|
Grex > Agora41 > #37: What can be done in the middle east? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 604 responses total. |
bru
|
|
response 200 of 604:
| 
Apr 12 18:39 UTC 2002 |
question:
If the male bombers all get the 72 virgins in heaven, what do the female
bombers get?
|
jp2
|
|
response 201 of 604:
|
Apr 12 18:45 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 202 of 604:
|
Apr 12 18:57 UTC 2002 |
leeron should have watched cnn this afternoon. they were showing footage
from a telethon on Saudi Arabian network television. A telethon to
raise funds for the "Palestinian cause", and people were calling in to the
phone banks like crazy to give whatever they could. This was a clear
indication the rest of the arab world is mobilizing behind the scenes to
prevent the annihilation of the palestinians. I'm sure most of these
Saudis and other arabs see suicide bombings as really bad, really harsh, but
their viewpoint is bound to be that in a war, you fight with any means
necessary.
Israel's economy is going to be devastated by the costs of this prolonged
military action. And yet it wont stop the bombings. There was another one
today, killed six people. They will continue.
Both sides need to come to the table. Powell needs to broker a deal. Arafat
ought to agree that he'll leave the west bank and go into exile, IF Sharon
does as well. The Palestinians and other arab peoples view Sharon as being
as much at fault for everything thats happened as Arafat. So here's the
deal, they both leave. They both agree to abdicate power and designate
successors. If Sharon wants Arafat to leave and not die at Ramallah and
become a succesor, he must make that gesture. Sharon should say that he
will leave his homeland if Arafat leaves his, that its that important. Both
sides will feel they've accomplished something. And once both Arafat and
Sharon are out of the picture, maybe real peace negotiations can start
|
lk
|
|
response 203 of 604:
|
Apr 12 18:58 UTC 2002 |
Reuters reports that Powell is rethinking his meeting with Arafat today
following a suicide bombing in downtown Jerusalem which murdered 6 people
and wounded another 60.
The Al Aqsa Brigades, controlled by Arafat's own Fatah party and whose
leaders say they are loyal to Arafat, claimed responsibility for the bombing.
David claims Arafat "can't" control his own militia, but I think the rest of
the world is starting to realize that he does, and this is why he doesn't
even try to employ his 30,000 man police force -- armed and trained by the
US - against the ~1,000 terrorists. This is why when he does catch terrorists
he releases them -- funny how "collaborators" aren't so lucky. Why he hasn't
moved against bomb factories -- which he funds.
The White House has reiterated its demand that Arafat condemn the attack.
In the 5 hours since the bombing Arafat has not seen fit to do so.
Elsewhere in the world:
14:07 Death toll in Tunisia synagogue blast rises to seven, as 11-year-old
German boy dies of injuries sustained
|
rcurl
|
|
response 204 of 604:
|
Apr 12 19:01 UTC 2002 |
Re #195: I am unbiased in my disdain for religious mysticisms. I was
writing about how to defend against oppression. GIVEN oppression,
peaceful protest and even immolation (which I don't support, but it
is certainly a free choice for the oppressed), are the best means to
resist, because it demonstrates the depth of the feeling of the oppressed
without causing physical harm to others. It works because the oppressors
appear as bullies and worse when faced with that kind of opposition.
|
brighn
|
|
response 205 of 604:
|
Apr 12 20:05 UTC 2002 |
HAVING disdain for religious misticism is a bias. ;}
|
lk
|
|
response 206 of 604:
|
Apr 12 20:18 UTC 2002 |
So we should expect people to blow up themselves in America's inner
cities and in every Arab capital? It's what you'd expect if this was
about "oppression". Indeed, one would be hard pressed to know if an
Arab who blew himself up in Ramallah was protesting Arafat's dictatorship,
that his life is worse under Arafat's rule than it was under Israeli rule.
The terrorists are targeting innocent Israeli civilians for a reason.
In their own words, they seek to destroy Israel.
Rane, no response to #193?
Are we to believe, that Arafat is this saint who is surrounded by people who
hate him and that all the above are lies? I guess they also forged his
signature on documents procuring arms purchases and that Arafat, despite his
penchant for detail and control, simply didn't notice when 3-15% of his
annual budget was allocated toward a single arms ship-ment. Did he also not
notice the weapons being stockpiled within his own command center?
It was the Arab governments who herded refugees into camps, forbidding them
education, employment, freedom of movement and naturalization (rights that
are guaranteed for all other refugees). It was Arafat who has failed to
build infrastructure, failed to build a viable state -- instead focusing
on destroying another one. "Oppression" is a red herring. Had Arafat
accepted Clinton's compromise or Barak's concessions at Taba....
|
oval
|
|
response 207 of 604:
|
Apr 12 20:21 UTC 2002 |
what the hell are you talking about?
|
lk
|
|
response 208 of 604:
|
Apr 12 20:30 UTC 2002 |
Marcus, re #196:
> What peace process? The could of beens and might have beens are gone
As someone close to the negotiations told me:
Don't be so skeptical and remember that even while there is violence
on the stage, behind the stage there are actors who are involved in
serious talks (track 2). The only question is how coordinated is the
front stage with the back stage and who really has the power and what
they decide to do with it.
> each side... does not care about the cost to the opposing (or their own,
> for that matter).
You could say the same thing about our involvement in Afghanistan. Yet we know
better. The same holds true for Israel. Unlike the Arabs, no one in Israel
is talking about "sacrifice" or glorifying "martyrs". Further, if Israel
didn't care about minimizing Arab deaths, it wouldn't risk its own forces in
house-to-house combat where even residential buildings are booby trapped (one
can only wonder how many of the civilians deaths were caused by such terrorist
bombs).
The bottom line is that both the Israeli people and the Israeli government
favor an immediate and unconditional cessation of all violence. The Arabs only
want the Israeli military counter-offensive to stop, while reserving the right
to continue terror attacks to supplement their negotiations (that's what is
meant by negotiations under fire, which Arafat supported provided that it
wasn't the Israelis firing back.) But Arafat will not call for the end of
violence on his side, regardless of Israeli offers and already signed
agrements. (Note that this was true even prior to Sharon's election).
|
lk
|
|
response 209 of 604:
|
Apr 12 20:36 UTC 2002 |
Richard, re#202:
> ...the annihilation of the palestinians
What are you talking about?
> I'm sure most of these Saudis and other arabs see suicide bombings as really
> bad, really harsh, but their viewpoint is bound to be that in a war, you
> fight with any means necessary.
You're mistaken. The Saudis have funded terrorists for decades (even directly,
not just Madrassas). More specifically, funds raised at the telethon you
mentioned will go to the families of suicide bombers, their "reward".
As for "any means", well, I'm sure you can justify Egypt's use of poison gas
in Yemen and Iraq's poisoning of Kurds by that rational, too. Yet I believe
Saudi Arabia is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, so they should know
better. Certainly you should, no?
> Arafat ought to agree that he'll leave the west bank and go into exile, IF
> Sharon does as well.
It's a cute suggestion, but the symmetry just isn't there. Arafat has been
in "power" for 40 years, through countless Israeli leaders. Sharon is just
the latest, and he was duely ELECTED.
> Sharon should say that he will leave his homeland if Arafat leaves his.
Sharon was born in Israel, has a ranch, has worked the land and help build
Israel.
Arafat was born in Egypt and has not been effective at building a state.
|
oval
|
|
response 210 of 604:
|
Apr 12 21:26 UTC 2002 |
i, too would like to hear lk's explanation of why the refuseniks feel the way
they do.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 211 of 604:
|
Apr 12 21:30 UTC 2002 |
Re #205: certainly, but I am even-handed in my disdain.
Re #206: probably not, because not enough people feel adequately oppressed
to do this. It is a measure of the extreme oppression of the Palestinians
that even there youth are committing suicide to express their outrage.
When Ameicans start doing that I hope people will pay attention.
No response to #193 because it said all my statements were true. Glad you
agree.
|
klg
|
|
response 212 of 604:
|
Apr 13 00:34 UTC 2002 |
re: "#196 Watts : By training and reputation he (Sharon) has completely the
wrong background to be an effective peace negotiator." That is exactly
backwards. The Arabs will never agree to halt their violence if they're
negotiating with a weakling. Just look at what happened to Barak.
Breakthroughs are often made by the "unlikely" characters, e.g., Sadat and
Begin.
re lk: "But Arafat will not call for the end of violence on his side,
regardless of Israeli offers and already signed agrements." Because his
intifada is a diversionary tactic that is buying his buddy Saddam Hussein more
time to finish work on his weapons of mass destruction.
Hey Wally, the Beave is calling you.
A "refusnik" is a Jew in the former Soviet Union who were denied permission
to emigrate.
curlie: "the extreme oppression of the Palestinians." Could you please
educate us on the extreme oppression of the Palestinians in Judea & Samaria
as compared to their living conditions in other Arab countries, focusing on
the use of violence as a useful tool to gain improvements under each
circumstance? Thank you.
curlie: re "even there (sic) youth are committing suicide to express their
outrage" Exactly how much outrage can their10 year old boys feel?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 213 of 604:
|
Apr 13 00:38 UTC 2002 |
Barak was no "weakling." Look up his service record (or what you can find
of it in the media, anyway).
|
klg
|
|
response 214 of 604:
|
Apr 13 00:46 UTC 2002 |
As a negotiator, the Arabs, at least, saw him as a weakling.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 215 of 604:
|
Apr 13 02:00 UTC 2002 |
His political support was weak, and I think that's the key. Sharon might
get a compromise not because he's a bastard (which he is, but Barak had
been too, albeit in a less public way) but because he has strong public
support in Israel.
|
russ
|
|
response 216 of 604:
|
Apr 13 02:24 UTC 2002 |
Hmmm. Rane Curl, Marcus Watts, Dave Brodbeck, Carrie (oval) and the
Dick have all had plenty of time to read, digest and rebut #192. None
has a response to it.
What's wrong with my peace proposal, you lefties? Too sensible?
Demands that towel-heads live up to civilized norms of behavior that
you think are beyond them? Doesn't blame Western society for every
ill in the world? C'mon, you've got to have *something* to say.
|
scott
|
|
response 217 of 604:
|
Apr 13 04:01 UTC 2002 |
Because it's stupid and would almost certainly cause bloodbath, Russ?
|
mdw
|
|
response 218 of 604:
|
Apr 13 05:28 UTC 2002 |
My opinion of Cage's solution is a moot point; what really matters is
whether any Palestinians would respect Cage's suggestion. My personal
theory is Cage's has about the chance of a turkey in Antartica
regardless of its merits. That makes any argument about the actual
outcome of such a proposal doubly moot. Neverthelesss, to address the
doubly moot issue, I'll say that the Indians in north american could
have followed Russ Cage's suggestion as well, but I suspect it would
have left them in reservations just that much faster.
There are probably plenty of moderate Israelis who would like to get
along with their Arab neighbors just fine, but they aren't the ones in
control of the situation. There are also more extreme Israelies who
think the Palestinians should all move to Jordan, set laws in motion
that discriminate against non-Jews, and have even acted extra-legally to
further their agenda. However tiny the percentage of such Israelis
might be; they are the ones that have set the agenda. Well before this
latest escalation, there wasn't much reason for the Palestinians to
trust their Jewish neighbors. Lest anyone think I'm singling out the
Israelis, the Egyptians are just about as non-nice towards their
non-moslem Christian natives (who as a sub-culture predate the Moslem
invaders by several centuries, way way back.)
The thing that makes all of this so heavily ironic is that the west bank
and Gaza strip aren't actually particularly attractive places to live,
and until recent history were relatively sparsely populated. Most of
the people living there today have moved there in recent memory. Each
side may claim ancient roots to the conflict, but the reality looks a
lot more like Oklahoma.
|
russ
|
|
response 219 of 604:
|
Apr 13 13:52 UTC 2002 |
Okay, Scott goes down in the "can't expect ragheads to live up to civilized
norms of behavior" column. (Also in the "did not read #192" column.)
|
scott
|
|
response 220 of 604:
|
Apr 13 14:12 UTC 2002 |
OK, Russ goes down in the "must use racism to justify his methods" column.
But hey, what else should I expect from somebody who advocates vandalism as
a solution to somebody honking their horn a bit too early in the morning?
|
other
|
|
response 221 of 604:
|
Apr 13 15:48 UTC 2002 |
Russ's past responses guised as logic have proven him to be an irrational
respondent rather than a rational contributor to these discussions.
Occasionally he says things I completely agree with, but more frequently,
his comments do nothing but express his own contempt for those who do not
follow his own line of thnking.
|
klg
|
|
response 222 of 604:
|
Apr 13 18:00 UTC 2002 |
re: 221 Watts: "There are also more extreme Israelies (sic) who think the
Palestinians should all move to Jordan, set laws in motion that discriminate
against non-Jews, and have even acted extra-legally to further their agenda.
However tiny the percentage of such Israelis might be; they are the ones that
have set the agenda."
Actually, the "agenda" is probably being set by the moderate and mid-left
Israelis who, having experienced the events of the past 2 years realized that
the Arabs just will not respond yet to reasonable peace offers.
and "Well before this latest escalation, there wasn't much reason for the
Palestinians to trust their Jewish neighbors." You mean because Arabs in
Israel are given the right to vote, have representative in the Knesset, and
have a seat on the Supreme Court?
|
mvpel
|
|
response 223 of 604:
|
Apr 13 18:37 UTC 2002 |
There are plenty of Israelis who do live in peace with their Arab neighbors.
Arabic is an official language of Israel along with Hebrew. Salah Tarif, an
Arab, is one of Ariel Sharon's cabinet ministers, Arabs hold 10 of the 120
seats in the Knesset, an Arab served as Israel's Consul-General, and Israel
is one of the few places in the Middle East where Arab women can vote.
If your neighbor wanted to kill you, wouldn't you want them to move out?
|
scott
|
|
response 224 of 604:
|
Apr 13 21:26 UTC 2002 |
I've never been rude enough to a neighbor for them to want to kill me. Even
the alcoholic who used to get drunk and yell off the porch at his enemies in
the neighorbood settled down a bit when I turned out to be nicer than the
previous occupants of my house.
|