|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 176 responses total. |
lk
|
|
response 98 of 176:
| 
Nov 30 10:24 UTC 2003 |
Yesterday: Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades condemn Geneva Accord, threaten
to harm those that stand behind the peace plan
Today: Senior Palestinians involved in Geneva initiatives announce
that they will not attend Monday`s signing ceremony
Who sets the PA Agenda?!
The terrorists?
11:44 Turkish papers: Suspected planner of suicide bombing against
Istanbul synagogue has confessed to Al-Qaida ties
08:15 Sunday Times: MI5, Scotland Yard fear Christmas terror attacks by
Islamists on `soft targets` in London
08:00 IDF to allow 15,000 Palestinian workers, aged over 28, to enter Israel
|
lk
|
|
response 99 of 176:
|
Dec 3 18:20 UTC 2003 |
15:52 U.S. Secretary of State Powell: We need commitment from Palestinian
leadership to stop terror. Road map not dead
16:32 Ireland retracts proposed UN resolution condemning anti-Semitism
after Arab countries refuse to support proposal
17:03 4 Palestinians arrested near village of Yatta; IDF suspects they
were on their way to carry out a shooting attack
17:18 NATO Sec. Gen. George Robertson: NATO forces won`t be used as buffer
between Israel and future Palestinian state
18:07 Al-Jazeera: Elite IDF troops arrest two Palestinians near Jordan
Valley who planned to carry out terror attack
|
twenex
|
|
response 100 of 176:
|
Dec 3 21:30 UTC 2003 |
Re: 16:32 - That's disgusting (the refusal, not just the
retraction).
|
other
|
|
response 101 of 176:
|
Dec 3 21:33 UTC 2003 |
That's par for the course.
Sounds like Powell's comment meets the definition of insanity...
|
scott
|
|
response 102 of 176:
|
Dec 3 23:21 UTC 2003 |
Eric, I'm kind of intrigued about what your position on things might be, since
you tend to support Leeron's side but seem to be a much more reasonable
person. For instance, how do you feel about the roadmap with respect to the
Israeli settlements?
|
other
|
|
response 103 of 176:
|
Dec 4 15:19 UTC 2003 |
I don't know that much about the details of the roadmap, but I do
know that there are different factions among the Israeli settlers.
Some of them care as little for peace with the Palestinians at the
cost of any land whatsoever as Hamas cares for peace with Israel. I
have no regard whatever for these people.
Some of them simply feel that it is the right of the Israeli people
to inhabit land they won in a war of aggression started and lost by
others against them. I find it difficult not to sympathize with
these people, but I feel that it is more important to make
reasonable compromises for lasting peace than to be inflexible and
insure conflict.
Then there are those who inhabit large and/or long-established
settlements and simply want to continue to live and work the land
they live on and do so in peace, and I think it fair to ask the
Palestinians to compromise with respect to those settlements.
There are two primary factors that influence my thinking about the
whole issue and they are: 1) The entire history of the Arab/Israeli
conflict has been one in which the Palestinian people have been
little more than a means used by the rest of the Arab nations to
attack the very existence of the state of Israel, which was created
as a safe haven for a people who have been universally reviled since
their emergence.
2) The history of oppression to which the Jewish people have been
subject has resulted in a curious and widespread mental deficiency
predominant in Israeli political thinking which prevents its victims
from trusting anyone who has ever taken advantage of them in the
past. This problem makes Israelis quite intractable with respect to
the Palestinian problem, despite the fact that experience has shown
consistently that responding in kind to violence only increases
violence and responding to violence with ever more determination to
achieve goals through nonviolence eventually produces the desired
results.
|
klg
|
|
response 104 of 176:
|
Dec 4 17:08 UTC 2003 |
Mr. other-
Why do you choose to ignore the fact that Israeli politicians came to
terms with Anwar Sadat? Perhaps they are not as "intractable" as you
would have us believe??
|
twenex
|
|
response 105 of 176:
|
Dec 4 17:58 UTC 2003 |
Not all Israeli politicians are intractable. Just the ones that are getting
elected at the moment.
|
klg
|
|
response 106 of 176:
|
Dec 4 18:23 UTC 2003 |
Uh huh. Like Menachem Begin was.
|
tod
|
|
response 107 of 176:
|
Dec 4 19:43 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
lk
|
|
response 108 of 176:
|
Dec 5 00:18 UTC 2003 |
klg makes a valid point. Begin, perhaps the most "intractable" Israeli
PM ever, welcomed Sadat to Jerusalem and made peace with him.
Can anyone even name all the Israeli PMs who have been in office during
the time Arafat has played General/Dictator? (Hint: I'd have to double
check, but it may be all of them.)
It is worth mentioning that neither Arafat nor any Arab country accepted
President Carter's invitation to the Camp David summit. To the contrary,
Egypt was expelled from the Arab League for making peace -- for violating
the policy established in 1949 and reiterated in 1967, the "3 NOs": No
negotiation with Israel, No Recognition of Israel, No peace with Israel.
In an era where Arab propaganda trumps up "ethnic cleansing" by Israel,
consider that the stated Arab war objective in 1948 (and 1967 and 1973)
was to "throw the Jews into the sea". Indeed, in areas that came under
the conquest of invading Arab armies, not a single Jew remained (in 1948,
with the exception of the British trained and led [Trans-Jordanian] Arab
Legion, Arab fighting forces took no prisoners). Yet today, the Arabs
who remained in Israel enjoy more freedoms and political rights than
their brethren living in any Arab country. They are full and equal
citizens, with equal protection under the law. (Which isn't to say that
there aren't social challenges. Call me naive, but I tend to believe
that much of this stems from 55+ years of an Arab effort to destroy Irael
and over a thousand years of abuse prior to that. If peace were achieved,
most of these problems would resolve themselves.)
Given this current and ancient history, is it any wonder that Israeli
leaders are sometimes cautious? If Osama bin Laden announced tomorrow
that he was all for peace would you believe him? What if he'd already
said as much but then continued his wicked ways? (How many times has
Arafat renounced terrorism?!)
But despite all this, given a glimpse of an opportunity, Israeli PMs
have entertained him. Rabin. Peres. Netanyahu. Barak. As one Russian
journalist reflected about Clinton's Camp David 2000, Barak had
"unmasked" Arafat. In acceding to almost all of Arafat's demands, one
would think that the least Arafat could have done was come up with a
counter offer. Instead he launched the intifada.
The feeling after Camp David was that Arafat didn't reject everything
because he wanted 1% or even 3% more land than the 97% Israel was
offering. He didn't quibble over the $30 Billion fund to comopensate
and resettle Arab "refugees" (or rather, their descendents who have
been imprisoned by Arab governments for 55 years, denied the rights
guaranteed to all other refugee populations).
So what was the problem which Barak "unmasked"? That Arafat was unable
to sign a peace treaty foregoing not the 3% of the disputed territories
that Israel would keep -- but the rest of pre-1967 Israel.
What was exposed was the PNC's "two-phase" solution, authorized in 1974.
It entailed getting what was possible by feigning peace and then to restart
the war. (Perhaps this is why Arafat failed to amend the PLO Covenant,
which dictates that violence is the only way to meet the objective -- the
destruction of Israel, as required by Oslo.)
Crazy, you say? Well, look how neatly this works with Arafat's move after
Camp David: he attempted (in violation of Oslo) to enact a unilateral
declaration of independece (UDI) -- the establishment of a Palestinian
Arab state on less than half the territory offered him by Israel at
Camp Dave, but without first having to make peace with Israel. In other
words, he'd take what he could and restart the war.
Fortunately, Arafat was rebuked around the world and absent any support
could not enact his plan. Unwilling to crawl back to the negotiating
table from this position of weakness, Arafat did what came naturally to
him: he returned to violence.
Let's not forget that Sharon was elected after this. Into this climate.
That this is why he was elected and re-elected. It's not a sign that
neither the Israeli electorate nor Sharon don't want peace or aren't
willing to make compromises for it. Just that they don't trust Arafat
(who at Camp David rejected the paradigm of compromise).
Do you?
|
twenex
|
|
response 109 of 176:
|
Dec 5 00:34 UTC 2003 |
Hardly. However, the fact that the Palestinians, and Arafat in particular,
are at fault as well doesn't by any means turn Sharon and the Israelis who
support his vicious and racist actions against the Palestinians into sinless
cherubs. Indeed, the fac that Sharon is willing to fight fire with fire and
to demolish whole apartment blocks and kill whole families to get rid of a
couple of terrorists who live there makes him part of the problem, not the
solution. Israel hasn't had a premier capable of resolving the conflict since
the one who was assassinated in '95, whose name I unfortunately can't bring
to mind.
|
tod
|
|
response 110 of 176:
|
Dec 5 00:41 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
klg
|
|
response 111 of 176:
|
Dec 5 02:00 UTC 2003 |
Mr. tweenex. It takes 2 to tango. Were the proper Arab leadership in
place, Sharon could make an agreement as easily as Begin did. By the
way, have you noted that it is generally Arafat who is the first to
unleash his family-killers. (By the way, wasn't it Arafat who won a
Nobel Peace prize?)
|
twenex
|
|
response 112 of 176:
|
Dec 5 04:11 UTC 2003 |
So did said assassinated Israeli PM, IIRC. It may take two to tango, but only
one can lead. And saying "it takes two to tango" is usually only a way of
trying to say, "Well, HE's not doing anythign to help, so Why should *I*"
without sounding likea a four-year old.. Building walls around people has
precious little to do with tangoing in any case. Finally, I think a lot of
people would be happier about the wall (after all, we built "peace walls in
Northern Ireland to wall of places where half the stree twas natinalist and
the other unionist) if there weren't constant claims by intgernational
observers, journalists, etc. that the wall is eating up part of the occupied
territories and placin it on hte israeli side of the wall. Sure, some of them
may be biased, or lying, but implying that they're all lyig would be like
saying there is a vast, global, anti-Semitic conspiracy. Which kinda reminds
one of the Nazi claims of a vast global *Jewish* conspiracy, does it not?
There never was a vast global conspiracy against the Jews, just a bunch of
far too many nasty little ones one of which was tragically and disgustingly
allowed to spread across Europe far enough to get way out of hand. And yes,
the Arabs in and out of Palestine have a lot to answer for, but we have seen
more moderate forces in the Arab world try to secure a peace settlement with
Israel. These wise forces must be encouraged to pressure Arafat to accept a
Palestinian deal without the right of return, because as far as the
Palestinian people are concerned he is the onlyu game in town. *But* the
Israelis must also stop their heavy handed tactics, which would be deemed
unaceptable in any country which couldn't in the last resort turn to charges
of anti-Semitism. Otherwise the Palestinians and Israelis are gong to descend
into an ever deeper well of mutual hatred. The British experience in Northern
Ireland proves that terorism can only be defeated by defeating the causes of
terrorism, and to do that, at some point you have to be willing to talk.
|
other
|
|
response 113 of 176:
|
Dec 5 05:32 UTC 2003 |
klg, either you are an idiot, or you simply cannot stand not to
argue with someone whose opinions you fail to understand.
I did not say that ALL Israelis are intractable, nor do I deny that
many are quite reasonable and have repeatedly undertaken good-faith
efforts to develop and promote peace. Also, the intractability I
did mention was in the context of the Palestinians, and not Arabs in
general or the Egyptians in specific.
In addition, my comments were in answer to a specific question, and
any comments I may have FAILED to make in regard to my perceptions
of Arab nations or the Palestinian people cannot be reasonably
construed to mean that I think they are blameless in the current
situation.
Go take your pills and if you're going to argue for the sake of
arguing them I'm not going to honor you with any further response to
your inanity.
|
lk
|
|
response 114 of 176:
|
Dec 5 11:50 UTC 2003 |
21:21 IDF forces uncover explosive belt near West Bank city of Ramallah;
belt safely detonated
22:24 Undefeated Maccabi Tel Aviv basketball team beats Zalgiris Kovna
91-87 in Euroleague match in Lithuania
23:16 Iranian court convicts journalist who accused ex-minister of
murdering dissidents, hands him 1-year suspended sentence
01:09 IDF says fired, hit Palestinian man who planted roadside bomb in
West Bank city of Nablus
05:41 Yossi Beilin: Geneva Accord unlikely to succeed without support
from Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat
07:31 Al Jazeera: Egypt wants Palestinian factions to sign 12-month
cease-fire, establish unified leadership
07:44 MK Ephraim Sneh: Iran is close to a point of no return in
developing nuclear weapons
07:54 Israel`s Tzipora Obzier into final 16 of Changsha tennis tournament
in China, beating local favorite Yang Shujing
10:26 Russian Emergencies Min.: 32 now thought to have died in suspected
suicide bombing on train in southern Russia
13:28 Police: Commissioner Shlomo Aharonishky visited Athens last month
to help train Olympic anti-terror forces
|
lk
|
|
response 115 of 176:
|
Dec 5 11:50 UTC 2003 |
> we have seen more moderate forces in the Arab world try to secure a
> peace settlement with Israel.
When and where did this happen? I'm not denying that there are Arabs who
favor this, just that they are not a "force" in that they have no power
or following.
As pointed out, Sharon is not in the family-murder business. Nor have
entire apartment blocks been destroyed (in Rafah these were mostly
abandoned buildings being used by terrorists. In Jenin much of the
damage was self-inflicted). Again, one only need look at the statistics.
The majority of Israeli casualties are innocent civilians. The majority
of Arab casualties are their murderers. Israel attempts to minimize the
death of innocent bystanders (behind whom the terrorists hide), yet the
objective of the terrorists is to murder as many innocents as possible.
There is no comparison here.
As pointed out, Arafat rejected the paradigm of compromise at Camp David.
What can Sharon offer him that Clinton & Barak did not?
Do you think it will appease Arafat and lead to peace?
Recall also that PA Prime Minister Abu Mazen resigned because he was
unable to wrest control of the security services from Arafat. Without
this, he realized he had no real power.
Note (especially Gull) how the excuse that these forces have no power
(ostensibly because Israel bombed some empty buildings) has withered away.
As for the fence, see:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/fence.html
|
scott
|
|
response 116 of 176:
|
Dec 5 14:46 UTC 2003 |
So what's Sharon's strategy, then? "The beatings will continue until morale
improves"?
|
lk
|
|
response 117 of 176:
|
Dec 5 15:25 UTC 2003 |
Do you still beat your wife?
Sharon's strategy is not to yield to terrorist threats and demands.
Not to make unilateral concessions to get Arafat to pretend to negotiate.
To boycott Arafat in order to develop new leaders who will be serious
about ending the terrorism and making peace.
It has been partially successful. Israel's counter-offensive in the
Spring of 2002 led to some reforms in the PA. Arafat has grudgingly
yielded, only to then put down his foot when it came to perpetuating
the terrorism. Terrorism, after all, is what keeps Arafat relevant.
|
klg
|
|
response 118 of 176:
|
Dec 5 17:17 UTC 2003 |
Mr. other,
Please loosen your shorts. It will help you read and think better.
Regards.
klg
|
scott
|
|
response 119 of 176:
|
Dec 5 22:33 UTC 2003 |
Re 117: So basically he's waiting for Arafat to die, at which point all the
Palestinians will suddenly have a complete change of heart?
|
lk
|
|
response 120 of 176:
|
Dec 6 01:22 UTC 2003 |
Are you suggesting that all the Palestinian Arabs are against peace and
will remain intractable even after Arafat dies?
|
willcome
|
|
response 121 of 176:
|
Dec 6 01:27 UTC 2003 |
It's typical of imperialist-zionists to think that killing the leader of a
group'll kill the group.
|
lk
|
|
response 122 of 176:
|
Dec 6 01:35 UTC 2003 |
Yawn. To think I'm ignoring someone and waiting for Scott to post an
on-topic comment. What is this world coming to?
(For the record, I didn't even mention Arafat's death -- let alone killing
him. Scott raised the matter.)
|