Bus Bombing in Jerusalem

[Eli]

IDF Radio :
The Israeli response will be such that will "change the rules of the game".

I say :
Bla bla bla, paka paka paka. Next election, i'm voting for the greens.

[FrustratedPoet]

[Eli]

Al-Jazira : Abu Mazen decided to dismantle the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad.

I dont know if I should laugh or cry.

[Zevico]

"No, troops whose job it is to follow the orders of their civilian leaders. Apparently those orders include slaughtering palestinians - which is why it is an infinitly worse crime. "
Cyber, slaughtering civilians was never, ever ordered by any Israeli leader.
"The FBI are bound by civilized law. They cannot arrest a mobster without a warrant. Furthermore, one cannot equate mobsters with palestins. Mobsters are driven by greed. Palestinians are driven by the need to lift the yoke of oppression. That should tell you which cause is just, and which is not... (And ironicially applicable to Israelis as well). "

Funny, that. Were palestinians driven by "the need to lift the yoke of oppression" during terror attacks after Oslo? Were they driven to do so when the Intifada begin? As I recall, it was never about the need to lift oppression. If it was, Israel would never be in this situation. If it was, the Palestinians wouldn't be attacking Israelis, but Arabs, for treating them worse than Israelis do. If it was, Israeli Arabs would be killing people in the streets, for are they not also palestinians? If it was, you wouldn't even see a camera, let alone a journalist, in the gaza strip and west bank. If it was, Israel simply wouldn't bother with sending any troops into the territories at all, or trying to arrest terrorists at all (which is what they do in the majority of cases); they would get intelligence people in there and then fire missiles at anything slightly reminiscent of a terrorist hideout.

[Az]

Originally posted by Eli
Al-Jazira : Abu Mazen decided to dismantle the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad.

I dont know if I should laugh or cry.

I am hopeful, yet doubtful.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Azazel


I am hopeful, yet doubtful.

I think thats the only rational response.

[Arrian]

Israel decided Wednesday to hold off on a major military strike in response to a Hamas suicide bombing, giving Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas a little more time to decide whether to shift policy and order the arrests of Palestinian militants.


AP Photo


AP Photo
Slideshow: Mideast Conflict




The bus blast in Jerusalem killed 20 people and wounded more than 100, including about 40 children.


The Palestinian Authority (news - web sites)'s next move could well determine the fate of the U.S.-backed "road map" peace plan. Tuesday night's blast on a bus crowded with Jewish families returning from the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest shrine, was the deadliest Palestinian attack since the plan was unveiled three months ago by President Bush (news - web sites).


Palestinian security chief Mohammed Dahlan met with Palestinian security commanders in the Gaza Strip (news - web sites), but a decision on possible action against those involved in the bombing will only be made later Wednesday, at a Palestinian Cabinet meeting, said Dahlan spokesman Elias Zananiri.


Dahlan ordered the security commanders "to be on high alert to implement whatever decision will be taken by the political leadership and the Palestinian Authority against those who were involved in yesterday's attack in Jerusalem," Zananiri said.


Abbas, who could lose his job if violence persists, has said he will not confront the militants because he fears internal fighting. However, Abbas is now under growing pressure to take strong action against militants, as required by the "road map" peace plan.


Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (news - web sites) and top defense officials decided Wednesday to give Dahlan some time to begin cracking down on the militants, a security official said. Speaking on condition of anonymity, the official said Israel expected to see some action already Wednesday.


Israel is expected to intensify its hunt for wanted militants if the Palestinian security forces do not take action, but a major military strike, on par with last year's offensives in response to bombings of a similar scale, is not being considered, the defense official said.


Security officials also decided against targeting Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat (news - web sites), the official said. In the past, troops have repeatedly besieged Arafat's West Bank headquarters.


Abbas was meeting with Islamic Jihad leaders in Gaza City on Tuesday evening when he received word of the bombing. Condemning the attack as a "terrible crime," he broke off contact with Hamas and Islamic Jihad. He also called off trips to Italy and Norway, initially planned for later this week, and convened an emergency Cabinet meeting.


In the Gaza Strip, Hamas leaders insisted Wednesday they remain committed to a three-month truce they and other militants declared unilaterally on June 29, but said they reserve the right to take revenge for the killing of operatives by Israeli troops.


There were some indications that the bomber, who had disguised himself as an ultra-Orthodox Jew, had also tried to settle a personal score with the attack. The assailant, 29-year-old mosque preacher Raed Mesk from the West Bank city of Hebron, was friends with an Islamic Jihad leader in Hebron, Mohammed Sidr, who was killed by troops last week.


Both sides appear to have a continued interest in keeping the U.S.-backed peace plan alive.


"It is absolutely necessary to continue on the political track because the alternative is a return to the never-ending cycle of blood," military correspondent Alex Fishman wrote in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot. He said the United States would likely increase its pressure on the Palestinian Authority to round up militants.


In the meantime, Israel froze all contacts with the Palestinian Authority and canceled the planned handover of two West Bank towns to Palestinian control, a move that had been expected later this week. The Israeli army also closed border crossings to seal off the West Bank and Gaza Strip.


Palestinian legislator Saeb Erekat criticized Israel's decision, saying it was important to maintain contacts. "The main message I want to send to the Americans is that ... every possible effort should be exerted to keep the road map and the truce alive," he said.


The suicide bomber detonated the explosives in the center of a tandem bus, which has two passenger sections, shortly after 9 p.m. local time on a main thoroughfare in central Jerusalem.





Many Jewish worshippers had stepped aboard at the Jewish holy site, the Western Wall. The bus was headed to an ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhood on the city's outskirts, and families with children were packed in the seats and aisles.

A rescue worker, Yehuda Meshi-Zahav, said he was one of the first people on the scene and while checking to see if there were any people alive among the dead, he found a baby just a few months old, crying and alive. The baby is hospitalized, and after a nightlong search, rescue workers found the parents alive in another hospital, officials said.

"I had just come home from praying at the Western Wall and was heading home," said Zvi Weiss, an 18-year-old seminary student from New York City who sat in the front of the bus and escaped unharmed.

"The bomb went off at the back of the bus. Everything went black. I climbed out of the broken window and started running," Weiss said. "All around me there were people covered in blood, screaming, some with limbs missing."

The blast, just across from a synagogue, was so powerful it blew a hole in the bus roof and shattered the windows of a passing bus. Rescuers had to use blowtorches to get out some of the wounded. Police said the bomb had been packed with bits of metal for greater deadliness.

Several crying children with tattered clothes and blood-smeared faces were led away from the scene. One paramedic cradled a little girl in his arms, while television footage showed doctors leaning over a bloodied infant in an ambulance. Paramedics treated the wounded on the sidewalk, and body parts were strewn amid broken glass.

In an Israeli prison, Palestinian security prisoners applauded joyously and passed out candy when they learned of the bombing, the Israel Prisons Authority said. The leaders among the inmates were sent into isolation and the rest had their TV sets removed as punishment, the authority said.

The ambassadors of the European Union (news - web sites), Italy and Ireland laid a wreath Wednesday against a tree and lit 18 candles — matching early estimates of the number of dead — on a roundabout close to where the bomber struck. The bombing drew statements of condemnation and condolences from the United States, the European Union, Britain and the United Nations (news - web sites).

The blast came just hours after a truck packed with explosives devastated the U.N. headquarters in Iraq (news - web sites), killing at least 20 people.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) urged Abbas "to take decisive action to arrest the instigators of this attack and prevent such attacks from happening again," U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said in New York.

Since the intefadeh began in September 2000, more than 2,400 people have been killed on the Palestinian side and more than 800 on the Israeli side.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Source:

As usual, New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/20/international/middleeast/20MBOX.html

Does it also mention the several Israeli innocent casualties?

I don't. To compare the actions of a group fighting for their freedom against a foreign oppressor with the actions of uniformed troopers murdering civilians - well that just wouldn't be right.

You are again, purposefully confusing concepts such as goals, intentions and methods.

You are claiming that since the Palestinain terrorists are fighting for their freedom they are right.

I'm not criticizing the Palestinians on their intentions (even though Hamas and IJ clearly stated that ther intention is to clear the middle east of Jews and Jewish entities).

I'm ciritcizing their methods : specifically targetting civilians.

At the same time, you criticize Israel, for intentions and methods falsely attributed to them, by you. "murdering civilians".

While we could argue about the intentions of each side and who is right, the Palestinains in a struggle for 'freedom' or the Israelis in a struggle for 'security', I'm not trying to discuss that, but the methods used.

And the methods used are clear on both sides.

The Palestinians are using suicide bombers in populated areas thus intentionally targetting innocent civilians. This is a war crime.

The IDF on the other hand, are using soldiers to arrest or kill Palestinian combatants. An action which often also causes harm to civilian population. But this action is not a war crime, and is infact in accordance with the Geneva convention.

Modern warfare laws and morals clearly allow military forces to hunt for combatants in areas populated by civilians, especially if the combatants make attempts to hide themselves among regular civilian population.

Infact, the warfare laws, clearly put the blame on any civilian casualties, at the side of the combatants which disguise themselves among civilian population.

You of course ignore that, and use diversion and confusion to remove blame from the Palestinian side.

So? Hamas, IJ and Fatah all expressively said that unless Israel stopped killing palestinians, they would not be bound by the ceasefire agreement.

First, Hamas and IJ and Fatah promised a clear cessation of military activities against Israel - a thing which hasn't happenned.

Since the so called 'cease fire' started, several Israelis have been killed, and several attempts at attacks, including suicide bombs have been thwarted. That happenned before Israeli reprisals.

Israel hasn't simply 'killed palestinians' but rather attempted to arrest an IJ leader which intended to carry out a suicide bombing shortly, and in the gunfight that ensued killed him and several others.

And for weeks they upheld their end of the agreement. Until Israel started the murders again.

No they have not.

Of course, a cynical man might think that Israel decided that the ceasefire was to dangerous to the goal of stealing more land... And that killing a few militants would surely restart that cycel of violence.

Stealing the land required it to be legally owned by the palestinains living on it.

No, troops whose job it is to follow the orders of their civilian leaders. Apparently those orders include slaughtering palestinians - which is why it is an infinitly worse crime.

That is just speculative slur, while the Palestinian orders to slaughter innocent Israeli civilians are undoubtable.

Think about it.

You are speculatively blaming Israeli soldiers of the same exact thing, which the Palestinian terrorists openly declare to be doing. Yet the Israelis are somehow more at fault.

More grist for the propaganda mill. Leave palestine, then you might have a point.

Hurting someone until they strike back might make them animals, but only because of your actions. It's your responsibility to suffer whatever pain is caused while the return to normal society.

No it's not.

No one has any right to demand us to suffer the crazy terrorist attacks.

You keep using the circular argument: They are animals because we hurt them. We must hurt them because they are animals.

It is only circular because you reword it into how you want to represent us.

If you want to put the real arguement it such silly terms, then it will be something like:

They are animals because they hurt us.
Because they hurt us, we will hurt them.

But extra-judicial assassinations are. (well, not war crime, but a crime). Every single palestinian has the right a fair trial. If you invalidate that right, you are nothing but a criminal yourself. '

I absolutely and totally disagree.

During a state of armed conflict, each combatant does not recieve a chance for a trial, since he is not acting alone or because of a criminal intent, but because of a national organized front. As a combatant he is a natural target for the army of the opposite side.

And as such, the combatants do not enjoy the right to trial, even if they disguise themselves as civilians, in order to avoid easy discovery.

The FBI are bound by civilized law. They cannot arrest a mobster without a warrant.

Agreed.

But let's transfer this to the military world.

The FBI is a legal and acknowledged law-enforcement agency. It acts according to laws governing criminal procedures.

In such a sense, the IDF is a legal and acknowledged military defense force. It acts according to laws governing military procedures.

The mob however, is an illegal organization, which uses command structures and fire power, to advance it's goals. The main difference being, that it does not act in accordance with civil laws and usually abuses them. More especially, mobsters pretend to be usual civilians, thus hiding themselves.

In that sense, the terror organizations are also illegal organizations possessing command structures and fire power, and use it to advance their goals. But in contrast to a military such as the IDF, they do not abide to laws governing military procedures, and usually abuse them, to escape punishment and change the odds in their favour.

furthermore, one cannot equate mobsters with palestins. Mobsters are driven by greed. Palestinians are driven by the need to lift the yoke of oppression.

that is completely unimportant to the basis of the comparison. The comparison is there to discuss methods and not motivation.

The importance is there, because it is difficult in a conflict to judge the motivation as being right or wrong. To do that one needs to be almost all-sentient.

But what is possible, and what is being done in the world, is to limit methods.

That should tell you which cause is just, and which is not... (And ironicially applicable to Israelis as well).

This is again irrelevant.

You argue about whose motivation is just or not, which is agreeably arguable. But you ignore the point about methods.

Even a just motivation does not automatically sanction all plausible methods. That is a basic law of political and military conduct.

Why?

First, to escape complete and utter destruction and obliteration.

Second, because in each war, usually, each side is convinced his motivation is just, and thus will pursue the goal for as long as it can.

That is why certain 'laws of "gameplay"' have been accepted as a standard between countries and nations.

My criticism on the Palestinians is because they avoid the laws and abuse them.

The laws of military conduct are not there specifically to hinder the Palestinian struggle. Rather they are there to assure that mass slaughtering does not ensue.

I suggest looking up the word "ceasefire".

I suggest looking up the word "hudna" and learning about it's history in the Islamic culture.

A ceasefire would simply be what the name entails: Neither side is killing the other. But as I said, if I was cynical I might suggest that this wouldn't be in Israels interests... Cause after all, what are 20 people on a bus compared to another chunk of palestinian land?

It is interesting that while you attempt to enjoy the cynicism without taking full responsability for your words.

If you would say that out front, you'd be considered a tact-less person and a bigot.

So instead you use an 'if' case, thus evading responsability for your words, while getting a chance to say what you really want to say.

Have I claimed that palestine has a civilized society?

You must have, if you demand them to be granted independance and self-rule.

Because if they are not a civilized society, and until they will not become such, granting them self-rule will no doubt present a threat to it's neighbours, and first and foremost - Israel.

Seriously, was my point fuzzy enough for you to not get the point? Israelis should demand that ISRAEL becomes a civilized society.

Israel is a civilized society.

It follows rules of conduct, and does not target civilians in military actions, but only known combatants.

It also uses limited force when hunting for those combatants, though it's exact ratio is not always seen measured by many sides.

And of course, we all should work for Palestine being a civilized society as well, there is no way that is going to happen under the Israeli boot.

Frankly, I see no way that Palestine to beomce a civilized society, if such demands do not arise right now.

Do you think that it will be easier to rid Palestine of fanatical militarist radicals (be they religiously or nationally motivated), after they are granted independance and self rule?

The only successfull attempts at demilitarizing fanatics, are post-WWII Germany and post-WWII Japan.

Both of which, have gone through a different process:

1. Full demilitarization.
2. De-militarization (essentially, liberal brain-washing)
3. Only then, gradually accepting self rule and independance.

For what reason do you think that this process if worth abandoning when it comes to deal with Palestine, is unclear to me.


That is exactly my point btw.

What you concieve as Israeli leaders putting blocks on the road towards Palestinian self-rule, is infact merely Israeli logic of self defense.

You think that we demand to stop terror attacks, so that we could keep "stealing land unabided".

In reality, the only thing the Israeli governments have been consitent on, is that before any self-rule can be given - a serious process of de-militarization must go under-way.

Why is Israel insisting on demilitarization first? Because in the other case, it will have to live with fanaticism in it's back yard. And not the US or the EU, or anybody else.

You may claim that it is impossible, but it is exactly what happenned in Israeli schools and media between 1993-2000. Only after the Intifada started, the Israeli society has began returning to militarization and a radical position on the Palestinian issue.

[Ned]

Siro, you should start, or the PA should start by decapitating the terrorist snake.

Arafat has to go.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Al'Kimiya
This makes no sense, they will all be fleeing to Europe/US, and they don't belong there.

Don't let them in.

[CyberGnu]

Oerdin:

Siro, You can't reason with bigots. Why try? I like to think that deep down the anti-semites on this board know they are hypocrites who deliberately create double standards in an attempt to justify their bigotry but in the end...

Who would those anti-semites be? I vaguely remember Speer claiming to be one a long time ago, but I think he changed his mind.

Or is this just part of the traditional pro-israeli smear campaign?

There will always be people who try to twist facts, ignore the obvious, and do what ever it takes to let them continue their delusional little ideology.

Isn't that the official slogan of the Jerusalem Post?

[Al'Kimiya]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Don't let them in.

The UN says we have to

[BeBMan]

Of course, then we have no choice.

[CyberGnu]

siro:
[/quote]Does it also mention the several Israeli innocent casualties?
[/quote]

Killed by uniformed palestinian troops? No, should there be?

You are again, purposefully confusing concepts such as goals, intentions and methods.

You are claiming that since the Palestinain terrorists are fighting for their freedom they are right.

I'm not criticizing the Palestinians on their intentions (even though Hamas and IJ clearly stated that ther intention is to clear the middle east of Jews and Jewish entities).

I'm ciritcizing their methods : specifically targetting civilians.

At the same time, you criticize Israel, for intentions and methods falsely attributed to them, by you. "murdering civilians".

Yeh, you are right. Please let me rephrase:

I don't. To compare the actions of a group fighting for their freedom against a foreign oppressor with the actions of uniformed troopers murdering members of an occupied people - well that just wouldn't be right.

The civilian designation is meaningless.

The Palestinians are using suicide bombers in populated areas thus intentionally targetting innocent civilians. This is a war crime.

The IDF on the other hand, are using soldiers to arrest or kill Palestinian combatants. An action which often also causes harm to civilian population. But this action is not a war crime, and is infact in accordance with the Geneva convention.

Modern warfare laws and morals clearly allow military forces to hunt for combatants in areas populated by civilians, especially if the combatants make attempts to hide themselves among regular civilian population.

Infact, the warfare laws, clearly put the blame on any civilian casualties, at the side of the combatants which disguise themselves among civilian population.

Which would be true, if Israel actually declared war on a sovereign state. but Israel has fought tooth and nail to avoid the occupation even being called an occupation (maybe you remember the outcry when Sharon said "we must end the occupation"?). In Israels view, the IDF are merely performing police duties in a "contested zone".

You see, if palestine was considered an occupied area, Israel would have much more stringent demands against it: the right for a fair trial for example. Not to mention that the settlements would be considered genocide.

So you can either have your cake or eat it. Either you occupy the area, in which case Israel is guilty of war crimes, or you don't occupy the area, in which case the IDF has no right whatsoever to kill ANYONE, NOT EVEN IF THEY ARE CURRENTLY ATTACKING IDF SOLDIERS. Not to mention that closing access between villages, razing infrastructure etc etc are "crimes of aggression".

You of course ignore that, and use diversion and confusion to remove blame from the Palestinian side.

What confusion? Israel is the one who are deliberately trying to create a new legal language (contested land my behind - there are people living on it who have the legal right), all in order to keep stealing parts of it and make life miserable for the legal inhabitants.

First, Hamas and IJ and Fatah promised a clear cessation of military activities against Israel - a thing which hasn't happenned.

Yes? And how many of those were carried out by Hamas, IJ or Fatah?

BTW, werent you the one who claimed that one couldn't blame Israel as a country for the acts of deranged people like the settler who opened fire on the mosque?

Come on: take a good, honest look at your self, and please, please, please realize that your view is inconsistent. Please!

Israel hasn't simply 'killed palestinians' but rather attempted to arrest an IJ leader which intended to carry out a suicide bombing shortly, and in the gunfight that ensued killed him and several others.

Based on whose word? Would that be the "unidentified intelligence sources", perhaps?

And quite frankly: Let's assume that IDF isn;t lying. Let's even assume that the sources are right, and the the IJ guy IS preparing a bomb. Why not alert palestinian police, as well as an american official. What could be more damning for the palestinian cause than proof that the PA knew the suspected terrorist was going to attack, but refused to act?

But of course the IDF couldn't do that... What if the PA DID act? Oooh, then the peace process might actually be advanced...

No they have not.

Based on what?

Stealing the land required it to be legally owned by the palestinains living on it.

Which it is.

That is just speculative slur, while the Palestinian orders to slaughter innocent Israeli civilians are undoubtable.

Think about it.

You are speculatively blaming Israeli soldiers of the same exact thing, which the Palestinian terrorists openly declare to be doing. Yet the Israelis are somehow more at fault.

I don't see palestinian soldiers occupying Israel. Do you?

And if the soliders acted outside the realms of authorization, they would be in jail right now. Based on Israels previous white-washing of similar crimes, I'm willing to bet good money that not a single one of the soldiers in question will be punished.

[/quote]No it's not.

No one has any right to demand us to suffer the crazy terrorist attacks.[/quote]

Actually, every single person has that right. And every single person with a sense of right and wrong should feel morally obligated to.

It is only circular because you reword it into how you want to represent us.

If you want to put the real arguement it such silly terms, then it will be something like:

They are animals because they hurt us.
Because they hurt us, we will hurt them.

Intriguing... So the situation just magically appeared out of nothing? Minor details such as jews and muslims getting along for ~1400 years shouldn;t be allowed to interfere with your perception of those dirty arabs, should it?

I absolutely and totally disagree.

During a state of armed conflict, each combatant does not recieve a chance for a trial, since he is not acting alone or because of a criminal intent, but because of a national organized front. As a combatant he is a natural target for the army of the opposite side.

And as such, the combatants do not enjoy the right to trial, even if they disguise themselves as civilians, in order to avoid easy discovery.

Covered above.

Agreed.

But let's transfer this to the military world.

The FBI is a legal and acknowledged law-enforcement agency. It acts according to laws governing criminal procedures.

In such a sense, the IDF is a legal and acknowledged military defense force. It acts according to laws governing military procedures.

Which is my point: The actions of the IDF are supposedly carried out with a approval of the Israeli goverment. This makes the murder of the 4 year old YOUR responsibility. Your personal responsibility.

In that sense, the terror organizations are also illegal organizations possessing command structures and fire power, and use it to advance their goals. But in contrast to a military such as the IDF, they do not abide to laws governing military procedures, and usually abuse them, to escape punishment and change the odds in their favour.

What laws? Palestine isn't allowed to be a political entity, so there can be no local laws to break. International law? Well, Israel is breaking international law just by being there, and I'm not quite sure about the rules for breaking the law to stop a lawbreaker. UN law? Well, since the UN illegaly gave away palestine in the first case, I doubt that the palestinians should feel bound by that...

But as I said before: End the occupation and you might have a point.

that is completely unimportant to the basis of the comparison. The comparison is there to discuss methods and not motivation.

The importance is there, because it is difficult in a conflict to judge the motivation as being right or wrong. To do that one needs to be almost all-sentient.

But what is possible, and what is being done in the world, is to limit methods.

False.

Murder is wrong. Execution is right. (well, depending on what state or country).

Kidnapping is wrong. Arresting is right.

See how this works? Crime is wrong. Rectifing crime is right. It's called "Justice".

This is again irrelevant.

You argue about whose motivation is just or not, which is agreeably arguable. But you ignore the point about methods.

Even a just motivation does not automatically sanction all plausible methods. That is a basic law of political and military conduct.

Why?

First, to escape complete and utter destruction and obliteration.

Second, because in each war, usually, each side is convinced his motivation is just, and thus will pursue the goal for as long as it can.

That is why certain 'laws of "gameplay"' have been accepted as a standard between countries and nations.

My criticism on the Palestinians is because they avoid the laws and abuse them.

The laws of military conduct are not there specifically to hinder the Palestinian struggle. Rather they are there to assure that mass slaughtering does not ensue.

Covered above.

I suggest looking up the word "hudna" and learning about it's history in the Islamic culture.

No need. I already know. Going back to Muhammeds truce with the unbelievers of Mecca, it is a ceasefire with religious underpinnings.

In what respect do you consider "hudna" to be different from "ceasefire"?

It is interesting that while you attempt to enjoy the cynicism without taking full responsability for your words.

If you would say that out front, you'd be considered a tact-less person and a bigot.

So instead you use an 'if' case, thus evading responsability for your words, while getting a chance to say what you really want to say.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize the irony would pass you by...

I think that this wouldn't be in Israels interests... Cause after all, what are 20 people on a bus compared to another chunk of palestinian land?

You must have, if you demand them to be granted independance and self-rule.

Because if they are not a civilized society, and until they will not become such, granting them self-rule will no doubt present a threat to it's neighbours, and first and foremost - Israel.

And thus we are back to your circular argument. We can't let them be free because they are not civillized. But they are not civilized because we will not let them free.

Frankly, I see no way that Palestine to beomce a civilized society, if such demands do not arise right now.

Fascinating... So if a people can't be civilized while being occupied by a foreign oppressor which continuously steals more and more of their land, razes their infrastructure, destroyes their economy and kills their people, the will surely never be civilized?

Wow...

Do you think that it will be easier to rid Palestine of fanatical militarist radicals (be they religiously or nationally motivated), after they are granted independance and self rule?

Well, duh...

Pray tell: when did the french resistance disband? Was it
A) After Vichy France became a vassal of Germany, while germany kept 75% of french soil?
B) After a particularly vicious punitive German action?
C) After France was finally granted independence and self-rule?

The only successfull attempts at demilitarizing fanatics, are post-WWII Germany and post-WWII Japan.

Both of which, have gone through a different process:

1. Full demilitarization.
2. De-militarization (essentially, liberal brain-washing)
3. Only then, gradually accepting self rule and independance.

For what reason do you think that this process if worth abandoning when it comes to deal with Palestine, is unclear to me.

And this surely be a good process, if Israel was ever defeated and forced to join the civilized world.

However, what you are asking about is examples of countries where fanatics have disbanded after the occupation they fought against have ended?

Well, of the top of my head:
USA (revolution)
Spain (Spanish civil war)
France (WW2)
Poland (WW2)
Norway (WW2)
Finland (Russia, WW2)
Russia (WW2)
Greece (WW2)
Holland (WW2)
Belgium (WW2)
Algeria (independence from France)
Indochina (independence from France)
Kenya (independence from England)
Malaysia (independence from England)
Cyprus (independence from England)
China (civil war)
Vietnam (Vietnam War)
South Africa (Inkhata and ANC vs. Apartheid regime)
Israel (independence from England)

Of course, just because it worked at least 19 times before surely doesn't mean anything. Or that your own country is the proof of the opposite...

That is exactly my point btw.

What you concieve as Israeli leaders putting blocks on the road towards Palestinian self-rule, is infact merely Israeli logic of self defense.

Logic? Hardly. I wish I could even call it stupidity, but I fear that we are looking at nothing else but naked greed.

I doubty any reasonably intelligent person would claim that the current Israeli tactics will ever lead to less Israeli deaths. The only informed people arguing that point does it for nothing but ideological reasons...

You think that we demand to stop terror attacks, so that we could keep "stealing land unabided".

No, I think that you demand them to stop terror attacks because you truly wish them to stop terror attacks, but Israel is not willing to make any kind of concessions to make sure that happens.

Come on, if I walked up to a stranger and told him "give me your car", don't you think I truly wished him to give me his car? However, unless I'm willing to pay the man whatever his car is worth, I shouldn;t complain when he refuses to give it to me...

In reality, the only thing the Israeli governments have been consitent on, is that before any self-rule can be given - a serious process of de-militarization must go under-way.

And more circular reasoning. We wont give them self rule before they demilitarize, but they wont militarize until the occupation ends.

And they really shouldn't: considering that Israels word is worth absolutely nothing, demilitarizing before a deal would be unbelievably stupid...

Why is Israel insisting on demilitarization first? Because in the other case, it will have to live with fanaticism in it's back yard. And not the US or the EU, or anybody else.

You may claim that it is impossible, but it is exactly what happenned in Israeli schools and media between 1993-2000. Only after the Intifada started, the Israeli society has began returning to militarization and a radical position on the Palestinian issue.

Of course. Between 1993 and 2000 it looked like you actually could have your cake and eat it: palestine was pretty sedate without israel having to live up to its obligations. Of course you were happy with that. Not that it would ever have led to palestinian independence, of course...



*sigh*

Is it really that painful to take a truthful look at your own country?

Do you ever reflect on the impact on the palestinian population when the settlements almost doubled their inhabitants from 1993 to 2000? Did you ever consider that the intifada came because the palestinians finally accepted that Israel would only keep nibbling away their land, and so took the painful step of a second uprising?

Of course not... Because that would force you to admit that your country is lying to you... and that would be to painful..

[CyberGnu]

Zevico, see my reply to Siro.

(Essentially, it comes down to that unless a solider is punished for his action, it is assumed that he is acting under the approval of the commander, and thus the goverment. Israel never punishes soldiers who murder people, well, unless they are Israeli, of course. )