|
Grex > Agora47 > #227: Elite Israeli soldiers refuse oppression orders | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 15 new of 70 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 56 of 70:
| 
Dec 29 15:00 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:52: I think if Israel is seen as forcing Arafat out it will only
generate more anger against them and ensure Arafat's replacement will be
even worse. I'm not saying removing Arafat is bad in priciple, but that
the political realities of it make it a bad idea.
Re resp:55:
> But the compromise will be based on
> those parameters as they were discussed in 2000.
I doubt it, simply because by that time the wall will be complete and
will have defined the new Israeli border in a very non-negotiable way.
|
klg
|
|
response 57 of 70:
|
Dec 29 19:08 UTC 2003 |
"Worse" than Arafat? Difficult to believe, particularly if Israel did
the housecleaning that the Peace Prize guy refuses to do.
Better to take the bad medicine all at once than to suffer drop by drop.
lk: Could it be said the "illegal" settlements are, really, only out
of compliance with Israeli zoning-type regulations. And are these
people who are strict law-and-order types as far as who-may-live-where
also in favor of law that restricted who may live in places such as
Grosse Pointe (which didn't allow dirty Jews to live there, either).
|
tod
|
|
response 58 of 70:
|
Dec 29 19:48 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 59 of 70:
|
Dec 30 02:44 UTC 2003 |
Re resp:57: Well, if they *are* out of zoning compliance, maybe they
should bulldoze the houses like they do to Palastinian houses that are
out of compliance.
|
tod
|
|
response 60 of 70:
|
Dec 30 16:18 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
lk
|
|
response 61 of 70:
|
Dec 30 17:25 UTC 2003 |
Arafat needs to be removed by the Palestinian Arabs. Yet they dare not
do so. Maybe the UN should help and take him to the Hague? While I'm
in dream-land, Michigan should beat USC 120-0.... What they need is
a PM who will, backed by the PNC, wrest control of the dozen security
organizations away from Arafat and put them to use.
klg, the "outposts" are in violation of Israeli law. I'm no lawyer and
suppose it's something akin to zoning laws, but they are illegal. Just
as you can't go pitching tents and trailers in the middle of nowhere in
Nevada. (Not for a night, certainly not in the hope of establishing a
new town.)
There is a warped sense of equivalency here. Israelis (allegedly) break
the law by building "settlements". Arab terrorists break the law by
murdering scores of innocent civilians.
David, Palestinian houses that have illegal additions, etc., are not
demolished. We've already had this discussion once (when Aaron posted
a long article about how an Israeli hotel which was then used for
condos instead was not bulldozed, nor were Israeli homes that were
in violation of building codes, such as remodeling a kitchen without
a permit). Most often Arab houses are bulldozed because they are
built on a neighbor's land, on public lands (try building a house
in the Arb....), etc.
(And to prevent you from alleging that Arabs can't get permits, let
me remind you that there is a very small difference (~5%) in the
number of permits approved and that in areas such as Jerusalem, Arab
building has outpaced Jewish building.)
In any event, the "outposts" are usually just tents and trailers and
can be removed quite easily, despite gull's blood lust to see Jewish
homes bulldozed.
Similarly, if there does come a time when the security fence is not
needed, it can come down. But note that its route isn't that far
different than what was proposed by President Clinton.
|
gull
|
|
response 62 of 70:
|
Dec 30 18:15 UTC 2003 |
It's not "blood lust". I just think it's another obvious example of the
discrimination that you seem bent on denying. Jewish outposts built
illegally are allowed to remain and often given military protection.
Arab houses built illegally are demolished.
|
tod
|
|
response 63 of 70:
|
Dec 30 18:26 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
lk
|
|
response 64 of 70:
|
Dec 31 22:49 UTC 2003 |
David, read what I said about warped comparisons. Homes illegally built
by Arabs don't need military protection because Jews don't attack them
and murder their residents.
The illegal "outposts" are a political hot-potato. The Israeli government
should (and will) remove them. Yet back to the warped comparisons, is this
in any way equivalent to the PA harboring and funding terrorists who are
in the business of murdering innocent civilians?
Note that Arafat and his thugs were in this "business" long before there
were any "settlements" and before there was an "occupation", etc.
|
gull
|
|
response 65 of 70:
|
Jan 4 01:31 UTC 2004 |
The Israeli government makes noises about removing them when the U.S.
ratchets up the pressure enough. It's always just noise, though. They
rarely actually remove one, and when they do another just crops up
elsewhere.
|
lk
|
|
response 66 of 70:
|
Jan 4 22:19 UTC 2004 |
As I said, its a political hot-potato. The Israeli government can't evacuate
a bunch of extremists in tents and trailers only to have Arab terrorism
continue unabated. But you avoided my point and question:
Is this in any way equivalent to the PA harboring and funding terrorists
who are in the business of murdering innocent civilians?
(Note that Arafat and his thugs were in this "business" long before there
were any "settlements" and before there was an "occupation", etc.)
Of course not. That's a false comparison (one of many) so one can pretend
that both sides are just as guilty, that we shouldn't take sides, that we
should demand as much (or even more) from Israel. Under the false pretense
that "if only Israel did X" (where X = "play nice" or "dismantle outposts"
or "remove checkpoints" -- built as a response to terrorism) suddenly the
terrorists would cease their murderous ways opposing the peace process.
There can be no peace as long as there are terrorists (operating with the
blessings and aid of the PA and the people) bent not just on opposing the
peace process but on the dstruction of Israel. There can be no honest
negotiations as long as the PA can unleash terrorism as a negotiating tool.
The first step is to end the terrorism. And neither the PA nor much of the
Arab & Muslim world is interested. Why not?
|
gull
|
|
response 67 of 70:
|
Jan 5 20:16 UTC 2004 |
I don't know, to be honest. Neither side has ever struck me as very
enthusiastic. Progress never happens except under pressure from outside
parties.
|
lk
|
|
response 68 of 70:
|
Jan 6 21:07 UTC 2004 |
Good grief, David. Confronted with one false equivalence (as if tolerating
"outposts" in the middle of nowhere is the same as harboring and aiding
terrorists who are murdering innocent civilians) you move to another:
> Neither side has ever struck me as very enthusiastic [about making peace].
Really? So both sides were equally unenthusiastic in 1937, when the Jewish
Agency accepted the principle of partition yet the Arab High Committee
rejected it?
So both sides were equally guilty in 1947, when the Jewish Agency accepted
the findings of UNSCOP and Resolution 181 (establishing 2 states, one Arab
and one Jewish) and the Arabs violently rejected it, opting for war?
Following this war, the Arab League isued its "3 NOs" declaration:
No negotiations, no recognition, no peace with Israel and went on to
reject Resolution 194 (the very one invoked today as the basis of a
"right of return" in a maneuver that can best be described as the
opposite of a line-item veto).
Again after the 1956 war, despite Israel's unilateral withdrawal from all
territories in a good-faith effort to kindle negotiations, the Arab League
re-issued its "3 NOs".
Again after the 1967 war, Israel accepted UNSCR 242. The Arab League rejected
it and re-issued its "3 NOs".
Following the 1973 war, Israel again unilaterally withdrew (after repelling
the surprise Arab attack, its forces were on the outskirts of Damascus and
Cairo). Ultimately Egypt would come around and make peace, but not only
was Carter's Camp David rejected and denounced by the rest of the Arab world
(none of whom would come to the negotiating table), Egypt was expelled from
the Arab League.
Has anything really changed in the last 25 years?
When Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel signed a peace treaty with Israel,
he was promptly assassinated by the Syrian/PLO/Shia axis, the peace treaty
anulled.
Yes, the PLO has rejected terrorism (even several times), yet continues to
harbor, fund and perpetrate it.
After 7 years of Oslo the Saudis finally paid lip service to a peace plan (that
stayed in the drawer; the first hint of taking it out caused an uproar at
the ensuing Arab League meeting which quickly disintegrated and disbanded).
At least Oslo allowed Jordan to come out from the PLO shadow and make peace
(with a waiting and willing) Israel.
Yet even at Clinton's Camp David, Barak was willing to compromise and make
peace and Arafat was not.
So why this hesitancy to compromise and make peace? Because much of the
Arab world views "compromise" as "surrender" and has no interest in it.
http://www.heggy.org/culture_of_compromise.htm
And, as the historian Benny Morris posits:
|| Palestinian leaders and preachers, guided by history and religion,
|| have traditionally seen the Jews as an inferior race whose proper
|| place was as an abased minority in a Muslim polity; and the present
|| situation, with an Arab minority under Jewish rule, is regarded as a
|| perversion of nature and divine will.
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030421&s=morris042103
|
lk
|
|
response 69 of 70:
|
Jan 10 05:24 UTC 2004 |
Ran across an interesting tidbit showing that the International Committe
of the Red Cross does not consider Israeli settlements to be a "war crime", a
violation of the Geneva Conventions. From the Jerusalem Post (20 June 2001):
The Jerusalem representative of the International Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC), Rene Kosimik, on May 17, 2001, said, "The installation
of a population of the occupying power in occupied territory is
considered an illegal move, it is a grave breach. In principal it is
a war crime." Rep. Eliot Engel protested to the President of the
ICRC, Jakob Kellenberger, who replied, "The expression 'war crime'
has not been used by the ICRC in relation to Israeli settlements in
the occupied territories in the past and will not be used anymore in
the present context." He added, "The reference made to it on May 17
was inappropriate and will not be repeated."
|
aaron
|
|
response 70 of 70:
|
Jan 30 21:10 UTC 2004 |
So you are arguing that the illegal settlement perpetrated by Israel in
the occupied territories is not a war crime? Finally, we're on the same
page. <eye roll>
How much reserve duty have you refused to perform over the past three
years, Leeron? Some refuse out of conscience; others out of cowardice.
Right?
|