Arafat under siege

[Sirotnikov]

You have shown yourself unable to understand the basics of what a reference and a source entails.

Interesting.

I thought it was all about quoting different sources, and relying on history and news.

But appears it means just quoting my past sayings.

Because frankly, that's what you do.

I continue to stupidly argue that itnernational sources are the only sources to rely on, even though they are just as biased, especially those who employ local reporters (which pretty much makes them as reliable as local news services).

I know that much of the reporters and cameramen of news agencies here are local palestinians. You still don't think they'll affect the news coverage?

So, what you are doing, is infact ignoring local media, which you know is biased, and totally believe international media, which is just as biased, and also inexact.

Great

Teach me some more

[GePap]

Well, the main question now is, how much face wil Sharon and ben-Eliezer be able to save aftre they pull out: will they have anyone in custody?

Hopefuly this teaches Sharon and Ben-Eliezer a lesson: Think before you move, and don't stand in the Way of the BUsh administration's pet projects, aka Iraq.

I love it: The US telling the UN it has to make sure all its resoltuons are enforced, then absatins and lets a resoltion calling for an Israeli pull back pass. Did the Israeli government get the message? Not a first, but they are getting it now. I wonder were all the bravado of the first pages of this thread have gone?

yeah, israel will get its men, and drive Arafat out

[Sirotnikov]

Well, the main question now is, how much face wil Sharon and ben-Eliezer be able to save aftre they pull out: will they have anyone in custody?

maybe.

A secret envoy was sent to cool down the white house, and they promise to back down, if they recieve some wanted man.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
I love it: The US telling the UN it has to make sure all its resoltuons are enforced, then absatins and lets a resoltion calling for an Israeli pull back pass.

The real issue is why the UN drags its feet and is extremely relunctant to act against a dangerous despot with WMD like Saddam, but let Israel lift a finger against Arafat's HQ, and the UN security council immediately passes an anti-israel resolution within days?

It shows that the UN is fundamentaly anti-israel and pro-arab!

[Imran Siddiqui]

We negotiate. I know it will be a bitter pill for Sharon and Bush, but we would have no choice.

I can only hope you are right. But I have a feeling we won't negotiate.

The real issue is why the UN drags its feet and is extremely relunctant to act against a dangerous despot with WMD like Saddam, but let Israel lift a finger against Arafat's HQ, and the UN security council immediately passes an anti-israel resolution within days?

It shows that the UN is fundamentaly anti-israel and pro-arab!

Simple minds come up with simple solutions.

Could you fathom that it just MIGHT be because the UN hates aggression? Remember they voted for an attack on Iraq when it took over Kuwait. It condemned Israel for aggresively moving into Palestine, and doesn't want to go backing aggression against Iraq.

Jeez... seriously

[Waku]

Originally posted by GePap
yeah, israel will get its men, and drive Arafat out

I don't think so, without him Sharon wouldn't be able to kill a few palestinians and destroy their homes everyday

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

A secret envoy was sent to cool down the white house, and they promise to back down, if they recieve some wanted man.

First, nice Soviet Otter....

It doesn't look like any of the men will be arrested any time soon. Again, people underestimate how badly the Bushies want Saddam- anyone else be damned!
I don't see any big responses like this one against any but the biggest attacks by Hamas or islamic Jihad, and next time the attacks should probably be against Hamas or Islamic jihad, not Arafat.

The US won't mid attacking hamas or Jihad targets- nay more attacks agnist Arafat though, are higly unlikely, until after the Iraq war, which comes in january. Ahh, Sharon won't have his favorite chew- toy to play with. Poor Boy

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Could you fathom that it just MIGHT be because the UN hates aggression? Remember they voted for an attack on Iraq when it took over Kuwait. It condemned Israel for aggresively moving into Palestine, and doesn't want to go backing aggression against Iraq.

Jeez... seriously

Then, how many resolutions have there been to comdemn the countless suicide attacks against Israel? isn't that agression?

You know as well as I, that international politics are never that simple.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Then, how many resolutions have there been to comdemn the countless suicide attacks against Israel? isn't that agression?

You know as well as I, that international politics are never that simple.

Well, at least one, the last one. And most SC resolutions on the issue since the Oslo accords- so the answer is: several.

Iraq is a member of the UN, so is Israel. The PA is only an observer, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad, those responsible for most of the attacks, aren't. Political self-determination is enshrined as a basic priciple of the UN, as is national sovereignty. Because of these two, the UN can't but be more pro-palestinian than pro-Israeli, since Israel is violating the sovereignty and self-determination of 3 million people (all suicide bombings in the last 10 years have killed less than 600 people. Which is worst? 3 million<> 600?). At the same time, since Iraq is a sovereign nation, an attack against it, without UNSC sanction, or proof of inniment threat, is also against all that the UN stands for: even when a regime is in violation of the human rights of its people. (Though the Human rights abuse would also be a negative for israel, as it routinely, and endlessly, violates the Human Rights of Palestinians)

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
since Israel is violating the sovereignty and self-determination of 3 million people (all suicide bombings in the last 10 years have killed less than 600 people. Which is worst? 3 million<> 600?).

Not true! The terrorists attacks are what are holding back the Palestinians' independance. Do you expect Israel to grant the Palestinians independance and sovereignty while Hamas and Jihad kill innocent Israelis?

Furthermore, you know as well as I do, that if Arafat had accepted the Camp David Accord instead of launching a second Intifada, that he would have a Palestinian State by now. Then, he could have negotiated a final peace settlement with Israel as a recognized sovereign State.

Israel is not violating the Palestinians' sovereignty. They provide the Palestinians will water, food, supplies, and plenty of jobs. They enter the Palestinian regions to arrest terrorists, and they have withdrawn when they were done.

The IDF would not be anywhere near the Palestinian areas if there were not terrorist attacks against them.

Do you really think that Israel wants to have military forces in the West Bank all the time?

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Not true! The terrorists attacks are what are holding back the Palestinians' independance. Do you expect Israel to grant the Palestinians independance and sovereignty while Hamas and Jihad kill innocent Israelis?

Yes, yes I do, since the political rights of one individual have nothing to do with the action of another. Lets make an exmaple of you: If someone in Muncie commits a crime, a man, would it be right for the police to place a curfew on all men, house arrest, until the man is found? I guess you think it would be fine; since you have no problem with collective punishment.

Israel is not violating the Palestinians' sovereignty. They provide the Palestinians will water, food, supplies, and plenty of jobs. They enter the Palestinian regions to arrest terrorists, and they have withdrawn when they were done.

You seem to ignore the 1967-1993 occupation. You also seem not to know that at best, Israel left 38% of the west Bank, even during the peace accords. At al times 60% of the West bank has been under Israeli military occupation. Also, each settlement is a violation of Palestinian sovereignty, and the settlements have doubled in size since 1993. The water is under palestinian lands, so I challange you to explain why it is under israeli control. No, the Israeli's don't give palestians food: the UNHCR and other organizations have spoekn of growing malnutrition in Paletinian towsn, plus the Israelis keep destroying private farms and Olive groves, plus their crufews disrupt food distribution. Israel does not suply Palestinians with jobs: there is 50% unemploymen in Palestinian lands: Palestinians laborers have been bared from working in most Israeli settlemnts, most have been bared from entering Israel, especially when they are under crufew, which means they can't leave their villages, far less go into Israel. Israel has also been importing foreing workers, from paces like Romania and Thailand, to make sure they no longer need Palestinians for menial labor such as construction.

Do you really think that Israel wants to have military forces in the West Bank all the time?

Under this israeli government: Yes.

Let me be diplomatic, diplomat: read up more about the situation if you want to get into a serious debate.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes, yes I do, since the political rights of one individual have nothing to do with the action of another. Lets make an exmaple of you: If someone in Muncie commits a crime, a man, would it be right for the police to place a curfew on all men, house arrest, until the man is found? I guess you think it would be fine; since you have no problem with collective punishment.

Come on now! We are not talking about simple crime. We are talking about organized terrorism. Groups that blend in to the general population and hide anywhere they can. Imagine that you see a normal person, wearing normal clothes, gets on a bus as casually as anyone else, except that "normal" civilian is actually wearing a bomb strapped to their waist. Wouldn't you close the city to deny them the ability to move around and carry out a possible attack?

If you can't the difference between the terrorist and the civilian, then imposing a curfew and limiting movement is the only sensible action possible.

You seem to ignore the 1967-1993 occupation. You also seem not to know that at best, Israel left 38% of the west Bank, even during the peace accords. At al times 60% of the West bank has been under Israeli military occupation. Also, each settlement is a violation of Palestinian sovereignty, and the settlements have doubled in size since 1993. The water is under palestinian lands, so I challange you to explain why it is under israeli control. No, the Israeli's don't give palestians food: the UNHCR and other organizations have spoekn of growing malnutrition in Paletinian towsn, plus the Israelis keep destroying private farms and Olive groves, plus their crufews disrupt food distribution. Israel does not suply Palestinians with jobs: there is 50% unemploymen in Palestinian lands: Palestinians laborers have been bared from working in most Israeli settlemnts, most have been bared from entering Israel, especially when they are under crufew, which means they can't leave their villages, far less go into Israel. Israel has also been importing foreing workers, from paces like Romania and Thailand, to make sure they no longer need Palestinians for menial labor such as construction.

The Israelis only took that land in the first place because of wars that the Arabs started. When you start a war and lose, the other side is going to occupy your land. That is how wars usually work. But, the Israelis agreed to give back the land in phases as part of a general peace deal. During the 90's the IDF did indeed gradually pull out of the West Bank. The only reason why they did not pull out quicker than they did, is because of the terrorist attacks. The Peace Accords called for the Israelis to pull out in phases, and for the Palestinians to end terrorism. Israel carried out its part to the best of its ability but the PLO failed to keep its part!

The Palestinians would be living in much better conditions if Arafat actually used all the money that Israel and the International Community give him, to improve Palestinian cities. Instead, he hides all the money in private bank accounts, while his people starve to death. If the Palestinians stopped the violence, then Israel would have no reason would enter the West Bank, and Arafat could spend all those millions of dollars on improving his people's lives.

Do you know why there are Israeli settlements in the West Bank? Because, they love that land too. They identify with that land as being special, where there families and ancestors used to live. Now of course, once the Oslo accords and peace deals were signed, then the settlements did become illegal. But the Israeli government has been trying to deal with the situation.

The bottom line is that the Palestinians would have a free sovereign State, and they would have food, and water, and good living conditions if they stopped terrorisms. Israel would be glad to pull out. Israel would be glad to give them independance,and Arafat would be able to improve his people's conditions. But first they have to renounce violence. Israel is simply reacting to violence and terrorism.

Under this israeli government: Yes.

This shows were bias. It should be obvious to you, that no goverment would want to stay under those conditions. With all the problems that have occured, with all the difficulties, with the need for military operations that have been costly in money as well as human life, no goverment would want to continue that. Do you really think that Sharon wants to continue a situation where he has to continously send men and woman into tense and dangerous military operations that cost lives on both sides?

And the Israeli government has made it clear that they do not want to stay in the West Bank.

Let me be diplomatic, diplomat: read up more about the situation if you want to get into a serious debate.

And allow me to respectfully recommend that you read some more on the Israeli-Arab situation as well. I hope that you are able to read some books and articles that give you a broader and, more objective view than what you have.

[CyberGnu]

Interesting.

I thought it was all about quoting different sources, and relying on history and news.

But appears it means just quoting my past sayings.

Because frankly, that's what you do.

'my past sayings'? Do you mean 'your past sayings?'?

I've tried explaining it to you a dozen times by now, all with different words and phrases. You still don't get it. The conclusion must be that it doesn;t matter what words are used, you just don't want to learn.

Thus, I might as well copy paste as try to come up with new ways of saying the same thing.

I continue to stupidly argue that itnernational sources are the only sources to rely on, even though they are just as biased, especially those who employ local reporters (which pretty much makes them as reliable as local news services).

I know that much of the reporters and cameramen of news agencies here are local palestinians. You still don't think they'll affect the news coverage?

So, what you are doing, is infact ignoring local media, which you know is biased, and totally believe international media, which is just as biased, and also inexact.

'I continue'? Do you mean 'you continue'?

The major fallacy of your statement lies in this part, however: and totally believe international media, which is just as biased. This is, of course, an absurd statement. If true, the NYT would be substantially like EITHER the Jeruslamen Post OR Al-Hayat. It is quite obvious that it isn't.

It appears though that you don't comprehend the concept of graduality. Let's try this:

Imagine a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 would be completely biased towards Israel and 10 would be completely biased towards PA. The JP is 0, Al-Hayat is 10. Most western media oscillates betwen 4 and 6. The Guardian, for example, would be a good example of a '6', while the NYT would most likely be a '4'.

Any media between 4 and 6 should, for all practical purposes, be considered impartial. This does not imply that it is perfect. Nothing on this world is perfect. But one has to go with the best option there is.

You apparently reject this statement, and argue that since nothing is perect, one should go with the '0'. That is the absurd part.

Great

Teach me some more

I can't, not until you absorbed what I've been trying to teach you so far. Trying to teach you differential equations wont do you any good if you don't understand elementary algebra.

[GePap]

Originally posted by The diplomat


Come on now! We are not talking about simple crime. We are talking about organized terrorism. Groups that blend in to the general population and hide anywhere they can. Imagine that you see a normal person, wearing normal clothes, gets on a bus as casually as anyone else, except that "normal" civilian is actually wearing a bomb strapped to their waist. Wouldn't you close the city to deny them the ability to move around and carry out a possible attack?

If you can't the difference between the terrorist and the civilian, then imposing a curfew and limiting movement is the only sensible action possible.

I don't care for cheap sentimentality. There have been about 130 suicide bombers: there have been at most 600 victims. That CAN NEVER under anything but blatantly racist or otherwise deeply biased way excuse the subjugation of 3 million people. NEVER. You don't deny people the ability to get medical help- the ability to eductae dthier children, the ability to conduct their business, to make a life for themselves. 3000 Americans died in 9/11, more than in all terrorist attacks aginst Israeli's since 1950, and it was also a suicide bombing. Did we put all Muslims in the US under curfew? Did we , when we invaded Afghanistan, put all Afghans into curfews, to insure we get the taliban and Al Qaede? NO, because those things are wrong. We have not been angels during this 'war on terrorism',. but we have also shopwn that the horrible tactics of countless Israeli governments are not needed, and are simply wrong.

The Israelis only took that land in the first place because of wars that the Arabs started. When you start a war and lose, the other side is going to occupy your land. That is how wars usually work. But, the Israelis agreed to give back the land in phases as part of a general peace deal. During the 90's the IDF did indeed gradually pull out of the West Bank. The only reason why they did not pull out quicker than they did, is because of the terrorist attacks. The Peace Accords called for the Israelis to pull out in phases, and for the Palestinians to end terrorism. Israel carried out its part to the best of its ability but the PLO failed to keep its part!

First of all, they pulled out of 39% of the West Bank, never the other 60%. Israel never fuly met its pull-back schedules, and kept increasing the settlements. At most it partly followed the letter- but never the spirit, of the agreements.
As for who started the war in 1967- it was the Israelis. They did think that the Arabs were about to invade, but that proved not to be true at all.

The Palestinians would be living in much better conditions if Arafat actually used all the money that Israel and the International Community give him, to improve Palestinian cities. Instead, he hides all the money in private bank accounts, while his people starve to death. If the Palestinians stopped the violence, then Israel would have no reason would enter the West Bank, and Arafat could spend all those millions of dollars on improving his people's lives.

People arent starving because Arafat is corrupt- they are starving because israel destroys farmland- denies people jobs, and disrupts food supply_ Arafat was corrupt back in 1996, and Palestinians were not starving. I don't give a damn about Arafat- I agree he is a fool an incompetent- but that does not, and can not excuse Israeli actions. Simple.

Do you know why there are Israeli settlements in the West Bank? Because, they love that land too. They identify with that land as being special, where there families and ancestors used to live. Now of course, once the Oslo accords and peace deals were signed, then the settlements did become illegal. But the Israeli government has been trying to deal with the situation.

That is how much you know! HA! the settlements have always been illegal, they were illegal back in 1967 when they begun, and they are illegal today. they are a war crime, since they are a violation of the laws of war. And do you think the millions of Palestinian refugees driven from vilages in 1948, villages burned down long ago, do you think they don't find the lands were they grew up, the family farms in which they used to play, the areas were many of their generations were burried, to be special? And yet how many of them, or their decendents, will ever see those lands again? Oslo made the settlement illegal! that is how much you know! HA! If your last sentence was even close to true, had any semblence of truth, explain the growth of the settler population in the West bank from about 100,000 in 1993 to its current 200,000. explain the government subsidezed housing the Israelig overnment offers in the settlements, explain the new access roads, explain the new settlements, explain the growth of the settler population from under 3000 to 7000 in gaza. explain why 7000 Jews should control 40% of the land in a strip of land with over a million people! Explain all of that, diplomat!

The bottom line is that the Palestinians would have a free sovereign State, and they would have food, and water, and good living conditions if they stopped terrorisms. Israel would be glad to pull out. Israel would be glad to give them independance,and Arafat would be able to improve his people's conditions. But first they have to renounce violence. Israel is simply reacting to violence and terrorism.

Why does everyone always want to forget 1967-1993? Where were the suicide bombers back in 1984? huh? were? They didn't exist, yet the IDF was in the West bank. Where were the suicide bombers in 1990? Huh? Wait, there were none, yet the IDF was in the West bank and Gaza. The Israelis didn't have the excuse of suicide bombers from 1967-1993- yet they were in the West bank and Gaza? Have an answer for that, diplomat?

This shows were bias. It should be obvious to you, that no goverment would want to stay under those conditions. With all the problems that have occured, with all the difficulties, with the need for military operations that have been costly in money as well as human life, no goverment would want to continue that. Do you really think that Sharon wants to continue a situation where he has to continously send men and woman into tense and dangerous military operations that cost lives on both sides?

Yes, he would. To the Israeli press, Sharon said that Netzarim, a small settlement of about 400 people between the Khan Younis area of villages and refugee camps, and Gaza City, a settlement full of nationalistic settler sitting on land no scholar could ever claim belnged to any ancient jewish kingdom, was as fundamentall a part of Israel as Tel Aviv. Now, if a man tels the press he only seeks an interim agreement, and he says that he refuses to discuss the possiblity of dismantling any settlements, then yes, i will believe that he seeks to keep the IDF in the West Bank. But of course, you never hear these comments on the US press, only the Israeli one.

And allow me to respectfully recommend that you read some more on the Israeli-Arab situation as well. I hope that you are able to read some books and articles that give you a broader and, more objective view than what you have.

Again, I think I am much better informed than you as to the facts. I can't be objective about the ME crisis, any more than I can be about 9/11. One side is fundamentally wrong, one right. I can understand the motivations of both, I can lsiten to their arguments, bu in the end, only one is right. The ME situation is not as stark, the difference in right and wrong not nearly as great, but there is still one side being subjugated and another doing the subjugation. The 2000 or less Israelis killed by Palestinian violence in the last 50 years can never in my mind be used as an excuse for denying 3 million sovereignty for 33 years, nor can be mitigate the deaths of at least 10,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, directly or indirectly killed by Israelis in the last 20 years. But i guess i your vies, 2000 israelis count more than 10,000 Palestinians, or 3 million more.

[Sirotnikov]

The major fallacy of your statement lies in this part, however: and totally believe international media, which is just as biased. This is, of course, an absurd statement. If true, the NYT would be substantially like EITHER the Jeruslamen Post OR Al-Hayat. It is quite obvious that it isn't.

Let's analyze that statement.

You claim: The NYT isn't biased.
Way of proof:
Let's assume NYT is biased.
If it biased, it should be like al-hayat or JP (which you assume are biased).
Your proof: It isn't like them, so it must not be biased.

What you fail to see is inherent and hidden bias.

That is how much you know! HA! the settlements have always been illegal, they were illegal back in 1967 when they begun,

Correction.

They began as an Israeli RoR to occupied terrotires.

Territories occupied by Jordan, which have been cleansed of Jews during 1921, 1929, 1936 and finally 1948.