response 176 of 197:

Oct 19 02:53 UTC 2003

Richard stated:

> for every argument you make, there are counter arguments....

Where are the counter arguments to what I said in #82, 104-110, 118 & 147?

Highlights:

#82:

Discussion about borders, cease-fire lines and fences.

#104 (murph):

> As far as I can tell, the Arabs and Jews living in Israel tend to be capable
> of getting along. The Israelis and Palestinians lving in the West Bank don't

Interesting, isn't it, that Arabs & Jews can get a long where Jews are a
majority but not where they are a minority, eh?

#105 (sj2):

GENERAL ASSEMBLY Resolution 181 was DOA due to Arab rejection.  Following
Arab violence, it was abandoned even by the GA which sought other solutions.

The resolution of record today is UN Security Council Resolution 242.
It established the "land for peace" formula and serves as the basis of
the original 1970s Camp David Agreement and of the 1993 Oslo Accords.
Israel accepted UNSCR 242 in 1967. Most Arab nations still reject it.

#106:

 3.5 years after unilaterally and completely withdrawing from Lebanon, Israel
 continues to come under attack from Hezbollah. [Contrary to conventional
 "wisdom" which asserted that if Israel "played nice" and withdrew such
 attacks would cease. This was a blatant reversal of cause & effect. Israel
 held a 6-mile security strip in Lebanon because it was the subject of
 repeated terrorist attacks from Lebanon, not vice versa.]

 Tell me, why hasn't the Lebanese Army moved into the area vacated by Israel?
 Why is Hezbollah, a terrorist organization, allowed to roam free here?

#107 (slynne):

 > Has Israel had major problems with Egypt since they gave back the Sinai?

 The sad reality, however, is that even after 25 years, the "peace" is
 more like a "cease-fire", held in place via a $3 Billion annual ransom
 which the US pays to Egypt.

response 178 of 197:

Oct 23 18:24 UTC 2003

" That may be true, but this "minority" is supported by the MAJORITY.
 And this minority is supported by the Palestinian Authority government."

Has it occured to you that this majority is probably as much in fear of
going against the minority as they are the Israeli government.  If you
were Palestinian, would you speak out against what your fellows were doing?

"No, it's not. Israel TARGETS terrorist militants. That these terrorists
 hide behind their own civilian population is not Israel's responsibility.
 Israel's actions are within the confines of the Fourth Geneva Conventions.

 Murder is intentional. Israel does not intentionally kill bystanders.
 (Nor are deaths in the course of a war normally considered "murder")"

Innocent bystanders killed by persons trying to kill someone are counted
as murder victims under the law.  Are you saying this is different in
Israel?

I don't know what Arafat wants...I'm not entirely sure if he wants peace
anymore than Sharon does.

response 182 of 197:

Oct 24 22:18 UTC 2003

bhelliom, re#178:

> Has it occured to you that this majority is probably as much in fear of
> going against the minority as they are the Israeli government.  If you
> were Palestinian, would you speak out against what your fellows were doing?

I think I've stated something to the effect that ultimately it is the
Palestinian Arabs who are the greatest victims of Arab terrorism and
rejectionism (of peace).

Furthermore, I've pointed out that those who have spoken out against
"child martyrs" have been compared in official papers to "collaborators".
A clear warning for them to shut up or end up dead.

But there comes a point where people have to take responsibility for what
they do -- and what they don't do. Terrorists claim to be representing the
"Arab street". Arafat claims his hands are tied by the "Arab street". And
now you want us to believe that the "Arab street" actually doesn't want
these people as its representatives?

It's simply not so. Yes, there is a minority (I'd guess about 20%) which
opposes this. But Arafat remains the most popular leader, in part because
he hasn't moved against the terrorists.

The "street" endorses and supports terrorism.

And if it didn't, it would be one more reason to move against the terrorists
and liberate them from their real "oppressors".

> Innocent bystanders killed by persons trying to kill someone are counted
> as murder victims under the law.

That's not true, not in domestic law (if the police kill an innocent
by-stander, or a hostage in a rescue situation, it is not murder). And it
certainly isn't true under international law. As I said, the Geneva
Conventions actually permit this.

> I don't know what Arafat wants...I'm not entirely sure if he wants peace
> anymore than Sharon does.

Thank you for yet another false equivalence.

As I pointed out, Sharon has been in office a total of 2.5 years. He was
elected because Arafat violently rejected the Clinton compromise.

Furthermore, if Sharon were to reject a workable peace agreement he
would be voted out of office. The "Israeli street" (Jews and Arabs) can
vote. As you pointed out above (how quickly you forget?), the "Arab
street" is not thusly empowered.

response 184 of 197:

Oct 27 06:46 UTC 2003

Richard stated:

> for every argument you make, there are counter arguments....

Where are the counter arguments to what I said in #82, 104-110?
(See #176)


Or #118:

 Indeed, no one questioned that Mohammed al-Dura (the 12-year old Arab killed
 early in the intifada) was killed by Israel. The question was only if it
 was intentional. Now the evidence shows he was killed by Arab fire, and
 under very suspicious circumstances that suggest that he may have been
 intentionally murdered to frame Israel. The very people who were outraged
 over the death allegedly by Israel don't seem to care anymore.

response 188 of 197:

Oct 29 06:49 UTC 2003

You only prove my point, bhelliom:

> I truly don't know if either of them want peace.

Let's for a minute assume that your worst fears are right and that neither
Arafat nor Sharon want peace.

1. Arafat has been the leader of Fatah for 45 years and of the PLO for 35.

   Sharon has been Prime Minister for less than 3 years.
   Let's even ignore Netanyahu and Shamir, even Begin (who made peace with
   Egypt). Are you saying that Barak, Peres, Rabin, Golda Meir, Ben Gurion
   and other Israeli PMs were just as much of the problem as Arafat?

2. Sharon was democratically elected AFTER the start of the intifada.
   And re-elected. Yet the majority of the Israeli public favors peace.
   But peace with security. If Sharon is the obstacle to such peace he
   will be voted out of office (and unlike American Democrats who are
   unhappy with the 2000 election, Israelis don't even need to wait
   until the next election. A no confidence vote can tumble the government
   and trigger early elections).

   Arafat is a dictator who has repeatedly put off elections.
   (Didn't you suggest that a majority of the Palestinian Arab population
   are also his victims?)

Now do you see why your simplification is no more than a false equivalence?

We may not like Bush, but would you suggest that you don't know if either
Bush or Bin Laden / Saddam want peace -- as if there is thus no difference
between the US and the former Iraqi state or Al Qaida? (While ignoring that
Clinton didn't get along with either of them, too?)

[Idle late-night observation: Lo Qidai means "not worth it"].