Did Barak's offer at Camp David affect you view of the Mideast conflict?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Geneva Convention bans settlements in occupied territory, which Palestine is.

Here's the quote:

"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
—Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The Geneva Convention bans settlements in occupied territory, which Palestine is.

I might take this comment seriously if it came from someone who actually pretended to care about the content of the Geneva Convention.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Hey... LOTR said that it didn't.

And for one side claiming 'moral superiority' it should follow the rules? But you just want them to kill some Muslims, right? Not like they are human or anything.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Hey... LOTR said that it didn't.

Again one, I'm looking at you Imran, can not seriously pretend to care about the content of the Geneva Convention in one instance and completely disregard its text in the very next breath. It only makes you look foolish.

And for one side claiming 'moral superiority' it should follow the rules?

That would be both the PA & Isreal. If they would both follow a few basic moral precepts in thier conflict, I would be immensely happy.

But you just want them to kill some Muslims, right? Not like they are human or anything.

I sincerely have trouble respecting a cause that thinks nothing of forcing thier way by gunpoint into and hiding in sacred ground in order to escape punishment for thier crimes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Again one, I'm looking at you Imran, can not seriously pretend to care about the content of the Geneva Convention in one instance and completely disregard its text in the very next breath. It only makes you look foolish.

Israel does it... the US does it. Are those nations foolish then?

That would be both the PA & Isreal. If they would both follow a few basic moral precepts in thier conflict, I would be immensely happy.

I don't claim either side has moral superiority, but LOTR definetly does.

I sincerely have trouble respecting a cause that thinks nothing of forcing thier way by gunpoint into and hiding in sacred ground in order to escape punishment for thier crimes.

Of course, the women and children that took refuge in the Church are criminals . They are sub-human right, all criminals?

Hell, even the Pope backs the Palestinians.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-256651,00.html

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Israel does it... the US does it. Are those nations foolish then?

Stop trying to shift the debate, Imran. You/Imran can not both condemn the Isreali "occupation" and at the same time cheer the deaths of Isreali women and children. Hmmm, what the word I'm thinking of the describes such a condition? Let me look it up...ah, here it is, hypocrisy!

I don't claim either side has moral superiority, but LOTR definetly does.

The PA, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. does as well. Terrorists don't claim to be evil, in fact they really do like to claim the moral highground.

Of course, the women and children that took refuge in the Church are criminals . They are sub-human right, all criminals?

Since when are 300 Palestinian armed gunmen forcing thier way into one of Christianity's holiest sites classified as women and children taking refuge?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/04/02/bethlehem.htm

Hell, even the Pope backs the Palestinians.

You forgot to mention that he said that attacks on civilians were morally wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran can not both condemn the Isreali "occupation" and at the same time cheer the deaths of Isreali women and children.

And you cannot condone Israeli 'occupation' and at the same time cheer the deaths of Palestinians women and children .

Which leads to the question... why not? Why can't I condemn the Israeli occupation and see little wrong with the suicide bombings of a people who have nothing?

I don't see that hypocrisy at all. Try again .

The PA, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. does as well. Terrorists don't claim to be evil, in fact they really do like to claim the moral highground.

Yes, they might. I don't either has a moral highground. But like I said LOTM believes Israel does, which means the violations of international law by the Israeli side should hit his picture of the world pretty hard.

Since when are 300 Palestinian armed gunmen forcing thier way into one of Christianity's holiest sites classified as women and children taking refuge?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1910000/1910086.stm

In Bethlehem, Palestinian gunmen are among more than 100 people believed to be taking refuge inside the famous Church of the Nativity - along with priests, nuns and civilians.

Yep, there are some gunmen inside, but look... also civilians! *gasp*

Further more:

Food is said to be running low.

A priest inside the church, Father Ibrahim Faltas, has appealed for international help, saying he fears there may be a massacre.

A priest appealed for international help? Scared the Israelis might massacre Palestinians? Maybe they didn't force there way in at all, but the Church took them in!

But of course, sub-human untermench can't do that

You forgot to mention that he said that attacks on civilians were morally wrong.

That he did, but he blamed the Israelis for humiliating Palestinians. Seems like he had more beef with Israel than with the Palestinians.... and for good reason.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And you cannot condone Israeli 'occupation' and at the same time cheer the deaths of Palestinians women and children .

I take no opinion on the moral value of the "occupation." However, the only thing I'm seeing is that one side attempts to negotiate to end it and the other side plans Intifadas while apparently negotiating in bad faith.

Which leads to the question... why not?

Becuase, ironically enough you have condemned whole countries of peoples for condemning attacks on civilians becuase of alleged hypocrisy on thier part.

Why can't I condemn the Israeli occupation and see little wrong with the suicide bombings of a people who have nothing?

For the same reason you feel that one can not intellectually support the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and condemn the bombings of Isreali civilians.

I don't either has a moral highground.

Your opinion is irrelevent and disingenuous in this instance, Imran. The fact is that they feel that they have the moral highground in this conflict and that you have supported thier actions thus far without question.

Yep, there are some gunmen inside, but look... also civilians! *gasp*

It is hardly suprising that gunmen/terrorists would hide among civilians.

A priest appealed for international help? Scared the Israelis might massacre Palestinians? Maybe they didn't force there way in at all, but the Church took them in!

The fact that a priest, of all people, cares about the welfare of human beings, even those that might kill him, is hardly a shocking development and says nothing about the method in which the gunmen gained entry to the church.

That he did,

It is kind of an important detail to merely gloss over if you insist on bringing in his statements.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I take no opinion on the moral value of the "occupation." However, the only thing I'm seeing is that one side attempts to negotiate to end it and the other side plans Intifadas while apparently negotiating in bad faith.

Yes, wonderful negotiations. You mean when Sharon said (about a month ago) that the Palestinians had to be crushed before there could be negotiation?

Palestine negotiated as well, when they were treated reasonably as equals, last during Rabin's administration.

Becuase, ironically enough you have condemned whole countries of peoples for condemning attacks on civilians becuase of alleged hypocrisy on thier part.

For the same reason you feel that one can not intellectually support the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and condemn the bombings of Isreali civilians.

Yep... if you say killing civilians is wrong, then you can't say you support atomic bombings.

I back Palestine for fighting back against colonial oppression. I don't see Israel doing that.

You should REALLY learn your opponents' argument before you rail against it.

The fact is that they feel that they have the moral highground in this conflict and that you have supported thier actions thus far without question.

I don't see how this has ANY relevance whatsoever. Since I don't believe any has moral highground, violations of international law really doesn't matter to my argument. But those that do believe that one side has moral highground have to answer for breaches in international law (whether they believe the Israelis or Pals have moral highground).

The fact that a priest, of all people, cares about the welfare of human beings, even those that might kill him, is hardly a shocking development and says nothing about the method in which the gunmen gained entry to the church.

Of course they might kill him. Because Palestinians aren't human and just kill people for no reason except they like bloodshed, right? After all, sub-people really can't be expected to respect the churchmen .

It is kind of an important detail to merely gloss over if you insist on bringing in his statements.

It is kind of obvious... and I notice you totally try to avoid the fact that he backs the Palestinian cause over the Israeli oppression. Sorry, I won't let you slide away from it by picking at the edges to try to avoid the question.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yes, wonderful negotiations. You mean when Sharon said (about a month ago) that the Palestinians had to be crushed before there could be negotiation?

No, I don't mean that.

I back Palestine for fighting back against colonial oppression. I don't see Israel doing that.

You can not back Bush's actions against OBL and Al Qaeda (You have said that it was a casus belli in the past.) and condemn Isreal's actions against Hamas, The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc. at the sametime.

You should REALLY learn your opponents' argument before you rail against it.

There, there Imran. It's OK. Irealize that you are in an untenable position but that is no excuse for presuming ignorance on the part of your oponents.

I don't see how this has ANY relevance whatsoever.

The fact that you without question back the bombings of Jews for the crime of shopping for food tends to give the impression that you believe that one side has the moral highground. If you really do believe that no side has the moral highground, I'd like to see you say that terrorism is wrong.

Of course they might kill him. Because Palestinians aren't human and just kill people for no reason except they like bloodshed, right? After all, sub-people really can't be expected to respect the churchmen .

If you are going to put words in my mouth, at least make it look like that I might have said them.

It is kind of obvious...

Sadly not to everyone on this board.

Sorry, I won't let you slide away from it by picking at the edges to try to avoid the question.

I back the Palestinian quest for a State. That still doesn't keep me from finding the methods they use to "achieve" thier ends completely repugnant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You can not back Bush's actions against OBL and Al Qaeda (You have said that it was a casus belli in the past.) and condemn Isreal's actions against Hamas, The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc. at the sametime.

I condemn Israeli's actions against the Palestinian people. You think these incursions are just hurting Hamas? These attacks are just serving to make the Palestinian people worse off.

There, there Imran. It's OK. Irealize that you are in an untenable position but that is no excuse for presuming ignorance on the part of your oponents.

Nice troll, but I don't bite.

The fact that you without question back the bombings of Jews for the crime of shopping for food tends to give the impression that you believe that one side has the moral highground. If you really do believe that no side has the moral highground, I'd like to see you say that terrorism is wrong.

Terrorism is wrong... happy?

Morals are relative anyway... Both sides believe they are moral and the other is immoral. Who can say who is correct? Unless your morals jive with ones side.

I'm a relativist, my morals don't jive with any side.

I back the Palestinian quest for a State. That still doesn't keep me from finding the methods they use to "achieve" thier ends completely repugnant.

So how would you do it... assuming that the ONLY reason they've gotten noticed by the world community as people deserving a state was terrorism during the intifada.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I condemn Israeli's actions against the Palestinian people. You think these incursions are just hurting Hamas?

Do you think that US actions in Afghanistan just hurt Al-Qaeda?

Nice troll, but I don't bite.

I didn't expect you to respond to it. It was, for the most part, a statement of fact and further comment on it wasn't needed.

Terrorism is wrong... happy?

Almost. If I could get an admission that killing Jews for the crime of being Jewish is wrong, I would then be happy.

So how would you do it... assuming that the ONLY reason they've gotten noticed by the world community as people deserving a state was terrorism during the intifada.

Either through a true guerrilla war or by following the example of Ghandi.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Do you think that US actions in Afghanistan just hurt Al-Qaeda?

Nope, there was collateral damage. Happens in war... very unfortunate and really shouldn't ever happen, but I guess we tried to be careful.

Israel's incursion doesn't seem to be solely against Hamas. It seems to also have as motive to humiliate the Palestinian people and destroy their spirits... in short further oppression against the people.

It was, for the most part, a statement of fact and further comment on it wasn't needed.

Oh, but I do have further comment on your simplistic conclusions:

Almost. If I could get an admission that killing Jews for the crime of being Jewish is wrong, I would then be happy.

They aren't being killed for being Jewish (many Christians and Muslims die in the blasts)... they are killed for being part of an oppresive regime.

Either through a true guerrilla war or by following the example of Ghandi.

I doubt either would work.. in the case of Gandhi, you have a colonial regime that wants the same land as the colonized.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Thank you for your maps Mr Guevara. As anyone looking at them can see, they do NOT cut the West Bank into cantons. The sections of the West Bank are contigous, and access from one to the other would be possible without passing through areas under Israeli control.

This is for you LOTM (and anyone interested) I think you should look at the map below first. Notice existing and planned Israeli throroughtfares... That kind of changes the picture a bit, doesn't it?

http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/MAPS/wbgs_campdavid.html

[Eli]

AFAIK Barak offered to give ALL Gaza Strip, so i'm not sure how correct this map is.