Why you can't satisfy ANY demands by terrorists before ridding of every one of them

[Sirotnikov]

I disagree about stealing palestinian land.

The whole point is that their claims about stealing land are often about settling on land which they consider generally palestinian.

rare were the occasions when palestinians could actually present documents showing that this or that hilltop were actually their private property. at least to my knowledge.

as for water - water is needed by both peoples. israel is using equiffers in other areas afaik, most not related to the palestinian areas.

plus israel actually has the installations for handling the water and was also supplying water to south lebanon not only the pals.

so it's possible they got their own water supplied to them by israel . The horror!!



occupying is also wierd. israeli troops were on the borders of israel and the settlements.

now - it is an occupation. israeli troops are in palestinian towns or on their borders.

previously the maximum you'd see would be a military jeep or APC and that too near settlements.

it was nothing compared to todays clamp down.

what stopped the palestinian intelligence fighting with terror?

israel only began bombing in 2001, and only began incursions in late 2001.

they had almost an entire year to stop the terrorists, before Israel went in to do it herself

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The recent talks, the IRA didn't have to lay down its arms first, just agree to a cease-fire and negotiate the destruction of arm to be done at a later date.

The essential precondition to negotiation was that they cease attacking civilians in order for negotiations to take place. How that is carried out is immaterial to the final settlement.

And Michael Collins was able to drive the Brits out, so he certainly got something accomplished.

The practical result of Collins's campaign of terror was an offer by the British in 1921 of free state status: nothing more than what the nationalists could have had in 1914.

[Ned]

One cannot live forever with a hostile neighbor. Erecting fences provides only a short term solution. Think of what the Germans eventually did to the Romans.

It is time for Israel to think out of the box and seek a long term solution.

[Zevico]

I second Siro's question:

what stopped the palestinian intelligence fighting with terror?

[SlowwHand]

I've been saying it forever.
NEVER negotiate with terrorists or kidnappers.
Someone nabs me, and the authorities get a location, vaporize the area.

[Faeelin]

Hmm. Terrorism can work.

The problem is that terrorism, when directed against an enemy's homeland, usually has the opposite effet of what's intended. that's why the Isrsraeli's are now cracking down more decisively than ever, and Bush is looking for more countries to blow up, Because all you've done is pinprick foes that are much, much larger than you.

something about never doing a foe a small harm comes to mind here.

[Saint Marcus]

Why you can't satisfy ANY demands by terrorists before ridding of every one of them

You can't get rid of terrorist by military means alone. In fact, military means can make the terrorist's cause even stronger.

[SlowwHand]

Right. We should stick a flower in the barrel of their gun.

[KrazyHorse]

Why you can't satisfy ANY demands by terrorists before ridding of every one of them

That's bright, Siro. Just another way you guarantee the problem will never be solved. "We know this is the right thing to do, but until we're satisfied we've killed everyone we feel like killing, we won't do it"

Sheer bloodymindedness.

[chequita guevara]

Since there will always be terrorists, by refusing to satisfy the demands of the people until the terrorists are destroyed, you are effectively saying, we shall never meet your demands, ever.

[KrazyHorse]

I've mentioned this before, but it seems astounding that one man with a gun can apparently put off peace negotiations.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The problem is that terrorism, when directed against an enemy's homeland, usually has the opposite effet of what's intended. that's why the Isrsraeli's are now cracking down more decisively than ever, and Bush is looking for more countries to blow up

And that is exactly what terrorists want. The leaders are wacky. They want everyone to by martyrs. By having the enemy bomb and kill innocents, they gain more to their side. Like che said, would you rather create 5 new terrorists or just keep it the same number?

[CyberGnu]

Well, it would be a problem for Siro if Israel ever intended to have peace.

But since peace is the LAST thing Sharon wants, this policy if the best propaganda material they have... It sounds good since it mimics the policy versus kidnappers and hostage takers, even though the causes are quite different...

Hey, it sounds reasonable enought that 18 year olds will spout it as gospel on a bulletin board, without ever contemplating how false the comparisons are...

[Sirotnikov]

I'm not saying we ignore the terrorists and let them go on hitting us. Obviously they need to be dealt with. Because, as I said, thy aren't going to go away just because we start doing right by the majority. But by getting rid of the desperation that feeds them, every loss they suffer isn't like swatting a hydra.

Ok.

But could we please avoid doing the right thing to the majority in a way that will not be read as "we give up, don't hurt us anymore or we will give up again" ?

[Sirotnikov]

I've mentioned this before, but it seems astounding that one man with a gun can apparently put off peace negotiations.

If the opposite side is not willing to stop the man with the gun from attacking, then there is no point in negociations.

I supported ignoring terror while I was under the impression the terrorists were a small group, against the peace process and unrelated to the majority.

But the fact of the matter is, that our negociating partner, is the one who employs terror, in order to nudge us into making concessions. Generally, everytime Israel didn't succumb to Arafat's demands, he gave more room and funding to terror.

That is unacceptable.

Well, it would be a problem for Siro if Israel ever intended to have peace.

But since peace is the LAST thing Sharon wants, this policy if the best propaganda material they have... It sounds good since it mimics the policy versus kidnappers and hostage takers, even though the causes are quite different...

Hey, it sounds reasonable enought that 18 year olds will spout it as gospel on a bulletin board, without ever contemplating how false the comparisons are...

This from a man who doesn't acknowledge the existance of civilians in a conflict between two nations, and therefore thinks terrorism against civilians is ok.

Go lecture someone new.