Car Bomb in Jerusalem - Tens of casualties

[Az]

don't believe the bogus zionist press...

anyway, they will be arrested. How about the ones that not destroy greenhouses , but kill people ? you know the palestinian ones?

[DinoDoc]

Just out of curiosity, could someone confirm or deny a rumor I just heard? Eli just told me that a Kassam 2 missile has been fired at Sharon's position. Is this true and if so would anyone care to speculate on what the retaliation for such an action will be?

[Andrew1999]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Just out of curiosity, could someone confirm or deny a rumor I just heard? Eli just told me that a Kassam 2 missile has been fired at Sharon's position. Is this true and if so would anyone care to speculate on what the retaliation for such an action will be?

It was fired at the Sharon region, not Sharon the Prime Minister. I believe the region is in northern Israel, which means the missile would have come from the West Bank. Israel at one point threatened massive retaliation if the Palistineans fired the Qassam-2 from the West Bank, but I doubt that's going to change anything now.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Andrew1999
It was fired at the Sharon region, not Sharon the Prime Minister.

They name regions after thier PMs?

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
don't believe the bogus zionist press...

anyway, they will be arrested. How about the ones that not destroy greenhouses , but kill people ? you know the palestinian ones?

This is getting very intresting. Seems theres no press in this Earth everyone would trust in. First BBC is an evil, I ask whats better. I'm told to look at Haaretz web page, seems ok. I quote it and still you're not satisfied.

Anyway, they will be arrested. Sure, but for how long, half an hour? And how about the ones that shoot at Int. Red Cross medics? Destroy their ambulances and loot ordinary peoples homes? You know IDF and the settlers?

[Oldenbarnevelt]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


They name regions after thier PMs?

Actually, the region was named after Sharon Tate...

[Eli]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Just out of curiosity, could someone confirm or deny a rumor I just heard? Eli just told me that a Kassam 2 missile has been fired at Sharon's position. Is this true and if so would anyone care to speculate on what the retaliation for such an action will be?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oldenbarnevelt
Actually, the region was named after Sharon Tate...

That makes more sense.

[GePap]

Re: a great debate

Originally posted by Dalgetti


One could claim that the countries are secular. But the population is religious and nationalistic . The governments want to have support of the public on the streets. And what better than some religious AND nationalistic fervor ? That's the best mix ever.

I could say the same about the growing Jewish orthodoxy in Israel, but I won't. The point is that this begun as a ntionalisites question, with relegions just one of the ways to distinguish the two nations.

Since dictators are not lawfully leaders of their countries, they seek support of the public by unofficial means. Democratic governments do not reply to the public by law ( they're not responsible before the parliament ) , they are only responisible before the law . That's one of the ways that democracy is stronger than a dictature.

Democarcy can lead to dictatorship: what prevents this from happening is respect for individual rights, which preclude the majority from attacking the minority.

yes , it could. especially with the arab forces ground down to dust. That's why the Soviets threatened to intervene , mind you.

Then why did israel act so desperately for a quick infusion of American made weapons? The fatc that the US was willing to bail israel out with fresh shipments of weapons is what kept israel in there as long.

In some places they did move into towns, into buildings they either bought or built. but that's not the point. What's the connection? did they shoot and kill arabs ? there was only one case of this , and it was Baruch Goldstein. The arabs killed many people .

The Karp report is full of nice stories of settler abuses and the Army doing nothing. And it was written by the Israeli government itself! The point is that Israel says it will give land back to Palesitnians while increasing the numbers of settlers, even in lands they promise to eventualy give abck. Why would anyone say- I'll give you that, then move their stuff in? Would you trust such people?

and why are settlements illegal ? I actually don't know these paragraph in the Geneva Convention , or whatever.

It is illegal for an occupying army to seek to change the demographics of an area under occupation through the introduction of its own citizens. Any such move is designed to either make negotiations impossible, or create facts on the gorud, both of which are illegal. Since the interantional community classifies the occupied territories as just that, the settlemtn are illegal.

so , say Hitler demands the suddets , and the Polish corridor together ? will that change the situation ? how ?

Hitler kept demanding more and more land outside of germany. I have not seen Arafats territorial demands change from 1993- the West bank and Gaza.

So, for many bananas are not yellow , but purple. And I can't throuw out words , of course.
What I want to say, that I feel you want to say something different. But I can't quite understand it.

Silly argument. Terrorism is defined as : the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. the state of fear and submission so produced. Government or resitance to government by means of terror.

It would not be hard then to say that dropping heavy bombs near large, built up areas, is not only designed to bring a party coersively into talks, but also to create fear into those living nearby to submit. This is what the IDF does and what Sharon stated as his policy. Does that not fit the above defenition, from the Random House webster's dictionary?
Words like justice, love, terror, words not associated with a physical characteristic thats not proportional (and color is such a thing) are open to intepretation and debate.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Oldenbarnevelt


Actually, the region was named after Sharon Tate...

Umm. It's a joke, right?

[Natan]

Originally posted by GePap
Both your examples are based on incorrect notions. The most basic fact of the UN is sovereignty, just like the most basic fact of US law is property rights. When any member (individual or state) behaves in a way such as to violate this (and invading a neighbor surely is) then they can be punished for their acts. There are sactions on Iraq because they a. Invaded Kuwait, which begun a war, and b. Iraq has yet to fully comply with its sentence brought to it at the end. This is thus not a violation of the Law, but an attempt to enforce it.

So because it invaded Kuwait, it should lose soveriegnty over a completely different part of the country at the other end of the region?

In the UN, it says clearly that territorial changes based on military force and land aquisition by force are unacceptable. This is exactly what Israel did- so, Israel has no right to claim any of the land taken in 1967 any more than if I steal something from you, I then get to claim it as mine. Any land will only become Israeli if an agreement with the other party lets Israel annex it (as such was the case in 1948)

It's not clear to me why the land belongs to the Palestinians, and it's even less clear why it belongs to the PLO. The land was left by the British, and every power which got some of that land got it through force.

Insofar as they were laws, no, they were not unjust. BUt they were based on values I would call dehumanizing and evil. As such, I believe they were wrong. To a smaller degree, I see Israeli law in the same way: based on values I find apprehensible.

Well this is becoming semantic anyway.

I think it is impossible, as far as the system is constructed.

So you think that even if Kuwait were a Soviet ally, we would still have invaded Iraq?

I would posit that it's not based on the amount of land, but that Israel exists on any amount of land one ruled by Islamic law. I think its the pride factor more than anything else.

The PLO begun as secular, the governments of Egypt and Syria have been secular a long time:

Not entirely true; Fatah is not secular from a western perspective, and Egypt's law code is based heavily on the Sharia, that is, blasphemy is a crime.

so any argument basic on islamiscism to explain this conflict is certainly wrong. It is a national dispute, not religious.

Exactly. And Arab nationalism plays just as big a role as Zionism.

The question being, why should a Jewsih nation grow by kicking out an Arab one?

No, the question being, will the Arab nation let the Jewish nation continue to exist in any part of its land? Or, since I believe "nations" in this sense are not particularly clear entities, will the Arab political/terrorist groups which control the Palestinian areas accept the existence of the state of Israel?

And Sharon's words make his statements that he is for peace just as dubious.

That depends on what you mean by peace, but yes, he is opposed to full Israeli withdrawl from the West Bank. On the other hand, he does not viewed negotiations as tricks - he considers the Oslo accords a done deal.

The question is, which one of them has at least gone to peace conferences in the past?

Both. Sharon was a negotiator at Wye, and he was also responsible for evacuating Israelis for Taba in the Sinai after the first Camp David treaty.

"The world" operating outside the UN framework is no more a court than a lynch mob is. You can't say that a vague term means what more people would like it to mean. As you said, why do we have courts and juries?

You call it a lynch mob cause they disagree with your viewpoint.

How is a bunch of individual nations acting in the name of Law outside any UN or other international framework anything other than a lynch mob?

As for what vague terms mean, eventually, in any settlement, the definition will have to be made clear, and as of now, more people back the Arab than israeli one. This is based, i belive, in that the Arab definiton is more sound.

The Israeli definition is obviously that which was intended by the framers. To say that the definition has changed is to say that there is an unnamed, unidentifiable, and silent Judicial branch to the UN with no basis in any treaty, document, or historical incident.

And the same in the Syrian front.

Right, but Syria refuses to negotiate what the peacekeeping contingent will be. They might well ask that it exclude Americans.

Yes, but israel could not go into Damascus and Cairo and expect victory, not with a large proportion of its population having to be at the front continiously. Israel did well, but it cost them more than they could, in the long run, bear. This is why they decide to make peace with the more successful side, Egypt.

I think it had a lot to do with Sadat's switching sides and with the speech he gave in Jerusalem.

And Israel's position is that it will negotiate the entrance of peacekeepers, but will not first let the dagger be pointed at the Galilee's heart. Egypt did not lose anything by agreeing to negotiate the terms of the withdrawl and the placement and composition of the UN force, nor did Jordan. Syria is just trying to avoid any demilitirization of the Golan. You might as well say that Germany should not have given the US any assurances but should just have demanded independence in 1946.

Again, what statements do you base this on?

This is a simple analysis of the situation. If you disagree, be specific.

The problem is on defining the Golans borders, not on this. again, where does Syria say no?

Until the late 90s, Syria said that it would not negotiate with Israel until after an Israeli withdrawl. Yes, the issue today is the borders of the Golan, or, to be more specific, that was the issue the last time the issue came up, and we can't be sure what they'd be today..

I've been arguing that in international terms, laws and agreements in practically every case take second place to national interests, and that therefore they are not laws the way national laws are. What makes the rule of law a powerful and important concept is that it really exists; people in free countries really can expect free trials, fair enforcement of laws, and democratic discussion of them. If the rule of law just meant the interpretation useful to the ruler, then it would have no meaning - the rule of law of the Soviet legal code had no moral force.

As for your first statement, this is arguing that it doesn't exist, not that it inherently lacks fairness (I think Slobo is getting a very fair trial). I agree that many nations have yet to talke international law (the US) seriously but that does not mean they can't, or won't in the future.

I think the idea that nations will take unenforced law seriously is as silly as the idea that individuals will. Until the UN is powerful enough to force its will on its member states, it will either be irrelevant or a tool in the hands of powerful manipulaters.

That's what "transfer" as advocated by the banned Kach movement means. But what Rehavam Zeevi talked about until his assassination was limiting the number of Palestinian guest workers in Israel to encourage Arab emigration.

'Encourage Arab immigration", how nice. Sorry Natan, but I don't look kindly upon race based hiring and telling millions that we won't hire you because of how you are

I don't either, but I don't think Ze'evi's plan was race-based - the Druze said he was actually quite sympathetic to their complaints. But the point is not to say that Ze'evi's policies were good or correct or in accordance with your values or mine, but to show that he is not analogous to Hamas.

and i still, unlike you, believe that the call is for more extreme action.

Would you like to provide any evidence for that?

Just cause of a movement is banned does not mean it lacks political power.

Kach is pretty irrelevant if you ask me. But even so, what exactly is your point? That Israel should double-ban it?

I get it - if you live next to some one peacefully, it proves you have no intent of making peace with them! And economic opportunities wouldn't have been cut by Israel if the PA hadn't increased terror opportunities. The closures came after the terror attacks.

Live peacefullly? Settlements are illegal in the first place, and many setlers have no intention of peaceful coexistance (if they did, why not try to move into the towns themselves?)

Maybe because that could get them killed? Many Palestinians have no intention of peaceful coexistence, does that mean Palestinian ilegal immigration to Israel is proof that they don't want peace?

Second, I denounce collective punishment. Under what moral code do you state that persons c through z will not be allowed to go outside or go to work because a killed b? That is denying the individual nature of c through z or that they have any rights at all. You speak of laws based on morals- what morals are these?

You know, the US government bans its citizens from travelling to certain countries because of the dangers involved. If you can prevent your own citizens from going to other countries because of the danger, certainly you can prevent foriegners from coming into yours. The closures are not punishments, they are security measures. Also, most countries bar the entry of nationals of enemy countries.

So, for many fatah is not a terror organization at all. You can't throw out words and expect everyone to share your definition.

And for many UN resolutions aren't binding. For many, Kach is not a terrorist organization. etc.

Of what? Of the occupied territories? I think they are right to demand it all, I don't think Israel has any legal right to a scrap of them.

I think that UN resolution 242 doesn't force Israel to turn them over.

As for the whole mandate; probably the goal of some, but certainly not all,

The question, I think, is what is the goal of Fatah and its allies.

although Israeli actions serve very well in making most palestinians believe that peaceful coexistance with the likes of Kach and Sharon is impossible and that all israelis support them both.

There are many Israeli peace groups which do their utmost to promote co-existence.

Maybe other Israelis should try to show them this is wrong.

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin of Efrat on the West Bank sends food to needy Muslim families on Islamic holidays and make sure that the Olive grove planted in Efrat by Palestinians in the '50s stays where it is. The response given by terror organizations was to send a bomber to blow up a supermarket in Efrat. The man had worked there for several years and was on a first name basis with several of the people he killed. But besides, if I said that many Israelis view all Palestinians as Hamas and that the Palestinians must do something to prove otherwise, I don't think people would think that was a legitimate response to Israeli terror attacks on Palestinians. The way to deal with terrorism is through force, and this applies equally to Kach and Fatah.

So you are saying: since people break rules, have no rules? Yes, people break agreements, but most don't.

I'm saying, people break their promises, so try to figure out whether someone will before you rely on his promise. Most people pay back their debts; does that mean you should offer a hundred dollars to every man you see in the street?

This is whay broken agreements are so known. there are countless treaties you don't hear about, because they are followed. its like in the local news: When will you hear an anouncement that "no one broke the law today"? You won't, even if it is true.

But the agreeements which are broken are usually the most signifigant ones. It's nice that Germany is following the Warsaw convention on international air travel, but it's far more important that they broke the Versailles treaty.

But after 3 last demands, it gets old. Since the peace process started, has Arafat called for more than the occupied territories with East Jerusalem as a capitol?

He said he would give up terrorism, and he didn't.

Well, good for Clinton.

Your point was that Rabin thought Arafat was a good guy. I have disagreed with your point and provided the reason for my position on that matter. That Clinton was or was not a good guy is irrelevant.

Biased statements are not arguments. Neither side was satisfied, nor should have they been, with the progress of the peace process.

That doesn't give the Palestinian side the right to make slaughtering Israeli civillians their mission.

They are binding, they are enforced, and this applies world-wide.

Didn't we just say that every UN member agreed to abide by the charter but that not a single one does?

The problem is not that treaties are not binding, but that too many nations have little respect of international law. we would be better of if everyone did have respect for them.

Um, if no one is forced to do something, in what way is it binding?

No, people judge whether promises were kept in the past and make inferences towards future action which may be right or wrong. That Faisal is currently an important man is fine, that we will be in the future, or will continue to hold the same view, you can't say.

Are you honestly arguing to me that Faisal Husseini's words were air without meaning? That he said it as an April fools day Joke?

In a way. Logical analysis can only go so far, since it can at best, give you various possible futures. At that point, one must act to try to reach one of those futures.

And that "act" must be based on logical analysis of the situation, which can also often tell you which of the possible futures is more likely.

Not confiscate as opposed to not returning.

You're going to have to be more specific because I have no clue what you are reffering to.

Second, I neevr meant that sending Zinni back had anythin got do with punishing anyone. You stated that US strategy was to keep the conflict on a low burner. That has failed.

You were arguing that
“But a system does. The US has not met with Arafat recently and isolates him because they expect him to keep his statementss. Thats how it gets enfoced, through future action.”
That’s why I said that the US strategy was to keep pressure on Arafat, and that this strategy was not meant to punish him for breaking treaties but was meant to serve our interest in keeping the violence down. To tell me that the policy has failed is irrelevant, because I was not arguing that the policy was successful or unsuccessful, but rather I was discussing the motives behind the policy.

Terorism is politcal violence. Any true solution must be political, otherwise you just dirve it underground to fester.

You know, war is also political violence, but it has military solutions. If terrorism can't be defeated except politically, tell me why Bader-Meinhoff isn't around anymore. Then explain why the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood isn't either.

You only know if an initiative will bring peace if you try it.

Could have been said of giving Hitler the Polish corridor.

Again, Faisal isn't Hitler, he certainly isn't the leader nr the only politican in the palestinians camp. From the start, in Mein kampf , hitler makes his aims clear. That the other leadres didn't want to read, their mistake. Again, since 1993 the Palestinians leadership overall has been consistent with its demands, and they don't include the destruction of Israel.

They have not been consistent, since Faisal Husseini has said something else. Besides, Hitler wrote Mein Kampf long before he became Chancellor.

Again, you misunderstand. If the law says "you musty give everyone drungs", there is no room for interpetation. If it says "you must give all elderly drugs", then you can ask rightfully: who do we consider elderly? at 60? 65? Thats a valid, and very comon occurence. laws have never been crytal clear, except when a dictator gives them.

I'd say the UN charter is pretty clear if you read it. Do I have to quote the relevant passages?

The mayority of the Securtiy council plus all veto members.

So in short a second resolution is required, and that has not yet been provided.

You plural, not you singular.

If I'm Israeli, then you're Palestinian. I do not appreciate being assigned nationalities not my own for purposes of blame giving and criticism. Or for many other purposes, for that matter.

The Soviets did say that economic rights were key to human rights (which is why all those clauses you mention are in the document in the first place).

Exactly, and isn't that wrong? And if it's not wrong, does the charter have any meaning at all?

[Natan]

Laurentius:
1) How should the international community deal with the murder of 300 people in India, and shouldn't it deal with that before property damage in the West Bank? Not every criminal case is the international community's business.
2) Shouldn't the "international community" also do something about Palestinian terrorism if it's going to involve itself?

Dindoc: AFAIK, the region had its name long before Sharon's family did. IIRC, it's the name of a flower in Hebrew, possibly the rose?

Ariel Sharon's personal ranch is in range of Qassam rockets, but I'm not sure the Palestinians want to shoot at it, and I'm not sure he'd want to make a big response to it if they did - it looks bad to respond to that after he did nothing when the Dolphinarium was attacked. But then again, military analysts claim that the Qassam is too inaccurate to be effective.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by DinoDoc


That makes more sense.

you silly mississipian moneypenney

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Natan
Laurentius:
1) How should the international community deal with the murder of 300 people in India, and shouldn't it deal with that before property damage in the West Bank? Not every criminal case is the international community's business.
2) Shouldn't the "international community" also do something about Palestinian terrorism if it's going to involve itself?

1. India?I honestly dont know. Anyway this thread is about situation in ME so...

2. Yeah it should, but my question was about Israeli terrorism

[GePap]

Originally posted by Natan

So because it invaded Kuwait, it should lose soveriegnty over a completely different part of the country at the other end of the region?

The northern no-fly zoen and Kuridsh region are not UN speonsored as much as US created, I personally don't think much of them. But the sactions regime does count and is valid.

It's not clear to me why the land belongs to the Palestinians, and it's even less clear why it belongs to the PLO. The land was left by the British, and every power which got some of that land got it through force.

Becuse in 1947 the UN partitioned the land- all the occupied territories today with the excetption of Jerusalem, both east and West (both were supposed to be under UN control), are parts of lands that were granted to the local Arabs, the Palesitnians. JOrdan was wrong in annexing the West bank, for which they got lots of heat from other Arabs states, and they have now renounced the west bank. Egypt never annexed the gaza strip. Since neither of these two peices of land are rightfully Israeli either, who does that leave? Well, the people who inhabit them, and as a 90+% majority in those lands, it should go to the Palestinians.

So you think that even if Kuwait were a Soviet ally, we would still have invaded Iraq?

Since this is a hypothetical bordering on the inane (yes, a releigous conservative sheikdom a Soviet ally), i wont touch it. What I will say is that it was UN approval which gave the US the ability to set up the sanctions regime and gather wideranging Arab (heck, even Syria) support for the attack.

Not entirely true; Fatah is not secular from a western perspective, and Egypt's law code is based heavily on the Sharia, that is, blasphemy is a crime.

And neither is israel a secular state, nor its civil code secular by western standards, so i guess I will go by Middle eastern, in whic a little religious law is considered fine.

Exactly. And Arab nationalism plays just as big a role as Zionism.

yes, this is a clash of nationalism

No, the question being, will the Arab nation let the Jewish nation continue to exist in any part of its land? Or, since I believe "nations" in this sense are not particularly clear entities, will the Arab political/terrorist groups which control the Palestinian areas accept the existence of the state of Israel?

But you refuse to recognize the reality that the Jewish nation was biult upon the expulsion of over half a million huamn beigns out of their homes: until israel comes to term with that reality, that its birth is based on someone else pain and loss, it won't face peace.

That depends on what you mean by peace, but yes, he is opposed to full Israeli withdrawl from the West Bank. On the other hand, he does not viewed negotiations as tricks - he considers the Oslo accords a done deal.

From all i have heard him say, he sees Oslo a done deal,as in done for, no longer valid. This is going on statements he has made all durng Oslo and the intifadah.

Sharon was a negotiator at Wye, and he was also responsible for evacuating Israelis for Taba in the Sinai after the first Camp David treaty.

You mena dismantling the illegal settlements he himself has started and gotten built when peace came with egypt.

How is a bunch of individual nations acting in the name of Law outside any UN or other international framework anything other than a lynch mob?

Wheres the rope? I don't see anyone being lynched. And I also fail to see many nations in gorups act outsied the bounds of pre=existing interantional frameworks like the UN, NATO, or WHO.

The Israeli definition is obviously that which was intended by the framers. To say that the definition has changed is to say that there is an unnamed, unidentifiable, and silent Judicial branch to the UN with no basis in any treaty, document, or historical incident.

The Israeli definition is no no way the valid one, since the definition has yet to be determined! 242 has vagueness built in, so both sides would agree to use it as a starting point for negotiations. beyond the baselessness of just stating you are right, there is the fatc that neither side has actually gone to a mayor peace conference to hammer things out. My point is, that when that negotiation comes around, the Arab view, that Israel must withdraw all territories taken in 1967 will be the predominant one.

Right, but Syria refuses to negotiate what the peacekeeping contingent will be. They might well ask that it exclude Americans.

But it does not need to include Americans.

I think it had a lot to do with Sadat's switching sides and with the speech he gave in Jerusalem.

Sadat did not switch sides. he wanted to get his antion out of the Soveit sphere, where Nasser had gravitated, and to bring about peace. But notice, all this happened after he launched war on israel. He knew that he had to bring the military balance more to his favor ot get israel to negotiate- and he was right.

This is a simple analysis of the situation. If you disagree, be specific.

Based on what? Syria agreed to UNSCR 242 in 1972. It does not have the power to retake the Golan and knows the Israeli demands and the US demands. Why then would they call for a complete IDF pullout wihtout the placing then of peacekeepers?

Until the late 90s, Syria said that it would not negotiate with Israel until after an Israeli withdrawl. Yes, the issue today is the borders of the Golan, or, to be more specific, that was the issue the last time the issue came up, and we can't be sure what they'd be today..

So israel should go ask the syrains in a new round of negotiations, instead of stting on their arse.

I think the idea that nations will take unenforced law seriously is as silly as the idea that individuals will. Until the UN is powerful enough to force its will on its member states, it will either be irrelevant or a tool in the hands of powerful manipulaters.

Why? the Us abides byu the ruilings of the WTO, which has far less enforcement capabilites than the UN. Why? Because following the ruels is in its own interests, which are calculated based on values. The US, for the most part, wanst free tarde, thinks it is good for it, so it will abide by the rulings of a trade court, with absolutely no enforcement abilites, becuase it promotes its values.

I don't either, but I don't think Ze'evi's plan was race-based - the Druze said he was actually quite sympathetic to their complaints. But the point is not to say that Ze'evi's policies were good or correct or in accordance with your values or mine, but to show that he is not analogous to Hamas.

Thats because Israel redefined the Druze as not Arabs to seperate them from the Arab mainstream. The plan still descriminates against millions, and thus wrong.

Kach is pretty irrelevant if you ask me. But even so, what exactly is your point? That Israel should double-ban it?

When 35% of the Israeli public, according to a poll, state that they agree with trasnfer (and not 'economic' but physical[poll was in the NYT a few weeks ago, don't remember the day]) . that shows me the ideas of kach are not irrelevant.

Maybe because that could get them killed? Many Palestinians have no intention of peaceful coexistence, does that mean Palestinian ilegal immigration to Israel is proof that they don't want peace?

The settlements are an israeli policy- the goverment encourages them and subsideses them. Yasser isn't giving ten dollar bills to each Paletinians trying to get into Israel.

You know, the US government bans its citizens from travelling to certain countries because of the dangers involved. If you can prevent your own citizens from going to other countries because of the danger, certainly you can prevent foriegners from coming into yours. The closures are not punishments, they are security measures. Also, most countries bar the entry of nationals of enemy countries.

But no state claims the right to stop people from going to other parts of their land. The Israli closures are not only denying access into israel, but denying access out of ones home. They are not acts of immigration policy, but of occupation policy. The occupied territories aren't kansas. they are an area designated as under military occupation, and israel's closing, again, are more than simply immigration policy.

And for many UN resolutions aren't binding. For many, Kach is not a terrorist organization. etc.

Point ebing, don't asume you have a monopoly on meanings.

I think that UN resolution 242 doesn't force Israel to turn them over.

Fine. So we simply disagree.

[q]The question, I think, is what is the goal of Fatah and its allies. [q/]

Fatah is the biggets part of the PLO, but not the only one. So, it what many diferent parties in the Palestinan side want. the Palestiians are no more monolithic than the Israelis.

There are many Israeli peace groups which do their utmost to promote co-existence.

And palestinian groups, but you igore those, and most palestiians ignore the Israeli ones cause they are not in power.

Rabbi Shlomo Riskin of Efrat on the West Bank sends food to needy Muslim families on Islamic holidays and make sure that the Olive grove planted in Efrat by Palestinians in the '50s stays where it is. The response given by terror organizations was to send a bomber to blow up a supermarket in Efrat. The man had worked there for several years and was on a first name basis with several of the people he killed. But besides, if I said that many Israelis view all Palestinians as Hamas and that the Palestinians must do something to prove otherwise, I don't think people would think that was a legitimate response to Israeli terror attacks on Palestinians. The way to deal with terrorism is through force, and this applies equally to Kach and Fatah.

But if you don't solve the underlying politcal mess, more people like Rabbi Riskin will die. Why did that man blow himself up if he knew several people there? Was he intrisically evil? I would say no. He was making a radical politcal statement the only way he had been told he could, thought violence. Again, the strategy of terror is an idea that can't be destroyed, and as long as there is a conflict between palestinians and israelis, and the power differential is so great as to proclude all out war, palestionans will carry out such atatcks. The long term, and only solution, is peace.

I'm saying, people break their promises, so try to figure out whether someone will before you rely on his promise. Most people pay back their debts; does that mean you should offer a hundred dollars to every man you see in the street?

Has the palestinian authority followed everything they sigend? No. Has Israel? No. But tmes have changed and the situation detiriorated. Sharon's dropping of the one-week plicy is abowing to reality and a show that agreements are the way to peace, not the other way around.

But the agreeements which are broken are usually the most signifigant ones. It's nice that Germany is following the Warsaw convention on international air travel, but it's far more important that they broke the Versailles treaty.

No, we haven't invade canada,and thats our most siginficant treaty with them, but we break fuishing agreementa andlumber ones often. Nazi germany is an extreme case anyway (notice how its the only one that seems to be used in this line of, you can' trust arguments)

He said he would give up terrorism, and he didn't.
Your point was that Rabin thought Arafat was a good guy. I have disagreed with your point and provided the reason for my position on that matter. That Clinton was or was not a good guy is irrelevant.

Again, his territorail demands have remained the same. So any argument that Arafat is out to get all of Israel are wrong. The issue of Terrorism deals with how he plans to get his demands met, and as far as that goes, i would agree that he didn't do eneough when he could have.

That doesn't give the Palestinian side the right to make slaughtering Israeli civillians their mission.

Look at my crocodiale tears. Innocent civilians of both sides have dies, so trying to get my heartstrings moving for one side will do nothing.

Didn't we just say that every UN member agreed to abide by the charter but that not a single one does?

The Declaraion of Human rights isn't part of the 1946 Charter, it is a resolution passed latter. as such, it is the difference between the Charter (constitution) and the declaration (a specific law). You don't have to sign the declaration of hman rights to be a memebr of the UN, but you do have to follow the charter.

Are you honestly arguing to me that Faisal Husseini's words were air without meaning? That he said it as an April fools day Joke?

No, I am saying that by themselves, they are not enough to derail a peace process any ore that each outragous thing out of someones mouth is.

And that "act" must be based on logical analysis of the situation, which can also often tell you which of the possible futures is more likely.

As before, even figuring out which is most likely (which may always eb wrong, since all you can see are posibilities), you get no where until you act, and that action, in the end, really exists independently of all the thinkign done.

You're going to have to be more specific because I have no clue what you are reffering to.

At oslo 2, the west bak was divided into zones a,b,c. zone a were Nabuls, jenin, Bethlehem, Tulkarm, Qalqilya,and ramallah. Zone B, were most other small Palestinans hamlets and towns. Mus other lands were Zone C, including many lands around settleemtns and access roads. all zone a and bwere supposed to come into Palestinain control before Palestinian elections for council in 1996. In the 18 months after the elections, there were to be three phases of withdrawl, by which time all zone c lands would also be under paletinians control. All this was negotiated by rabin with arafat. Netanyahu did not carry out thephased withdrawls of zone C lands as ahd been agreed.

That’s why I said that the US strategy was to keep pressure on Arafat, and that this strategy was not meant to punish him for breaking treaties but was meant to serve our interest in keeping the violence down. To tell me that the policy has failed is irrelevant, because I was not arguing that the policy was successful or unsuccessful, but rather I was discussing the motives behind the policy.

The motive for isolating arafta, I believe, was to show politcal solidarity with Sharon, besides tha fact that the BUsh admin. is not friendly with Arafat (specially Cheney) so thery kept all the pressure on him, not Sharon too.

You know, war is also political violence, but it has military solutions. If terrorism can't be defeated except politically, tell me why Bader-Meinhoff isn't around anymore. Then explain why the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood isn't either.

Becuase these gorups lacked popular support. where there giant rallies to mourn their deaths? Were there elections in which their political counterparts won many seats? A bunch of lonely revolutionaries can be ebat. A bunch of guy adored as liberators can't be beat by bombing and scarring the popualce into the arms of the 'liberators'. They have to be shown fr the tugs they are, and this will only happen politically.

Could have been said of giving Hitler the Polish corridor.

they have not been consistent, since Faisal Husseini has said something else. Besides, Hitler wrote Mein Kampf long before he became Chancellor.

All the more reason to be warry of Hitler, since he said aht he said when it meant little politically, and thus everyone should have seen it coming years in advance. And as for faisal and the Palestinians: how many more of the oslo negotiators agreed with him, and whens the last time he repeated this stance?

I'd say the UN charter is pretty clear if you read it. Do I have to quote the relevant passages?

The Charter, or the declaration of Human rights?

So in short a second resolution is required, and that has not yet been provided.

Well, there was 338.

If I'm Israeli, then you're Palestinian. I do not appreciate being assigned nationalities not my own for purposes of blame giving and criticism. Or for many other purposes, for that matter.

You plural as a supporter of Israel, not an Israeli. Heck, faded and Dinodoc would be included in that 'you', and they are also not israeli. But i do apologize if my writing style has ofoended you in any way over these very long... threads.

Exactly, and isn't that wrong? And if it's not wrong, does the charter have any meaning at all?

No, first, this is in the declaration of rights, not the 1946 charter. second, many people, besides the Soviet union, beleive that providing for economic rights is a basic or important part of overall human rights. It is a basic and acceptable politcal possiton. Again, to be oart of the UN one doesn't haver to have signed the deckaration, but you do need to stick with the charter.