American position on the PA

[CyberGnu]

She was speaking of her firstborn, Mohammed, 19, who was killed in March during a one-man raid on an Israeli settlement in the southern Gaza Strip. Armed with an assault rifle and grenades, Mohammed killed five students at a military school for religious Jews and wounded 23 other settlers at Gush Katif before he was gunned down.

Atrocity? Have you ever read a condolance letter from the US army? 'You should be proud to know that your son was killed defending the United States of America'.

Now, if you'd picked an example where the mother of a suicide bomber who killed civilians in Israel applaouded him, you might at least have grounds for debate. As it is, the guy killed a settler... And that is reprehensible how?

[CyberGnu]

When exactly has Sharon stated that he wishes to destroy Arab states? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard the Likkud advocating the mass genocide of the Palestinians, or calling them the sons of Satan.

Neither did Hitler. AFAIK, there is not a single public speach where Hitler calls for the extermination of the jews. Only a solution of the 'jewish question', which most people took to mean deportation to work camps.

The parallels to Sharon are quite clear, don't you think?

[Roland]

Originally posted by Sikander
Let them publicly and prominently declare what the hell they stand for, rather than allowing the PA and the terrorist organizations continually cloud the issue so that everyone sees what they want to see.

And when they reelect Arafat we are exactly where we started.

The other thing is that the same goes for Israel. Sharon is every bit as much the problem as is Arafat. But as long as the US government shoves a couple billion $ to Israel and says "do what you want", there will be no solution.

[morb]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


You might want to read up on some history... (real history, not the Israeli-invented kind).

After the Oslo treaty, palestinians thought they were eventually getting a real state. They had hope in their future. Polls show that Palestinians were accepting the state of Israel, basically wanting a state of their own and not much else.

Three years later, it was clear that Israel never intended to keep their word, and the palestinians became more cynical, more filled with hate, more extreme...

I'm sure the fact that the israelis have free/state independent press hasn't made a dent in your clouded judgement or should I call it hate of Israel.

my point was that Arafat simply refused to even consider anything. perhaps i was incorrect in saying that a fully independent state has been offered. but that's hardly the issue when Arafat has all but refused to even descuss most of the proposals put forth by either Israel or UN or whomever. how could an independent state have been offered, when was the opportunity to offer it when much simpler ideas/proposals were met with complete refusal. It comes down to Arafat not willing to negotiate. The hard truth is that both parties will have to compromise, and israelis have been ready to compromise (not bend over backwards but compromise) for a long time now, but it is cirteinly safe to say that compromise is not a word in Arafat's vocabulary.

Didn't read that one. Could you summarize? (Kind of curious. I thought Natan was the only true fascist on these forums... Even Siro acknowledged that the french resistance were justified in their actions...)

no. especially since you've already called me a nazi. if you're that interested, go read.

[CyberGnu]

If they choose to continue their war on the innocent civilians of Israel only the Mobius and Cyber-Gnu brand of Israel haters will support them internationally, and the Pals can put their insane fundamentalism to the test of a trial by combat.

Well, there we're back to that oxymoron again: innocent civilians of Israel ...

[CyberGnu]

I'm sure the fact that the israelis have free/state independent press hasn't made a dent in your clouded judgement or should I call it hate of Israel.

'free and independent' isn't the same as true. Ever read National Inquirer? That one is also free and independent.

If you want facts stick to real news. NYT, WP, LAT, CNN, BBC, etc.

[morb]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


Atrocity? Have you ever read a condolance letter from the US army? 'You should be proud to know that your son was killed defending the United States of America'.

Now, if you'd picked an example where the mother of a suicide bomber who killed civilians in Israel applaouded him, you might at least have grounds for debate. As it is, the guy killed a settler... And that is reprehensible how?

to me any killing for the sole purpose of hate, let alone condoned killing, in war time and in peace is reprehensible. in the civilized world there are trials for this sort of thing, civil and military. just the suggestion of your statment tells me that the people he killed you do not view as people. they are just some "settlers." but more so, Jewish settlers.

[Sikander]

Cyber-Gnu,

Because it is much more rational than trying to pursue a military solution against a much more powerful foe? What chance do the Pals have of bringing about their goals (and what are their real goals anyway?) militarily? IMO a great deal less chance than they have negotiating a livable compromise with the Israelis. The critical link here is the U.S. If the Pals can convince the U.S. that they are serious about peaceful coexistence then Israel will be isolated completely if it tries to drag it's feet.

As long as the PA is amorphous, all things to all people because it doesn't actually do anything but talk out of both sides of it's mouth the U.S. and the Israelis are not going to trust it. Keep in mind that both the U.S. and Israel have a pretty damn good idea what is being said by Arafat and company when the news cameras are not rolling. The mistrust is the child of a vast amount of experience with Arafat by both countries. The Israelis need a partner for peace that is an honest reflection of the society he represents as well as a trustworthy party to any contracts / treaties which are negotiated. At least a Hamas government would be capable of enforcing it's will to some extent, and Hamas has shown a capacity to meet it's people's needs much more readily than the PA has.

[Roland]

"The parallels to Sharon are quite clear, don't you think?"

Sharon is no Hitler.

"The hard truth is that both parties will have to compromise, and israelis have been ready to compromise (not bend over backwards but compromise) for a long time now, but it is cirteinly safe to say that compromise is not a word in Arafat's vocabulary."

Of course Arafat knows that he has to compromise. And he was quite close with Barak, even though the Barak offer has more resemblances to Bantustan than a sovereign state.

[morb]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


'free and independent' isn't the same as true. Ever read National Inquirer? That one is also free and independent.

If you want facts stick to real news. NYT, WP, LAT, CNN, BBC, etc.

i don't think i even have to say anything here.

[CyberGnu]

my point was that Arafat simply refused to even consider anything. perhaps i was incorrect in saying that a fully independent state has been offered. but that's hardly the issue when Arafat has all but refused to even descuss most of the proposals put forth by either Israel or UN or whomever. how could an independent state have been offered, when was the opportunity to offer it when much simpler ideas/proposals were met with complete refusal.

I guess the Oslo accords never happened in your world...

no. especially since you've already called me a nazi. if you're that interested, go read.

Nazi? Are you aggressively dyslexic?

Still curious what your views are. Natan declared that the french resistance were unjustified in their actions, since the french goverment capitulated. The idea that might gives right is inherently fascist. Your own views declare your political beliefs, not I.

[CyberGnu]

to me any killing for the sole purpose of hate, let alone condoned killing, in war time and in peace is reprehensible. in the civilized world there are trials for this sort of thing, civil and military. just the suggestion of your statment tells me that the people he killed you do not view as people. they are just some "settlers." but more so, Jewish settlers.

Hate and 'settlers not being people' have nothing to do with it.

US soliders were never prosecuted for shooting german soliders on the battlefied. I haven't heard anyone advocating it, either. But somehow you equate a palestinian killing someone occupying their land a hate-crime?

A settler is an occupying soldier, nothing else. An occupying soliders is by any definition a legal target. Are you going to argue with that?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland

And when they reelect Arafat we are exactly where we started.

The other thing is that the same goes for Israel. Sharon is every bit as much the problem as is Arafat. But as long as the US government shoves a couple billion $ to Israel and says "do what you want", there will be no solution.

If they re-elect Arafat then they obviously are satisfied with the status quo, or more worried about the other candidates. So be it. Assuming that this is not just an elected dictatorship for life type of thing (which is assuming too much for an Arab state perhaps) but a functioning democracy and / or republic the Palestinian people will have plenty of opportunity to change their mind as well as their direction.

As for Sharon, he will go away in a flash like so many Israeli leaders before him. As soon as there is a reason for the members of his coalition to think that a war government is no longer necessary / popular the coalition is finished. One of the problems with the Palestinians is that you end up with the same incompetent leader with the same policies all the time. If you cannot make a deal with him, you cannot make a deal at all until he is gone, and by gone I mean dead. There is no loyal opposition waiting to come into power with new ideas. The only reason Sharon managed to become PM in the first place is because the Israelis felt that they had to send a message to the Pals, and that message is, "We will fight fire with fire.", or in this case, "We will match your incompetent war criminal with one of our own."

[Sikander]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

Well, there we're back to that oxymoron again: innocent civilians of Israel ...

I was a tad bit worried that I was overstating your position of hatred for Israel. Thanks for bailing me out.

[CyberGnu]

Because it is much more rational than trying to pursue a military solution against a much more powerful foe? What chance do the Pals have of bringing about their goals (and what are their real goals anyway?) militarily? IMO a great deal less chance than they have negotiating a livable compromise with the Israelis.

Israel has occupied palestine for 50 years. During that time, it has been shown repeatedly that Israel doesn't honor their word. I don't think there is a single palestinian who trusts Israel...

So in the mind of the palestinians, they hope that continued resitance will lead to either an arab invasion or EU intervention. The chances might be slim, but they exists. The chances if the only hope is trusting Israel are zero... And better a small chance than none.

Which is again why I keep saying that the only way this 'plan' would have a sliver of a chance would be for Bush to personally guarantee to force Israeli to keep its word. But he can't do that, of course, being a good bought boy.