Israel votes to expel Arafat. Would this make him more powerful? [Archive]

MC Master of Ceremonies

09-11-2003, 04:41 PM

smiling bandit

09-11-2003, 05:03 PM

Arafat has always led the most moderate faction, so if there is a power vacuum conceviably extremists could fill it. Alot of it comes from the Israeli villification of Arafat, yes he has numerous faults, but his connections to the current wave of terrorism are tenous and he has repeatedly shown he is willing to negoitate.

No, he's not willing to negotiate. He is not a moderate. His "moderate faction" talks nicely and runs their own terror brigade. He's done this for years. Sure, their will be a power vaccuum, and the poeple who fill it will be just like Arafat: each potential successor, ith the possible exception of Abbas, runs one of the many local "parties" that run the terror brigades! Arafat negotiates because he doesn't have to deliver anything. A man who can't give you anything will always negotiate in exchange for anything.

The Palestinians would rather not negoitae with Sharon who has far more Palestinian blood on his hands than Arafat has Israeli blood on his hands and this liable to be seen on the Palestinian side as an attempt to replace him with an Israeli puppet.

Cite? :rolleyes:

His negotiations are all contingent on thr Right of Return, a wholly untenable idea to the Israelis. It'd be their death warrant and they know it. Arafat signed many peace accords, but he cannot and will not deliver on his promises. He's a dictator in search of a nation to command. He has done nothing to help the peace, ever, period. Remember who signed the Oslo Accords, the Camp David Accords, and so forth: the only consistent component in all the failed agreements is him.

In short, if Arafat cannot deliver peace, he is useless and a pitiful obstruction to peace. If he can but chooses not to, then he a monster who must be defanged. Either way, he is of no value except to his associates.

Sharon is a harsh man, but he's also fair. He gave the Palestinians every opportunity for peace. Their leaders, which are not neccessarily remotely interested in anything Arafat has to say, and some of them are his direct enemies, have rejected this time and time again. If the Palestinians wasnt peace, they need to do it with deeds, not words.

GoHeels

09-11-2003, 05:28 PM

Seems to me that by not setting an actual date for kicking ol' busy whiskers out, Israel's vote is a veiled warning to Arafat to give Queria some real power to move against the terrorists, or else he's gone. If Arafat doesn't, then maybe Israel will actually exile Arafat with at least tacit approval by the U.S.

Just MHO, but I think Arafat needs to die before anything decent can happen in the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

And DeadJesus, I'm not much of a fan of Sharon either, but the guy was pretty much politically dead before Arafat brought him back to life by launching this stupid, destructive, meaningless intifada. The current intifada has deligitimized the Israeli Left.

Contrast the current intifada with the uprising of the late 80s, which was relatively non-violent and a genuine resistance movement with mostly non-lethal acceptable tactics (boycotts, strikes, rock-throwing, mass civil disobedience, etc.). The intifada of the late 80s, not coincidentally, was led by those living in the territories and not by the fatcats and bureaucrats in the PLO, nor by the sick fucks in Hamas.

I (and many other American Jews, I suspect) really sympathized with the West Bankers and Gazans who fueled that uprising. It caused me to question Israeli tactics, to question the occupation, to question how Israel treated the Palestinians. Now, with the dynamic element in Palestinian politics being Arafat (or Hamas), and the West Bankers and Gazans paying the price for their obstinancy/hatred, it's really hard to question Israeli responses.

It sucks for the Palestinians caught in the middle, no question. But if I'm an Israeli citizen, and an innocent Palestinian has to die from the collateral damage caused by trying to kill some Hamas asshole in order to protect my fellow Israeli citizens, that's just the way it has to be.

MC Master of Ceremonies

09-11-2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by smiling bandit
No, he's not willing to negotiate. He is not a moderate. His "moderate faction" talks nicely and runs their own terror brigade. He's done this for years. Sure, their will be a power vaccuum, and the poeple who fill it will be just like Arafat: each potential successor, ith the possible exception of Abbas, runs one of the many local "parties" that run the terror brigades! Arafat negotiates because he doesn't have to deliver anything. A man who can't give you anything will always negotiate in exchange for anything.

I'm sorry but you seem to know little about the various Palestinian groups, since it's inception Fatah has always been the most moderate grouping in the PLO. Yes the al-Asqa matyrs are made up of hardline members of Fatah but they are not part of Fatah.

Cite? :rolleyes:

How many Israelis have been killed in attacks by the PLO (I don't know but the total number of Israeli detahs in terrorist attacks on Israel 1968-1993 and the signing of principles was 380, during the intifad 2,500 Palestinians have died, when Sharon was defence secretary thousands of Palestinas were massacred by Lebanon phlangists under his command, ot to mention the many other civilians who died whilst he was a general and defence minister.

His negotiations are all contingent on thr Right of Return, a wholly untenable idea to the Israelis. It'd be their death warrant and they know it. Arafat signed many peace accords, but he cannot and will not deliver on his promises. He's a dictator in search of a nation to command. He has done nothing to help the peace, ever, period. Remember who signed the Oslo Accords, the Camp David Accords, and so forth: the only consistent component in all the failed agreements is him.
Well he has agreed in principle to give up the right of return so you are incorrect and you also have to remebr that Israel has never offered top withdraw from the OT.

In short, if Arafat cannot deliver peace, he is useless and a pitiful obstruction to peace. If he can but chooses not to, then he a monster who must be defanged. Either way, he is of no value except to his associates.

Sharon is a harsh man, but he's also fair. He gave the Palestinians every opportunity for peace. Their leaders, which are not neccessarily remotely interested in anything Arafat has to say, and some of them are his direct enemies, have rejected this time and time again. If the Palestinians wasnt peace, they need to do it with deeds, not words.

When has Sharon ever given any oppurtunity for peace? he has unrelentingly attacked them and tried to sabotage the roadmap by eleimnating all refernce to an independent Palestinian stae from it.

vanilla

09-11-2003, 05:41 PM

If Arafat were to be killed, all hell would probably break loose.
I think this is posturing by the Israelis.
Would it be better if both sides had different leaders?
Which ones?

ummm... yeahh...

09-11-2003, 07:20 PM

I was always a big Netanyahu guy.

smiling bandit

09-11-2003, 08:33 PM

I'm sorry but you seem to know little about the various Palestinian groups, since it's inception Fatah has always been the most moderate grouping in the PLO. Yes the al-Asqa matyrs are made up of hardline members of Fatah but they are not part of Fatah.

If I know little, you just proved you know nothing.

If ten men want to kill me and family, and one only wants to kill my children, the one is absolutely not any more acceptable. They are butchers and derserve death.

How many Israelis have been killed in attacks by the PLO (I don't know but the total number of Israeli detahs in terrorist attacks on Israel 1968-1993 and the signing of principles was 380, during the intifad 2,500 Palestinians have died,

Good. While I believe your numbers are off, it doesn't matter. Guess what: those Palestinians were killed because they tend to throw big, heavy rocks are soldiers heads. Let them die. Others die when Israel attacks the teror leaders who send suicide bombers against them. Israelis die because the Palestinians deliberately try to kill civilians.

when Sharon was defence secretary thousands of Palestinas were massacred by Lebanon phlangists under his command, ot to mention the many other civilians who died whilst he was a general and defence minister.

The usual talking point for the Left is that he "should have stopped" some guerrilas not under his command from killing people he had no obligation to protect, and who were not on israeli soil. Are you just making stuff up now, or have you simply written the post badly?

Well he has agreed in principle to give up the right of return so you are incorrect and you also have to remebr that Israel has never offered top withdraw from the OT.

No, Arafat did not give up the right of return. He talks about giving it up in front of western TV, and then he tals to his palestinians dupes and says the exact opposite. I believe him when he speaks Arabic. And what do you mean by the "OT"? people, do not assume I know what your random acronyms mean.

When has Sharon ever given any oppurtunity for peace? he has unrelentingly attacked them and tried to sabotage the roadmap by eleimnating all refernce to an independent Palestinian stae from it.

Sharon backed off from confrontation and removed settlements after the US put pressure on him. Arafat has never delivered on anything, period, hands down. Its the Palestinians who initiate every wave of violence.

If Arafat were to be killed, all hell would probably break loose.
I think this is posturing by the Israelis.
Would it be better if both sides had different leaders?
Which ones?

The Israelis have tried many leaders, and most of them have been strong and skilled. The fact remains that neither Barak, or Netanyahu nor any other leader can deliver peace, because the palestinian leaderships (and I used plural deliberately, because their is no single group or association, much less a government) do not want it. They simpy will not settle for anything less than a 100% win, and they cannot get that.

spanna

09-12-2003, 02:16 AM

Arafat has been restricted to his compound, and most of the Palestinean infrastructure has been destroyed.

Israel then says to him control the militants and we will leave ..... how is he supposed to control anything when he is caged up and emasculated ?

Seriously I'd like to know.

(Just for the record, I sympathise with Palestineans but can't condone bombing civilian targets)

Daisy Cutter

09-12-2003, 03:07 AM

The Palestinians do not deal with the terrorist thugs amongst themselves, because they choose not to do so. They have had countless opportunities in the past, and have failed to seize on any of these moments.

The Palestinians have the highest ratio of police to civilian population in the entire world, so making nonexistant excuses for their impotence in dealing with terrorists is an extremely bad argument. Instead of using these weapons that have been given to them, inorder to rid their society of the evil doers, they turn around and wage war and slaughter Israeli, American and other foreign civilians instead. Their revolving door policy on terrorists, is also not a very effective way in dealing with these criminals.

And I don't believe Israel has stated they wished to expell Arafat, but rather remove him, which could mean a number of things.

It doesn't really matter how powerful or not Arafat is, because Israel and the US has already stated that they have no desire in dealing with him anymore. He is an obstacle to peace, and just yesterday he was calling for a million martyrs to march onto Jerusalem.

Perhaps a good solution would just be for Arafat to finally meet his demise, as this will lead to a massive rise in tensions, which will lead to a quicker solution to the current conflict. An escalation and a short period of more violence is perhaps preferable to decades more of violence, as has been the case in the past. Either way the Palestinians have some major issues to sort out. Perhaps a civil war is what it needed.

There is no negotiating with Hamas and their ilk, as genocide is their goal.

So, in response to the OP question, I think he might be more powerful in terms of support from the Palestinians, which is evidenced by the supporters coming out to his compound yesterday, but in regards to the current situation Arafat hardly matters at all, he is a nothing, and is seen as such by Israel and the USA, and that's all that really matters at the end of the day.

jjimm

09-12-2003, 05:16 AM

Al-Aqsa has now said that if Arafat is expelled, it will "srike everywhere". The terrorism will increase exponentially. The situation for the Israeli and Palestinian populations will become even more appalling than it already is.

Also, thousands of people are pledging to defend his compound. Any action to remove him will lead to an outright war, and Arafat will almost certainly be "martyred", leading to total and utter chaos.

I'm inclined to think that this is a cry of anger, rather than a real intent. When even Bush decries the move, you know your hawkishness has exceeded the bounds of reality.

MC Master of Ceremonies

09-12-2003, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by smiling bandit
If I know little, you just proved you know nothing.

If ten men want to kill me and family, and one only wants to kill my children, the one is absolutely not any more acceptable. They are butchers and derserve death.
Fatah are the most moderate faction, it's a simple fact, the rhetoric about 'killing my family' is emotive bullshit.

Good. While I believe your numbers are off, it doesn't matter. Guess what: those Palestinians were killed because they tend to throw big, heavy rocks are soldiers heads. Let them die. Others die when Israel attacks the teror leaders who send suicide bombers against them. Israelis die because the Palestinians deliberately try to kill civilians.
Again not true moist Palestinians have die when there was no danger to anyones life, there are many recorded instants of Israelis delibrately killing Palestinians. The refugees in the camp

The usual talking point for the Left is that he "should have stopped" some guerrilas not under his command from killing people he had no obligation to protect, and who were not on israeli soil. Are you just making stuff up now, or have you simply written the post badly?
The guerrlia's WERE under his command and it was him who ordered them in there, furthermore the Isreali army provided support to these guerillias by sealing off the camp so no-one could get in or out and launching flares to allow the Guerillas to carry there work at night, also Israeli soldiers were in the camp at the time of the massacre

No, Arafat did not give up the right of return. He talks about giving it up in front of western TV, and then he tals to his palestinians dupes and says the exact opposite. I believe him when he speaks Arabic. And what do you mean by the "OT"? people, do not assume I know what your random acronyms mean.
Of course he's not given it up yrt as there has been no final settlemnet yet, there's nothing instrincally wrong with dmanding that international law be adhered to and stolen land be returned, but he has shown he is willing to give it up as a matter of praticality.

Sharon backed off from confrontation and removed settlements after the US put pressure on him. Arafat has never delivered on anything, period, hands down. Its the Palestinians who initiate every wave of violence.
He backed off after US and Palestinian pressure, but it's ludricous to say that he wants peace when he tried to kill the roadmap before the text had even been released. The settlemnts there were illegal under even Israeli law, but nearly all the settlers that have been removed have now returned except this time they are actively being protected by the IDF.

The Israelis have tried many leaders, and most of them have been strong and skilled. The fact remains that neither Barak, or Netanyahu nor any other leader can deliver peace, because the palestinian leaderships (and I used plural deliberately, because their is no single group or association, much less a government) do not want it. They simpy will not settle for anything less than a 100% win, and they cannot get that.

What do you mean '100%', demanding an Israeli withdrawal is hardly unfair and Israel has signalled it's unwillingenss for peace by never offering this.

smiling bandit

09-12-2003, 07:01 AM

Fatah are the most moderate faction, it's a simple fact, the rhetoric about 'killing my family' is emotive bullshit.

What do you mean '100%', demanding an Israeli withdrawal is hardly unfair and Israel has signalled it's unwillingenss for peace by never offering this.

Its extremely unfair because the Palestinians offer nothing. Any "theft"- and I take exception to your characterization of it as that as the land was taken in a defensive war, is long past. The Palestinians could have gotten it back if they were willing to abandon efforts to kill people. The Egyptions got their land back under the same circumstances.

He backed off after US and Palestinian pressure, but it's ludricous to say that he wants peace when he tried to kill the roadmap before the text had even been released. The settlemnts there were illegal under even Israeli law, but nearly all the settlers that have been removed have now returned except this time they are actively being protected by the IDF.

US pressure, not Palestinian./ Do you really think they can do anything more than attacking Israelis like they are now? And they would have stayed gone if the Palestinians hadn't opened a new wave of terror attacks. face it: every time their has bee even a smidgeon of hope, its the pathetic Palestinians who erase it.
Of course he's not given it up yrt as there has been no final settlemnet yet, there's nothing instrincally wrong with dmanding that international law be adhered to and stolen land be returned, but he has shown he is willing to give it up as a matter of praticality.

[quote]Of course he's not given it up yrt as there has been no final settlemnet yet, there's nothing instrincally wrong with dmanding that international law be adhered to and stolen land be returned, but he has shown he is willing to give it up as a matter of praticality.

The Right of Return will never, ever happen, period. Asking for it is pointless. They could have gotten everything he wanted except that, and they know it. Peace is not the goal for Palestinians. Israel will not wipe itself out so the Palestinians can live there again. "Intenational law" is dependant on both sides adhering to it. The Palestinians will not. Israel is under no moral or ethical legal obligation to accomodate murderers and scum.

The guerrlia's WERE under his command and it was him who ordered them in there, furthermore the Isreali army provided support to these guerillias by sealing off the camp so no-one could get in or out and launching flares to allow the Guerillas to carry there work at night, also Israeli soldiers were in the camp at the time of the massacre

Cite? You brought it up. The guerrillas had no IDF affiliation, nor was it is any way Sharon's rsponsibility, and that assumes he even knew what was goin on, which there is no real evidence of.

Again not true moist Palestinians have die when there was no danger to anyones life, there are many recorded instants of Israelis delibrately killing Palestinians. The refugees in the camp

You chuck rocks at people's heads, and don't be surprised when they shoot you. Palestinians tend to die when the IDF responds after they attack soldiers, fire mortars into settlements, sneak into houses to kill Israeli babies, and send suicide bombers. Te Israeli responses are more efficient and aimed at killing the perps. When the bastard Palestinians realize they are being stupid, childish, and deserve death, maybe they will stop. Until then, the ball, as its always been, is is their court.

MC Master of Ceremonies

09-12-2003, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by smiling bandit
Its extremely unfair because the Palestinians offer nothing. Any "theft"- and I take exception to your characterization of it as that as the land was taken in a defensive war, is long past. The Palestinians could have gotten it back if they were willing to abandon efforts to kill people. The Egyptions got their land back under the same circumstances.
I'm sorry theft is theft, Israel has confiscated much land off normal Palestinian civilians

US pressure, not Palestinian./ Do you really think they can do anything more than attacking Israelis like they are now? And they would have stayed gone if the Palestinians hadn't opened a new wave of terror attacks. face it: every time their has bee even a smidgeon of hope, its the pathetic Palestinians who erase it.
Most opf them, wer back where they were before weeks before the ceasefire collapsed, infact I know that 50% of them had already returned about two weeks after they were removed.

The Right of Return will never, ever happen, period. Asking for it is pointless. They could have gotten everything he wanted except that, and they know it. Peace is not the goal for Palestinians. Israel will not wipe itself out so the Palestinians can live there again. "Intenational law" is dependant on both sides adhering to it. The Palestinians will not. Israel is under no moral or ethial legal obligation to accomodate murderers and scum.
As you should well know that the right of return has not been the major sticking point at negoitations but Israeli refusal to completely withdraw

Cite? You brought it up. The guerrillas had no IDF affiliation, nor was it is any way Sharon's rsponsibility, and that assumes he even knew what was goin on, which there is no real evidence of.
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0998/9809027.html

You chuck rocks at people's heads, and don't be surprised when they shoot you. Palestinians tend to die when the IDF responds after they attack soldiers, fire mortars into settlements, sneak into houses to kill Israeli babies, and send suicide bombers. Te Israeli responses are more efficient and aimed at killing the perps. When the bastard Palestinians realize they are being stupid, childish, and deserve death, maybe they will stop. Until then, the ball, as its always been, is is their court.

Palestinians 'desreve death', that does it: you are a disgraceful racist.

DSeid

09-12-2003, 07:18 AM

It is depressing.

Arafat is an obstacle. The road map was doomed from the moment it was clear that Arafat would prevent any implementation on the PA side. A good faith effort at disarming the terrorist groups was the only requirement for stage one. Failing at it would have been okay, but some good faith effort. Israel actually was complying in the small incremental steps envisioned but got nothing in return. Arafat prevented it. The man has his feifdom and wants to maintain it. If peace had been achieved history would have judged him the obstacle til now and he wouldn't have that.

But there is no way to remove him without making things worse. The reality is that no plan will be implented without his okay and exiling him won't change it. Killing him would villify Israel. Hope for a heart attack?

MC Master of Ceremonies

09-12-2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by DSeid
It is depressing.

Arafat is an obstacle. The road map was doomed from the moment it was clear that Arafat would prevent any implementation on the PA side. A good faith effort at disarming the terrorist groups was the only requirement for stage one. Failing at it would have been okay, but some good faith effort. Israel actually was complying in the small incremental steps envisioned but got nothing in return. Arafat prevented it. The man has his feifdom and wants to maintain it. If peace had been achieved history would have judged him the obstacle til now and he wouldn't have that.

But there is no way to remove him without making things worse. The reality is that no plan will be implented without his okay and exiling him won't change it. Killing him would villify Israel. Hope for a heart attack?
He certainly didn't prevent implemantation the struggle was about power, Arafat is autocratic.

Airman Doors, USAF

09-12-2003, 07:40 AM

Minus the rhetoric here, there is one good point made. What are the Palestinians offering to Israel? Nothing. They're saying "We want our land back", forgetting that Israel won that land after being attacked. All that is required for peace in the Middle East is for everyone to do what Egypt did, just accept that Israel is a sovereign country and pledge to respect its borders, and it can all be over.

Israel is under absolutely no obligation to make any kind of deal, and yet they're dealing. Arafat is unwilling to make any concessions, such as stopping the attacks, because if the Palestinians ever do get their land, he'll be thrown to the sidelines, and he doesn't want to lose his "power".

That's the truth here. It has nothing to do with "Zionism", or any of the other BS that gets thrown out in these discussions. Israel, whether you like it or not, is in the right.

MC Master of Ceremonies

09-12-2003, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Minus the rhetoric here, there is one good point made. What are the Palestinians offering to Israel? Nothing. They're saying "We want our land back", forgetting that Israel won that land after being attacked. All that is required for peace in the Middle East is for everyone to do what Egypt did, just accept that Israel is a sovereign country and pledge to respect its borders, and it can all be over.

Israel is under absolutely no obligation to make any kind of deal, and yet they're dealing. Arafat is unwilling to make any concessions, such as stopping the attacks, because if the Palestinians ever do get their land, he'll be thrown to the sidelines, and he doesn't want to lose his "power".

That's the truth here. It has nothing to do with "Zionism", or any of the other BS that gets thrown out in these discussions. Israel, whether you like it or not, is in the right.
Did Arafat not accept Israel's right to exist at the declaration of principles in 1993? The thing is that Israel has no rights to the occupied territories, it has already forced the Palestinians into tiny areas menaing that the occupied territories are one ogf the most densely populated regions in the world.how can you justify that people are living there are under a brutal regime that allows torture arbitary arrest etc.?

Airman Doors, USAF

09-12-2003, 07:59 AM

Israel DOES have rights to the occupied territories. They occupy them because they WON. They didn't conquer the occupied territories, they won them from countries who attacked them because they were Jewish.

That statement is a blatant lie, sir.

And again, the "tortures" (cite?) and "arbitrary arrests" (again, cite?) can end tomorrow as well, if the Palestinians would just agree that Israel is a nation and will continue to be one, and quit the attacks.

vanilla

09-12-2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Minus the rhetoric here, there is one good point made. What are the Palestinians offering to Israel? Nothing.

That's the truth here. It has nothing to do with "Zionism", or any of the other BS that gets thrown out in these discussions. Israel, whether you like it or not, is in the right.

I hope more people will start realizing you are correct.

swami

09-12-2003, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Israel DOES have rights to the occupied territories. They occupy them because they WON. Tell that to the 4 million Palestinians who don't want to be ethnically cleansed. They didn't conquer the occupied territories, they won them from countries who attacked them because they were Jewish.Face it, they are occupiers. They are a foreign power who have taken control of the land and (among other things) are settling their citizens on it.

Airman Doors, USAF

09-12-2003, 09:30 AM

Yes, they are occupiers. Of lands that are theirs, as they won them from their attackers.

Face it.

Why can't you people get that through your heads?

jjimm

09-12-2003, 09:49 AM

Airman Doors, if the lands are theirs, then they must formally annex them, and the people on them must be declared citizens of Israel. Naturally, this isn't going to happen because then Israel would be a majority Arab state. So they are still merely an occupying force, in order that the Palestinians don't get the same rights as Israelis.

Life for the average, peaceful Palestinian, is shit. Partly the fault of the Palestinian leadership, but also partly at the hands of Israel's occupation.

What do you suggest happens to the Palestinians? Ethnic cleansing?

Airman Doors, USAF

09-12-2003, 10:05 AM

What do I suggest? I suggest they stop flirkin' bombing innocent people, cave in a little, and the land will be theirs. Until then, they'll have to continue to live with the searches and arrests that Israel feels they must do to protect themselves.

For the third time: It could all end tomorrow. It's the Palestinians that don't want it to end, from what I see.

Ravenman

09-12-2003, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Yes, they are occupiers. Of lands that are theirs, as they won them from their attackers.

Face it.

Why can't you people get that through your heads? Gee. I guess Israel is being dishonest when it describes UNSC Resolution 242 as the "cornerstone of Middle East diplomatic efforts." And as we all know, the first provision of that resolution is that Israel should return to its pre-1967 borders.

Cite. (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00p40)

It is incredible to think that in a day an age when most of the world accepts the desirability of the principle of political self-determination, that some still seek to legitimize territorial conquest.

swami

09-12-2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Yes, they are occupiers. Of lands that are theirs, as they won them from their attackers.I'm sorry, but this is a very hard line extremist stand to take, do you really beleive this? The West Bank and Gaza are not Israeli land, the people who live there (minus the settlers) are not Israelis, and they have no rights as Israelis.

Alessan

09-12-2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by MC Master of Ceremonies
Did Arafat not accept Israel's right to exist at the declaration of principles in 1993? The thing is that Israel has no rights to the occupied territories, it has already forced the Palestinians into tiny areas menaing that the occupied territories are one ogf the most densely populated regions in the world.how can you justify that people are living there are under a brutal regime that allows torture arbitary arrest etc.?

Oh, the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist? Well, whoop-de-fucking-do. Israel exists, and whewther or not they recognize this fact has no relevence whatsoever. They think we owe them something for opening their eyes? Give me a break. You can't concede something you don't have.

How about this, M.C.: I recognize your right to exist, fully and unreservedly. Now give me money.

BTW, the reason the Territories are so crowded is that the Palestinians have the natural growth rate of any population on the planet - an average of seven children per family, I believe.

ummm... yeahh...

09-12-2003, 11:51 AM

I'm not gonna get into the whole "who was there first" debate. what I do know is this, Israel has changed leaders many times in an effort to establish peace. Ehud Barak is a good example of that. The Palastinians have made how many leadership changes? (rhetorical):dubious: Just by the NUMEROUS opportunities Arafat has had to make peace, control the extremists and failed, he has shown he needs to be taken out of office.

Airman Doors, USAF

09-12-2003, 11:52 AM

I do accept the desirablity of political self-determination. For the 4th time, all that is required is the cessation of terrorist attacks upon Israel. That's it. I don't recall Israel asking for anything else.

And yes, I do believe it. Israel WON. The other countries lost, and the loss of territory as a buffer is a result. Or should Israel have said "Gee, thanks for attacking us for the 4th time in 25 years and killing a substantial number of our citizens because you hate us. Here's your land back, no strings attached, so that there's no hard feelings when you attack us again"?

plnnr

09-12-2003, 12:14 PM

Since we seem to have gotten incredibly far afield as to the OP -

I believe that any attempt to remove Arafat is going to result in his martyrdom and increase the level of tension in the Middle East. The result will be felt not only in Israel and the Occupied Territories, but across the globe.

To my understanding, the central issue that gave rise to the terrorist attacks by Bin Laden, et. al was the appearance of US support for Israel come hell or highwater. Fair or not, the impression is that Israel won't make a move without the approval (tacit or overt) of the US, and any attempt by the Israelis to remove Arafat is going to reflect back on the US.

If a move is made against Arafat the number of dead in American dead in Iraq is going to go through the roof (as will the cost of a gallon of gasoline).

Ravenman

09-12-2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Israel WON. The other countries lost, and the loss of territory as a buffer is a result. Great. So I suppose Iraq is "ours," too.

Airman Doors, USAF

09-12-2003, 03:15 PM

For the moment, yes it is. When we give it back to the Iraqi people after reconstruction, it won't be ours anymore.

There is, however, a big difference. Iraq never sat on our borders and attacked us four times in 25 years. They may have been a threat, but nothing like the countries surrounding Israel are to their territorial integrity and way of life.

Just as we are under no obligation to give Iraq back, Israel isn't obligated to give back the occupied territories. That we will give Iraq back doesn't mean that Israel has no right to address their legitimate security concerns and get concessions from their attackers of the last 55 years. For the fifth time (and I'll repeat this until you people acknowledge it), all the Palestinians have to do is stop the suicide bombings. That will address the security concerns. The concession will be the Right of Return. After that, peace at last, until the next time Israel's neigbors massively attack, anyway.

glee

09-12-2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Ravenman
So I suppose Iraq is "ours," too.

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
For the moment, yes it is. When we give it back to the Iraqi people after reconstruction, it won't be ours anymore.

You have a terrifying view of international law.
If a country invades another, they now own it?!
You even posted 'we are under no obligation to give Iraq back'!
Unbelievable.
According to you, the US can rule Iraq as long as it likes.
So China can stay in Tibet forever?
And if the Arabs destroy Israel, you will be agreeing, because they will be the 'legal owners'?!

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
There is, however, a big difference. Iraq never sat on our borders and attacked us four times in 25 years. They may have been a threat, but nothing like the countries surrounding Israel are to their territorial integrity and way of life.

Iraq not a threat to US, huh? Surely some mistake. :rolleyes:
What are you trying to say - Israel is entitled to invade and hold Arab territory, but the Arabs aren't entitled to invade themselves?

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Just as we are under no obligation to give Iraq back, Israel isn't obligated to give back the occupied territories. That we will give Iraq back doesn't mean that Israel has no right to address their legitimate security concerns and get concessions from their attackers of the last 55 years.

Ah, the genius of it.
Or to put it another way:
"That we will give Iraq back doesn't mean that Arab countries have no right to address their legitimate security concerns and get concessions from their attackers of the last few decades."

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
For the fifth time (and I'll repeat this until you people acknowledge it), all the Palestinians have to do is stop the suicide bombings. That will address the security concerns. The concession will be the Right of Return. After that, peace at last, until the next time Israel's neigbors massively attack, anyway.

Perhaps all the Israelis have to do is stop illegal settlements, try Sharon for war crimes and obey UN resolutions.

You are massively oversimplifying a lengthy historical conflict.

Dissonance

09-12-2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
There is, however, a big difference. Iraq never sat on our borders and attacked us four times in 25 years. They may have been a threat, but nothing like the countries surrounding Israel are to their territorial integrity and way of life.

Just as we are under no obligation to give Iraq back, Israel isn't obligated to give back the occupied territories. That we will give Iraq back doesn't mean that Israel has no right to address their legitimate security concerns and get concessions from their attackers of the last 55 years. For the fifth time (and I'll repeat this until you people acknowledge it), all the Palestinians have to do is stop the suicide bombings. That will address the security concerns. The concession will be the Right of Return. After that, peace at last, until the next time Israel's neigbors massively attack, anyway. Airman Doors, with due respect two of the four wars fought between Israel and its neighbors from 1948-73 were initiated not with massive attacks on Israel but with massive preemptive surprise attacks by Israel. A fully legitimate preemptive attack in 1967, somewhat less completely so in 1956 but still with legitimacy, but they were started with massive attacks by Israel. The occupied territories are no longer a buffer between Israel and hostile neighbors, Egypt and Jordan have signed peace accords with Israel and Egypt got back the Sinai as compensation in 1979. I can’t see Israel ever giving into the Right of Return in anything more than a minimal token fashion, to do so in a complete manner would turn the demographics of Israel on its head.

Nietzsche

09-12-2003, 05:10 PM

Airman Doors, USAF
For the 4th time, all that is required is the cessation of terrorist attacks upon Israel. That's it. I don't recall Israel asking for anything else.
That's it, huh? That whole Jerusalem thing and the countless settlements will just magically work themselves out, right? Or were they just figments of our collective imagination and not really an issue at all? :rolleyes:
Since your memory doesn't seem to span back far enough, I'd like to remind you that ALL those "terrorists" had agreed to a ceasefire and had ceased all attacks. It was Israel's brilliant idea that they were going to rely on their tactic of extra-judicial killing which provoked the groups to abandon the ceasefire. Yet, during that time Israel did nothing toward its obligation of the roadmap.

And yes, I do believe it. Israel WON. The other countries lost, and the loss of territory as a buffer is a result.
I understand that most Americans have come under the same mindset as their Israeli brethern in regards to the international law that they are signatories to. But that doesn't change the fact that just beause your tanks are parked there doesn't mean the land belongs to you. Regardless of how pissed off Americans or Israelis may be, the laws they bound by still apply, even if you chose to be selective about when they apply.

smiling bandit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many Israelis have been killed in attacks by the PLO (I don't know but the total number of Israeli detahs in terrorist attacks on Israel 1968-1993 and the signing of principles was 380, during the intifad 2,500 Palestinians have died,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good

That is absolutely vile. But then again, I'm not expecting much brilliance from a redneck from Tennessee.
If ever you Americans wonder again "why do they hate us so much" look no further than the examples of fine Americans represented in this thread.

Alien

09-12-2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Israel DOES have rights to the occupied territories. They occupy them because they WON. They didn't conquer the occupied territories, they won them from countries who attacked them because they were Jewish.

With all due respect, international law clearly states that a nation is not allowed to occupy and keep a territory seized during an offensive war. They have to redraw.

Further more, international law clearly states that a nation seizeing territory in a defensive war may keep such territory only if they annex it. Annexing it would mean for the occupying nation to give the people in the occupied territory citizenship and rights equal to their own citizens.

So anyhow you look at it, whether you believe Israel fought an offensive or defensive war in 1967, Israel is violating international law. Either by waging an offensive war, or failing to annex the territories after a defensive war. In fact, Israel did annex the Golan Heights and East J, but deceided against annexing the West Bank and Gaza.

Who "won" or "lost" has nothing to do with it, in the eyes of international law.

Israel waged an offensive war in 1967, and this is acknowledged by UN resolutions. I'm aware of that some people choose to refer to the 6-Day-War as the 7-Day-War, giving the impression that Isreal was attaked first, but rewriting history doesn't make history any more correct.

Ravenman

09-12-2003, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
For the fifth time (and I'll repeat this until you people acknowledge it), all the Palestinians have to do is stop the suicide bombings. That will address the security concerns. The concession will be the Right of Return. After that, peace at last... Fine, fine, fine, I acknowledge that you've repeated that same thing more than I care to have heard it already.

That doesn't make it right.

It takes two to tango. Palestinians clearly must do more before a peace agreement will be possible, but hey, guess what - SO MUST THE ISRAELIS. As has been suggested elsewhere on this thread, stopping or rolling back settlements is an excellent way to start.

If you continue to repost your idea, perhaps others will be so kind to suggest that an alternate solution to the ME problem is to have Israel announce total capitulation and complete withdrawal from the OT. Everything should just take care of itself after that. :rolleyes:

Hey, if its good for the goose, its good for the gander.

Airman Doors, USAF

09-12-2003, 10:45 PM

First of all, thank you for the corrections. I appreciate them. It's always good to learn something new, even though I should have known it already.

Second, can we at least attempt to keep this friendly? I notice a bit of acrimony here. I'm a bit of a hardliner here, I know, but geez, guys.

OK. Now onto some substance.

Iraq: I'm not really interested in getting into the nuts and bolts of the war, or its justification. I'd just like to point out an indisputable fact: the US will be in that country for a considerable period of time. They are responsible for formation of a new government. They are responsible for rebuilding the infrastructure. They are also responsible for security. As there has been no timetable for US withdrawal, it is a fact that we will be "owning" Iraq for a long time. This is the case, no matter what international law you pull out and show me. We own Iraq until we give it back. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later, but for now it's ours.

As far as Israel owning the West Bank and the Gaza Strip: it is no different from the US maintaining possession of Japan, a portion of Germany, and the Pacific islands after World War II. There is ample historical precedent to demonstrate that the winners get the spoils. I, personally, think Israel is in the right here. I think the UN was wrong, and I think that they continue to be wrong.

As far as the settlements: I agree they should be withdrawn if Israel sincerely intends to give the land to the Palestinians. That is something that was agreed to, and the withdrawal was actually in progress before the most recent attacks.

I am, in fact, oversimplifying the situation. But you know what? The root causes of this whole thing are very simple. Israel was placed, perhaps wrongly, where it is, and the surrounding Muslim countries didn't like that and set out to destroy it. They lost. Israel is there to stay, and there is still no acceptance of that fact by most of their neighbors. That's it, in a nutshell. You can make it as complicated as you like, but that's the story. The story of a people who were placed in a bad situation and made the best of it, despite the fact that all of their neighbors wanted them dead. I can't help but to support Israel, because they got a raw deal from the get-go and are still getting one from the world.

All they want is a place where Jews can live together without getting slaughtered. I don't think that's too much to ask. The Palestinians want the same thing, I guess. Well, for that to happen, the killings must stop, and since Israel's attacks have been retaliatory rather than nakedly aggressive, the root cause of that retaliation must be addressed first. Stop the bombings, Arafat, and you'll have your home. If that's what you really want.

Ravenman

09-12-2003, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Second, can we at least attempt to keep this friendly? I notice a bit of acrimony here. I'm a bit of a hardliner here, I know, but geez, guys.Fair 'nuff.
As there has been no timetable for US withdrawal, it is a fact that we will be "owning" Iraq for a long time. This is the case, no matter what international law you pull out and show me.Look, there's a world of difference between ownership and custodianship. Owning means you can do what you will with something, custodianship means you better take care of something that is not rightfully yours until the proper owner takes it.

No way, no how does the US own Iraq or Israel own the disputed territories. We are not free to do with Iraq as we please, nor is Israel free to do as it may please, to those lands, because of both legal and, in the minds of many, moral imperatives.

One could hardly call one's self a good (little d) democrat and argue that one country's dominion over prizes from battle somehow trumps the whole tide of history in national self-determination.

And that last quoted comment is a bare assertion, (http://www.entrypoints.com/LogicPage/Fall.BareAssertion.html) if you're keeping score on the logical fallacies at home.

it is no different from the US maintaining possession of Japan, a portion of Germany, and the Pacific islands after World War II. There is ample historical precedent to demonstrate that the winners get the spoils. Again, you may see it as splitting hairs, but the difference is vitally important here. We ran Germany and Japan for a while, but we didn't own them.

I think the UN was wrong, and I think that they continue to be wrong. That's fine, so long as you don't blame a faceless organization for Resolution 242. You're indicting a decades long commitment to a particular policy that has been shared by just about every country in the world (to one degree or another), including Israel, and excepting only Syria, if memory serves.

... since Israel's attacks have been retaliatory rather than nakedly aggressive, the root cause of that retaliation must be addressed first. Talk about beauty in the eye of the beholder. I abhor suicide bombings, but extrajudicial executions are acts better left to tyrants and autocrats. When governments are even suspected, rightly or wrongly, of carrying out targeted killings of people it opposes, "the people" get outraged. Hell, look at Waco and how many Americans suddenly grew an affinity for militias.

Does the policy of assasinations justify Palestinian terrorism? No. Does it justify Palestinian anger? Absolutely.

There's no military solution to this problem out there, whether it is even more violence or a general cease-fire. Bombs aren't the problem, land is.

Daisy Cutter

09-13-2003, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Ravenman

There's no military solution to this problem out there, whether it is even more violence or a general cease-fire. Bombs aren't the problem, land is.

Sure there is a military solution. You wipe out the Bad guys, which is all of the terrorist groups, who repeatedly state that they are against peace. Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. If Israel would be allowed to act without wearing silk gloves, then this could be acheived fairly quickly, I would presume.

And land is not the problem, because it was certainly not the problem before, when Israel wasn't in control of these areas then. The only land problem I could see it that many Palestinians want the whole of Israel, which they obviously will never get. Somebody might need to stock up on fresh virgins, if they keep enacting out this scenario.

Israel defended itself against hostile neighbors and came into posession of the disputed territories. Too bad for the people who got occupied, it was not Israels fault. Blame the aggresors.

The problem is this:
1948 Israels enemies call for the destruction of Israel and act on this.
2003 Israels enemies call for the destruction of Israel and act on this.

Not much has changed really. The enemies have merely switched tactics, since they realize that they are inferior military wise, even though they had superior military weapons and manpower in previous wars. Now, they just go and strap some bombs around their stomachs, and continue to murder jews, which makes them happy for a few moments, while they dance around the street and pass out candies.

I would think it is fairly naive to think that a non military solution would apply in this case.

One of these two things will happen I suppose:

(1) Israeal achieves it's goal of wiping out the hamas leadership and various terrorists, which it has vowed.

(2) Hamas and their terrorist buddies achieve their goal of running the Jews into the sea, which they have vowed.

Now, the second solution seems highly unrealistic to me, so therefore we are left with the first solution, which sounds like a good one indeed.

This conflict is fairly simple, when one looks at the greater picture, Israel is correct, and the Palestinians are wrong, ihmo.

glee

09-13-2003, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
First of all, thank you for the corrections. I appreciate them. It's always good to learn something new, even though I should have known it already.

Second, can we at least attempt to keep this friendly? I notice a bit of acrimony here. I'm a bit of a hardliner here, I know, but geez, guys.

Fair points.
But please do remember that people are dying almost daily in this conflict, which has been going for decades (plus the historical + religious connotations go back thousands of years).
To hear you say 'this will solve the conflict overnight' is very naive and insensitive. Have a look at various previous cease-fire attempts (Norwegian negotiations, Camp David, UN resolutions etc.) Find out why Jerusalem is a religious hot potato.

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
Iraq: I'm not really interested in getting into the nuts and bolts of the war, or its justification. I'd just like to point out an indisputable fact: the US will be in that country for a considerable period of time. They are responsible for formation of a new government. They are responsible for rebuilding the infrastructure. They are also responsible for security. As there has been no timetable for US withdrawal, it is a fact that we will be "owning" Iraq for a long time. This is the case, no matter what international law you pull out and show me. We own Iraq until we give it back. Hopefully that will be sooner rather than later, but for now it's ours.

I don't think you have thought how bad this sounds.
The UK joined the US in the Iraq invasion mainly because we were told Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ready for immediate use.
The US public were led to believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
There were attempts to get legal backing from the UN, but eventually these were abandoned.
Now you say that the US will be in Iraq for a long time. They are 'responsible' for forming a new Government. Well this could be benign - but it could also be sinister. Suppose Bush will only accept a pro-US Iraq Government that awards all the oil contracts to the US. Does that worry you? Suppose the US stay for 10 years. Does that worry you?
As for you ignoring international law, you are saying to the rest of the World "The US has the best weapons. We have the right to invade anywhere we like, and you can't do anything about it. It doesn't matter if we have no justification, because we ignore international law." Do you think it will be easier to whip up anti-US feelings with this US attitude?

glee

09-13-2003, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
Sure there is a military solution. You wipe out the Bad guys, which is all of the terrorist groups, who repeatedly state that they are against peace.

Are you a member of a Bush think-tank? :rolleyes:
Why on earth didn't we use your solution in Northern Ireland?
Or any other terrorist / freedom fighter situation.
Nuke 'em!

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
Seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. If Israel would be allowed to act without wearing silk gloves, then this could be acheived fairly quickly, I would presume.

You can presume all you like. But where is your evidence? Where is your historical precedent? Do please show how any terrorist group has been 'wiped out' by a Government.
And I 'admire' your gall in saying Israel has used 'silk gloves'. Although I realise Israel faces a desperately difficult situation, even Israeli friends of mine are shocked by:
- the attacks on refugee camps
- blowing up an apartment building to kill a terrorist
- shooting stone throwers

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
Israel defended itself against hostile neighbors and came into posession of the disputed territories. Too bad for the people who got occupied, it was not Israels fault. Blame the aggresors.

'Came into possession' is a euphemism, right?
'Too bad for the people who got occupied' - ah, so if your land is taken you have no right to reclaim it?

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
The problem is this:
1948 Israels enemies call for the destruction of Israel and act on this.
2003 Israels enemies call for the destruction of Israel and act on this.

Complete WW2 history by Daisy Cutter:

1944 Germany's enemies call for an invasion and act on it
1945 The US calls for the destruction of Hiroshima and acts on it

Airman Doors, USAF

09-13-2003, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by glee
I don't think you have thought how bad this sounds.
The UK joined the US in the Iraq invasion mainly because we were told Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ready for immediate use.
The US public were led to believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
There were attempts to get legal backing from the UN, but eventually these were abandoned.
Now you say that the US will be in Iraq for a long time. They are 'responsible' for forming a new Government. Well this could be benign - but it could also be sinister. Suppose Bush will only accept a pro-US Iraq Government that awards all the oil contracts to the US. Does that worry you? Suppose the US stay for 10 years. Does that worry you?
As for you ignoring international law, you are saying to the rest of the World "The US has the best weapons. We have the right to invade anywhere we like, and you can't do anything about it. It doesn't matter if we have no justification, because we ignore international law." Do you think it will be easier to whip up anti-US feelings with this US attitude?

I don't need to say anything to foment peoples' opinions about the Ugly Americans. They decided that a long time ago. And I feel like we're arguing apples and oranges, or actually whether something is "brown" or "burnt sienna". My contention is that it is a fact that we own Iraq for the time being, and your contention is that it's illegal for us to own Iraq. If you like, I can restate that to "control Iraqi territory for an indefinite and potentially infinite amount of time", if that will satisfy your legal requirements, but it doesn't change the substance of it in any way. Hopefully that will end the apples-oranges discussion.

You said that what I am saying is naive. Maybe it is. However, it's no less naive than thinking that we can ever make peace in the region at all. I'd like to see peace there, and what I've said is what I see as the major obstacles to that peace. All the rest can be worked through, but the killings have to stop. Everything has to start with a single step, that's the first step. If that's being naive, then I'll be this naive forever.

jjimm

09-13-2003, 08:53 AM

I think a lot of you are forgetting the 2002 Saudi-led Arab League proposal (http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/IsraelPalestinians/arab.cfm) that offered Israel full state recognition from all Arab nations in return to withdrawal to 1967 borders, without demanding the right of return. It was ignored by the Israeli government.

Captain Amazing

09-13-2003, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Alien
Israel waged an offensive war in 1967, and this is acknowledged by UN resolutions. I'm aware of that some people choose to refer to the 6-Day-War as the 7-Day-War, giving the impression that Isreal was attaked first, but rewriting history doesn't make history any more correct.

Well, Egypt did blockade the Straits of Tiran before any Israeli troop movement, Syria was doing some pretty constant shelling of Israeli positions within Israel, and Egyptian and Syrian troops were massed on the border. Blockades and artillery bombardments are pretty generally considered acts of war.

Daisy Cutter

09-13-2003, 11:21 AM

And the idea that the majority of Palestinians wants peace is a myth:

This is from a very recent poll:

An overwhelming 88.8 percent opposed curbing terrorism by detaining those Palestinians responsible for the violence. Nearly 80 percent were against the PA's recent decision to freeze contacts with Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

They obviously want all out war, I hope Israel gives it to them soon. Nobody will be able to complain, since this is what the majority of them want.

They can't have it both ways. Either you want war or you want peace. They obviously want war, so talking peace is a waste of time. Give them war.

Daisy Cutter

09-13-2003, 11:43 AM

smiling bandit

09-13-2003, 11:44 AM

I think a lot of you are forgetting the 2002 Saudi-led Arab League proposal that offered Israel full state recognition from all Arab nations in return to withdrawal to 1967 borders, without demanding the right of return. It was ignored by the Israeli government.

Israel does not need recognition by the Arab league. Most of its neighbors (most notably not inbcluding Syria) have already recognized it, and Israel de facto exists already. This amounts to offering nothing. What you don't mention is that the Palestinians have nothing to do with the proposal and don't acept it. In which case it is obviously a pathetic and pointless diplomatic game.

Most opf them, wer back where they were before weeks before the ceasefire collapsed, infact I know that 50% of them had already returned about two weeks after they were removed.

Wow. I love you magical knowledge. Where do I find this Book Of Made Up Statistics?

As you should well know that the right of return has not been the major sticking point at negoitations but Israeli refusal to completely withdraw

The hell it isn't the major sticking point. Under barak (or wa it Natanyahu? I forget) Arafat was offered a full withdrawal, but not the Right o' Return. That was the sole reaosn it was turned down.

http://www.washington-report.org/ba...98/9809027.html

I don't believe that site is fair or unbiased in its assessment. Regardles, there have been a huge number of cites in this topic before, and a few more won't change anyone's mind.

Palestinians 'desreve death', that does it: you are a disgraceful racist.

They do deserve death. And, you know what? I wouldn't give it to them. They have repeatedly asked for it and put their faith in the vilest scum of the earth. They have gone to war against a society of decent people and attacked pizerias and discos, because they are far too pathetic to do anything but snipe at and chuck rocks are soldiers. No, I have no pity, but I have mercy. I wouldn't kill them, though they deserve it, and Israel won't either.

You are a deluded fool, who continues to project images of innocent victimhood upon a pople who repeatedly have thrown themselves into the outhouse of existence to spite their enemies.

There's nothign inherently wrong with them, which is why its even worse than if they actually were and inferior race: they've done this to themselves, deliberately. For some things, there can be no excuse, only justice and mercy.

Dissonance

09-13-2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
As far as Israel owning the West Bank and the Gaza Strip: it is no different from the US maintaining possession of Japan, a portion of Germany, and the Pacific islands after World War II. There is ample historical precedent to demonstrate that the winners get the spoils. I, personally, think Israel is in the right here. I think the UN was wrong, and I think that they continue to be wrong.No acrimony intended, but while there are points of comparison to the post WWII occupation of Germany and Japan, there are also vast differences. The Allies administered the defeated Axis powers while their constitutions were rewritten, they were demilitarized and de-Nazified and then they ran themselves, a process that happened in a fairly quick manner. The occupied territories, on the other hand, have been in legal limbo for 36 years.
I am, in fact, oversimplifying the situation. But you know what? The root causes of this whole thing are very simple. Israel was placed, perhaps wrongly, where it is, and the surrounding Muslim countries didn't like that and set out to destroy it. They lost. Israel is there to stay, and there is still no acceptance of that fact by most of their neighbors. That's it, in a nutshell. You can make it as complicated as you like, but that's the story. The story of a people who were placed in a bad situation and made the best of it, despite the fact that all of their neighbors wanted them dead. I can't help but to support Israel, because they got a raw deal from the get-go and are still getting one from the world.Bolding in the above is mine. That was the case until the 1970s, but it isn’t that way anymore. Egypt, always the most powerful and dangerous of Israel’s neighbors has signed peace with Israel. It hasn’t threatened Israel or acted in an aggressive manner towards Israel since then and accepts Israel’s right to exist. Jordan has as well. Today both of these countries get a good chunk of their military hardware from the US, in fact. The only neighbor that still hasn’t completely accepted this is Syria. The PLO itself removed the destruction of Israel as a goal back in the 80s.

While I agree that the onus is more on the Palestinians to get their act together than it is on Israel, the Israelis have work to do themselves.

jjimm

09-13-2003, 05:06 PM

smiling bandit, I am utterly disgusted by your comments.

cmkeller

09-13-2003, 10:41 PM

Dissonance:

The only neighbor that still hasn’t completely accepted this is Syria.

Just to be nitpicky, neither has Lebanon. I know that Lebanon is practically a puppet state of Syria at this time, but until that fact is somehow internationally recognized, it would take two statements of recognition to make Israel's neighbors unanimous in their acceptance of it, not one.

Sam Stone

09-14-2003, 12:00 AM

Not only will Arafat grow more powerful than you can know if he is expelled, but if Israel kills him he will collapse into a big pile of clothing, which will appear to be completely empty, even if you poke it with a stick.

Milum

09-14-2003, 05:31 AM

smiling jjimm, I am utterly disgusted by your comment.

London_Calling

09-14-2003, 07:17 AM

Very difficult to overcome such ingrained conditioned thinking. Unless, of course, Bush says the sky is green, then, hey, the sky is green.

glee

09-14-2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
I don't need to say anything to foment peoples' opinions about the Ugly Americans. They decided that a long time ago.

Actually some of the 6 billion people on this planet make up our minds using facts and observations rather than use ignorance.
So when I say that Bush disappoints me over Guantanamo Bay or invading Iraq, I mean that the fine US traditions of freedom and fair chance of prosperity are vitally important, and that a greedy oilman is spoiling the US reputation.

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
And I feel like we're arguing apples and oranges, or actually whether something is "brown" or "burnt sienna". My contention is that it is a fact that we own Iraq for the time being, and your contention is that it's illegal for us to own Iraq. If you like, I can restate that to "control Iraqi territory for an indefinite and potentially infinite amount of time", if that will satisfy your legal requirements, but it doesn't change the substance of it in any way. Hopefully that will end the apples-oranges discussion.

Well my 'apples' are human rights and international law, while your 'oranges' are having the biggest army.
If you don't think human rights and the rule of law are important, I can only hope you don't ever live in a dictatorship.

Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF
You said that what I am saying is naive. Maybe it is. However, it's no less naive than thinking that we can ever make peace in the region at all. I'd like to see peace there, and what I've said is what I see as the major obstacles to that peace. All the rest can be worked through, but the killings have to stop. Everything has to start with a single step, that's the first step. If that's being naive, then I'll be this naive forever.

Yes, I appreciate that you and I both want peace.
And stopping the killings would be excellent.
But you ignore the historical resentment and killings on both sides.
I notice that Israel is considering exiling or killing Arafat.
Do you think that will calm the situation?
Do you think they have the legal right to do so?

glee

09-14-2003, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by glee
Complete WW2 history by Daisy Cutter:

1944 Germany's enemies call for an invasion and act on it
1945 The US calls for the destruction of Hiroshima and acts on it

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
Thanks for putting words into my mouth. :smack:

I haven't mentioned anything about WW2 in this thread.

Oh dear.
Yes, I am well aware that you have not mentioned WW2. Given your ignorance of the history of the Middle East, I was nervous about mentioning anything historical.
However I thought I would use sarcasm (you do know what that is, don't you? :rolleyes: ) to show you how biased your statement was ...

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
The problem is this:
1948 Israels enemies call for the destruction of Israel and act on this.
2003 Israels enemies call for the destruction of Israel and act on this.

Well there we have it. A 'complete summary' of the entire conflict.
According to you, there was no reason at all for anyone to attack Israel. No displaced Palestinians, no historical or religious background. Just a bunch of violent Arabs with no motivation.

So I posted an equally ludicrous 'summary' of WW2.
Apparently, using your methods, the US destroyed Hiroshima for no reason at all.

(If you can't see how this works, ask your teacher to explain it to you.)

jjimm

09-14-2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Milum
smiling jjimm, I am utterly disgusted by your comment. Well, maybe you're right, in that he does oh-so-magnanimously "deny" the genocide that 3 million people "deserve".

:rolleyes:

Daisy Cutter

09-14-2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by glee
Well there we have it. A 'complete summary' of the entire conflict.
According to you, there was no reason at all for anyone to attack Israel.

Yep, that's pretty much how I see it. There was no justification for anybody to attack Israel. The displaced arabs (there was no such thing as "palestinians" back then) can thank their war mongering brothers for their situation. Their liberation movement began three years before they were even "occupied". Is Arafat Psychic perhaps ? Why does nobody mention all of the displaced Jews that were forced to flee Arab countries ? The whole slew of countries attacking Israel in 1948 were sure of their victory, just as they were in many wars after that date. Guess what ? They lost, time and time again. Time to suck it up and admit their failures and pathetic mistakes.

No displaced Palestinians, no historical or religious background.
If one is going to talk about historical or religious arguments, I would assume Israel easily has the upper hand in this area, as their historical ties to the land and religion predates that of the people currently in the disputed areas.

Just a bunch of violent Arabs with no motivation.

Well, those are your words and not mine, but I find this to be fairly accurate in many cases, besides for the motivation part. The motivation is genocide, and the unrealistic fantasy of taking back all of Israel and driving the Jews into the sea. The violent ones have stated that they do not wish peace, so I tend to believe them.

Just like your cheap insults, which are littered all over your reply, your so called points don't carry any merit.

glee

09-14-2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by glee
Well there we have it. A 'complete summary' of the entire conflict.
According to you, there was no reason at all for anyone to attack Israel.

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
There was no justification for anybody to attack Israel. The displaced arabs (there was no such thing as "palestinians" back then) can thank their war mongering brothers for their situation.

So if you are 'displaced' from your homeland, you should go quietly?
(Do feel free to expand on your remark about warmongering arabs being responsible)

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
The whole slew of countries attacking Israel in 1948 were sure of their victory, just as they were in many wars after that date. Guess what ? They lost, time and time again. Time to suck it up and admit their failures and pathetic mistakes.

Ah, so the losers of a war are automatically 'pathetic failures'. Lucky for the rest of Europe that the British didn't have that attitude in 1940.

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
No displaced Palestinians, no historical or religious background.
If one is going to talk about historical or religious arguments, I would assume Israel easily has the upper hand in this area, as their historical ties to the land and religion predates that of the people currently in the disputed areas.

I see your thinking now. For example, the American Indians had the 'historical ties' to America, but they were 'pathetic failures' because they lost the wars and thus deserved to lose their land (oh, sorry - be 'displaced').

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
Just a bunch of violent Arabs with no motivation.

Well, those are your words and not mine, but I find this to be fairly accurate in many cases, besides for the motivation part. The motivation is genocide, and the unrealistic fantasy of taking back all of Israel and driving the Jews into the sea. The violent ones have stated that they do not wish peace, so I tend to believe them.

Could you just clarify which Arabs you mean? Egyptian? Jordanian? Syrian? Iraqi?
And will the 'genocide' be all Jews worldwide, all inhabitants of Israel, all Jews in Israel or some other group?

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
Just like your cheap insults, which are littered all over your reply, your so called points don't carry any merit.

Well done on spotting the insults! (After all, you missed the sarcasm.)

Let me explain why your posts really nark me.

The motto of this board is to fight ignorance.

The Middle East situation is a complicated tragedy, with both sides claiming religious and historical reasons to own the land.
Thousands have died over the past 50 years, both in wars and in shootings and bombings.
Surrounding countries have been drawn in, and violent incidents taken place around the World (eg Munich Olympics).
All sorts of peace agreements have been tried (by the UN, US Presidents and others).
One side has nuclear weapons (and spends billions of dollars annually on weapons.)

And all this has been reduced by you to this:

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
The problem is this:
1948 Israels enemies call for the destruction of Israel and act on this.
2003 Israels enemies call for the destruction of Israel and act on this.

I may indeed have taken some cheap shots at you (did you ask your teacher about WW2?), but your 'summary' is certainly without merit and deserved it.
(By the way, do please cite the 2003 quotes of 'Israel's enemies'.)