response 12 of 166:

Aug 6 18:40 UTC 2003

re resp:9: I try not to take sides between the Palestinians and Israel, 
and for that matter, don't usually pay much attention to their problems 
with each other.

That said... I've noticed that people who become frustrated when they 
attempt solutions to a problem, but don't see any results, then tend to 
try increasingly unusual solutions.  They can be obviously ineffective 
to outsiders, and can seem likely to make a problem a lot worse.

For example, a person who catches his clothing on fire might try to 
beat it out with his hands.  If that doesn't work, he might try running 
around (panicking).  When you're in an intolerable situation like that, 
it's really difficult to just do nothing.  You might do the wrong 
thing, but the situation is intolerable, and so there's nothing you can 
do to make it much worse for yourself.  Anyone around can tell you that 
running around is not effective at stopping yourself from being burned, 
because they've got a better perspective.  Eventually, through advice, 
or by stumbling across the right answer, you will either fall into a 
lake, roll around on the ground until the fire is extinguished -- which 
*hurts* while you're doing it -- or you'll be very badly burned and 
possibly even die.

So here's Israel, which doesn't know how to solve it's problems, but 
has tried a lot of different things, none of which have worked.  
They're getting attacked by suicide bombings all the time; there's no 
denying they've got pain.  There's no way for them to determine what 
solutions are analogous to a burning man running around, and what ones 
are akin to rolling around or falling into a lake.  Everyone in the 
rest of the world is shouting advice to them.  The advice is all 
different.  Much has been tried before without positive results.  Some 
of the rest must seem as ludicrous as someone shouting to a burning man 
that he douse himself in gasoline.

So, they're going to try something else now.  It probably won't work.  
Maybe their problems don't *have* solutions -- but it seems to me 
they've got to keep trying.  Giving up is no good either.

response 14 of 166:

Aug 6 19:44 UTC 2003

You ought to know that the fence has been used successfully on the 
borders with both Gaza and with Lebanon.  Israel is probably more 
concerned with what is effective (i.e., protecting its citizens from 
terrorists) than what some other individuals for their own political 
purposes may or may not deem to be "fair."

response 20 of 166:

Aug 7 03:10 UTC 2003

So because some people hate Israel, that absolves them of any responsibility
to play fair?

response 22 of 166:

Aug 7 03:33 UTC 2003

err, "converse" not "inverse"

response 24 of 166:

Aug 7 15:10 UTC 2003

And during this "hudna" ceasefire, the PA refuses to disarm the terrorist
groups who instead are using this time to rebuild their forces. Already
they are indicating that they won't agree to continue the ceasefire beyond
the 3-month period -- if they'll even keep it that long.

Prime Minister Abbas must disarm and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure
in the PA.


A few of the claims in the propaganda peace above need to be addressed:

> The wall is not protecting Israeli citizens inside Israel, it is instead
> protecting Israels occupation, illegal colonies and ongoing colonization
> of Palestinian land.

Fact of the matter is that 122 of the 122 successful suicide bombings (100%)
originated from Trans-Jordan's former "West Bank". No such attackers have come
out of Gaza. There already is a security fence between Israel and Gaza. 
Terrorists in Gaza have been lobbing mortars and Qassam rockets (at Israeli
population centers), but with very limited success (they end up falling in
fields in this mostly unpopulated region).

Similarly there is a fence along the Lebanese border. There has been only 1
successful infiltration from Lebanon into Israel in the 3.3 years since
Israel's withdrawal from its 6-mile security zone. Hezbollah is limited to
firing anti-aircraft weapons across the border. Another mostly futile exercise
(about the worst damage they've done is starting forest fires).

Does the author truly consider Hebron to be a Jewish "colony"?  Until their
massacre in the 1929 anti-Jewish pogrom, Jews had been living in Hebron,
continuously, for at least 3300 years.  Those who returned following the riots
were forced out (or rather, escaped, if they managed to) in 1948 when
Trans-Jordan attacked Israel in violation of UN Resolution 181.  That Hebron
was illegally held by Trans-Jordan for 19 years (until 1967) makes Jews living
in Hebron "colonizers"?!

Talk about entitlement, what makes all the land "Palestinian land", as if by
default? Until the end of WW I this was Turkish land, then it was a British
mandate (charged with developing the Jewish Homeland) until 1948.  Previously
it hasn't been "Arab land" since before the Crusades (and then only as a
colony taken, and lost, by force).  What next? Is Grenada a Spanish colony
in "Arab land"? Is Shiraz a Persian colony on "Arab land"?

(Similarly reference to the Geneva Conventions and "occupation" ignore Article
2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which defines what constitutes an
"occupation", and this situation does NOT qualify. If you think it does, ask
the Arab states why they haven't pursued proper LEGAL venues for resolving
this issue, such as taking this before the World Court rather the POLITICAL
venues such as the UN.)

> If Israel is truly interested in its security it will do one or both
> of the following:  (1) withdraw completely from all of the territories
> it occupied in 1967 or (2) place additional security on its
> internationally-recognized border

There is a great misconception in the propaganda piece which references to the
"1967 border". That is the border that currently exists between Israel and
Jordan along the Jordan river.  Elsewhere it is correctly identified as the
"pre-1967 border", which is a code for the 1949 border. It's not an
"internationally-recognized border" but the ceasefire lines of the 1949
armistice -- which specifically states that these borders are open to
negotiation.

With deference to this, despite Arab opposition, UN Security Council
Resolution 242 (the Resolution of record in this matter and further enshrined
in the Camp David and Oslo Accords), does not call for a complete Israeli
withdrawal but for a negotiated withdrawal as part of a comprehensive peace
agreement.

That's why the PLO and Arab states rejected UNSCR 242 for a quarter century
or more (the lone exception was Egypt, which after a decade made peace with
Israel and was promptly thrown out of the Arab League).

> Israel has long had the formula for peace and security - end the occupation.
> In exchange for its complete withdrawal from Palestinian and other Arab land
> occupied in 1967, Israel will live in peace and in security. 

Really? Then why did the Arabs refuse to make peace prior to 1967?  They
rejected UNGAR 181 in 1947. They rejected UNGAR 194 in 1949. And in 1956, as
a gesture of good will and faith, Israel withdrew from all territories it
captured in that war. Yet the Arab League re-issued its infamous "3 NOs"
declaration: No negotiations, No recognition, No peace with Israel.
For more on this, see:

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/29263.php
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/44258.php

Why reject peace and opt for war? Because the goal was NOT peaceful
coexistence but rather to destroy Israel. A goal that cannot be achieved
by peace and must be pursued through violence.

This can further be seen in the "Covenant" of the PLO (established in 1964,
3 years before 1967) which rejects all non-violent solutions. See:

http://www.vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/02/32147.php

In fact, even before Israel held the disputed territories, the Arab states
vowed its destruction, which is why there was another war in 1967 (and 1973).

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/48626_comment.php#48635

> Despite the fact that peace and normalization were recently offered to
> Israel by the entire Arab world during the Arab League Summit of March 2002,
> Israel walked away from this gesture....

This reference is to the Saudi "Plan-in-the-drawer", which the Arab League
never accepted or issued. The plan stayed in the drawer because it lacked
support in the Arab world.  It's mind-numbing that this is considered
progress. One has to ask: where were the Saudis and most of the Arab world
during 7 years of Oslo?

response 26 of 166:

Aug 7 17:38 UTC 2003

Re 23:  

See, I don't buy that argument that Israel has been overly fair and that the
Arabs are irrational and violent.  Sounds like a nice little racist attitude,
frankly.

response 30 of 166:

Aug 7 20:25 UTC 2003

Why Scott?  What is irrational about defending one's land from an invader?
The Palestinians see the Jews as invaders.  They want them gone.  Apparently,
the others in the area agree with the Palestinians.  All are willing to use
any method necessary to achieve their goals.  The Jews want a secure homeland,
everyone else wants them gone.

response 32 of 166:

Aug 7 23:14 UTC 2003

not all arabs are violent.  The palestinians just have a high percentage of
racists in their base sample, kinda like we used to have KKK in the south.

response 34 of 166:

Aug 8 01:33 UTC 2003

The SOUTH???