Latest Exploit of the Heroic Palestinians.

[CyberGnu]

notyou, so once the military migh of a country is defeated, the rest of the population should just roll over and take it?

Simple question for you; what is your view on the french resistance?


BTW, what are those parallells with afganistan? What parts of the afganistan did the US occupy prior to sept 11?

[Drake Tungsten]

Arafat was supposed to crack down on terrorism under the Oslo accords. After he turned down Barak's proposal, however, he returned to terrorism. This shows a blatant disregard for the Oslo process and, IMO, shows Arafat's true colors. What's so hard to understand? Oslo is dead now and Arafat killed it (with the assist going to Sharon).

[CyberGnu]

Drake, you haven't been around the off-topic for long, have you? Natan and all accuse me of a lot, but never of ignorance...

I think the point has already been proven in this thread. the state of Israel is built on land stolen from the palestinians. the initial declaration of statehood wasn't legal, and calling the ensuing conflict a 'defensive war' is tatamount to the old 'he started it when he hit me back'.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Israel, first and foremost needs to move out of the West Bank and Gaza TOTALLY, including support for settlements. Let 100% of the WB and Gaza be under control of the Palestinian people (even the current settlements), who will have UN supervised elections and Parliamentary democracy.

That is my position. But yours is to kill all the dirty Arabs (helps they aren't white, right paco?) because they are in the way of the good strong Jews.

I am sure Israel would trade all the land of the West Bank and Gaza, plus half of Jureslam, if it received, in exchange, recognition, normalization with all Arab nations and Iran, and some further guanrantee of security, such as a UN force, between it and Palestine.

To ask Israel to give up its security in exchange for nothing sounds exactly as stupid as Bush's recent call for withdrawal while providing no alternative that would protect Israel from the Palestinian suicide bombers.

If you truly desire peace, and I hope you do, then permanent withdrawal must be accompanied by a true Arab commitment to peace.

Ned

[Drake Tungsten]

Bull****. The British (who controlled Palestine) decided to allow the Jews to settle there. The Jews tried to move in and live peacefully, but the Arabs wouldn't let them. The Arabs turned down the UN partition in 1947. The Arabs decided to try and push the Jews into the sea. How is this agression by Israel? Israel has been on the defensive since its first moments of independence. I know that your warped world view would function a lot better if Israel truly was the sole agressor in all of this, but it simply isn't true.

[CyberGnu]

Drake, you are still not looking at the right time period. The Oslo was dead before Camp David.

Regardless of how much I despise Sharon, he didn't kill the Oslo accord. (Well, unless you hold him responsible for the expansion of the settlements). Neither did Arafat, unless you hold him responsible for the actions of a RIVAL faction.

The Oslo accord was killed by the Israeli goverment, after the assassination of Rabin. The settlements, which were supposed to be frozen or dismantled, were expanded from 120.000 to 200.000 people. Areas which were supposed to be handed over to the PA never was, and the timelines for indefinetely delayed. the final drop came when the deadline for ending the occupation, May 1999 passed and Israel still occupied large parts of palestine.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't know how you can say Oslo was dead before Camp David, since Camp David was an attempt to restart the Oslo process. The process certainly did stall after Rabin's assassination, but it was not even close to dead. Oslo didn't truly die until the second intifada started, thanks to Arafat.

The Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements is the main agreement signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. It was signed on White House lawn amid much fanfare in September 1993.

Many of the declaration's provisions - the inauguration of the Palestinian National Authority, the handover of some land to Palestinian control, and the formation of the Palestinian security forces for example - were implemented.

However, Palestinian and Israeli negotiators failed to move on from these initial provisions to a permanent status agreement on issues including Jerusalem, borders and refugees.

Frustration at the failure of the peace process to deliver what it promised, and the collapse of last ditch talks chaired by former US President Bill Clinton at Camp David were partly to blame for the beginning of another Palestinian intifada, or rebellion against Israeli occupation, in September 2000.

The deterioration of relations since the start of the intifada means that many Israelis and Palestinians now see the process that was begun in 1993 as dead.

http://www.iap.org/oslo.htm

[CyberGnu]

Drake, the jews of palestine lived peacefully with the arabs until the zionist movement affirmed that their goal was to create their own, jewish, state in palestine. Prior to this jews were actually encouraged to move to palestine, due to the money and investments theyr brought with them. In 1900, the number of palestinan jews were about 25,000.

during WW1, palestinian fighters fought on the side of the british, in return for a promise of statehood. that statehood would include all ethnicities, in a democratic fashion.

The zionist movements in Israel refused wuite vehemently, however, and a period civil unrest of atrocities started. During this time, the brits lied pretty much evenly to both sides.

Eventually, the brits ceeded the mandate of palestine to the UN. the UN offered a partition, which was rejected by the arab states. thus, the UN mandate never had a legal standing.

Regardless, the jews os palestine declared statehood, effectively stealing 50% of historical palestine. The arab states, naturally not inclined to take landtheft lying down, went to war.

A common, albeit flawed, counterargument here is that since 25% of the people in palestine were jews, it was only fair for them to get their own state. this conveniantly ignores that even if large portions of an ethnic group moves into an area, this does not make landpartitioning legal. Imagine if california decided to join mexico, since the majority of californians are hispanic. The U.S. would never agree to that, since it is essentially an abuse of hospitality.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
A common, albeit flawed, counterargument here is that since 25% of the people in palestine were jews, it was only fair for them to get their own state. this conveniantly ignores that even if large portions of an ethnic group moves into an area, this does not make landpartitioning legal. Imagine if california decided to join mexico, since the majority of californians are hispanic. The U.S. would never agree to that, since it is essentially an abuse of hospitality.

But California wouldn't be the agressor in this situation; the US would be. I've never denied the Arab right to attack Israel after its independence. However, the Arabs were the agressor, not Israel.

edit: Took out the Civil War thing. Forgot about Fort Sumter, which makes the agressor-defender classification a little cloudy.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
notyou, so once the military migh of a country is defeated, the rest of the population should just roll over and take it?

Simple question for you; what is your view on the french resistance?


BTW, what are those parallells with afganistan? What parts of the afganistan did the US occupy prior to sept 11?

Yes. If people do not want to be shot, they should not resist an armed authority. If they do resist, maybe they have good reasons to do so, and good on em. But if they target civilians, they are scum. Pure and simple, they should be shot. The French resistance reference is a red herring, they are not equivalent organizations. The French did not blow up Germans in Hamburg.

The parallel to Afghanistan is that the United States and many of her allies took the entire country apart to get the terrorists. If Palestine had been linked to 9/11, Arafat would be dead or in a cage right now. The Israelis have shown much more restraint, even though they have been in a positon to obliterate Arafat for about a month now.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
I think the point has already been proven in this thread. the state of Israel is built on land stolen from the palestinians. the initial declaration of statehood wasn't legal, and calling the ensuing conflict a 'defensive war' is tatamount to the old 'he started it when he hit me back'.

You are on crack, or at least your arguments are.

A nation created from a British mandate due to an edict of the UN is not legal?

The fact that there were a swak load of Jewish people in Palestine who owned a great deal of that land is irrelevant to you too I suppose.

The fact that Arabs of the original Israel enjoy citizenship and sit in the Knesset is probably also irrelevant to you.

Your later contortions to explain Arab resistance to the UN mandate do not make the existance of Israel illegal. It does make the Arab nations agressors in a war.

[CyberGnu]

drake:
Actually, california, or rather, the hispanics of california would be the aggressors. If you rent a room somewhere, that doesn't give you the right to take over the building when your lease expires. And if you refuse to leave, the police and and will remove you with force.

notyou, I think you mean a strawman. A red herring is a false clue.

I don't fully understand your argument. Are you saying that the reason you can't compare the french and palestinan resistance movements is because the french never went to german soil?

If so, you would realize that the attack on the settlemtns that started this thread is very much like the french resistance, and attacks on Israel proper is debateable...



Other, and perhaps more important parallells between palestine and afganistan is that both names contain the letter 'a'. while this had nothing to do with the conflict, I don't think your example did either...


Not on crack, just literate. Just because palestine changed occupying power doesn't mean the occupying power has the right to give it's land away.

to again illustrate with a simpler example, if I steal your bike, and then give it to my brother, who in turn gives it to some guy he knows named Ken, who does the bike belong to? Well, you, of course. Kind of obvious when you put it like this, don't you think?

so, you see, there are no contortions here. I can only surmise that you perceive my answers as such because you have to bend your mind in new ways to avoid dealing with the uncomfortable truth: you area defending the actions of a fascist state.


night

[Drake Tungsten]

The fact that we can't even agree on who was the aggressor in 1947 just shows how worthless the international law in this area is. Isn't it a little silly to put all of the blame for a conflict on the "agressor" when you can't even decide who the agressor really is? This discussion (and the one about chimps) has just reminded me why I hate Western hyper-legalism. Whether something is legal or not has nothing to do with its rightness.

[notyoueither]

A red herring is also a spurious example. You did not make an asinine extrapolation from my statements and present it as what I had said. That would be a straw man.

The Palestinians and the French do/did not have the same circumstances, they do/did not use the same tactics, and they do/did not have the same motives. They are not equivalent examples. Focused attacks on civilians is and never will be anything like what the French did.

Palestine never was a state prior to 1948. Nobody gave parts of 'Palestine' away. Partition addressed the reality that there was more than one ethnic component to the land in 1947. Arabs within the original Israel have been treated very well. They are as free as any other Israeli. How do you make the jump to Israel is all bad?

Parallels with common property crime are over simplistic don't you think? We're talking about land that has multiple and just claims on it. The fact is the Israelis would like nothing better than to get out of much of it, but they can't if they do not have resonable prospects of real peace in exchange for that withdrawal.

My mind is quite capable of telling right from wrong. It seems to me that many other minds have been 'bent' to see terrorism and murder as acceptable courses of action when a group does not get its way. Keep going down that road. Airplanes are coming soon to a London, Paris, Washington, Tokyo, or Moscow near you. Who knows, maybe next time it will be a nuclear device.

Of course, so too is a brutal reaction against such cr*p that will make Afghanistan look like a picnic by comparison.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
I think you believe as me, that the death of a young girl is a horrible thing, but I don't see you posting about how her parents should be sent to jail.

I don't see how the parants culpability in the death of thier child holds up. That's the reason I haven't been posting that the parents should be sent to jail. Personally, it sounds like a specious legal and moral arguement in this case.