Israel Kills Rantisi, New Hamas Leader.

[Ted Striker]

He knows it.

Doesn't mean he was any good at it.

[SlowwHand]

You need to cut Kissinger some slack.
Look who he worked for. Mr. Talk To Myself.

[Az]

Once the Palestinians will wake up? Given that they haven't after 50 years is somewhat of an indication

Israel's struggle, and the jews' struggle that precluded it is an indication as well. Israel will exist, whether they'll like it, or not.

The Vietnamese struggled for longer and suffered more casualties. And the Palestinians don't have to give up: right is on their side.

You mean the destruction of Israel is right?

Israel is the bad guy here - conquest is prohibited by the UN Charter, which Israel is signatory to. The fact that you have the US on your side for now makes enforcement difficult, but things won't always be that way - and if you keep behaving like this, when things change, you are toast.

I'll actually take the UN charter seriously, when it is enforced at all.

[Sirotnikov]

Great little discussion here.

Agathon - I realize that by your logic Sharon and Bush are playing into the hands of Bin Laden. But in our view, it's a lose-lose situation.

If we don't fight [insert terrorist name] he will get stronger and attack. If we do fight [insert terrorist name] he will get enraged, more popular support and attack.


What solution you say? Solve the underlying problem - occupation / injustice / what ever.

I have two counter-claims.

1. Terror precedes occupation. The arabic and now moslem terrorism began as a way to defeat Israel completely. No matter how much we will attempt to do good - the terrorists will always want one thing - the destruction of Israel. That was their goal when terror started, before 1967. It remains their goal.

2. Even if we solve the true underlying problems - the current arab / moslem society is militarized and is lead by fanatics. While you can be mad at me for bringing up germany - see the example of 1939. Everyone could see that the Versailles treaty was unfair to Germany. However, fixing it, and compensating Hitler's Germany, was a bad decision.

Same thing here.

Giving power to Arafat's Palestine, and giving power to Saddam's Iraq, or Bashar's Syria- would be a mistake. They would abuse your good intentions.


What solution is there? "denazification" / "defanatization" of arab countries, while fixing the wrong doings and making their countries free and democratic.

Sort of what America is doing in Iraq, but better thought ahead. True - it's a bumpy road, and the militarized locals aren't going to like it. But eventually it is the only real solution - in my eyes.

[Az]

Don't you get it? Aggie wants the destruction is Israel. it's this existance that is the occupation. Read it: The palestinians have been resisting for 56 years. The existance of Israel is occupation by itself.

I think we should've given independence ot the people in the territories back in 1980, before the Fatah scum came over. Did you know that there were Palestinian policemen, judges, mayors, etc., before the first Intifada? They governed themselves. We should've allowed for independence back then. But we allowed the scum of Fatah to come in.

But I guess hindsight is always 6-6, or 20-20.

[Tripledoc]

Britain has condemned the attack.

Edit: Make that the entire EU has condemned the attack.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Agathon
I guess the fact that there was no mass communication made no difference. We don't live in that world any more.

Mass communication just means you don't have to kill as many people. If everybody knows that being in Hamas is a death sentence, it's unlikely they'll be as willing to join it.

It's only fun to say you're willing to die if that remains an abstraction. Once it becomes concrete reality (if the life expectency of Hamas members drops considerably) people tend to be less boastful and more rational.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Britain has condemned the attack.

Edit: Make that the entire EU has condemned the attack.

Whoop-de-do.

[Sandman]

Arrest one of them. Go on. I dare you.

[Tripledoc]

Originally posted by Sandman
Arrest one of them. Go on. I dare you.

Yes that is making me wonder too. Why did they simply not arrest him. They arrested Yassin in 1999 I believe. They could put the Hamas leaders on trial, instead of assasinating them.

Assassinations are clearly prohibited by Article 23b of the Hague Regulations, 1907.

Article 49, Geneva Convention – "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies"

The Occupying Power shall permit ministers of religion to give spiritual assistance to the members of their religious communities" (Article 58).

"No sentence shall be pronounced by the competent courts of the Occupying Power except after a regular trial." (Article 71).

"A convicted person shall have the right of appeal provided for by the laws applied by the court" (Article 73).

"In no case shall persons condemned to death be deprived of the right of petition for pardon or reprieve. No death sentence shall be carried out before the expiration of a period of at least six months" (Article 75).

[Sandman]

They're too well protected, apparently. Israel can move about the Palestinian areas with impunity, and seems to have little difficulty occupying specific places. The Palestinians can't seem to defend these places, but when it comes to defending individuals they present an insurmountable challenge.

[Agathon]

Agathon - I realize that by your logic Sharon and Bush are playing into the hands of Bin Laden. But in our view, it's a lose-lose situation.

But the Israel situation matters not just to you or the Palestinians, it has global consequences - particularly it increases support for lunatics like OBL who point to it as an example of Western perfidy. I don't think that there is a solution that is going to fit everyone's bill; all we can hope for is the least worst situation.

In my view two people are largely responsible for the violence: Ariel Sharon and Bush. Sharon deliberately provoked the current round of violence by taking that walk on the Temple Mount and since then he has pretty much pursued a policy of wrecking any peace settlement. Bush has been completely stupid about the whole thing. I didn't like Clinton, but everyone has to admit that the situation was much better when he was involved.

If we don't fight [insert terrorist name] he will get stronger and attack. If we do fight [insert terrorist name] he will get enraged, more popular support and attack.

There's a third solution. Withdraw completely from the occupied territories or do a land swap deal where required. Some minor compromise on the right of return will be required on the part of the Palestinians. Despite what people claim, they've never really been offered this. There are a large number of Palestinians who would rather take this and the international support for it would be overwhelming (basically everyone but the US and Israel supports this solution because they know that full right of return is unrealistic).

Everyone knows that this is what a peace deal will look like. The radicals on both sides oppose it and are determined to commit atrocities to make sure it never happens. There might be a surge of terrorism as the radicals try to derail such a settlement, but it is in the interests of most Palestinians to have their own state and the terror won't last (because it requires a significant degree of domestic support). Police the border with maximal intensity, do what you want, but don't sell them short on some mickey mouse state. A lot of Palestinians from outside the region moved back there when it looked like the peace deal was going to work - hopefully some can be persuaded to give it a second go.

I have two counter-claims.

1. Terror precedes occupation. The arabic and now moslem terrorism began as a way to defeat Israel completely. No matter how much we will attempt to do good - the terrorists will always want one thing - the destruction of Israel. That was their goal when terror started, before 1967. It remains their goal.

That's how it began for the simple reason that world powers were trying to force a Jewish state on the Arabs of the region. I imagine anyone would feel the same way. What if the US decided that New Zealand was to become the new Kurdish state and allowed unrestricted Kurdish immigration to New Zealand against the wishes of its inhabitants. I think we'd be incensed - moreover because we caused them no harm. It's the same with Israel - the whole thing was a stupid idea.

Having said that, they're there now and there is no way of removing them without committing atrocities. The surrounding Arab states have basically accepted Israel's existence, although they sometimes pretend otherwise for domestic political reasons. Everyone knows that partition is the only workable solution.

Again - "Israel must be destroyed" is the slogan of the radicals. I imagine that many people say it without really meaning it. I doubt that they really mean it anymore because everyone knows it can't happen. Most Palestinians that support the radicals do so because they are the only people that ever do anything against the Israelis.

2. Even if we solve the true underlying problems - the current arab / moslem society is militarized and is lead by fanatics.

And sustained by the general population who see the fanatics as the only people who are actually doing something. If you give them a reason which does not humiliate them to do otherwise they'll go for it. In any case the alternative is the undying enmity of all the Arabs for the next two generations. Who's to say that the current balance of power in the region will remain as it is?

And this completely ignores the fact that the current Israeli government is led by a fanatic.

While you can be mad at me for bringing up germany - see the example of 1939. Everyone could see that the Versailles treaty was unfair to Germany. However, fixing it, and compensating Hitler's Germany, was a bad decision.

The Palestinians are not Germany. They themselves will probably never be in a position to militarily threaten Israel. Besides, the cost of doing nothing is probably worse in the long run. Occupation and the denial of civil rights is simply wrong. You know that you can't give them the vote as Israeli citizens because that would eventually destroy the idea of a Jewish State, so partition is the only reasonable answer. They aren't going away and, heaven forbid, if they are forcibly transferred from the West Bank into Jordan, Israel will lose all legitimacy in the eyes of everyone but the US. That is not smart politics.

Giving power to Arafat's Palestine, and giving power to Saddam's Iraq, or Bashar's Syria- would be a mistake. They would abuse your good intentions.

What is Syria going to do? None of the Arab governments have the slightest intention of fighting Israel not matter what their posturing and no matter what their people say. They know they'd take a beating. I can't see what Arafat could really do. If he is caught sending suicide bombers into Israel from a Palestinian State then the equation changes dramatically as it is a case of one state attacking another. Such an attack would not be viewed as legitimate and Israel would have a considerably freer hand (politically speaking) to retaliate than it does now. Most people generally don't think there is anything wrong with Israel striking Hezbollah rocket positions in Southern Lebanon because they are attacking Israel. Statehood profoundly changes the political dynamic of the situation.

What solution is there? "denazification" / "defanatization" of arab countries, while fixing the wrong doings and making their countries free and democratic.

The problem here is not one of ideology. It's that other powers have meddled in the region and propped up dictators to suit their own agendas (oil being the main one). Of course the locals are going to be angry at foreign powers who come in and tell them what to do on their own turf.

If a country is going to become a democracy it has to do it domestically. Nothing else really works because it is not viewed as legitimate by the population. The only examples I can think of are Japan and Germany and both those nations had lost a terrible war which they started in an attempt to export fascism. That's simply not the case in the Middle East. It's also not the case that Arabs are somehow unfit for democracy - that is a racist stereotype. They may elect people we don't like, or enact domestic policies that we don't like, but stiff **** - that's democracy. Even if they elect radicals it won't last. Iran is a good example of this, the theocrats influence is waning slowly. Most Iranians know that they can overthrow them just as they did the Shah - and it will happen sooner or later.

Sort of what America is doing in Iraq, but better thought ahead. True - it's a bumpy road, and the militarized locals aren't going to like it. But eventually it is the only real solution - in my eyes.

You can see how well it is working in Iraq. Or how well it worked in Vietnam. It won't work unless the interest of the meddling power is the same as the interest of most of the population. Most Arabs don't like the idea of their homelands being occupied to keep the oil flowing, or with corrupt elites being propped up by those who want to keep the oil flowing. The people of Venezuela are facing the same problem. - other people would prefer an oligarchy, but they certainly don't want one.

[Tripledoc]

This assassination comes precisely when things seems to be cooling off a little in Iraq. The four mercenaries killed in Falluja was a revenge for the killing of Sheik Yassin. This sparked the current uprising there.

[MRT144]

move israel to new mexico.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
This assassination comes precisely when things seems to be cooling off a little in Iraq. The four mercenaries killed in Falluja was a revenge for the killing of Sheik Yassin. This sparked the current uprising there.

Post hoc reasoning.