No one expects them to. And I agree about the shared control. But Israel is not simply striking out at terrorists, they’re sending missiles into a sovereign country and killing the civilians of that country, and we are endorsing that.
It’s interesting to compare and contrast your positions wrt Israel and NK, Dio. When Bush suggests that NK stop developing weapons that threaten the stability of Asia, you say “none of our business”. But when someone suggests that Bush needs to intervene in the current conflict, it’s “Yeah, get over there and get them to stop.” Isn’t it better to avoid the potential for conflict instead of waiting for the conflict to errupt? Why is it so much of our business here, but none of our business in Asia?
You appear to be invested in applying equivalence to the two sides. I unnderstand that the concept of equivalence is ve3ry important to conflict resolution. But Israel isn’t fighting in support of a grudge like Hizbollah. They are fighting for survival.
And lets put this grudge in perspective. It is based on racism and religious intolerance to a degree far beyond anything your country has ever experienced.
[/QUOTE]
It’s no more appartheid than Canada and the US. The only thing preventing the formation of two states is the unwillingness of one side to allow it-- the Palestinian Government.
Sorry 'bout that. I didn’t specify; my fault.
I’d agree with you there.
Well that is where the attacks are coming from.
I actually haven’t said that Bush should intervene but I can see how you might have inferred that from my first post (I said “I agree with OP” but I was only talking about the specific sentiment that any cessation of violence is progress. I didn’t intend to necessarily endorse any US intervention…I still haven’t made up my mind about that yet).
There are a couple of obvious differences between the NK and ME situations though. For one thing, NK isn’t attacking anybody. For another thing, the US isn’t giving them $6 billion a year in finacial aid.
I simply do not get how it is that Israel can be considered the aggressor, or equally culpable in these situations. They are attacked…they fight back, as anyone would (and should). The cessation of violence is all well and good, as long as the side that starts the violence is on board with that. Otherwise, it is just one country sitting there, waiting to be annihliated, which there is no question they would be. 
OK.
NK isn’t attacking anyone yet. I’m strongly in favor or weening Isreal off our aid. I suport their right to defend themselves, but I don’t want them as a client state.
Do Canadians have to live behind barbed wire fences and pass through armed checkpoints to travel through their own territory?
Are you serious? Who assassinated Rabin because of the Oslo accords? It wasn’t the Palestinians.
Both (all three, actually) sides are fighting for survival. Please do not play the injured innocent, here. Israel has been the aggressor as often as Palestine. And yes, I am absolutely counting attacks that were not ordered by the government, but were not conemned by them, either. Just as I am condemning those same actions by Palestine, Israel cannot continue to refuse to take an official position on terrorist attacks on Paletinians.
Have you seen anyone here deny it? No. Although, to be fair, we’ve only had this country a couple hundred years. Give us two more millenia, and we’ll match stupidity for stupidity.
“Isreal” isn’t their own territory if they don’t have citizenship. You might as well say that the Palestinians operate an Aparthied state against Israelis. And there are plenty of Palestinian Israeli Arabs who are citizens of Israel, and they do not live in an aparthied system.
Israel has a not-insigfnificant number of people opposed to the two state solution, but that group is not in control of their government. Also, the Israeli government is largely able to control those terrrorsits whereas Hamas is the (new) government of Palestine (or whatever we call the West Bank + Gaza) is indestinguishable from the terrorists there.
Really, this attempt to paint a moral equivalence between the two sides is pathetic. I know it’s popular on the far left to do that, but even this MB isn’t enough of a lefty echo chamber to find much reverberation for that idea.
Can you give us an example of unprovoked attacks by Israelis against Palestinians that did not receive a condemnation from the Israeli government?
That’s a good one, but I was particularly thinking of the treaty between Israel and Egypt. Egypt got the Sinai back, there have been no hostilities since then, and it led to a treaty with Jordan also. Bush I and Powell lining up the coalition for GW I was not too shabby either.
Moral equivalence? Not at all. I simply acknowledge that both Israeli and Palestinian states have co-existed and laid claim to control of the same city-state, as well as performing acts of war and terrorism on each other for centuries. If that’s moral equivalence, it isn’t necessarily one I’d aspire to.
And while I don’t have a cite, I distinctly remember Ariel Sharon saying something along the lines of “That’s what they get for being there.” Of Palestinians killed in a fire-bombing not long after he took office.
That post was in response to Diogenes, not you.
That’s pretty weak, Maureen. Let’s look at what’s going on now-- Hamas has explicitly endorsed suicide bombing as a legitimate tactic. I’m not trying to paint the Israelis as saints, but there is such a wide gulf between the official acts of the two sides that I don’t see a valid comparison. People are dying on both sides, yes, but people die on both sides in every armed conflict. If the Paelstinians or any Arab country wanted peace with Israel, they could get it. Egypt got it. Jordan got it. Lebanon was in the process of getting it until Hizbollah shit all over things. Iran and Syria do not want peace with Israel and they don’t want other Arab/Muslim countries to have peacse with Israel either. That’s the crux of the situation.
You asked for an example, and without searching it was the only one I could think of off the top of my head. But don’t you think that even tacit endorsement of terrorism is as damaging as full endorsement?
Again, I’m not choosing sides, here. I’m just pointing out that the Israelis are not innocent of terror attacks. I’d like to see some kind of workable solution coming from the UN. And I’d like to not see our chief diplomat endorsing a week of wholesale violence.
It’s unclear what happened was terrorism and lots of times our memories aren’t accurate about what we read years ago. I’ve never seen a terrorist attack by Israeli citizens that was not condemned by their gov’t. OTOH, I see a Palestinian gov’t which is not just silent, but actively encourages acts of terrorism. I see a world of difference between those two positions.
A solution from the UN would take months. Are the Israelis supposed to just hunker down and wait for Hizbollah to run out of rockets? Israel has opperated with a basic tit-for-tat strategy for years. They resond to peace overtures with peace overtures and they respond to violence with violence. This is nothing new, and it seems to have served them fairly well-- what other tiny country has survived so long completely surrounded by hostile neighbors?
I don’t necessarily agree with the specific tactics being used by Israel here, but I agree that they have the right to respond to acts of war in some fashion and I understand how their tit-for-tat system works. If you show weakness in their position, you’re dead, and I don’t blame them one bit for the way they ruthless defend their country. This isn’t some made-up menace like Bush’s Saddam Hussein. This is real, and Israelis have to live it with it every day.
Good point.
Regards,
Shodan
Okay. I’ll do some active searching and see if I can do better. 
Actually, it was more of an assertion that since the UN decided to help make Israel a nation, they should take responsibility for helping to protect it, but I see where you’re coming from. OTOH, if any nation responds to violence with violence, they should be resonsible enough to make sure they’re targeting the correct people. And what Condi is doing is still reprehensible.