The USA changes the Middle East
Posted by: Arye_Gur on 11 January 2004
Asad goes to visit to Turkey – a country his father didn’t visit for dozens of years.
Asad asks to talk peace with Israel.
Kadafi is talking with Israeli officials.
From your point there – what do you think about the situation?
Arye
Asad asks to talk peace with Israel.
Kadafi is talking with Israeli officials.
From your point there – what do you think about the situation?
Arye
Posted on: 13 February 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:
Please forgive my naivety in this 'cowboy' world, but if this 'Hamas leader' is a criminal shouldn't he be arrested and tried before being 'punished' for his crimes?
.
Who's responsible for arresting him? Israel or the PLO?
And
Would the arresting party serve him with a warrant at his place of address, or could they arrest him while he's out for his morning walk?
Judd
Posted on: 13 February 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Justin:
Who's responsible for arresting him? Israel or the PLO?
And
Would the arresting party serve him with a warrant at his place of address, or could they arrest him while he's out for his morning walk?
Judd
Dunno but the IDF blew him to fuck.
Vulgarity intended, the man is mince and there is no doubt that there will be tit for tat ( crass phrase ) retaliations.
Clearly you view "collateral" deaths as valid and justifiable. I question the issue.
Mike
Posted on: 13 February 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Justin:
why does Israel expend $500,000 hellfire missles instead of simply using cheaper roadside bombs designed to take out passing Palestinian buses?
Why does the US still sell the IDF Hellfire Missiles?
quote:
Why doesn't Israel engage in a tit-for-tat targetting of civilian populations wholesale?
I'm interested in why you think Israel does not do this?
Judd
Possibly because even Israel sees that this would be a catastrophic PR disaster.
Mike
Posted on: 13 February 2004 by JeremyD
quote:
Originally posted by Justin:
why does Israel expend $500,000 hellfire missles instead of simply using cheaper roadside bombs designed to take out passing Palestinian buses?
...Why doesn't Israel engage in a tit-for-tat targetting of civilian populations wholesale?
I'm interested in why you think Israel does not do this?
quote:Mike probably forgot to mention that his answer was intended to be read in the voice of Daffy Duck.
Originally posted by mike lacey:
Possibly because even Israel sees that this would be a catastrophic PR disaster.
Unless it wasn't. It's Loony Tunes either way...Posted on: 14 February 2004 by bigmick
quote:
Possibly because even Israel sees that this would be a catastrophic PR disaster.
Undoubtedly true. This would stretch the considerable sugar-coating abilities of Fox News to breaking and it's unlikely that the US domestic audience would react kindly to this.
Whose contention was it that the IDF were targetting Palestinian civilians? I rather gathered that the primary issue was that they were proceeding with counter-productive policies irrespective of the growing number of resultant civilian deaths.
[This message was edited by bigmick on SATURDAY 14 February 2004 at 10:14.]
Posted on: 14 February 2004 by JeremyD
Justin:
The problem, as I see it, is that If you think Israel's current policies are counterproductive because of the resultant civilian deaths, which is what I understand you to mean, then it is difficult to see how you can agree with Mike that the only reason why Israel is not deliberately targetting civilians is because it would be a "catastrophic PR disaster". The reason being that it is implicit (in the notion that civilian deaths render the current policy counter productive) that it is not Israel's intention to cause civilian deaths. If you accept this, it is rather difficult to claim that it is only the fear of a "PR disaster" that prevents Israel from bombing the civilian population wholesale - unless you provide an objective that might be gained only through wholesale bombing of the civilian population.
quote:Mike Lacey:
why does Israel expend $500,000 hellfire missles instead of simply using cheaper roadside bombs designed to take out passing Palestinian buses?
...Why doesn't Israel engage in a tit-for-tat targetting of civilian populations wholesale?
I'm interested in why you think Israel does not do this?
quote:bigmick:
Possibly because even Israel sees that this would be a catastrophic PR disaster.
quote:bigmick, your position appears self contradictory - how does "undoubtedly true" square with your second paragraph?
Undoubtedly true...
Whose contention was it that the IDF were targetting Palestinian civilians? I rather gathered that the primary issue was that they were proceeding with counter-productive policies irrespective of the growing number of resultant civilian deaths.
The problem, as I see it, is that If you think Israel's current policies are counterproductive because of the resultant civilian deaths, which is what I understand you to mean, then it is difficult to see how you can agree with Mike that the only reason why Israel is not deliberately targetting civilians is because it would be a "catastrophic PR disaster". The reason being that it is implicit (in the notion that civilian deaths render the current policy counter productive) that it is not Israel's intention to cause civilian deaths. If you accept this, it is rather difficult to claim that it is only the fear of a "PR disaster" that prevents Israel from bombing the civilian population wholesale - unless you provide an objective that might be gained only through wholesale bombing of the civilian population.
Posted on: 14 February 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by mike lacey:
Possibly because even Israel sees that this would be a catastrophic PR disaster.
Mike
But why should it be a "catastrophic PR disaster"? The point being made by others on this thread is that what Israel does now (fire hellfire missles in the street) is not morally distinct from blowing up buses. That being the case, why would blowing up buses today be any more of a PR disaster than what Israel does now? As you (you collectively) have said, the two actions are not distinct.
Answer that for me.
Judd
Posted on: 14 February 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by bigmick:
Whose contention was it that the IDF were targetting Palestinian civilians? I rather gathered that the primary issue was that they were proceeding with counter-productive policies irrespective of the growing number of resultant civilian deaths.
[This message was edited by bigmick on SATURDAY 14 February 2004 at 10:14.]
Now who's moving goalposts, BigMick?
The primary issue was whether what the IDF does in the streets of the West Bank is morally distinct from what Hamas does in the streets of Telaviv (sp?). Whether the policies are counterproductive was asked and answered (uniformally in the affirmative - as if there was any question on this matter).
In any event, I detect a softening of your position on the real issue set forth above. Of course the IDF does not "target" civilians (of course, Hamas does). It is only one more step to see a difference in these two intentions, despite how universally counterproductive they might be.
Judd
Posted on: 14 February 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:
They do however see, that it _would_ be a PR disaster to target civilians specifically - that doesn't mean they wouldn't do it though if they thought they could get away with it; after all, wipe out the Palestinians, wipe out the Palestinian problem.
Then take it one step further. WOULD it in fact be a greater PR disaster for Israel to target civilians specifically than it already is (irrespective of what Israel "believes" would be a PR disaster)? That is, would world public opinion (not just US opinion, comment on other opinions as well) of the actions of Israel change appreciably due to the change in Israeli policy to target civilians?
Judd
Posted on: 14 February 2004 by Arye_Gur
Israel can't target civilians as a soldier who'll do it will find himself in prison for murder.
Israel can (and have to) target murderers who are planning to murder civilians in Israel. Israel have to target these murderers as the Palestinians authorities don't sentence them and don't put them in prison after they "sentence" them.
Arye
Israel can (and have to) target murderers who are planning to murder civilians in Israel. Israel have to target these murderers as the Palestinians authorities don't sentence them and don't put them in prison after they "sentence" them.
Arye
Posted on: 14 February 2004 by bigmick
Jeremy
Patrick's pretty much summed it up.
Given the litany of horrors unleashed by both sides in this conflict, only a naif would think that there's neither side weighed up how depreved an act they could get away with before they started to lose the sdvantage in PR terms.
As to your understanding of my statement, well you were completely wrong and the clue was in the different words. If I had wanted to imply a causal relationship I would have used the word "because" and "irrespective of". The policies are counterproductive for numerous reasons outlined already in this and other posts. The death of innocents, directly and indirectly on both sides is just one of a host of undesirable effects and is not of itself the reason why the policies are counterproductive.
I'm just in from a hard afternoon's watching rugby in the pub and must attend to a harrassed wife and a team of irrational, screaming children.
Speaking of, I've just looked at Justin's latest posts and I know that they'll bring tears of laughter to the wife. Cheers mate. I'll definitely get back to you on these gems. Oh my. Just fantastic; in pretty much all senses of the word.
Patrick's pretty much summed it up.
Given the litany of horrors unleashed by both sides in this conflict, only a naif would think that there's neither side weighed up how depreved an act they could get away with before they started to lose the sdvantage in PR terms.
As to your understanding of my statement, well you were completely wrong and the clue was in the different words. If I had wanted to imply a causal relationship I would have used the word "because" and "irrespective of". The policies are counterproductive for numerous reasons outlined already in this and other posts. The death of innocents, directly and indirectly on both sides is just one of a host of undesirable effects and is not of itself the reason why the policies are counterproductive.
I'm just in from a hard afternoon's watching rugby in the pub and must attend to a harrassed wife and a team of irrational, screaming children.
Speaking of, I've just looked at Justin's latest posts and I know that they'll bring tears of laughter to the wife. Cheers mate. I'll definitely get back to you on these gems. Oh my. Just fantastic; in pretty much all senses of the word.
Posted on: 14 February 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by bigmick:
Speaking of, I've just looked at Justin's latest posts and I know that they'll bring tears of laughter to the wife. Cheers mate. I'll definitely get back to you on these gems. Oh my. Just fantastic; in pretty much all senses of the word.
This isn't an argument. It's just ridicule by innuendo.
Make an argument. Explain to us why the rest of the world would consider IDF targetting of civilians any worse than what they do now, if, as you have made so abundantly clear, what they do now is not morally distinct from targetting civilians.
Judd
Posted on: 14 February 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Ross Blackman:
The fact that Israel only targets known terrorists while the Palestinians only target civilians is irrelevant to you. The fact that surrounding Arab states, including the Palestinians, have clearly articulated policies of wiping out every man, woman and child in Israel - _and have attempted to do so several times_ - is obviously also irrelevant to you in deciding who is irrational and genocidal.
Yes, Ross. Where have you been? This very distinction is totally irrelevant to BigMick and Patrick. They've made that abundantly clear.
But the rest of the world understands it quite well. That's why there would be a world-wide uproar if the IDF adopted the policy of targetting civilians, as Hamas and PIJ have done - an uproar not yet provoked by the distinctly different (and morally distinct) policy Israel now follows which does not consist of the wholesale targetting of civilians, and in fact consists of exactly the opposite - as you say - to minimize such casulties.
Judd
Posted on: 14 February 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Justin:
But the rest of the world understands it quite well. That's why there would be a world-wide uproar if the IDF adopted the policy of targetting civilians, as Hamas and PIJ have done - an uproar not yet provoked by the distinctly different (and morally distinct) policy Israel now follows which does not consist of the wholesale targetting of civilians, and in fact consists of exactly the opposite - as you say - to minimize such casulties.
Judd
Judd
The issue as I see it is not that the IDF target civilians, but they just do not care if a few get killed in the course of an operation.
Regards
Mike
On the Yellow Brick Road and Happy
Posted on: 14 February 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by mike lacey:
The issue as I see it is not that the IDF target civilians, but they just do not care if a few get killed in the course of an operation.
Regards
Mike
Yes, the reality is that the IDF obviously consider the destruction of the target more important than the lives of those lost in the process. But, as I have tried to make as clear as possible, this is the same sort of "calculation" any power must make when going after a target where innocent lives will also be lost (which is an inevitable part of armed conflict for all parties).
But it goes too far to suggest they don't care at all about these civilian deaths. Example being the operation Ross mentioned.
Judd
Posted on: 15 February 2004 by bigmick
quote:
quote:Originally posted by bigmick:
Speaking of, I've just looked at Justin's latest posts and I know that they'll bring tears of laughter to the wife. Cheers mate. I'll definitely get back to you on these gems. Oh my. Just fantastic; in pretty much all senses of the word.
This isn't an argument. It's just ridicule by innuendo.
It wasn't meant to be an argument, merely a statement of fact and it did make my wife laugh and even this morning through a crushing hangover, it still makes me smile. I'll have to set a space aside to spell things out for you tomorrow Justin.
Just briefly Ross.
quote:
PS Bigmick, putting a paragaph under each of my points with some mostly irrelevant information does not demonstrate that the Palestinian situation is in any way comparable with Northern Ireland (I won't waste my time with a point by point response), and again your suggestion that Israel should be lumped in with Zimbabwe or South Africa is just another example of the same prejudices that Patrick is demonstrating.
Since you made you made bullet point assertions, in what form were you expecting the reply? I could have easily remarked that your points were one, long irrelevant and pointless list from someone who clearly had little or no knowledge of the subject to hand (not knowing the identity of one of the two parties to the conflict set the scene for the remainder of the post) and that reading this nonsense was a waste of everybody's time. Thta would have been easy and justifiable.
Instead I replied to your points individually, believing that in doing so I was not wasting my time but bringing some much-needed help to someone who, in terms of knowledge of the NI political history, was clearly stumbling clueless through a dark and foreign land. I invited you to correct any factual errors in my responses. You did not. A quick look at your other "reasoning" leads me to suspect that you are singularly incapable in this regard but I'm still happy to be proved wrong.
quote:
I would have said that successive Israeli governments have had to make nothing but "hard choices") yet you don't say what these "hard choices" would involve. Would it involve giving up land?
It is utterly tedious to have people turn up and ask questions which have already been addressed by others earlier in the thread, never mind elsewhere on the forum.
Harvey said:
quote:
The stated halt to Israel's policies of targeted assasinations, collective punishment, land seizures, settlement expansion and fence construction would at least provide a backdrop against which real negotiations with the Palestinian leadership, as respected equals, as partners, not as some subservient dogs who may or may not be to your liking, could take place on the future shape of both Israeli and Palestinian state. That's the start.
I think that these are the hard choices that people want to see Israel making.
It's an interesting insight that you see returning land seized from others as "giving up land".
I'll go into this when I have more time, but it's interesting to see you and Justin speaking kindly of the Barak plan. This was a stage-managed PR triumph of the highest order which has subsequently been exposed as a crock. It was and is still billed as "The most generous settlement offered by any Israeli leader to the Palestinians". Now there's a contest that would take some winning.
Posted on: 15 February 2004 by Harvey
Ross seems to me that the tirade is all yours and that given your complete lack of knowledge on the NI issue, from what position are you able to claim that parallels are ridiculous? I've just read a lengthy post where it was YOU who listed the differences and raised the NI to a prominence as yet unachieved. Surely, to say this you would need to know at least something about both situations, otherwise kind of smart to keep your head down, or look a fool, whichever grabs ya. I'm glad that someone with a clearly greater knowledge of both conflicts was able to put you straight and indicate that lessons can be learnt from other situations, but I found it sad and clearly indicative of your attitude to this situation that you couldn't acknowledge the facts and made a cack-handed attempted to cherry pick one point that you thought you could score. Wrongly as it goes.
Seems like a lot of the opinion here is that the border issue is important to you, like the shrines because you want these things to be a barrier to peace, when you should be concentrating on creating an atmosphere whereby the Palestinians would feel no desire to actcvely or passively support terrorism.
You quote my answer to Arye regarding what the Israelis should do and you repeat the BS that the world is tired of, whereby you wouldn't have stolen land, bulldozed houses, built illegal settlements if there were no attacks. Palestinians and Israelis both have the blood of innocents dripping from their hands and playing the blame game while your world goes down the can might get you all geed up on these forums but point to any degree of smarts. It's been said before here, you guys have a got a lot to lose when this gig turns into a real war. What're the Israelis going to do to the Palestinians? Steal their land, round up their families, destroy their livelihoods and any hope for the future? Oh wait...........this sentence kinda finishes itself.
I don't see anyone here suggesting that it's a simple good and evil situation. Most right-minded folk seem to be of the opinion that it's mostly evil on both sides, innocent people are being killed and that is feeding the conflict. Others disagree.
I have a vague recollection that this Camp David plan turned out to be another shaft but can't recall details. I know that some of you guys wouldn't be deterred by that but I'll hold fire until I'm sure of my facts.
Yeah, you're dead right, these threads really shine when you don't read previous posts and then throw a girly fit when someone mentions that you're in a loop. What's up next Ross, a CD5+Hicap vs.CDX post? Damned right you don't need permission, you waste as much time as you need.
I think you scorched through tedious a couple days back pal, just after you wowed us all with the news that England had occupied Northern Ireland and then hadn't the balls to admit that you'd been talking complete crap. I don't think that the tedium of OTHERS was ever mentioned as the cause for concern, whereas......
Seems like a lot of the opinion here is that the border issue is important to you, like the shrines because you want these things to be a barrier to peace, when you should be concentrating on creating an atmosphere whereby the Palestinians would feel no desire to actcvely or passively support terrorism.
You quote my answer to Arye regarding what the Israelis should do and you repeat the BS that the world is tired of, whereby you wouldn't have stolen land, bulldozed houses, built illegal settlements if there were no attacks. Palestinians and Israelis both have the blood of innocents dripping from their hands and playing the blame game while your world goes down the can might get you all geed up on these forums but point to any degree of smarts. It's been said before here, you guys have a got a lot to lose when this gig turns into a real war. What're the Israelis going to do to the Palestinians? Steal their land, round up their families, destroy their livelihoods and any hope for the future? Oh wait...........this sentence kinda finishes itself.
I don't see anyone here suggesting that it's a simple good and evil situation. Most right-minded folk seem to be of the opinion that it's mostly evil on both sides, innocent people are being killed and that is feeding the conflict. Others disagree.
I have a vague recollection that this Camp David plan turned out to be another shaft but can't recall details. I know that some of you guys wouldn't be deterred by that but I'll hold fire until I'm sure of my facts.
Yeah, you're dead right, these threads really shine when you don't read previous posts and then throw a girly fit when someone mentions that you're in a loop. What's up next Ross, a CD5+Hicap vs.CDX post? Damned right you don't need permission, you waste as much time as you need.
I think you scorched through tedious a couple days back pal, just after you wowed us all with the news that England had occupied Northern Ireland and then hadn't the balls to admit that you'd been talking complete crap. I don't think that the tedium of OTHERS was ever mentioned as the cause for concern, whereas......
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by Harvey
This persecution complex is sickening Ross. You came on heavy, challenging on a valid side topic that you by your own admission you knew damn all about. Another member successfully and civilly countered each of your points, suggested that you have a look at earlier posts before you repeat subjects already covered and instead of saying fair point or countering with argument of any merit, you got hot under the collar.
To a man, everybody here that has condemned the killing of innocent Palestinians has condemned in equal measure the killing of innocent Israelis. So you can quit any time you want with the dismal notion that this is purely an attack on Israel, Justin or you. If there were anyone on here defending the right of Arabs to kill innocent Israelis they would quite rightly get slated. As it happens the only people on this forum who cannot bring themselves to condemn utterly the ongoing death toll of innocent Palestinans resulting from IDF policies in the occupied territories is yourself and Justin, and as such you can't but expect to bear the brunt of most people's anger and frustration when you reply with petulance. A valid or constructive argument of almost any kind and a willingness to at least read and address opposing views would probably have made your path smoother and wasted less of OUR time.
To a man, everybody here that has condemned the killing of innocent Palestinians has condemned in equal measure the killing of innocent Israelis. So you can quit any time you want with the dismal notion that this is purely an attack on Israel, Justin or you. If there were anyone on here defending the right of Arabs to kill innocent Israelis they would quite rightly get slated. As it happens the only people on this forum who cannot bring themselves to condemn utterly the ongoing death toll of innocent Palestinans resulting from IDF policies in the occupied territories is yourself and Justin, and as such you can't but expect to bear the brunt of most people's anger and frustration when you reply with petulance. A valid or constructive argument of almost any kind and a willingness to at least read and address opposing views would probably have made your path smoother and wasted less of OUR time.
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by Berlin Fritz
I second that, well said sir, that man from Windsor !
Fritz Von Mypetrabbitwascalledharveybigbastardtooeewas
Fritz Von Mypetrabbitwascalledharveybigbastardtooeewas
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Harvey:
To a man, everybody here that has condemned the killing of innocent Palestinians has condemned in equal measure the killing of innocent Israelis. So you can quit any time you want with the dismal notion that this is purely an attack on Israel, Justin or you. If there were anyone on here defending the right of Arabs to kill innocent Israelis they would quite rightly get slated. As it happens the only people on this forum who cannot bring themselves to condemn utterly the ongoing death toll of innocent Palestinans resulting from IDF policies in the occupied territories is yourself and Justin, and as such you can't but expect to bear the brunt of most people's anger and frustration when you reply with petulance. A valid or constructive argument of almost any kind and a willingness to at least read and address opposing views would probably have made your path smoother and wasted less of OUR time.
You either condemn IDF operations in the West Bank or you support them. Kinda sounds a bit like "You are either with us or against us". Who else failed to peg Harvey as a closet W fan?
Judd
Posted on: 16 February 2004 by Arye_Gur
I wish to ask you questions.
“Israel takes a hard decision” when innocent civilian are being killed by the process of targeting terrorists.
The terrorists themselves know that they are in such a danger but they don’t hesitate to use the civilian surround as a shield. (Few of them are going by cars with their all family, wife and kids knowing that they may be target by Israel).
I see this as a very important subject, as the PA terror organizations are not taking care of their own population.
Actually, no one at the PA side takes care of their own population. I asked here once and ask again – you all read a lot about the situation here, you all have a strong opinion about what goes here – can you give me at least one example of a positive issue the PA are stating to do for their own people? Can you give me an example for
how the PA are going to deal with the education at their future state? How are they going to care about culture problems? About industrial problems? About the hunger?
What are they planning about the way of governing the population? How their local authority will act? Beside the fact that they want these and these and these from Israel – what positively are they declaring to do by themselves for themselves?
I would suggest to offer a price to the person who brings one positive move the PA are stating they are going to take for themselves.
Arye
“Israel takes a hard decision” when innocent civilian are being killed by the process of targeting terrorists.
The terrorists themselves know that they are in such a danger but they don’t hesitate to use the civilian surround as a shield. (Few of them are going by cars with their all family, wife and kids knowing that they may be target by Israel).
I see this as a very important subject, as the PA terror organizations are not taking care of their own population.
Actually, no one at the PA side takes care of their own population. I asked here once and ask again – you all read a lot about the situation here, you all have a strong opinion about what goes here – can you give me at least one example of a positive issue the PA are stating to do for their own people? Can you give me an example for
how the PA are going to deal with the education at their future state? How are they going to care about culture problems? About industrial problems? About the hunger?
What are they planning about the way of governing the population? How their local authority will act? Beside the fact that they want these and these and these from Israel – what positively are they declaring to do by themselves for themselves?
I would suggest to offer a price to the person who brings one positive move the PA are stating they are going to take for themselves.
Arye
Posted on: 17 February 2004 by Harvey
quote:
You either condemn IDF operations in the West Bank or you support them Kinda sounds a bit like "You are either with us or against us".
If you'd read Bush's speech then no, kinda doesn't. He was stating that countries couldn't expect to stay neutral in the war against terrorism. Unless someone else has been posting using your logon, you have been far from from neutral in this issue. The point made in my last post stands.
But otherwise yeah, you're a sharp one, I'm the hugest fan. Got his name tattooed on my butt.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by bigmick
I wasn’t going to bother returning to you Ross, but when I read this cringeworthy rot about you and Justin being the good guys done wrong, I nearly saw my breakfast again.
Start with the immediate context and move outwards from there. When I said irrelevant, I was referring to your suggestion that the existence of a border differentiated the Israel-Palestine conflict from NI. The existence of otherwise of a border is irrelevant in determining such a differentiation. As it happens the border issue played a huge part in the NI conflict as I spelt out several lines on and there are definitely lessons to be learnt from this and other conflicts.
I’ve never had to witness the embarrassing spectacle of counsel forcefully attempt to distinguish a case on facts without actually knowing both the current case and the case which establishes the precedent. Now I think I know what it would be like.
Or more simply, picture the following argument:
A satsuma is NOTHING like a tangerine. Parallels are ridiculous. A tangerine is orange, round, sweet, juicy etc. A satsuma is not.
Odd. How would you describe a Satsuma?
No idea. I’ve never seen a Satsuma and know bugger all about them; square, purple and huge like a tank? I think. But I know tangerines and I’m telling you there are no similarities.
This subject is emotive and hot and I couldn’t care less about your sensitivities. The aggression and insults, which have emanated from both sides, are as nothing compared to the real physical assaults being experienced by both sides in the Middle East. As someone else stated, if you’d actually brought anything of note to the table instead of turning up all mouth and no trousers, rehashing bigoted dogma, then you may not have, received blunt but restrained rebuffs and most importantly as you liked to remind us, wasted your time.
Start with the immediate context and move outwards from there. When I said irrelevant, I was referring to your suggestion that the existence of a border differentiated the Israel-Palestine conflict from NI. The existence of otherwise of a border is irrelevant in determining such a differentiation. As it happens the border issue played a huge part in the NI conflict as I spelt out several lines on and there are definitely lessons to be learnt from this and other conflicts.
I’ve never had to witness the embarrassing spectacle of counsel forcefully attempt to distinguish a case on facts without actually knowing both the current case and the case which establishes the precedent. Now I think I know what it would be like.
Or more simply, picture the following argument:
A satsuma is NOTHING like a tangerine. Parallels are ridiculous. A tangerine is orange, round, sweet, juicy etc. A satsuma is not.
Odd. How would you describe a Satsuma?
No idea. I’ve never seen a Satsuma and know bugger all about them; square, purple and huge like a tank? I think. But I know tangerines and I’m telling you there are no similarities.
This subject is emotive and hot and I couldn’t care less about your sensitivities. The aggression and insults, which have emanated from both sides, are as nothing compared to the real physical assaults being experienced by both sides in the Middle East. As someone else stated, if you’d actually brought anything of note to the table instead of turning up all mouth and no trousers, rehashing bigoted dogma, then you may not have, received blunt but restrained rebuffs and most importantly as you liked to remind us, wasted your time.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by bigmick
Sorry to return to this but in the interest of balance and to bring some truth to the lie that that the Barak plan was some sort of sweet gift that Arafat was insane to have passed up, let’s look at the details.
The position before they came to Camp David is this:
The Palestinians made their historical compromise at Madrid and Oslo, when they accepted the two-state solution, formally relinquishing 78% of their homeland that the Israelis had controlled since 1948, and leaving them with the remaining 22%. At Oslo, they yet again reiterated their acceptance of Israel’s right to exist . These concessions were formalized in UN Resolutions 242 and 338, which were accepted by both sides.
When Barak set forth early in 2001, he offered the Palestinians 65% of the territories (which represent 14.5% of mandatory Eretz Israel). In the spring of 2000, when the negotiations began in Stockholm, the Israelis demanded 12% of the territories (with no land swap) in addition to "security holdings" in the Jordan Valley (effectively an annexation of an additional 10%) and Israeli control over the Jordan river border area (effectively cutting off the West Bank from Jordan). Barak objected to any discussion of Jerusalem and refused to even mention Jerusalem as a topic of discussion. By Camp David, the plan was as follows:
Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. Elsewhere however, the offer was actually that Israel would annex 9 % of the West Bank in exchange for 1% of its own territory; that’s you give me 1 and I’ll give you 9! In other words, in exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, the 9%, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory, the 1% in the Negev Desert, adjacent to the Gaza Strip, including a former toxic waste dump. It would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank, specifically 69 of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, containing 85 % of the 200,000 settlers that have stayed in the West Bank, this in a violation of the Oslo Accords.
In addition, it would control 10 % of the West Bank in the form of a “long-term lease.”
What was basically suggested was a Palestinian state consisting of four cantons, the Northern West Bank, the Central West Bank, the Southern West Bank and Gaza. The two million Palestinians living in 200 scattered areas around the West Bank would have been consolidated into the three cantons. The settlement blocs would intrude into the existing road network and this would have severely disrupted Palestinian road traffic in the West Bank. Another canton would have been created around East Jerusalem. Much of the water infrastructure and access to the al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest shrine in Islam would have remained under Israeli control. Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt, placing the success of Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military. The percentage don’t tell the whole story. The way to realize the effect of these compartmentalized cantons, controlled airspace and criss-cross roads is that 95% of a prison compound is ostensibly for the prisoners – cells, cafeterias, gym and medical facilities – but the remaining 5% is al that is needed for prison guards to maintain control over the prisoner population. No viability. No independence.
Basically, Israel wanted to be able to control the areas where most of the Jewish settlers live in the West Bank and Gaza while retaining "security control" over other parts, making it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government. Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they travelled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.
At Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel. Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. Hard to imagine what leader could accept such an unworkable territorial carve-up as a solution to present to his electorate.
The talks at Camp David ended in July 25 2000 without resolution but at Taba in January 2001, the leaders met again to continue negotiations. Now, Israel dropped its demand to control Palestine's borders and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals, showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept, both sides engaing and making concessions. The Israeli map that has emerged from the talks shows a fully contiguous West Bank, though with a very narrow middle and a strange gerrymandered western border to accommodate annexed settlements. The Palestinians did not reject the Israeli offers. On the contrary, since then they have insisted that every negotiation begin at the point that Taba ended. However Barak instructed that negotiations end and that all offers be retracted. On January 28, Barak unilaterally broke off the negotiations due to the pressure of Israeli public opinion and upcoming elections.
Oddly, this most significant ending to negotiations seems to have been forgotten by Israel. The negotiations failed because BOTH parties failed. If anyone thinks this plan was a gift I’d hate to be around theirs at Christmas; mothballs, used Kleenex, your granny’s old insoles, take your pick kids.
FYI Ross, aside from common knowledge, I got this crap from The New York Times, HaAretz, Robert Malley (American delegation member at Camp David), PSQ, Miguel Moratinos (EU member at Taba), The Mitchell Report. I can guess where you get yours from.
Something interest just to finish with.
I know that we’ve been told that there are no parallels and no lessons to learn from any other conflict, so this example of a despicable government conforming to type is probably just sheer coincidence. In 1951, the Bantu Authorities Act established a basis for ethnic government in African reserves, known as homelands. These homelands were independent states to which each African was assigned by the government according to the record of origin (which was frequently inaccurate). All political rights, including voting, held by an African were restricted to the designated homeland. The idea was that they would be citizens of the homeland, losing their citizenship in South Africa and any right of involvement with the South African Parliament which held complete hegemony over the homelands. From 1976 to 1981, four of these homelands were created, denationalizing nine million South Africans. The homeland administrations refused the nominal independence, maintaining pressure for political rights within the country as a whole. Nevertheless, Africans living in the homelands needed passports to enter South Africa: aliens in their own country.
The position before they came to Camp David is this:
The Palestinians made their historical compromise at Madrid and Oslo, when they accepted the two-state solution, formally relinquishing 78% of their homeland that the Israelis had controlled since 1948, and leaving them with the remaining 22%. At Oslo, they yet again reiterated their acceptance of Israel’s right to exist . These concessions were formalized in UN Resolutions 242 and 338, which were accepted by both sides.
When Barak set forth early in 2001, he offered the Palestinians 65% of the territories (which represent 14.5% of mandatory Eretz Israel). In the spring of 2000, when the negotiations began in Stockholm, the Israelis demanded 12% of the territories (with no land swap) in addition to "security holdings" in the Jordan Valley (effectively an annexation of an additional 10%) and Israeli control over the Jordan river border area (effectively cutting off the West Bank from Jordan). Barak objected to any discussion of Jerusalem and refused to even mention Jerusalem as a topic of discussion. By Camp David, the plan was as follows:
Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. Elsewhere however, the offer was actually that Israel would annex 9 % of the West Bank in exchange for 1% of its own territory; that’s you give me 1 and I’ll give you 9! In other words, in exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, the 9%, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory, the 1% in the Negev Desert, adjacent to the Gaza Strip, including a former toxic waste dump. It would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank, specifically 69 of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank, containing 85 % of the 200,000 settlers that have stayed in the West Bank, this in a violation of the Oslo Accords.
In addition, it would control 10 % of the West Bank in the form of a “long-term lease.”
What was basically suggested was a Palestinian state consisting of four cantons, the Northern West Bank, the Central West Bank, the Southern West Bank and Gaza. The two million Palestinians living in 200 scattered areas around the West Bank would have been consolidated into the three cantons. The settlement blocs would intrude into the existing road network and this would have severely disrupted Palestinian road traffic in the West Bank. Another canton would have been created around East Jerusalem. Much of the water infrastructure and access to the al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest shrine in Islam would have remained under Israeli control. Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt, placing the success of Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military. The percentage don’t tell the whole story. The way to realize the effect of these compartmentalized cantons, controlled airspace and criss-cross roads is that 95% of a prison compound is ostensibly for the prisoners – cells, cafeterias, gym and medical facilities – but the remaining 5% is al that is needed for prison guards to maintain control over the prisoner population. No viability. No independence.
Basically, Israel wanted to be able to control the areas where most of the Jewish settlers live in the West Bank and Gaza while retaining "security control" over other parts, making it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government. Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they travelled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.
At Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel. Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. Hard to imagine what leader could accept such an unworkable territorial carve-up as a solution to present to his electorate.
The talks at Camp David ended in July 25 2000 without resolution but at Taba in January 2001, the leaders met again to continue negotiations. Now, Israel dropped its demand to control Palestine's borders and the Jordan Valley. The Palestinians, for the first time, made detailed counterproposals, showing which changes to the 1967 borders they would be willing to accept, both sides engaing and making concessions. The Israeli map that has emerged from the talks shows a fully contiguous West Bank, though with a very narrow middle and a strange gerrymandered western border to accommodate annexed settlements. The Palestinians did not reject the Israeli offers. On the contrary, since then they have insisted that every negotiation begin at the point that Taba ended. However Barak instructed that negotiations end and that all offers be retracted. On January 28, Barak unilaterally broke off the negotiations due to the pressure of Israeli public opinion and upcoming elections.
Oddly, this most significant ending to negotiations seems to have been forgotten by Israel. The negotiations failed because BOTH parties failed. If anyone thinks this plan was a gift I’d hate to be around theirs at Christmas; mothballs, used Kleenex, your granny’s old insoles, take your pick kids.
FYI Ross, aside from common knowledge, I got this crap from The New York Times, HaAretz, Robert Malley (American delegation member at Camp David), PSQ, Miguel Moratinos (EU member at Taba), The Mitchell Report. I can guess where you get yours from.
Something interest just to finish with.
I know that we’ve been told that there are no parallels and no lessons to learn from any other conflict, so this example of a despicable government conforming to type is probably just sheer coincidence. In 1951, the Bantu Authorities Act established a basis for ethnic government in African reserves, known as homelands. These homelands were independent states to which each African was assigned by the government according to the record of origin (which was frequently inaccurate). All political rights, including voting, held by an African were restricted to the designated homeland. The idea was that they would be citizens of the homeland, losing their citizenship in South Africa and any right of involvement with the South African Parliament which held complete hegemony over the homelands. From 1976 to 1981, four of these homelands were created, denationalizing nine million South Africans. The homeland administrations refused the nominal independence, maintaining pressure for political rights within the country as a whole. Nevertheless, Africans living in the homelands needed passports to enter South Africa: aliens in their own country.
Posted on: 19 February 2004 by bigmick
Ludwig said:
and
and
Mike Lacey said:
Harvey said:
Patrick Dixon said:
and
Harvey said:
bigmick said:
harvey said:
and
Patrick Dixon said:
Mike Lacey said:
bigmick said:
Rasher said
Joolz said:
long-time dead said
bigmick said:
I see a thread running through each of these quotes. A goodly percentage of people who have posted on the Palestine/Israel issue appear to be sick to the back teeth of the oppression, the inequity, the blatant inhumanity, the fatuous obstacles to peace that are dressed up in a variety of costumes and paraded with faux chagrin, “if only they would…then we might…”
Most strongly of all, no ifs, no buts, no permissible deaths BS, no exceptions, the posts here despair of and condemn the rising death toll of all innocent Israelis and Palestinians. The goalposts are clearly marked and don’t appear to have budged an inch. I don’t see that anyone’s gone soft on this one.
Of course you can harvest quotes from those who see direction and merit in the current policies but how many of those want to see equal opportunity, status, property, human and civil rights for both parties?
Said it before, probably won’t bother saying it again:
“None so deaf as those that will not hear”
quote:
if (many) Israelis maintain a supremacist, finger-pointing attitude, Israelis and Palestinians will march down an unsustainable and dangerous path until they extinguish one another. (I know, I know- obvious innit and all that.)
and
quote:
The caging of Palestinians like animals is the great obstacle to peace and to safety for Israelis. Knock down the walls, give Palestinians their freedom and land, and there will be peace because the Palestinians will halt terror themselves because they will have something they wouldn't want to lose in retaliation by Israel- their own land with internationally respected borders and legitimacy in the global community.
and
quote:
IMO Palestinians just want some respect, recognition, and their own place to call home, so the attacks would subside. What do you have to lose in that scenario compared to today's endless cycle?
quote:
you can't expect to cage the Palestinians like animals, to imprison them in their own homes with curfews, to jail them without charges, to destroy their neighborhoods with bulldozers (sometimes atop them), and to suffocate their economy and any breath of opportunity to live respectable and normal lives, and then expect the animal not to bite your ass off when you let them out of the cage. To me, it's completely unnatural to think that the outcome will occur without significant bloodshed on both sides. However, by giving them their land first I still believe that it would be more manageable, and in a way more respected by the international community and its laws.
Mike Lacey said:
quote:
From the BBCi website
"....Aziz Mahmoud Shami, a local commander and bodyguard to one of the leaders of the group, died from his injuries.
A 14-year-old boy, Tariq Sussi, was also killed in the attack and at least nine other people were wounded.
The Israeli military said the air attack on one of Gaza's main streets had targeted a "senior terrorist"......"
....air attack on a main street.... But no problem as the IDF targetted a senior terrorist.
For the record, I am not anti Jewish or anti Semitic. Just even handed, and sad.
Harvey said:
quote:
Arye, when you see blunt and patently counter-productive policies like this being carried out month after month,in your name, do you or anybody that you know who's half sensible, actually feel any safer, happier or think that it's taking you even one step of the way towards solving this mess?
Patrick Dixon said:
quote:
Everytime you kill a Palestinian ('justified' or not), you just create more terrorists to take his place. The sense of injustice and dispair gets stonger and deeper, and the downward spiral continues.
and
quote:
killing this man, plus a 14 year old, and injuring many others, will mean more suicide attacks against Israel, not less!
Justice can only be done with the support of the people, and this kind of 'justice' meted out by the Israeli Army, will never have the support of the Palestinian people any more than their kind of 'justice' (suicide bombing of their 'oppressors' and the occupiers of their homeland) will ever be acceptable to you.
Neither is acceptable to civilised human beings, but you have to stop what your side is doing before you can bleat on about what the other side is doing. Effect what you can effect, and maybe it will effect what you can't. There is nothing to lose, because the situation can only get worse if you all carry on the way you are going.
Harvey said:
quote:
The stated halt to Israel's policies of targeted assassinations, collective punishment, land seizures, settlement expansion and fence construction would at least provide a backdrop against which real negotiations with the Palestinian leadership, as respected equals, as partners, not as some subservient dogs who may or may not be to your liking, could take place on the future shape of both Israeli and Palestinian state. That's the start.
bigmick said:
quote:
the belief that the policy of murder, oppression, theft and collective punishment in the Middle East, as executed by Israel and bankrolled and sanctioned by the US is intrinsically wrong, ineffective and seems to be lacking real strategy or any discernible end
harvey said:
quote:
Neither history nor logic supports the idea that either the Israelis or anyone else can kill their way to peace
and
quote:
What galvanizes the majority of people on these threads against Israel's attitude in this regard is that the permissible death of innocents is taken to it's limit and seen as a green light to kill men, women and children on fairly regular basis and then explained away these attacks using your "permissible non-combatant deaths" principle. When so many people are being killed to no end, it must be considered an unjustifiable, indefensible and failed policy. This policy, against the background of land seizures, collective punishment and oppression is what jars me personally and appears to have some resonance throughout the posters here.
Patrick Dixon said:
quote:
The Israeli army has a duty to conduct itself in a lawful manner, and surely that includes a duty of care to innocent citizens
Mike Lacey said:
quote:
Dunno but the IDF blew him to fuck.
Vulgarity intended, the man is mince and there is no doubt that there will be tit for tat ( crass phrase ) retaliations.
Clearly you view "collateral" deaths as valid and justifiable. I question the issue.
bigmick said:
quote:
I rather gathered that the primary issue was that they were proceeding with counter-productive policies irrespective of the growing number of resultant civilian deaths.
Rasher said
quote:
I'm not sure that "you blame us, but look what they do" is constructive enough to move forward. It sounds hard, but what other way is there? Your situation is very important because it could be the undoing of us all.
I don't understand how people can behave like this. It has to end. Why can't people think "this could be someone killing my family, why am I doing this?", instead of being driven again and again to "pay back".
Fucking madness. Absolutely fucking madness.
Joolz said:
quote:
both sides are idiots of the highest water. you killed my father so i'll kill your son is the philosophy of morons. luckily this sort of thing can only go on for so long before you run out of people.
long-time dead said
quote:
Only one answer - stop fighting. No fight, no injury or death.
Support whatever cause you follow a peaceful way - for all of our children.
bigmick said:
quote:
I have already stated “suicide bombings are repugnant, indiscriminate and should stop immediately” and “I also despise the unwillingness of the world to fight the hatred taught by Palestinian and Israeli bigots” – I despise the murderous actions on both sides and that is why I am saying repeatedly that the way to solve them is by dialogue, mutual respect for the rights and security of each other and the return of stolen property, land and livelihood to the Palestinians without the fear of being murdered by the state.
I see a thread running through each of these quotes. A goodly percentage of people who have posted on the Palestine/Israel issue appear to be sick to the back teeth of the oppression, the inequity, the blatant inhumanity, the fatuous obstacles to peace that are dressed up in a variety of costumes and paraded with faux chagrin, “if only they would…then we might…”
Most strongly of all, no ifs, no buts, no permissible deaths BS, no exceptions, the posts here despair of and condemn the rising death toll of all innocent Israelis and Palestinians. The goalposts are clearly marked and don’t appear to have budged an inch. I don’t see that anyone’s gone soft on this one.
Of course you can harvest quotes from those who see direction and merit in the current policies but how many of those want to see equal opportunity, status, property, human and civil rights for both parties?
Said it before, probably won’t bother saying it again:
“None so deaf as those that will not hear”