all the rights that any citizen of a free country has including the right to vote and the right to move to where they want to in that country. So if in fact the land is part of Israel and not occupied territoriy the conflict would have ended awhile ago and we wouldn't be discussing it. Alas, that doesn't seem to be the case so I think it's pretty reasonable to see the West Bank as occupied territory and see this argument as self serving BS on the part of Israel.

Another argument made by the site seems to be the basis for the dispute between Fool and ZN. The argument seems to be that since the settlers are moving into the occupied territories voluntarily that this is not a violation of article 49.

The relevant paragraph is actually the sixth one in article 49:

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

I guess the dispute comes down to semantics. The UN has clearly rejected the semantical argument made by the site with its resolution 446. And I personally think that attempting to claim that the settlements don't violate international law with such a strained reading of the paragraph is horse s**t. But is ZN lying when he puts forth the argument? I don't think so.

I think he is putting forth the kind of argument typical of a person that has been indoctrinated since birth with the righteosness of the Israelis and the evil and/or duped Palestinians that continue to resist the Israelis. After all, in his words, "the Israelis just want peace".

zenith-nadir

13th February 2004, 06:06 PM

You are correct davefoc.

Security Council Resolution 446 of 1979 does say

"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

It was adopted at the 2134th meeting by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America).

Israel is obligated to abide by Security Council Resolution 446 of 1979...correct?

In fact in your mind Israel has to abide by Security Council Resolution 446... and by not doing so they are breaking International Law....correct?

Now lets go back to 29 November 1947. That's the day U.N. Resolution 181 was passed.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 called for the partition of the British-ruled Palestine Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state. It was approved on November 29, 1947 with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, 10 abstentions and one absent.

So we have 2 U.N. Resolutions. One in 1979 that had 12 countries vote in favor for, and one in 1948 that had 33 countries vote in favor for.

And we both agree U.N. Resolutions can be viewed as International Law...correct?

Now here's where I want you to try and stay with me.

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel is null and void from the very beginning, whatever time has elapsed because it was done contrary to the wish of the people of Palestine and their national right to their homeland and contradicts with the principles embodied in the charter of the UN, the first of which is the right of self- determination.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the mandate document and what has been based upon them are considered null and void. The claim of a historical or spiritual tie between Jews and Palestine does not tally with the historical realities nor with the constituencies of statehood in their true sense. Judaism in its character as a religion of revelation, is not a nationality with an independent existence. Likewise, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality. They are rather citizens of the states to which they belong.

That text is the Official Palestinian Charter from the Palestinian Ministry of Information.

Here's the link for convenience:
The Palestinian Charter - Palestinian Ministry of Information (http://www.pna.org/mininfo/key/charter.htm)

Now I am not trying to trick you. Go read it for yourself.

The official Palestinian position is that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 and the Balfour Declaration are null and void.

So explain to me davefoc why you feel Israel has to follow International Law and the Palestinians do not have to follow International Law?

I am assuming you are a reasonable guy, does that sound fair and reasonable to you?

In fact Cleo, you, and many others call settlements a "crime" and "illegal".....yet the Palestinians officially do not recognize Israel, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 OR the Balfour Declaration.

I hope you will take a few minutes and ponder that.

When the Palestinians follow International Law, then your claim to Security Council Resolution 446 of 1979 will be valid. Until then, Security Council Resolution 446 of 1979 is "null and void".

I am not being a troll. I am speaking the facts. Research it any way you want.

Regards...

zenith-nadir

13th February 2004, 06:10 PM

the foolI disagree with Cleopatra on a lot of things but she is absolutelky right about you son...you are an Idiot.

Sphincter says what?

a_unique_person

13th February 2004, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
You are correct davefoc.

Security Council Resolution 446 of 1979 does say

"Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East."

It was adopted at the 2134th meeting by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions (Norway, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America).

Israel is obligated to abide by Security Council Resolution 446 of 1979...correct?

In fact in your mind Israel has to abide by Security Council Resolution 446... and by not doing so they are breaking International Law....correct?

Now lets go back to 29 November 1947. That's the day U.N. Resolution 181 was passed.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 called for the partition of the British-ruled Palestine Mandate into a Jewish state and an Arab state. It was approved on November 29, 1947 with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, 10 abstentions and one absent.

So we have 2 U.N. Resolutions. One in 1979 that had 12 countries vote in favor for, and one in 1948 that had 33 countries vote in favor for.

And we both agree U.N. Resolutions can be viewed as International Law...correct?

Now here's where I want you to try and stay with me.

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel is null and void from the very beginning, whatever time has elapsed because it was done contrary to the wish of the people of Palestine and their national right to their homeland and contradicts with the principles embodied in the charter of the UN, the first of which is the right of self- determination.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the mandate document and what has been based upon them are considered null and void. The claim of a historical or spiritual tie between Jews and Palestine does not tally with the historical realities nor with the constituencies of statehood in their true sense. Judaism in its character as a religion of revelation, is not a nationality with an independent existence. Likewise, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality. They are rather citizens of the states to which they belong.

That text is the Official Palestinian Charter from the Palestinian Ministry of Information.

Here's the link for convenience:
The Palestinian Charter - Palestinian Ministry of Information (http://www.pna.org/mininfo/key/charter.htm)

Now I am not trying to trick you. Go read it for yourself.

The official Palestinian position is that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 and the Balfour Declaration are null and void.

So explain to me davefoc why you feel Israel has to follow International Law and the Palestinians do not have to follow International Law?

I am assuming you are a reasonable guy, does that sound fair and reasonable to you?

In fact Cleo, you, and many others call settlements a "crime" and "illegal".....yet the Palestinians officially do not recognize Israel, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 OR the Balfour Declaration.

I hope you will take a few minutes and ponder that.

When the Palestinians follow International Law, then your claim to Security Council Resolution 446 of 1979 will be valid. Until then, Security Council Resolution 446 of 1979 is "null and void".

I am not being a troll. I am speaking the facts. Research it any way you want.

Regards...

Israel is very picky about what UN resolutions it picks and chooses from too. There have been plenty telling it to get out of the West Bank, and it wants nothing to do with UN peacekeeping or monitoring forces.

Fact is, what happened to the Palestinians right from the start was wrong. However, Israel is there now and isn't going anyhere, so both sides have to live with that, but even Ben Gurion said that Israel should get out of the West Bank.

But even when as right wing a person as Sharon wants to pull out a few settlements, his own party riots and gets into fisticuffs at meetings. Likud and the extremist backers want nothing less than all of the West Bank and Gaza, and have never been prepared to accept anything less.

zenith-nadir

13th February 2004, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Israel is very picky about what UN resolutions it picks and chooses from too.

We are not talking about "picking and choosing".

I could give a rats ass if the settlements stayed or dissapeared. I have never once stated that "all settlements must stay in the West Bank and that's final".

What I am saying is you'all are being played like a fiddle.

Arafat, to his credit, has people so worked up about 242, 446, etc,(as evidenced by many here), that he's got people fighting about the "war crimes" and "atrocities" of friggin houses.

In reality he and the Palestinian Authority could give a crap about the U.N. and it's "international laws".

Now I am not being flippant. The Palestinian Charter is very clear for all to read. It says 181 and Balfour are null and void.

And while folks scream at Israel over settlements Arafat's laughing...you've been had...your attention is off the fact that he ALSO is breaking international laws....and some pretty BIG ones.

Tricky huh?

So when folks come to me and the spit is literally hitting me in the face from all the U.N. resolutions against Israel they are quoting I always ask them the same question?

Why are you using the U.N. to defend someone who hasn't followed a single U.N. resolution ever? Make's ya look kinda silly doesn't it?

Remember this. Settlements can be moved, destroyed or negotiated....being suicide bombed is forever...can't people see that?

There is no equivalence.

a_unique_person

13th February 2004, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

We are not talking about "picking and choosing".

I could give a rats ass if the settlements stayed or dissapeared. I have never once stated that "all settlements must stay in the West Bank and that's final".

What I am saying is you'all are being played like a fiddle.

Arafat, to his credit, has people so worked up about 242, 446, etc,(as evidenced by many here), that he's got people fighting about the "war crimes" and "atrocities" of friggin houses.

Families live in those houses. People farm their land. Both are being taken away.

In reality he and the Palestinian Authority could give a crap about the U.N. and it's "international laws".

Now I am not being flippant. The Palestinian Charter is very clear for all to read. It says 181 and Balfour are null and void.

And while folks scream at Israel over settlements Arafat's laughing...you've been had...your attention is off the fact that he ALSO is breaking international laws....and some pretty BIG ones.

Tricky huh?

So when folks come to me and the spit is literally hitting me in the face from all the U.N. resolutions against Israel they are quoting I always ask them the same question?

Why are you using the U.N. to defend someone who hasn't followed a single U.N. resolution ever? Make's ya look kinda silly doesn't it?

Remember this. Settlements can be moved, destroyed or negotiated....being suicide bombed is forever...can't people see that?

There is no equivalence.

Likud has no intention of negotiating settlements, only building more.

zenith-nadir

13th February 2004, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Families live in those houses. People farm their land. Both are being taken away.

Likud has no intention of negotiating settlements, only building more.

Settlements are just that, settlements, not homes stolen from Palestinians by the IDF so Jews could move in the next day. And if Arafat would get off his butt this century maybe Palestinians wouldn't have to survive on subsistence farming!

Sorry but the truth hurts sometimes.

Likud is a political party made up of 250,000 Likud members. It is not a single serial-terrorist-Billionare sitting in bombed out building in Gaza making the decisions for 5 million palestinians.

The Fool

13th February 2004, 08:32 PM

So ZN...after begging to be shown, and being shown, which international laws Israel is breaking with the settlements you now perform a circus backflip and say that israel has no obligation to obey these laws? Well you are absolutely correct..Israel has no obligation to meet its obligations under international law, if thats the path you choose to take....Just, for pity sake, stop whining like a baby if you cop illegal actions back..... You can't have it both ways. You want to wave your finger at others and scold them for ignoring the rule of law when you have no intention of applying anything even remotely similar to yourself....

Anyway, once again I ask you, lets get this out in the open shall we? I have asked you to post a map of what you feel are the fair borders of Israel...do you want me to do it for you? You Zionists make me laugh. Explain to me how you have any other plans for palestinians other than forced removal or elimination and explain to me once again why it annoys you that they resist.

You want to know what always amazes me? Here is a regime in the middle east in possesion of weapons of mass destruction and persecuting all people of another religion both within and outside it borders and The coalition of the willing have not invaded them yet.

The Fool

13th February 2004, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
Hmm,
First let me say that I do not know of any intentional lies by ZN
He uses the classic goebbels propaganda techniques. Say it often and ignore corrections... Flooding his arguments with strings of "facts" which are heavily infested with "factoids" which is what I would call the things that no rational reading of the "facts" supports but can still be defended as an uninformed opinion... His statements about the settlements not being in conflict with international law is a prime example...

In other cases he just adds complete lies. An example is his claim that Israel does not restrict or regulate access to holy sites in Jerusalem.....This was in the middle of one of his "fact lists"... he knows it is a lie. I provided proof it is a lie by showing examples of israeli police restricting palestinian access...Nobody is denying this (not even the Israeli police) our resident Goebbels is undeterred. He simply ignored this correction and I have no doubt this "fact" will get another run on this or another forum where he also works as a propaganda reposting bot. Hey, If he says it often enough someone out there may even think its the truth....

davefoc

13th February 2004, 11:11 PM

ZN said:So explain to me davefoc why you feel Israel has to follow International Law and the Palestinians do not have to follow International Law?

Israel does not have to follow international law as it clearly has not been doing that since its founding.

Your view is that because the native population of Israel opposed the founding of a Jewish state in their homeland and that they were defeated in war they should be forever punished for that resistance unless all of them at some point stop resisting. Furthermore you propose that the violent acts of a few of them should justify the continued loss of their land through the expansion of Jewish settlements.

You back up your theories by posting lists of violent acts by Palestinians and telling us that Israelis just want peace. While I resist the use of the word lie to describe what you argue it is hard not to see some of this as anything but intentional misrepresentation.

The Zionists didn't just want to immigrate to Israel they wanted to set up a Jewish state. For that to be accomplished a method needed to be devized to remove the Palestinians from their homelands. Do you think if the Palestinians had not resisted the Zionists in 1948 by force the Zionists would have set up a democratic state that the local populations would have become equal citizens in? What do you think the point of reviving a dead language was? Why not use Arabic? That's what everybody spoke that was in Palestine at the time.

The facts, which are hard, perhaps impossible, for you to come to grips with is that Israel was founded by zealots that wanted to establish a Jewish state and the mistreatment and dislocation of the local inhabitants was an unfortunate but necessary part of that plan.

What is hard for many of us to understand is how can you not only totally igone the facts surrounding the founding of Israel but use essentially the same logic used to justify the initial transgressions against the native population to justify even more transgressions against the native population today.

I believe that you, like many other Americans, have never heard much about the other side of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. You do a skillful job of presenting the standard arguments that we as Americans are exposed to every day about the conflict. I suspect that if you are Jewish you have been exposed to these arguments even more intensely than most of us. I would ask that before you answer this post, if you chose to answer it, that you consider the possibility that you can not see the other side in this conflict not because there isn't one but because your indoctrination through relentless repetition of the pro-Israel dogma in your environment has made it almost impossible for you to.

demon

14th February 2004, 12:34 AM

What`s legal and illegal in this case is pretty much summed up by the consensus exhibited by the UN resolutions. However, it is essential we look at this from an ethical angle and not try to hide behind legalities one way or the other.
Otherwise we get drawn into devices constructed to ensure "we" (Westerners), understand and hence accept Israel`s barbarous behaviour and the subsequent tedious plans for how to sort out the region without Arafat - indeed without Palestinian involvement.

You know, the persecution of Jews in Germany during the thirties was perfectly legal. The limiting of Jewish existence in the Pale in Russia was perfectly legal. The Dreyfus case in France was perfectly legal. The destruction of synogogues in Russia after the revolution was legal.

If you find the "legal" behaviour of Europeans in the above examples unacceptable to you, then why would it be acceptable for you to impose such injustices on a third party? If you don't wish to apply to Palestinians the same standard that you have for yourselves , legal or not, nothing you do will bring peace.

Legality has become a Zionist weapon because they are too frightened to just put it on the ground and talk out what is right but again, they demand that others do exactly that.

Would you have expected anything less of Germans a propos Nazi crimes? If so, then I would suggest that you are alone among Zionists, since the recognition of culpability by Germany has been a central theme of Zionist organisations for 50 years. And by and large, the German establishment has risen to the occasion.
Will Zionists do the same?

zenith-nadir

14th February 2004, 04:35 AM

Well I see that Demon, Davefoc and the Fool will continue to run in circles and chase their tails screaming Israel did it!...No Israel did it!...No Israel did it!.

Notice they never once refered to Arafat. That is very telling.

I admited Israel is breaking international law several times, and they call me a mindless zio-robot.....:)

Hey that's cool. I gave them the option to understand that Arafat is ALSO ignoring "international law" and that is part of the problem.

But they are too busy chasing their tails.

Maybe they will listen to someone who knows much more than me;

Powell blames Arafat over attacks - BBC - 13 February, 2004 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3487781.stm)

US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he "blamed squarely" the Palestinian leader for failing to stop attacks against Israelis.

But he said the US-backed roadmap to peace could not start unless Mr Arafat clamped down on militants, or gave Mr Qurei powers to stop the attacks.

"What we have not yet seen is a determined effort on the part of the Palestinian Authority, with the security forces available to them, to go after these perpetrators in a systemic, definitive way," he said.

"I put the blame squarely on Chairman Arafat for his unwillingness to speak out, (to) use the moral authority that as a leader everybody says he has."

Ok Demon, Davefoc and the Fool, please return to your regularly scheduled tail chasing.

zenith-nadir

14th February 2004, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
He uses the classic goebbels propaganda techniques. Say it often and ignore corrections... Flooding his arguments with strings of "facts"

That has to be one of the funniest things I have ever read !

He uses the classic goebbels propaganda techniques -- Flooding his arguments with strings of "facts"

:big: :big: :big:

zenith-nadir

14th February 2004, 04:50 AM

Thanks for the new sig "the fool" !

zenith-nadir

14th February 2004, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
Your view is that because the native population of Israel opposed the founding of a Jewish state in their homeland and that they were defeated in war they should be forever punished for that resistance unless all of them at some point stop resisting.

Well dave, you can continue to wail about the past, and when you invent a time machine perhaps you can go back in time and make everything right as you see it.

Otherwise I think you, and the Palestinians, should start looking forward instead of endlessly using the past as your "ball and chain".

Originally posted by davefoc
Furthermore you propose that the violent acts of a few of them should justify the continued loss of their land through the expansion of Jewish settlements.

A few? A few? How many palestinians have attacked Israel since 1948 Dave?...a few?

Originally posted by davefoc
You back up your theories by posting lists of violent acts by Palestinians and telling us that Israelis just want peace. While I resist the use of the word lie to describe what you argue it is hard not to see some of this as anything but intentional misrepresentation.

No dave. we were just talking about international law and U.N. resolutions.

Originally posted by davefoc
The facts, which are hard, perhaps impossible, for you to come to grips with is that Israel was founded by zealots that wanted to establish a Jewish state and the mistreatment and dislocation of the local inhabitants was an unfortunate but necessary part of that plan.

No Dave. Israel was founded by the United Nations passing Resolution 181...remember...we were just talking about it...33 countries voted in favor for it....

Originally posted by davefoc
What is hard for many of us to understand is how can you not only totally igone the facts surrounding the founding of Israel but use essentially the same logic used to justify the initial transgressions against the native population to justify even more transgressions against the native population today.

What is hard for me to understand is how you totally ignore the fact that you can't go back in time and change anything, and are using the same logic to justify blowing up innocent families eating pizza or teenagers partying in a disco.

Dave, stop living in the past.

It is unproductive to let the past dictate your future....it will get you no satisfaction.

demon

14th February 2004, 11:43 AM

ZN: "Maybe they will listen to someone who knows much more than me."
You then go on to quote Colin Powell as some sort of respectable commentator on the Israeli/Palestine issue.

Have you ANY idea how ridiculous it is to take Powell and use him as some kind of respectable commentator on the Middle East?

He is an integral part of an American tradition that sends off billions of dollars every year to Israel and vetos every UN Resolution that dares to attempt to curb Israeli aggression and oppression. Is he even likely to say anything objective given his and his master`s blatent stake in the supremacy of Israel?

He is the warmonger who went before the UN Security Council early last year and said with a very straight face:
"Iraq continues to conceal quantities, vast quantities of highly lethal material and weapons to deliver it."
and:
"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."

However, in 2001 he said:
"He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." (Cairo, on February 24 2001).

Oh no, I don`t think we need any lessons from Powell about "the moral authority" that leaders should use, do you?

Interesting how that article doesnt even mention the 15 Palestinians killed just a day ago but gives Powell a megaphone to blame the Palestinians.

demon

14th February 2004, 11:48 AM

ZN:" Now here's where I want you to try and stay with me...The official Palestinian position is that United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 and the Balfour Declaration are null and void."
and:
"In fact Cleo, you, and many others call settlements a "crime" and "illegal".....yet the Palestinians officially do not recognize Israel, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 OR the Balfour Declaration."
_________________________________________________

I think it`s time we dealt with this myth once and for all. It`s the typical Zionist tactic of presenting as fact something whose validity is based entirely on half truths and omissions.

The Articles of the Palestinian Charter to which you refer were effectively annulled in 1996 and no longer apply.

The decision to annull the offending Articles of the Charter did satisfy the Perez Government at the time and was taken in the presence of Clinton (Jerusalem Post 13/12/99). Various groups on the right didn't think it went far enough so, in January of 1999, Arafat sent a letter to Clinton specifying which articles of the covenant were nullified. The parts that Arafat specified were "Articles 6-10,15, 19-23, and 30..." and "the parts in Articles 1-5, 11-14, 16-l8, 25-27 and 29 that are in consistent with the above mentioned commitments..." The US Secretary of State at the time, Madeleine Albright (you cite her earlier as one of your peace negotiators), "supported the Palestinian interpretation." (Arabic News 23/1/99)

There is plenty of room to quibble over the precise legal methodology used and, doubtless, Arafat moved slowly because of opposition. Other groups in Israel have also objected because Hamas did not approve of the annullment, however, since Hamas is a radical Islamic organization, it also rejects other sections of the Palestinian Charter.

Riven as it is by internal conflict, there are sections of Palestinian society which do not fully accept the decision made by Arafat, just as their are parties in Israel which always reject dovish moves by the official Israeli Government.

The important fact is that the PLO officially and on the record rejects all aspects of its Charter which call for Israel's destruction and, in subsequent years, they have made it clear that the Charter is no longer operative. The US also accepted this, as did the Israeli Government. Not only that, but their actions since have expressly reflected this, including the Camp David negotiations. Both the Palestinians, the Israelis, and the Americans went into Camp David on the assumption that Israel's existence was officially recognized. At Camp David the Palestinians were pressing for a state based on the 1967 borders alongside Israel. They accepted Israel's annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocks and Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem (which were not part of Israel before the Six Day War). Also, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees (New York Times 8/7/01).

As a further point, it should be noted that the Palestinians had effectively junked the Charter long before Oslo. In December 1988, the Palestine National Council accepted the original U.N. partition plan (U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181), Israel's right to exist, and U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. With their acceptance they made the Charter effectively irrelevant
(US State Department http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/chron5.htm)

The PLO openly proclaims, the US accepts, and the Israeli Government (by its actions), accepts that those articles of the Charter are defunct. The only groups that hang on to them are right wing Israeli groups, for the obvious reasons.
The Palestinian Charter has been effectively dead for 15 years and, officially, has had no bearing on Palestinian foreign policy for five years. The official negotiating stance of the Palestinians at Camp David was an explicit renuniciation of the offending Articles and neither the Israelis nor the Americans required a further confirmation of this at Camp David.

Perversly of course, this was exactly what some groups in Israel didn`t want and so they babble on claiming that Arafat was unable to declare which Articles were void because he wasn't the full PLO council.
However, herein lies a delicious irony. These are also the same groups who, when it suits them, hold Arafat responsible for everything that goes on in the Occupied Territories, from what side of bed you get out of in the morning to the actions of all armed groups, whether they answer to him or not.

zenith-nadir

14th February 2004, 01:26 PM

On April 24, 1996 there was a vote by the PLO's Palestine National Council. The vote was widely reported in the media as having repealed the clauses of the PLO Charter which deny Israel's right to exist and call for its destruction through violence.

The governments of the United States and of Israel welcomed the vote, stating that it marked the fulfillment of the Palestinian obligation on the Covenant.

But, again, that was not actually the case. The PNC action, which has not been officially fully disclosed, only stated an intention to make changes at a future date and did not specify, in detail, the changes that would be made. The matter was referred to a legal committee for study.

No specific anti-Israel clauses in the Covenant were declared officially abrogated. Moreover, the process was incomplete because the PNC did not draft a new Covenant.

On December 14, 1998, the Palestinian National Council, in accordance with the Wye Memorandum, which required compliance with the earlier agreements, convened in Gaza in the presence of US President Clinton and voted to reaffirm their decision to amend the Covenant.

Their action didn't actually amend the Covenant.

Although the Palestinian National Council (PNC) has twice taken formal decisions to revise the Palestinian National Covenant (1996 and 1998) calling for Israel's destruction, the PNC Chairman, Salim Za'anoun, stated on February 3, 2001, in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper, that the Palestinian Covenant remained unchanged and was still in force [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 3 February 2001, as translated by MEMRI].

Now Demon will say I am lying. So here's the proof of the pudding.

Here is the URL of the Palestinian National Charter at the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information;

http://www.pna.org/mininfo/key/charter.htm

Go there.....and read the charter.

Then ask Demon why Article 19, 20 and 21 are still in the charter !?!?!?!?!?!

If the articles were changed....as Demon claims as fact.....how come they are still in the charter at the Palestinian Ministry of Information skeptics????

What, they were too lazy to change the text over the past six years???? OR once again Arafat lied to the world.

The Covenant in its new amended form has never been publicized.... nor seen by anyone.

Notice that Demon is unable to provide the amended text and location of the NEW Palestinian Charter.

In fact I challenge Demon to provide as evidence the amended text and location of the NEW Palestinian Charter.

Mycroft

14th February 2004, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by demon
However, herein lies a delicious irony. These are also the same groups who, when it suits them, hold Arafat responsible for everything that goes on in the Occupied Territories, from what side of bed you get out of in the morning to the actions of all armed groups, whether they answer to him or not.

I really fail to see how you think this is ironic. If you want to claim that Arafat is helpless to control terror, then logically he's not the person to deal with as he doesn’t have the power or influence to offer anything of value in any negotiations. On the other hand, if you agree that he does have power and influence, then you can hold him responsible to at least do what he can.

If we were to make an analogy, the police are charged with controlling crime and catching criminals after they have committed crime. You don’t hold the Chief of Police responsible for crimes that are committed, you just judge him by how well he does his job in curbing crime and catching criminals.

But if the Chief of Police were publicly known to be the leader of a criminal organization, where to hire police officers with criminal backgrounds, was to channel public funds to criminals and criminal organizations, if police issue weapons were to be used in the commission of crimes and if the Chief of Police were to publicly give a thumbs up when spectacular crimes were committed, then at the very least you would know that you have the wrong Police Chief and could reasonably say that his actions were to encourage crime and not control it.

You don’t have to hold Arafat responsible for every little thing, you just have to look at what he does do, what he doesn’t do to see that he’s part of the problem.

Mycroft

14th February 2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Here is the URL of the Palestinian National Charter at the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information;

http://www.pna.org/mininfo/key/charter.htm

He shoots...and scores!

a_unique_person

14th February 2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

He shoots...and scores!

It was amended to say that force should not be used against Israel. The original US constitution has never been changed, only had amendments tacked on to it.

Elind

14th February 2004, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Hutch
Ah, someone else who can see that there must be an end-game to all this at sometime in the future. I was beginning to think the rival camps here were so busy looking up links to pound each other with that nothing else would ever be discussed on this part of the board again. :eek:

Sorry to be a pessimist, but why does there need to be an end-game when the basic parameters have not changed? Specifically tribalism, religious fanaticism, and ignorance.

Tribalism is simply strengthened through conflict and religious fanaticism (on both sides) is guaranteed to be maintained by ignorance. What is going to change that cultural status quo? An invasion by George Bush?

davefoc

14th February 2004, 11:50 PM

ZN said:3) The West Bank was called JUDEA & SAMARIA for 3000 YEARS until it was RENAMED "The West Bank" in 1949 by Jordan.

4) Judea & Samaria was the ORIGINAL kingdom of the jews CENTURIES before the rise of Islam in 640 A.D. In 1003 B.C. King David established Jerusalem as Capital of United Kingdom of Israel. It remained the capital for for some 400 years

ZN also said about the removal of Palestinians from their homeland in 1948:Well dave, you can continue to wail about the past, and when you invent a time machine perhaps you can go back in time and make everything right as you see it.

Otherwise I think you, and the Palestinians, should start looking forward instead of endlessly using the past as your "ball and chain".

zenith-nadir

15th February 2004, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
ZN said:

What's a matter davefoc? Can't find the "new" Palestinian Charter either? Demon spent 9 paragraphs saying it exsisted, aren't you going to back up your friend?

The West Bank was called Judea & Samaria for 3000 years, or is that not true either? Disprove my claim with facts. Islam rose in 640 A.D. Or is that not true either? Disprove my claim with facts. In 1003 B.C. King David established Jerusalem as Capital of United Kingdom of Israel. It remained the capital for for some 400 years. Or is that not true either? Disprove my claim with facts.

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War is called the War of Independence by Israelis and al Nakba, the catastrophe, by Arabs.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly approved a plan which partitioned the British Mandate of Palestine into two states: one Jewish and one Arab.

The Jewish population largely welcomed the plan, but the Arab leadership rejected it.

Right after the UN partition plan was approved, Lebanon and Syria attacked from the north; Iraq and Transjordan - renamed Jordan during the war - attacked from the east; Egypt, assisted by contingents from the Sudan - attacked from the south; and Palestinians and volunteers from Arab countries attacked in the interior of the country.

Those events are what davefoc calls "removal of Palestinians from their homeland in 1948".

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Remember this. Settlements can be moved, destroyed or negotiated....being suicide bombed is forever...can't people see that?

There is no equivalence.

Likud literaly comes to blows with itself when the removel of settlements is dicussed. For some people in them, it will be literrally over their dead bodies.

Cleopatra

15th February 2004, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

The West Bank was called Judea & Samaria for 3000 years, or is that not true either? Disprove my claim with facts. Islam rose in 640 A.D. Or is that not true either? Disprove my claim with facts. In 1003 B.C. King David established Jerusalem as Capital of United Kingdom of Israel. It remained the capital for for some 400 years. Or is that not true either? Disprove my claim with facts.

You are wrong. The area is still called Judea and Samaria. Judea and Samaria as geographic terms are still valid. The problem started by the moment that the extreme right in Israel used this term not to define the geographical position of the area but its political future.

In Israel when you talk about Judea and Samaria people understand that you want the West Bank annexed.

In our days Judea and Samaria is a political term and is used to imply the solution that the extreme right wants for the area and it is not used to describe the area. Even Sharon avoids to call the area Judea and Samaria.

Once upon a time Greeks conquered Troy according to the archaeological excavations the conquest of Troy is verified. Do you think that Greeks have rights over the area that used to be Troy? Note that the Greek presence in the area that is called Asia Minor was alive until 1922. Do Greeks own this area? If yes why the government of USA doesn't support our right over there?

Why USA doesn't support our rights over Troy?

Now you are right about the Palestinian Charter. Althought the Palestinian Authority has promised to remove those articles they haven't done so far because they do not want to break their links with Hamas.

Also it's true that the majority of the Palestinian population supports Hamas and since Hamas doesn't hide its intentions towards Israel, it's difficult not to assume that the majority of the Palestinians do wish the destruction of Israel.

The world wasn't that unfair to the Palestinians I have been saying this and none ( well almost none Unique and Capel Dodger attempted to refute this arguments not quite succesfully I must note) has denied that. UN offered a state to the Palestinians but those poor people fell victims of their brothers the Arabs who encouraged them to reject the plans and evacuate the area. Notice: I do not deny that in many cases Israelis " obliged" the Palestinians to go but when the Arabs encouraged the later to evacuate the villages I wonder why we blame the Israelis.

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 01:34 AM

demon

15th February 2004, 01:56 AM

ZN: "If the articles were changed....as Demon claims as fact....."

Easy there tiger.
If you actually took the time to read posts around here instead of tripping over yourself to get in your replies, you would see I didn`t claim what you say I claim.
Did you miss where I prefaced my post with "effectively annulled"? Did you miss that by your lack of comprehension ability or by design? Whatever reason hardly matters for in either case it doesn`t bode well for your success in these forums.

As usual, you appear to have missed the theme of my post.
As I said above: "The PLO openly proclaims, the US accepts, and the Israeli Government (by its actions), accepts that those articles of the Charter are defunct. The only groups that hang on to them are right wing Israeli groups, for the obvious reasons. "
Go figure.

Everytime you post in this forum, you are outwardly focused on your "enemy", rarely if ever looking inwardly, at the source of the problem - the occupation and its overseers. You are sublimely uninterested in any ethical dimension that might be applied to the Palestinian case.

edited for spelling.

demon

15th February 2004, 02:16 AM

Mycroft:
"If we were to make an analogy, the police are charged with controlling crime and catching criminals after they have committed crime. You don’t hold the Chief of Police responsible for crimes that are committed, you just judge him by how well he does his job in curbing crime and catching criminals."

It's casuistry. Israel certainly put Arafat in to police "your" occupation, so I can see how you would mistake him for a police chief
Yet ... the one point where it needed both sides to show honour Arafat managed it with the slimmest of resources - and he did it for seven long years. Both wings of your political spectrum under Netanyahu, Barak and Sharon financed and oversaw the incursion of hundreds of thousands of occupiers who destroyed the agreement on the ground. So in the event that we should be able to choose leaders, I suggest we put the Jordanian king in to represent the Israelis and keep Arafat, since Arafat has a record of comparitive good faith that shows off your leaders for what they are - "criminals with criminal backgrounds".

Oh well, here's the question I want to ask: since when it is Arafats job to provide security to the Israelis, when the goals and jobs of Israeli Prime Ministers and Generals have been to occupy and dismantle and destroy the Palestinians?

Come on Mycroft, you can do better than that!

zenith-nadir

15th February 2004, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by demon
If you actually took the time to read posts around here instead of tripping over yourself to get in your replies, you would see I didn`t claim what you say I claim.Did you miss where I prefaced my post with "effectively annulled"?

Show everyone on the Palestinian Ministry of Information Website where it says the Palestinian Charter is ""effectively annulled" Demon. Failure to do so will mean only one thing. You are lying.

Originally posted by demon
Did you miss that by your lack of comprehension ability or by design? Whatever reason hardly matters for in either case it doesn`t bode well for your success in these forums.

The only thing that you should worry about is that I am here now and your B.S. will now be exposed for what it is. I'd say things don't bode well for you.

Originally posted by demon
As usual, you appear to have missed the theme of my post.
As I said above: "The PLO openly proclaims, the US accepts, and the Israeli Government (by its actions), accepts that those articles of the Charter are defunct. The only groups that hang on to them are right wing Israeli groups, for the obvious reasons. "

Well if they are 'defunct' Demon how come after six years they are still officially on the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information website under the heading "Palestinian Charter"?!?!

By the way wanna know what else the Palestinian Authority has been saying since 1996?

1) They would stop terrorism.
2) They would have free and fair elections
3) They would draft a Palestinian Constitution
4) They would stop incitement against Israelis

Originally posted by demon
Everytime you post in this forum, you are outwardly focused on your "enemy", rarely if ever looking inwardly, at the source of the problem - the occupation and its overseers. You are sublimely uninterested in any ethical dimension that might be applied to the Palestininan case.

Everytime you post in this forum, you are outwardly focused on your "enemy", rarely if ever looking inwardly, at the source of the problem - Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. You are sublimely uninterested in any ethical dimension that might be applied to the Palestininan case.

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Everytime you post in this forum, you are outwardly focused on your "enemy", rarely if ever looking inwardly, at the source of the problem - [b]Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. You are sublimely uninterested in any ethical dimension that might be applied to the Palestininan case.

The source of the problem, for the Palestinians, was the creation of Israel.

zenith-nadir

15th February 2004, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You are wrong. The area is still called Judea and Samaria.

Yes. Some people still call the area Judea and Samaria, but most people refer to it by it's new name, the West Bank.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The problem started by the moment that the extreme right in Israel used this term not to define the geographical position of the area but its political future.

I will say it again.

Jews don't have to be in Gaza, they don't have to be in the West Bank. If they moved out tomorrow I could care less. I am not part of the extreme right. I am against the use of jews living in Gaza and the West Bank as an excuse to disguse yourself, strap on a bomb vest, and travel 100 kms to blow up people riding a bus to school and work!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Now you are right about the Palestinian Charter. Althought the Palestinian Authority has promised to remove those articles they haven't done so far because they do not want to break their links with Hamas.

I know that it is still in effect, as written, as evidenced on the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information website.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Also it's true that the majority of the Palestinian population supports Hamas and since Hamas doesn't hide its intentions towards Israel, it's difficult not to assume that the majority of the Palestinians do wish the destruction of Israel.

The majority of the Palestinian population supports Hamas because Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have treated them so badly.

Israel is not perfect. No country on earth is perfect. But to have a serial-terrorist-billionare with Parkinsons disease running a criminal empire out of a destroyed one room building in Gaza and calling that a "Palestinian Government" is beyond insane.

Arafat must go. All his cronies must go. Once there is a fair man to lead the Palestinians, their world will change 100%.

(sorry I can't say "woman to lead the Palestinians" because in Islamic culture that is impossible ;) )

demon

15th February 2004, 03:19 AM

Ok, let`s try this one more time.
The very actions and negotiations that the Americans, the Palestinians and the Israelis participated in (Camp David, The Roadmap etc), reveal just how seriously anyone takes those articles anymore..."effectively annulled", get it? I made all these points in my original post but as always anything with a nuance is lost on you.

Seems these articles might be your very own special ball and chain.

ZN:"Show everyone on the Palestinian Ministry of Information Website where it says the Palestinian Charter is ""effectively annulled" Demon. Failure to do so will mean only one thing. You are lying."
Will you show me where I said that the PMI website states that the PC is "effectively annulled"? Will you stop putting words in my mouth?...it`s the cheapest form of debate.
You throw an accusation of lair at me because of something I didn`t actually say but was instead actually invented by you? Are you that desperate?

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Yes. Some people still call the area Judea and Samaria, but most people refer to it by it's new name, the West Bank.

I will say it again.

Jews don't have to be in Gaza, they don't have to be in the West Bank. If they moved out tomorrow I could care less. I am not part of the extreme right. I am against the use of jews living in Gaza and the West Bank as an excuse to disguse yourself, strap on a bomb vest, and travel 100 kms to blow up people riding a bus to school and work!!!!!!!

I know that it is still in effect, as written, as evidenced on the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information website.

The majority of the Palestinian population supports Hamas because Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have treated them so badly.

Israel is not perfect. No country on earth is perfect. But to have a serial-terrorist-billionare with Parkinsons disease running a criminal empire out of a destroyed one room building in Gaza and calling that a "Palestinian Government" is beyond insane.

Arafat must go. All his cronies must go. Once there is a fair man to lead the Palestinians, their world will change 100%.

(sorry I can't say "woman to lead the Palestinians" because in Islamic culture that is impossible ;) )

Sharon is a criminal too, or hadn't you noticed. Every Isreali that dies at the hands of a Palestinian justifies his further tightening the noose on the Palestinians.

It is a deadly game that is being played, and innocent people are dying, and more will die.

:p :p :p

demon

15th February 2004, 03:48 AM

ZN; "Show everyone on the Palestinian Ministry of Information Website where it says the Palestinian Charter is ""effectively annulled" Demon. Failure to do so will mean only one thing. You are lying."

Considering I never said it stated this on the PMI website, I would appreciate it if you retract that accusation of lying.

The Fool

15th February 2004, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

That has to be one of the funniest things I have ever read !

He uses the classic goebbels propaganda techniques -- Flooding his arguments with strings of "facts"

:big: :big: :big:

You are a compulsive liar. There is little point in continuing to discuss any issues with you. The "quote" of mine you use in your sig is half a sentence....please note that a sentence starts with a capitalised word and ends with a period...by choosing to quote half a sentence you are demonstrating that misrepresentation is a normal and natural behavior for you...You may think you are achieving something by lying, ignoring peoples replies that prove you are lying and deliberately and blatantly misrepresenting other posters statements...

Do you think its clever to misrepresent quotes?

zenith-nadir

15th February 2004, 03:54 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Sharon is a criminal too, or hadn't you noticed.

Sharon is disliked, hated, lothed, and you can attack him all you want. In fact show me his criminal record, he's a criminal right?...what crimes has he been prosecuted for?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Every Isreali that dies at the hands of a Palestinian justifies his further tightening the noose on the Palestinians.

Finally you say something we both agree upon.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It is a deadly game that is being played, and innocent people are dying, and more will die.

Innocent people don't have to die if the Palestinian Authority would stop teaching the 72 virgin story to children if they only would blow up some jews.

Originally posted by demon
Ok, let`s try this one more time.
The very actions and negotiations that the Americans, the Palestinians and the Israelis participated in (Camp David, The Roadmap etc), reveal just how seriously anyone takes those articles anymore..."effectively annulled", get it?

So you are saying;

1) The Palestinian Authority spent all it's money and cannot afford a web designer for the past six years.

2) The Palestinian Authority doesn't have to change the charter on the Ministry of Information website because Arafat's word should be as good as gold.

3) The Palestinian Authority doesn't have to change the charter on the Ministry of Information website because Americans and Israelis tried to make peace with them.

Originally posted by demon
Will you show me where I said that the PMI website states that the PC is "effectively annulled"? Will you stop putting words in my mouth?...it`s the cheapest form of debate.
You throw an accusation of lair at me because of something I didn`t actually say but was instead actually invented by you? Are you that desperate?

If the Charter stills appears in it's original form on the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information website under the heading "Palestinian Charter" and does not state that it is "annulled" then it is still in effect.

If you were really interested in Palestinians Demon you would begin to question why after 30 years the same guy is running the entire show from a bombed out one-room building in Gaza. Sounds like a real winner you have there Demon, what's he gonna do for an encore? Send his police men into Israel to become suicide bombers?...oh wait he already did that.

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 03:58 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

Sharon is disliked, hated, lothed, and you can attack him all you want. In fact show me his criminal record, he's a criminal right?...what crimes has he been prosecuted for?

what crimes has arafat been convicted of?

Finally you say something we both agree upon.

Innocent people don't have to die if the Palestinian Authority would stop teaching the 72 virgin story to children if they only would blow up some jews.

That's right, the only people who ever die are Israelis. No innocent Palestinians have ever been killed by settlers or the IDF.

demon

15th February 2004, 04:15 AM

A few general remarks on the Palestinian Charter.

The Charter voiced the concerns of a people ethnically cleansed from their land and living in refugee camps.

Palestinians and their lives were destroyed by Israeli, writing a charter which vows the same should be no surprise. The real surprise is the concessions that the Palestinians are prepared to go to to arrive at peace with a country, which by it's very creation, has delivered them nothing but misery and destitution.

Compare the political statements in the Palestinian Charter with the REALITY of Israeli actions on the ground and some of you might see my point. Any sane person knows that a settlement will not be on the basis of the Charter.

The late Edward Said always bemoaned the fact that Israel's media performance was hugely more successful than the Palestinian's..one of the reasons the "destruction of Israel" nonsense still has currency.

zenith-nadir

15th February 2004, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
what crimes has arafat been convicted of?

You called Sharon a criminal. I asked you to show me his criminal record. Your answer to that question is "what crimes has arafat been convicted of ?" :rolleyes:

Originally posted by a_unique_person
That's right, the only people who ever die are Israelis. No innocent Palestinians have ever been killed by settlers or the IDF.

Maybe I should move in next door to you a_unique_person and set up my own terrorist cell. Then blow up a few people. And when the police come to arrest me I will fire my rocket-propelled-grenades and AK-47's across your lawn at them.

If you, or a family member, gets killed in the firefight I just caused, you blame the policemen?

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

You called Sharon a criminal. I asked you to show me his criminal record. Your answer to that question is "what crimes has arafat been convicted of ?" :rolleyes:

You accused Arafat of running a criminal empire. I will agree that the PA has been rife with nepotism and corruption. But I will not accept the fiction that Israel is not also subject to the same problems. Look at who was handling Sharon's dirty money for him, his own sons.

Don't spin this BS about Israel being all that is good and holy in the Middle East, and the PA just a bunch of crims. Each side needs to look at their own failings in terms of what they have done to their people. The arrival of Sharon, the tough man who was supposed to bring safety to Israelis, brought the largest number of deaths.

Maybe I should move in next door to you a_unique_person and set up my own terrorist cell. Then blow up a few people. And when the police come to arrest me I will fire my rocket-propelled-grenades and AK-47's across your lawn at them.

If you, or a family member, gets killed in the firefight I just caused, you blame the policemen?

I'll tell you what, how about you spin you fantasies somewhere else. I thought you only dealt in facts. Like that 'fact' that the OT, (or insert name here of how you refer to it), is an historical document, and not mythical record like the Illiad.

zenith-nadir

15th February 2004, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by demon
A few general remarks on the Palestinian Charter. The Charter voiced the concerns of a people ethnically cleansed from their land and living in refugee camps.

See that is what your children would learn if Demon taught history.

Demon calls the U.N. passing resolution 181, (November 29, 1947), and the Syrian, Jordanian, Iraqi, Egyptian and Sudanese invasion, (May 14, 1948), as "people ethnically cleansed from their land". :rolleyes: Well that ain't gonna happen at JREF anymore.

demon

15th February 2004, 04:30 AM

Are you willing to retract your accusation that I am a liar? We can then continue if you are inclined.

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 04:35 AM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir

See that is what your children would learn if Demon taught history.

Demon calls the U.N. passing resolution 181, (November 29, 1947), and the Syrian, Jordanian, Iraqi, Egyptian and Sudanese invasion, (May 14, 1948), as "people ethnically cleansed from their land". :rolleyes: Well that ain't gonna happen at JREF anymore.

Hang on, the people who lived there were kicked out. The only regret, apparently, form some Jews is that they weren't all kicked out of Israel. There are, in fact, many Jews who find this act troubling, something about it being immoral, to moral people, I guess. When some countries who are neighbours try to defend their brothers, they are invaders.

What do you class GB as when it declared war on Germany for attacking Poland?

The UN may have been used to try at salve the consciences of Europeans who acted to late to save the Jews from the holocaust, but it did it at the expense of the people who lived there. And there were people living there at the time. For some reason, they became the baddies, because they resisted, with arms, what was in effect an invasion.

zenith-nadir

15th February 2004, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I'll tell you what, how about you spin you fantasies somewhere else. I thought you only dealt in facts.

FACT #1 - Hamas, Tanzim, Al Aksa, Fatah terrorists hide in Palestinian civilian neigborhoods.

FACT #2 - Hamas, Tanzim, Al Aksa, Fatah terrorists do not wear uniforms they disguise themselves as palestinian civilians.

FACT #3 - Hamas, Tanzim, Al Aksa, Fatah terrorists use Palestinian civilian homes, businesses and apartments for Bases of Operation.

FACT #4 - Hamas, Tanzim, Al Aksa, Fatah terrorists use Palestinian civilian homes, businesses and apartments for Firing Positions.

FACT #5 - Hamas, Tanzim, Al Aksa, Fatah terrorists use Palestinian civilian homes, businesses and apartments for cover from the IDF.

FACT #6 - Hamas, Tanzim, Al Aksa, Fatah terrorists use Palestinian civilians for human sheilds from the IDF.

There's your facts layed out so that EVEN a 'special olympian' could understand them a_unique_person.

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 04:39 AM

Fact, the Bible is a piece of mythology. You try to base the foundation of a modern nation on it, you are asking for trouble.

davefoc

15th February 2004, 11:14 AM

ZN, this will be my last post directed at you.

I do not think, like some others that you have posted in bad faith. I think you are a true believer in your views.

But, for me, that is sadder. Your arguments have not shown the slightest concern for a people that have suffered greatly nor an understanding of the blame of the people that have caused much of that suffering.

You have attempted to justify your views with references to ancient history and myth, pedantic legalistic arguments and the unrelenting demonization of the victims.

You have treated this discussion like it is a contest where the slightest acknowledgement of the truth of what somebody else says equals failure.

If this were just the way you discussed things and your true views were more moderate I think the situation would not be so sad. But, as I said, I think these are your true views and that they are representative of the views of a great many people. And while there exist so many people who hold these kind of views the prospects of peace, let alone a just peace seem farther away than ever.

demon

15th February 2004, 11:30 AM

zenith-nadir, I`m calling you out for the third time now.

You said: "Show everyone on the Palestinian Ministry of Information Website where it says the Palestinian Charter is "effectively annulled" Demon. Failure to do so will mean only one thing. You are lying."

I supplied entirely different reasons for why I stated that the PC was "effectively annulled" as you and anyone else who read my post will know, if they agree with it or not.
Those reasons have nothing to do with anything appearing on or off of the PMI website.
You have accused me of being a liar on the basis of a straw man argument. Will you now show some character and retract your "you are lying" statement?

I`ve called you twice on this already, why won`t you address it? Are you letting your silence answer that which you are incapable of answering?
demon.

charley_bigtime

15th February 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by davefoc

If this were just the way you discussed things and your true views were more moderate I think the situation would not be so sad. But, as I said, I think these are your true views and that they are representative of the views of a great many people. And while there exist so many people who hold these kind of views the prospects of peace, let alone a just peace seem farther away than ever.

And that has been, is, and will be the nub of the problem.

I suggest we go back to DD's first post and start again.

Gem

15th February 2004, 12:08 PM

FACT #1 - Hamas, Tanzim, Al Aksa, Fatah terrorists hide in Palestinian civilian neigborhoods.

FACT #2 - Hamas, Tanzim, Al Aksa, Fatah terrorists do not wear uniforms they disguise themselves as palestinian civilians.

FACT #3 - Hamas, Tanzim, Al Aksa, Fatah terrorists use Palestinian civilian homes, businesses and apartments for Bases of Operation.

FACT #4 - Hamas, Tanzim, Al Aksa, Fatah terrorists use Palestinian civilian homes, businesses and apartments for Firing Positions.

FACT #5 - Hamas, Tanzim, Al Aksa, Fatah terrorists use Palestinian civilian homes, businesses and apartments for cover from the IDF.

I'm surprised no one point this out before:

You are a Palestinian terrorist, ZN. Now tell me why would you

A) Stand in the middle of the desert far from shelter and food.
B) Stand there with a uniform that identifies you as an enemy to snipers.
C) Not use available cover of the terrain to protect yourself.
D) Put your base away from recruiting population to your army.
E) Do all of the above against one of the world's most effective air forces and special forces can pick you off with a sniper's bullet or a guided missle.

I'd like to point out the Chenchen (is that how you spell it?) rebels also used civilian buildings when fighting against the Russian army.

I suggest we go back to DD's first post and start again.

Good idea. I suggest that we remove each side's leaders and political groups and replace them with a 3rd party. We could try to find a different name than Isreal or Palestine for teh region and it would be ruled by the 3rd party. This 3rd party would provide social services to everyone in the area, like education and so forth. Over time, we should hope that this 3rd party integrates Jews and Arabs into the political process. The military will be handed over to them gradually also. Both jews and arabs will have to learn ethical military training (no shooting civilians, for example).

Problem is finding a 3rd party that works.

Gem

davefoc

15th February 2004, 12:26 PM

charley_bigtime said:
I suggest we go back to DD's first post and start again.

I noticed how this thread had gotten off track also. Unfortunately I am afraid that that is inevitable.

I think there is just one main dispute here:
Some people think that while there is continuing violence that the expansion of Israel should continue and some people think that the occupied territories are fueling the violence and that if Israelis want peace the occupied territories must be removed unilaterally.

Two links to articles by people who have been involved in trying to end the conflict with different views on this are below:

Quote from Jimmy Carter:
http://www.cartercenter.org/viewdoc.asp?docID=137&submenu=news
An underlying reason that years of U.S. diplomacy have failed and violence in the Middle East persists is that some Israeli leaders continue to "create facts" by building settlements in occupied territory. Their deliberate placement as islands or fortresses within Palestinian areas makes the settlers vulnerable to attack without massive military protection, frustrates Israelis who seek peace and at the same time prevents any Palestinian government from enjoying effective territorial integrity.

http://www.netanyahu.org/wesbansetfak.html
Title of netanyahu paper with essentially the opposite viewWest Bank/Gaza settlements: Fake issue of Mideast crisis

Israel is paying a staggering cost for these settlements. The article linked to below from wikipedia lists just the civilian costs of subsidizing these settlements. No estimate is made of the military costs but those are probably larger.

Cost estimate for settlements in 2001 from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlements
A report published by Ha'aretz on September 26, 2003, claimed that the non-military expenditure on the settlements was conservatively $560 million per year in excess of the usual expenditure on a similar number of ordinary Israeli citizens.

demon

15th February 2004, 12:56 PM

Say, for a moment, that the Palestinians gave up all armed struggle altogether. What do you think would happen? My guess is that, as far as the west is concerned, we would enter what the BBC always refers to as "a period of quiet" -in other words the periods when Israelis aren't dying. Israel would continue to build more settlements, would continue to annex territory, destroy olive groves, steal water and slowly exterminate the Palestinians. With an Israel that thinks international law is for other people, and an America keen to reinforce that, it is only Palestinian resistance which keeps the issue in the spotlight. The moment the Palestinians stop the armed struggle -at least until Israel is willing to negotiate in good faith- they are lost.

A lot of posts seem to work on the premise that Arafat's legitimacy rests on his ability to "control terror". This is not true. His legitimacy results from the fact that he is the elected leader of the Palestinians -the Israeli and US attempts to bypass him shows their essential contempt for democracy. It is for this reason that Mycroft`s "chief of police" analogy does not apply. To be specific, Arafat does not work for the Israelis, his job is NOT to control the Palestinians for the Israelis.
How would you react if Arafat decided not to negotiate with Sharon because he does not control "Israeli terror"? -which is actually a more plausible proposition since Sharon could stop all Israeli terrorism if he so chose. Why should the Palestinians give up fighting when they have no other option? Israel has never shown any sign of being interested in a serious, just, settlement (just look at the short shrift my suggestion that "Justice" must play a part in any settlement got from the Israeli supporters here), and will not obey the law because it doesn't have to. Only when Israel is required -by America- to obey the law will it have any reason to negotiate properly and only then will the Palestinians have any legal protection. Right now, Israel doesn't negotiate in good faith because it is underwritten by the US (for its own reasons) and is able to bear the costs of its imperial policies.

This is just as it was with England -they only negotiated with people when they no longer had the strength to maintain the empire. In the Israeli case, it is borrowed strength, Israeli is a comparative weakling which only acts brave because it is a tool of the big bully on the block. The moment Israel becomes a liability to the US, it will suddenly find itself very alone and very, very unpopular.

Arafat is a corrupt gangster and the Palestinians would be better off with a better leader. Likewise, Sharon is a corrupt (so it seems) gangster and a war criminal to many, and the Israelis would be better off without him. That doesn't mean that the Palestinians have the right to change him. The reverse equally applies.

Arafat is not a part of the problem unless one defines the problems simply as "Palestinian Terror". In fact, "Palestinian Terror" or armed resistance as they and most of the world see it, is a product of the occupation. It is the occupation that is the problem.

What advice would you have given to the Germans during World War Two, when they complained of French armed attacks? Would you have advised them to change the leader of the French resistance, so that they could find someone who was able to control "French Terror"? Of course not. You would have said, "get out of France". It really is that simple in this case, too. Get out of the Occupied Territories, take your army and your "settlements" and go back behind you legal borders.

All of a sudden, the world will look a lot different.

Cleopatra

15th February 2004, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Yes. Some people still call the area Judea and Samaria, but most people refer to it by it's new name, the West Bank.

Ok, so let's avoid the lectures for the jewish past especially if those lectures are based on the Bible.

Jews don't have to be in Gaza, they don't have to be in the West Bank. If they moved out tomorrow I could care less. I am not part of the extreme right. I am against the use of jews living in Gaza and the West Bank as an excuse to disguse yourself, strap on a bomb vest, and travel 100 kms to blow up people riding a bus to school and work!!!!!!!

I would care because as an Israeli citizen I will have to decide what we will do with the innocent people we carried here from all over the world. Anyway.

I am glad to hear that you do not belong to the extreme right only because the extreme right doesn't support viable and reasonable solutions.Also, the Orthodox Jews that support the extreme right do not go to the Army so for them talking about politics is for free. They have "Saint Elsewhere" as their patron Saint.

The majority of the Palestinian population supports Hamas because Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have treated them so badly.

The reason that religious fundamentalism raised among Palestinians is because none cared to favour the creation of a strong Political wing among the Palestinians.

Don't have any doubts. If Arafat still exists today he owes it to Israel. Everytime his authority is in question, Israel sends some troops and keep him prisoner in Ramalah and it re-baptised him as a true and martyr leader. If we didn't have Arafat we should have invented him.

So, I am not really persuaded with the against-Arafat cries of the present Israeli government. In fact, everytime I hear that they threaten to expell him I fall on the floor laughing. We have woken up. The sheep that Sharon and the natives mocked ( maybe you don't know it but when the first survivors of WWII arrived to Israel were severely mocked by the few natives for accepting to be guided into the camps like sheep for slaughter) have woken up and they have become skeptical. They pose questions and they want answers.

Arafat seems to be our man. If he is not why Sharon the next day of his election put in prison ]Marwan Barghoudi (http://www.freebarghouti.org/) who was a reasonable voice and he was about to replace Arafat? I will tell you why. Because he would put in risk the hegemony of our ally in War Yasser Arafat.

Time we apply some skepticism.

Arafat must go. All his cronies must go. Once there is a fair man to lead the Palestinians, their world will change 100%.

You have a western mentality. Who are we to dictate to others who will be their leaders? Do you want Arafat to go?

Join the campaign to free Bargoudhi.

Mycroft

15th February 2004, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Gem
You are a Palestinian terrorist, ZN. Now tell me why would you

A) Stand in the middle of the desert far from shelter and food.
B) Stand there with a uniform that identifies you as an enemy to snipers.
C) Not use available cover of the terrain to protect yourself.
D) Put your base away from recruiting population to your army.
E) Do all of the above against one of the world's most effective air forces and special forces can pick you off with a sniper's bullet or a guided missle.

I'd like to point out the Chenchen (is that how you spell it?) rebels also used civilian buildings when fighting against the Russian army.

My first problem with this argument is that it presumes that being a terrorist is the only option available. Beyond that, this argument boils down to saying, “Well, duh! They’re terrorists, what do you expect?”

Which is true enough, but if pointing out that terrorist tactics are a natural result of the conflict, then it should also follow that the results of combating these tactics, civilian casualties, are also a natural result of the conflict.

The Fool

15th February 2004, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by demon
zenith-nadir, I`m calling you out for the third time now.

You said: "Show everyone on the Palestinian Ministry of Information Website where it says the Palestinian Charter is "effectively annulled" Demon. Failure to do so will mean only one thing. You are lying."

I supplied entirely different reasons for why I stated that the PC was "effectively annulled" as you and anyone else who read my post will know, if they agree with it or not.
Those reasons have nothing to do with anything appearing on or off of the PMI website.
You have accused me of being a liar on the basis of a straw man argument. Will you now show some character and retract your "you are lying" statement?

I`ve called you twice on this already, why won`t you address it? Are you letting your silence answer that which you are incapable of answering?
demon.
I'm afraid plea to ZN to show character is pointless, there is no character to show. I think you will find his standard response is to ignore demonstrated facts when they interfere with his lying and fabricating.

The Fool

15th February 2004, 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

My first problem with this argument is that it presumes that being a terrorist is the only option available. Beyond that, this argument boils down to saying, “Well, duh! They’re terrorists, what do you expect?”

Which is true enough, but if pointing out that terrorist tactics are a natural result of the conflict, then it should also follow that the results of combating these tactics, civilian casualties, are also a natural result of the conflict.
you are absolutely correct on both counts....Now lets talk in general terms. One people are milirarily ocupying another, the occupied people are resisting.

Why is it logical to demand that the resistance end before the ocupying forces withdraw? During periods when the resistance has restrained itself the expansion of settlements continued anyway...no sign of withdrawal. Now we have Sharon making out that saying he will think about starting to talk about removing an unspecified number of settlers that he is making some great concession? How should the Terrorists respond to that? Maybe they could also say they are goint to think about starting to talk about stopping the resistance???

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 03:13 PM

Gem

15th February 2004, 04:29 PM

My first problem with this argument is that it presumes that being a terrorist is the only option available. Beyond that, this argument boils down to saying, “Well, duh! They’re terrorists, what do you expect?”

What I was saying is that condemning them for not following conventional warfare doesn't lead to anywhere. It's similar to snipers in the 19th century, gerrilla warfare in the American War of Indepedence, and Crossbows in the middle ages (The Church banned them). The reason why terrorism in its current form is decried is because today we don't think civilians should be legitimate targets (and I agree with this). I decry terrorism not because they hide in population centers without unifroms, but because they kill civilians for political purposes.

Which is true enough, but if pointing out that terrorist tactics are a natural result of the conflict, then it should also follow that the results of combating these tactics, civilian casualties, are also a natural result of the conflict.

Agreed here also: civilians casualties are always part of war, no matter how much one tries to keep them down (Witness civilian casualties even today in Afghanistan and Iraq). But like I said earlier, it's the deliberate targeting of civilians that makes terrorisms worse than military unconventional warfare.

Gem

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Gem

Agreed here also: civilians casualties are always part of war, no matter how much one tries to keep them down (Witness civilian casualties even today in Afghanistan and Iraq). But like I said earlier, it's the deliberate targeting of civilians that makes terrorisms worse than military unconventional warfare.

Gem

I would just like to point out that it is not just Iraeli civilians who are dying. Palestinian civilians have also been dying, we just don't hear about them.

Also, that a military occupation is an act of war. Imagine living your whole life under the control of soldiers who are not answerable to common law, your children growing up under the barrel of a tank's gun, every act of travel subject to check, with curfews imposed for no known reason. It is not death, but a living death. It's just that life lived like this is not front page news.

epepke

15th February 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I would just like to point out that it is not just Iraeli civilians who are dying. Palestinian civilians have also been dying, we just don't hear about them.

Except for hearing about them every half millisecond or so.

demon

15th February 2004, 04:44 PM

Gem:
"Agreed here also: civilians casualties are always part of war, no matter how much one tries to keep them down (Witness civilian casualties even today in Afghanistan and Iraq). But like I said earlier, it's the deliberate targeting of civilians that makes terrorisms worse than military unconventional warfare."

If the US split it`s aide to Israel and gave half to the Palestinians, you just might find they would engage in more conventional warfare.
Don`t lose sight of the fact that Israel is the fourth largest military power in the world and has every weapon and weapon system at it`s disposal...and the bulldozers, let`s not forget the bulldozers.
Should the French resistance have not resisted? Should the South Africans not have resisted?
You expect the Palestinians to act like Ghandi en masse?

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by epepke

Except for hearing about them every half millisecond or so.

I was pointing out the mass media in the West tends to ignore them. Sometimes people here have to be reminded that just because their deaths are not on the front page of the newspapers or on the nightly news, they nevertheless still do happen and are everybit as tragic and painful as the deaths of Israelis.

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 05:05 PM

However, apart from that, I do apologize. The deaths of Palestinians is obviously a great inconvenience to you.

epepke

15th February 2004, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I was pointing out the mass media in the West tends to ignore them.

My primary connections with Western mass media consist of NPR, the local newspaper (Tallahassee Democrat), and occasionally ABC news on teevee and BBC on the radio. I hear about deaths of Palestinians all the time.

demon

15th February 2004, 06:23 PM

"Except for hearing about them every half millisecond or so"

Wow, the Palestinian deaths get as much coverage as the 9-11 victims! Who`d have thunk it?!

epepke

15th February 2004, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I was wondering if the posters who are wont to post on this subject have gone beyond the "who is most to blame" stage and have actually considered how this conflict might realisticly be solved.

So, which realistic scenarios have you come up with?

I've only posted gadfly on this so far, but perhaps its worthwhile to refocus on the question. However, I'm a bit cynical.

The question I would have to you is what would be judged a solution? What qualities would there need to be for it to be considered a solution?

I'm probably going to get jumped on for this, but I have to suggest at least the possibility that a solution has already been found, and it's the status quo.

The Oslo accords collapsed so quickly that, perhaps, that's just not what people wanted. Arafat walked out of the Camp David 2000 talks, in which Israel offered pretty much what most Westerners thought Palestinians wanted, but he didn't want it.

Maybe the status quo, with its low level of warfare, represents some sort of local minimum. In any event, if they were Broadway plays, Oslo would just be a flash in the pan, while Intifada would be a long-running hit with revivals.

After all, here in the US, there are places with similar low levels of warfare. A lot of people say they don't like that so much, but hardly anybody really seems to want to change it, such as for instance by changing the drug laws.

In the UK and the Republic of Ireland, you don't see a lot of people upset enough about the border between Northern Ireland and Eire to, like, actually challenge any of their own beloved prejudices or anything.

To go from the sublime to the ridiculous, people continue to buy Microsoft products and bitch about them. No matter how they bitch, they seem to keep on buying them.

Maybe the excitement of violence and the possibility of sudden death, combined with the immense satisfaction of hating someone else with impunity, has a narcotic quality which is considered desirable overall by hairless dancing monkeys.

Mycroft

15th February 2004, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by demon
You expect the Palestinians to act like Ghandi en masse?

It's interesting that you put this forth as though it were absurd.

epepke

15th February 2004, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
However, apart from that, I do apologize. The deaths of Palestinians is obviously a great inconvenience to you.

Um, is this this a continuation of your previous post to me? If so, it's a particularly lame attempt at a put-down.

My view is that Palestinian deaths and Isreali deaths are treated about the same by the mainstream media. With the sum of all media that I follow, there is a definite bias toward reporting Palestinian deaths over Israeli deaths.

Now, there are any number of ways that my perception could be inaccurate. I do live in a town that is widely called "The Berkeley of the South," so perhaps what appears in the media I see is skewed. The only way to tell would be to have an independent agency without a particular axe to grind do a statistical analysis.

However, you prefer what Magicians call a "multiple out." If someone has perceptions similar to yours, then they are Right™. If not, then they are just Bad™ in some way, which can be implied by a snidely put "great inconvenience." The trouble with this kind of stance, while it may promote cheers from the Peanut Gallery, is that its value manifestly and obviously is not related to which perception is the more accurate.

So, while it's handy, and people continue to use it because it sometimes works, it has "I don't care about the facts" in neon letters eleven feet high.

demon

15th February 2004, 07:12 PM

AUP: "Also, that a military occupation is an act of war. Imagine living your whole life under the control of soldiers who are not answerable to common law, your children growing up under the barrel of a tank's gun, every act of travel subject to check, with curfews imposed for no known reason. It is not death, but a living death. It's just that life lived like this is not front page news."

Yes, very true and the fact is that Israel has used the "war on terror" to confer legitimacy on it's occupation of the territories, but I think that this propaganda is carrying an increasingly limited weight outside of Israel and the USA.
On the other hand, widely respected NGOs such as Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have played a vital role in countering this propaganda, employing the language and principles of international law. I believe that these arguments really do worry the Israeli government.
The instiutions created at Oslo have been used to confer legitimacy on the occupation, just as Edward Said, Chomsky et al pointed out right at the start of the so called peace process. However, until a final status agreement is signed, the occupation remains unethical and illegal.
I know a lot of people who think that the UN resolutions 194 and 242 remain the Palestinian's most important weapons, alongside the bravery and the determination of the Palestinian people to survive as a nation. I put more faith in the latter.
Israel intended that Arafat would sign away Palestinian rights at Camp David in 2000, thus handing Israel the ultimate prize. He refused, the helicoptor gunships moved in, and the rest is history as they say.

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 07:18 PM

No, you are wrong. I do not view those who do/do not agree with me as being Right or Wrong. So STFU.

epepke

15th February 2004, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
No, you are wrong. I do not view those who do/do not agree with me as being Right or Wrong. So STFU.

Ooh, AUP said STFU to me! I'm all wiggly.

But if I'm wrong, am I wrong in that your posting was not a continuation of the earlier posting to me, or am I wrong in my interpretation of it as an attempt at a snide put-down? If if wasn't a continuation of your posting to me, then I don't care. But I don't see what sense it makes if not as an attempt at a snide put-down.

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by epepke

Ooh, AUP said STFU to me! I'm all wiggly.

But if I'm wrong, am I wrong in that your posting was not a continuation of the earlier posting to me, or am I wrong in my interpretation of it as an attempt at a snide put-down? If if wasn't a continuation of your posting to me, then I don't care. But I don't see what sense it makes if not as an attempt at a snide put-down.

The implication I had was that I am the one reminding you of the deaths of Palestinians every few milliseconds. You have to prepared to read more than the Murdoch type of rag to find anything approaching a reasonably balanced news source on the situation. It is a fact, however, that it is the Murdoch type news outlets that are the most popular by far with the majority of news consumers.

epepke

15th February 2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

The implication I had was that I am the one reminding you of the deaths of Palestinians every few milliseconds.

Oh. Well, then, it was a misunderstanding. I wasn't referring to you, personally, at all. Although I hate to deflate, what you personally say about Palestinian deaths is, to me, pretty much lost in the noise, here. If you don't do it, there are a dozen or so people who will. No offense, but you aren't the central figure. It's a chorus.

Although, as I have said before, the ratio is lower here than on many other blogs. Many other blogs, you hardly ever hear about Israelis as anything other than demons. And if there are blogs that go the other way, I don't frequent them.

You have to prepared to read more than the Murdoch type of rag to find anything approaching a reasonably balanced news source on the situation. It is a fact, however, that it is the Murdoch type news outlets that are the most popular by far with the majority of news consumers.

Well, maybe it is. I'm not prepared to conclude that the majority of people make those conclusions, though. Perhaps they do, but I'd like to see some evidence before I believe it.

I'm aware that there exist people who only watch Fox news to about the extent that I am aware that there are people who drink their own urine. But I don't run across such people on a daily basis.

davefoc

15th February 2004, 08:06 PM

epepek said:I'm probably going to get jumped on for this, but I have to suggest at least the possibility that a solution has already been found, and it's the status quo.

I won't jump on you for that. I think I've even heard it said before. I think the fact is that many of us think it might be true but we don't quite want to acknowledge it because it is so sad.

I see the US spending billions of dollars each year to maintain the status quo and to reduce the quality of life for both parties in this conflict. It is particularly sad for me in that it is my country that is a primary cause of the problems.

I also feel that American actions with regard to this conflict make the US a much more likely target of terrorism.

It is also my view that the American involvement in this conflict makes our long time allies less safe.

I think all of these things are true and if what you propose is correct they will continue to be true indefinitely. Unfortunately I see no reason to believe that what you propose isn't correct.

If there is an end to this conflict other than a huge human catastrophe I think the end will come from within Israel. The fact is that a wide range of opinion exists within Israel and there is the possibility is that in time those that can see both sides of this conflict will have sufficient political power to affect change. Maybe people like Cleopatra are the leading edge of that group.

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by epepke

Oh. Well, then, it was a misunderstanding. I wasn't referring to you, personally, at all. Although I hate to deflate, what you personally say about Palestinian deaths is, to me, pretty much lost in the noise, here. If you don't do it, there are a dozen or so people who will. No offense, but you aren't the central figure. It's a chorus.

My apologies.

epepke

15th February 2004, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
epepek said:

I'll add that to my collection of misspellings.

I won't jump on you for that. I think I've even heard it said before. I think the fact is that many of us think it might be true but we don't quite want to acknowledge it because it is so sad.

I quite completely agree. It's terrible.

I see the US spending billions of dollars each year to maintain the status quo and to reduce the quality of life for both parties in this conflict. It is particularly sad for me in that it is my country that is a primary cause of the problems.

I see things a bit differently. I would love to see a better solution. However, as I see it, there is one good thing about maintaining the status quo, and that is that there is zero chance of Israel's using its nuclear arsenal. Which, unlike the leftover weapons of Eastern Bloc countries, have probably been maintained by some of the best engineers in the world to the point where they would actually go "boom." A lot.

I'd love to see a better solution. Heck, I thought at the time that Oslo might turn out to be a better solution. Turned out to be totally wrong. Oh well.

I don't know what the probability is, if Israel faced almost certain destruction, of their implementing their published Samson option. It involves things that go "boom." A lot. And then maybe Pakistan would like to play. And then maybe India. Fun for the whole family.

Maybe the probability is low, like 5%. You wanna roll those dice? Coz' I don't.

I also feel that American actions with regard to this conflict make the US a much more likely target of terrorism.

It is also my view that the American involvement in this conflict makes our long time allies less safe.

Yes, and yes. Sucks, doesn't it?

epepke

15th February 2004, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
My apologies.

I accept.

demon

15th February 2004, 09:22 PM

epepek said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm probably going to get jumped on for this, but I have to suggest at least the possibility that a solution has already been found, and it's the status quo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dave said:
quote:
I won't jump on you for that. I think I've even heard it said before. I think the fact is that many of us think it might be true but we don't quite want to acknowledge it because it is so sad.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

epepek, I agree with you that the status quo has taken root in a lot of peoples minds and they seem to have accepted it.
As dave points out however, I think there is a lot of denial going on here. dave postulates this is because it is so sad to think about...I`m afraid I`m not so generous.

These thread always seem to dissolve into a tit for tat that ignores the central injustice. See how we spend great energy dealing with drivelling little side issues that drift on in an endless bloody stream of "legal" wrongs on either side that we could discuss until the cows come home?
The "legal" argument and the total focus on "terrorism" is the way apologists, (in exactly the same way as supremacist Afrikaners before them talked of the "communist" ANC and how it was bent on destruction of the only law-abiding state in Southern Africa), immerse themselves in blaming their victims and refuse to look at themselves.

Why is the elephant in the room, the central "ethical" issue ignored?

Israel is NOT looking for a way forward, or fundamental reassessment - just look at so many of the previous posts...as soon as the defenders of Israel are given an entre into this the ethical dimension is sidestepped and 9 times out of 10 Arafat becomes the focus - the only focus.
The defenders of Israel are looking for common understanding with their "allies" (that's us unfortunately), while they dismember or ignore the dismembering of their victims.

So let me address this - as long as you refuse to face the central issue of the Israeli occupation and its fascist nature, more and more people will become aware of Israel`s reticence to address the real issues. It is intellectually dishonest to focus on the victim's crimes when your own state is enacting a far larger crime.

Tell me, do the Israeli defenders here get onto discussions with the people whose lives the military you support are destroying or is it only us "westerners" you look to as the only ones worthy of talking to about this? Are you at all interested in them?

davefoc

15th February 2004, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by demon:
You expect the Palestinians to act like Ghandi en masse?

Response from Mycroft:
It's interesting that you put this forth as though it were absurd.

Mycroft, I may be missing what you are say here, but I think it goes right to the heart of why many of us see such a problem with the views of the Israel defenders.

It is wildly unlikely, at least unless they are beaten into complete submission by starvation or military terror, that all Palestinians are going to stop resisting and/or terrorizing Israel simultaneously. Expansion oriented Israeli leaders can use the situation to their advantage by ordering a little bulldozing or bombing when needed. On cue some Palestinian terrorist organization will do their job and blow up some Israelis and then the expansion oriented leader can use the terrorist incident as an excuse for continuing the expansion. This basic approach is also great for manipulating American policy with regards to Israel. If the American leader is getting a little too uppity and pushing for restraint on the part of Israel there is nothing like some Palestinian terrorist attacks to shut him up and make him fall back in to line.

I am sure that you don't agree with this view, and admittedly it is harsh. But the fact is that this is more or less the approach that was used to found Israel as a Jewish state and the fact that some of the old guard keeps running the same play seems like a pretty fair assessment of the situation to me.

a_unique_person

15th February 2004, 11:30 PM

epepke

15th February 2004, 11:43 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
Originally posted by demon:
You expect the Palestinians to act like Ghandi en masse?

Response from Mycroft:
It's interesting that you put this forth as though it were absurd.

Mycroft, I may be missing what you are say here, but I think it goes right to the heart of why many of us see such a problem with the views of the Israel defenders.

One problem is that the counter-responses seem a bit strange even to those of use who aren't particularly "defenders of Israel," such as myself.

People in India used nonviolence, and it worked.

In my country, there used to be a time when people with high melanine content couldn't even use the same drinking fountains as people with low melanine content. They used nonviolence, too, and it also worked.

To save time, I'll use common English parlance and refer to these two groups of people as "wogs" and "nig-nogs."

What we're asked to accept, and what Mycroft was referring to, is the idea that somehow Palestinians are so (possibly genetically?) degraded that they can't possibly be expected to have the sense that even wogs and nig-nogs show.

Which I guess means that we have to invent a term worse and more insulting than "wog" or "nig-nog" to describe what Western advocates of Palestinians think of them, as evinced by what we are told by Palestinian-advocates to think of their capabilities and intelligence.

Note that supporting nonviolence is not the same as supporting oppression. None of the advocates of nonviolence in the US, I think, were big cheerleaders for segregation, and to think that they were would obviously be missing the point. Yet a similar accusation is pretty much de rigeur from Palestinian-advocates.

Note also that I have not committed to nonviolence as a solution; I have merely commented on reactions to the possibility. I don't know if it would work or be practical or could ever happen. All I know is that dimissing it out of hand entails a great insult to Palestinians.

BTW, demon, I haven't forgotten you; I am just letting what you wrote gel in my brain before responding.

a_unique_person

16th February 2004, 12:09 AM

There are cultural differences. India has, for example, a mystical/vegetarian subculture that is conducive to the Ghandi type of influence. (Note that Gandhi himself was assasinated, it's not all non-violence there). Palestinians are stuck with Arafat, hardly comparable.

Cleopatra

16th February 2004, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by epepke
The Oslo accords collapsed so quickly that, perhaps, that's just not what people wanted. Arafat walked out of the Camp David 2000 talks, in which Israel offered pretty much what most Westerners thought Palestinians wanted, but he didn't want it.

Arafat's attitude in Oslo reveals a lot about the mentality of both sides. I am not a cynical ( yet) but I am terribly suspicious now.

For those who follow the life and deeds of Yasser Arafat it was crystal clear that he would deny the offer in Camp David. He denies it for the same reasons that he doesn't support the Geneva Initiative that BTW gives to the Palestinians the same things with those that they have been offered in Camp David.

Arafat wanted to take those things by force. Force and violence is the only thing that he understands. Once he was offered what he was asking, he took the plane and left.I wonder if those who offered those things knew in advance that he wouldn't accept. My guess: yes. Don't ask me for proof I don't have any.

I asked Z-N to apply some skepticism I wish I could ask the Palestinians to apply some skepticism too.

Maybe the status quo, with its low level of warfare, represents some sort of local minimum. In any event, if they were Broadway plays, Oslo would just be a flash in the pan, while Intifada would be a long-running hit with revivals.

Do you include the Fence in that? I have a serious problem with your theory. You mentioned in a previous message that you want History to be remembered. I remember why we went in Middle East. I remember that we went there in order to live in safety and not to live behind fences again. We didn't go to Middle East in order to live in ghettos.

I am not ready to compromise in that.

Maybe the excitement of violence and the possibility of sudden death, combined with the immense satisfaction of hating someone else with impunity, has a narcotic quality which is considered desirable overall by hairless dancing monkeys.

Interesting but for the moment this concerns some political parties. I have posted this before; I don't care if the ME conflict saves Israel from the civil war. It we have to get involved into that let's do it.It will be a katharsis. Who is afraid of that.

epepke

16th February 2004, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There are cultural differences. India has, for example, a mystical/vegetarian subculture that is conducive to the Ghandi type of influence.

Around here, folks prefer fried catfish, fried chicken, hush puppies, fried oysters, well, basically anything, as long as it's fried. Except for chitlins, black-eyed peas, and greens, which are boiled until all the vitamins are destroyed, and then smothered in pepper sauce to give them some flavor. Nonviolence still worked pretty well, though indigestion remains a problem.

(Note that Gandhi himself was assasinated, it's not all non-violence there).

So was MLK. And Jesus, who is credited with the idea. And even Malcolm X, who wasn't exactly nonviolent. It seems to be a trend. There seems to be no quicker way to get yourself killed than to suggest that people be nice to each other for a change.

It pretty much sucks as a career choice, but hey! think of all those virgins you get after you die. Though I've never seen the appeal of virgins myself. Maybe ten or so might be interesting for the novelty, but after that, you've gotta want someone who knows what she's doing. In any event, it's a longer career than suicide bombing.

Palestinians are stuck with Arafat, hardly comparable.

Yes, well, Arafat is unfortunate, and that would have to change. However, Arafat was hardly decided upon by a bunch of Europeans drawing lines on a map, either.

And, once again, I am not asserting that it's likely or practical or even strategically a good choice; just responding to what seemed to be an assertion that it was absurd.

demon

16th February 2004, 12:35 AM

epepke:"People in India used nonviolence, and it worked."

That`s an interesting comment.

Ask yourself if Ghandi would have got away with what he did if he had tried it in the 18th century when the British Empire was at it`s height.
I`d suggest that the success of Ghandi was as much to do with timing as anything else.
The timing that Ghandi had in India is not quite the timing the Palestinians have right now...Israel is at the height of it`s military power and enjoys undaunting support from the most powerful nation in the world.
If America power should decline and it`s support for Israel decline as a consequence then maybe a Ghandi figure in Palestine might make some impact.
I think if any effective Ghandi like character put his head above the battlements at the moment he would get a snipers bullet in it.

epepke

16th February 2004, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Arafat wanted to take those things by force. Force and violence is the only thing that he understands. Once he was offered what he was asking, he took the plane and left.

I have a slightly different take. I think that the conclusion was that, because Israel offered concessions, it was interpreted as meaning that they were weak, and Arafat thought that it meant they could get everything.

Do you include the Fence in that? I have a serious problem with your theory.

Well, the fence would be a change in the status quo, which is basically like, not status quo any more.

Anyway, it isn't my theory. It's just a possibility that I have presented.

You mentioned in a previous message that you want History to be remembered. I remember why we went in Middle East. I remember that we went there in order to live in safety and not to live behind fences again. We didn't go to Middle East in order to live in ghettos.

I am not ready to compromise in that.

OK, do what you want. But if it doesn't work out, consider South Florida. Plenty of land, cheap. I'll even take you to Wolfie's. And there's a place on North Beach with Cuban coffee to die for.

Interesting but for the moment this concerns some political parties. I have posted this before; I don't care if the ME conflict saves Israel from the civil war. It we have to get involved into that let's do it.It will be a katharsis. Who is afraid of that.

Those of us who like to breathe air without Strontium 90 in it, for starters.

epepke

16th February 2004, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by demon
Ask yourself if Ghandi would have got away with what he did if he had tried it in the 18th century when the British Empire was at it`s height.
I`d suggest that the success of Ghandi was as much to do with timing as anything else.

Dunno. But how many times do I have to say that I do not necessarily advocate this and am simply responding to what seemed to me to be an assertion that it was absurd before it actually causes a neuron to fire outside of the territorial limits of the United States?

If America power should decline and it`s support for Israel decline as a consequence then maybe a Ghandi figure in Palestine might make some impact.

It seems to me that American support for Israel is already declining. It took a big hit on 9/11. On the other hand, less American support for Israel means less American preoccupation with Israel, which means a loss of 300,000,000 people with a cultural background that includes being horrified by Vietnam.

demon

16th February 2004, 01:10 AM

epeke: "Dunno. But how many times do I have to say that I do not necessarily advocate this and am simply responding to what seemed to me to be an assertion that it was absurd before it actually causes a neuron to fire outside of the territorial limits of the United States?"

I didnt mean to sound as if I`m berating.
I just want people to keep in mind the betrayal of Palestine after Rabin and Arafat had made some headway...we had the incredible increase in the settlement programme.
If Palestine went all Ghandi like then say goodbye to Palestine. Some poeple here would be very happy about that I`m sure.

edited to add: If you think American support for Israel is declining, follow the money. Is American aide decreasing?

epepke

16th February 2004, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by demon
edited to add: If you think American support for Israel is declining, follow the money. Is American aide decreasing?

I think that American oversight is decreasing. Aid follows, by a fairly complex and slow process. Check again after the 2004 elections.

demon

16th February 2004, 02:04 AM

Cleo:
"Arafat's attitude in Oslo reveals a lot about the mentality of both sides. I am not a cynical ( yet) but I am terribly suspicious now.

For those who follow the life and deeds of Yasser Arafat it was crystal clear that he would deny the offer in Camp David. He denies it for the same reasons that he doesn't support the Geneva Initiative that BTW gives to the Palestinians the same things with those that they have been offered in Camp David.

Arafat wanted to take those things by force. Force and violence is the only thing that he understands. Once he was offered what he was asking, he took the plane and left.I wonder if those who offered those things knew in advance that he wouldn't accept. My guess: yes. Don't ask me for proof I don't have any."
_________________________________________________
epepke:
"Arafat walked out of the Camp David 2000 talks, in which Israel offered pretty much what most Westerners thought Palestinians wanted, but he didn't want it."
_________________________________________________

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Up to our old tricks again eh?

For a more accurate record of what actually happened and was at stake at Camp David you might want to read the following:

Quote:
The brilliant offer Israel never made: To get peace talks started again means confronting a few myths.

David Clark
(The Guardian, April 10th 2002)

Yesterday's carnage in the West Bank provided a bloody illustration of the limits of Ariel Sharon's military strategy. Armed force cannot provide his people with the security they crave because the terrorist infrastructure he has set out to destroy consists of little more than the willingness of ordinary Palestinians to kill themselves while taking as many Israelis with them as possible. This week, the hatred on which it is built burns deeper than ever. In the absence of a meaningful peace process, further atrocities are inevitable, and when they happen, the consequences may be far worse than anything we have so far seen.

Israeli leaders are trapped in a mindset in which further military escalation appears to be their only option. Yet it is difficult to see how much further they can go without triggering a wider regional conflagration that might threaten the state of Israel itself. The "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians from large tracts of the occupied territories? The murder of Arafat? The consequences are unthinkable. Left to his own devices, Ariel Sharon may yet turn out to be the ultimate suicide bomber.

Into the maelstrom steps Colin Powell on a mission that could represent the best hope of avoiding such a catastrophe. His task is clear: to secure a ceasefire and persuade both parties to return to the negotiating table. To succeed, however, he will need to do more than indulge in hand-wringing. He will need to come armed with some harsh truths and some even harsher consequences.

With Israel, it will be necessary to challenge some deeply held illusions about the peace process and why it broke down. Chief among these is the assertion that the Palestinians rejected a "generous" Israeli offer at Camp David two years ago. It is a view that spans the Israeli political spectrum, uniting the hard right with born-again rejectionists like Ehud Barak, confirming all in their belief that political dialogue has been exhausted and that Arafat is an inveterate terrorist. It is time for some constructive revisionism.

Barak's proposal for a Palestinian state based on 91% of the West Bank sounded substantive, but even the most cursory glance at the map revealed the bad faith inherent in it. It showed the West Bank carved into three chunks, surrounded by Israeli troops and settlers, without direct access to its own international borders.

The land-swap that was supposed to compensate the Palestinians for the loss of prime agricultural land in the West Bank merely added insult to injury. The only territory offered to Palestinian negotiators consisted of stretches of desert adjacent to the Gaza Strip that Israel currently uses for toxic waste dumping. The proposals on East Jerusalem were no better, permitting the Palestinians control of a few scattered fragments of what had been theirs before 1967.

Barak offered the trappings of Palestinian sovereignty while perpetuating the subjugation of the Palestinians. It is not difficult to see why they felt unable to accept. The only surprise is how widely the myth of the "generous offer" is now accepted.

For this, Bill Clinton must accept responsibility. With the end of his presidency in sight, Clinton saw time running out along with the hope that he might be remembered in history for something more dignified than blow jobs in the Oval Office. He needed a quick deal rather than a just deal and chose to attempt to bounce Arafat into accepting Israel's terms. When this failed, Clinton vented his wrath at the Palestinian leader.

Maladroit diplomacy played its part, but the failure at Camp David was the product of a deeper problem for which the Palestinians must also accept their share of blame. With the benefit of hindsight, the 1993 Oslo agreement that embodied the land-for-peace compromise was a mirage. Although both sides signed up to a two-state solution, neither was completely sincere in accepting its implications. The Palestinians clung to maximalist demands on refugee returns in the hope that demographics would allow them to rewrite the past. The Israelis insisted on territorial demands that made a mockery of the idea of a viable Palestinian state.

It is here that the Saudi peace initiative has come to play such a critical role in getting the peace process back on track. In calling for Israel's withdrawal from all of the occupied territories and holding out the prospect of a compromise on the refugees that would meet Israeli concerns, it forces both sides finally to come to terms with each other's existence.

Tony Blair's call for the Saudi plan to be enshrined in a new UN resolution is a tacit acceptance that Camp David was a botched job. Progress will now depend on Colin Powell's willingness to spell that out to Sharon and Arafat this week.

David Clark was a special adviser at the Foreign Office until May 2001. dkclark@aol.com
__________________________________________________

Sounds like Peace without Justice to me cleo, just what you advocate.
What say you?

a_unique_person

16th February 2004, 02:13 AM

The devil is in the detail. If you read the paper, it always seems to sound like Arafat is like a child having a temper tantrum and only wants more blood. I don't believe he is an able administrator, and wish he would give someone else a go at being leader, but he is not a complete idiot either.

demon

16th February 2004, 02:42 AM

I`m very familiar with the Camp David talks and the way they have been misrepresented.
I agree with that assessment of Arafat AUP, but behind it all, whatever Arafat might be or not be, lies the intent to shaft the Palestinians.
It was, it is now, and shalt forever be.

There is much moaning and gnashing of teeth here over the words in a largely symbolic Palestinian Charter that can never be realised whatever it says, but not so much concern over Israel`s immediate and real treatment of it`s Palestinians neighbours on the ground which is explicit and brutal.

Actions speak louder than words in this instance.

Mycroft

16th February 2004, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by davefoc
Mycroft, I may be missing what you are say here, but I think it goes right to the heart of why many of us see such a problem with the views of the Israel defenders.

It is wildly unlikely, at least unless they are beaten into complete submission by starvation or military terror, that all Palestinians are going to stop resisting and/or terrorizing Israel simultaneously.

Beating them into complete submission by starvation or military terror is one method by which this could be accomplished. Another would be if Palestinian-Arab leaders simply adopted different strategies. The methods of Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. work, and the excuses offered in this forum for why the Palestinian-Arabs can’t use them are absurd.

AUP suggests that they are prevented by their different “culture”, but what does that mean? That Arabs are incapable of non-violence? Can anyone seriously accept that idea and not call themselves racist?

Demon says the “timing isn’t right”, but if not now when? Huge portions of the Israeli population support independence for and peace with the Palestinian-Arabs, Israel is under the microscope of world scrutiny, and his suggestion that non-violent protest wouldn’t work because Israel is at the height of its military power only makes sense if you accept the presumption that somehow suicide-bombing is defensive and prevents Israeli action when common sense and observation proves exactly the opposite.

Originally posted by davefoc
Expansion oriented Israeli leaders can use the situation to their advantage by ordering a little bulldozing or bombing when needed. On cue some Palestinian terrorist organization will do their job and blow up some Israelis and then the expansion oriented leader can use the terrorist incident as an excuse for continuing the expansion. This basic approach is also great for manipulating American policy with regards to Israel. If the American leader is getting a little too uppity and pushing for restraint on the part of Israel there is nothing like some Palestinian terrorist attacks to shut him up and make him fall back in to line.

Which begs the question; what does suicide bombing accomplish? Does it act for or against the Palestinian-Arab cause?

Originally posted by davefoc
I am sure that you don't agree with this view, and admittedly it is harsh. But the fact is that this is more or less the approach that was used to found Israel as a Jewish state and the fact that some of the old guard keeps running the same play seems like a pretty fair assessment of the situation to me.

This only makes sense if you believe that all violence against Israelis is the fault of the Israelis.

Cleopatra

16th February 2004, 09:58 AM

I need to say that I do not expect the Palestinians to have a Ghandi but I must also say that I was really disappointed with that woman, the lawyer ( that later on became a work of Art to insult the memory of the victims) who blew herself up in one of the worse terrorist attacks of the last years.

She didn't need to become Ghandi she could start practicing Law for the benefit of her people. She could be a model for them.She chose the easy way instead.

This is where I disagree with you demon. She thought that she was serving Justice by blewing her self up. Who made her think like that?

When Turkey invaded Cyrprus in 1974 and occupied the northern part of the island the refugee camps were gone after one year. The Cypriots who lost their houses instead of staying in the camps in order to blackmail the international community worked really hard and with the help of everybody re-organized their lives, built villas ON the Green Line that their balconies look towards the occupied territories. They want to look at the Turks and they want to make sure that the Turks look at them and their progress.

Some of them, instead of wearing explosives spent their fortunes in endless trials that lasted for years and they brought the Cypriot Problem in the International Court.

I was 19 years old when I first heard the case of
LOIZIDOU v. TURKEY-- (http://www.hri.org/news/special/loizidou/). She had a verdict in 2003 some months ago. I remember her young and now she is a middle aged lady. It would be easier to wear some explosives and cause a massacre in the Occupied Territories she chose to fight legally instead.

Turkey must compensate her with 1.1 million USD but she can't go back to her house.

Is this Justice demon? As I told you in that thread that I haven't replied yet you must decide what is most important in life. The future or the past?

Cleopatra

16th February 2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by epepke

I have a slightly different take. I think that the conclusion was that, because Israel offered concessions, it was interpreted as meaning that they were weak, and Arafat thought that it meant they could get everything.

Ok we can have various interpretations the bottom line is that he didn't go there to close the issue or to start negotiating.

OK, do what you want. But if it doesn't work out, consider South Florida. Plenty of land, cheap. I'll even take you to Wolfie's. And there's a place on North Beach with Cuban coffee to die for.

Why the land is cheap? Is something wrong with the place? Florida has a lot of humidity also it has a lot of tourists, a clan that I hate. If you ever saw the sunset from the Hills of Zion you would forget about Florida. ( I hope that none is offended with my mentioning the Hills of Zion, this is how we call them for centuries, no, this doesn't mean that we had to inhabit them regardless if we ended up there- A small parethesis to save the crowd from strawmen)

Those of us who like to breathe air without Strontium 90 in it, for starters.

Ah now we are talking. There are solutions to prevent that you know. Obliging Israel to abide by the International Law regarding nuclear weapons is a good start.

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 11:40 AM

Okay, I had more or less given up this thread as the juices obviously run much more quickly when one can engage in the age-old "who is to blame" game. A lot of exciting sparring, exchanging of insults and making sure one is sitting on the high horse.

Anyway, does anyone have any thoughts on how the world community could be finally made to get together and decide that this local decades-old controversy is just too dangerous to let continue?

If you have no thoughts on this matter, do you think that it is more important to debate endlessly who is more to blame?

demon

16th February 2004, 11:52 AM

Cleo:
"She chose the easy way instead."

Blowing herself up? The easy way? Blowing yourself up is the easy way? I'm sorry, I'm imagining this woman getting up in the morning and saying "I will, I will, I'll muster the strength and courage to take this through the courts...oh bollocks I can't be arsed. I'll just blow myself up..that'll be easier..."

Cleo, Cleo for god's sake woman! These are the acts of thoroughly desperate people. You talk as though there is a level playing field which the palestinians are trying to tip in their balance by killing themselves.
It is not a level playing field.
What would be the point in taking out a legal case? Where would this be held? The UN, the court of highest jurisdiction as far as International Law is concerned has determined again and again that the actions of the Israeli government are illegal. This is an opinion shared by most of the world. What is the response of the Israeli government(s)??? To completely ignore this and continue its occupation. What is the response of the American government? To increase its "aid" to the Israeli government. Aid that it KNOWS is being spent on weapons and settlements. What is it $4.3 billion a year at the moment?

Strapping dynamite to yourself and blowing yourself up is NOT the easy way out. It`s a desperate act by someone living under an occupation that is supported by the world's largest superpower that seems to have no end in sight.

Ask yourself why. Why?

davefoc

16th February 2004, 12:06 PM

DD, it was nice to hear from you again.

As to your question, I think it is a good one, but a bit theoretical.

What this thread has inspired me to think about more is whether there is anything that I can do personally.

I know that when I read about the orchard of some Palestinians being bulldozed I was moved to try to find out who they were so I could send a little money their way to provide some help. In the end because of laziness or theorizing about how I might end up contributing to terrorism I just didn't do anything.

But I think I would like to do something and I am wondering what that thing should be. Perhaps the topic of this thread could be expanded a bit to not only talk about what should happen but what we as individuals could do to help make it happen.

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 12:10 PM

demon:Cleo:
"She chose the easy way instead."

Blowing herself up? The easy way? Blowing yourself up is the easy way? I'm sorry, I'm imagining this woman getting up in the morning and saying "I will, I will, I'll muster the strength and courage to take this through the courts...oh bollocks I can't be arsed. I'll just blow myself up..that'll be easier..."

Cleo, Cleo for god's sake woman! These are the acts of thoroughly desperate people. You talk as though there is a level playing field which the palestinians are trying to tip in their balance by killing themselves.
It is not a level playing field.
What would be the point in taking out a legal case? Where would this be held? The UN, the court of highest jurisdiction as far as International Law is concerned has determined again and again that the actions of the Israeli government are illegal. This is an opinion shared by most of the world. What is the response of the Israeli government(s)??? To completely ignore this and continue its occupation. What is the response of the American government? To increase its "aid" to the Israeli government. Aid that it KNOWS is being spent on weapons and settlements. What is it $4.3 billion a year at the moment?

Strapping dynamite to yourself and blowing yourself up is NOT the easy way out. It`s a desperate act by someone living under an occupation that is supported by the world's largest superpower that seems to have no end in sight.

Ask yourself why. Why? Whether "blowing yourself up" is easy or hard is immaterial to the question at hand.

Do you feel that people should perpetually be driven to such measn of protest? If not, do you feel that a soultion should be reached where no one would feel such a need? If so, do you have any ideas on how such a solution could be arrived at by not having a united mandate of the biggest players behind you? If not, do you have any ideas on how such a mandate could be achieved?

Mycroft

16th February 2004, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
you are absolutely correct on both counts....Now lets talk in general terms. One people are milirarily ocupying another, the occupied people are resisting.

Why is it logical to demand that the resistance end before the ocupying forces withdraw?

Because both sides need certain things they don’t have now.

Israel needs peace and security. They need to know that what’s going to be created after their withdrawal will not be a state dedicated to continued violence. Right now the best defense against Palestinian-Arab terror is the ability of Shin-Bet to operate within the disputed territories, and the IDF. Withdraw these and the only defense option left would be total isolation of the Palestinian-Arabs, something that would hurt them more than the current situation now.

The Palestinian-Arabs need a government capable of and willing to provide basic governmental services, and avoid the violence that could come from a power struggle between Hamas, the PA and various other factions.

I’m all for Israeli withdrawal from the disputed territories. I just think it’s naïve to think it can be done without intermediate steps and outside the larger framework of a viable peace agreement.

Originally posted by The Fool
During periods when the resistance has restrained itself the expansion of settlements continued anyway...no sign of withdrawal. Now we have Sharon making out that saying he will think about starting to talk about removing an unspecified number of settlers that he is making some great concession? How should the Terrorists respond to that? Maybe they could also say they are goint to think about starting to talk about stopping the resistance???

All of which presumes that the settlements are the primary cause for Palestinian-Arab violence. Realistically, the issue goes both ways. (http://www.jcpa.org/jlmbldg.htm)

Skeptic

16th February 2004, 12:12 PM

I know that when I read about the orchard of some Palestinians being bulldozed I was moved to try to find out who they were so I could send a little money their way to provide some help. In the end because of laziness or theorizing about how I might end up contributing to terrorism I just didn't do anything.

Good for you. Financial auditing revealed that virtually all of the EU money given to the PA was either simply stolen by Arafat, or used to buy weapons.

By the way, did you even consider sending money to jewish victims of terrorist attacks, or did that thought never cross your mind?

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 12:13 PM

davefoc:DD, it was nice to hear from you again.:)
As to your question, I think it is a good one, but a bit theoretical.

What this thread has inspired me to think about more is whether there is anything that I can do personally.

I know that when I read about the orchard of some Palestinians being bulldozed I was moved to try to find out who they were so I could send a little money their way to provide some help. In the end because of laziness or theorizing about how I might end up contributing to terrorism I just didn't do anything.

But I think I would like to do something and I am wondering what that thing should be. Perhaps the topic of this thread could be expanded a bit to not only talk about what should happen but what we as individuals could do to help make it happen. Very good questions indeed, davefoc.

Still, I would prefer if you started another thread on this topic. If at all possible, I would like to leave this thread for constructive ideas of how to end this conflict.

Skeptic

16th February 2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person
There are cultural differences. India has, for example, a mystical/vegetarian subculture that is conducive to the Ghandi type of influence. (Note that Gandhi himself was assasinated, it's not all non-violence there). Palestinians are stuck with Arafat, hardly comparable.

So, you're admitting palestinian culture encourages violence?

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 12:16 PM

Mycroft:Because both sides need certain things they don’t have now.

Israel needs peace and security. They need to know that what’s going to be created after their withdrawal will not be a state dedicated to continued violence. Right now the best defense against Palestinian-Arab terror is the ability of Shin-Bet to operate within the disputed territories, and the IDF. Withdraw these and the only defense option left would be total isolation of the Palestinian-Arabs, something that would hurt them more than the current situation now.That may be as the situation is now and has been for decades. How would you change this>?
I’m all for Israeli withdrawal from the disputed territories. I just think it’s naïve to think it can be done without intermediate steps and outside the larger framework of a viable peace agreement. And how would you achieve this larger framework?

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 12:18 PM

Skeptic,

Welcome to this thread, Skeptic. You have been missed.

What are your ideas on how a how a solid backing to end this controversy can be achieved?

Cleopatra

16th February 2004, 12:27 PM

Hey Danish Dynamite

I thought a lot before posting in this thread but I was following closely though. I don't think that the last two pages are out of topic. If you read them you will agree on that and you will be surprized to find out how civilized and serious the discussion is. We posted things that we haven't discussed before.

Demon

At least I am consistent to my views. :) If you see my posts in the threads about suicide I always consider it and "condemn" it as an easy solution.

It's easier to die in one second than drying your soul in protestations and legal fights.

What is the point of a legal action? Why nobody takes a legal action against Israel for refusing to grant the inhabitants of East Jerusalem a citizenship and they are they only group of people on this planet that they do not have ANY citizenship, they do not have passports and they cannot leave the city?

What would they win in court? Maybe nothing but at least people would exercise pressure on Israel for vital things and not for Israel's response to blind violence.Instead what they know about Israel is what the 8 o clock news broadcast and nobody knows anything about the real drama of those people.

I have said it before, if Europe wants to contribute to Peace it must decide to exercise legitimate and fair criticism to Israel. Israelis in Israel that believe in Peace want help too in order not to appear like idiots to their compatriots when they are talking about peace.

edited to add: Just for the record although I have said it again I lobby for the Geneva Initiative Peace Plan.

davefoc

16th February 2004, 12:32 PM

Mycroft said:This only makes sense if you believe that all violence against Israelis is the fault of the Israelis.

This is an important question. I think for most of us that have opposed Israeli actions on this thread our view is something like this:

Yes the founding of Israel caused enormous human suffering for those who were dispossesed of their hereditary lands and property. But the people that were dispossessing them had suffered enormously also and after all these years the dismantling and dispossessing the heirs of the original founders would lead to more human suffering and injustice than it would cure.

Further what we think is that given the nature of the founding of Israel there will continue to be violence against Israel regardless of what Israel does short of mass national suicide for generations to come.

But the use of that violence to justify the continued expansion of Israel and the mistreatment of Palestinians is a self serving and horribly unethical approach. Right now it is impossible to separate violence caused by the expansion and occupation from residual violence that will continue for years regardless of what Israel does now.

What is particularly sad for us looking from the outside is that Israel's policies are not only bad for the Palestinians they are horrendous for the Israelis. The settlements cost Israel billions in subsidies and military expenditures. All to maintain some settlements for about 3% of their population.

It is much to the shame of the US that it's subsidies to Israel are responsible for maintaining the settlements. I think it is very unlikely given a removal of American aid that there would be a consensus of any kind to maintain these things in Israel. But I think the chances of a change in US policy are remote. The change, if it comes, will come from within Israel when there is a sufficiently powerful consensus that justice and peace are more important goals than expansion and Palestinian demonization.

As an aside, this thread has also mentioned the possibility of a true secular democracy for all of greater Israel. Israel would no longer be a Jewish state. Would something like that work? Before this thread I had never even considered it because it had always seemed like a complete non-starter to me. I wonder what Cleopatra thinks about something like that. Maybe the very idea is just pure fantasy, I can think of a lot more reasons why it wouldn't work than it would work.

demon

16th February 2004, 12:33 PM

"But I think I would like to do something and I am wondering what that thing should be. Perhaps the topic of this thread could be expanded a bit to not only talk about what should happen but what we as individuals could do to help make it happen."

Admirable sentiments Dave.
I would suggest supporting The International Solidarity Movement.

You might want to check out their excellent website at the link below.

http://www.palsolidarity.org/

demon

16th February 2004, 12:36 PM

Cleo: "I thought a lot before posting in this thread but I was following closely though. I don't think that the last two pages are out of topic. If you read them you will agree on that and you will be surprized to find out how civilized and serious the discussion is. We posted things that we haven't discussed before."

I second that heartily.

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 12:41 PM

Cleopatra:Hey Danish Dynamite

I thought a lot before posting in this thread but I was following closely though. I don't think that the last two pages are out of topic. If you read them you will agree on that and you will be surprized to find out how civilized and serious the discussion is. We posted things that we haven't discussed before.Great news, Cleo. Do those comments bring us anywhere closer to solution?
Demon

At least I am consistent to my views. :) If you see my posts in the threads about suicide I always consider it and "condemn" it as an easy solution.

It's easier to die in one second than drying your soul in protestations and legal fights.

What is the point of a legal action? Why nobody takes a legal action against Israel for refusing to grant the inhabitants of East Jerusalem a citizenship and they are they only group of people on this planet that they do not have ANY citizenship, they do not have passports and they cannot leave the city?

What would they win in court? Maybe nothing but at least people would exercise pressure on Israel for vital things and not for Israel's response to blind violence.Instead what they know about Israel is what the 8 o clock news broadcast and nobody knows anything about the real drama of those people.

I have said it before, if Europe wants to contribute to Peace it must decide to exercise legitimate and fair criticism to Israel. Israelis in Israel that believe in Peace want help too in order not to appear like idiots to their compatriots when they are talking about peace.I think I understand where you are coming from, Cleo, but fair criticism is not a means to end this conflict.

The only way, it seems to me, is that the major players are forced to force an ending to this conflict. Any ideas on how this may be achieved?
edited to add: Just for the record although I have said it again I lobby for the Geneva Initiative Peace Plan. Does it stipulate a united world community behind it? Do you think anything less can achieve a peace?

Cleopatra

16th February 2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by davefoc
[quote]As an aside, this thread has also mentioned the possibility of a true secular democracy for all of greater Israel. Israel would no longer be a Jewish state. Would something like that work? Before this thread I had never even considered it because it had always seemed like a complete non-starter to me. I wonder what Cleopatra thinks about something like that. Maybe the very idea is just pure fantasy, I can think of a lot more reasons why it wouldn't work than it would work.

Although I am a very optimistic person by nature I cannot imagine an Israel that won't be a jewish state.I already told that to CapelDodger to the other thread. Note!! It's not that I do not wish that Israel becomes a democracy but let's be real here. We need at least 100 years after the establishment of a Palestinian State to do this. You know, blood has built a really high fence that separates people and after this blooshed, I don't know. Also Israel has another serious problem. It has invited people from all over the world, people that have different experiences and needs. What brings those people together is Judaism. What sort of State will be that if it is not Jewish.

As I said this is a task for a future generation, not for us.Our duty is to stop this madness. But he nature of Israel doesn't bother Peace,it's a problem mostly for its citizens.[ edited to add: at least to some of its citizens. ]

Grammatron

16th February 2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Cleopatra:Great news, Cleo. Do those comments bring us anywhere closer to solution?
I think I understand where you are coming from, Cleo, but fair criticism is not a means to end this conflict.

The only way, it seems to me, is that the major players are forced to force an ending to this conflict. Any ideas on how this may be achieved?
Does it stipulate a united world community behind it? Do you think anything less can achieve a peace?

You mean like the UN permanent members: USA, Russia, China, etc. along with the entire EU invade Israel until the violence stop?

Tony

16th February 2004, 12:49 PM

What are your ideas DD? How do you force a society into a peace agreement with a group who they consider their religious enemies?

epepke

16th February 2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by demon
epepek, I agree with you that the status quo has taken root in a lot of peoples minds and they seem to have accepted it.

That's not really what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there exists a situation, and when talking about a solution, the possibility remains that there is no possible direction of motion that is more like a solution than the status quo.

I'm not even arguing that the status quo is the best solution. I'm just saying that it can't be ruled out.

These thread always seem to dissolve into a tit for tat that ignores the central injustice. See how we spend great energy dealing with drivelling little side issues that drift on in an endless bloody stream of "legal" wrongs on either side that we could discuss until the cows come home?

The "legal" argument and the total focus on "terrorism" is the way apologists, (in exactly the same way as supremacist Afrikaners before them talked of the "communist" ANC and how it was bent on destruction of the only law-abiding state in Southern Africa), immerse themselves in blaming their victims and refuse to look at themselves.

Why is the elephant in the room, the central "ethical" issue ignored?

Israel is NOT looking for a way forward, or fundamental reassessment - just look at so many of the previous posts...as soon as the defenders of Israel are given an entre into this the ethical dimension is sidestepped and 9 times out of 10 Arafat becomes the focus - the only focus.
The defenders of Israel are looking for common understanding with their "allies" (that's us unfortunately), while they dismember or ignore the dismembering of their victims.

As Danish Dynamite pointed out, threads about the Middle East generally turn into arguments about whom to blame. These paragraphs of yours. are perfectly in line with such a situation. But he was asking for a discussion about what can be done to find a solution.

While blaming and taking sides is enjoyable and is an age-old human occupation, I find it fairly naive to think that converting more people to one side of the finger-pointing (whether Israeli or Palestinian doesn't matter much) is going to be a central part of finding a solution, with the exception of a variety of extermination scenarios.[/B][/QUOTE]

Cleopatra

16th February 2004, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Great news, Cleo. Do those comments bring us anywhere closer to solution?

Some months ago Supercharts posted in mu.nu that since he has been reading my posts about Middle East he realized that the coin has two sides. SC wasn't born yesterday you know and this was not an easy thing to say. If people apply some skepticism to everything they hear from both sides they will start pushing for viable solutions.

I think I understand where you are coming from, Cleo, but fair criticism is not a means to end this conflict.

No but Israel doesn't care if EU doesn't approve the bulldozing of the houses after a suicide attack. BUT personally I do not know ANY country that enjoys the procedures of International courts( only the Talibans didn't care) and the real bad publicity they bring. Don't forget about the support from Jews around the world. Do you think that educated people accept such things? Unfair criticism promotes denial.

The only way, it seems to me, is that the major players are forced to force an ending to this conflict. Any ideas on how this may be achieved?
Does it stipulate a united world community behind it? Do you think anything less can achieve a peace?

Under the present circumstances only a real bad incident, a tragedy will force USA and UN to stop fooling around the issue and look for real solutions but yet who will keep us distracted and the Arabs busy? Don't make me start talking like a marxist DD I belong to the Right ( I must post a sticker on my screen in order not to forget that:) )

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 01:02 PM

Grammatron:You mean like the UN permanent members: USA, Russia, China, etc. along with the entire EU invade Israel until the violence stop? No. I see no reason they should invade Israel.

If, however, they could get together and agree that the Palestine-Israel situation is too great a risk for world stability and that it needed finally to be solved, that would be a very powerful mandate. I don't think such a mandate is impossible. Not at all. I'm just asking for people's opinions on how such a mandate could be achieved.

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 01:03 PM

Tony:What are your ideas DD? How do you force a society into a peace agreement with a group who they consider their religious enemies? By having the world's major players decide that this must now occur. How to do this, is the question.

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 01:07 PM

Cleopatra:Some months ago Supercharts posted in mu.nu that since he has been reading my posts about Middle East he realized that the coin has two sides. SC wasn't born yesterday you know and this was not an easy thing to say. If people apply some skepticism to everything they hear from both sides they will start pushing for viable solutions.OK. How does this lead to a solution?
No but Israel doesn't care if EU doesn't approve the bulldozing of the houses after a suicide attack. BUT personally I do not know ANY country that enjoys the procedures of International courts( only the Talibans didn't care) and the real bad publicity they bring. Don't forget about the support from Jews around the world. Do you think that educated people accept such things? Unfair criticism promotes denial.Fair criticism is certainly a goal. But it is insignificant in regard to the goal of a united front demanding peace.
Under the present circumstances only a real bad incident, a tragedy will force USA and UN to stop fooling around the issue and look for real solutions but yet who will keep us distracted and the Arabs busy? Don't make me start talking like a marxist DD I belong to the Right ( I must post a sticker on my screen in order not to forget that:) ) So you see no possiblility for a united front?

DanishDynamite

16th February 2004, 01:11 PM

epepke:That's not really what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there exists a situation, and when talking about a solution, the possibility remains that there is no possible direction of motion that is more like a solution than the status quo.

I'm not even arguing that the status quo is the best solution. I'm just saying that it can't be ruled out.I find that completely at odds with history. No war has ever lasted indefinitely.
As Danish Dynamite pointed out, threads about the Middle East generally turn into arguments about whom to blame. These paragraphs of yours. are perfectly in line with such a situation. But he was asking for a discussion about what can be done to find a solution.

While blaming and taking sides is enjoyable and is an age-old human occupation, I find it fairly naive to think that converting more people to one side of the finger-pointing (whether Israeli or Palestinian doesn't matter much) is going to be a central part of finding a solution, with the exception of a variety of extermination scenarios. Well said. Finger pointing is of no use at all.

Constructive ideas, realisable ideas, new ideas are the only way forward. Unfortunately, they are much, much harder to come up with than finger-pointing.

Cleopatra

16th February 2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
OK. How does this lead to a solution?

Well, can you imagine Americans asking for Israe's support only under certain circustances.

Fair criticism is certainly a goal. But it is insignificant in regard to the goal of a united front demanding peace.

I don't believe in magical solutions I can fight to change mentalities, the rest is only a matter of time.

So you see no possiblility for a united front?

I don't know that. I don't see it possible we don't have the same interests with the Americans in the area.

epepke

16th February 2004, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by demon
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Up to our old tricks again eh?

My old tricks?

AUP actually put this more strongly than I would have put it, but my impression of the talks, after reading a fair amount about it, was that the offer that Israel effectively made is what is known as an "opening offer." This is not the end of the negotiating process but rather the start. I don't blame Arafat for not taking the opening offer and going home, because that's not what an opening offer is for. But I do blame him for basically limiting his actual negotiating to saying "no" and expecting further concessions to be handed him on a silver platter.

I don't care if one is absolutely convinced that Arafat is God Incarnate and Israel is the Great Satan, Moloch, Cthulhu, and The Master from Dr. Who combined. There still is a diplomatic process that has to be followed, and people who flaunt it are, at best, incompetent diplomats.

Some days, it seems to me to have been a game, in the Eric Berne sense.

epepke

16th February 2004, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Why the land is cheap?

Because there's a lot of it.

epepke

16th February 2004, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
epepke:I find that completely at odds with history. No war has ever lasted indefinitely.

I don't know about indefinitely. The conflict between Great Britain and Ireland has been going on at a low level for centuries. Jews have been in conflict with somebody pretty much forever.

It might be that the only possible solution is as the Middle East changes form over the next hundred years or so. However, barring some serious advances in medical technology, I'll be dead. Since people like to accomplish things within their own lifetime, for all practical purposes, if it lasts longer than a lifetime, it might as well be indefinite.

demon

16th February 2004, 02:27 PM

What I always find puzzling about those who deride Arafat and the Palestinians for rejecting the "generous" offer at Camp David is their failure to address the talks at Taba in January 2001.

quote:
Israeli-Palestinian joint statement at Taba
27 January 2001

The following is the official text of the joint statement released yesterday by Israeli and Palestinian negotiators as published in the Jerusalem Post (Jan 28, 2001) :

"The Israeli and Palestinian delegations conducted during the last six days serious, deep and practical talks with the aim of reaching a permanent and stable agreement between the two parties.

"The Taba talks were unprecedented in their positive atmosphere and expression of mutual willingness to meet the national, security and existential needs of each side.

"Given the circumstances and time constraints, it proved impossible to reach understandings on all issues, despite the substantial progress that was achieved in each of the issues discussed.

"The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli elections.

"The two sides take upon themselves to return to normalcy and to establish [a] security situation on the ground through the observation of their mutual commitments in the spirit of the Sharm e-Sheikh memorandum.

"The negotiation teams discussed four main themes : refugees, security, borders and Jerusalem, with a goal to reach a permanent agreement that will bring an end to the conflict between them andprovide peace to both people.

"The two sides took into account the ideas suggested by President Clinton together with their respective qualifications and reservations.

"On all these issues there was substantial progress in the understanding of the other side’s positions and in some of them the two sides grew closer.

"As stated above, the political timetable prevented reaching an agreement on all the issues.

"However, in light of the significant progress in narrowing the differences between the sides, the two sides are convinced that in a short period of time and given an intensive effort and the acknowledgment of the essential and urgent nature of reaching an agreement, it will be possible to bridge the differences remaining and attain a permanent settlement of peace between them.

"In this respect, the two sides are confident that they can begin and move forward in this process at the earliest practical opportunity.

"The Taba talks conclude an extensive phase in the Israeli-Palestinian permanent status negotiations with a sense of having succeeded in rebuilding trust between the sides and with the notion that they were never closer in reaching an agreement between them than today.

"We leave Taba in a spirit of hope and mutual achievement, acknowledging that the foundations have been laid both in reestablishing mutual confidence and in having progressed in a substantive engagement on all core issues.

"The two sides express their gratitude to President Hosni Mubarak for hosting and facilitating these talks.

"They also express their thanks to the European Union for its role in supporting the talks."

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Peace/Taba1.html
________________________________________________
quote:
"Senior Israeli and Palestinian officials concluded nearly a week of stop-and-start negotiations in Taba, Egypt, tonight by saying jointly that they have "never been closer to reaching" a final peace accord but lacked sufficient time to conclude one before the Israeli elections on Feb. 6..... At a joint news conference in Taba, Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami of Israel called the two-way talks, from which the Americans were conspicuously absent, "the most fruitful, constructive, profound negotiations in this phase of the peace process." He said the two sides hoped to pick up where they left off after the elections -- although his boss, Mr. Barak, is expected to lose."
The New York Times, January 28, 2001
_________________________________________________

Of course Barak lost, Sharon was elected and the talks never resumed. Why is it that Sharon, as a man of peace did not build on the progress made here, perhaps because he wanted the violence to continue so he could further a programme of ethnic cleansing and continue the barbaric oppression of the Palestinian people.

-

a_unique_person

16th February 2004, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I need to say that I do not expect the Palestinians to have a Ghandi but I must also say that I was really disappointed with that woman, the lawyer ( that later on became a work of Art to insult the memory of the victims) who blew herself up in one of the worse terrorist attacks of the last years.

She didn't need to become Ghandi she could start practicing Law for the benefit of her people. She could be a model for them.She chose the easy way instead.

This is where I disagree with you demon. She thought that she was serving Justice by blewing her self up. Who made her think like that?

When Turkey invaded Cyrprus in 1974 and occupied the northern part of the island the refugee camps were gone after one year. The Cypriots who lost their houses instead of staying in the camps in order to blackmail the international community worked really hard and with the help of everybody re-organized their lives, built villas ON the Green Line that their balconies look towards the occupied territories. They want to look at the Turks and they want to make sure that the Turks look at them and their progress.

Some of them, instead of wearing explosives spent their fortunes in endless trials that lasted for years and they brought the Cypriot Problem in the International Court.

I was 19 years old when I first heard the case of
LOIZIDOU v. TURKEY-- (http://www.hri.org/news/special/loizidou/). She had a verdict in 2003 some months ago. I remember her young and now she is a middle aged lady. It would be easier to wear some explosives and cause a massacre in the Occupied Territories she chose to fight legally instead.

Turkey must compensate her with 1.1 million USD but she can't go back to her house.

Is this Justice demon? As I told you in that thread that I haven't replied yet you must decide what is most important in life. The future or the past?

Some good points, Cleopatra, and I think we can learn a lot from the similar events around the world.

I would say that in the case you have cited, the woman did not lose her house, but was present when her brother was summarily killed. Also, I don't think that Israel is a party to the International Court. Correct me if I am wrong. Finally, the Arabs are a much more tribal and combative culture, as we are constantly being reminded. I believe that Arafat has in fact had tried to use Gandhi like methods of resistance, but these are not popular with the more radical elements of the Palestinians. For example, the Irish have resorted to violence for hundreds of years in their resistance against the English. (But I don't see anyone calling them animals.)

Hmmm, Mr Google, has come up with an interesting example, the fence has been brought up before the court, and Israel claims it has no jurisdiction to rule on this issue. Palestine has in fact tried to use this peaceful route to resolve the issue. My tip, it won't make a tinkers cuss of difference, the fence will go ahead.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wldcourt/icj/2004/0131join.htm

Canada has joined the United States, France, Australia and other western nations against an International Court of Justice hearing on the legality of the controversial barrier that divides Israel from Palestinian land. Israel and the Palestinians also submitted arguments to the world court yesterday. Israel argued the judges have no jurisdiction, while the Palestinians said construction on occupied land is illegal, officials said. In Montreal, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham told reporters that the Martin government would formally send its opinion on Israel's security perimeter to the International Court by yesterday's deadline for submissions. Although Canada abstained from voting on the barrier question at the United Nations last fall, Mr. Graham said it is speaking up now because the government believes the matter is a political, rather than a judicial, issue. "I will give the court a written opinion to the effect that we consider that it's not time for the court to take this as a legal question. It's better that it remains for discussions between the parties, as mandated by the (UN) Security Council," the minister said. The U.S. and Australia have submitted similar arguments. Though the Bush administration opposes elements of the barrier project, it submitted a statement saying that only the states involved, and not the UN General Assembly, can determine whether the court could rule in disputes among countries. The assembly, which opposed Israel's project overwhelmingly in last fall's vote, had asked the court for an advisory opinion on the matter. U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, summarizing the U.S. legal position yesterday, said the council's request was out of bounds. Alexander Downer, Australia's foreign minister, told the Jerusalem Post earlier this week that his country is concerned "this case has the potential for the politicization of the International Court of Justice and could damage its credibility as a court." The Canada-Israel Committee welcomed the decision of the Canadian government to register its opposition to a world court hearing. "By voicing its opposition to the propriety of the world court's intervention concerning the fence, Canada joins with other countries which reject the exploitation and politicization of international institutions for partisan purposes," the committee said in a news release.

The International Court of Justice's ruling about the barrier's legality is nonbinding, but both Israel and the Palestinians have invested great effort in the case because the outcome is likely to influence international opinion. Hearings are to begin Feb. 23 at The Hague, Netherlands. The barrier, a 700-kilometre combination of trenches, fences, walls, razor wire and electronic sensors, follows a serpentine route, sometimes along the boundary between Israel and the West Bank that existed before the 1967 Mideast War, and sometimes dipping deep into West Bank territory. Israel has completed about one-quarter of it. The Palestinians say the barrier is a land grab that has already disrupted the lives of tens of thousands of people, while Israel says it is needed to keep out Palestinian attackers who have killed hundreds of Israelis in more than three years of fighting. On Thursday, 10 Israelis were killed and more than 50 wounded in a suicide bus bombing in the West Bank town of Bethlehem. The Israeli Foreign Ministry website showed graphic footage of the aftermath of the attack, including body parts and the blood-spattered bus, to illustrate why it believes the barrier is necessary. "We want to give people the possibility to see for themselves, especially when Israel as the victim is being put on the defendant's bench in The Hague," Foreign Ministry spokesman Jonathan Peled said. PLO officials refused to detail the legal arguments they submitted to the court yesterday. But officials close to the legal team, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the main thrust is that the barrier is illegal because it is built on occupied land. Israel captured the West Bank, along with the Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, in the 1967 war. In its deposition submitted yesterday, Israel contended the court lacked the authority to hear the case, Foreign Ministry adviser Alan Baker said. He didn't detail why Israel thinks so. UN insiders are privately expressing concern about the course of the case. If the court rules in favour of the Palestinian Authority on the barrier, other cases having to do with the occupation itself might follow.

epepke

16th February 2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by demon
What I always find puzzling about those who deride Arafat and the Palestinians for rejecting the "generous" offer at Camp David is their failure to address the talks at Taba in January 2001.

This is a straw man. As I've pointed out, the offer at Camp David was an opening offer.

As for the talks at Talba, too little too late.

Of course Barak lost, Sharon was elected and the talks never resumed. Why is it that Sharon, as a man of peace did not build on the progress made here, perhaps because he wanted the violence to continue so he could further a programme of ethnic cleansing and continue the barbaric oppression of the Palestinian people.

Another straw man. Sharon isn't a "man of peace" any more than George W. Bush is. He was elected because Israelis were fed up. You can point your finger at them and blame them, but that doesn't solve anything, either.

epepke

16th February 2004, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
If you ever saw the sunset from the Hills of Zion you would forget about Florida.

I just might do that, if I ever get rich again. I've often thought it would be kind of fun to get an Israeli passport, even if I really have no intentions of expatriating, but the way things are going, having more than one passport might be useful. Right now, though, travel is pretty limited for me.

In return, I think you should make it some sort of indeterminate goal to see the sunset over the bay from the Salty Dog next to the Mote Marine Research Laboratory. I'd suggest Pirate's Cove, which provides a nice framing down Phillippi Creek, but they've gone out of business.

Ah now we are talking. There are solutions to prevent that you know. Obliging Israel to abide by the International Law regarding nuclear weapons is a good start.

How do you suggest this could be accomplished?

a_unique_person

16th February 2004, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by epepke

This is a straw man. As I've pointed out, the offer at Camp David was an opening offer.

As for the talks at Talba, too little too late.

Another straw man. Sharon isn't a "man of peace" any more than George W. Bush is. He was elected because Israelis were fed up. You can point your finger at them and blame them, but that doesn't solve anything, either.

Sharon did his best to stir up trouble, though. Like Dubya, he believes that overwhelming firepower is the answer.

a_unique_person

16th February 2004, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Grammatron:No. I see no reason they should invade Israel.

If, however, they could get together and agree that the Palestine-Israel situation is too great a risk for world stability and that it needed finally to be solved, that would be a very powerful mandate. I don't think such a mandate is impossible. Not at all. I'm just asking for people's opinions on how such a mandate could be achieved.

The first thing is to allow UN monitors into the area. The Palestinians have been prepared to accept this, but not Israel.

Mycroft

16th February 2004, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Mycroft:That may be as the situation is now and has been for decades. How would you change this>?
And how would you achieve this larger framework?

It depends on who you are.

If you’re Israel, you need to do more to crack down on terror. Right now all they’re doing is building a fence and killing terrorists where they find them. They need to do more to fight terror on other fronts as well, which includes attacking their funding through diplomatic pressure on foreign governments, and greater exposure of the flow of money through NGOs. They also need to reach out to the Palestinian-Arab people to break up the public support for terror. A relatively small sum of money (for a government) could fund a pretty good media campaign through Arabic speaking radio, television and other media to remind them how much better their lives were before the Intifada, and how tired they are of having leaders who have pushed them into violence, poverty and misery for the past 35 years.

If you’re a Palestinian-Arab, you need to try something else. If thirty-five years of terror hasn’t brought results, it’s time to re-think that strategy.

If you’re anybody else, another country or the UN, you need to do your part to stop the flow on money to the terrorists, and be ready, willing and able to aid the first sign of Palestinian-Arab leadership that shows an interest in exploring other means of resolving the conflict.

Mycroft

17th February 2004, 12:14 AM

Originally posted by demon
I would suggest supporting The International Solidarity Movement.

You might want to check out their excellent website at the link below.

http://www.paloslidarity.org/

That’s pretty funny considering how earlier you said that the “time wasn’t right” for non-violent protest, somehow Israel’s strong military was supposed to make this unworkable in some vague way.

But it’s not really inconsistent is it? After all, you really only meant that non-violent protest was wrong for Palestinian-Arabs. Luring European and American kids into one of the most dangerous conflicts there is is a pretty good strategy. It gives the Palestinian-Arabs the moral high-ground for using non-violent protest, while still allowing them to get their hands as bloody as they want. Dead European and American kids make great material in the war of public opinion.

a_unique_person

17th February 2004, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by Mycroft

It depends on who you are.

If you’re Israel, you need to do more to crack down on terror.

Sharon promised to be tough, and he was, and Israel has never had more deaths.

Mycroft

17th February 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Sharon promised to be tough, and he was, and Israel has never had more deaths.

Yes, when something doesn’t work you need to change your approach, which is one reason why I said the crackdown on terror needed to be expanded to other fronts. Specifically the funding of terror and the public support for it. You're obtuse on purpose, aren’t you?

davefoc

17th February 2004, 09:56 AM

The Palestinian Solidarity link above doesn't work, it should be:
http://www.palsolidarity.org/

The site has an article about attempts at non-violent protests and the Israeli government reaction to them. The problem is of course is that the source may not be reliable given their biases, but a small quote from the article anyway:

Sainath had been arrested once before, in November 2002, along with nine other activists during a peaceful march by Palestinians, Israelis and foreigners against the construction of the Israeli separation barrier in the West Bank village of Jayyous. Now under house arrest, she says these latest Israeli actions are further proof that resistance of any kind to the occupation, even nonviolent, will not be tolerated.

Sainath says her arrest and attempted deportation by Israeli authorities took place away from the eyes of the press and without access to her lawyer.

“They are afraid that a legal suit like mine will publicly demonstrate that the methods they are using to crush nonviolent opposition in the Occupied Territories are both illegal and immoral,” she added

Source: http://www.palsolidarity.org/inthenews/lebstardec03.php

demon

17th February 2004, 10:31 AM

sorry aboutthe bad link dave.

Mycroft: "That’s pretty funny considering how earlier you said that the “time wasn’t right” for non-violent protest, somehow Israel’s strong military was supposed to make this unworkable in some vague way."

Not funny...dave as a concerned citizen asked if there might be any suggestions how he might to do something constructive in support of the Palestinians and I offered the link.
Trust you to try and make a mockery of it.

demon

17th February 2004, 10:33 AM

Mycroft:
"If you’re anybody else, another country or the UN, you need to do your part to stop the flow on money to the terrorists,"

I AM doing my part - among other things, I don't buy Israeli goods in shops, I take every opportunity to criticize the terrorist Israeli government. Now I'm listening...if you can suggest further ways to turn the screws on the brutal and immoral gang of thugs you support.

demon

17th February 2004, 10:58 AM

epepke:"This is a straw man. As I've pointed out, the offer at Camp David was an opening offer".

I agree it is a straw man if that`s your position. Fair enough.
In context though, it wasn't an "opening offer" at all. It was in effect a "reopening" of the negotiation at Oslo. Any border remarcation in later talks was meant to revolve around very minor readjustments due to settlements at THAT time. Israel inserted hundreds of thousands of occupiers between Oslo and then - totally against the accord's meaning - and then opened up the renegotiation of the land split, characterising Arafat as not looking for negotiation at all when this was done.
The negotiation took place AT OSLO. This renegotiation was an act of bad faith. Why is this so hard to see? Just the one fact - the insertion of occupiers during Oslo, should silence the critics about Arafat's bad faith. But it doesn`t.

Again the focus on Arafat...another point in building a case history against him. The central issue is the occupation.

This isnt addressed to you epepke but there is a conscious effort here to insert ambivalence where none is called for by the facts. It's a silly exercise because what happens on the ground, those facts, speak for themselves. But by continually focusing on Arafat's crimes, the crimes of the Palestinians, the apologists hope is of gradually changing the discourse to a partial "understanding of brave little Israel, the only democracy in the ME."

The case is presented that we desire to learn and understand so we can find a solution to the conflict but this fabricated focus on the one subject that will impede a learning process- Arafat and Palestinian "terror"- hides a masterful indifference to the central issue of occupation.

That's a contradiction that really gives the apologists away.

I`ve asked before, how many people actually discuss any of this with Palestinians? Is it only with us "westerners" that the subject is worth discussing? Are you interested in the Palestinians as people at all?