The Palestinian Authority declares war on Israel?

[Vesayen]

#### everyone else

[Admiral]

The problem with trying to change the "system" of international politics as Americans is that America right now can basically do whatever the **** it wants (admittedly, slightly less in the past couple years due to Iraq). Any meaningful reform must dictate that the US concede some of its power, and conservatives will never accept that.

[Vesayen]

It is in Americas best interest to play nice on a global scale and all this "unilateral-piss-in-your-eye" stuff we've done for the last 6 years as a bad idea. Playing nice diplomatically with others however is not the same as yielding to international "law"

Not only will conservatives never do that, no one will ever do that. Americans are xenophobic and for good reason, no one is looking our for Americans, but Americans.


Small less powerful nations benifit from cooperation and making sacrafices in a way that larger nations, can not.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The Hashimites were, but they were turned down both times the offer was made. In the case of Abdullah's offer, he even offered the Jews a permanent majority in the Jordanian parliament.

yah, when he was in the middle of a rebellion against the mandatory powers. You live in Florida, Guev, how much do you care to give me for some swampland ive got a claim on? Too bad I cant deliver on it.


As for the permanent majority, ive never heard that -source? Actually im confused - you say "jordanian" parliament. Wasnt abdullah going for all greater Syria at the time - wasnt that the whole point, marching into Damascus?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap




One, since this is a discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian issue to begin with, the mass denial of basic civil rights to Palestinians is morally repugnant. Yet you seem to be OK with it, because you put the security of a "Jewish" state and its citizens ahead.

Two: the rights of indigenous peoples were violated by the way in whcih they lost the land. If this is true about anyone, its true about native Americans, against whom the Unites States broke multiple treaties that had been ratified by the Congress itself.

One I think the security of Israel and rights of Palestinians to self determination are both desirable ends, and must be balanced in a final agreement. If I did not think that, I could not have supported the Barak offer at Camp David, since it compromised on Israeli security, and was rejected by many Likudniks on that account.

Two _ yes, the rights of the indigenous people of Israel-Palestine were violated by the way they lost the land. Thats why now that that indigenous people have returned to the land, their rights to security must be recognized. Since then another people has put down roots in the land, and so rights must be balanced.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


What is the point? So israel claims it had nothing to do with the blast on the beach, then goes and kills 8 civilians in their attempt to kill two militants.

Great, Israeli military action is not repsonsible for 15 civilian deaths, only 8. Whoopie!

As for the inter-Palestinian violence that is going on, never seems to be much interest in discussing it. After all, its only Palestinians dying. Who cares.

1. the point is what this thread is about. Hamas claimed its rationale for dropping the ceasefire was the deaths on the beach. That would seem to make it particularly important.

Yes, the Israelis killed two militants, who were apparently actually carrying rockets to launch against Israel.


Israels not in Gaza anymore. Gaza is being used as a base to attack Israel. Israel is refraining for reinvading Gaza, but IS engaging in counter battery fire ACROSS the border. Do they not have the right to do that?

2. Im quite interested in discussing the Hamas-Fatah conflict. Go ahead and start a thread.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Iraq is the obvious example to use, the US being an occupation force and all....

I would say that Hamas's move is based on internal political motives. Abu Mazen outmanouvered them with stating he would bring the prisoner's plan to a referrendum. BY saying they will resume attacks on Israel, and possibly carrying that threat out, they bring about serious Israeli retailation, including assasination attempts against Hamas leaders, closing Gaza off leaving Pals. with even less work, and tougher movement restrictions all around. Thjose measures would make it impossible for Mazen to move along with his plan, 1. because a referrendum would pprobably not be able to happen in the West Bank due to movement restrictions, plus if the Israelis are lobbying missiles, killing elected officials, and who knows how many passerby's, as a response to any suicide attacks, in the name of Pal. unity Mazen might have to pull back on his plan.

This would account for Hamas' motivation - though to be honest, Hamas has been tolerating(encouraging) Islamic Jihad attacks on Israel even before the Mazen referendum was proposed.

But from Israels POV, the govts position is shaky. Israelis see that the withdrawl from Gaza has led to Gaza being used as a base for attacks on Israel. This weakens support for withdrawl from the West Bank, and thus strengthens Likud.

That is why Israel is responding with counter battery fire, and continues to attack both IJ and members of the Palestinian Restitance Comm, another terrorist group, even if the latter have positions in the Hamas govt. OTOH Israel refrains from going back into Gaza on land, does not appear to be targeting senior Hamas leaders, and is working with the EU to determine how to relieve the humanitarian situation for ordinary Pals even as they keep up the pressure on Hamas.

Meanwhile Hamas and Fatah keep taking potshots at each other that have killed over 40, despite the political maneuvering. It doesnt seem like military responses prevent the political maneuvering from taking place.

I suspect the 40 deaths have made less impression on world opinion, because, IIUC, almost all of the 40 have been "militants" on each side, not civilians - is this impression incorrect?

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Joseph
I think the land was taken from Israel in 60 AD, and it took until 1948 for it to be returned. That was 1,888 years ago.

Romans simply conquered a territory. They weren't in it for religion. Israels civilians have one thing in common: their religion, but otherwise they come from various parts in the world.

Comparing Israel today with the Jews of the first century AD is preposterous. Besides if you bring up that kind of argument then you might as well give it to 'Christians' or 'Muslims' as well... a ****load of peoples and nations have dominated the region in those thousands of years

[Traianvs]

It's strange that Hamas or any other Palestinian movement would plant mines on their own beach. That doesn't make much sense if you come to think of it

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Sandman
Straybow and Vesayen's contempt for international diplomacy is hardly a big surprise. Imagine if the international system was really successful, with no threat of war, ethnic tensions diminishing and shrinking military budgets. A true nightmare for conservatives.

Yes, imagine away... meanwhile, here in the real world, we have to deal with scores of petty dictators and self-styled nationalists who enjoy nothing more than to paint America as the great evil blah blah blah.

Originally posted by Geronimo
I bet they would see a world devoid of threat of war and ethnic tension as a utopian paradise rather than a nightmare. Of course I also suspect they would claim such a paradise would be impossible to achieve with any internation system of law.

It is barely possible with systems of intra-national law where distinct peoples are grouped together. It failed in Yugoslavia. It may succeed in Iraq, but the jury is still out. Heck, it may even work in Great Britain some day!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Actually im confused - you say "jordanian" parliament. Wasnt abdullah going for all greater Syria at the time - wasnt that the whole point, marching into Damascus?

Probably. He did have designs on a Greater Syria, but the first step was reuniting all of Palestine, Jordan / Transjordan being formly known as East Palestine.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Straybow
It is barely possible with systems of intra-national law where distinct peoples are grouped together. It failed in Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia failed with lots of outside help.

[notyoueither]

Yugoslavia failed because the people of said country ripped it, and each other, to pieces.

[chequita guevara]

With lots of outside help.

[notyoueither]

And lot's of inside will to destroy.