Europe Heard From

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Roland
Which would have a series of consequences. Hurt Israel's standing in the western world a lot more than already,

True, however, it still stands that the IDF is not-indescriminate and the Palestinians ARE (they don't even just try to target military targets with suicide bombers) NOTHING excuses hiding combantants within non-combatants. It ultimately makes the PA civilians valid targets BECAUSE of their complicity.

make "fight against terror" implausible,

Ultimately, the Israeli people will not care. You can only stand for this kind of action for so long. A similar act was the use of nuclear weapons at the end of WWII. A lot of similarities to the Israel / Palestinian situation if you think about it; a numerically and technologically superior force against an inferior force, and the known use of an indescriminate weapon to FORCE CAPITULATION. This was ultimately viewed favorably. If you look at any history... the victor writes the history books.

and risk an explosion throughout the arab world.

So what?

Arabs will get mad at Israel? I hate to have to break this to you, but they already are.

Perhaps you mean that Arabs will rise up militarily against Israel. That would be suicide for the Arab forces, and they know it. The Arabs KNOW that there is NO military solution for THEM, otherwise Israel wouldn't exist now, as it would have been overrun in the last century.

mrbaggins

[Ecowiz Returns]

Re: Re: Re: Europe Heard From

Originally posted by Eli
The documents seized in the Mukataa in Rammalah show that Yasser Arafat and the PA were directly sponsoring Fatah groups, knowing that the launched and will launch suicide bombers to the Israeli cities.
The EU provides plenty of money to the PA.

Have those documents been presented to another, imparcial, entity other than the very same Government that started the attacks prior to have knowledge of these documents?

That being the same Government that does not allow journalists to take images in the places where "Palestinian Terrorists" are being apreended and taken to custody so that they can be presented to a court of law (oh, wait, I forgot that they are killed on the spot).

That being the same Government that accused a guy who was emprisoned in a house, without light, water and no sort of communication with the exterior to be responsible for the latest Terract.

I hope to have those document being seen and aknowledge by the UN and the EU governements prior to aknowledge myself that they are not merelly propaganda.

[Bereta_Eder]

IMO, the endless circle of violence originates from two leaders (and two people) who think that eventually they will win against the other.

Israel has the backing of the US and thinks it will win.
Palestine the backing of the arab world and a favorable attitude from Europe and thinks it will win.

Consessions from both sides are obligatory to end this.

Suicide attacks are inexcusable. Israeli occupation and killing is also inexcusable.

As long as they both think they will eventually win this will go on.

I still believe that a Free, independent Palestine, in viable borders and the huge contribution from EU and US for the fast rising of the quality of life of its people will be beneficial.

People who are not hungry and are not oppressed will be less prone to suicide attacks en mass.

Not that the suicide attacks will go away like magic of course. But there will be less and less. And a responsible Palestinian government with the will to crack down on terrorism will be the perfect compliment of Israel's accepting a free Palestinian country.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Consessions from both sides are obligatory to end this.

Suicide attacks are inexcusable. Israeli occupation and killing is also inexcusable.

As long as they both think they will eventually win this will go on.

I still believe that a Free, independent Palestine, in viable borders and the huge contribution from EU and US for the fast rising of the quality of life of its people will be beneficial.

There is NO MORAL EQUIVILANCY comparing blatant terrorist acts to collateral damage of the civilian populace in an attempt to prosecute terrorism. It is regretable, but if the Palestinian people didn't HARBOR TERRORISTS then they wouldn't be subject to this action.

The occupation is a symptom of the violence, not a means to an ends.

I do agree that the SETTLEMENT of the occupied terratories is abhorent. It is so unnecessary. The only viable Israel is a contiguous Israel.

However, this is ultimately the bargaining chip on the Israeli side.

The only other solution is massive force (or complete siege) against the Palestinian people to force capitulation.

People who are not hungry and are not oppressed will be less prone to suicide attacks en mass.

Not that the suicide attacks will go away like magic of course. But there will be less and less. And a responsible Palestinian government with the will to crack down on terrorism will be the perfect compliment of Israel's accepting a free Palestinian country.

The magic number of acceptible suicide bombings is ZERO. Not a number greater than zero.

The important thing is a Palestinian people. The government AND the civilian people. Until suicide bombings are unacceptable to the populace and they stop harboring fanatics, they deserve supression.

BTW... Israels concerns in security include something everyone seems to have forgotten; water. If the pre-48 borders are assumed, then Israel loose ultimate control of water sources to Arabs. Understanding the terrorist principals of many of their neighbors, I can completely understand their unwillingness to give this up.

[Roland]

"Moral condemnation by the west is of small value against the Israelis, and of no value against the Palestinians."

About zero value with both, I'd say. Sharon and Arafat have been strengthened dramatically with this escalation.

"True, however, it still stands that the IDF is not-indescriminate and the Palestinians ARE"

So the Palestinians kill civilians on purpose, and the IDF kills civilians as colleteral damage.

"Perhaps you mean that Arabs will rise up militarily against Israel. "

No, I mean that moderate regimes will implode.

"Have those documents been presented to another, imparcial, entity other than the very same Government that started the attacks prior to have knowledge of these documents?"

I'd be very surprised if the Fatah suicide bombers weren't directly linked to the PA.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by MrBaggins


There is NO MORAL EQUIVILANCY comparing blatant terrorist acts to collateral damage of the civilian populace in an attempt to prosecute terrorism. It is regretable, but if the Palestinian people didn't HARBOR TERRORISTS then they wouldn't be subject to this action.

And from the opposite: if there was no occupation there would be no terrorist attacks.

Works both ways.

Question is what can be done.

[Bereta_Eder]

(testing quick reply)

BTW what roland said, that arafat and sharon have been greatly strengthened inside to their own compatriots is true and if they are wise they will utlizie it for the good of the region

[Roland]

MrBaggins:

"There is NO MORAL EQUIVILANCY comparing blatant terrorist acts to collateral damage of the civilian populace in an attempt to prosecute terrorism."

As such yes. But Israel is not only prosecuting terrorism, it is also defending its occupation and its settlements.

"It is regretable, but if the Palestinian people didn't HARBOR TERRORISTS then they wouldn't be subject to this action."

If Israel wouldn't occupy land beyond the 1949 borders.... etc. It is quite pointless trying to figure out who's right.

"If the pre-48 borders are assumed, then Israel loose ultimate control of water sources to Arabs."

Water will be a crucial point. When we're at it... isn't Israel taking about 80-90 % of the Jordan water at lake genezareth, and limiting palestinian wells in the westbank so that settlers can consume svereal times more water per capita than palestinians ?

If it weren't for Israel's apartheid regime in the occupied territories, there would be no moral question involved at all.

[Ecowiz Returns]

Almost everytime there was a suicide bombing (almost) all European States leaders made statements criticizing them and asking for them to stop.

The main reason Mr. Arafat made public statements in every of those ocasions (being them felt or unfelt) was because it had to, in order to, somehow, justify himself mostly to the ones that kept some kind of understanding towards them (ie, the Europeans).

Therefore, I don't really understand what you are talking about when saying that Europe has not being impartial.

On the other hand, Mr. Sharon's Government has not yet given a decent answer about the distruction of European financed infra-structures, has blatantly and rudely disregarded both Mr. Solana and Mr. Aznar (curent representative of the European Union).

Usually, the atitude towards such hostile governments is the instalment of sanctions.

Why would it be different with Israel?

[MrBaggins]

Roland> Yes, the Palestinians killed are valid collateral damage, especially due to their penchant for harboring terrorists. If they kicked them out into the open, then they wouldn't be attacked...

Paiktis> Gandhi didn't incite people to strap explosives to their body and blow up innocent civilians. He recognized the hypocritical nature of violence against occupation.

The Palestinians SHOULD be practicing non-violent protest if they don't like the situation.

Like it or not, treaty through military victory is a unanimously recognized method of legal transfer of territory.

[Roland]

"Yes, the Palestinians killed are valid collateral damage, especially due to their penchant for harboring terrorists. If they kicked them out into the open, then they wouldn't be attacked..."

Aha... so for example, elderly women, children etc should "kick out terrorists into the open" ? Care to explain how that should work ?

"The Palestinians SHOULD be practicing non-violent protest if they don't like the situation."

And they would have gotten their state ages ago if they did.

"Like it or not, treaty through military victory is a unanimously recognized method of legal transfer of territory."

It isn't since 1945 if a SC resolution stands against it.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Roland
MrBaggins:

"There is NO MORAL EQUIVILANCY comparing blatant terrorist acts to collateral damage of the civilian populace in an attempt to prosecute terrorism."

As such yes. But Israel is not only prosecuting terrorism, it is also defending its occupation and its settlements.


"It is regretable, but if the Palestinian people didn't HARBOR TERRORISTS then they wouldn't be subject to this action."

If Israel wouldn't occupy land beyond the 1949 borders.... etc. It is quite pointless trying to figure out who's right.

"If the pre-48 borders are assumed, then Israel loose ultimate control of water sources to Arabs."

Water will be a crucial point. When we're at it... isn't Israel taking about 80-90 % of the Jordan water at lake genezareth, and limiting palestinian wells in the westbank so that settlers can consume svereal times more water per capita than palestinians ?

If it weren't for Israel's apartheid regime in the occupied territories, there would be no moral question involved at all.

Settlements contain Israeli's... civilians who need to be defended regardless of their location.

Arabs desire a contiguous Arab presence in their environs. Ultimately this is incompatible with the presence of the Israelis period. Arabs thus desire the destruction of the state of Israel as demonstrated by the numerous military campaigns meant to acheive that aim. The Israelis only want a viable plot of land to live in, and what they perceive as their rightful capital, Jerusalem. (Jerusalem is a debatable point, any way you look at it.)

Were Israel an expansionist state, then they certainly wouldn't have given back the land they subsumed through military action. This would have become defacto Israeli property within several generations, just like any other conquered land. IMO the Israelis would rather have nothing to do with the Palestinians, but thats not a choice that the Palestinians offer them.

Arabs only suffer the Jews because they are powerless in any meaningful military way.

Yes water is a critical point. If the water is just handed over to the control of any Arab state, the Israeli's worry that they would be succeptable to terrorist acts. Justifiably so, due to the Muslim Fanatics recent penchant for terrorist acts.

[Roland]

The issue of Israel in the 1949 borders and the settlements in the 1967 conquered territories shouldn't be mixed up.

Israel could only take on that land by either expelling the palestinians, or turn all Israel into South Africa. Otherwise the demographics would kill the jewish state.

The crucial water issue is not so much with the PA (IIRC only some small areas south of lake Genezareth) btw, but with Syria and the Golan heights.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Roland
"Yes, the Palestinians killed are valid collateral damage, especially due to their penchant for harboring terrorists. If they kicked them out into the open, then they wouldn't be attacked..."

Aha... so for example, elderly women, children etc should "kick out terrorists into the open" ? Care to explain how that should work ?

"The Palestinians SHOULD be practicing non-violent protest if they don't like the situation."

And they would have gotten their state ages ago if they did.

"Like it or not, treaty through military victory is a unanimously recognized method of legal transfer of territory."

It isn't since 1945 if a SC resolution stands against it.

If the Palestinian people demonstrated peacefully for a non-terroristic palestinian regime, then they'd have some moral currency.

Young girls are blowing up innocent civilians now, if you hadn't noticed, btw...

Palestine is full of women, children and elderly celebrating suicide bombings, and burning flags and efigies. Children throw rocks, and are taught to shoot AK-47's.

Schools teach martyrdom.

The population is rife with terroristic attitude. Perhaps you're right... If they are all terrorists, then they should all die.

---

I guess we'll never know if peaceful protest would have worked. The Palestinians seem unwilling to consider such a thing. They seem unwilling to accept anything but the capitulation of Israel on all points.

---

Only because the SC carries a big stick, and fights fire with fire. It would be interesting to see what would happen in the event of China invading Taiwan. The US and the security council may or may not intervene in that case, due to the strength of the protagonist. If they didn't, in any case, within several generations, any conquested land would be subsumed, and the SC resolution made moot. Like, say... Tibet.

[Roland]

"Young girls are blowing up innocent civilians now, if you hadn't noticed, btw... "

Israel is supposedly looking for leaders - seeing how this "martyrdom" psychosis is spreading, I do not think that suicide bombers can be identified pretty well beforehand.

On the other side, you have to wonder what is going on when it becomes fashionable to blow yourself up and kill as many civilians as possible that way. Decades of antijewish propaganda, sure... but still something snapped...