The Israeli army's daily humiliation of Palestinians

[Natan]

In short, in the last three monthes he has made some gestures, after he was under tremendous personal pressure to do so so that he'd finally get a chance to take a shower. I might buy the story that he can't control all terrorism right now but seeing as he's been supporting terrorism since he took over the PA, I find it hard to believe that he wants to do so in the first place any more than he has to for show purposes. Hamas continues to hold seats in PA bodies and is treated as a legitimate political organization. Arafat's past endorsements of terrorism prove him to be the weasel and liar that he is. etc.

[CyberGnu]

Weasel and liar? Not more than any other politician when he has to compromise with another party to retain power...

Is Sharon a weasel anda liar because he accepts a compromise from the labor party?

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Weasel and liar? Not more than any other politician when he has to compromise with another party to retain power...

Then he shouldn't claim that he is cracking down on that party while it participates in his government.

[CyberGnu]

Natan, are you trying to be dense or what?

Arafat does what he has to do to survive. With the continued occupation of palestine and the gradual realization that Israel never intended to keep its word, support for Arafat decreased and wnt to Hamas et al. instead.

If he had cracked down violently he would have lost power altogether. Instead is he cracking down as much as he can. Continued violence is not in his best interest, he is quite sincere when he condemns the attacks as being detrimental to the palestinian cause.

The last year he has been doing a blancing act, convincing people that he is behind resistance but cracking down on individuals breaking his edicts.

Weasel and liar? Hardly. Pragmatic survivalist? For sure.

and hell, I'd take a pragmatic survivalist over a paranoid war criminal any day...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Thanks for not mentioning Canada's ****-ups in Somalia (though those involved weren't peacekeepers, but were backup for the American hunt for that warlord whose name escapes me).

You mean the Canadian Airborne Brigade, with the bayonet incidents and barbecuing that kid?

And the ******* was Mohammad Farah Aidid.

[DinoDoc]

Cyber: If Arafat provided social welfare services to the Palestinian people instead of ceeding that function to Hamas, he might not find his popularity falling so much relative to that of Hamas.

[Natan]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Natan, are you trying to be dense or what?

Arafat does what he has to do to survive. With the continued occupation of palestine and the gradual realization that Israel never intended to keep its word, support for Arafat decreased and wnt to Hamas et al. instead.

So then he should have cracked down before - but he didn't. The elections in which Hamas was allowed to participate were long before the present hostilities. And the idea that he has to send condolence letters to the families of suicide bombers to survive is completely absurd.

If he had cracked down violently he would have lost power altogether. Instead is he cracking down as much as he can. Continued violence is not in his best interest, he is quite sincere when he condemns the attacks as being detrimental to the palestinian cause.

The last year he has been doing a blancing act, convincing people that he is behind resistance but cracking down on individuals breaking his edicts.

So in short, he is lying - he opposes violences and wants to end it but claims that he is "behind resistance." And this is your view, not mine. In your view, he feels one thing, says another, and does both/neither.

[Sirotnikov]

Siro, you can't poison the water supply with Bromine and Cyanide. The bromine would reduce to Br- pretty fast, and would be too dilute to cause harm.

The cyanide would complex to iron ions in the water and fall out as a heavy salt.

Bromine is lethal to inhale though iirc. But it also could increase the explosive potencial of bombs from what I read.

I never meant they intended to put it in the water supplies.

Cyber - nothing is ultra secret and magical.

There are real people working to gather intelligence sources.

If you are talking about the war in afghanistan, you can't ingore CIA and FBI reports.

And if you accept them, you should accept Israeli reports. It's illogical that just because CNN carries CIA and FBI reports, they have any more weight than GSS, Mossad or MI (Mil. Intel.) in Israel.

Cyber - you better improve your arabic or hire someone to read their news for you.

In arabic, they aren't condemning the bombings, but rather say "The bombing is a mistake at this stage, it only hurts us".

In arabic, they do not say "It's immoral to hurt civilians".

Five men were sentenced to several years in jail for various crimes connected to terrorism

You of course mean the circus trial that was held in Arafat's compound in ramallah.

It wasn't a real trial. The judges and wittnesses all were people who were locked up in ramallah. generals or whom ever.

You know it and I know it, and it was reported exactly the same way on CNN and BBC.


This was even less real than the trials done to 'cooperators with israel'.

[Sirotnikov]

Was the trial perfectly fair? I don't know.

Gee, a little ignorant aren't we?

If one of the convicted was alter acquited by the supreme court, after what they had said "a complete lack of any evidence against him", how could his trial have been fair?

they were puppet trialed at Arafat's whim, since he wanted to please america and Israel.

And now, they were ackuited, but are still held in custody, even though the court ordered their release. Why? Because Arafat hasn't ordered to do so.

Technically, since he passed the "Basic Law" , he doesn't have to sign it anymore, it must be done anyway - but in reality it has no status.

About "Basic Law" - he passed it quickly a month ago.

Do you imagine that before that, he could single handedly veto supreme court decisions by deciding not to sign them?

[Sirotnikov]

Basically, you're an ignorant bigot and you know it.

You form your opinion about what's hapenning according to your own prejudices and shorts and short bits you see on CNN and BBC and read about in The Economist.

And then you ignore the fact that your opinion, based mostly on private opinions of journalists who simply requote official representatives, does not infact, show what occurs on the field.

But it's ok.

If you want to live in the shallow world BBC builds for you by interviewing officials, it's ok. Obviously nothing ever happens except things which are picked up by BBC.

[MosesPresley]

Let me take a shot at this, although I may regret it.

Israel has a large modern army almost fully funded by the USA.
The Palestinians have no army.

The Israeli's use their army vigorously against military and non-military targets. They inflict civilian and military casualties. They also use their army to assassinate prominent Palestinian leaders and cause massive civilian casualties. There is little to no media outcry against these atrocities.

The Palestinians, have a right to defend themselves, but they can't field an army that even comes close to the US funded Israeli army, so they use suicide bombers. These suicide bombers are used against military and non-military targets. They inflict civilian and military casualties. Everyone decries these atrocities.

It appears to me that each side is doing the same violence to each other's population, except that the Israeli's are far more effective and the casualties inflicted are much higher since they are using a modern army. So why is it that when the Palestinians inflict civilian casualties, they are considered terrorists and that when the Israeli's inflict civilian casualties, they are considered reprisals or military maneuvers?

Israel is on a campaign of genocide against the Palestinians. The Palestinians do have a right to defend themselves with any means at their disposal.

I think a UN recognized Palestinian state would go a long way towards solving many of the issues that are lingering in the region. My concerns with this is that the Palestinians may not be satisfied only with the lands delegated to them and they may, most likely probably, try to expand their lands. This concern is also put forth by Israeli sympathizers, but they use this as an excuse to justify further military action against the Palestinians. This concern, although valid, cannot stand in the way of recognizing Palestinian statehood. The Palestinians have as much right to a homeland as do the Israelis.

That's all I want to say for now.

The following quote is from the CIA's online factbook about the West Bank. Italics are mine.

http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/we.html

An intifadah broke out in September 2000; the resulting widespread violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Israel's military response, and instability in the Palestinian Authority are undermining progress toward a permanent settlement.

[MosesPresley]

I just read this in the July 1, 2002 issue of The Nation. I thought the readers and posters of this thread might be interested.

ISRAEL AND THE ICC

Isarael's Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein has rased fears that Israelis might be charged and indicted by the International Criminal Court after it convenes July 1. He warned a Knesset committee that the court could charge Israel Defense Forces soldiers with human rights violations in Jenin or other cities during Operation Defensive Shield. It could also indict Jewish settlers on the grounds that the settlements are illegal. Rubinstein said IDF soldiers suspected of looting or other miscounduct have been charged by military courts and are thus exempt from ICC proceedings, but he was worried about the court indicting settlers.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
I just read this in the July 1, 2002 issue of The Nation. I thought the readers and posters of this thread might be interested.

ISRAEL AND THE ICC

MYTH: The International Criminal Court could prosecute Israeli leaders for current violence in the Occupied Territories.

REALITY: First, the Court only has jurisdiction over events that occur after its entry into force, and would not be able to take up any events that occur before its creation. Moreover, it is nearly inconceivable that Israeli leaders could be tried before the ICC in any case. If the violence in the Occupied Territories were to continue, the chances that the case could come before the ICC are still incredibly slim. The ICC only has jurisdiction if a covered crime is committed by a national of a member state (one that has ratified the Rome Statute), if a crime has been committed on the territory of a member state, or if a specific case is referred by the Security Council. To qualify for the first category, Israel or an internationally-recognized Palestinian state would have to ratify the Rome Statute. Given the current violence in the area and lack of support for an independent Palestinian state, neither of these is likely to happen anytime soon. The other possible road to the Court, a Security Council referral, is equally unlikely with the United States holding a veto power.

http://www.endgenocide.org/ceg-icc/myths.html

[blackice]

How many kids died today?

[CyberGnu]

Dino, AFAIK, the palestinians aren't complaining about a lack of hospitals, they complaining about a lack of access to the hospitals. The lack of access is in turn caused by the roadblocks...