BOOM! Terract in Rishon Le Zion

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Grrr
Blowing up a Billiard hall isn't going to stop Israeli tanks, but it shows that no matter what Israel does, it is going to have casualties. It shows that Israel will never win.

No, all it does is push the entire confrontation closer to the brink. Israel can win, as Natan has mentioned, but the consequences would be terrible, especially for the Pals. Do you really want an all-out war for survival to break out in the ME? Such a war would destroy the Palestinian people. The idiotic violence of the suicide bombers is destroying any hope the Pals have for an independent state and may well destroy the Pals. Those "brave martyrs" are the worst enemies the Palestinian people have...

[CyberGnu]

Natan, time is definetly on israels side, and has been for years. for every year that goes by, the eternal israeli line that 'we must stop looking to the past' fools more and more idiots, particularly in the U.S.

what the hell are those 'human rights' arguments about?

how do you defend occupying palestinian land (and i'm jsut referring to the settlements now), and justify keeping it becuase if you give it back, the people who moved in won't have human rights protected? If you give the land back, the people who moved in should go as well!!!!


KrazyHorse, one of the problems with the settlements, which the Israeli apologists are very careful never to mention, is the quality of the trade. Looking at what was suggested in the camp David accord, Barak essentialy offered to settlements around jerusalem for pretty much useless lan in the Negev. it would be like trading manhattan for an equally large piece of arizona... not exactlya fair trade. but when presented to idiots, it looks really good on paper. 'see, we're giving them almost all the land they want. They are horribly ungrateful for not accepting'.

[Natan]

Natan, my comments at least have always been made with the assumption that Israel is not willing to commit the atrocities required to end Pal resistance permanently. Take it as a sign of respect for the country.

Do you think that Black September involved atrocities? Were any atrocities which occured in the Syrian intervention in Lebanon vital to the success of that intervention? I don't think so. Feel free to disagree; this is a lot more interesting than the typical ME thread fare.

Cyber: So you think that most Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon opposed the PLO?

[CyberGnu]

Drake, are you aware that your sentiments were once echoed by Petain, the leader of vichy France?

Luckily, the rest of the French didn't agree, and Petain was eventually sentenced for treason...

the palestinian people feel they have to choices right now: Live like second class citizens under Israeli domination, or to fight to their best trying to free themselves. For many of them death is preferable to the conditions in the camps... and the only way to make them stop is to provide a hope for a better situation.

of course, Sharon knows this, and is desperately trying to stop any kind of peace process...

[CyberGnu]

While not opposed, neither did they support them.

Look at northern Ireland. while the catholic inhabitants of NI supported the IRA, britain made no headway at all. As soon as they wized up and reduced the popular support of the IRA the situation imporved rapidly...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Natan
Because their residents aren't going to experience anything even resembling civil and human rights in a Palestinian state maybe? Or because they're in areas vital to Israel's security?

Natan, if I move to Nigeria with 25 of my friends and start a colony, I don't expect my government to step up and enforce my civil/human rights by maintaining a defensive perimeter around my house (i.e. annexing Nigerian territory). The settlers shouldn't have moved in under that assumption, and Israel shouldn't attempt to do so.

Israel evacuated Yamit, didn't it?

Population in settlements has shown a sustained growth rate of greater than 10% for the last 30 years, IIRC. Withdrawing from a scattering of the settlements doesn't mean anything as new ones are going up even faster.

Time isn't on Israel's side though. For one, Israelis are more likely to and leave the country when the economy turns sour and buying groceries is a combat mission than the Palestinians are. Then there's all the international pressure, which makes Israeli voters and politicians uncomfortable. And of course, everyone in Israel knows that the Palestinians are going to outnumber them in a few years

That's the thing, though; IMO, reasonable people would have left ages ago. What's left is the conclusion that the people living on both sides of the line aren't reasonable.

Also, from what I've seen Israelis don't give a damn about international pressure. They've got the attitude that nobody can lecture them on things that aren't their business.

[KrazyHorse]

God, I hate ME debates. This does it for me.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't know how to get it into your head, but the Palestinian leadership (and probably the majority of the population) doesn't want peace. The Israelis gave their best offer ever and Arafat just walked away. I know that you'll claim that the deal wasn't fair, but if you don't like a deal, you give a counter-offer. Arafat didn't accept Israel's offer and didn't give a counter-offer of his own. He walked away from the peace process, not the Israelis. You're probably right about Sharon not really wanting peace, but he was elected because the Israeli population knew the peace process was dead after Arafat abandoned Camp David. The Pals killed the peace process, restarted the violence and are continuing it even now. Why should I feel sorry when the Pals get their nose bloodied when they are the ones who started all this?

On another note, I don't know what the hell Petain has to do with any of this. You seem to like to use France during WWII in all of your examples, which is the only reason I can see for you to bring Marshal Petain up...

[Natan]

Cyber: What are you basing that belief on?

[Jaakko]

Argh, I shouldn't post when I'm tired. Natan, I can't really extend my last post to anything else except Israel/Pals, as there's a world of difference between each of the conflicts you mentioned.

Israel can't win the conflict by "legitimate" use of force (ie. without resorting to atrocities), because it has itself restricted the possible outcomes to exclude full integration of the Palestinians territories into Israel.
And the other option, Palestinian independence, cannot be achieved without changing the Pal popular opinion to favour a compromise acceptable to Israel, which obviously cannot be achieved through force, as demonstrated by recent developments.
Mass expulsion of the Pals is right out.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Drake, are you aware that your sentiments were once echoed by Petain, the leader of vichy France?

Luckily, the rest of the French didn't agree, and Petain was eventually sentenced for treason...

the palestinian people feel they have to choices right now: Live like second class citizens under Israeli domination, or to fight to their best trying to free themselves. For many of them death is preferable to the conditions in the camps... and the only way to make them stop is to provide a hope for a better situation.

of course, Sharon knows this, and is desperately trying to stop any kind of peace process...

why aren't they told that they can make peace??

Jon Miller

[CyberGnu]

Natan, could you be more specific?

Drake, so?

John, because Israels line echoes prety much every fascist state in history: We want peace, as long as our victims bow down in subjugation.

The palestinians want peace. the first intifada ended when they got hope that they would get their own state through negotiations. Subsequent actions showed that Israel never intended to honor the oslo process, and the palestinians learned their lesson. They won't settle for promises of 'security now, land later'. They want an ironclad treaty guaranteeing a viable palestinian state, and with the US guaranteeing that when Israel breaks the treaty, the US will force them to give in.

if you were in their place, would you settle for anything else?

[Jon Miller]

hmm

ISrael offered a deal

sure it was not good enough

doesn't it show that they were trying to come up with a resolution (albiet to their advantage)?

how was that action showing that they never intended to make peace?

while I understand those who don't like Israel, I don't understand apologists for Palestine at all

JOn Miller

[CyberGnu]

Israel offered a deal that was actually WORSE than was agreed on in the Oslo peace accords.

And this was pretty much my point in the previous thread. Sure, sharon is a man of peace, as long as he gets his way. Hitler would have been a man of peace too, if only Churchill and Stalin had caved.

It's easy to be a man of peace when you have the upper hand and you offer to retain the status quo... Of course, it is usually harder to get people to proclaim you a man of peace, but luckily the world is full of morons like Chamberlain or Bush. Not to mention complete raving lunatics like Dashle...


The actions: Increasing the number of settlers from 120.000 in1993 to 200.000 in 1998. To renege on previously decided deadlines, particulary in regards to military 'redeployment'. To divert more water from palestinian areas to settlements and Israel proper. To bulldoze 'illegal' palestinian homes, mainly because the Israeli system is set up thus that a palestinian cannot obtain the permits, while at the same time provide military escorts for the far more illegal settlements...



A simple question for you, John: what would you do in their stead?

[Jon Miller]

I don't think sharon is a man of peace

I think he is a response to war

Jon Miller