Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? (long)

[Ned]

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.

Good, we agree that many terrorist acts are designed to disrupt the peace process. What does this suggest?

[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.

1. ridiculous expectations :"Assassinations, bulldozings, terrorist bombings... these are all things you expect to see during negotiations" no theyre not what i expect to see. expecting to see them guarantees failure
2.note the sly drawing of equivalnce between bulldozings, and terrorist bombings
3"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."
note the focus on PA results, when Israel has asked for PA efforts. No more funding of terrorists. No more releases of Hamas terrorists from prison. Maybe just extradite them to Israel. Plenty the PA can do - in fact thats all in the road map you claim to support - if the PA can do nothing, theres no point to the road map as written.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by lord of the mark 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.

Entering a negotiation with a preliminary proposal is one thing, entering with a fantasy proposal, with the added difficulty of red lines you will not cross (RoR, removal of settlements, except possibly some isolated small ones, no concessions before an end to terror, could someone tell me how long you have to go without terror before it can be considered ended?) is intransigence. I have often done such a thing when asked to make a trade in Monopoly when I didn't really want to make a trade. ask for an impossible thing in return, this way at least you'll be seen as TRYING to reason with the person and who knows, you might get what you ask for. You don't need to be from the land of the bazaar to realize when someone is trying to screw you.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


, could someone tell me how long you have to go without terror before it can be considered ended?).

right now i have a bet going with someone on a rightwing site that within a year Abu Mazen WILL succeed in controlling terrorism. Our bet is (IIRC) less than 3 attacks on Israelis per week, for at least 4 weeks for these purposes an attack on israeli soldiers or settlers is also considered terrorism. Attempts are counted even if unsuccesful. A succesful killing of an israeli civilian at any time in the 4 week period means the clock starts again. I any such 4 week period in the next year (we started a couple of weeks ago) and i win. He's so confident he wont lose hes offered me 10 to 1 odds. We took a fair amount of discussion to reach these terms.

Im sure Israelis and Palestinians could manage to reach similar metrics.

And as i said before, what really counts is Pal efforts.

Which are part of the road map. Dont you beleive in the road map???

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


Entering a negotiation with a preliminary proposal is one thing, entering with a fantasy proposal, with the added difficulty of red lines you will not cross (RoR, removal of settlements, except possibly some isolated small ones, no concessions before an end to terror, could someone tell me how long you have to go without terror before it can be considered ended?) is intransigence. I have often done such a thing when asked to make a trade in Monopoly when I didn't really want to make a trade. ask for an impossible thing in return, this way at least you'll be seen as TRYING to reason with the person and who knows, you might get what you ask for. You don't need to be from the land of the bazaar to realize when someone is trying to screw you.

reminds me of an occasion i was on the streets of the old city of jerusalem. Guy (arab) was selling something - some item of clothing. British lady asks how much. He answers, i didnt hear, but she expressed outrage, and walked off. Didnt come back. She simply didnt get it.

Barak went to camp david with a serious final offer. Reports favorable to Arafat indicate that he didnt get it - there HAD to be a trick, this couldnt be serious negotiating. See Barak was negotiating like a westerner. And he failed. Sharon prides himself, i think, on understanding the middle eastern mind, on being less the "westerner" himself, and is trying a different tactic.

I note that Abu Mazen and the PA have not focused on their problems with the Sharon plan. Instead they have focused on the need for immediate concessions they can take to their people in the form of fewer roadblocks,etc to show they are making things better. The Sharon plan they can accept as a bazaar tactic, as long as sharon signs on the road map and they get something tangible.

[Ned]

I wonder why gsmoove and many anti-Israeli's, says terrorism is intended to get the world's attention on the plight of the poor Palestinians when even he admits that much of the terrorism is intended rather to prevent peace and has nothing to do with solving the problems of the Palestinians.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by lord of the mark 1. ridiculous expectations :"Assassinations, bulldozings, terrorist bombings... these are all things you expect to see during negotiations" no theyre not what i expect to see. expecting to see them guarantees failure
2.note the sly drawing of equivalnce between bulldozings, and terrorist bombings
3"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."
note the focus on PA results, when Israel has asked for PA efforts. No more funding of terrorists. No more releases of Hamas terrorists from prison. Maybe just extradite them to Israel. Plenty the PA can do - in fact thats all in the road map you claim to support - if the PA can do nothing, theres no point to the road map as written.

I suppose you've never been disappointed when the Israeli government chooses to do something inflammatory at just the wrong moment. Of course you wouldn't admit it here I guess.

In reference to point 2 there is no other plane where terrorist activities exist. All activities work in the same framework. It would be very easy if simply the act of killing an innocent for a reason that is unpleasant to you could be placed in limbo and all the unpleasantness that might have lead to that killing could simply be wiped clean because afterall the killing of an innocent is unforgivable and any attempt to understand the reasoning is simply appeasement. This is not the case though and in the real world there are reasons for these actions and if those reasons are not addressed similar situations will occur. There is no sly drawing of equivalence it is right out in the open. These are all inflammatory actions with horrible repercussions.

PA efforts in regards to funding of terror are largely unprovable since evidence for PA funding in the first place is spotty. As for arrests it would be tough to do currently without serious civil unrest since Hamas is probably more popular then any group in Palestine right now. In the beginning of Oslo Arafat did in fact come down quite hard on Hamas and effectively limited there power but that was when there was still a great deal of faith in the process, which is currently non-existant.

Don't put words in my mouth, I don't support the Roadmap beyond the fact that it is the only thing we have going.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


In reference to point 2 there is no other plane where terrorist activities exist. All activities work in the same framework. It would be very easy if simply the act of killing an innocent for a reason that is unpleasant to you could be placed in limbo and all the unpleasantness that might have lead to that killing could simply be wiped clean because afterall the killing of an innocent is unforgivable and any attempt to understand the reasoning is simply appeasement. This is not the case though and in the real world there are reasons for these actions and if those reasons are not addressed similar situations will occur. There is no sly drawing of equivalence it is right out in the open. These are all inflammatory actions with horrible repercussions.

res ipso loquitur

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


In the beginning of Oslo Arafat did in fact come down quite hard on Hamas and effectively limited there power but that was when there was still a great deal of faith in the process, which is currently non-existant.

.

when negotiation didnt go the way yasser liked, he released the jailed hamasniks, so their terror bombs could put pressure on israel. Cant have a process where one side does that when negotiations arent going there way. Thats why the new process must be different.

What acts the PA should do needs to be gradually demanded, to allow for growing PA strength. But they have to start taking actions now. And if that risks civil unrest, so be it. If they are constantly going to refrain from fighting terrorism out of fear of Hamas, israel will have to fight terrorism itself. With consequences for the peace process.

[lord of the mark]

"After the meeting, Mr Haniya said Hamas would only end its suicide attacks in Israel if the Israeli army put an end to its policy of targeted killings of key militants, stopped its incursions into Palestinian territory and released Palestinian prisoners. However, he said the battle against the Israeli military and against Jewish settlers would continue. "


He offered to stop murdering civilians (west of the Green line) if Israel stops assasinating terrorists, stops destroying bomb factories, and releases terrorists from prison. Of course even if israel did that, he would still target Israeli soldiers for assasination, and civilians (including babies) who live in settlements.

And these are the people you claim are the most popular in the Palestine.

[lord of the mark]

"This is not the case though and in the real world there are reasons for these actions and if those reasons are not addressed similar situations will occur. "

yes and the principle reason is the tolerance of these actions, and the encouragement of them, and the perception that they will be rewarded. The second intifidah started up after Israel withdrew from Lebanon, apparently giving some people the idea you dont have to negotiate if you can only kill enough israelis.

Al qaeeda may also have been inspired by the success of terror against Israel.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


1) The Balfour Declaration became part of the League of Nations Mandate and is international law. Accepting Palestine as a Jewish homeland is not a question of accepting the ideology of zionism. It is the law.

2) Israel was the creation of the United Nations. It is a lawful entity.

3) The people who have been resisting the Mandate and the creation of Israel are fighting against international law as created and sanctioned by the League of Nations and the United Nations.

Their resisitance is unlawful, just as much as Saddam Hussein's defiance of the UN was unlawful.

There are some very obvious, and basic porblems with this:

1. The very notion of a mandate conflicted openly with one of the most basic values the League of Nations was suposed to embody: national self-determination. What gave the League the right inherently to tell the people of palestine that they had to accept British overlordship, instead of having their own leaders?

2. The very same problem extends to the UN, since national self-detrmination was one of its founding principles.

3. There are various levels of resistance. The UN did not simply go along with the League, the UN partitioned Palestine. The aim was two states. Until there is Palestinian state, the plans and aims spoken of in 1948 are not complete. And then there is the question of borders. The UN plan had a set fo broders, and places like Jerusalem went to neither side. If the aim is to obey international law, then Israel would have no valiud claim to Jerusalem, besides that created by force. After all, the UN never intended Israel to have Jerusalem, anymore than the Palestinians.

4. If you agree with the sentiments you stated above then:
a. You must agree that the settlements are illegal, since the UNSC has declared them so.
b. you have to question whether the US war in Iraq was itself nopt ilegal, since the only valid use of military force in this system is that which occurs wih Council approval. The notion that the Iraq war was with council approval is questionable.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"This is not the case though and in the real world there are reasons for these actions and if those reasons are not addressed similar situations will occur. "

yes and the principle reason is the tolerance of these actions, and the encouragement of them, and the perception that they will be rewarded. The second intifidah started up after Israel withdrew from Lebanon, apparently giving some people the idea you dont have to negotiate if you can only kill enough israelis.

Al qaeeda may also have been inspired by the success of terror against Israel.

The second intifadah was coming anyways. the peace process was becoming stalled. The excuse to keep the occupation of Lebanon going to simply show strength is absurd. The people of Israel had a right to be tired of theat worthless act, which did not make Israel any safer, but instead made Israel less secure than it was in 1982.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
yes and the principle reason is the tolerance of these actions, and the encouragement of them, and the perception that they will be rewarded. The second intifidah started up after Israel withdrew from Lebanon, apparently giving some people the idea you dont have to negotiate if you can only kill enough israelis.

Al qaeeda may also have been inspired by the success of terror against Israel.

It is all well and good to say that terrorism is spurred on because it is tolerated when of course there is no proof to this. What is more obvious is that brutally putting down terrorism without addressing the policies that might have caused it rarely works and has certainly not worked in the case of Israel. It would be perfectly fine for Israel if everyone just ignored the plight of the palestinians and saw terrorism as justification for any policy Israel carried out but I don't see how this would result in a better world situation or why we should trust Israel to do right in this situation.

As for Lebanon, give me a break, there was little justification for that action and it is ridiculous to blame its utter failure for the Intifadah. It would be more apt to blame the idiots who got Israel into Lebanon in the first place... oh right.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
when negotiation didnt go the way yasser liked, he released the jailed hamasniks, so their terror bombs could put pressure on israel. Cant have a process where one side does that when negotiations arent going there way. Thats why the new process must be different.

Its a rather simplistic view of the events as those releases had to do with serious unrest in the PA because Oslo had collapsed and the **** was hitting the fan with no end in sight. If Arafat wanted to continue a bombing campaign he wouldn't need to release a few Hamas terrorists. How many have been killed up to this date and bombing is still going on.

What acts the PA should do needs to be gradually demanded, to allow for growing PA strength. But they have to start taking actions now. And if that risks civil unrest, so be it. If they are constantly going to refrain from fighting terrorism out of fear of Hamas, israel will have to fight terrorism itself. With consequences for the peace process.

The first part of this statement I agree with although these demands have to be accompanied by gradual demands from the Israelis or the PA will not be allowed to gain strength. Civil unrest would be no help to anyone.