Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? (long)

[gsmoove23]

Buy it, the MANDATE of Palestine was under British administration and in 1948 the British relinquished their responsibilities as advised by the UN. There was supposed to be a Palestine following that but obviously that never developed.

Right of Return does not rest on citizenship but the fact that Palestinians lived there previously and were not allowed to return. Jewish Right of Return to Palestine is a lame duck as it is past a reasonable period of time. The main reason that Palestinian RoR is still an issue is that there are still so many of them living as refugees, they can remember and prove which plots of land exactly they lived on.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


yes, Ned. As gsmoove shows, the Irissh were there to be part of the US, not to create a different state. BUt I would go along with your correct point and ask: can you be surprised that Palestinains reacted violently to Jewish migration, given what we have seen happen in the US?

Well given how much harm those violent actions have meant for the palestinian people, and given the success of non-violent means in other instances, and given the reality of israeli politics - that most "hardliners" are such out of fear of terrorism - im surprised they kept falling back on violence so often.

But i do note that some seem to have learned something - notably Abu mazen. also note that some pals in gaza the other day protested against the terrorists who use their town as a firebase, and bring down the IDF on them ( i sure hope the terr's dont take violent retribution on these people)

And im not surprised - and hope youre not surprised - that the great majority of israelis see terrorism as the core of this conflict, and will make concessions on territory and settlements ONLY when they see a Palestinian leadership that is serious about cracking down on terrorism.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
But i do note that some seem to have learned something - notably Abu mazen. also note that some pals in gaza the other day protested against the terrorists who use their town as a firebase, and bring down the IDF on them ( i sure hope the terr's dont take violent retribution on these people)

They will. Arafat and his terrorist friends call Palestinians who try to stop violent terrorists "collaborationists" and they are often publicly executed without a trial. To my knowledge the PA has never prosecuted a single one of these murder cases. They just sweep them under the rug and for some reason the "peace activists" never seem to protest this.

[gsmoove23]

Well given how much harm those violent actions have meant for the palestinian people, and given the success of non-violent means in other instances, and given the reality of israeli politics - that most "hardliners" are such out of fear of terrorism - im surprised they kept falling back on violence so often.

This is an assumption based largely from an Israeli viewpoint. Militant Palestinians and even many normal Palestinians would believe that terrorism is the only thing that has kept the issue on the world stage and brought international pressure to bear on Israel. Without it they would have been largely left to the whims of the Israeli people which of course they have no reason to believe they have their best interests at heart. In fact Zionism is specifically interested in Jewish interests, everything else being secondary.

As for peaceful means working elsewhere I can think of two time when these means have been successful and far more times when violence has been. Peaceful resistance is a difficult path for any group to take. It requires strong leaders and great discipline. During the pre-PA occupation leaders of any sort who participated in protest, peaceful or otherwise were jailed, exiled and assasinated. The Israeli government has always been more interested in obedience when dealing with the territories then promoting civil disobedience.

And im not surprised - and hope youre not surprised - that the great majority of israelis see terrorism as the core of this conflict, and will make concessions on territory and settlements ONLY when they see a Palestinian leadership that is serious about cracking down on terrorism.

And I'm sure you're not surprised when Palestinians would disagree. Both positions are highly biased which is why 3rd party brokering is necessary and the world is decidedly split on the subject.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


Without it they would have been largely left to the whims of the Israeli people which of course they have no reason to believe they have their best interests at heart. In fact Zionism is specifically interested in Jewish interests, everything else being secondary.

The israeli people put their own interest first, as does every nation state in the world.

The vast majority of the israeli people are interested in peace, and would have made peace, if peace did not resemble suicide.

During the entire period of occupation from 1967 on there was violence in the territories, and violence from the PLO abroad. Israel harshness towards some (but by no means all) local leadership must be seen in that context.

Nonetheless the Israeli people maintained the Oslo peace process with Yasser Arafat, despite terror bombings throughout that period. They made an offer of virtually all the disputed territories at Taba in January 2001 and were turned down. This very day, Ariel Sharon has accepted the road map, this at a time when terrorist attempts occur several times a day, and when there were 5 terrorist strikes in 3 days last weekend.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by gsmoove23

And I'm sure you're not surprised when Palestinians would disagree. Both positions are highly biased which is why 3rd party brokering is necessary and the world is decidedly split on the subject.

the fact that they have different viewpoints and that neither viewpoint is surprising hardly demonstrates that the two views of equivalent worth, as you seem to imply.

And numeroous 3rd parties have displayed their own bias. In fact arguably the reason Oslo failed was precisely the actions of outsiders, especially Europeans, who continued to press Israel to make concessions when Arafat failed to crack down on terrorism.

Any new process to succeed must differ from Oslo. And if it continues to make equivalance between building a kindergarden at a settlement and blowing up a disco, it will not be different enough to succeed.

[Ned]

gsmoove, in my observation, the terrorist acts seem timed to disrupt peace negotations. This has been a consistent pattern for as long as I can remember. Do you disagree?

[lord of the mark]

yesterday, in tekoa, a few miles from Jerusalem, an Israeli man was injured when his car was firebombed.

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Buy it, the MANDATE of Palestine was under British administration and in 1948 the British relinquished their responsibilities as advised by the UN. There was supposed to be a Palestine following that but obviously that never developed.

Right of Return does not rest on citizenship but the fact that Palestinians lived there previously and were not allowed to return. Jewish Right of Return to Palestine is a lame duck as it is past a reasonable period of time. The main reason that Palestinian RoR is still an issue is that there are still so many of them living as refugees, they can remember and prove which plots of land exactly they lived on.

So, it is you position that Palestine ceased to exist entirely when the Mandate ended, even though the territory was still there and the people were still there? This is almost like saying there is no more Iraq and the people of Iraq are no longer Iraqi citizens the moment the Saddam regime ended.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by lord of the mark The israeli people put their own interest first, as does every nation state in the world.

I'm not talking about Israel putting Israeli interests first but Israel putting Jewish interests first at the expense of Muslim interests, as in putting emphasis on the fact that Israel is a Jewish nation. In these circumstance violent resistance to Israeli control can be more easily understood.

The vast majority of the israeli people are interested in peace, and would have made peace, if peace did not resemble suicide.

Wanting peace is different then being willing to take the steps necessary to achieve it.

During the entire period of occupation from 1967 on there was violence in the territories, and violence from the PLO abroad. Israel harshness towards some (but by no means all) local leadership must be seen in that context.

The violence in the beginning of the occupation was negligable compared to what it is now, plus many peaceful attempts at resistance have been brutally put down. It is hard to carry off a peace march when the authorities strictly enforce laws that prohibit unauthorized gathering, or perform a strike when shops are opened up at gunpoint. When do you start seeing Palestinian actions in their context.

Nonetheless the Israeli people maintained the Oslo peace process with Yasser Arafat, despite terror bombings throughout that period. They made an offer of virtually all the disputed territories at Taba in January 2001 and were turned down. This very day, Ariel Sharon has accepted the road map, this at a time when terrorist attempts occur several times a day, and when there were 5 terrorist strikes in 3 days last weekend.

I assume you're talking about this?

"The Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, has outlined for the first time his proposal for a Palestinian state, which would cover 40 per cent of the West Bank and three-quarters of the Gaza Strip.

Mr Sharon gave tentative backing on Wednesday to the United States "roadmap" to an Israeli-Palestinian peace, involving the creation of a Palestinian state, but he couched his support in a series of strict conditions."

Its a joke, where only the barest amount of settlements would be removed if any. I find it hilarious that someone could read this and see hope or anything that wouldn't only further inflame the situation. The Palestinians are offered 40 percent of West Bank and 3/4ths of Gaza and they're supposed to show their gratitude? It is Sharon that wouldn't accept the road map without making serious changes not Palestinian leadership, give me a break.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


the fact that they have different viewpoints and that neither viewpoint is surprising hardly demonstrates that the two views of equivalent worth, as you seem to imply.

The fact that you feel your viewpoint is of more worth is hardly surprising to me which is why a JUST compromised must be discussed as opposed to a deal beneficial to Israel at the point of a gun that the Israelis feel would be best for everyone.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by gsmoove23




I assume you're talking about this?

"The Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, has outlined for the first time his proposal for a Palestinian state, which would cover 40 per cent of the West Bank and three-quarters of the Gaza Strip.

Mr Sharon gave tentative backing on Wednesday to the United States "roadmap" to an Israeli-Palestinian peace, involving the creation of a Palestinian state, but he couched his support in a series of strict conditions."

Its a joke, where only the barest amount of settlements would be removed if any. I find it hilarious that someone could read this and see hope or anything that wouldn't only further inflame the situation. The Palestinians are offered 40 percent of West Bank and 3/4ths of Gaza and they're supposed to show their gratitude? It is Sharon that wouldn't accept the road map without making serious changes not Palestinian leadership, give me a break.

you are conflating two things.

Sharon proposed a peace based on a Pal state on 40% of the West Bank. this is a first offer - no one starts negotiations with their final offer - (when barak opened at Camp david with close to his final offer, he only convinced Arafat that it was a trick- this is the land of the bazaar and of haggling, thats the way it works) no one expects the final agreement to look like that - the goal of that offer was to put the Pals on notice that they couldnt take Taba as the starting point for new negotiations. It was also the first time in history a Likud PM had proposed a Pal state.

Today Sharon accepted the road map in principle - he did have reservations, yes - the road map is vague about the sequence of Pal security actions and Israeli concessions - since that kind of vagueness is what sunk Oslo, it seems reasonable to want to try something different. Evidently the US agrees.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Ned
gsmoove, in my observation, the terrorist acts seem timed to disrupt peace negotations. This has been a consistent pattern for as long as I can remember. Do you disagree?

In my observation terrorist acts and IDF and government acts often work in collusion with each other timed to disrupt negotiations. Assassinations, bulldozings, terrorist bombings... these are all things you expect to see during negotiations, which is why placing such an emphasis on an end to terror before negotiations is either stupidity or an easy way to ensure failure. The PA can't do anymore to end terror then the IDF could before Oslo and the terrorists will not disappear if we wish it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


In my observation terrorist acts and IDF and government acts often work in collusion with each other timed to disrupt negotiations. Assassinations, bulldozings, terrorist bombings... these are all things you expect to see during negotiations, which is why placing such an emphasis on an end to terror before negotiations is either stupidity or an easy way to ensure failure. The PA can't do anymore to end terror then the IDF could before Oslo and the terrorists will not disappear if we wish it.

assasinations and terrorist bombings are all things you expect to see during negotiations!!!!!! If you go in with those expectations, the negotiations will surely fail.

As for the PA ability - as several have said before - 100% results are not expected - 100% effort is.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Ned


So, it is you position that Palestine ceased to exist entirely when the Mandate ended, even though the territory was still there and the people were still there? This is almost like saying there is no more Iraq and the people of Iraq are no longer Iraqi citizens the moment the Saddam regime ended.

During the Mandate Palestine didn't exist. It was the Mandate of Palestine as administered by the British government. In Israeli owned areas this Mandate was completely replaced by Israel. According to the UN the same should have happened in Palestinian areas. The citizens of one area would not have been citizens of the other area regardless of the fact that they both had been citizens under the Mandate.