|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 197 responses total. |
sj2
|
|
response 75 of 197:
| 
Oct 9 07:11 UTC 2003 |
One thing is sure. Israel's neighbours are harbouring and training
terrorists almost openly. While providing conclusive proof of such
activities might require physical access or occupation of such
training camps, the key question is that whether a country can invade
another country based on the suspicion that its neighbour is
harbouring terrorists. The answer is based on the neighbour's power to
retaliate.
In India, we KNOW for sure that Pakistan aids and trains terrorists.
We also know that Dubai and Saudi provide shelter and funding to these
terrorist outfits. We have ample proof too. Ofcourse, conclusive proof
can only be obtained if were to occupy these regions. Anything less
and their governments can simply deny any involvement. But if we were
to invade Pakistan in a pre-emptive strike, it would lead to full-
fledged war in the region and perhaps could lead to a nuclear
holocaust. And thats something we definitely do not want. But then the
question we ask is how long are we going to tolerate the troublesome
neighbour. Its already been almost two decades since they started
infesting our borders with terrorists.
In case of Israel and its neighbours, Israel knows that limited
strikes can be afforded. For all the noise Syria may create in the UN,
it cannot strike back by conventional warfare means. Thats almost
impossible for any gulf state with the US army breathing down their
neck. Ofcourse, there is the Israeli army too.
Same goes for US invasion of Iraq. Had Iraq been capable of
retaliating in a substantial manner to the US invasion, I am sure the
US would've chosen to take the diplomatic route.
Btw, I think the camp bombarded by Israel wasn't an empty refugee camp
but either an empty training camp or an ammunition dump. Although, I
dont see how bombing a training camp or ammunition dump will deter
lone suicide bombers. If a person decides to blow him/herself in a
public place, there is little anyone can do about it. Detecting such
plans is increasingly difficult with the cell like nature of terrorist
organisations where one cell does not even know the existence/motives
of the other cell. That is not to say that terrorist camps should not
be eliminated by pre-emptive strike but that what is effectiveness of
such attacks in combating suicide bombers?
|
tsty
|
|
response 76 of 197:
|
Oct 9 07:59 UTC 2003 |
whatever teh actual target turns out to be, (occupied, unoccupied) a
successfu bombing ~12 miles nortwest of damascus is an explicit warning.
the target is irrelevant - teh action is meaningful.
as far as pakistan adn india and nuclear shit is concerned,
please don't - settle the kashmir problem AS WAS PROMISED - by election.
|
gull
|
|
response 77 of 197:
|
Oct 9 13:32 UTC 2003 |
I've thought for a while now that if there's a nuclear exchange in the
next decade, it will probably be between India and Pakistan. The
scenerio goes like this: India decides to invade Pakistan, as they've
often threatened to do. Pakistan, faced with an overwhelming
conventional force, goes for the nuclear option. India could then be
expected to retaliate.
|
klg
|
|
response 78 of 197:
|
Oct 9 16:27 UTC 2003 |
re: "#60 (murph): Why is a wall such a bad idea? I'd be perfectly
fine with it, as long as Israel builds it on their side of the
border . . ."
Mr. murph,
Would you kindly explain why you believe Jews ought to be forbidden
from living in the so-called "West Bank," although, presumably, you
feel that Arabs ought to be allowed to live in Israel? Please include
in your response (1) reference to the killing and expulsion of the Jews
who were there prior to 1949 and (2) the exact nature and legal
standing of the "border" to which you refer.
Thank you.
|
cross
|
|
response 79 of 197:
|
Oct 9 16:37 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 80 of 197:
|
Oct 10 13:19 UTC 2003 |
Re #78: We allow Mexicans to live in the U.S., but we'd be pretty
annoyed if they started walling off parts of the U.S. as Mexican-only
enclaves...
|
klg
|
|
response 81 of 197:
|
Oct 10 13:57 UTC 2003 |
Mr. gull,
That may be true; however, so what? Both the U.S. and Mexico are
sovereign countries with a legal, recognized border between them. The
same cannot be said of the situation with Israel and the so-
called "West Bank."
klg
|
lk
|
|
response 82 of 197:
|
Oct 10 17:22 UTC 2003 |
True. Recall that this is the "West Bank" of Jordan (Trans-Jordan.
Trans-Jordanian Palestine. Palestine across and to the east of
the Jordan river. So this is the part of Palestine east of the Jordan
river that is west of the river?!)
The legal international border between Israel and Jordan runs (roughly)
along the river, through the Dead Sea and a line from there to the Red Sea.
(This was re-established in a peace traty signed in 1994.)
The "Green line", where the invading (Jordanian) Arab Legion was stopped
in the 1948 cease-fire (and the Egyptians in Gaza) is recognized in the 1949
Armistice agreement as a cease fire line, not an international border.
As per UN Security 242, any future border must be negotiated and Israel is
not expected to withdraw from "all" of Trans-Jordan's former "West Bank".
In order to do so, Israel must have a negotiating partner. For decades the
Arabs refused to enter into peace talks. When Sadat did in the mid-to-late
1970s, Egypt was expelled from the Arab League as punishment.
In 1993 Israel thought the moment had arrived, only to find out that the
Oslo peace process was being used by Arafat as a "Wooden [Trojan] Horse"
designed to get Arab fighters into the territories, Arafat's dream for
decades (see the authorized biography by Alan Hart).
In 2000, Arafat walked out on the Clinton compromise without as much as
a counter-offer. The sticking point? He refused to end the conflict. He
wanted all of the disputed territories and all of Jerusalem. And he wanted
to reserve the right to then continue attacking Israel. (Which is why he
sought a unilateral declaration of independence after walking out of Camp
David, seeking to establish a state without making peace. The world
rebuffed him for obvious reasons, refusing to recognize such a state were
he to declare one. It's my theory that this is why he ordered the intifada.
He had painted himself into a corner and could not crawl back to the
negotiating table in such a weak position.)
Israel's security fence, for the most part, encompasses Jewish areas that
would not be ceded to a Palestinian Arab state-to-be. The violence of the
last 3 years has further necessitated a re-evaluation of the security fence.
Obviously it would be better for everyone in the region if such a fence
were not necessary. Unfortunately, due to the rejectionist Arab extremists
who hold their power by might, it is.
|
tsty
|
|
response 83 of 197:
|
Oct 11 04:16 UTC 2003 |
castro and arafat will die soon - then peace can ensue. one would hope.
sj2 - you haven';t responded to india's failure to *allow* kasmir
elections - howse come?
|
murph
|
|
response 84 of 197:
|
Oct 11 14:53 UTC 2003 |
Wow, my #60 got it from both sides.
To other's #61: Notice that I was requiring that the Israelis remove all of
their settlers, all of their troops, all of their bulldozers and checkpoints
to within Israel before building the wall. I was most definitely not tryin
gto pin all the blame on the Palestinians.
To klg's #78: I think that Israeli's should be able to live in the West Bank,
and Arabs in Israel, as long as they're capable of living there without
trampling on anybody else's property rights or human rights in the process.
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
seem capable of getting along at all.
|
other
|
|
response 85 of 197:
|
Oct 11 17:42 UTC 2003 |
My point in #61 was that even if Israel did withdraw everything behind
the wall, Palestinian attacks inside Israel would likely continue, and
thus prove the identity of the true aggressors.
|
other
|
|
response 86 of 197:
|
Oct 11 17:44 UTC 2003 |
(For those inclined to argue #85, keep in mind it is merely a
hypothetical, and arguing it would be a real waste of effort.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 87 of 197:
|
Oct 11 19:03 UTC 2003 |
Re #85: yes, attacks would likely continue initially, but someone has
to break the vicious cycle, and Isreal has greater control of its
actions so is the better candidate to do so.
|
other
|
|
response 88 of 197:
|
Oct 11 19:41 UTC 2003 |
#87: The point you're missing however, is that on the occasions when
Israel HAS done it's part to break the cycle of violence, the
Palestinians (with the help and encouragement of such as Syria) start it
right up again.
|
sj2
|
|
response 89 of 197:
|
Oct 11 20:26 UTC 2003 |
Re #83, Sorry Mr.Taylor, I was away to a part of the world that does
not have internet access.
First Kashmir needs a return to normalcy. End of violence. Then the
millions of Kashmiri pundits displaced from Kashmir need to be returned
there. Then, ofcourse, elections can be conducted. Unfortunately, I
don't run the nation, so it doesn't matter much what I want. When I get
to power, I will definitely carry out your orders. Meanwhile STOP
selling arms to Pakistan.
Besides, for India to fulfill its commitment, Pakistan also needs to
fulfill certain promises it made.
The UN Security council also made a promise in the form UN resolution
181. Whats the status today?? To fulfill a promise you need commitment
from all sides.
|
scott
|
|
response 90 of 197:
|
Oct 11 22:19 UTC 2003 |
Re 88: My real question is whether Israel has genuinely tried to "play nice"
or whatever term you choose. They've made a big show of destroying a few
abandoned outposts, while continuing to allow other settlements to expand.
|
klg
|
|
response 91 of 197:
|
Oct 11 22:34 UTC 2003 |
re: "#84 (murph): . . . I think that Israeli's should be able to live
in the West Bank, and Arabs in Israel, as long as they're capable of
living there without trampling on anybody else's property rights or
human rights in the process. 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 seem capable of getting along
at all."
Mr. murph,
Are you suggesting that if the Jews are willing to live peacefully among
the Arabs, but the Arabs are unwilling to "get along," then the Jews
must be the ones to be punished & forcibly evicted???? That would be an
odd form of justice.
klg
And Mr. scott continues to play ignorant of all that Israel has already
done - in particular, the peace offer tendered by Mr. Barak that Arafat
chose to flatly turn down shortly before unleashing his terrorists on
the civilians of Israel.
|
murph
|
|
response 92 of 197:
|
Oct 11 23:41 UTC 2003 |
klg, thank you for interpreting my post in almost exaclty the opposite of the
direction I meant it. As I said, terrorism by the Palestinians is
unacceptable and detestable, but 100% of the blame cannot be laid at their
feet.
|
scott
|
|
response 93 of 197:
|
Oct 12 00:26 UTC 2003 |
Hey, if you like how klg deliberately misreads your stance, you should see
what Leeron will do with it.
|
russ
|
|
response 94 of 197:
|
Oct 12 01:06 UTC 2003 |
(Transplanted and expanded after mis-post)
Only someone as ideologically rigid as Richard could watch
a murder kill a bunch of innocents, then say that Ariel Sharon
doesn't want peace because he goes after the murderer.
Or maybe he's just an anti-semite.
The land issue is bogus too. The 1948 "border" isn't a national
border, it's an armistice line, since rendered irrelevant by
Arab intransigence and loss of subsequent wars of attempted
genocide. Lots of Jews owned land on the "Palestinian" side
of the green line before 1948, and were forced out without any
compensation during and after; for instance, there were some
130,000 Jews living in Baghdad in 1948, and less than 40 today.
I'll bet that lots of them fled with little or nothing.
Israel:
- Has the right to secure borders.
- Has the right to use the power of eminent domain.
- Has the right to expect its citizens who abandoned
property under the threat of death to receive
equivalent property in compensation.
Israel acts to secure their borders against murderers. Let
those Palestinians who feel wronged go to Iraq and take up
residence in equivalent property previously owned by Jews who
had to flee to save their lives. And when the property in Iraq
is full, start on Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and all the other
nations where Muslims practice anti-semitism more outrageous
than David Duke. I'll bet that the whole West Bank could be
depopulated by a proper exchange, and the problem would be moot.
Re #84: Define "within Israel". Do you mean the Israel which
was defined by the terms of the British Mandate, or only the areas
which were not ethnically cleansed by genocidal armies in 1948?
Intransigence and genocide should have a price, payable in land.
Refusal to commit suicide is not intransigence. Neither is
self-defense.
|
cross
|
|
response 95 of 197:
|
Oct 12 04:04 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 96 of 197:
|
Oct 12 05:26 UTC 2003 |
russ your problem is you classify all palestinians as murderers, when only
comparatively few have committed such acts. And what do you call using air
missiles to take out the houses where israeli soldiers THINK, just think don't
know for sure, that Hamas leaders might be. Killing innocent bystanders in
the process. That is murder too. Both sides have committed murders.
Also why do you feel Israel has more rights than any other country in that
region? do you think israel has the right of eminent domain over the entire
middle east to take any lands they please?
I am not anti-semitic but I think you are anti-arab, you have consistently
refused to see things objectively, you approach this as israel is 100% right
all of the time, and any arab country in a conflict with them is automatically
wrong. That is racially motivated thinking. people like you and leeron are
incapable of seeing this situation objectively, and thus even though both
sides commit murders, both sides kill innocent civilians (and you know israeli
forces have killed many innocent palestinians who happened to have the bad
luck to be in the near vicinity of where they thought Hamas leaders were)
There IS such a thing as being too righteous, there IS such a thing as being
too full of it. Both Sharon and Arafat are egomaniacs who are doing a
disservice to their people. By acting so militant and staging military
actions and bombings, and firebombing houses where he can't even be positive
hamas leaders are, Sharon is NOT working towards peace. Sharon doesn't want
peace, he wants to win. Arafat is the same way. Both need to resign.
|
sj2
|
|
response 97 of 197:
|
Oct 12 06:16 UTC 2003 |
I VOTE 100% for Richard.
|
other
|
|
response 98 of 197:
|
Oct 12 07:40 UTC 2003 |
Arabs are Semites. The phrase "anti-semitic" applies to both Arabs and
Jews.
|
slynne
|
|
response 99 of 197:
|
Oct 12 14:29 UTC 2003 |
Re#95 - Yes, they gave back the Sinai to Egypt and that was an example
of Israel playing nice. Has Israel had major problems with Egypt since
they gave back the Sinai?
|