American position on the PA

[Eli]

Originally posted by Sikander
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.

Syria slowly withdraws it's troops to the Bekaa Valley only because it's easier to defend.
The flow of money and weapons to the Hizballah is increasing. Many missiles were transported on the Beirut-Damascus road in the last couple years.
All this makes me believe that Assad Jr. is an unexperienced leader who wants to show the Arab world that he's as strong as his father was.

The Hizballah is trying to slowly provoke Israel and a month or two ago only American intervention managed to stop an Israeli offensive against Syria.

[Sikander]

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

There was an implied verb (to be) in that sentence, though you are correct that I should have written it out for the sentence to be correct.

"For my part I would rather that a popularly elected government (be) run by Hamas...."

[Saint Marcus]

We might want to consider economic sanctions on Arafat if he runs for re-election and wins.

If the US decides who should win the elections, isn't that the oposite of free and democratic elections?

C'mon Ned, I know you can do better.

[Sava]

You know.... Hitler got elected...

[Saint Marcus]

No he didn't. He lost the Presidential elections, and though he did become Chancelor he didn't get full power until after the Reichstag burning.

[ZoboZeWarrior]

You know ... Chirac get elected too ...

[Roland]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
And a deal is a deal. If the palestinians accept a peace plan that gives them a viable state, I think they will have to live with the deal and accept Israel.

But you think until such a deal is reached that all Israeli citizens (or only jewish ones?) in all of Palestine/Israel (or just in westbank/gaza ?) are "settlers" and therefore legitimate targets for any kind of attack ?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Roland
But you think until such a deal is reached that all Israeli citizens (or only jewish ones?) in all of Palestine/Israel (or just in westbank/gaza ?) are "settlers" and therefore legitimate targets for any kind of attack ?

The distinction between military and civilian targets is completely lost on him. He's said, in the past, that every Israeli man, woman, and child is a valid target until peace is achieved.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


If the US decides who should win the elections, isn't that the oposite of free and democratic elections?

C'mon Ned, I know you can do better.

the US decided who would run the countries of Japan and Germany after WW2 for a few years

I think that this is what neexds to happen here also

Jon Miller

[DanS]

"If the US decides who should win the elections, isn't that the oposite of free and democratic elections?"

Yes, if there were a direct link. In this case it would be indirect. We make it worth the Palestinians' while to choose the leaders that we would like them to choose. Also we fund the good guys to help get out their message.

In Yugoslavia, the package deal was about $2 billion all told, which seems like a fair price all around. But we do have some opposing bidders in this case, and this is a high priority to the US, even though Yugoslavia has 3x the population of Palestine. All told, I wouldn't be surprised to see a figure much higher than Yugoslavia.

[Roland]

"In Yugoslavia, the package deal was about $2 billion all told, which seems like a fair price all around."

That idea is so... american.

[DanS]

Well, we have a deal that everybody wants to make, except Hamas, Iran and Iraq. Syria's probably on the fence. Israel, ex-Sharon, is ready to deal.

It just takes some grease to help accentuate what is in everybody's interest. We need to close this deal.

No need to be coy about the transaction...

[CyberGnu]

Too much to respond to in detail.

I see no moral difference between bombing Hiroshima and bombing Tel Aviv. Both are aimed at ending unwarranted aggression, to end the suffering caused by Japans/Israels actions. The people responsible for the civilian deaths caused by the bombings are Hirohito and Sharon (in the simplified sense that they represent their goverments).

Does that answer your question, Roland?

I also think the palestinian spokesman Said made a good summary of the palestinian situation: give us enough tanks and gunships and we will fight this war in ways acceptable to the west.

This is not a war between equal states. It is an occupied nation resisting their occupier.

[Arrian]

And there are those of us who find the METHOD of resistance to be unacceptable. Dredging up historical analogies doesn't make the deliberate targetting of civilians morally acceptable. Israeli occupation does not make the deliberate targetting of civilians morally acceptable. The disparity in power between the Israelis and Palestinians does not make the deliberate targetting of civilians morally acceptable....

are you ready for the bombshell (no pun intended)?

NOTHING MAKES THE INTENTIONAL TARGETTING OF CIVILIANS MORALLY ACCEPTABLE.

The Palestinians had my sympathy until they started slaughtering innocent people. I still have sympathy for those who suffer from the occupation, but I no longer favor their side. Their cause may be just, but the methods of the various extremist groups who claim to represent them are unacceptable.

-Arrian

[FrantzX]

I would have some respect for the Palestinians if they only went after military targets. But they don't, so I don't.