why the hell isn't the US kicking the **** out of the palestinians?!?!

[Imran Siddiqui]

What is your reason for saying that, Imran?

Um... because it is true?

The Palistinians violated a cease fire for the umpteenth time, without Isreali retaliation, and this time did it during one of the holiest days on the Jewish calendar. Why should they get Jerusalem? Because of its religious signifance? What do the Palestinians care for religion--other than their own, that is?

The part is attributed to the whole? So should all Jews be condemed for the fundamentalist that killed Rabin?

[The Mad Monk]

That dosen't even make sense. What does Rabin's assassination have to do with it when it was both an internal matter and decried by the Israeli population at large?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because you've done the classical logical fallacy of attributing the part to the whole... I did the same with Rabin. Because you don't like it when I do it to you, maybe you shouldn't do it to the Pals .

[The Mad Monk]

...so you counter with a reducto ad absurdum?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
(Rufus)"if Arafat hadn't walked away from Camp David (the best deal he was ever going to get, and one in which the Israeli's were prepared to make real, serious, concessions), Barak's government wouldn't have fallen and Israel, inexasperation, wouldn't have tacked right."

I seriously doubt that. And Arafat couldn't have taken it. Any peace that closes off Jerusalem is no suitable peace at all.

I am in complete agreement with Rufus' post. One country did the hard work of preparing it's people for compromise, a compromise I might add which is one where they are giving up something tangible. The other party made no such effort, in fact it can be easily argued that they were working against any possibility of a peace agreement by constantly propogandizing their people to reject any reduction of their claims. This in the face of the reality that they have nothing to offer in return but an end to a war they have been losing for 50 years. Lincoln hit the nail on the head in his post when he said that the real problem now lies in the hearts of the Palestinian people. They are so fanatical that they are unwelcome in every Arab state (note the recent flap between Lebanon and the PA), yet Israel is expected to cave in on the 'right of return', where it gives up everything it holds that was taken in '67 and invites many thousands of these people who are so keen to murder civilians to live all over Israel. The Saudi peace proposal is suicide for Israel in anything like it's current form for this reason alone.

Tom from Amsterdam makes the common mistake of assuming that other people will think like he does, that they will be reasonable in the same way he is. The Palestinians are the fanatical edge of a huge number of people in the Arab world and to a lesser extent the Moslem world in general who were not raised with so many of the western values we take for granted (like the values which value information over emotional propoganda, scepticism, freedom of speech etc.). In other words the sorts of values that make possible our whole way ordering the world and processing it in our minds. One may wish to see all cultures / philosophies as equally valid, or valuable or whatever, but don't make the mistake of assuming that other cultures will come to the same conclusion.

If we don't defend western culture there is no guarantee, and IMO very little probability that anything like our respect for freedom, logic, human rights etc. will prevail amongst those who would destroy us. Thus the idea that all cultures are valid or have value will die with western culture unless we realize that our culture has a right not only to exist, but to influence other cultures and assert itself in the marketplace of ideas. It's high time that the west bashing so popular amongst the deconstructionists etc. comes to an end, because in the end the survival of even those ideas which would attack western institutions from within depends completely upon the survival of western culture, and the survival of western culture depends in the long run on it's continued propogation, which challenges others to either meet it's achievements or to exceed them by coming up with something better. That 'something better' has very little to do with Jihads and suicide bombers IMO.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You try to accept peace when you are treated like 2nd class citizens.

Blacks in the US in the 1960s sure did that, right? (and yes, the analogy is valid)

If we don't defend western culture there is no guarantee, and IMO very little probability that anything like our respect for freedom, logic, human rights etc. will prevail amongst those who would destroy us.

And who are you to say that Western culture is the best culture? Many, in other parts of the world, would not agree, and would oppose the West's cultural imperialism.

Just because the West is strong and powerful, doesn't mean it is always right.

There are few ways to call attention to a plight where you've been pushed to the ground. The Palestinians have called attention to their plight through terrorism, and are continuing to do so until they are heard and spoken to as equals and not 'lesser' people.

The other party made no such effort, in fact it can be easily argued that they were working against any possibility of a peace agreement by constantly propogandizing their people to reject any reduction of their claims.

Someone takes over all of the US and leaves Americans with New England... would you expect Americans to accept that? Would you expect them to work towards peace? I think not.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
This kind of revisionist history has been going on for far too long.

Sharon's Crimes (Counterpunch)

From The Washington Post

I'd say that that site is full of revisiont history (counterpunch).

The piece about ariel sharon is very editorial like, with over half the content being wild accusations and personal opinions. We have the writer "rewriting" the Kahan report, by inserting his own "perceptions" of what it really means.

When I tried to search to see what the site had to say about Arafat, or perhaps palestinain terror - I found nothing but praise and justification.

I read some more articles in favour of palestine, full of inexact data, such as claims of a million refugees in 1948, claims that Israel drove them out, without a single mention of the Arab countries' declaration of war and ordering the palestinains to leave.

We have a palestinian professor, who was pictured throwing stones, claiming he was merely "throwing pebbles with some local youth, in a competition to see who throws farthest, with no specific target".



Yeah. A palestinian professor was just throwing pebbles with some youth. How incredibly belevable.

Then we have articles showing the horrors of occupation or Israeli incursions. None mention the horrors of daily terracts. The incursions are presented in an unclear fashion. Israelis round up all men, not because they want to question them , but just for no reason.

Palestinian terrorists whom Israel killed, are presented as heros who "resisted the occupation" and the dozens of Israeli victims are somehow forgotten.

All in all, a fair and reliable site

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You try to accept peace when you are treated like 2nd class citizens.

And when thier majesties will be ready to accept peace?

I'll tell you when - when I'm slaughtered or escaped to some other place.

When Israel is no more.

Blacks in the US in the 1960s sure did that, right? (and yes, the analogy is valid)

The analogy isn't valid but if you wish:
Blacks in the US, who were really opressed, did not commit such violent terrorist acts. Infact, I don't remember any single event when african americans targetted indescriminantly white american civilians.

You know why? Because their culture and values tells them not to.

And who are you to say that Western culture is the best culture? Many, in other parts of the world, would not agree, and would oppose the West's cultural imperialism.

Many, in other parts of the world don't know how to write or read, and can't really judge well.

I would much prefer west's "cultural imperialism" assuring my rights, than Islam's cultural imperialism, depriving me of rights.

Just because the West is strong and powerful, doesn't mean it is always right.

Nor does it mean that it's always wrong.

There are few ways to call attention to a plight where you've been pushed to the ground. The Palestinians have called attention to their plight through terrorism, and are continuing to do so until they are heard and spoken to as equals and not 'lesser' people.

The use of terror already makes them lesser people.

American blacks never used terror.
Jews wherever opressed, didn't use terror. Only in mandatorial palestine, against brittish military targets.

Someone takes over all of the US and leaves Americans with New England... would you expect Americans to accept that? Would you expect them to work towards peace? I think not.

THat's a simplified version of what's hapenned ...

No where did the americans tried to ethnically cleanse anyone right?

Well the palestinians did try to ethnically cleanse palestine of jews, starting from 1920s and esp. during the war of 1948.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And when thier majesties will be ready to accept peace?

I'll tell you when - when I'm slaughtered or escaped to some other place.

When Israel is no more.

*sigh* I wish...

You have to treat them like they are people first. It is amazing when I talk to people that come back from Jerusalem (who aren't Jews) and they speak of the deplorable condition of the Palestinians.

Blacks in the US, who were really opressed, did not commit such violent terrorist acts. Infact, I don't remember any single event when african americans targetted indescriminantly white american civilians.

You've never heard of the Black Panthers, I see.

I would much prefer west's "cultural imperialism" assuring my rights, than Islam's cultural imperialism, depriving me of rights.

How about no one's cultural imperialism?

The use of terror already makes them lesser people.

American blacks never used terror.
Jews wherever opressed, didn't use terror. Only in mandatorial palestine, against brittish military targets.

LOL! Try to justify it if you wish, but Irgun was just as bad as Hamas is now. You defend them simply because they are Jews.

And again, Black Panthers.

The American revolution involved Terrorism, the French Revolution did as well. It was called 'tar and feathering' back then.

No where did the americans tried to ethnically cleanse anyone right?

The Native Americans would disagree

Well the palestinians did try to ethnically cleanse palestine of jews, starting from 1920s and esp. during the war of 1948.

And the Jews tried to ethnically cleanse Israel of Palestinians during the war of 1948.

Just because you are Israeli doesn't mean your **** don't stink.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
UR, Siro already said Sharon is indirectly responsible. Your point is pointless.

How is my point pointless when I was replying to Siro's response to Bugs? He was asking Bugs why he was picking on Sharon. He said,

"Sharon's history is one of a warrior."

Which implied Sharon did nothing wrong, nothing shady and underhanded.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
And I understand that the only reason that they're living under the Israelis to begin with is that every Arab state (save Egypt) remains officially committed to wiping Israel off the face of the earth, and has voiced that commitment since the founding of Israel, 20 years before the occupation.

Since they viewed that the partition of Palestine was completely unjust. What is your view? Do you think it was justified?

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
After the thorough ass-kickings of '67 and '73, the "hot war" has stopped. But the commitment remains. The declarations of war are still in place, teh Arab states have failed to normalize relations with Israel (as required by a UN resolution passed 30 years ago, after the ass-kicking of '73), and Arab papers continue to print anti-Jewish (not merely anti-Israel) propoganda of the sort that would make a Nazi blush. Nobody's innocent here.

Nobody is innocent, but the Israelis are still playing might is right in the region, and the US, of course, wouldn't know a thing about it.

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
That being said, then, only one fact stands out for me: in the last few years, even under Sharon, the Israelis have been far, far more serious about the peace process than the Palestinians.

How can it be serious when the terms are one-sided?

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The Israelis didn't walk away from Camp David; the Israelis aren't the ones violating cease-fires.

Of course not, they have all the cards. They don't need to walk away to show that they were angry.

[The Mad Monk]

Imran, how effective would you say the Black Panthers were? Did they help their cause, or damage it?

[Sirotnikov]

Right. And Israel people learn that God has granted them the land they are on, they do not recognize any Palestinian right to live there, and so they believe Israel can do as is neccesary to the pals for their own security.

WRONG.

I learn in Israeli schools since 1991.

We have been taught that the land is also palestinian. We have been taught that the Palestinains deserve a state. We have been taught how wonderfull and great peace is. We have been taught that one should respect human's rights.

Teachers who were expressing right wing opinions were fired.

We were taught that Oslo, and a palestinain state would be a solution and a way to lasting peace.

We were taught how we should we should compromise, since it's unavoidable.


All dem "rightist facts" were not only not taught, but also censored.

It was not allowed to publish statements by PLO members, which may have lead us to believe they were not nice. Seriously. I can bring you a number of sayings, about how the Oslo agreement is merely a tactical step, which were censored here.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You try to accept peace when you are treated like 2nd class citizens.

Blacks in the US in the 1960s sure did that, right? (and yes, the analogy is valid)

I'm willing to accept the analogy, though I don't see how it furthers your arguments. Blacks in the U.S. for the most part chose to use moral resistance to lingering discrimination and racism rather than open warfare. Recent history has shown how many dividends this paid, especially when we look at the plight of the Palestinians over the same period of time (60s to the present). To the tiny extent that blacks in the U.S. went with the path of violence, it has been a gigantic failure. Take a look at Detroit for a good example of how counterproductive the riots were, or take a look at how the Black Panthers have fared.

African Americans are a people who straddle two cultures, with about half who have accepted the predominate culture to a large extent, and have greatly improved economic and social statistics to prove the value of their approach. The other half is mired in poverty and ruinous self-perpetuating social pathologies to the extent that their lot in life is probably worse than that of average blacks before the civil rights movement. The Palestinians resemble this group in many ways. Rather than building with what is available they embrace a culture of victimhood and violence. It's no surprise that this avails them nothing but sorrow, and they are regarded not as a people with something to offer, but one which must be managed so as to do the least harm, both by their friends and their enemies.

Of course I am not suggesting that the Palestinians received anything like the legal and social benefits that American blacks have received, but then again it's hard to say what would have happened if they had been more willing to cooperate where that was fruitful and use moral suasion where there was conflict. Of course being almost entirely non-western in outlook they probably didn't understand how much a western country like Israel could be effected by a non-violent political campaign, and went for the gun as the weapon of first resort. All this did was further radicalize the Israelis who were already pretty desperate after the genocide practiced against Jews during WWII.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui (Sikander)"If we don't defend western culture there is no guarantee, and IMO very little probability that anything like our respect for freedom, logic, human rights etc. will prevail amongst those who would destroy us."

And who are you to say that Western culture is the best culture? Many, in other parts of the world, would not agree, and would oppose the West's cultural imperialism.

I don't claim to have any of the moral authority so easily assumed by Preachers and Mullahs the world round, but as one of several billion people on this planet who have a right to decide what they think is right, and one of perhaps a billion who has the freedom from economic privation, the education and the political freedom to say what I think, I choose western culture hands down. Apparently I am not alone, as millions of people around the world come to the same conclusion to one extent or another. This is why people move to western countries rather than leave them, and why they adopt western science, western methodologies, western political institutions, western philosophies etc.

Those who do not agree have every right to, just as we have every right to try to persuade them otherwise. Some of this takes a frivolous or even harmful form, and I'm certainly not advocating using our collective resources to advertise Coca-Cola or push Christianity in third world countries, but when it comes to trying to persuade other cultures to adopt our respect for human rights, the rule of law, the value of trade or of market economics or any of the myriad ideas that have made us successful, then I think we should put these ideas out there and be willing to fight for them in the marketplace of ideas. The world's cultures as a whole will all benefit from being honed by debate and competition, including the west.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Just because the West is strong and powerful, doesn't mean it is always right.

There are few ways to call attention to a plight where you've been pushed to the ground. The Palestinians have called attention to their plight through terrorism, and are continuing to do so until they are heard and spoken to as equals and not 'lesser' people.

No one is equating outstanding success in many areas with infallibility. Overconfidence in our moral authority is not the west's major problem. I'm not sure who you are arguing with here, certainly not with anything I have said.

As for the Palestinians, wtf could they possible want along the lines you suggest? Their dictator was seated next to the elected leader of the Israelis and everyone pretended that he had the same status as the leader of the region's most powerful state, even though he is only the leader of the most powerful terrorist faction which plays at being a government. The fiction that the Israelis were not willing to accept was that a nuclear power could allow itself to be dismantled by a bunch of ignorant fanatics who don't even have the grace to accept a generous gift (Barak's offer), or the discipline to accept what they could get for now with an eye in the long run to taking more when the opportunity presented itself. It is the Palestinians who proved that they were not capable of taking yes for an answer.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
(Sikander)"The other party made no such effort, in fact it can be easily argued that they were working against any possibility of a peace agreement by constantly propogandizing their people to reject any reduction of their claims."

Someone takes over all of the US and leaves Americans with New England... would you expect Americans to accept that? Would you expect them to work towards peace? I think not.

I may be a nationalist, but I'll be damned if I would allow my people to degrade themselves by selling themselves so cheaply that the entire focus of their nationalism became killing themselves in order to murder a few of the enemy's civilians. The Japanese had a similarly rigid approach to conflict, and we burned them out of their caves, burned them out of their cities, and eventually nuked them. East Asia is better off for this even so. The Palestinians should be wary lest they become such a nuisance that the Middle East becomes a better place for their being treated in a similar fashion.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Since they viewed that the partition of Palestine was completely unjust. What is your view? Do you think it was justified?

Honestly, I'm of two minds. But justified or not, it happened, and the Western world signed on to it. If the Arabs want to fight a war over it, fine. But to start a war, lose, and then spend 30 years screaming "help, help, we're being oppressed by the big bad Israelis" is just incredibly hypocritical.

And remember, every Arab state except Egypt and (I think) Jordan is still on record as being commited to the eradication of Israel. Not different, smaller borders. That makes a huge difference, as far as I'm concerened.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Nobody is innocent, but the Israelis are still playing might is right in the region, and the US, of course, wouldn't know a thing about it.

The Arabs tried playing might-is-right in 48, 67, and 73; they just forgot to be mighty. Beyond that, if the Israelis wer really playing might-is-right, they wouldn't have come to Camp David and they wouldn't be reining in their retailiation now. (Can you imagine what the US response would be if Puerto Rican nationalists began conducting suicide bombings in Florida, some of which targeted children?) Sharon is an arrogant pr!ck, but if this were really a case of might making right we wouldn't have any Palestinians to talk about.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
How can it be serious when the terms are one-sided?

I don't think they are; I think, imperfect as it was, Camp David had serious compromises built in. "One-sided" describes the current Saudi peace plan (i.e., give us everything and we'll finally do what the UN ordered 30 years ago).

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Of course not, they have all the cards. They don't need to walk away to show that they were angry.

All the cards? The Palestinians have guys willing to drive truck bombs into discos full of Israeli teenagers, and a fawning European press that asks us to "understand." That, it seems to me (especially as a parent of a teen) is one hell of a card to be holding.