You have it backwards. FIRST the PLO stops the terrorism, then the Isrealis make concessions. Doing it the other way is saying that terrorism works, thus giving them a reason for more terrorism. In fact, IMHO the Isrealis are doing the exact right thing. They are saying OK, you are setting off bombs to force us to stop doing “A”, thus we will do more of “A” until you stop the terrorism, thus proving to you that terrorism will not get you what you want.
The Israelis offered every single concession that Arafat asked for- except the division of Jerusalem. They offered all the land concessions. Arafat said no. Since then, it is clear the PLO will not be satisfied with anything short of complete surrender on the part of Isreal- why should Isreal concede anything?
It doesn’t matter how much the Palestinians are deserving of whatever, nor how wrong the Isrealis are in denying it. As long as the PLO attempts to get what they want through terrorism, instead of peaceful negotiation- they should get anything at all. Nothing. Not a farm, not a settlement, not an inch. In fact- I hope that the Isrealis step up their settlement programs.
When are the Terrorists going to learn that terrorism is not going to get you what you want?
P.S. I think one key to reaching a real peace and a working Palestinian state is gettting foreign bodies to stop financially supporting Palestinian terrorism. Presumably Iraq will no longer do so.
I’d also like to see donations from the UN and EU be more carefully audited to be certain that none of that money goes to support terrorism.
The map of the West Bank that was offered at the last CD talks had dozens and dozens of Israeli settlements all over it. The Isrealis have to take the moral high ground here and start the process. Even if the PA as scrupulously fighting terrorism with all there resoureces, there would still be whackos blowing themselves up.
As long as both sides keep saying “you first” it’ll never get started. Israel is a powerful, prosperous country. They need to initiate things. It’s not giving into terrorism-- it’s making terrorism irrelevant.
“step up their settlement programs”? If you honestly think this will accompish anything, but the ongoing hate and violence you are clearly too blinded to think straight. I would honestly like to hear your logic to how this would help bring about peace for the Israelis and Palestinians.
I can just imagine a Palestinian in the West Bank talking to another right now…
Palestinian #1: I hope Hamas steps up their bombing of those Zionists pigs!!
Palestinian #2: Why?
Palestinian #1: It shows them they can’t keep killing our children, stealing our land and spitting in our State!
Palestinian #2: But, how will bombings bring peace for our children?
Palestinian #1: I don’t want peace our children, I want revenge for myself!!
swami, I think that it would be used as negative reinforcement- you keep up the intifada, we’ll keep expanding settlements. More suicide bombers, the more territory will be swallowed. The thinking is that at some point the terrorists realize that their attacks are having serious negative consequences and stop/begin negotiating.
I’m not sure of what you’re referring to. When I pointed out that Sharon has got blood on his hands I was refering to the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Lebanon.
Menachem Begin was a known terrorist. He was in operative charge of terrorist deeds, f. e. the bombing of the King David hotel. That is a known fact. And he was later elected Prime Minister of Israel.
Now, do you refute this? In what way do you find this statement of facts to be “moral relativism”?
If you want to prove Arafat to be more of a terrorist than Begin, let’s see some facts to that effect.
However, there are a number of Sharon apologists who like to pretend (in contradiction of the actual Israeli investigation into that incident) that Sharon just happened to let a few Phalangists into the camps to search for terrorists, and somehow didn’t notice that the killing that then went on for two days was actually happening while he watched the camps and had the IDF prohibit anyone from escaping.
There is also the incident, earlier in Sharon’s career as the leader of the 101 Unit, when the town of Kibya was blown up in retaliation for the murder of three Israelis and somehow 69 people died by accident.
In that respect it was quite similar to the targeting of pentagon during the 9/11 attacks. Of course a bunch of civilians was killed to in the King David bombings.
So do you want to make a case that it was not a terrorist act, skip?
Well I don’t think we can really define degrees of terrorism but there are some other factors to take into account about the bombing.
Menachem Begin in his book, The Revolt, claims that the bombers telephoned a number of people to warning them to evacuate the building, as he feared civilian casualties: The French Consulate, The Palestine Post and the hotel itself (where he was rebuffed with “we don’t take orders from Jews”). The British denied a phone call ever being made to the hotel but in 1979, a survivor of the blast came forward came forward claiming that he overheard officers joking about receiving threats from Zionists that the hotel would be blown up. He promptly left the hotel and survived the blast. This survivor story was brought forward by a British MP. The article I read this in didn’t have any names for the MP or survivor but it uses as reference the report from the 1979 Jerusalem Conference on Terrorism (p. 45 in the proceedings) by Benjamin Netanyahu (yes that Netanhayu). You might poo-poo the source but I don’t see anything factually incorrect there.
Another more detailed page about the bombings can be found here which has more details on the warnings given before the blast.
Also note that many Jewish groups, including the Jewish Agency and the Jewish National Congress, condemned the attack with David Ben-Gurion going so far as to call Irgun (who carried out the attack) as “enemies of the Jewish people”.
I have yet to see Arafat or any other Palestinian leader call Hamas or Hezbollah an enemy of the Palestinian people.
And, noting that Randy Spears is posting from Sweden, in equal fairness, it could be pointed out that Sweden’s Gustav Vasa probably wasn’t a pussycat when he was establishing a monotheistic monarchy (http://www.warnstam.org/gustav_vasa.htm) in 1523.
It’s not clear to me that the argument “But they did it too!” is appropriate to this debate. Unless, as it appears to me, Randy is just hanging around to slag Israel whenever possible.
The OP seemed to be whether Mahmoud Abbas would be able to accomplish what Arafat could not. On the face of it, the views in the book cited by Mojo make him an unlikely candidate for extending any sort of olive branch towards Israel. But that was 20 years ago, so maybe his views have changed.
No need to lecture me on old Gustav Wasa! See my ancestors way back in those days were Danes, and at war with Sweden at the time. Why the danes even slew Gustavs father in the famous “Stockholm Blood Bath” if I recall history class correctly.
In conclusion: there was a whole lot of killing going on back then too.
But really, don’t you think Gustav Wasa is a wee bit unrelevant to Israeli / Palestine affairs? And that Menachem Begin is a little bit more relevant?
Would you find it relevant if Ronald Reagen once blew up civilians in his spare time? Would you have voted for him as president of the US given that information?
I’m just pointing out the historical fact that Israelis have a modern history in terrorist activities; And that those involved later became prominent Israeli citizens and never wen’t to jail for their crimes.
Which is relevant given the present popular rethorics on the issue. For example the Israeli hard line against Arafat, and the stance of no peace talks before all terrorist acts cease. It is relevant to all this, for quite obvious reasons i believe.
“We wont deal with terrorists. But we will elect them to lead our country. As long as they are our terrorists.”