American position on the PA

[CyberGnu]

In what way does being Israeli make them guilty? Do you believe that they should have to leave the country that a lot of them have been born in solely because the Aplestinians don't like it? Are the Palestinian civilians therefore also 'guilty' for the suicide bombings, thereby meaning that Israel can kill them and be in the right?

I refer to 'what is your view on the bombing of hiroshima?'

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Monk, fine with me. You might want to add the clarification that settler = invading soldier, unless you prefer it out of context.

Good suggestion -- makes it sound even better!

[morb]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


I refer to 'what is your view on the bombing of hiroshima?'

what is your view on 9/11?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

What is your view on the bombing of Hiroshima?

The same as my view of the bombings of Nanking, Dresden, Hamburg, Coventry, London, Warsaw ad nauseum. Reprehensible, but once you are in a war of annihilation, predictable. At least the nuclear bombings achieved a goal proportional to the destruction visited upon innocents.

[CyberGnu]

what is your view on 9/11?

Reprehensible, just like Israels actions in palestine. How so?

[GeneralTacticus]

I refer to 'what is your view on the bombing of hiroshima?'

I believe it was a neccessary evil, considering that the U.S. and Japan had been fighting toth and nail for four years, and the Japanese had been warned that they would be annihilated if they didn't surrender, yet they still preferred death. Remember that the invasion expected to cost the lives of at least 1 million American soldiers and many more Japanese, so as is often stated, it most likely saved more lives than it took.

[CyberGnu]

The same as my view of the bombings of Nanking, Dresden, Hamburg, Coventry, London, Warsaw ad nauseum. Reprehensible, but once you are in a war of annihilation, predictable. At least the nuclear bombings achieved a goal proportional to the destruction visited upon innocents.

So you don't make a difference between defence and attack?

Is churchill a war criminal for carrying on the war against germany, when he could have ended it by capitulating?

My view can be summarized in two sentences:

I think every human has a right to defend what is his.

No one should be forced to sacrifice anything because someone else covets what is his.

That is it. The palestinians are defending their land. End of story. Israel can stop the conflict today if they wanted, but they continue the occupation. When an Israeli civilian is killed, Sharon is responsible. Just like Hitler was responsible for german civilians, not Churchill.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland
"Under what sort of conditions could the Palestinians ever put together a government capable of not only negotiating a peace agreement but implementing one?"

Difficult but not impossible. If we develop the Barak proposal a bit to lift restrictions on sovereignty on a timetable if the terms are upheld as decided by an impartial side, it could work.

Somehow you have to break the circle of failed negotiations leading to vilanece leading to failed negotiations....

It seems like peace has to be almost imposed, but who has the power and the will to do so? Perhaps the U.S. could, but no one wants to put themselves into the situation that Israel is in, having to try to maintain order against a large number of terrorists bent upon continuing the war.

Originally posted by Roland
"...especially when one looks around at the other Arab states in the region which are all corrupt Monarchies or Dictatorships"

Lebanon.

You mean the new province of the pseudo-monarchy Syria? Seriously they gave it a good try, but they were no match for the antagonists of our current dilemna, and seemed willing enough to have at each other during the civil war period. The best Arab state in the area for many years, but brought low by their brothers, the Israelis, and their own internecine struggles.

Originally posted by Roland
"As for being able to make an agreement with Arafat, I agree completely that you can make an agreement with him. Unfortunately he won't keep that agreement."

Either side will only keep agreements if they see it being in their interest. Make it Arafat's interest and he'll keep it.

Making deals with dictators is a shaky excercise at best. It's a much better bet to make a deal with a people rather than a leader, especially an old leader in a violent part of the world. Obviously any contract must contain consideration for both parties, but paying off Arafat under the table is money wasted IMO. We can't allow any possibility of someone later denying the validity of the agreement. Everything has to be on the table for all to see, and the whole thing has to be ratified by a pleibiscite (sp?) so that the nations involved have a stake in the process, and not merely the heads of state.

[Zevico]

CyberGnu, I'm sorry, but what the hell does the Hiroshima bombing have to do with this? Secondly, let me tell you something:
Every single time someone quotes the Mossad/IDF (ie. An Israeli source) or somesuch, you immediately state that its a bunch of bull****. Well CyberGnu, I do believe that the Mossad tipped off the Americans that there was going to be a huge terror act (and look what happened on that day, September 11th...). CyberGnu, *you* are the one pulling **** out of your ass, as you so politely put it once.
I am not saying it's all the Pals fault, far from it. However, they are in a mostly self made mess. Let me ask you: did you ever LIVE in Israel/Palestine pre Intifada? People (including a majority of Palestinians) truly beleived there would be peace. There was a sense of hope in people about the ME situation. Then Arafat comes along and says no to the Camp David plan. Then when the Israeli side calls one of the chief Palestinians about another plan, the response was "The boss doesn't want peace."
Then the intifada occurs. BTW, do you remember Arafat condemning attacks at the beginning of the intifada? No? Oh, that's right, he BEGAN the intifada, and CALLED for martyrs to kill Israel. Then, when Israel destroys his 'security' and/or terrorist infrastructure, he says he can't do anything. Gee, Arafat, how about stopping the funding of suicide bombers and planners in YOUR OWN PARTY?. Then everything stuffs up. Then Sharon is elected. Then everything stuffs up again (due to Sharon as well).

A note: Sharon wants peace, however, he does not trust Arafat or the PA enough (understandably due to their behaviour) to negotiate (especially since PA owned media regularly call for the destruction of Israel).

A note for the unknowing: the words "an end to the occupation" does not mean an end to occupation of Gaza and West Bank (notice how they never state these two territories, only "an end to occupation). It means an end to Israel's occupation of Israel, and tehrefore an end to Israel.

Edit: sorry if this was OT a bit, here is something On topic.
The USA wants the PA to be something it cannot. A responsible governemnt interested in the people, and not themselves.

[Roland]

"It seems like peace has to be almost imposed, but who has the power and the will to do so? Perhaps the U.S. could..."

As the US is giving a couple billion $ every year to Israel, it has more leverage than the EU there. But that's about it.

"... but no one wants to put themselves into the situation that Israel is in, having to try to maintain order against a large number of terrorists bent upon continuing the war."

I could imagine an international border presence once the settlements beyond that border are evacuated. The real security nightmare are those scattered settlements.

"You mean the new province of the pseudo-monarchy Syria?"

Protectorate. Internally they are relatively autonomous.

"We can't allow any possibility of someone later denying the validity of the agreement."

You can never rule that out. But you can draw the consequences, like "no Israeli retreat from Jordan valley".

[Sikander]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

So you don't make a difference between defence and attack?

Is churchill a war criminal for carrying on the war against germany, when he could have ended it by capitulating?

If you will note my words above, I am only talking about military operations aimed at killing as many civilians as possible, not the question of whether war is moral or not. The allies only two defenses for purposefully targeting so many civilians during the war are:

1) The Germans and Japanese both initiated the slaughter of civilians in this manner, and states IMO have a right to adopt the means of their enemies lest the enemy gains an unfair advantage through their willingness to ignore humanitarian or legal concerns. It's nice to have the excess power to be able to not engage in this sort of MAD type of thinking, but it's also rare.

2) The Allies thought that the bombing campaign was an effective tool to defeat the Axis, and therefore constituted a lesser evil than letting the war drag on and perhaps even allowing an Axis victory. Since the end of that war both the effectiveness of the bombing campaign as an economic weapon and any possibility of an Axis victory have been put into some doubt.

Thus I understand why the bombings happened and feel that they were legally justified, but I hope that we never feel it necessary to do so again, and I pray that we never feel so much hatred or contempt for other people that we feel justified in initiating such a mass atrocity ourselves.

Originally posted by CyberGnu
My view can be summarized in two sentences:

I think every human has a right to defend what is his.

No one should be forced to sacrifice anything because someone else covets what is his.

Welcome to the Libertarian party!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland
"It seems like peace has to be almost imposed, but who has the power and the will to do so? Perhaps the U.S. could..."

As the US is giving a couple billion $ every year to Israel, it has more leverage than the EU there. But that's about it.

A couple of billion dollars just doesn't buy what it used to. Hell, it doesn't even buy what it did last week.

Originally posted by Roland
"... but no one wants to put themselves into the situation that Israel is in, having to try to maintain order against a large number of terrorists bent upon continuing the war."

I could imagine an international border presence once the settlements beyond that border are evacuated. The real security nightmare are those scattered settlements.

I think the settlements will be surrendered in short order once the Israelis are convinced that they are going to be traded for a real peace.

Originally posted by Roland
"You mean the new province of the pseudo-monarchy Syria?"

Protectorate. Internally they are relatively autonomous.

Hopefully "Peepers" Assad is a more reasonable man than his father. Syria has been slowly withdrawing recently, so there is some room for hope. Still there is not only the Syrian Army to worry about, but Hezballah as well, and that is a serious complication.

Originally posted by Roland
"We can't allow any possibility of someone later denying the validity of the agreement."

You can never rule that out. But you can draw the consequences, like "no Israeli retreat from Jordan valley".

I prefer to make a much bigger deal of the peace deal being a popular one rather than one imposed by the weak leader Arafat. I think it's much more viable than a mere threat of resumption of the conflict. It might be very tempting for the more radical elements to make an agreement which forces the Israelis into a much weaker position geographically and then reneg on the agreement at a time of their own choosing.

I find it amusing that some people here are so adamantly against a popular government for the Palestinians. They seem to share my fairly low opinion of the political proclivities of the Palestinian people, but not my willingness to give them a chance to either prove themselves or grow from the experience. For my part I would rather that a popularly elected government run by Hamas than a dictatorship run by Arafat, because a popular and more effective government is capable of leading rather than merely sniffing the wind, and IMO it's going to take leadership on both sides to end the conflict. I am much more confident that the Israelis will find the right man when the time comes under the current circumstances. The Palestinians need some time to develop their own effectual government whatever it's eventual type might be.

[Roland]

"I think the settlements will be surrendered in short order once the Israelis are convinced that they are going to be traded for a real peace."

Which means the Israeli right has an interest in making real peace look unlikely.

"I prefer to make a much bigger deal of the peace deal being a popular one rather than one imposed by the weak leader Arafat."

I don't think that makes much difference.

"For my part I would rather that a popularly elected government run by Hamas than a dictatorship run by Arafat...."

Arafat runs an elected dictatorship, does he not ?

Btw, has "rather" turned into a verb ? I've seen such a phrase several times now, and always look for a verb.

"The Palestinians need some time to develop their own effectual government whatever it's eventual type might be."

Not under the current circumstances. They also need to get to develop their state alongside with that.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Roland

Btw, has "rather" turned into a verb ? I've seen such a phrase several times now, and always look for a verb.

It is used in much the same way as prefer, though it is only be used to show a preference for an action (modifying a verb).

Thus:

"I'd rather walk, thank you."

"I prefer blue."

"I'd prefer to walk, thank you."

But not - I rather blue. - Though you could say, "I'd rather have a blue one."

[Roland]

You wrote "I would rather that..." - so that is still not accepted standard, or is it ?