IDF will occupy Gaza and uproot Hamas

[Ramo]

Siro, sorry but I'm really busy right now and don't want to continue writing epics in this thread, but it comes down to this:

The policy of Israel on Palestinian people in its territories, namely the closures and curfews, the trade barriers and other forms of economic exploitation, unfair distribution of water, and constant military presence and interventions constitute extreme violence against the Palestinian people, and they are objectively no better than Palestinian terrorism even if they sound cleaner. Until these policies end, I see no hope of Palestinian terrorism ending.

[CyberGnu]

If the Palestinians stop the violence at their end, there will be no reason for the Israelis to keep it up at their end.

True, if you assume that Israel wants peace. If this was true, however, why did the Camp David accords break down?

Israel prefers land over peace. The palestinians prefer land over peace. The only difference is that the land belongs to the palestinians, while the Israelis have the military might.

Why couldn't Arafat have dealt with Hamas? I see no reason why he couldn't have.

He could have, if Israel had lived up to their part of the Oslo accords. But as time went on and the occupation continued Araft lost popularity, while Hamas gained. Eventually he was unable to firmly oppose Hamas, or lose all support he had. The Camp David was his last chance. If Israel had offered a fair deal at Camp David, he could have gotten away with it, I think. But as it is, the palestinian people doesn't believe Israel will ever willingly give up the occupation.

[GeneralTacticus]

True, if you assume that Israel wants peace. If this was true, however, why did the Camp David accords break down?

Because Arafat refused to sign the deal he was offerred or to propose a better one.

Israel prefers land over peace. The palestinians prefer land over peace. The only difference is that the land belongs to the palestinians, while the Israelis have the military might.

Your statement is true for Sharon and his supporters, but not necessarily for the rest of Israel. The Palestinians obviously want their land and peace, but it seems Hamas is the thing which is getting in the way the most. And I really want to know what it is that is stopping Arafat from reining in Hamas. He is not benefiting from having Israeli tanks parked outside his office.

EDIT: Nor is anybody else.

He could have, if Israel had lived up to their part of the Oslo accords.

Arafat failed to clamp down on the terrorist groups as he was obliged, hence there was no reason for the Israelis to follow the agreement.

But as time went on and the occupation continued Araft lost popularity, while Hamas gained. Eventually he was unable to firmly oppose Hamas, or lose all support he had. The Camp David was his last chance. If Israel had offered a fair deal at Camp David, he could have gotten away with it, I think.

I'll ask again: Why couldn't he have offerred what he considered a better deal instead of walking out and declaring a new intifada?

[Sirotnikov]

However, larger, american (or say, french ) media bodies, are seldom influenced by the goverenment, and seldom have political agendas. While seldom does not equal never, seldom is the best you will ever get, and infinitly preferable to partisanship.

1) The US government at times admitted to planting CIA agents in the media, thus affecting it, and often planting false news.
2) Newspapers have owners and audiences and thus have political agendas. Even the NYT and the WP are considered somewhat affected by political agendas. I can't remember which is rightist and which is leftist though.
3) I fail to see what is it that you call partisanship. Which media service? Maybe the Syrian one.

You still haven't got a letter from the german newspaper saying that they ran no article about al-qaida operatives.

Furthermore, foreign journalists might not always be the best sources on minute things that are hapenning beneath the headlines, but one can only trust that if an event is important enough the foreign journalist will cover it. Between lack of coverage and partisan coverage, lack of coverage is the better choice.

Ah, but lack of coverage presents a skewed picture.

Biased coverage, can be fixed if it is approached cautiously and the bias is taken into account.

What you prefer is ignore everything that you suspect, or would like to suspect, is even slightly biased.

Furthermore, international journalists are can be affected by thugs with guns that threaten their life, and can edotirialise news pieces. They can be ignorant of the local history or detached from events. (Although, assuming that this is the case becasue it could be the case is flawed logicall)

I don't need to assume this.

I've seen and heard and admission by BBC of "editing out" pieces of news which were bad press to the pals, because threatened.

I've seen and heard BBC reporters which either possessed wrong facts themselves, or let thier interviewee lie without correcting him. (and by wrong facts I mean general knowledge things, like when a war started, when PLO was formed, the existance or lack of bombings for a period of time).

If this is a concern, then reading several impartial news agencies is a better choice than relying on partisan coverage.

This is a statement where you claim something. It should follow with the word 'because' and a logical explanation. You fail to do that everytime.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Also, as a practical matter, how do you expect Arafat to reign in Hamas immediately after a peace treaty, or even immediately after the occupation ends? Israel has systematically destroyed the palestinian police force.

Israel can't do it, or Hamas will get all their support back when the first Israeli soldier crosses the border to palestine...

Perhaps a peace treaty will authorize a UN "peacekeeping" force to help the PA track down and arrest those who oppose peace. For obvious reasons, this force should be commanded by an Arab.

I don't think there can be a settlement without a credible police force in Palestine.

[CyberGnu]

Because Arafat refused to sign the deal he was offerred or to propose a better one.

Well, of course he refused to sign the deal, it wasn't viable. and that he didn't offer a better deal isn't true. Even the Israeli negotiatior said as much in the interviews after the accords.

(admittedly, only after Clinton got pissed at him, but still)

Your statement is true for Sharon and his supporters, but not necessarily for the rest of Israel. The Palestinians obviously want their land and peace, but it seems Hamas is the thing which is getting in the way the most. And I really want to know what it is that is stopping Arafat from reining in Hamas. He is not benefiting from having Israeli tanks parked outside his office.

Well, political reality. His political survival isn't much different from any other politicians... He needs the support of his people to stay in power. If he deals with Hamas right now, he is toast, as his way (peace and negotiations) failed to give the palestinians what they wanted, i.e. the end of occupation.

[CyberGnu]

Arafat failed to clamp down on the terrorist groups as he was obliged, hence there was no reason for the Israelis to follow the agreement.

He actually jailed numerous members of Hamas in the early 90's, but released them after the political situation became untenable. That was in 96 or so, after Netanyahu declared that Oslo was dead.

[CyberGnu]

1) The US government at times admitted to planting CIA agents in the media, thus affecting it, and often planting false news.
2) Newspapers have owners and audiences and thus have political agendas. Even the NYT and the WP are considered somewhat affected by political agendas. I can't remember which is rightist and which is leftist though.

Select words highlighted as you appear to have missed them the first time:

However, larger, american (or say, french ) media bodies, are seldom influenced by the goverenment, and seldom have political agendas. While seldom does not equal never, seldom is the best you will ever get, and infinitly preferable to partisanship.

) I fail to see what is it that you call partisanship. Which media service? Maybe the Syrian one.

Of course you fail to see it. This is the root of the problem.

You still haven't got a letter from the german newspaper saying that they ran no article about al-qaida operatives.

Nope. I only have so much time to spare, and I figured two letters to the JP would be enough. How about this, you produce the original article, and I write a letter to Die Welt.

Ah, but lack of coverage presents a skewed picture.

Biased coverage, can be fixed if it is approached cautiously and the bias is taken into account.

Biased coverage can NOT be taken into account. History and present shows as much. Why do you think so many arabs believe Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks? Why do you think so many israelis say 'there were no arabs in palestine before the jews came'?

So I repeat, no coverage is better than biased coverage.

What you prefer is ignore everything that you suspect, or would like to suspect, is even slightly biased.

Select words highlighted as you appear to have missed them the first time:

However, larger, american (or say, french ) media bodies, are seldom influenced by the goverenment, and seldom have political agendas. While seldom does not equal never, seldom is the best you will ever get, and infinitly preferable to partisanship.

I don't need to assume this.

I've seen and heard and admission by BBC of "editing out" pieces of news which were bad press to the pals, because threatened.

I've seen and heard BBC reporters which either possessed wrong facts themselves, or let thier interviewee lie without correcting him. (and by wrong facts I mean general knowledge things, like when a war started, when PLO was formed, the existance or lack of bombings for a period of time).

Select words highlighted as you appear to have missed them the first time:

Furthermore, international journalists are can be affected by thugs with guns that threaten their life, and can edotirialise news pieces. They can be ignorant of the local history or detached from events. (Although, assuming that this is the case becasue it could be the case is flawed logicall). If this is a concern, then reading several impartial news agencies is a better choice than relying on partisan coverage.

This is a statement where you claim something. It should follow with the word 'because' and a logical explanation. You fail to do that everytime.

How old are you? 3? But OK, I bite.

Furthermore, international journalists are can be affected by thugs with guns that threaten their life, and can edotirialise news pieces. They can be ignorant of the local history or detached from events. (Although, assuming that this is the case becasue it could be the case is flawed logicall). If this is a concern, then reading several impartial news agencies is a better choice than relying on partisan coverage because only a ****** would read and base his views on biased information.

[CyberGnu]

Ned:

Perhaps a peace treaty will authorize a UN "peacekeeping" force to help the PA track down and arrest those who oppose peace. For obvious reasons, this force should be commanded by an Arab.

I don't think there can be a settlement without a credible police force in Palestine.

Agree completely. Do remember that Arafat has asked for an international peace keeping force for ten years now... Mainly to protect the palestinian people from Israel, but also for peace keeping purposes.

[Ming]

They didn't really seriously try to hunt down the terrorists (or freedom fighters if you would prefer) when they did have a reasonably credible police force before. What makes you think that would ever change?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Ming
They didn't really seriously try to hunt down the terrorists (or freedom fighters if you would prefer) when they did have a reasonably credible police force before. What makes you think that would ever change?

Like you'd ever change your pro-Israel bias in thread closures?

[CyberGnu]

Ming, Arafat got a condemnation in 1995 from several human rights groups for his jailing of accused Hamas members. More than 150 people were jailed, and over 500 were detained for prolonged periods of time. the vast majority of these men were jailed without a trial, based mainly on Israeli tipoffs.

And that was still while the occupation was present.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Like you'd ever change your pro-Israel bias in thread closures?

Huh... my biggest concern with ME threads is when there are too many of them on the same subject, and personal insults. Due to the heavy emotional attachment many have (which is understandable) they do get out of hand on occasion

Frankly, both sides are right and wrong, and need to sit down SERIOUSLY and talk peace. Because until that happens, more innocent people will die.

[Alexander's Horse]

Tee hee.

[Al'Kimiya]

The problem of the "occupation" will end by itself in about 20 years, when arabs are a majority in pre-1967 Israel, then the jews will be thrown into the sea unless the arabs are reprogrammed not to revolt.