|
Grex > Agora41 > #37: What can be done in the middle east? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 604 responses total. |
klg
|
|
response 50 of 604:
| 
Apr 3 01:00 UTC 2002 |
Question: If Arafat decides to renounce violence again, will that
get him another Nobel Peace Prize to go with the one he got in '94?
Do they make good book ends?
|
richard
|
|
response 51 of 604:
|
Apr 3 02:53 UTC 2002 |
Face facts, there is no way for Israel to win. Sharon is losing the
battle for world opinion and is coming off like a bully. Israel should
vote him out and return Shimon Peres to power (Peres and Yitzhak Rabin
were co-nobel peace prize winners along with Arafat, a fact that klg
conventiently never mentions-- I guess he thinks Rabin and Peres were more
deserving even though the prize was for the same events) When there was
a cabinet vote on expelling Arafat, Peres was one of like two dissenters.
Peres is a voice of reason.
From hearing Sharon talk, his hate of Arafat seems to be highly personal
and rabid, and something that goes well beyond politics. Israel should
not let Sharon drag it down into war and instability over Sharon's
personal grudges.
This is going to destroy Israel's economy, already westerners are leaving
in droves. The longterm effect of Israeli fullscale military occupation
of the west bank will be devastating, it is going to destabilize the
entire region and create widespread hate of the Israelis by the other Arab
nations.
And yes there is a lot of racism involved, white israeli conservatives
calling arabs barbarians and animals. The only way, the ONLY way for this
to end is for Israel to agree to a deal, to trust even if there is no
reason to trust. The palestinians, and the other arab peoples in the
region, have a right-- regardless of the past-- to a fair chance for their
people in the region. If Israel flexes its military and economic
muscles-- much of which paid for by the United States-- to keep these
people down out of distrust and racism, it would be wrong. And otherwise,
what sort of Israel is there going to be? A place that is a purely
military zone where people are afraid to go.
|
richard
|
|
response 52 of 604:
|
Apr 3 03:12 UTC 2002 |
And in case you think this isnt going to get uglier, the Arab countries
are up in arms over this. Reports are saying that both Iran and Iraq are
considering calling for an OPEC Oil Embargo against the U.S. Arab
officials in a lot of those states, not just iran and iraq, are irate that
the U.S. isnt getting involved and is standing by while Isreael
steamrolls the Palestinians. We have a bad enough situation as it is with
the arab countries, Israel's actions just make it much worse. Would it
take a full scale OPEC oil embargo (which is not unprecedented but hasnt
happened since 1973) to force Bush to action? We simply arent going to be
able to stay out of this if there is no other resolution.
|
klg
|
|
response 53 of 604:
|
Apr 3 04:31 UTC 2002 |
Wally, As far as I am concerned, none of them were qualified for the prize
since the process they developed was destined to fail from the get-go. But
Arafat is the only one of the bunch that returned to the tactic of violence.
Anyway, sounds like you'd rather that Israel should surrender and face the
consequences of continued terror attacks than to go after the warmongers since
that is what other countries believe is in those countries' best interests.
And what is the basis for your assertions that Sharon is dragging Israel??
I don't se any widespread opposition. You say that Israel's actions are
going to cause the Arabs to turn against Israel?? How do you think they've
felt about it since 1948?????
|
rcurl
|
|
response 54 of 604:
|
Apr 3 05:07 UTC 2002 |
By surrendering to a reasonable settlement (such as the Saudi proposal),
the violence would end. The Arabs would see to that if they are all
parties to the agreement. History isn't going to treat Israeli very well
for the course of action it is following, if it continues. Israel is
accomplishing *nothing* by invading the PA lands, except to heighten
animosities. Israel is NOT "going after the warmongers" now - it is
just grabbing convenient Arabs off the streets. There are millions. It
is a foolish and self-defeating policy.
|
russ
|
|
response 55 of 604:
|
Apr 3 13:00 UTC 2002 |
Re #47: Exactly what would you call the people who take those who
work against the terrorists, brand them as "collaborators" (with
the nation their elected authority is sworn to defend against enemies
on its own soil), haul them out of prisons and kill them in cold blood?
What DO you call them, Scott? And what do you call the governmental
authority (the Palestinian Authority) which has the crime of
"collaboration" on the books, carrying the death penalty?
In case you hadn't noticed, there don't seem to be many moderates
in the West Bank any more. If there are, they have no power and
don't even dare to speak up for fear that mobs will kill them.
What do you call that state of affairs? Isn't "barbaric" accurate,
or is it perhaps too accurate for your political leanings?
And while you're at it, do you have any rebuttal to the specifics of
#46 or are you going to dismiss the entirety on the basis of one word?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 56 of 604:
|
Apr 3 13:42 UTC 2002 |
go live in a refugee camp, dilrod.
|
gull
|
|
response 57 of 604:
|
Apr 3 14:04 UTC 2002 |
Re #52: As I'm sure you're aware, a full-scale oil embargo is extremely
unlikely. For one thing, it would collapse Saudi Arabia's economy and
probably result in the government there being overthrown.
Re #53: Sharon's approval ratings are falling, though a majority (something
like 60%) still support his actions.
Re #55: Israel has jailed people for "collaboration", and so has the U.S.
We tend to refer to it as "treason", though.
|
scott
|
|
response 58 of 604:
|
Apr 3 14:36 UTC 2002 |
Re 55: Russ, I call those people "Palestinians". I don't seem to have the
same level of hatred that you've managed to cultivate.
|
bru
|
|
response 59 of 604:
|
Apr 3 14:44 UTC 2002 |
And lets not forget what the palestinians are calling the Isreali's. (Or is
that all right with you).
Both sides are using the same rehtoric to try and gain positive world opinion.
How many Isreali's have died in the past month? How many Palestinians? How
many Isreali Suicide bombers have we seen? How many Christian? how many
Moslem? How many Palestinians.
The Isreali's have always been willing to deal, but the 4 palestinian
resistance organizations have all said they are not willing to deal with
Isreal, and seek only the annihilation of the Isreali state.
|
scott
|
|
response 60 of 604:
|
Apr 3 16:10 UTC 2002 |
Oh, I'm quite sure the Palestinians are saying terrible things about the
Israelis, and vice-versa. But that wasn't what I was talking about. I was
talking about how some people here on Grex seem perfectly happy to declare
the Palestinians, as a population, to be uncivilized animals.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 61 of 604:
|
Apr 3 16:13 UTC 2002 |
What's the Israeli ultimate goal and what are they doing to attain it?
|
lk
|
|
response 62 of 604:
|
Apr 3 16:43 UTC 2002 |
Israel's goal is to get Arafat to implement existing ceasefire agreements
(Sharem, Tenet) and return to the negotiating table so that a peaceful
settlement can be reached.
Scott is pursuing a red herring rather than focusing on the issues.
No one here has called the entire Palestinian Arab populace "barbarians" or
made any such racial slurs. What has been stated is that Arab terrorists,
in conjunction with the governing authority, have perpetrated barbaric acts.
|
jazz
|
|
response 63 of 604:
|
Apr 3 16:45 UTC 2002 |
I'd just like to savour the irony of that one statement - not to say
that it's not characteristic of hundreds of other things done by either side
in this struggle - that Israel is attempting to get Arafat to implement
ceasefire agreements ... by surrounding his office with tanks.
Please understand that I'm not commenting in favour of anyone at this
point, I'm only a fan of irony.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 64 of 604:
|
Apr 3 17:12 UTC 2002 |
Re #62: that's part of a process, but what is Israel's ultimate goal?
|
scott
|
|
response 65 of 604:
|
Apr 3 17:51 UTC 2002 |
Re 62:
1. I never claimed Grexers were using the term "barbarians". If you are so
concerned about the accuracy of your facts, at least quote me correctly.
2. Didn't you (leeron, that is) make some big point in the last Agora about
how the Koran encourages suicide bombers and such? Didn't you end that
response by trying to say that it applied to Arabs, as a society?
|
lk
|
|
response 66 of 604:
|
Apr 3 17:51 UTC 2002 |
It's more sad than ironic, Jazz, that this is what needs to be done.
Once Arafat understands that the world will not tolerate his terrorism
in pursuit of his political goals he will be forced to negotiate.
Israel's goal is to flourish as a democratic society amongst the nations
of the world, and at peace with its non-democratic neighbors that have
waged 54 years of war against it.
To this end, Barak accepted the Clinton compromise which would have
established an independent Arab state on 96+3% of the disputed territories
(contiguous in Gaza and in the WB), with sovereignty in eastern Jerusalem
and shared sovereignty over the Temple Mount, and with compensation for
"refugees" who would have the so-called "right of return" to the nascent
Palestinian Arab state. Arafat rejected this (and the principle of
compromise) and walked out on the process, returning to violence & terrorism.
That specific deal, as specified at the time by the parties involved, is
over. Nonetheless the Israeli government (including Sharon) remains
committed to the principles of negotiation and compromise. Even Sharon has
spoken of the establishment of an independent Arab state in the territories.
The problem is that this is not what Arafat is after. He's had 7+ years to
engage in state-building during the Oslo process. Instead of building
infrastructure he bought arms. Instead of providing for his citizens his
government was characterized by corruption.
Ironically, Arafat has compared himself to Saladin. Saladin's goal wasn't
to establish a Kurdish kingdom in Jerusalem, only to drive out the infidels.
|
lk
|
|
response 67 of 604:
|
Apr 3 17:57 UTC 2002 |
Scott, re #65: I said no such thing. To the contrary, I entered an item
saying that this section of the Koran was being misinterpreted (that
martyrs are rewarded in paradise with the delicacy of lush white RAISINS,
not VIRGINS), but I've never commented on whether suicide bombers
conform to Islam's concept of a martyr.
So as we can see, I'm talking about white raisings and Scott brings up
red herrings. Is it any wonder what he writes stinks? (:
|
lk
|
|
response 68 of 604:
|
Apr 3 18:07 UTC 2002 |
Richard (#51/52):
> From hearing Sharon talk, his hate of Arafat seems to be highly personal
> and rabid, and something that goes well beyond politics.
From hearing Bush (and most Americans) talk, his hate of Bin Laden / Saddam
Hussein seems to be.....
> This is going to destroy Israel's economy
And you think the last 18 months haven't hurt the Israeli economy? A continued
war of attrition will have a much greater impact on the Israeli economy than
a short and decisive confrontation.
> The only way, the ONLY way for this to end is for Israel to agree to a deal,
> to trust even if there is no reason to trust.
Israel agreed to a deal (UN compromise) in 1947. It didn't end.
Israel returned the territories it captured in 1956 in hopes that this would
enable a deal. It didn't.
Israel accepted UNSCR 242 (the "land for peace" deal) following the 1967 war.
Egypt, the first Arab state to do so, 10 years later, was expelled from the
Arab League.
Israel accepted the Clinton compromise in July 2000. Arafat walked out.
Israel accepted the Sharem Agreement (Oct. 2000). Arafat refused to comply.
Israel moved forward at Taba in January 2001. Arafat wouldn't make a deal.
Israel accepted the Mitchell Report (May 2001) and implemented a unilateral
ceasefire. Arafat did not respond (only paying lip service to a ceasefire
10 days later, following a suicide bombing at a disco in which 22 Israeli
teens were murdered)..
Israel accepted the Tenet Agreement (June 2001), Arafat didn't implement it.
Israel welcomed US envoy Zinni, withdrawing from Area A. 12 Suicide bombings
followed in 15 days.
And you think this is because Israel isn't willing to deal?
On the other hand, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbolla and Fatah's (Arafat's)
military groups say that even if a deal was worked out, they would continue
their attacks. Arafat speaks of Oslo (another deal he doesn't implement) as
the Treaty of Khoresh (broken by Mohammed after using the ceasefire to build
up his forces; how quickly the world has forgotten the Karine A arms ship.)
The PNC has not amended the PLO Covenant (calling for peace WITHOUT Israel,
the destruction of Israel) nor abandoned its two-phased plan (feign peace and
then fight from the territories gained by it). The "moderate" Faisal Husseini
called the Oslo process a "Trojan Horse" designed to get Arab fighters into
the territories.
> We have a bad enough situation as it is with the arab countries, Israel's
> actions just make it much worse.
So Israel should tolerate suicide bombings in its cities and Hezbollah
shelling across its northern border with Lebanon so that US-Arab relations
don't suffer? Perhaps the Arab states, if they value their relationship with
us, should share some of our goals -- like reaching a ceasefire? Maybe
condemn, rather than glorify, suicide bombings? Perhaps Saudi professors
shouldn't write in mainstream government owned Saudi papers that Jews use
the blood of Muslims and Christians to prepare holiday foods? Perhaps the
Syrian dictator shouldn't make anti-Semitic statements, with impugnity,
when talking to the Pope?
But let's not kid ourselves. Bin Laden's declaration of war against the US
was based on US troops being present in the holy land (Saudi Arabia) which
was a result of one Arab country (Iraq) attacking another (Kuwait).
|
lk
|
|
response 69 of 604:
|
Apr 3 18:12 UTC 2002 |
Rane (#54):
> By surrendering to a reasonable settlement (such as the Saudi proposal),
> the violence would end
Rane, didn't you think that if only Israel withdrew from Lebanon the violence
on that border would end? Seems that many forgot that the reason Israel
entered Lebanon is because it was used as a base to launch terrorist raids
into Israel and from which to launch rockets at Israeli population centers.
Israel's withdrawal has been certified by the UN, but Hezbollah has found new
pretexts/excuses to launch attacks and the violence continues.
Similarly, Arafat stated that he wouldn't call for a ceasefire until Israel
withdrew from Area A. With Zinni due to arrive and in anticipation of the Arab
League summit, Israel did just that. Did Arafat call for or agree to a
ceasefire? No, he issued new demands.
It's funny how quickly some people find new reasons to blame Israel. It used
to be that Sharon's demand (actually part of the Mitchell recommendations)
for 7 days of quiet were the obstacle to negotiations. Sharon dropped that
demand 2 months ago and yet Arafat found new reasons to scuttle negotiations.
There is no reason to believe that even if Israel accepted the Saudi DEMANDS
(it's not a proposal, even rejecting negotiations to achieve it), that the
Arab states will comply rather than list new demands. To the contrary, there
is every reason to believe that the terrorism would continue -- they've said
so themselves!
> Israel is accomplishing *nothing* by invading the PA lands, except to
> heighten animosities. Israel is NOT "going after the warmongers" now - it
> is just grabbing convenient Arabs off the streets.
Israel is going after the terrorist infrastructure. Bomb factories have been
neutralized, rockets, mortars, guns captured, counterfeit money presses
discovered. Even within Arafat's compound!
The on-going gun battles are sufficient proof that Israel is still fighting
illegal combatants ("warmongers"), not innocent Arab citizens off the streets.
|
scott
|
|
response 70 of 604:
|
Apr 3 19:04 UTC 2002 |
Leeron's actual words:
> We aren't talking about what some irrelevant religious extremists believe.
>The problem reflects the attitude of an entire society -- an attitude
>that condemns girls to be burned alive rather than to show their faces
>in public while fleeing from a fire.
|
gull
|
|
response 71 of 604:
|
Apr 3 19:43 UTC 2002 |
Re #68:
> From hearing Bush (and most Americans) talk, his hate of Bin Laden /
> Saddam Hussein seems to be.....
I'm not sure that "Bush does it too" is very effective as an argument,
especially with this crowd. For what it's worth, it seems to be widely
assumed in Europe that the reason Bush wants to go into Iraq is to
settle an old family score.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 72 of 604:
|
Apr 3 21:24 UTC 2002 |
Re #66: that goal, "to flourish as a democratic society amongst the
nations of the world, and at peace with its non-democratic neighbors that
have waged 54 years of war against it" seems also to be the goal of
Palestinian statemen, apart from the militants. But that statement of
a goal is over-reaching. What *particular* goal, in terms of a
settlement, will Israel accept?
|
rlejeune
|
|
response 73 of 604:
|
Apr 3 21:34 UTC 2002 |
If invading the PA lands is destroying the terrorist infrastructure, they seem
to be doing a lousy job of it, as violence on both sides seem more intense now
than they ever were. But wjat can you expect from lk, anyway? He is kind of
predictable. I gotta go poo.
|
morwen
|
|
response 74 of 604:
|
Apr 3 22:04 UTC 2002 |
I think that the settlement the Israeli would accept is if the
Palestinians immediately ceased any and all violence toward them in an
official ceasefire and came to the negotiating table in all
seriousness. As Leeron, and others, have pointed out, there have been
several attempts on the part of Israel to acheive peace. It seems to
me that the only thing the Palestinians will be happy with is for the
state of Israel to be eliminated and the entire are ceded back to them
immediately, with the Jews being scattered among the general population
of the world once more.
|