response 225 of 604:

Apr 13 21:27 UTC 2002

I find Mr. Watts's appraisal interesting on two levels.  First, he says
that my proposal has a snowball's chance in hell.  What I described is
pretty much the minimum required for a legitimate Palestinian state; you
could change a few of the details but not the basic requirements.

Marcus says, in essence, that such a state is impossible, that we
cannot expect civilized behavior from that populace or adherence to
the rule of law from their government.  Those are very low standards.

The second interesting part is that he misses the point so completely.  If
there is to be a peaceful solution in the Middle East, there cannot be a
double standard.  Police actions against the murderers of civilians cannot
be condemned while the murderers are excused, and the culpability of the
group which claims authority to control such criminals - then lets them
run rampant and finances their activities - cannot be glossed over.  

Peace won't be possible until the principals (starting with Arafat) either
start behaving better or leave the political scene.  To achieve this, it is
essential to shine the light of truth on the worst abuses of both sides. 
The left refuses to expect any improvement from the Palestinians, so the
Israelis (justifiably) reject their moral authority while the Palestinians
use them as ideological cover and a source of financing.

To get peace in the Middle East, the left has to stop supporting murder.

response 227 of 604:

Apr 14 03:16 UTC 2002

one report says that saudi telethon for the palestinians raised over $100
million, with one saudi prince giving the largest donation of $27 million.
The money is to go to the families of Palestinian victims, although it
doesnt take a genius to figure out what those families would do with that
money...

I live in New York City.  Outside of the middle east, you wont find a
larger population of jews and arabs than here.  And here they all get
along fine.  I have arab neighbors.  I have jewish neighbors.  I have
korean neighbors.  I have latino neighbors.  And they all get along.
Nearby there's a convenience store run by Arabs, right next to a chinese
laundromat, and thats next to a jewish deli.   These people all like each
other.  I have more than once seen the arab guy who runs the convenience
store over in the deli, because the jewish guy in the deli has a tv and
always has the Mets games on.    

What this tells me is that the problems in the middle east are as much
economic as they are religion or race based.  These guys here in NYC dont
have no reason to hate each other, they all make money and live normal,
healthy lives where they are all part of the same system.

response 229 of 604:

Apr 14 04:35 UTC 2002

I'm actually thinking that UN peacekeepers, and UN control of Jerusalem (or
at least of a DMZ in it) may be a good plan.  The trick is, though, whose
troops you use for peacekeeping.  Using Moslems is right out.  Israel is tyhe
only country that has whole units of Jews, but that would be right out even
if they weren't.  Putting units from something viewed as a Christian country
(e.g. Canada, which would otherwise be a great choice) in might make both
sides pretty uncomfortable.

So who?  India -- Sikhs and Hindus, neither of whom have a Jerusalem fetish?
Or Japan, which has been talking about getting more involved with
peacekeeping operations.  Or maybe the PRC.  Whoever it is has to be pretty
damn competent, because the two sides they'd be separating certainly are.
Gurkhas (Hindu)?  Both sides *deserve* Gurkhas, but they aren't really
suited for peacekeeping...

response 231 of 604:

Apr 14 05:00 UTC 2002

f*cking racist.

response 233 of 604:

Apr 14 05:10 UTC 2002

actually i do think calling people savages or barbaric is racist. it's the
same thing people said about the native americans to justify genocide. it's
also a ironic that people who don't condone the activities of the israeli
government are 'anti-semitic'. was it you who said that no one is really evil
- just misguided? i would be more inclined to refer to the suicide bombers
as desperate and misguided than 'savages'. i would also say that the israeli
soldiers who shoot at innocent people are 'misguided' instead of 'savages'.

response 235 of 604:

Apr 14 05:31 UTC 2002

yea i'm considering forgetting it. it's just making me angry. i see the 5
block protest in times square - which doesn't seem to be gettin any news
coverage, and the small footage ive seen from palestine makes me cry. reading
this thread is upsetting.

response 237 of 604:

Apr 14 09:56 UTC 2002

i 'assume' it's true becuase of what i've seen - actual footage.

response 239 of 604:

Apr 14 14:29 UTC 2002

One point worth mentioning in all this:  Arabs are semitic.  The word 
antisemitic has no place in this thread.

response 241 of 604:

Apr 14 19:22 UTC 2002

Oooh, Scott can't even recognize his own racism when he sees it
in a mirror!  How very ironic.

I'll spell it out for you, Scott:

1.)     You don't expect Palestinians to have any respect for the
        lives of Israelis, or use police power to stop those who
        shoot and bomb them.

2.)     You don't expect Palestinians to stop conspiracies against
        Israelis and close the organizations devoted to them.

3.)     You don't expect Palestinians to extradite suspects and
        conspirators in crimes committed against people in Israel.

All the things which would utterly appall you if the United States or
Britain or Italy failed to do, you *expect* the Palestinians not to do
as if they are unable to even make the attempt.  That's racism, Scott.

You say this would lead to "a lot of bloodshed".  Well, maybe it would,
but it would be the blood of people plotting murders instead of innocent
people in nightclubs and shops.  Who exactly deserves it more, Scott?

response 243 of 604:

Apr 14 20:53 UTC 2002

Re 241:

1)  Wrong.

2)  Wrong.

3)  Wrong.

I have serious issues with your means, not your ends.

response 245 of 604:

Apr 14 23:22 UTC 2002

Re #238:  I'm not talking about observers.  I'm talking about fully armed
          combat troops, with rules of engagement that allow them not only
          to defend themselves if fired upon, but also to fire upon people
          from either side if necessary to keep the peace.  

response 247 of 604:

Apr 15 05:36 UTC 2002

Marcus, #218:

> 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.

The Israeli ELECTORATE has and continues to firmly support the peace process.
Can the same be said of the Arab nations or people?

> There are also more extreme Israelies... However tiny the percentage
> of such Israelis might be; they are the ones that have set the agenda.

As much as David Duke sets the agenda in the US, despite however
tiny a percentage his supporters are....

What has set the current "agenda" was Arafat's rejection of the concept of
compromise (not just Clinton's specifics) at Camp David and his return to
violence and terrorism.

> Well before this latest escalation, there wasn't much reason for the
> Palestinians to trust their Jewish neighbors.

You mean Israel giving the PA 42% of the territory (on which 98% of the
Arab population resided) was meaningless?

response 249 of 604:

Apr 15 05:41 UTC 2002

Bruce, re#228:

I think it's important to understand why the Palestinian Red Crescent
ambulances are stopped and searched. A month or two ago, a suicide bomber
(herself a PRC employee) infiltrated into Israel aboard an ambulance. Last
week, an explosive belt was found in an ambulance which was transporting a
wounded boy (it was stashed underneath him). Way back in 2000, USA Today
reported that PRC ambulances were being used as supply vehicles and that their
drivers were seen shooting at Israelis. As I've got CNN tuned in, I hear of
a booby-trapped ambulance, rigged to kill Israeli troops.

If you read through the Fourth Geneva Conventions, you'll see that the PRC's
activities are clearly outside the scope of the Convention for neutral medical
units -- and that Israel's searches are not only reasonable under the
circumstances but within its rights under the Convention.