BOOM! Terract in Rishon Le Zion

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So what's Siro's solution?

To me it appears that the Israelis are quite happy to keep the conflict going as long as it affords them the opportunity to continue to populate the occupied territories.

Israel hasn't stopped building settlements since they started. How is this conducive to a peace deal?

It's conductive to a peace deal in a way that it gives Israel more power over how the final peace looks like.

Don't forget that even though we want peace, we don't claim to be objective and have no interests.

Obviously our interest is to remain with more territory and better security and absolutely no refugees.

Every settlement we build and later evict, is one more card in the trading bank.

[Sirotnikov]

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.

And that is marvellous.

Obviously it's so much more justified to kill civilians to give the message "you will never win", than trying to kill terrorists giving the message "you can't use terrorism".

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
So you'd rather have ten next week than one today? And I thought jews were famous for taking a long view on things...

But it's not just "one today". There are terracts planned all the time.

Our actions obviously won't prevent all of them. But if we can prevent most, and make terracts harder to accomplish, it's a plus.

It's not like if we stopped responding the terracts would stop.

besides, explosives lab schmexploives lab. Anyone can set up an explosives lab in their garage. Removing one is a temporary setback. Seriously, how hard do you think it is to mix fertilizer with diesel fuel?

But only slected few know how to do that.

And those are people we try to arrest, or kill.

[CyberGnu]

siro, THAT IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO A PEACE DEAL. Particularly when it is contrary to a peace deal ALREADY SIGNED.

Sorry I had to yell.

The only thing this does to the peace process is making the palestinans more convinced that you can't have a fair negotiation with the israelis, since they won't uphold what they've already signed.

Of course, it is true that in the international arean it is beneficail for israel, as the morons of the worlds willfully swallow the israeli line that it is just 'natural expansion' and when the time comes for negotiations the israelis can offer a 'fair deal' giveing the palestinians 'almost all they want', just by giving back what they stole since the last negotiating phase. I just wonder, doesn't it bother you to just ignore morality nad fairness for blatant theft like that?

[CyberGnu]

doesn't matter whether one is planned per day. It all comes back to the inevitable conclusion: Israel cannot hope to win by military means. Even bush, the feebleminded fellow that he is, understands as much. This most likely means that sharon understand it as well, and the reason h insists on retaliation at every single opportunity means he is not interested i peace.


actually, anyone who can read can make explosives. the information is everywhere. It is painfuly simple.

when you say 'those are the people we try to arrest or kill', you are essentially repeating the hardline israeli line: all arabs are our enemies, and so we must kill them all.

Ahh, springtime, a good time for genocide, yes?

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
ecowiz, you actualy do touch on a good point there. an international presence would be able to imprison hamas militants, and would be a boon to the region.

You might also not that Arafat has called for international forces since the day the conflict started...

However, an international force would force Israel to give up the intentional provocations, as well as give up the land they have occupied.

Consequently, ISRAEL is opposing international forces...


Drake, you might want to read through this thread again. I think you are even confusing your own points...

CyberGnu, You makes a good points here. An international force would interfere with what the Israeli's now believe they have a right to do - that is, settle anywhere in Palestine, provided of course, the settlements are made on land they actually own. In another thread, we had a discussion on this point - that the settlements are actually made on land that Israel owns and if the PA or any Arab has a beef about that, they have a right of action in Israeli courts.

But, after reading your post, I can now see that Israel will not agree to an "international" force until the UN stops insisting that the "occupation" is covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention. I believe, and correct me here if I don't understand this correctly, that Israel contends that Jews actually occuppied and had a right to settle anywhere in Palestine under either Turkish or British Mandate rule. They further believe that under the U.N.'s own law, that it the Jews could not loose this right by foreign aggression, namely, Jordanian and Egyption aggression. For these reasons, the Israeli government's occupation is really as a result of a civil war in Palestine - which is covered by an exception from the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The UN, by taking sides in the current conflict on this issue, has lost its utitlity. Any international force will have to at least be neutral on the issue of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Otherwise, that force may actually begin dismantling the settlements.

Are there any countries that haven't taken a position?

Also, I personally believe Olso failed because Arafat would not give up on the status of the refugees returning to Israel. There was no possibility of a permanent peace.

In order to avoid this in the future, there has to be a "final" negotiation on all critical issues - no more "interim" agreements.

Ned

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
siro, THAT IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO A PEACE DEAL. Particularly when it is contrary to a peace deal ALREADY SIGNED.

Which signed peace deal talks about settlements?

Oslo accords sure don't.

The only thing this does to the peace process is making the palestinans more convinced that you can't have a fair negotiation with the israelis, since they won't uphold what they've already signed.

Until 2000, we did everything we promised to do, though granted, at a slow pace.

But then again, that was Nethanyahu's response to Arafat, which didn't stop terror. Infact, he intentionally looked the other way, and allowed terror organizations to get a grasp in all civil and culture facilities. Schools, universities, religious centers and what not.

I just wonder, doesn't it bother you to just ignore morality nad fairness for blatant theft like that?

Morality?

Were the 1920-1948 massacares of Jews in palestine moral?
No!

I know that I'm dealing with an enemy that already proved he doesn't want me near him and is more than willing to slaughter me.

Therefore, I do not mind using political tricks against them.

I do not strive for a fair and just solution. Not because I'm an evil occupier, but rather because I know that such a solution isn't possible, because since the 1920s, the Palestinian leadership has done all it could to prevent a fair and just settlement of the conflict.

In 1940s and to this day, they massacare Jews because they resent the "two states" solution, and refuse to acknowledge Jewish right for self definition in Israel. No matter what Arafat says on CNN, the school books he gives to pupils in his schools, clearly state that Jews have no connection to the land, and that they have no right here.

In the 1920s and 1930s they massacared Jews becaues they resented Jews living here at all, thereby out ruling the "a single state with two equal people" solution.

So now, that I know that they do not wish a fair and just solution, I myself strive instead for the best solution possible for Israel.

I do however, manage to view things objectively.

That doesn't mean that I'll necessarily discuss them from the objective p.o.v or that I will hold an objective position.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
doesn't matter whether one is planned per day. It all comes back to the inevitable conclusion: Israel cannot hope to win by military means.

Sure Israel can win using military means.

It can win in the short / mid term if the world wouldn't press so much and we wouldn't have finished defensive shield as quickly.

It can win decisively if it decides to employ crimes such as genocide and deportation.

Even bush, the feebleminded fellow that he is, understands as much. This most likely means that sharon understand it as well, and the reason h insists on retaliation at every single opportunity means he is not interested i peace.

But if he understands that the retaliation is futile, what good is it?

The whole point is that the retaliations don't work.

We mustn't blindly retaliate, but fight terror, and not just send "signals".

actually, anyone who can read can make explosives. the information is everywhere. It is painfuly simple.

not everyone can read

when you say 'those are the people we try to arrest or kill', you are essentially repeating the hardline israeli line: all arabs are our enemies, and so we must kill them all.

ARE YOU A BLEEDING IDIOT??

It's your logic that libels all arabs our enemies.

Yes, they are all "potencial" enemies.

But we only hunt those that are actual enemies. We managed to kill dozens of master minds, and engineers (chemists).

Ahh, springtime, a good time for genocide, yes?

You throw words around so lightly.

I wonder what would have happenned to you if you were in WWII. You'd probably invent whole new words to describe that.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
ecowiz, you actualy do touch on a good point there. an international presence would be able to imprison hamas militants, and would be a boon to the region.

And thier performance against Hezbollah gives me so much confidence that they would fulfil a new role in Israel with distinction and valor.