Who doesn't want a Palestinian state? Palestinian leaders, that's who
Pal leaders are actively protesting the first steps in the creation of a state, basically saying that there'll be extra violence if it isn't on their terms. From today's NY Times:
---
The Palestinian Authority reacted with concern today to reports that the Bush administration might call for creating an interim Palestinian state while leaving uncertain its final borders and the timetable for determining them.
Officials in Washington have said that President Bush intends to announce a proposal for Palestinian statehood in an effort to give hope to the Palestinian people and encourage them to lay down arms.
While the precise details of a Bush proposal are now yet known, Saeb Erekat, the Palestinians' chief negotiator, warned that such a step might only increase Palestinian frustration if it was not accompanied by a specific timeline for working out the final details for a state in the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip, the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war.
"If we deviate from this to go to the psychology of thinking that the Palestinian problems and the frustration is because they want to change the name from a Palestinian Authority to a Palestinian state, I'm afraid that this will backfire," Mr. Erekat said.
He said that if Palestinians found, the day after such a state was declared, that Israeli forces still controlled checkpoints between Palestinian cities, "I'm afraid that you're gong to have a bigger explosion than you're having now."
---
tw, Bush still the evil one preventing peace?
Jag, Palestinians still have no other tools than terror?
What a bunch of BS. These so-called "leaders" are a bunch of ignorant wing nuts. They are ripping holes in the diplomatic process.
Opposing opinions welcomed.
UT, no disrespect meant, but:
--1) You only put in part of the story.
--2) You didn't provide a
link to the story (free registration might be required to view).
I found Muhammad Dahlan's comments interesting. Also those of Yasir Abed Rabbo:
"'As far as we are concerned the issue is not the declaration of a state,' he was quoted as saying. 'Our top priority is bringing about an end to the occupation.'"
Well OK, but I can only think of two ways to bring an end to the occupation. One is to create a Palestinian state. The other is favored by 51% of Palestinians in a survey taken a few weeks ago: destroy Israel.
The Arabic nations have already put in their two cents on relocating them to some other part of Arabia... they won't agree to that. They would prefer plan B.
Situation Normal: All Fucked Up.
Breaking News: Israel agrees to the creation of a Palestinian State ... on the condition that Israel be allowed to occupy it.
I wonder if all this fighting between the Israelis and Palestinians is:
a) Turning people towards Christianity
b) Turning people into atheists
It's a political conflict ... not a religious one.
c) None of the above.
Originally posted by Nic Name
It's a political conflict ... not a religious one.
Maybe that's your opinion...
I thought opinions were what you were looking for.
All my posts reflect my opinions.
Originally posted by Nic Name
I thought opinions were what you were looking for.
All my posts reflect my opinions.
The manner in which it was written read as fact to me. My apologies if I misunderstood your post.
In my opinion it is a fact. ;)
That's not to say that others shouldn't have different opinions.
We can't all be right all the time.
One of the reasons that I think the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis is a political one and not a religious one is that there are Muslim, Christian and Jewish Palestinians. And there most certainly are Muslim, Christian and Jewish Israelis.
Another, is that the dispute is over self determination and occupation of territory not religious beliefs. It is not a war to win hearts and minds but to control territory.
So, if you describe a conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, it is a political conflict by definition.
I could be wrong, of course, but that's my opinion.
Originally posted by Nic Name
So, if you describe a conflict between Palestinians and Israelis, it is a political conflict by definition.
I don't disagree that it is a political conflict; however, I see strong religious ties involved:
--Zionism
--Sharon's visit to the Temple on the Mount
--The fight over Jerusalem
I can understand Palestinian reluctance to sign up to the creation of just any old political entity just as long as it has the name "Palestinian State". They would cheapen the concept if they ended up with just the same thing as the "Palestinian Authority" with just a different name. The Israeli negotiation tactic so far has in mine and others opinions been one of delaying "final questions" in order to attempt to reap the benifits of peace without paying the price. The Oslo accords perhaps were flawed as the Palestinians were willing to defer too many issues to which they were dearly attached in order to reach any agreement with Israel in order to end the diplomatic isolation thay had placed themselves following their stupid backing of the wrong horse in The Gulf War. The Palestinian should hang on until they get a state with some teeth, one in which a Palestinian is equal under the law to an Israeli, one in which cars on Palestianian roads don't have to stop at lights for twenty minutes while a single Israeli car passes on a crossing Israeli settler only road.
The following is an excerpt from an article..apologies if this is long if it doesn't interest you scroll rapidly down, but the article is good and as I can't link into the New Scientist archive and I wish to share it, it affected me especially because New Scientist is not a magazine known for strong political stances.
"This is how we live"
New Scientist vol 174 issue 2342 - 11 May 2002, page 40
I STARTED down the road and I did everything right. "Don't go to the left, don't go to the right," the Israeli soldiers had said, and it's best to do what they say. They watched me go and the Palestinian policemen at the other end of the road watched me come. Everyone had a gun except me and all the guns seemed to be pointing at me. I had a half-kilometre of road all to myself and it was very quiet.
This is no-man's-land at the entrance to the Gaza Strip. It is one border you don't have to queue at. The soldiers were surprised that I wanted to go in. I could see their point. Their air force had bombed the place an hour before. "Have a blast," one of them had said. Not literally, I hoped.
I took a taxi the 10 kilometres into Gaza City and the first thing I noticed were the children. They were everywhere. It looked like one enormous playground. Of course, Gaza is no playground. Look beyond the children and you see chaos. Many shops looked like they'd been shut for months. Some buildings looked like they'd been bombed. There was graffiti on every wall. The sun was shining and the children were playing but it didn't feel right. I wasn't seeing the full picture.
I got part of the picture from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, whose white Land-Rovers I had already seen in the streets and whose compound in the city is like a town in itself. It has a department for everything: education, health, food, social services, environment. It runs many of the schools, finds shelter for the homeless and provides food to 144,000 families, many of whom would starve without it. Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority is the official government here but it's pretty clear who's running the show for the poor.
I met several UNRWA officials, all of them Palestinian. This is what they said. Of Gaza's 1.2 million residents, 80 per cent are refugees or descendants of refugees who fled from around Beersheba and Jaffa when Israel was created in 1948. Half these people live in eight refugee camps, where the population density is among the highest in the world. The population of Gaza is growing at a rate of 4.6 per cent a year. Half the people are under 18 and there are so many children that the schools can accommodate them only in shifts.
I wondered why everyone stayed. "Because they are not allowed to leave," says Aqil Abu Shammala, chief of UNRWA's field relief and social services programme and himself a third-generation refugee. Since the beginning of the intifada in September 2000, the Israeli authorities have sealed the borders of the Palestinian Territories to try to contain the militants and to put pressure on the people to end the uprising. Exports from Gaza and the West Bank are banned, and imports strictly controlled. As a result, the proportion of people in Gaza living on under $2 a day has increased from a quarter to a half. Some 40 per cent of the workforce is unemployed.
Abu Shammala is a big man and he tells me these things straight and without emotion. He wears a suit and tie and he seems imperturbable. Then he tells me he has not seen his family for five days because the Israeli army has set up a security barrier that cuts the Gaza Strip in two, and they will not let anyone pass. He and tens of thousands of other Palestinians are cut off from their homes. Others are cut off from their work. He says it happens often. When he tells me this he is shaking his head and you can see the anger rising. "If you keep people in these conditions," he says, "how can you expect them to keep the peace?"
There is little peace in Gaza. The next day, Israeli F16 bombers flew over the city at precisely the time they had attacked it the day before. This time they didn't bomb, but the psychological effect was conspicuous: everyone braced themselves as if they would.
I found a lift out of the city going south along the coast to the Israeli army's security barrier. About 200 metres from the checkpoint a Palestinian policeman was standing in the road. He said if you go any further the Israelis will shoot you; they will not know whether you are armed and they will not wait to find out.
Many people had gathered here and they were agitated. Some had been waiting days for the army to open the road. A few had decided they could wait no longer and were heading down a cliff to the beach to get around the checkpoint. I went with them. I start to walk and I am not yet level with the checkpoint when the gunner in a tank at the checkpoint starts shooting. He is firing a heavy machine gun at the people on the beach below him and I think, I hope, they are safe in the lee of the cliff. The gun is very loud, and though I cannot see the tank I can hear it and I can see the puff of diesel smoke as it manoeuvres. Now the bullets are close to me and the people ahead of me drop into the sand. I am looking at a man beside me with a baby in his arms, and I am listening to the bullets slapping into the sea. Incredibly, nobody is running. Some people are even trying to carry on.
None of the war films I have seen comes close to conjuring up what this feels like. A man with a red scarf looks at me and grins and asks me if I'm scared. "No," I lie. How can anyone not be? A man and a woman on a donkey-drawn cart are coming the other way and they pass close to me. They are very scared, they are close to tears, and I realise they must have been opposite the checkpoint when the shooting started. The man with the red scarf sees me staring at them and says: "This is how we live."
The next morning I went to see a man whose name I had heard often, a man respected by many here. Eyad El Sarraj is founder and chairman of the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme (GCMHP) and he has been studying the psychology of the people for years. He is in his early 50s. He is tall, speaks quietly and is always eloquent. He hates violence.
El Sarraj calls Gaza an open prison. "You feel exposed and vulnerable. There is no way to escape. You are trapped. Over the years, the Palestinians have developed the psychology of victims, and this has been reinforced over the past 18 months," he says. "There is a sense of helplessness, a sense of persecution. There is trauma, and so much anger." If El Sarraj gets angry he is good at hiding it.
The planes, the bombing and the threat of it are not things you get used to, he says. They affect the children most. A recent study by the GCMHP in Khan Younis and Rafah refugee camps in southern Gaza found that of 121 mothers and 121 children, more than a fifth had witnessed members of their own family killed or injured, and more than half the children had started to develop acute symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Of the 1400 Palestinians killed since the start of the intifada, at least 160 were under 16. Many children have nightmares about Jews coming to their house.
And yet, says El Sarraj, none of them has ever met a Jew. He knows how they feel. "I grew up in Gaza hating all Jews, believing they were blood-suckers, that they had robbed me of my land, my rights and my freedom and that they killed my fellow men. That was before I met my first Jew. Palestinian children today are growing up the same way I did. All they know about Jews are bad things." This, he believes, is why many Palestinians demonise the entire Israeli population as one. Few Palestinians feel disgust when an activist blows himself or herself up in West Jerusalem; the activist is celebrated as a shahid or martyr because all Israelis are considered as guilty as soldiers of the injustice wrought on them.
I set off in a taxi to the southern part of the Gaza Strip, scene of some of the worst fighting of the intifada. After 20 kilometres we come to a set of traffic lights, a checkpoint and a queue of cars waiting to cross one of the specially guarded roads that link the 18 Israeli settlements in Gaza to Israel "proper". I can see gun barrels sticking through the windows of the checkpoint but I cannot see the soldiers. "Why are we waiting?" I ask the taxi driver. He says that if a settler's car is within half a kilometre of the crossing, the soldiers switch the lights to red and Palestinians have to wait. And if we choose not to? "What do you think?" he says. Then he repeats the words of the man on the beach: "This is how we live."
?
UT whats your point? I'm lost
While the precise details of a Bush proposal are now yet known, Saeb Erekat, the Palestinians' chief negotiator, warned that such a step might only increase Palestinian frustration if it was not accompanied by a specific timeline for working out the final details for a state in the entire West Bank and Gaza Strip, the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war.
Rather understandable, if i said i'd give you the money i owed you at...oh some time in the future when i felt like it i'm sure you'd be pissed off.
They are trying to remove arafat, they refuse to negioate, they refuse to create a state or even set a timeline for the creation of one. The economist had a very good roundup of this. I doubt this 'interum state' will be as generous as the oslo accords, and oh, wern't they generous, breaking up the west bank ito 3 cantons surrounded by Isrelai military checkpoints to move between them. So cut the FUD will you.
I think you were saying at one point that there is a legitimacy to the terrorism if that's all they have. My point is that there remain plenty of tools other than terrorism if what they want is a state. Simple diplomacy could get it done.
The problem is that the leaders, and now 51% of the people, are not interested in a state.
Which means that, if you give them a state tomorrow, it doesn't solve anything whatsoever.
BUllshit dipolmacy is an option. Lets look at this aparant proposal for a state that is in reality, nothing more than an attempt at smoke and missors to attempt to further legitimise an occupation.
The offer is a vague, undefined idea of a state sometime in the undefined future. By accepting this, with no garantees on time, soverignty in the emantime or any other concessions they are meant to accpet this right? From a political perspective this this is designed to remove any legitimacy from active resistance (oh but we promised them a state and they still do it.......) while actaully delivering nothing.
Consider too the fact that Isreal now refuses to negoiate with arafat, that makes it kinda hard too. While arafat is no fantastic leader, he's the only one they've got (who hasen't been killed yet)
You must have missed my Clinton thread.
What the hell is this? Why is she turning the mistakes we {i.e., the US and Israel} made into the essence? The true story of Camp David was that for the first time in the history of the conflict the American president put on the table a proposal, based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, very close to the Palestinian demands, and Arafat refused even to accept it as a basis for negotiations, walked out of the room, and deliberately turned to terrorism. That's the real story—all the rest is gossip.
-- Bill Clinton, recently.
Arafat isn't interested in diplomacy. The "you could have a state" offering, who knows why Bush is pushing this plan, but it's another concept that's put on the table, in any case. After diplomacy has comletely failed with this guy, the rest of the world pushes every diplomatic option they can think of, and none of it ever sticks.
Diplomacy isn't "we didn't like your idea so we're resorting to continuing our death culture's terrorism." Diplomacy is "we didn't like your idea so we're going to advance another one until we find a common ground." They certainly do have the option of diplomacy; and they have much much more influence than they are due, in my opinion, especially right now since the rest of the Arab world apparently wants Bush to pursue this project before persuing Iraq. That's real diplomatic power, and they are sqandering it because they would rather continue to develop a culture of death-worship in the name of deep religious intolerance. In the end, they are going to wind up much worse off. But now I've gone to babbling speculation, and I'll stop now.
Originally posted by Undertoad
Which means that, if you give them a state tomorrow, it doesn't solve anything whatsoever.
I would be against the notion of a state whose sorvernity is be violated by a conquering and occupying army, by the same thinking the Vichy French were right to collaborate with the Germans? They don't want a name, they want a place to live that is their home, not the territory of another government. Its that simple. Give them that, give them dignity, and then see how popular the bombers are.
Originally posted by spinningfetus
Give them that, give them dignity, and then see how popular the bombers are.
Unfortunately, this is all theory. The 51% of Palestinians that support Israel's destruction... well, that number might dwindle a bit, but it's not going away. And that subset of the Palestinian population is going to be represented in the Palestinian cabinet. It's not unreasonable to believe that, at least once in the future, that representation will be enough to warrant a Palestinian attack on Israel. That is certainly something that Israel wants to avoid.
I personally think that the creation of a Palestinian state is unavoidable and, in all honesty, a good idea when the proper conditions are met. But I can certainly understand Israel's reluctance at the idea. There's too much mistrust in the mideast.
And when a german pollie critises Isreal he gets branded anti-semitic and kicked out of the party, when you've been persecuted like that feelings linger, and you can expect the same in any future palastine.
especially right now since the rest of the Arab world apparently wants Bush to pursue this project before persuing Iraq.
Where the heck did you get that from?
It's not unreasonable to believe that, at least once in the future, that representation will be enough to warrant a Palestinian attack on Israel.
I'm sure there will be some, it takes time to heal wounds that deep.
Arafat isn't interested in diplomacy. The "you could have a state" offering, who knows why Bush is pushing this plan, but it's another concept that's put on the table, in any case. After diplomacy has comletely failed with this guy, the rest of the world pushes every diplomatic option they can think of, and none of it ever sticks.
There are two issues here, the first is that arafat is on the way out, and doesn't want to be remembered as the person that sold out so a second-rate deal. The second is that no decent offer has been put on the table(or on paper). Full stop. If you can find evidence to the contorary ill be rather suprised indeed.
The Arabic countries all weighed in when various US guys have done their tours, Cheney and Powell. There was a lot of "How can you do Iraq when there's this bigger problem right over here?" I don't think they actually care that much about Hussein; after all, he's Persian.
As far as Arafat rejecting a second-rate deal,
HAW
Arafat can't accept any deal. As the two-bit leader of a tiny little country, he's a non-entity; as the two-bit leader of the violent front representing the hopes and dreams of 600 million Arabs, he has enormous power. That's why he carefully arranges his headgear draped over his right shoulder into the shape of the entire region, including Israel; the symbolic message to his homies is that he wants it all.
Plus, at this point, if Arafat were to accept the deal that was offered, he'd be the goat to that 51% -- and possibly be strung up by them.
One other thing I haven't noticed:
If Israel conceded to a Palestinian state now, they'd be giving control of an airport to the PLO, who would likely fill up the nearest airliner with fuel and explosives and crash it into Israel somewhere, possibly the Likud.
It wouldn't take long and maybe even longer than it would take to scramble fighters to defend themselves.
I wouldn't give them the chance right away. I'd wait until the PLO stopped the terror tactics, bargained in good faith and use the "Palestinian State" as a reward at the end, not as a carrot to get things started. After all, you don't give kids dessert first to get them to eat their peas, do you? No. You give it to them after the peas are gone. And not to the dog under the table either.
My two cents.
Brian
The arab/muslim world is becoming disfunctional, thats been known for years, there are many, many reasons why what was once the 'cradle of civilization' has fallen so far.
If Israel conceded to a Palestinian state now, they'd be giving control of an airport to the PLO, who would likely fill up the nearest airliner with fuel and explosives and crash it into Israel somewhere, possibly the Likud.
wtf.....
I wouldn't give them the chance right away. I'd wait until the PLO stopped the terror tactics, bargained in good faith and use the "Palestinian State" as a reward at the end, not as a carrot to get things started. After all, you don't give kids dessert first to get them to eat their peas, do you? No. You give it to them after the peas are gone. And not to the dog under the table either.
I supose that depends if you're fill up his plate twice as fast as he can eat it or not. The currant mess is the result of bad faith on the part of Isreal, if an acceptable offer had been put on the table in the first place, this degeneration would never have happened. I mean christ its like wacking a wasps nest with a stick for 10 minutes then wonder why the keep stinging you afterwards.
I do think he *could* accept a deal, the arabic world is not exactly united and i'm sure given the chance the vast majority of Palastinians just want to live without having thier doors blown off regulary by the IDF and their sons/husnbands kidnapped for interrogation.
What offer would have been "acceptable"?
None, because what wasn't understood when Clinton was working the tables was that he was not negotiating with the true source of power.
The true sources of power were and are in Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia: Arafat's sponsors. They were the ones to talk with. Arafat, it would appear, is the middleman. Arafat does not have the power to negotiate.
Okay, jag. Here's my thoughts in total...
The establishment of a Palestinian state would force Israel to attack a sovereign nation, which would be roundly condemned in the UN and might even draw all the other Arab states into a major shooting war. Not a good thing.
Right now, Israeli forays into the disputed territories are "forays" and not "invasions". Why throw gasoline onto the fire by ratcheting up what Israel is going to do regardless?
Statehood would also allow the Palestinians to raise an army and air force to defend it's new "borders" even if temporary. This would make the job of rooting out terrorist bomb factories and training grounds more difficult. Following that thougt, Palestine would also be able to make treaties (new "Axis" powers in the middle east?) and import weapons to equip it's new army and air forces. Bad news for Israel and peace in general in the middle east.
Again, throwing fuel on the fire. Bad.
On the other hand it WOULD give Israel something to declare war on...
I personally see giving the Palestinians a state now as rewarding the terror tactics they have been using for years.
You don't reward bad behaviour in a child be giving it what it wants, you reward only good behaviour. I've not raised any children but I remember my own childhood and I didn't get what I wanted by screaming and begging and whining. I got it by being good as defined by my parents.
As I recall, Palestinian statehood was offered long ago. And rejected. The possibility has been raised more than once since the 1967 war and summarily rejected each time, at least once by Arafat himself. The stated goal of the power in Palestine territory is and has always been the eradication of Israel and Jews in general.
The only reason the US is in this at all is really traceable to oil interests. We need oil too much to make enemies of the Arabs and we're afraid of another embargo. My temptation is to let the Israelis take on all the Arabs and trade with them after the dust settles for the oil that they would then own. But sometimes I dream too much.
These opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of anyone else.
Brian
If you think Arafat doesnt support palestinian terrorism then you are missing something. A palestinian state will never exist untill Isreal is destroyed. Even if the creaton of a palestinian was to happen, the fighting would not cease....This battle between them is over control of the holy lands. And untill it rests in palstinian hands, its never gonna stop.
Every day another bombing in Isreal....
It's time for a car bomb derby.....
Originally posted by Undertoad
The true sources of power were and are in Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia: Arafat's sponsors. They were the ones to talk with. Arafat, it would appear, is the middleman. Arafat does not have the power to negotiate.
That is as perverted as a news broadcast from Radio Moscow in the 1960s. Only right wing extremist Isrealis promote that thought. The Arab world is quite fractured with many power brokers and no central powers. One of the most powerful of Arab leaders is Mubarak of Egypt - more powerful than Syria or Iran. One need only review his long interviews with Charlie Rose during his last American visit to see how independent Arafat and everyone else in the Arab world is.
To even suggest that Iran is on that list is to endorse the mentality of a mental midget American leader. Iran is not even an Arab nation.
To say that Arafat is a middleman is to say that Mexico must get permission from the US for its foreign policy. However extremist right wing Israelis view the world entirely in terms of "us vs them". Israeli extremists are that unstable. To those extremists, there is no difference between Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, Egyptians, Palistanis, Moroccan, Libyians, or Palestinians.
Arafat gets major support from the west. If Arafat is a middleman, then he must also get permission from the EU and the US before making any deals. The long list of governmental organizations attacked, confiscated, and destroyed by Israel (so that Arafat could not stop suicide bombers) were originally provided mostly from the US or European Union.
Previously posted were details on a backroom negotiation between Palestinian and Israeli leaders in Taba Egypt. Were these negotiations in vain? Yes, only because the dichead was about to take power and would confiscate everything anyway. Sharon's obvious intentions were to create an intafada and keep that violence ongoing (which is why his helicopters always attack Palestinian police stations and why Israel attacked the Palestinian police who worked directly with Israeli intelligence and Interpol on stopping suicide bombers). Those negotiations in Taba Egypt demonstrated that Arafat's people and Israeli negotiators could indeed negotiate when extremist leaders such as Sharon) were not involved:
a previous tw post
The person most responsible for the starting and encouraging violence in the Middle East. There is only one one who should be on trial in The Hague for crimes against humanity. The only reason for suicide bombers is the same person whose agenda has always been the destruction of UN 242, 338, and the Oslo accords. The enemy of mankind is Ariel Sharon. He is why people die in the streets of Jerusalem.
There were no waves of violence when the Oslo Accords were being created and developed. This violence was created by Ariel Sharon - the man who does everything he can to keep it ongoing. Every dead Israeli and Palestinian is now directly traceable to the man whose only interest is to expand Israelis borders at the expense of world peace. Those deaths are collateral damage for his greater objectives. Sharon's programs for Middle East conquest can continue as long as he continues the violence - drives everyone into extremist political camps. Only the dichead, and people who think like him, would lump all Arabs together as the same people.
If Arafat was only a middle man, then the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian armies would have been massing on Israel's borders during the war crimes of Jenin. To declare Arafat as a middle man is to endorse the concepts of Prime Minister dichead - the man who brings shame on all Israelis.
Sharon created Intafada 2. Everything he does is to steal the occupied territories so that peace will never happen. Sharon does not want peace. Todays announcement of permanent occupation and the 40% increase in new West Bank settlements is just another part of that process. Sharon wants an Imperial Israel - which is why he even risked the world to nuclear war for personal glory. There are no central powered in the Arab world - except in the minds of extremist, anti-humaity Israeli Jews.
Originally posted by tw
To say that Arafat is a middleman is to say that Mexico must get permission from the US for its foreign policy. However extremist right wing Israelis view the world entirely in terms of "us vs them". Israeli extremists are that unstable. To those extremists, there is no difference between Saudis, Iranians, Iraqis, Egyptians, Palistanis, Moroccan, Libyians, or Palestinians.
Or Americans... Have ever tried to talk to Hasidic Jews? Well, most of them won't talk to you or even stomp on you if you were on fire. Racists are the same no matter who they are, they hate everyone else.
If you think Arafat doesnt support palestinian terrorism then you are missing something. A palestinian state will never exist untill Isreal is destroyed. Even if the creaton of a palestinian was to happen, the fighting would not cease....This battle between them is over control of the holy lands. And untill it rests in palstinian hands, its never gonna stop.
Am i the only one that remembers Hamas agreeing to a ceasefire? Or for that matter the fundamentals of the theory of the subculture of poverty? Bloody hell people baisc sociology defeats that statement.
I personally see giving the Palestinians a state now as rewarding the terror tactics they have been using for years.
You don't reward bad behaviour in a child be giving it what it wants, you reward only good behaviour. I've not raised any children but I remember my own childhood and I didn't get what I wanted by screaming and begging and whining. I got it by being good as defined by my parents.
Well if your parents had beaten the shit out of you for years and then expected you to behave......You're ignoring half the issue.
What offer would have been "acceptable"?
How about a viable state? One without thousands of armoured Jewish settleents all the way though it? One not seperated into sections by IDF blockades? One inclusing part of jerusulem mabye?
As I recall, Palestinian statehood was offered long ago. And rejected. The possibility has been raised more than once since the 1967 war and summarily rejected each time, at least once by Arafat himself.
Aiaia, read above, the offers have been little more than cruel jokes. DO some research into these offers.
Originally posted by jaguar
Aiaia, read above, the offers have been little more than cruel jokes. DO some research into these offers.
The original UN partition in 1947 was no joke: Palestine, Israel, and Jerusalem as an international city. The Israelis accepted, the Palestinians rejected it.
1947 plan may seem fair in todays terms but in terms of 1947 it was not. 55% of the land given to 30% of it's inhabitants, many of whom were recent immigrants.
The following link although from a clearly biased site, does present a good overview of why the 1947 RECOMMENDATIONS were rejected.
http://www.iap.org/partition.htmThe source obviously ignores the context of the time:
- The land the Brits historically owned and was considered Palestine included a MUCH larger chunk of what is now Jordan than what is now Israel. In 1923 they restricted Jewish immigration to west of the Jordan river, allotting 75% of that area specifically to Palestinian Arabs. (Why don't the Palestinians have a beef with Jordan? Duh.)
- The Jewish people suddenly had a rather compelling reason to start moving there in bigger numbers; unfortunately, their numbers had sorta, um, dwindled in the decade previous.
- The raw amount of land was not really all that important at the time. The land changed hands repeatedly at the whims of the politics of the time. In 1947 most of the land was worthless. In 1948 the surrounding nations decided it suddenly had massive value since a ton of people they hated lived on it. Today it has much more value since it was developed by a major free economy.
Here's a
copy of UN General Resolution 181, along with a
UN partition map. Although Israel got the larger of the two parts, one
site claims that 75% of Israel's land was desert. I wonder if the UN was thinking ahead of the possibility of mass migrations in giving the Israelis more land.
Originally posted by jaguar
Am i the only one that remembers Hamas agreeing to a ceasefire? Or for that matter the fundamentals of the theory of the subculture of poverty? Bloody hell people baisc sociology defeats that statement.
Indeed. Jaguar asks the right question. The answer puts Sharon, Intafada 2, and Arafat in proper perspective:
from The Economist of 15 Jun 2002
The Palestinian perpetrators are young, nurtured on the hopes of the Oslo peace process but now consumed by an enormous sense of betrayal. Their actions are buttressed by a radicalised national culture that increasingly views all violence against the occupying power as heroic and legitimate. Militant factions are gaining in public esteem, at the expense of the Palestinian Authority and its security forces.
This shift in power precedes the April invasions. Back in December, Mr Arafat persuaded the factions, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, to agree to a ceasefire. For three weeks, armed attacks in the occupied territories were reduced to a trickle, and suicide bombing inside Israel was stopped altogether. But Israel continued its armed incursions into Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank and Gaza. More than 20 Palestinians were killed during this period, including a Palestinian militant who was assassinated in Tulkarm. The relative quiet came to an end when Hamas guerrillas killed four Israeli soldiers, in revenge for the death of three teenagers in Gaza, and Israel responded by destroying 66 refugee houses in Rafah.
From then on, the factions began to see a ceasefire as about as germane to their cause as Mr Bush's “vision” of a Palestinian state. And the suicide bombers started to be dispatched not only by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but also by Mr Arafat's own Fatah movement and its new, radical offshoot, the al-Aqsa Brigades.
Can Mr Arafat once again tame his vengeful young? He might be able to do so, but on three conditions. Elections that reflect the new power that has emerged on the street, tangible relief from the Israeli sieges and incursions, and a political process that takes steps toward ending Israel's 35-year military occupation.
Ariel Sharon understands this. Therefore Sharon must encourage anything that can justify more sieges and incursions. It is why Sharon accelerated the confiscation of Arab lands. He acclerates the establishment of new West Bank and Gaza settlements - to make a peaceful settlement impossible. He loves how those suicide bombers and Israel's extremist responses make it easier for him to destroy Oslo and settle the occupied territories. Everything Sharon does, including the murder of Palestinian teenagers, including direct lying into George Jr's face, all has only one objective: to confiscate, to steal the occupied territories and inhabit it with Likud settlers.
Today another right wing extremist Israeli actually slipped and told what they really want. He said, "The West Bank belongs to the Jews". Wait. Did he mean Israelis? No. Israel is one of the worlds most racist nations. Even non-Jewish Israelis have few rights. Non-Israelis have the right to have any land confiscated. That is morality according to Religious Right Extremists Jews.
Today another right wing extremist Israeli actually slipped and told what they really want. He said, "The West Bank belongs to the Jews". Wait. Did he mean Israelis? No. Israel is one of the worlds most racist nations. Even non-Jewish Israelis have few rights. Non-Israelis have the right to have any land confiscated. That is morality according to Religious Right Extremists Jews.
It must really irritate you to learn that there are Arabs freely elected to the government of Israel.
I wonder, how many Jews in elected positions in any Arabic country? Oh that's right, the very concept that you say is the RRE concern with controlling people, is the central philosophy in every single country surrounding Israel.
I wonder, would the Palestinian people have <i>more</i> rights if they had a state -- or <i>fewer</i>? Is that relevant at all?
Or is your question anything more than a diversion tactic?
I mean christ, another day, another bomber, now they plan to move the IDF permanatly into the West Bank, does anyone here honestly think this is actually going to solve it? Ludiks utterly stupid policies are so backward its not funny, thier myopic beligerant chest-punding bullshit is only killing their own people, fact. History and sociological theory prove it. If someone randomly rounded up my dad and my older brothers for doing absolutely nothign and incacerated them for weeks while applying interrogation techniques i'd start throwing stones too, if they killed members of my family and destroyed my house calously while looking for terrorists i'd be damn temped to take up arms, hell, i know i would and anyone who can honestly tell me they'd take it all clamly i'd be inclined to beleive should take a long hard look at themsleves and their quality of living.
That's some very impressive bluster.
And tell me, when you take up these arms, would you kill....
...a little five year old, taking the bus with her grandma?
Her name was Gal Aizenman. Two days ago.
and i assume FOX told you the bomber was specifically targeting her. Nice emotional plea, try factual arguement.
It's all about moral equivalency, dood. It's the whole point.
The settlers who were killed yesterday included three children. Targetted? You bet: with rifles, shot at close range.
Would THEY be your target? Would you run into the house, see three children in one room, run to that room, target their faces and pull the trigger?
Well, now you have to. Because you're trying to understand the Palestinian reaction by empathizing with them. If you don't go all the way, you haven't understood it at all, have you?
So this is important: what kind of injustice, inflicted on you, would make you pull the trigger on those kids?
You're misinterpreting.
a: What if it had been your kid who had been killed by the IDF? Any plea to metion can be twisted both ways, forget it.
I agree, the attacks were/are barbaric, they are atroctious, they are a symptom of a very sick society, there is no question about that but the question is WHY and the answer is simple. You push people had enough and this is what happens, rationality goes out the door, extremism rules and this is what has happened as the result of half a centuary of UltraZionist persecution. UNtil the popel there are given a reasonable, safe furutre with human dignity and safty nothing will change, more on both sides will continue to die.
As a bit of an aside I found
this interview with a Israeli participant in the Jenin incident.
Seems that half Jenin was demolished by a drunk Israeli football fan in a
D-9 bulldozer who wanted to make a stadium in the middle of the camp!?!
You keep on failing to answer the question.
I'll be optimistic about you and guess that it's because you can't answer the question without conceding the point. Of course there's a massive difference between killing children by point-blank rifle and by accident in military incursions.
Now because you seem to be concerned with the historical inevitability of it all, can you point to another case where this particular brand of terrorism was used by an occupied people? By anyone whose rights would be denied?
No. There's a subtext to the kid throwing the rock at the tank that I didn't understand before, and that is that the kid won't be there unless he knows for sure that he's not gonna get a mortar through the chest for his efforts.
The cultural disconnect, I think, is that the Palestinians see mercy and/or lack of ruthlessness as a weakness.
Do you?
Originally posted by Undertoad
Of course there's a massive difference between killing children by point-blank rifle and by accident in military incursions.
Hmmm... maybe we should ask the dead kids? There is a difference between intentionally shooting kids and kids being killed "accidentally"when you only meant to bulldoze their home and kill their parents, but its not massive. State sanctioned or not violence is the problem not the solution.
David Grossman writes this insightful piece:
Six months ago the journal Nature published a study about a dangerous mechanism in the human visual system. The study sought to explain why the brain sometimes refuses to see what the eyes convey to it. The scientists, from Israel's Weizmann Institute, suggested that the explanation for this phenomenon is that the brain is flooded with a multitude of interpretations of every reality it faces and that it must, in the end, decide in favour of one of them and act accordingly. The fascinating part of this explanation is the hypothesis that, from the moment the brain decides in favour of a given interpretation of the images it is receiving, all stimuli that support any other interpretation simply "disappear". The brain, as it were, refuses to relate to them.
In the impossible relationship between Israel and the Palestinians, both sides have for years suffered from almost complete blindness to reality's complexity. Each is certain that the other side is ceaselessly deceiving it; that the other side does not want peace at all; that any compromise move by the other side is camouflage for an intrigue designed to bring the other side's victory and the elimination of its own existence.
There's no need for scientific research to understand how easy it is to paint reality this way.
Originally posted by Undertoad
Her name was Gal Aizenman. Two days ago.
Lets put her in perspective. These children are the victims of Ariel Sharon. Anyone else who were also involved were just the little people. To Ariel Sharon, these children are collateral damage.
Emotion, properly directed, always points to the dichead as the reason for all those deaths. She is unimportant. Annexing the occupied territories is important. Collateral damage. Victims of a campaign to subvert the Oslo Accords. Ariel Sharon has no problem massacreing 5,000 women and children. Do you think he has any guilt about this girl's death?
Nic, whaddya think Grossman would say about tw?
Friday June 21, 2002 12:20 PM
NABLUS, West Bank (AP) - An exchange of gunfire in the northern West Bank town of Jenin killed four Palestinians, three of them children, Palestinian hospital officials said. Twenty other Palestinians were wounded.
Israel's army did not immediately comment on the shooting, which Palestinian security officials said occurred during a break in the curfew imposed by Israeli forces.
The dead were Ahmed Ghazawi, about 6; his 12-year-old brother Jamil; a 6-year-old girl, Sajedah Famahwi; and Helal Shetta, who is about 50, a doctor at the hospital said on condition of anonymity. At least 20 Palestinians were wounded, according to Palestinian officials.
Israeli troops moved into Jenin after 19 Israelis were killed in a suicide bombing in Jerusalem. The bombing prompted a major government policy shift to gradually reoccupy Palestinian land until terror attacks on Israeli civilians stop.
9 Palestinians killed
21jun02
JERUSALEM: Nine Palestinians were killed, including five children, as the Israeli army hunted down armed militants in the West Bank after a wave of deadly violence.
Today's outrageous violence updateIt's disturbing that the polemics of the middle east viloence are reflected here in the Cellar.
Personally, I sympathize with both the Israelis and the Palestinians.
Both are represented by elected leaders who are evil men. The coincidence of them being in power at the same time is a plague upon their nations and the region.
I fear that many more innocents will die at their hands before the people choose for themselves a better representation.
Unfortunately, they have found in each other a justification for their own power, which they have successfully presented to their constituencies.
Israeli racism continues to murder innocent people. Shoppers in Jenin today were stocking up on bread and other foodstuffs in the market not knowing that a curfew was still in effect. Israeli soldiers decided to breakup the shoppings. A few bullets in the air? A warning on a bullhorn? Of course not. Two well directed TANK SHELLs at the shoppers. Oh, but they are only scum shit Palestinians. The dichead will see to it that this and so many other crimes against humanity are not enforced against the IDF. Firing tank shells at shoppers is acceptable? Of course when the objective is to drive them from the land. As for those emotional pictures, where is the one where IDF fires tank shells to disperse shoppers? Where are those pictures of war crimes by IDF in the previous invasion of Jenin? Where is the picture of Sharon laughing when told of another Palestinian death? That's OK. Sharon, like Hilter, was democratically elected. That makes him acceptable.
Place that little girl's picture next to one of a tank firing shells at shoppers. Where are the pictures of three Palestinian children killed only because they were shoppoing? Both murders directly traceable to one person - top management - the mass murder Sharon. Everyone else is irrelevant. Sharon does everything he can to continue the violence since that empowers his position. Sharon murdered that little girl.
Each is blaming the other for all the violence.
Both are responsible for all the violence.
I agree with tw that this latest tank fire is unforgiveable.
Originally posted by Nic Name
Each is blaming the other for all the violence.
Both are responsible for all the violence.
Two Palastinians wake up earlly and hit the street. After wiping the sleep from their eyes, one turns to the other and says...
"Hey Akhmed, what should we do today?"
"Hmmm, I dont know...."
"I know....Lets go throw rocks at the Isrealies!"
"By allah, thats the best idea I've heard all day!"
Of course this satire might not be considered funny, I know that this is a serious situation, and I'm angered by the continuous suicide bombings, and then the Isrealies having to retailiate by killing more palastinians.....But enough is enough....
Originally posted by thebecoming
Two Palastinians wake up earlly and hit the street. After wiping the sleep from their eyes, one turns to the other and says...
"Hey Akhmed, what should we do today?"
"Hmmm, I dont know...."
"I know....Lets go throw rocks at the Isrealies!"
"By allah, thats the best idea I've heard all day!"
Flamebait anyone?
Of course this satire might not be considered funny, I know that this is a serious situation, and I'm angered by the continuous suicide bombings, and then the Isrealies having to retailiate by killing more palastinians.....But enough is enough....
I fail to see the logic, why should one side have free reign while the other is regarded as monsters. Both sides have done some pretty horrible things to each other. I think the way to go is get both Arafat and Sharon REAL liquored up, I know Arafat's muslim so this might be a problem but there's always ruffies. Once they are all wasted and happy, take pictures of them hugging and laughing and then when they sober up tell them if they don't knock this off, we're going to send the pictures to their most extreme supporters... Blackmail may be the answer here...
Hello.
I was just wondering, tw, where is your source for tank firing into shoppers? I don't doubt that it happened, but I'd like to read the source for that. Silly habit of mine, I know, but... could you dig up a link for me?
Thanks in advance.
Seer (was Lazarus Squared back when cellar was a waffle board, and he ran "Time Enough For Love BBS" another waffle board.) Snively
tw -
If you could also dig up a link for your source that shows how Sharon forced Palestinian extremists to kill some children, that'd be great too.
In other words, though I don't doubt that Sharon is a dichead (sic), I'd like to see proof that he is <b>directly responsible</b> for the latest suicide attacks, both on the settlements and on the buses.
its so much easier to rant on without posting links or any corroborating evidence. ah, but i digress.
Here's a little inflammatory reading for tw. And yes, before you ask, the author's jewish, so of
course it's full of lies and deceit. but you never know, there might be something that catches your eye.
or maybe not.
The Real NazisOriginally posted by dhamsaic
If you could also dig up a link for your source that shows how Sharon forced Palestinian extremists to kill some children, that'd be great too.
The Intafada II and all resulting deaths are directly traceable to Sharon who wanted this instability. Sharon's program has been glaringly obvious starting with his intentional, well publicized, and well staffed desecration of Temple Mount. Every act he has performed has been to annex the occupied territories. Every act in response to any violence has been only to enflame the violence. But then I have posted this in detail in how many posts?
Hamas sends in a suicide bomber. Who does Sharon blame? Palestinian policemen. He attacks police stations with American Cobra helicopters. Why? Easier for suicide bombers to continue. He attacks the Palestinian census bureau. Why? More Palestinian infastructure that could be used to stop suicide bombers. He encouraged attacks on Arab civilians including some that were elected to the Knesset. When anyone else takes responsibility for a bombing, who does Sharon blame? Arafat. Why? Best way to create instability and even incite civilian racism.
Sharon provides no facts connecting Arafat to the bombing. For all his hype and bluster, the one detail missing have always been facts. The American ambassador to Israel for Carter and Reagan noted on a PBS radio interview that Arafat had little ability to stop the bombers and even less so today. This man (name forgotten) is considered one of this countries best experts on the Middle East.
Bombers are in direct response to Sharon's intentional confiscation of land, murder of civilians, and daily attacks on the Palestine people. Simply view above for the latest quote from The Economist. Sharon has made bombing necessary just as King George in 1770s made the American revolution necessary. The facts have been provided previously in spades. Intafada 2 was created by Ariel Sharon - as clearly posted previously.
Was Hilter responsible for the deaths of so many Europeans in WWII - or were Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin equally guilty. Same applied to Sharon - a man, ironically with objectives similar to Hitler's. No matter who pulls the trigger, these are the policies, objectives, and desires of Ariel Sharon. He wants the West Bank. No one can name a single death he really morns since deaths to this man are only collateral damage in a military campaign. His objectives are not even disputable. He advocates and covets the occupied territories knowing full well he does so in direct violation of international law. Even crimes against humanity by his army, now so routine, are never punished. To Sharon, if he is Arab, then he deserves to die. We know from history that this is how Sharon thinks.
All deaths in Intafada 2 are directly traceable to the man who started the violence. There was virtually no violence until Sharon rekindled Intafada 2. Only the naive would say that Sharon did not know his campfire would burn down the woods. All deaths have one man in common - Sharon who intentionally incited Intafada II to destroy Oslo and to reconquer the occupied territories.
One would have to be a mental midget to not see why children are being killed. Sharon has obtained the violence he advocated. Children's deaths are irrelevant to the critical mission of confiscating occupied territories.
If Sharon wanted peace, then he would ban all West Bank and Gaza settlements. Instead he accelerates their numbers. That program alone intentionally means more suicide bombings.
Scred, I'm not so sure about that guy you linked to. His last few sentences are extremely questionable. He says things like this:
"No, what makes you Nazi-like is the worship of power, particularly the power to murder, especially when you don't have it. You don't have to commit genocide to be a Nazi; you just have to want to commit genocide." That sounds like Tank Shells in the Marketplace to me. What about this: "They're the ones who see and hear about the things going on in the Middle East every day, but continue to hide behind silly libels against America and phrases like "Israeli oppression.""
So, to him, there is no such thing as Israeli Oppression. He even puts Occupied Territories in scare-quotes, as if they aren't occupied.
Personally, from all I've read, it sounds to be that there are some MAJOR people in power in Israel that don't believe that Palestinians have the right to live there at all. Statements like "The West Bank belongs to the Jews" and such make me believe that it's not just the Palestinians who are aiming to completely distroy the other... it's just that Israel has American weapons and money backing them.
--------------------
Something else I've noticed: Right Wingers don't need facts. If they say something enough, it must be true. I'm sure there are some Left Wingers who are the same way, it's just that the host of that CNN show (hell, even PBS's New Hour, a show I like!) doesn't let it slip on by.
Ever notice that? I'll come back with a good example next time I hear one.. shouldn't be too long. :-)
Share the day,
Seer (former Philly boy)
I wanted to think about my response to the latest bombing for a couple days before posting...just to give it some serious thought and clarity.
I read a bit of Cactus48 the other day...interesting site.
I find myself growing apathetic towards the conflict. I would probably not feel this way if I had more of a personal stake in this (a friend who is a diehard Israeli/Jew or Palestinian). Maybe it's because I watch and read too much news, but I find myself getting desensitized to it all. At this point, I entertain two main streams of thought:
1--Let the Israelis and Palestinians kill each other off...the US can stay out of it.
2--The US should invade Israel and Palestine, beat down both sides, and claim the land as a new colony.
Many of you might be familiar with Congressmen Dick Armey (the House Majority Leader) and Tom DeLay (the House Majority Whip). They're both Republicans from Texas. (I'm putting in the last part for background only. To give an idea of where they MIGHT stand.)
The last time each has been on Hardball, I have been amazed by what has come out of their mouths. Wednesday, DeLay said that there is no need for a Palestinian state, that Palestinians should join Israel.
A few weeks ago, Armey was saying that the West Bank and Gaza are Israel's, and not for the Palestinians...I believe he was advocating a Palestinian state somewhere else on the Arabian Peninsula.
I don't doubt that part of it was soundbiting, but these guys genuinely seem to believe what they are saying.
Although Israel has a 20% or so Arab population, there is no way that the Palestinians would join the State of Israel...not after all the fighting that has been done.
As far as a homeland somewhere else, that won't happen either. Both peoples have been on the land for ages.
How much faith can really be put into Arafat in the end? He's not really a "leader" per se; he's more of a spokesperson a la MLK or Gandhi.
I've been moving away from the "desperation" argument of the suicide bombers. It seems that these bombers simply want to hurt people, and they don't care who (well, they want to hurt Israelis, but no one in particular). The father of Wednesday's (the first one) bomber was like, "He's (the son) a martyr. We can only hope that God will take care of him" (or something along those lines).
As I understand modern warfare, great pains are taken to avoid innocent civilians...you attack military targets. And while the suicide bombers do this on occasion, it's been civilians recently. There is simply no justification for going on buses or into clubs and injuring and killing people. Period.
Perhaps the Palestinian extremists have not heard of, or don't care for, the principles of nonviolence. Maybe they could care less about MLK or Gandhi. At the rate things are going, the Palestinians will never achieve independence...because IMO, they're going about it the wrong way. I would say that the Palestinians have been treated unfairly by Israel, and I'm sure that Israeli soldiers have killed innocent Palestinian civilians. But you can't fight fire with fire.
Arafat could be the great statesman of our time. He could get on television and make grand speeches about his vision of a Palestinian state. He could speak of not "stooping down" to the level of the Israelis. He could speak of Israelis and Palestinians living together side by side in peace...they could hold marches with both peoples walking side by side, hand in hand down the main street in Tel Aviv. He could use a great quote like this, and make it his own:
"We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone."--MLK
I'll be the first to admit that I am a ridiculous optimist and idealist. But we already know that when both sides are peaceable, progress can be achieved (Oslo). Although there are years of anger and hatred between them, I honestly believe that if both sides sit down, talk honestly, focus on commonalities, treat each other as equals, and keep the lines of communication open, we could see two states side-by-side living in peace. They don't have to like each other, but they should be able to respect each other's right to be where they are.
I'll be the first to admit that I am a ridiculous optimist and idealist. But we already know that when both sides are peaceable, progress can be achieved (Oslo). Although there are years of anger and hatred between them, I honestly believe that if both sides sit down, talk honestly, focus on commonalities, treat each other as equals, and keep the lines of communication open, we could see two states side-by-side living in peace. They don't have to like each other, but they should be able to respect each other's right to be where they are.
If you're talking about Arafat and Sharon ... I'll be the second to admit that you're a ridiculous optimist and idealist. ;)
Originally posted by Nic Name
If you're talking about Arafat and Sharon ... I'll be the second to admit that you're a ridiculous optimist and idealist. ;)
Thats why you have to get them wasted first...
Originally posted by spinningfetus
Thats why you have to get them wasted first...
Some of you might remember the Sharon-Arafat boxing
match.
You're trying ot tell me i can't argue without conceding the point? *sighs*
The cultural disconnect, I think, is that the Palestinians see mercy and/or lack of ruthlessness as a weakness.
Anotehr cultural context where people ahve been denied thier right and resorted to armed struggle? No others? LOL. Hmmm letsee Northern Ireland, Vietnam (Franch), Kashmir, Chechnya, do i need to go on? There is nothign ewn about it, nothign new about killing civvies, nothing new about killing kids, nothing unique, nothing any more or less barbaric either.
There's a subtext to the kid throwing the rock at the tank that I didn't understand before, and that is that the kid won't be there unless he knows for sure that he's not gonna get a mortar through the chest for his efforts.
Bullshit. Tons of kids have been shot protesting by the IDF, its not uncommon. They simply don't care - they have nothing else to live for. Tahts the bit you don't seem to be able to get.
"Don't seem to be able to get" are words that do not flatter you. I encourage you not to use them, or words like them; that sort of approach will not serve you well.
This whole idea of desperation is debunked tonight by
USS Clueless. The critical point:
We shouldn't think of our enemies as mindless animals, but we can't assume that they're motivated by the same things that we are. It's important to understand just how much different their culture is from ours, so as to understand how they will interpret our actions entirely differently than how we intend them to be interpreted.
How different is that culture? I keep pointing it out. You keep trying to find the similarities. "If *I* were treated that way, I'd go violent too!" But when pressed with the complete act -- killing the five-year-old -- you stop. You won't go there. You won't even think about it and surely you won't discuss it.
That's how different the cultures are. One of the bombers last week was a 22-year-old graduate student in a well-off family. He was not desperate. He had everything to live for. But his motivation was in his afterlife; in a religious fervor, he truly believed that his act was sacred, and that the more people he killed, the more awesome would be his reward from his god.
One thing that should strike you is that his position is not really negotiable. "Ahmed, what concessions can Israel give to convince you not to continue your violence?" "They can sacrifice several hundred Jews to Allah in my name." "What, no land or charitable contributions??"
It's important to understand just how much different their culture is from ours, so as to understand how they will interpret our actions entirely differently than how we intend them to be interpreted.
How different is that culture? I keep pointing it out. You keep trying to find the similarities.
There may be differences in culture between Americans and Aussies, too, which might account, in part, for the different interpretations of the debaters.
Ok i have played this out out badly, sorry i haven't had the time to really write anythign decent, the last week i've spent of a 3000 word paper on power relationships between North/South korea and external influences.
Ok lets start over.
Yea there is something rather fucked up about killing 5y.os and no, i cannot understand the mentality, but i can take a fair shot at the logic.
Terrorism like that works on exactly that, terror.'Tactics liek killing random members of the public, or families when peoples backs are turned are remarkably effective. Im not prone to being angry enough to kill kids, but couple decades of indocternated hatred of someone who is runing your life, mix in a little relgious fevour that feeds so easily on repressed people and man, i can see where they are coming from. See what i mean? Of course i can't directly identify, but i can understand the mentality and what causes it and more importantly how fundamentally it is the result of Isreali actions.
Originally posted by jaguar
Of course i can't directly identify, but i can understand the mentality and what causes it and more importantly how fundamentally it is the result of Isreali actions.
Or, perhaps, Israeli actions are the result of Palestinian extremists' actions.
That's why we can argue this all day. Neither side is willing to accept any blame. Couple that with the fact that Arafat will not <b>lead</b> his people to where they want to be... situation normal: all fucked up.
Couple that with the fact that Arafat will not lead his people to where they want to be... situation normal: all fucked up.
Couple that with the fact that Sharon will not lead his people to where they want to be ...
Well at this point, Jag, you'll have to go over to today's thread in Image of the Day because the topics merged and I put some thoughts in replying to Yelof there. Sorry.
Originally posted by Nic Name
Couple that with the fact that Sharon will not lead his people to where they want to be ...
Sharon will be gone soon enough. He is hardly the biggest problem in this mess. He is big, no doubt. But he does not have the longevity of Arafat.
Imagine how much different the middle east would be if Arafat would crack down on militants and lead peaceful, non-violent protests of Israeli occupation. Put Gandhi in as the leader of the Palestinians and see how different it is. Arafat sits back and spews rhetoric, interspersed with the occasional condemnation of suicide bombing which he does hardly anything to stop. There is a world of difference between saying and doing. There is a world of difference between sitting at the top and leading.
Originally posted by dhamsaic
Sharon will be gone soon enough. He is hardly the biggest problem in this mess. He is big, no doubt. But he does not have the longevity of Arafat.
Ummm Sharon has been leading zionist groups since the forties and fifties, how much more longevity do you want?
He's been the recognized head of the Israeli government for how long?
One doesn't need to be the head of the government to be influential, and he has been in and out of government positions for at least the last twenty years. A real difference between Sharon and Arafat: One has won the Nobel peace prize and the other is being tried in the Hague for war crimes...
Last thirty years, no doubt. And that's not counting his military time, which goes back to the late 40's. That doesn't mean that he's been the head honcho in Israel. Arafat has headed Fatah since the late 50's and has been on top of the PLO since 1969.
If you could point me to information on Sharon's war crimes trial in the Hague, I'd be greatly appreciative. How's that trial progressing?
Here's another real difference between Sharon and Arafat: Sharon enforces previously agreed-to terms for peace by taking steps to eliminate terrorists while Arafat spits venom about Israel and pseudo condemnations of terror attacks.
Originally posted by spinningfetus
One doesn't need to be the head of the government to be influential, and he has been in and out of government positions for at least the last twenty years. A real difference between Sharon and Arafat: One has won the Nobel peace prize and the other is being tried in the Hague for war crimes...
Arafat winning the Nobel prize is the single most embarrassing retrospective moment for the Nobel endowment. But nice try. It's not like he ever led a terrorist organization called the P.L.O. which conducted terrorist operations against Jordan and Israel, is it?
As for your pointing out that Sharon is a bad man because he is being
tried in the Hagues, since when are people guilty
before being convicted? And lastly, who the hell are the Netherlands to try Sharon? Can anyone try whomever they feel like, despite country borders? Cool. I think I'll try the king of Saudia Arabia for jaywalking. The hearing will be held in my apartment. See you there.
since when are people guilty before being convicted?
9/11
Originally posted by jaxomlotus
And lastly, who the hell are the Netherlands to try Sharon? Can anyone try whomever they feel like, despite country borders?
It may not be news to anyone else here, but we might as well clarify that The International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has its seat in The Hague, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htm
Details of the case against Sharon can be discovered at:
http://www.indictsharon.net/Originally posted by jaxomlotus
And lastly, who the hell are the Netherlands to try Sharon? Can anyone try whomever they feel like, despite country borders? Cool. I think I'll try the king of Saudia Arabia for jaywalking. The hearing will be held in my apartment. See you there.
Actually, the trial is being conducted in a Belgian court, under a "1993 Belgian law, allowing Belgian courts to prosecute foreigners for human rights abuses committed abroad." (BBC) It appears to be similar to what Spain tried to do with Pinochet.
This is the most recent article I can find about it, from October, from the
BBC.
Sure as shit doesn't look like a <b>trial</b> is going on. Looks like they've had some <b>hearings</b>. Which is hardly news.
More links to information about his <b>trial</b>? Has he been indicted? I think that needs to happen before a trial occurs.
Originally posted by Nic Name
It may not be news to anyone else here, but we might as well clarify that The International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has its seat in The Hague, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
From the ICJ website:
"Only States may apply to and appear before the Court. The States Members of the United Nations (at present numbering 189), and one State which is not a Member of the United Nations but which has become party to the Court's Statute (Switzerland), are so entitled."
Written by Ellen Siegel, who was there:
Nineteen years ago I volunteered to go to Beirut to work as a nurse. I wanted to use my profession to help the Lebanese and Palestinians who had been wounded in Israel's invasion of Lebanon. As a Jew I wanted to show that not all Jews supported this action. So it was that during the September 1982 massacre in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, I was there, working in a hospital in Sabra. Afterwards, I went to Israel to testify before the official commission of inquiry whose task was to "investigate all the facts connected with the atrocity."
...
In the long run, one hopes that nations and leaders will become accountable for human-rights abuses. Violations must be documented, and violators must be punished. Justice must be done for all.
Posted by Sycamore in IOTD but I think we should pull the discussion back to this part of The Cellar
You guys are a microcosm of sorts.
We have a few people that seem to be pro-Israeli, from the US. We have a New Zealander, an Australian, and a Brazilian that seem to be pro-Palestinian. (And my apologies to all if I am mistaking your views here).
But this seems to be the case in the world as a whole. The US are staunch supporters of the State of Israel, while most of the world seems to favor the Palestinians.
So...what are we not connecting on here? Are we just seeing it through different eyes? Are we affected by our media sources (on both sides)? To me, it just seems that there is more to it than our own personal statements (even if loaded with facts).
Bravo Sycamore, I was thinking myself that we ought to try to move to a meta discussion on this topic, as the topic when it rears its ugly head on occasion gets nowhere, I personally have intended to quit the discussion but I then see something posted by a participant with an opposing view and think "that can't go unchallenged", But it is as you noted perhaps interesting if we try to see how it is we have ended up in these two camps seeing as as far as I can tell no Israeli or Palestinian is posting to the boards.
I guess I am a member of the Pro-Palestinian camp, although I think I have to point out that that doesn't mean I support the terrorist actions of Palestinian extremists, in fact I don't think I have seen anyone post support of those tactics, just perhaps comprehension of how such a pointless and inhumane tactic has been chosen, to go partisan for a minute, I have on the other hand seen a fair bit of support for the current oppressive tactics of the Israeli state by the other camp.
I see the position of the Pro-Palestinian camp as being that an injustice was and is being wroth on the Palestinian People and that until a just peace offer is put on the table by Israel and the Palestinian People are offered something that gives then a stake in the future, until that time there will not be Peace in the region. Generally the Pro-Palestinian camp will see current Israeli tactics as an attempt to drown any hope of negotiated settlement in cries of "security first!" despite the likelihood that prolonged frustration will just increase those willing to do anything to destroy Israel, the purpose of this exercise in frustration is to allow settlers to create a reality of an Israeli West Bank.
Ok I have stated, perhaps overstated, my position, who am I and is that determining why I have this opinion?
I am Irish, I live in Portugal, I work (telecommute) in the UK, I guess I should be described as a European. In Portugal and Ireland most people would share similar opinions to mine, most people in the UK, although the Prime Ministers wife Cherie Booth got into trouble politically the other day for saying that the suicide boomers where desperate people, so I guess, as in quite a few other matters, quite a few people in the UK must share an opinion closer to the US than Europe on this issue.
The media in Europe is more likely to report from a Palestinian perspective, but recently I have not been getting most of my information that way. My own opinion on this matter has wavered in the last ten years, as a teenager I saw myself as a political radical, I bet others just saw me as somebody who needed a bath, so clearly I was in the Palestinian camp, however perhaps as a reaction to my father’s mild to annoying anti Semitism, he can't see anyone with even slightly Semitic features come on the TV without giving a "damn Jewboy!" comment..this can be amusing sometimes as it can illustrate just how out of it he is..I saw him stare and stare at the subject of a TV interview the other day until finally he comes out with his revelation "I think Woody Allen is Jewish!", anyway to piss the old man off I went to spend a summer on a Kibbutz and I guess a lot of my resistance to Israel melted away there, from day to day you saw few Arabs, you mixed with Israelis who seemed kind of cool. I guess I left there thinking Israel has a right to defend herself, I guess I'd have found myself comfortable in undertoad's camp if not dhamsaic's. So how did I make the switch again? I think it is the Internet and my love of history, perhaps it is also the media, I tend if I see a thought provoking TV report or online news report (news.bbc.co.uk mostly) I tend to follow it through google, and I think as I began to appreciate the history of the situation I began to see more that an injustice had been done, So that is how I have the opinion I have. I'd be interested to hear how people arrived at their opinions, perhaps more so then the opinions, let us be honest here not a lot of minds or hearts are being changed here.
Good post Yelof. :)
For the record, let me clarify that original post. Rather than say that people are pro-whatever, I think it more appropriate to say that folks may have pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian views. It may sound silly, but to me, there's a difference.
I don't have a personal stake in this dispute. My people aren't from the middle-east. I'm neither Jewish nor Islamic. I've never been to the middle-east, so I can't speak from personal experience, but then again, my viewpoint isn't colored by indoctrination or indigenous perspectives.
As a Canadian, I suppose it's understood that we're peacekeepers not warmongers, if you can take anything from the stereotype. I'm so peaceable, in fact, I find myself spelling colored incorrectly, just to get along with the Americans in the Cellar.
As shown in the political compass, I'm really liberal ... by many Amercian standards ... anti-death penalty, pro gun control, pro choice, free medicare, free love, free speech, agnostic raised in a white, english speaking non-smoking Roman Catholic tradition. I don't care what religion my children profess if any, so I really don't care who else is Jewish, Muslim, Christian or otherwise. I'm very familiar with the law, having done a long stretch of hard time, in university, not in prison. I care about justice, but I don't confuse the concept with revenge, which I'm not inclined toward. I'm a pro-gay rights heterosexual, married man with four kids from two wives, but I'm not a bigamist, although it doesn't bother me at all that some Mormons and Arabs are.
I've always viewed Arafat as a terrorist. Here in the Cellar, one of my early posts was that IotD showing him with the V for victory sign and the tongue in cheek title "Peace Man" since he had the appearance of a "hippie" even though I knew well his salute meant victory in the Winston Churchill sense and that he is a terrorist, even though he is an elected representative of his people.
I'm against terrorism in all it's manifestations. I don't like any governments who view their own or their friends' terrorists as militants. I'm in favor of an apolitical, non-religious definition of terrorism.
Government sanctioned atrocities and genocide is also a crime against humanity in my viewpoint. It is not an antidote to terrorism.
As I've said in other threads, I think that the removal of both Arafat and Sharon from power is the necessary first step toward peace in the middle east. With the imbalance of power, political and military, in the region, I expect that the IDF will "accidentally" kill Arafat with a tank shell while he's sitting on his toilet in his compound. With Arafat gone, Sharon will lose the next election as the US will back a more moderate peacemaker to accept the 1967 borders and a withdrawal from the settlements in the West Bank.
Originally posted by dhamsaic
Sure as shit doesn't look like a trial is going on. Looks like they've had some hearings. Which is hardly news.
My apologies for using the word "trial," as it is certainly not yet a trial. The case in Belgium is the only one I have found against Sharon.
This is the most recent update I can find on that, from May.
Originally posted by jaxomlotus
And lastly, who the hell are the Netherlands to try Sharon? Can anyone try whomever they feel like, despite country borders? Cool. I think I'll try the king of Saudia Arabia for jaywalking. The hearing will be held in my apartment. See you there.
I'm not sure if you (or anyone else) is familiar with it at all, but in any case,
here is the setup for the Yugoslavia tribunal, which may give you an idea as to how an international tribunal works. I don't think the tribunals have to be held in a certain place (as the Rwanda one is being held in Rwanda and Tanzania), though I would suspect The Hague is being used as it is the home of the ICJ. If (and that's a big IF of course) Sharon is ever charged with war crimes, a tribunal would probably be set up in a similar manner. (Though I personally don't think Sharon will ever face one.)
Originally posted by Yelof
But it is as you noted perhaps interesting if we try to see how it is we have ended up in these two camps seeing as as far as I can tell no Israeli or Palestinian is posting to the boards.
I think alot more interesting the more it sits on my brain. Looking at the way the discussions have played out as well as my discussions with so many people since sept. 11 I would be considered having a pro-Palestinian view which sounds wierd to me considering I have more friends with ties to Israel than to Palestine (direct connections not sharing a religion, a BIG difference imo. And for a long time I thought more along the traditional American backing of Israel's actions. Then I learned some history of the region. My personal feeling is the real blame should be placed on the UK for most of the killing that has taken place there, as in many other places in the world.
I started to put myself in the shoes of both sides and ya know, they both suck BUT it sucks a whole lot worse on the Palestinian side in my eyes. Now, I have backgrounds in a lot of areas but most of my recent study has been of the the mind/brain. Now, the phenomenon of conditioning is something that has been around for about a century, this is what the bahaviorist school of thought used to "prove" its arguements for fifty years. There are more sophisticated models now that can account for it but back to what I was saying. Most of these suicide bombers are going to be about my age, which means that they were born into this stuggle twenty to twenty five years ago. So, this has been going on for twice as long as they have been alive. Why should they think its ever going to end? And then you have some manipulative bastards out there dangling that pie in the sky, heaven, all they have to do is die in the battle that they were born into, might even seem like fate. They talk about tv desensitizing kids to violence here in the states, imagine what it is like to see that happening to your family and friends for a lifetime, you either go numb or curl up and die. This numbness could manifest itself as simple indifference toward the events around you, or could be the beginnings of an indifference towards the acts of brutality themselves. Now, none of this is absolute but, it sets the stage for a certain percentage of the population to be highly suggestable to thoughts of carrying out a suicide bombing. Think about some of the easily led people you have come across in your life, do you think there are a couple of fanatics in the making there? Do you think that should one or two of them do something that would be abhorrent to you but completely out of your control to stop you should then be punished since you share a common city of origin? I don't want to be punished for the dumbasses I know thats for sure.
On the other side, an Israeli of my age has a leader who makes Newt Gingrich look like a bleeding heart, I sure as shit wouldn't be too happy about it. In fact, I would like to think that my values would prevent me from serving in the occupying forces even at the expense of my freedom, the same as I would hope that I wouldn't become a suicide bomber, either sceniaro looks disgusting to me. Was Arafat a terrorist at one time? No doubt. Do I think he's one now? I don't think so. I don't think Israel would have let him live this long if he was still active in the planning of such acts. Notice that all of the other planners are in hiding from Israeli assassins, while Arafat's moves are pretty clearly known most of the time. He's a sitting duck and he knows it. And the problem is, both sides could hit him whenever they want, so he also can't be too tough on the radicals that once helped him gain power. The problem is, those guys are armed to the teeth, while the PA's security forces have been demolished by the Israelis. What do you want him to do, go in and ask these guys to go to jail, pretty please with a cherry on top? So thats my logical analysis of the situation.
Emotionally, one of my very best friends (and ex-girlfriend) has half of her family over in Palestine, well, did. Many of them were from Jenin. I sat with her while her father told her over the phone, the situation after the occupation there. His family home, which he had been planning to retire to, after spending the last thirty years here to support his family over there, is gone. Many relatives jailed, wounded, or dead. And her voice flat and her eyes somewhere else as she told me this. Now, I can't figure out how they deserved this pain. Her aunt who lives with them is mute, because when she was young she fell down the stairs and knocked her teeth out and there wasn't a hospital to help her. I ask again, is this something she deserved? The problem is, neither side wants to be to first to give up and stop seeking retribution, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I dunno, I really wish a resolution could be seen on the horizon, but....
[Paragraph breaks added, don't know if they are in good spots but at last they're there]
Aaaaah!
spinningfetus - I haven't read your post yet... but I will. Tomorrow. When I'm more awake. And less prone to getting lost. I just have a question/request, but please don't take it offensively, because it's not at all meant to be...
Can you break up your posts into paragraphs or something? :)
They're generally pretty long and that's fine - I like reading long, well written posts. But man, when I lose my place in one, it takes me FOREVER to find it again. It's also just harder to read.
Anyway... That's a minor nitpick, because it doesn't at all affect how I view your opinions or whether or not I see any validity to your posts... but it's just easier to read if they're broken up a bit. Whaddya say to cutting us dorks here on the Cellar a bit of a break and using the Enter key a little more frequently? :)
I'm with dham, great stuff but big blocks are hard on my tired eyes (i'm reading 4-5 hours a day atm, eyes are killing me)
Put Gandhi in as the leader of the Palestinians and see how different it is
I wish.
ah well.
I agree the continental division of opinion is indeed very interesting, personally i'd put much of it down to media. Whetiher we like it or not we are influenced by what we watch, whether we view it objectively or not, becase we only hear the side that is played out, beace of school and interest i read a number of more specialist publications on foreign affairs which often help colour my viewpoint, mabye that has an impact too.
I appologise in advance but in the interest of living up to my quip:
yes, these were blantantly ripped of fark, but they made me laugh so hard, they had to be posted
thankyou
*ducks*
Up until 9/11, in my life, I had specifically decided that I wouldn't pay any attention to the middle east. This is a typical American perspective: foreign relations is hard and we feel it doesn't affect us. I figured the religious aspects made the whole thing despicable; I'm pretty non-religious. I figured I would never understand it, and you can't follow everything, so I took the easy way out.
After 9/11 I realized that skipping this particular topic was a huge mistake. I set out to try to understand it.
I was also driven by tw and adamzion, whose allegiance followed his name. Adam left the Cellar in a fit of pique after a solid month of arguing with tw. Their discussions helped me to realize that I had no perspective on it all, and that I really should.
BTW, for those who were around then, I had no respect for Adam for leaving like he did. If you don't agree with one other person it really is not a big deal. On the other hand Adam was often quite silly and very obviously biased. At the time I tended to side with tw.
My bias is set up by my sources, which are web logs and CNN. The web logs I read tend to lean neo-conservative and pro-Israel while CNN leans pro-Palestinian. My background thinking is small-l libertarian: pro-freedom, pro-civil rights, pro-human rights, anti-authoritarian.
I admit to huge gaps in my knowledge and understanding. When I make an obvious error, I urge anyone to bonk me over the head with more information.
undertoad?
How come I can't find the archived discussions between tw and adamzion?
Was it was before The Cellar ran on VBBulletin code and is thus unsearchable?
Yelof -
No, you can find them if you look hard enough. Probably the easiest way is to go to Adam's user page, which is here:
http://www.cellar.org/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=3
And then click the "Search for all posts by this user" link. Read the discussions that he was involved in.
They're mostly about a year old and were pretty intense discussions. We've also been continually beating this dead horse of a topic ever since. I can dig up links to the big threads if you like.
I too was pretty disappointed that Adam left, but I guess these things happen. I've certainly considered dropping the Cellar from time to time, but not seriously since the beginning of the year. It's too much a rewarding experience for me to give it up. I guess some others don't view it that way.
That is quite scary seeing the vintage of il/ps topic here at The Cellar.
I care about the topic but I wouldn't want to still be here in a years time going in circles.
So I wonder what makes the topic continue? Is it fresh blood like myself, or is the same old warriors?
Some of it's fresh blood, some of it is that the oldies can't leave it alone... some of it is that there's always something inflammatory going on there and it's difficult to leave it unanswered.
Another big part is that it produces a pretty fair number of good or thought-provoking images, and those tend to find their way to IotD.
You know, it can be tiring at times, but the conflict has, at the very least, helped myself and a few others become better writers and flesh out our opinions of the situation. Whereas tw and adamzion were mostly just involved in a lame fight (due mainly to, as Tony said before, Adam's obvious bias, coupled with tw's ability to tweak just about anyone's nerves), we've gotten some really good discussion going here on it. You have the occasional ad hominem attack or lame personal comment (jaguar posted one earlier against me), but other than that, it's fairly civil and intelligent discussion.
Events happen which seem to crystallize different notions.
I don't think it's necessarily circles on this one. Now, if we discussed abortion, THAT would be circles... nobody changes their mind on that or so it seems. But I've seen people change their minds based on what these discussions have said, and I know that I personally have been swayed too, in both directions.
Even sometimes when they come from bias, too. It's like... often I don't agree with someone's personal politics, but they come up with interesting points which make me think.
I think this argument is an important one to have, like Syc mentioned there is a disconnect in the way the situation is viewed in the US vs Europe. I'm not sure how much of the Euro-view is just anti-american feelings taking a different channel. I would say that our governments blind support of Israel is problematic if we really want to help the situation. I started with the belief that the Palestinians were the aggreived party, having been evicted from their homes (not nation). Its easy however to pick any point in time and say if this group didn't do this everything would be cool. The bottom line is both sides need to move beyond grievences and neither side has a statesman in place capable of that.
I also echo the exhaustion feeling, so I leave it alone for awhile, then get sucked back in. The deal with the cellar is people are willing to say what they really mean, whether egos get bruised or not, people get pissed, grumble for a while, leave the subject alone, and eventually get over it, seeing in the emotional response the root of the conflict and maybe coming back to it a little wiser. The other stuff like the entertainment and cities section give people a glimpse of a real person separate from naked opinions and politics, keeping the community human.
Originally posted by Griff
The other stuff like the entertainment and cities section give people a glimpse of a real person separate from naked opinions and politics, keeping the community human.
In other words, dhamsaic can still think Griff is mega cool 'cause of his house project even though he doesn't agree with his views on the Middle East.
Yeah, I remember that first one...Adam seemed to disappear completely. Every now and then I'll see him post to phl.transportation, but not as often as he used to.
It's amazing how often people come and go, including here at the Cellar.
I think part of the reason that we continually talk about the conflict is because the situation is always changing. Abortion changes every so often, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict changes almost minute to minute...though the heart of the matter is still the same.
Originally posted by dhamsaic
Can you break up your posts into paragraphs or something? :)
Whaddya say to cutting us dorks here on the Cellar a bit of a break and using the Enter key a little more frequently? :)
Done.
My bad, unfortuately thats the way that I write everything, I just haven't been bothering to go back and break it up.
The thing about this whole discussion, is its one that I have been having on a nearly daily basis since 9/11. And the thing is no one really cared prior to that, and that is part of why other's shock at what happened is often met by my cynicism. Americans have this thing about the protection of the oceans. The first (or second) world war should have been enough to show us that the world is something we have to participate in actively or else we are going to keep getting caught with our pants down.
I'm not saying paying attentition can stop things but you can at least be prepared. The warning signs were there, two days before the attacks on us, the main military leader of the northern alliance was assassinated. That was big, but only got a 20 mention on CNN. But this is somewhat beside the point.
Israel and Palestine or India and Pakistan have the potental to polarize the world in a way that hasn't been seen since the world wars. And people are already shooting mad, if we don't figure out a solution or at least a diffusion then there is going to be blood in the streets and I don't think just in someone else's neighborhood.
Dham the only reason I said that is you posted the most simplistic conclusion you could from a series of facts with questionable sources.
The reason it isn't flogging is a dead horse is as syc correctly said it continually evolves. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. Bush's speech while Sharon had his hand up his ass controlling his mouth ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h policy is only going to inflame matters, before there will be any real progress both leaders need to step aside, but that’s not going to happen either. Israelis new range of measures are simply going to inflame things further, the assassinations will create a groundswell inside organisations like hamas, the occupations will drive more suicide bombers to the doors of hamas and Islamic jihad the wall is simply inflammatory. None will solve the problem. The PLO is unable to change while under siege, inertia alone will stop this without the fact they can't even meet thanks to Israeli tanks. If the PLF gains significance you're going to see the possibility of Hezbollah getting into it seriously and that’s just going to be bloodbath all round.
Interesting, word dictionary recognises Hezbollah but not Hamas.
Spinningfetus, i think you're fear of blood on all streets is already coming true in europe where poor marginalised arab communities are thought to be responsible for many firebombs and other anti-semitic attacks in response to Isreali actions. India/Pakistan i don't think really carries the same risk, and is one again quieting down a bit, India has thought better than to corner a nuclear-armed nation. Britan proved at the turn of the centuary that policies of 'Splendid Isolation' , i'm glad the US has finally caught on.
Originally posted by jaguar
Britan proved at the turn of the centuary that policies of 'Splendid Isolation' , i'm glad the US has finally caught on.
I'm gonna guess that by this you mean America needs to avoid isolationism. Britains isolationism included the baggage of an unraveling colonial empire, thats not isolationism, at least of the kind promoted by Americas old right. Unfortunately, Jag you don't really understand American domestic politics. When Americans are engaged overseas it means militarism and mercantilism. Be careful what you wish for, you'll be protesting our engagement policies next time you catch Rage Against the Machine. Bush is preaching calm to India/Pakistan and Israel/Palestine while pushing for an Iraqi invasion. If America is engaged it will be about America not about some vague global equity.
USS Clueless's theory is that the whole Bush speech was basically saying that the US isn't going to pay much attention to the Palestinians. The US is going to leave the whole thing to Israel so that it can engage Iraq and "encourage" regime changes in Syria, Iran and Saudi.
If that happens, he says, the Palestinians won't have the support of those countries, in the form of arms, bombs, money, and rewards for the families of suiciders. At that point they will begin realistic negotiations.
But USS Clueless is an optimistic hawk who makes it all seem too simple.
Wednesday, Jun. 26, 2002
Belgium bars Sharon war crimes trial
BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- A Belgian appeals court ruled Wednesday that Belgium cannot investigate war crimes charges against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon related to a 1982 massacre in two Palestinian refugee camps.
The three-judge panel said a case could not proceed against a person who is not in Belgium, despite a 1993 Belgian law granting Belgian courts "universal jurisdiction" over war crimes committed anywhere.
"If a person is not found on the territory, we find it inadmissible," the court said in its 22-page ruling.
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWS/belgium_jun26-ap.htmlOriginally posted by Griff
Be careful what you wish for, you'll be protesting our engagement policies next time you catch Rage Against the Machine.
Sorry Griff...they broke up almost 2 years ago. Substitute RATM with Ozo or Midnight Oil (especially in Jag's case).
I knew I was taking a chance there.:) I find it hard to believe Midnight Oil still exists though.
Originally posted by Griff
I knew I was taking a chance there.:) I find it hard to believe Midnight Oil still exists though.
Their new
CD just came out in February.
The way the interact may have to change too, time will tell.
Heres a damn scary stat out of TIME magazine: 36% of those polled who support Isreal say they do so becasue they beleive in biblical prophosies that jews must control Isreal before Christ will come again.
Originally posted by jaguar
Heres a damn scary stat out of TIME magazine: 36% of those polled who support Isreal say they do so becasue they beleive in biblical prophosies that jews must control Isreal before Christ will come again.
hey, on the bright side, that means 63% of those supporting Isreal
might not be nutcases!
Originally posted by Undertoad
That's some very impressive bluster.
And tell me, when you take up these arms, would you kill....
...a little five year old, taking the bus with her grandma?
Her name was Gal Aizenman. Two days ago.
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3222205
I recognized the name and searched my ass off for the picture (the "search" function never popped into my head).
Anyway, just to resurrect a nice dead thread...
I'm afraid there's no chance of this thread dying anytime soon.:(
I am quoting tw's post from June 2002:
The Intafada II and all resulting deaths are directly traceable to Sharon who wanted this instability. Sharon's program has been glaringly obvious starting with his intentional, well publicized, and well staffed desecration of Temple Mount. Every act he has performed has been to annex the occupied territories. Every act in response to any violence has been only to enflame the violence. But then I have posted this in detail in how many posts?
...
When anyone else takes responsibility for a bombing, who does Sharon blame? Arafat. Why? Best way to create instability and even incite civilian racism.
Via history, we now have our answer. This turns out to be incorrect.
For the first time, a Hamas leader has publicly revealed that Arafat personally ordered the Second Intifada. Via a Palestinian reporter:
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1582/abbas-hamas-terror-strikes
Mahmoud Zahar, a prominent Hamas leader, has just revealed that Yasser Arafat, when he failed to get what he wanted at the negotiating table, instructed Hamas to launch terror attacks in the heart of Israel. Hamas obviously took Arafat's orders seriously, waging an unprecedented campaign of suicide booming and terror attacks that killed and injured thousands of Jews and Arabs.
When Arafat reportedly unleashed Hamas's terrorists against Israel, both he and the Palestinian Authority were still on the payroll of the international community, first and foremost the Americans and Europeans.
Arafat pretended back then that he was doing his utmost to stop the terror attacks that were launched not only by Hamas, but also by members of his own ruling Fatah faction. It now appears - from what Zahar has to say - that Arafat was bluntly lying to Israel and the Western donors.
...
Zahar made this revelation during a lecture at the Islamic University in Gaza City marking the 10th anniversary of the second intifada, which erupted in September 2000, a few weeks after the failure of the Camp David summit.
This is the first time that a Hamas leader openly admits that his movement carried out terror attacks against Israel on instructions from the Palestinian Authority leader.
What a long memory you have, UT. Well done.
... and mad searching skillz.
Read xoB's post above mine. :D
I am quoting tw's post from June 2002:
Via history, we now have our answer. This turns out to be incorrect.
For the first time, a Hamas leader has publicly revealed that Arafat personally ordered the Second Intifada. Via a Palestinian reporter:
Palestinians were only doing what they had to do in response to aggressors. After events made Palestinian's reaction inevitable. Even a time line makes that obvious. Why did you ignore history's chronology to endorse lies? Long before Intifada II started, Sharon and the wacko extremists were working to create Intifada II. That timeline is historical fact.
Did Arafat order it? Hearsay from one person says yes. Hudson New York is somehow a responsible fact source? Nonsense. Numerous contradictions in that piece are identified. So many will simply ignore details to believe only what they wanted to hear.
First, *opinion* is not factual source. Second, where is the always required confirmation ? Third, that speculation contradicts history's chronological events. Three reasons demonstrate why some can separate hearsay from responsible news sources.
Point One: Hudson New York entertains any opinion to "Amplify dissident voices worldwide". It does not claim honest, responsible, or credible posts. Publishing even hearsay and lies is its purpose. A forum to entertain urban myths and wild speculation. UT would represent Hudson New York as fact?
To be honest and to possess facts means ignoring hearsay - especially when hearsay violates below points two and three. Hudson New York is where unsubstantiated rumors are advocated and entertained. Wild speculation - same thing that proved Saddam's WMDs.
Point Two: where are the so many responsible news services that confirm those claims? An opinion board is your only source? What kind of logical reasoning is that?
Point Three: One must ignore chronology to believe that lie. Long before Intifada II started - four years before - wacko extremists were aggressively undermining the Oslo Accords. Then publicly encouraging the assassination of Rabin. Intentional opening of a tunnel under Temple Mount to aggravate hate. Sharon even personally desecrating that mosque with 200 of his 'closest friends'. He even said he did so to encourage friendship. Hundreds of intentional actions to create hate long before Intifada II started. Or did you - UT - forget those earlier events to "endorse hearsay as fact"?
Those events were the equivalent of burning Korans to create peace and goodwill. Intentional provocations long before Intifada II started to intentionally undermine the Oslo Accords.
Did Arafat also order Jews to create hate? Sharon and other wacko extremist successfully created hate long before Arafat is *rumored* to have called for Intifada II. How much chronology do you ignore to endorse a Hudson New York accusation?
Responsible source means one can see the difference between facts and an obviously opinionated editorial. Why does the article even include this intentional distortion?
Because of him, thousands of Palestinians were massacred by the Jordanians in the early 1970s.
One starts by asking some damning and relevant questions. Why did wacko extremist Israelis so repeatedly do things that would only create hate ... long before Intifada II started? Why does UT ignore chronology?
Likud remembers what happened in the Sinai. Likud openly defines the West Bank as their land. #1 threat to Likud's objectives was the Oslo Accords. Likud did things necessary to subvert those Accords. Created hate among the Palestinians by doing what is today called 'burning a Koran'. Even encouraged and got the assassination of Rabin. If Arafat ordered Intifada II, well, according to your own sources, it happened after Intifada II had started. And more than four years after wacko extremists Israelis started actions to create so much hate.
So how many responsible news sources are cited to confirm wild speculation in Hudson New York? Zero.
This is not about some blogger who invented speculation. This is about some so easily manipulated and deceived as to promote unconfirmed speculation - a blog - as fact. Same process also proved Saddam's WMDs. This is about why some people do not entertain lies. And why others cannot separate speculation from hard reality - by ignoring three points.
After events made Palestinian's reaction inevitable
Nothing is inevitable, even if it's predictable.
Addressing the point would be easier, and less verbiage, than bouncing around making excuses why you sort of weren't really wrong.
Precisely, Bruce; It takes a lot of hard work to maintain his story... all sorts of twisting and turning. He mentioned Hudson New York five times in his eagerness to discredit the story...
Hudson New York is somehow a responsible fact source? Nonsense.
...but oops, the wire services have it now, with additional information; and according to Google News, 1000 newspapers have published it.
Here it is in the AP,
here it is in the AFP.
This is about some so easily manipulated and deceived as to promote unconfirmed speculation - a blog - as fact.
This is about tw, who, presented with facts contrary to his narrative,
doubles down on wrong to protect the legacy of a dead man who made billions from terrorism. A Nobel Peace Prize winner who lied, rejected a peace plan to wage war, and caused thousands of deaths without advancing his "cause" one iota.
...but oops, the wire services have it now, with additional information; and according to Google News, 1000 newspapers have published it.
Did you read your own sources? It does not say it happened. You misrepresent what your own source says. From the AP:
One of the leading figures in Hamas seems to confirm that Yasser Arafat was playing a double game — encouraging Islamic militants to attack inside Israel ...
AP only says one person
seems to make your claim. You call that confirmation?
Seems even the AP will not confirm your beliefs. Only one person
seems to confirm. And no responsible source will confirms that hearsay.
We argued this same "hearsay is proof" reasoning with Saddam's WMDs. People
seemed to confirm WMDs existed. That proved Saddam had WMDs.
Seems means hearsay - nothing more. Reality - only hearsay from Mahmoud Zahar says Arafat started the Intifada ... oh ... after many years of Israeli provocation including arbitrary confiscation of Palestinian lands through the entire 1990s. Oh. Those west bank settlements just accidently got built there? Likud's agenda is not an accident no matter what you
seem to believe. Or did Arafat also order west bank settlements? It
seems to be true.
Hudson New York speculation - whose purpose is to "Amplify dissident voices worldwide" (not report facts) - says one person's hearsay contradicts history and chronology. Even your own AP citation refuses to confirm what you believe.
"More commonly cited is September 28, 2000, when Palestinian rioting erupted following Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, an area known to Muslims as Al-Haram Al-Sharif." - Wikipedia.
And again, this is not about Intifada II. You said the AP confirms? The AP does not even
seem to confirm.
Seems is the AP only reporting hearsay from one man.
In cloth used to cover that myth, the seams are splitting. Seams have uncovered more hearsay contradicted by history, facts, intentions, and chronology.
Please. The man didn't seem to say it. He said it. He's not just some guy, he's the co-founder of Hamas.
Here's the JPost version, heh
"“President Arafat instructed Hamas to carry out a number of military operations in the heart of the Jewish state after he felt that his negotiations with the Israeli government then had failed,” Zahar told students and lecturers at the Islamic University in Gaza City.
Please. The man didn't seem to say it. He said it. He's not just some guy, he's the co-founder of Hamas.
As cofounder of Hamas, he is an arch enemy of Arafat. So he will be honest?
UT, even your own sources will not confirm your beliefs. At what point does the word
seem have a meaning?
Your Hudson New York article that says Arafat created the Intifada is also not supported by facts, contradicted by chronology, and sourced by hearsay claims, and not confirmed by any of your citations. You have only one fact. He said something. And that something agrees with your long standing biases that say Jews are good; Palestinians are evil.
Who started Intifada II? "More commonly cited is September 28, 2000, when Palestinian rioting erupted following Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, an area known to Muslims as Al-Haram Al-Sharif." That is also undisputed fact as posted here after Sharon, et al did those things to spark violence. To subvert the Oslo Accords.
They even encouraged the assassination of Rabin to subvert a peace process. But instead you blame Arafat on one man's hearsay? It
seems so.
As co-founder of Hamas, what is his motivation to say he was under direction of Arafat?
As co-founder of Hamas, what is his motivation to say he was under direction of Arafat?
It is called hate. Lie about Arafat to create hate. Hate is necessary to empower extremists and to make life difficult for moderates - the world's best people. Hate means his followers are inspired. We see same every day from Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity. Disparage the bourgeois and intelligencia. Then extremists easily recruit followers.
Why would you even ask such a question? Hate is why extremism exists. Hate is why moderate Jews and Arabs could no longer remain moderates. Hate is what Sharon did on Temple Mount. Hate is what inspires the least intelligent humans to *know* how to think and what to do.
A senior Saudi diplomat was blunt about how to defang Hamas. Ignore them. It could happen. But you just empowered Hamas. You gave Mahmoud Zahar credibility. You did exactly what Zahar needs you (and the world) to do to empower Hamas.
Zero facts support Zahar's hearsay. Even the AP will not confirm such claims. Underlying hate feeds what Zahar needs. Zahar hopes most people think and do what you posted. Those myths only promote more hate. People giving credibility to unsubstantiated accusations and extremist leaders even makes recruiting easier. Ignore bogus accusations that are contradicted by so many facts and chronology. As the Saudi diplomat said, a best way to undermine Hamas is to ignore it. You did the opposite.
And that something agrees with your long standing biases that say Jews are good; Palestinians are evil.
This is projection on your part, and by the way, around here we call them Israelis.
:facepalm: I worked with moderates, I knew moderates, moderates were friends of mine. tw, you're no moderate.
![UN partition map]("http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/qpal/maps/M0082c.gif"){kind=link}