|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 169 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 100 of 169:
| 
Aug 21 20:51 UTC 2003 |
That's a very Leeron-esqe final sentence, Dan.
Of course none of that would be possible unless there was a large pool of
people willing to join Hamas, which would of course would not be possible
if there was a genuine possibility of peace and of fair relations with Israel.
|
tod
|
|
response 101 of 169:
|
Aug 21 23:31 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
lk
|
|
response 102 of 169:
|
Aug 22 07:25 UTC 2003 |
Scott seems to miss that Arafat walked out of Camp David 2000 without as
much as a counter-offer to the Clinton compromise.
But that's just the latest iteration. In 1937, the Arabs rejected compromise.
In 1947, the Arabs rejected the UN compromise and instead of establishing an
Arab state in western Palestine they chose to attack the newly founded
Jewish State. After the war, they Arab League issued their "3 NOs" for the
first time: No negotiations, No recognition of Israel, No peace with Israel.
Following the 1956 war, Israel unilaterally withdrew from all territories it
captured. It hoped that this sign of good faith would encourage the Arabs to
make peace. The Arab League re-issued its "3 NOs".
Then came the 1967 war. This time Israel did not withdraw. The UN Security
Council passed Resolution 242 (calling for Israel to withdraw from some of
the territories, as determined during negotiations, as part of an overall
peace settlement -- in effect authorizing the Israeli administration).
Israel accepted UNSCR 242. The Arab League? It re-issued its "3 NOs".
Then came the surprise Arab Yom Kippur attack in 1973. There were no calls
to end the war while Israel was fighting for its survival. But once the
attack was repelled and Israel was marching on Cairo and Damascus, the UN
immediately called for a ceasefire. Israel unilaterally withdrew from all
territories it had captured and Kissinger began his shuttle diplomacy.
By the time of the Carter era, Sadat was ready to come to Jerusalem to make
peace (there was never any question if Israel would accept him). The
historic Camp David Agreement followed. Despite an open invitation, neither
the PLO nor any Arab nation joined these peace talks. Quite the opposite,
Egypt was expelled from the Arab League.
It would take another 20 years for Arafat to renounce terrorism (for the
first of many times) and the Oslo process would begin after the first
Gulf War -- with a luke-warm reception, if that, in much of the Arab world.
The opportunities have been there. As the late Aubrey Eban quipped,
Arafat never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
(I also recommend everyone re-read Kevin's response in #96.)
|
lk
|
|
response 103 of 169:
|
Aug 22 07:36 UTC 2003 |
Lynne, this isn't really a "circle". We all seem to agree that Hammas,
Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the PFLP, etc., are against the peace process.
We've also seen that they will attack Israel regardless of whether it
"plays nice" or not (in fact, attacks are more likely, or more successful,
exactly at times that Israel is "playing nice" because that is when the
terrorists have the operational room they need to carry out attacks. Israel
isn't playing "not-nice" out of some cruelty but in self-defense.)
In other words, the cycle isn't one of:
terrorism -> Israeli response -> more terrorism,
for further terrorism ensues even absent an Israeli response.
This is the cycle:
Terrorism -> Israeli response -> peace opportunity -> more terrorism
Consider that the "reform" of the PA was possible only after Israel's
spring 2002 counter-offensive, enabling Arafat to be partially by-passed
on the road to peace.
But that's not enough. The terrorist groups must also be dealt with.
If Israel doing so causes a terrorist "response", then it is up to the
PA to do so. Yet they refuse to disarm and dismantle these groups which
are the thorn in the side of the peace process.
09:37 Second Qassam rocket was fired at Sderot, bringing total since
Thurs. night up to seven
08:25 Egyptian Pres. Mubarak sending his advisor to PA for talks,
expected to press PA to fight terror groups
|
scott
|
|
response 104 of 169:
|
Aug 22 12:26 UTC 2003 |
Ah, classic - I never mentioned Arafat in my response, but Leeron makes him
the core of his "rebuttal".
|
gull
|
|
response 105 of 169:
|
Aug 22 13:20 UTC 2003 |
I do think sooner or later Israel is going to have to face up to the
fact that their current retaliation policy doesn't work. The most
recent attack, in particular, seems to have been a total disaster --
there were attacks before Israel's most recent rocket attack, but there
have been a lot more since. Unfortunately they don't seem to have any
other strategies, other than waiting for the wall to be completed.
|
cross
|
|
response 106 of 169:
|
Aug 22 15:22 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 107 of 169:
|
Aug 22 16:13 UTC 2003 |
re: "We've also seen that they will attack Israel regardless of
whether it "plays nice" or not (in fact, attacks are more likely, or
more successful, exactly at times that Israel is "playing nice" because
that is when the terrorists have the operational room they need to
carry out attacks."
Not only that, but the Arab terrorists - who oppose any agreement with
Israel - need to attack when it appears that progress toward a
settlement is being made. It's sabotage of any movement toward solving
the conflict. Catch 22: Failure to stop the war is cause for
terrorism; Stopping the war is cause for terrorism. How can one
negotiate in good faith under such conditions?
|
scott
|
|
response 108 of 169:
|
Aug 22 16:16 UTC 2003 |
Re 106:
1. Pay more than lip service to their part of the roadmap.
2. Don't build a wall which takes Palestinian land.
3. Provide more work opportunities other than just "clean the toilets on days
when we feel like letting you scum into Israel". Even just allowing
Palestinian businesses to have consistent access to resources and customers
would be a step forward.
|
tod
|
|
response 109 of 169:
|
Aug 22 16:17 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 110 of 169:
|
Aug 22 17:12 UTC 2003 |
re: "#108 (scott): . . . 3. Provide more work opportunities . . . ."
Why should Israel be required to provide employment for non-citizens.
It would seem to us that if the "Palestinians" are to have a viable
state, then it should be able to have a viable economy of its own.
|
scott
|
|
response 111 of 169:
|
Aug 22 18:04 UTC 2003 |
Re 110: Respond to the entire point, not just the first sentence.
|
tod
|
|
response 112 of 169:
|
Aug 22 18:13 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 113 of 169:
|
Aug 22 21:10 UTC 2003 |
"Even just allowing Palestinian businesses to have consistent access to
resources and customers would be a step forward."
|
tod
|
|
response 114 of 169:
|
Aug 22 22:16 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 115 of 169:
|
Aug 22 23:02 UTC 2003 |
Why exactly would you say that, Todd?
|
tod
|
|
response 116 of 169:
|
Aug 22 23:23 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 117 of 169:
|
Aug 23 03:38 UTC 2003 |
Could you translate that into English? Near as I can figure, you're claiming
that the Palestinians cheerfully settled a desert in hopes of getting help
from others.
|
tod
|
|
response 118 of 169:
|
Aug 23 13:08 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
lk
|
|
response 119 of 169:
|
Aug 23 15:57 UTC 2003 |
Scott's engaged in his usual twit arguments.
> Ah, classic - I never mentioned Arafat in my response, but Leeron makes him
> the core of his "rebuttal".
For the record, my 39 line response mentioned Arafat twice, primarily to
close with the quote that he "never misses an opportunity to miss an
opportunity" in response to a comment that there have not been opportunities.
In fact, the core of my response was that this Arab rejectionism predates
and is much larger than Arafat.
Likewise Scott's points regarding what Israel can do are red herrings.
The wall is being discussed elsewhere, but Israel is not impeding commerce.
Terrorism and a war-like atmosphere is. Prior to the intifada, the PA had
experienced 3 years of economic recovery (poverty does not cause terrorism,
terrorism causes poverty). In fact, I believe Israel is the largest market
for PA businesses. (Hmmm, if you sell to Israel are you a "collaborator"?)
Todd, you're basically repeating what Kevin said. The comparison of the
murder of 20 innocent civilians riding a bus to the killing of 2-3 people
responsible for those murders is hardly tit-for-tat or equivalent in any
way shape or form.
To take it one step further, terrorist leaders have called for more
"martyrs" to avenge even the deaths of suicide attackers.
Again, if Israel acting against the terrorist is detrimental to the
peace process then the PA must do so itself. Even if the 3 points
Scott listed had merit, they pale in comparison to the routine and wanton
murder of innocent civilians, for which the PA is responsible due to
its inaction.
|
lk
|
|
response 120 of 169:
|
Aug 23 16:02 UTC 2003 |
08:57 Abed Rabbo: PA prepared to punish lawbreakers, but won`t be able to
do so as long as Israel fighting PA institutes
Israel has not done so for months. The PA must stop making excuses and
start jailing terrorists.
11:03 Israeli officials: Egyptian envoy El-Baz failed to persuade Arafat
to give Abbas control over security apparatus
This is the core of the current problem. Arafat is doing what he can to
sabotage Abbas' efforts. Even during the truce, he continued his incitement.
13:14 Syrian Police arrest 22 human rights activists in northwestern city
of Aleppo
Does anyone care?
14:02 Palestinian FM Sha`ath: We want a hudna between all the PA, all its
organizations and Israel, a full stop to violence
He doesn't get it, either. There can only be one PA government.
|
gull
|
|
response 121 of 169:
|
Aug 24 02:17 UTC 2003 |
Sometimes I think the peace process can't move forward until Arafat has
died of natural causes. (Obviously assassinating him will just make
things worse.)
|
pvn
|
|
response 122 of 169:
|
Aug 24 02:32 UTC 2003 |
On the contrary, I think its long since been past the time that the US
assassinated Arafat - he personally ordered the execution of two US
diplomats in the Sudan for only one example of many. Its time the US
adopted "Chicago rules" - 'they put one of yours in the hospital, you
put two of theirs in a grave'. It works in the midwest, it will
probably work in the middle-east.
|
gull
|
|
response 123 of 169:
|
Aug 24 02:59 UTC 2003 |
I think it'd just increase anger against the U.S., and by proxy,
against Israel.
|
pvn
|
|
response 124 of 169:
|
Aug 24 03:25 UTC 2003 |
How can it possibly increase "anger against the U.S." more than it
already is? Its time for the US to live up to its reputation by doing
what it is accused of already.
|