One of the few things I’ve gleaned from the truly awful satellite TV show is that Palestinians consider themselves to be at war and do not wish to change leaders during the crisis.
As far as I’ve been able to tell, Arafat is detested by most of the possible Israeli governments for the reasons given.
… which is one of the reasons for prolonging the crisis, if you happen to be Arafat.
The idea of awarding ownership of a bike to the person who can drive it best i see as generally absurd.
But i’ll take your argument as stating that Israel aknowledges the palestinians right to the land, but are not ready to give it up until there is a democratically elected president.
Well. I feel pretty confident in stating that a majority of the Palestinian people, would prefer Israel to first hand over the land, then argue about democracy. And their reasoning would go something like: wed rather have Arafat than Sharon. As i understand their reasoning goes now.
And really it’s just saying that the rightful owner can’t have the bike back because in reality his evil brother would steal it.
It is funny how many arguments there seems to be against just giving the damn bike back 
If we stretch the analogy to the pont of absurdity, there are those Israleis are there not, whole are afraid they will be run down by the bicycle.
“If what China is doing and has done to Tibet is okay by international “law”, then I think the “law” is immoral. It should not be supported.”
OK but that’s a separate argument from the one about anti-Israel bias.
“Wait just a cotton-picking minute - the Israeli invasion was fully supported by elements of the Lebanese government - namely, the Christian Phalangests”
So were they part of the official government of Lebanon at the time? Did the government protest Syrian involvement? Like I said I don’t know much about the conflict but you certainly haven’t given enough details to support your contention that Israeli and Syrian actions were equivalent under international law.
Even if both countries deserved to be condemned by UNSC resolutions that doesn’t necessarily show anti-Israel bias. It may just indicate that Syria was lucky to get away with their interference, perhaps because the Soviets threatened a veto.
“You seem to be asserting that Turkey (a non-muslim, non-arab, non-oil producing country) is somehow relevant. Why?”
I brought Turkey up as an example of another country with several UNSC resolutions against it. Is the UN also biased against Turkey? Why? If not why do you just assume that UNSC resolutions passed against Israel must indicate anti-Israel bias?
“I simply say that the Arab countries have a fixed hatred of Israel (surey you do not dispute that?), and on this one issue combine to produce a regular stream of denunciations.”
The problem, as I explained, is that generally the Arabs don’t have more than one vote in the UNSC. You still haven’t explained how they influence the other 14 votes and convince the US not to veto.
“I find your focus on legality as opposed to morality puzzling, to be sure.”
I am not giving my personal opinion but just explaining UNSC resolutions with something better than unproven allegations of anti-Israel bias. It seems reasonably clear that the UNSC takes notions of sovereignty fairly seriously and that Israeli human rights abuses as compared to say Chinese abuses often occur outside its internationally recognized borders. You may believe that that the UNSC should ignore sovereignty and focus purely on morality but that’s not how it works today.
yes very absurd indeed. 
The military power of a sovereign palestine in all likelihood would be nowhere near that of Israels existing neighbours.
And in the bicycle case: does that give you the legal right to keep the bike, or the legal right to put the police on the biker, if that event ever comes to be.
skip and **tee - **
The Balfour Declaration was a declaration of intent for the British to form the Israeli state. Note the important word “intent”. It never came to pass, and neither did the Pico-Sykes agreement of 1917 effectively splitting the Middle-East in British and French dominions.
1947 did not see the British establish the Israeli state - it simply handed the issue over to the UN precisely for the reasons mentioned.
**Malthus - **
Somewhere in your arguments you seem to not realise who is currently leading Israel, and of the war crimes in Lebanon he has been accused of being directly involved with.
…and i might add that the world police is usually identified with the US, in this case the bicycle thiefs best friend.
Then you have not been reading them all that carefully.
I hate to quote myself, but if I must:
“Wait just a cotton-picking minute - the Israeli invasion was fully supported by elements of the Lebanese government - namely, the Christian Phalangests. You may recall, Christian Phalange militia were those charming people who committed a certain famous massacre against Palistinian refugees, for which Sharon got the blame for not preventing.”
“Say what you will about Sharon - a bloody-handed general, to be sure, and with most disagreeable policies - and apparently linked to corruption. But he is not a dictator, and when voted out he will go. That is the difference between them, and a most vital difference it is.”
I, Brian: you asserted that Hamas is only doing what the early Zionists did through terrorism. Hamas is actively working for the destruction of the Israel. It is not arguing before the UN for the creation of Palestine or lobbying for support from any governing or authoritative body. So I disagree on that. Furthermore, I’m no expert but why on earth wouldn’t a British cabinet-approved declaration of intent be binding? I would think that would be the basis for it landing in the UN - they had a very valid claim and were fighting to keep it.
Actually, I am all in favour of giving the bike back. I think that the WB should be a sovereign state.
I am merely pointing out why some Israelis may have qualms, and why, objectively, those qualms are justifiable.
Would you really want your neighbour to be run by a terrorist dictator with a very good motive to stir up trouble by bombing you?
Naturally, I also think that the terrorism etc. would probably substantially lessen, if Palistine was made a state - but I can at least understand why some in Israel would be reluctant to implement this solution, and hand over the reigns of power to Arafat without lots of guarentees and conditions.
This is one case where being a democracy makes (to my mind) sensible foreign policy difficult. If the US occupied Canada, and Osama was PM of Canada, do you think the US would right now be in the mood to vote in a leader willing to hand control of Canada to … Osama? After a few dozen 9/11 bombings?
Malthus -
There were a lot of posts to read through…
In the version of events I read Sharon did not simply “fail to prevent” the massacre, but instead actively took part in it’s implementation, simply not the execution.
**Tee - **
I’d probably have to go back and check up some names, but I somehow doubt that those Zionist terrorists mutilating British soldiers after WWII were also using their voices to appeal to the UN. In the same way that Hamas apparently are not appealing to the UN, but others are.
As for the Balfour Declation - again, the important word is intent. Intents are not binding, but legislation is. There was also the intent to carve up the remaining Middle-East between France and Britain in the 1917 Pico-Sykes agreement - but that never happened either. Post-War Britain had more important domestic issues than worrying about the British establishment of an “Eretz Yisrael”. That’s why it was given to the UN to deal with.
Cite, please?
On the issue of Israeli unease and terrorist bombings - perhaps, just perhaps, we would see a significant impact on the issue if Israel stopped being so bloody-minded in the viscious circle of violence. Israeli responses are often quite ridiculously OTT.
Compare to Northern Ireland - could the British really have moved towards the peace process that we have (and are still struggling with) by bulldozing Belfast estates (after missile bombing them), cutting off water, food, and electricity supplies to Catholic areas, destroying the employment infrastructure of NI, evicting the relatives of known suspects, and randomly shooting children for throwing rocks at British tanks?
This isn’t about apportioning blame as much as indicating that Israel needs to take the first bold step to peace and thus break the vicious cycle of violence - it is the only party realistically empowered to do so. We almost got there with Yitshak Rabin and his “three legs” policy. since his death all we’ve had is hardliners who expect that they can slap the Palestinians into submission. Hostory says that cannot work.
[quote]
Cite, please?*
I’ve seen a few people make this remark, to which I should really just say two words “research” and “Google”. A quick search brings the familiar story from this site:
On 6 June 1982, the Israeli army invaded Lebanon in what it described as ‘retaliation’ for the attempted assassination of Israeli Ambassador Argov in London on 4 June. The invasion, soon dubbed “Operation Peace for Galilee,” progressed rapidly. By 18 June 1982, Israel had surrounded the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s (PLO) armed forces in the western part of the Lebanese capital. A cease-fire, mediated by United States Envoy Philip Habib, resulted in the PLO evacuation of Beirut on 1 September 1982.
On 11 September 1982, Israeli Defence Minister Ariel Sharon, the architect of the invasion, announced that “2,000 terrorists” had remained inside the Palestinian refugee camps around Beirut. On Wednesday 15 September, the day after the assassination of Israeli-allied Phalangist militia leader and Lebanese President-elect Bashir Gemayel, the Israeli army occupied West Beirut, “encircling and sealing” the camps of Sabra and Shatila, which were inhabited by Lebanese and Palestinian civilians. By mid-day on 15 September 1982, the refugee camps were entirely surrounded by Israeli tanks and soldiers, who installed checkpoints at strategic locations and crossroads around the camps in order to monitor the entry or exit of any person. During the late afternoon and evening of that day, the camps were shelled.
Around mid-day on Thursday 16 September 1982, a unit of approximately 150 Israeli-allied Phalangists entered the first camp. For the next 40 hours members of the Phalangist militia raped, killed, and injured a large number of unarmed civilians, mostly children, women and elderly people inside the encircled and sealed camps. The estimate of victims varies between 700 (the official Israeli figure) to 3,500. The victims and survivors of the massacres have never been deemed entitled to a formal investigation of the tragedy, since Israel’s Kahan Commission did not have a judicial mandate and was not backed up by legal force."
You miss the point with all of this talk about bicycle thievery. It is far too simplistic. 181 gave a homeland for Israel and Palestine. The Arab states did not approve, seized Palestine and started attacking Israel in 1948. In 1967, Israel took possession of the 181 lands of Palestine after a war started in defense.
The Palestinians never had ownership. They were stewards before 1948 and vassals afterwards. Correcting 181 is a noble thing to strive for, but it requires two things – recognition of Palestine and recognition of Israel. The Arab states have shown little impetus for recognizing Israel apart from Jordan and Egypt, and the Saudi proposal, which was scuttled in an Arab League committee I believe.
The 1967 lands have nothing to do with 181. They have everything to do with 242, which requires Israeli withdrawal when the conflict ends. In the best of my knowledge, there has been no cessation of violence from the Palestinians, ergo in the Israeli mind no end of the conflict. I am one of those who thinks Israel would be best off with complete unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. I also think that the settlement movement is the worst thing that has ever happened to Israel, and Sharon’s policies are little different from Arafat’s as they both do pretty much whatever is necessary to cling to power. But, IMHO Sharon is completely within the UN letter of the law in demanding an end to hostilities before withdrawal. I personally don’t think it will ever happen like that, which is why I believe in unilateral withdrawal.
About UN bias: there is certainly proclaimed UN bias against Israel, just like there is bias in just about everything which is geographically decided for Israel. Soccer comes to mind, I am sure there are others. Where things are decided based on geography – UN appointment to councils, UEFA/FIFA certification, etc. – Israel gets screwed because of an Arab block which excludes Israel. Israel cannot sit on the Human Rights Committee or Security Council of the UN because it needs to be a member of a regional block – the Asian block which includes all of the Arab world excludes Israel. So Israel is a provisional member of the European block with no plans to make it a full member. Same thing happens in soccer, so Israel has to play qualifying matches against European teams instead of against their pansy neighbors… This certainly leads to Israel haveing proportionately less power than similar sized countries, and I think it takes the brunt of that particularly badly. For instance, the UN General Assembly stated that Zionism == Racism for many years. Or Israel is particularly singled out at the UN Conference on Xenophobia and Racism. But that is General Assembly, Security Council is a dicier matter. But I think the sheer volume of anti-Israel talk that permeates the UN surely crosses over to some extent.
I am soon retiring for the night so i’ll just comment shortly to this:
Correcting the 181 is more than a noble thing to strive for. According to the 181 there exist a Palestine state. Either way you construe it Israel is currently occupying the territory of that state, no matter whom occupied it before. This holds regardless of the 242. But as you pointed you pointed out, this requires Israeli withdrawal when the conflict ends. The conflict with the parties in the 6-day war that is, not the palestinians.
And really, a 6-day war still raging 36 years later - how would that look?
Again i’ll admit to the bicycle analogy being a bit to simplistic. But it’s a good one so:
Just return the bicycle for God’s sake!
Good night.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by I, Brian *
**
Couldn’t you pick something a bit more evenly balanced than “IndictSharon.net”?
Control v occupation: where Israel’s argument/defence falls down, is that continues to install residential, civilian settlements in Palestine.
There is no legal, moral, practical excuse for this. It can only represent expansionism.
I have said before, as others have, that we could see how military “settlements” (ie camps, whatever) could have some justification. But that’s not what Sharon’s done. He’s putting civilian Israelis in there, he is stealing land.
It gives the basic information I was asked to cite. Feel free to use Google to find something different.