Isreal

gandalf

Originally posted by richie18
Gandalf I dont think that most of my last post was rubbish.

Well imho it was and is.

In my opinion the US will ONLY stomp on those countries which it knows has no chance of retaliation against them ie Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq during the Gulf War were expected to put up more of a fight, with the threat of Chemical & Biological Weapons. To be honest even I have to admit now that they were justified in going in after the Taliban and Al-Whatever in Afghanistan as they were an immediate threat to the US.

Do you ever wonder what would happen if Britain ever got pissed off with the situation in the north and decided to claim the whole lot of Ireland for itself.DO you think the US would help the Irish out.I dont think so!!!

Please do you actually think this is going to ever happen, infact what could happen is England/Britain will decide its time to wash their hands of NI and withdraw.

And sorry I wasnt sure of the dates I thought that the state of Israel was founded in 1967(well what is the signifigance of 1967--something to do with the expanding of the israeli state?i think).

1967 was the date of one of the Arab-Isreali wars (as far as I remember, and I think they were attacked).

All I was trying to do was compare the situation in Iraq with that in Israel.2 dictators(sharon &sadam)both killing innocent civilians yet the US only takes military action against one of these.Not right is it? [/B]

No its not right, Sheron was elected democratically, please try and get your facts straight before getting all dramatic.

Gandalf.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by gandalf


Well imho it was and is.

[/i]

Mine too.


Arab Israeli time line. (Apologies for those who think this is like sucking eggs, but some people seem unaware of the basics)

Prior to WWI Much of the Middle East (ie the lands now occupying Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel and most of Saudi Arabia) is ruled by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). It is opposed by the colonial powers Britain and France who during the war make three conflicting promises.

1) to the Arabs they (the British) say "help us against the Turks and we'll give you independence."

2) to the Jews (or Zionists) they say "help us with American public opinion and we'll promise you a homeland in Palestine." The Balfour Declaration

3) to the French they say "when it's all over we'll divvy it up between us"

After the War they half-heartedly try to implement all three, stuffing up the entire Middle East in the process and pissing everybody off.

France takes Syria and Lebanon; British puppets (the Hashemite family) take Transjordan, Iraq and part of what became Saudi Arabia (until the family of Saud evicted them and united the country). Britain takes direct control of Palestine.

Throughout the 1920s small numbers of Zionists (Jewish Socialist idealists) continue to migrate to Palestine to work in collective or co-operative farms (kibbutzim and moshavim) on land purchased for the most part from Arab landowners. The numbers migrating actually decrease throughout the 1920s, but in the early 1930s they swell dramatically following the assumption of power by the Nazis in Germany.

Their increasing numbers cause resentment among the indigenous Arabs and a major revolt occurs in British Palestine 1936-1939.

Following World War Two the increasing ethnic violence in Palestine and the continuing massive illegal immigration of destitute Jews from Europe causes Britain to give up and leave. A United Nations resolution to partition Palestine into a patchwork of Jewish and Arab areas (giving the Jews a larger share of the country than they actually own at that time) is rejected by all Arabs but carried in 1947.

Before this plan can be implemented Jewish and Arab communities start jockeying for position and numerous acts of what would now be termed 'ethnic cleansing' take place on both sides. .

In 1948 with the departure of the British, the Jews declare their state Israel and the civil violence between Arab and Jew is augmented by the declaration of war on the new state by all its Arab neighbours.

Israel fends off the attacks although it cannot defeat the best Arab Army (the British officered army of Jordan called the Arab Legion) which occupies the territory now known as the West Bank and half of Jerusalem. Indigenous Arabs are evicted from many cities (Jaffa, Haifa, Lydda, West Jerusalem et al) and are forced to live in refugee camps.

In 1956, Israel invades the Sinai desert owned by Egypt on the pretext of putting a stop to Arab terrorist attacks on its territory. Britain and France connive in the plan as they are anxious to regain control of the Suez Canal which the Egyptians had recently nationalised. The US refuses to back them and the Israelis withdraw.

1964 The PLO is formed.


1967 The Six Day War which starts with what the Israelis call 'a pre-emptive strike' against the Egyptian Airforce results in the utter defeat of the armies of Syria, Egypt and Jordan. Israel occupies the Golan Heights (part of Syria) the Sinai Desert (part of Egypt) and the West Bank.

1973 the Yom Kippur War. Syria and Egypt attempt to gain back their territory, with some success at first but are ultimately defeated. Arab nations cut oil production, sending prices spiralling and plunging the West into recesson.

1979 Egypt signs a peace deal with Israel, which results in the return of the Sinai.

1982 Israel invades Lebanon, home to thousands of Palestinian refugees and base to Yasser Arafat and the PLO. The pretext is to put a stop to Arab terrorism. The PLO is routed and evicted from Beirut. The next day the Israelis keep guard while they send in Christian militias to the now defenceless camps of Sabra and Chatila. Several hundred Palestinian civilians are massacred. The minister of defence who masterminded the war is one Ariel Sharon.

Following a few years licking their wounds the Palestinians in Israel and the occupied territories rise up again in the Intifida in the late 1980s. No intervention by other Arab armies this time. They're on their own.

In the 1990s a peace process is started based on the Oslo accords. The PLO recognises Israel and are promised autonomy in parts of the West Bank (which Israel occupies but never annexes).

Extremists on both sides hate it. Israeli premier Yitshak Rabin is murdered by another Israeli; Palestinian extremists carry out terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians.

The mess gets worse. Israelis select (without a general election) the Arab bete noire Ariel Sharon, a gung ho soldier with a history of massacre going back to his days as a lieutenant inthe 1950s as their prime minister.

C'est toujours le droit qui fait la paix, say the hopeful ones.

Mais, c'est d'habitude le droit qui fait la guerre, say the skeptics.

Important to note: this current struggle is between Israel and the Palestinians. There are no other Arab armies involved, although sympathy certainly exists in Arab countries for their Palestinian brethern.

Solution to the problem? What am I? A Nobel Peace Prize winner?

But if the Israeli right gets its way, we could be looking at another Endlosung (Final Solution). Sooner or later they will have to compromise. The Palestinians are not going to go away. And neither are the Israelis.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hairy Homer

The mess gets worse. Israelis select (without a general election) the Arab bete noire Ariel Sharon, a gung ho soldier with a history of massacre going back to his days as a lieutenant inthe 1950s as their prime minister.

Call me suspicious, but this hardly reads like an unbiased description.

Also, Sharon was elected via a special election, where he won by a margin of about 2:1 - the most significant margin in Israeli history.

Exactly what was wrong with this election that people are saying he is a dictator, or implying that there was something wrong with his election because there wasnt a general election?

jc

Clintons Cat

Exactly what was wrong with this election?

I dont think the Palestinian Residents of the Occupied Territories received a vote in the Israeli General Election.
They did get a vote in the Palestian Authority Elections which the present government of Israel no longer recognises the legitimacy of.Therefore it might be possible from the point of veiw of a palestinain resident of the occupied territories to describe Sharon as a dictator.One that might be voted out of power in 2004.But nonetheless one who has arbitrary power over the minute of the lives of a substantial number of residents,who have no right of recourse through ordinary democratic channels.

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by bonkey


Call me suspicious, but this hardly reads like an unbiased description.

Also, Sharon was elected via a special election, where he won by a margin of about 2:1 - the most significant margin in Israeli history.

Exactly what was wrong with this election that people are saying he is a dictator, or implying that there was something wrong with his election because there wasnt a general election?

jc

I didn't say he was a dictator. I implied (and am happy to clarify) that I consider him to be a thoroughly repugnant person, which is a fair comment—shared by many Israelis of my acquaintance, and I said that there were special circumstances surrounding his election, which is a matter of fact.

There are two consistent threads in Israeli propaganda.

1) The Palestinian exodus in 1948 was not of Israel's making (which is bull****) and that having left their homes the Palestinians forfeited their claim to reoccupy them. Like, say to a New Yorker evacuated from Lower Manhattan in the wake of September 11th that 'You ran away so you can't have your house back. Serves you right' and see how far you get.

2) Israel is a tiny piece of land and its enemies are rich powerful Arab states who have way too much land for their needs. Why don't the Palestinians go and live there?

In modern parlance, this is known as ethnic cleansing. Since the late 1980s, with the exception of Saddam Hussein trying to drag Israel into the Gulf War in 1991 by firing Scuds at it, Israel's struggle has been exclusively with its Palestinian community. The 'we're the underdog so we deserve special sympathy' argument may have been valid in 1967, but it ain't the case now.

Israel is going to have to live with these people. And Sharon's 'send in the tanks' methodology is ultimately futile.

As Bismarck once said: 'A generation that has taken a beating is always followed by a generation that gives one'

Clintons Cat

from Palestian Red Cresent Society
http://www.palestinercs.org/

Total number of Palestinian deaths in West Bank & Gaza since Sept 29th, 2000 is 1,205, injuries 18,473 (Figures inclusive to Midnight March 14, 2002) Day 287 of siege of Palestinian cities & towns. No access to ambulances & medical teams.

Total recorded attacks on PRCS ambulances during current crisis is 165 causing damage to 69 vehicles (68% of fleet). Total Emergency medical personnel injured is 122.

open letter fron the norwegian broadcasting cooperation

bonkey

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
I didn't say he was a dictator.

No - someone else did. I was sorta addressing the general crowd with that, rather than just you....

I implied (and am happy to clarify) that I consider him to be a thoroughly repugnant person, which is a fair comment—shared by many Israelis of my acquaintance, and I said that there were special circumstances surrounding his election, which is a matter of fact.

Sure, except that you began your post with :

Arab Israeli time line. (Apologies for those who think this is like sucking eggs, but some people seem unaware of the basics)

You completely forgot to mention that these basics have been coloured by your own personal opinions, and are not merely a statement of facts. In other words, they are not the basics, but rather your specific perspective of them. Given that you admit to having at least coloured parts of it due to your personal opinion, exactly what use is any of it to someone reading, because they cannot know if you are stating fact, spinning fact, or simply giving one sides version of the events.

Also, you didnt mentioned that there were special circumstances surrounding his election - you mentioned that it wasnt a general election.

In Ireland, our Taoiseach is the equivalent to a Prime Minister. Our Taoisaeach is also not elected in a general election - he is elected in a closed session of the Dail by our nations elected representatives.

Dont get me wrong - most of what you posted is very informative and well presented. However, claiming something is "the basics" and then clearly being biased is a bit disingenuous.

jc

Clintons Cat

Passed on 12 march 2002. with a vote of 14 -0 with on abstension (syria)
Noteworthy for being the first UN Resolution to make direct reference to a Palestinian State.
The resolution endorses a "vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders."
Its a small step,but hopefully one on the path of maginalising the extremists on both sides.

US State department briefing

response from Israelis

UN Security Council Press Release

Hairy Homer

Originally posted by bonkey


No - someone else did. I was sorta addressing the general crowd with that, rather than just you....



Sure, except that you began your post with :


You completely forgot to mention that these basics have been coloured by your own personal opinions, and are not merely a statement of facts. In other words, they are not the basics, but rather your specific perspective of them. Given that you admit to having at least coloured parts of it due to your personal opinion, exactly what use is any of it to someone reading, because they cannot know if you are stating fact, spinning fact, or simply giving one sides version of the events.

Also, you didnt mentioned that there were special circumstances surrounding his election - you mentioned that it wasnt a general election.

In Ireland, our Taoiseach is the equivalent to a Prime Minister. Our Taoisaeach is also not elected in a general election - he is elected in a closed session of the Dail by our nations elected representatives.

Dont get me wrong - most of what you posted is very informative and well presented. However, claiming something is "the basics" and then clearly being biased is a bit disingenuous.

jc

In my original post I said Sharon was a bete noire of the Arab world. Would you deny that? Show me an Arab with anything positive to say about him, with the possible exception of the Christian Phalangists in Lebanon 20 years ago. (And I suspect even that may have changed in recent years.

I reckon that this man's reputation is an important factor in understanding the particularly desparate situation of today. This is the worst internal violence in Israel since the war of independence more than 50 years ago.

I also said Sharon has a history of massacre going back to the 1950s. Again this is fact. About 50 Arab civilians were killed when their homes were dynamited by an Israeli reprisal raid led by one Lieutenant Sharon on the village of Kibya in the 1950s. (Can't remember the exact year). Fact. The Israelis say the deaths were an accident but they don't deny that the homes were deliberately dynamited.

His reputation in Lebanon in the 1980s was also scurrilous, in the eyes of many people not least many of his own compatriots.

I freely admit that I have an extremely low opinion of Mr Sharon and I don't think you can have peace with him at the helm.

Are you an admirer?

bonkey

Originally posted by Hairy Homer
Show me an Arab with anything positive to say about him,

Show me an arab you can claim to be unbiased in this situation and this argument will hold some wait.

I also said Sharon has a history of massacre going back to the 1950s. Again this is fact.

No. Its an interpretation of the facts. Unless Sharon was dictating policy, then you would need to prove that he was acting independantly rather than following orders before he has a history of massacre. If you cannot prove that his actions were not followign orders, then he is no different to any other soldier who follows orders.

Fact. The Israelis say the deaths were an accident but they don't deny that the homes were deliberately dynamited.

And again, unless you can prove it was Sharon's orders, and that he was aware that the houses were populated, then he is not guilty of massacre.

That said, he has gone on record saying some pretty anti-Palestinian things....but then again, that was over 45 years ago. You should me any case where 45-year old behaviour has been taken as a solid indicator to predict someones current actions, and maybe then your history lesson will have some credibility.

His reputation in Lebanon in the 1980s was also scurrilous, in the eyes of many people not least many of his own compatriots.

Those same compatriots who voted him into his current position? Come now....

I freely admit that I have an extremely low opinion of Mr Sharon and I don't think you can have peace with him at the helm.

I have no problem with this. I have a problem, as I said, with you presenting your version of the truth, deliberately slanting it in favour of one side, without presenting the other sides version of the same events and calling it "the basic facts".

Its not fact. Its all interpretation. You call him guilty of massacre in 1957 in two seperate posts. IN each case its presented as a fact. Only then, you quietly mention that the Israelis "claim" they didnt know there were people in those buildings. So - without refuting this claim, you brand a soldier whom you havent shown to be acting independant of orders as guilty of a massacre, and would have us believe that this is a fact.

It is not a fact - it is your interpretation of questionable events.

Are you an admirer?

I am an admirer of the honest truth - something which your post is pretty shy on.

jc

dathi1

Look, although the history of this region is very relevant to today's conflict its quite obvious who the axis of evil is in the last few weeks: 1.George Bush for deliberately ignoring the situation to make sure his oilmen get their prices high again..hell if that doesn't work we have an imminent attack on Iraq on cue. 2. The Israeli government.

Clintons Cat

George Bush for deliberately ignoring the situation to make sure his oilmen get their prices high again..

Sorry its probally not as simple as that.America imports and consumes more Oil than it exports.thus high oil prices will adversly affect Americas balance of trade.
Sure the US Oil Lobby has a huge influence,but it is nowhere as large as the combined influence of the oil dependant industrialists and energy generating lobbies from GM and enron down.

Sand

its quite obvious who the axis of evil is in the last few weeks: 1.George Bush for deliberately ignoring the situation to make sure his oilmen get their prices high again..hell if that doesn't work we have an imminent attack on Iraq on cue. 2. The Israeli government.

Well Im glad its that obvious. Now that my complaints about the murderous campaign of terrorism the Palestinians have undertaken has been so completely outmaneuvered by such a wonderful insight into the whole Isaeli-Palestinian conflict I can sleep easy at night knowing that the Palestinians should be blindly supported in their struggle against Israeli oppression, no matter how high the civillian bodycount.

Damn Im a fully paid JPF member. Howd that happen?

Fidelis

What does this JPF acronym that keeps popping up, mean?
Jewish Peace Fellowship?

Sand

Judean Peoples Front from Life of Brian, an obvious pisstake on left wing radicals of the time equally fitting to *some* of those today, who still base their arguments on the posters that the SWP put up around colleges across Ireland and abroad.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sand
Judean Peoples Front from Life of Brian, an obvious pisstake on left wing radicals of the time equally fitting to *some* of those today, who still base their arguments on the posters that the SWP put up around colleges across Ireland and abroad.

Most of those groups you speak of are the SWP, under a different name. The SWP have always been good at jumping on popular bandwagons.

dathi1

Palestinians should be blindly supported in their struggle against Israeli oppression, no matter how high the civillian bodycount.

Well when you go to war against a land grabbing oppressor (read the history above) which kills civilians (even Palestinian civilians are human too!) in your neighbourhood you cant expect to be nicey nice and only seek out those who are in the Israeli Military (80% of the population in one form or another). Very easy to sit back in Dublin 4 or where ever carpeted house and two cars and kids off too school every morning and having a nice time to condemn the "Terrorists" (British Invention) which is only applied to Palestine. Imagine living in the hell hole of Gaza with an already expansionist oppressor invading your area and killing your school children with tank shells..... Blindly support them?? I'll back the oppressed and occupied anytime.

Fidelis

Originally posted by Sand
Judean Peoples Front

I thought it was the People's Front of Judea?

Sand

Well when you go to war against a land grabbing oppressor (read the history above) which kills civilians (even Palestinian civilians are human too!) in your neighbourhood you cant expect to be nicey nice and only seek out those who are in the Israeli Military (80% of the population in one form or another). Very easy to sit back in Dublin 4 or where ever carpeted house and two cars and kids off too school every morning and having a nice time to condemn the "Terrorists" (British Invention) which is only applied to Palestine. Imagine living in the hell hole of Gaza with an already expansionist oppressor invading your area and killing your school children with tank shells..... Blindly support them?? I'll back the oppressed and occupied anytime.

Dathi you really ought to look at what you write and sheer ironic hilarity of it. You say you cant be nicely nice about war- I agree- But what the Palestinians are fighting is not a war, it is a terrorist campaign directed against Israeli *civilians* - and as you say theyre humans too despite what the JPF think.

Youre right its very easy to sit back and be philosophical about suicide bombers blowing up women and children in shops and resteraunts and at birthday parties. If youre cold blooded. Personally I cannot believe the restraint of the Israeli milatary in relation to the incredible provocation created by the Palestinians *deliberate* targeting of civillians. If they were returning like for like theyd be dropping naplam on Rammallahs residential districts about now. This despite their shcoolchildren are dying. Wonder how the Israelis can avoid terrorism whereas the Palestinians seem to know only terrorism.

The JPF dont like their heros being terrorists, so they claim theyre merely called terrorists so they an sleep better at night.

Youre blindly supporting terrorists and murderers. Thats typical JPF fare though. Theyre no better than the IRA. What are your feelings on the IRA btw?

Sand

I thought it was the People's Front of Judea?

Splitters:)

Typedef

Originally posted by Sand
Personally I cannot believe the restraint of the Israeli milatary in relation to the incredible provocation created by the Palestinians *deliberate* targeting of civillians.

Sand.
I think you have made this view abundantly clear, sufficive to say most people do not believe that there is anything restrained about the current campaign or that Israel has remit to impose anything. Who are the Israeli's to impose occupation in the name of counter terrorism, and who are the Israeli's to break ceasefires and thus prorouge 'ceasefires' so that their self proclaimed occupation becomes it's own justification?

potlatch

This is all getting way over-complicated and emotionally driven. Let's get down to the absolute basics here. The Palestinians are people, the Israelis are people. The Palestinians are genuinely angry. The Israelis are genuinely angry. Both are cruelly assaulted by the other. People want to get on and have a normal life but they can't because of the stalemate situation.

The simple situation is that you have two bunches of people who want to live in the same patch of land but can't learn how to share.

The more people argue over the conflict, the more obscure it becomes.

Put yourself in a Palestinian's shoes, then put them in an Israeli's shoes. Compare, for example, what it must be like to go to the shop to buy a pint of milk in the West Bank compared with in Israel and then compare both of those to our daily experience. Living in perpetual fear of 'madmen' ending your life at any moment would make anyone go mad, the pressure and frustration that nothing is getting any better adds to the anger.

Of course, the Israelis have less reason to be angry: they have all the trappings of modern, Western living so it's not as if they're economically deprived, with a large proportion of their population living in poverty. It's not as if 40% are unemployed (source) and it's not as if they have their electricity switched off for fun on frequent occasions. When the Israelis go shopping, they have fun.

Now drawing the political aspect into it, it's abundantly clear that Israel as the powerful nation-state is forcing the Palestinians into a position of utter subjugation. History is so important to everybody (though diminishingly so in Europe and America) that the question of 'homeland' is equally important to both and it's entirely understandable that Israel's racist politicians are not going to admit to the historically rooted multi-ethnism of the region, and of Jerusalem, because they can - because they are powerful, racist and angry. But from their subversive, subjugated position, much of the same applies to the Palestinian leading authority, Fatah and Hamas.

I don't wish to play up the politics of the situation, other people here are more happy to do that than I am right now. What I do want to stress is the human aspect of the conflict. Every day, on both sides, people are dying. These are frightening conditions to live under. Every day, every corner you turn or any minute sitting in your sitting room, afraid to go outside because of violence, you may be killed. Maybe blown to bits by a bomb, shot by a Kalashnikov, killed by falling debris inflicted by an Israeli gunship or even a bulldozer.

When all you want is a bit of peace so you can get on with your life, go to school, socialise, get a job, earn some money, have fun and raise a family and have some respect from your neighbours, all the despicable political manoeverings fall to the side. The central issue here is people, not land, not arms proliferation, not American military hegemony or full spectrum dominance.

That's the issue. But that's also the explanation for why 'terrorism' is the chosen strategy of Hamas. It's borne out of a stagnant political situation and day-to-day living situation - it's an expression of anger fused with geurilla political strategy. Eventually, Israel is going to have to invite the 'terrorists' into government, as in Northern Ireland.

Both sides are locked into this together, equally. Until both sides cannot go on anymore, until the only recourse is to mutually recognise the reality of each other and their equal historical claim to the region, until they begin to see each other as humans and not as demons, nothing is going to change. No one is going to win, no peace is going to arrive. In the end of the day, all any side wants is dignity.

dathi1

Youre blindly supporting terrorists and murderers. Thats typical JPF fare though. Theyre no better than the IRA. What are your feelings on the IRA btw?

(Always tomorrows heroes...freedom fighters Michael Collins... ect. ) War happens because one side invades, occupies, oppresses ect. there is two sides to every war but a lasting conflict like in Palestine is due directly to one major injustice. Throwing people out of their homes in 1948 + occupying land and oppressing the native population. The Israelis wont allow it but what's needed to keep the situation from spiralling into a regional conflict is international monitors on the ground. Even our old friends hamas said they would accept this.
PS: did you know that sexologits Dr Ruth was a member of the Stern Gang

dathi1

then put them in an Israeli's shoes. Compare, for example, what it must be like to go to the shop to buy a pint of milk in a border town, Living in perpetual fear of 'madmen' ending your life at any moment would make anyone go mad

hang on a minute!! you mean a border town on occupied land...I think I would leave cos I know its not mine to shop for milk in the first place. It takes a specific type of mentality to live on someone else's land and expect to go shopping with M16s as back up.

dathi1

Wonder how the Israelis can avoid terrorism whereas the Palestinians seem to know only terrorism.

I don't know...but you should ask that hamas leaders family killed 2 wks ago by Israeli helicopter (oh its was a mistake...ahhh well that's ok)what the definition of terrorism is.

Sand

I just cant compete with the JPFs brainwashing.

"Dont try to confuse me with facts, Ive already read the SWP posters!!!"

I don't know...but you should ask that hamas leaders family killed 2 wks ago by Israeli helicopter (oh its was a mistake...ahhh well that's ok)what the definition of terrorism is.

My heart absolutely ****ing bleeds for that poor Hamas terrorist. I wonder how many families he is responsible for murdering? How many other murders of families he planned in exacting detail? How many other murders of families he celebrated with his friends and his own family? Now his family is dead. Killed because they were in the wrong place at the right time. Killed because the Israelis thought that poor, poor Hamas terrorist was in the car, not his family.

Now I want you to try very very hard. I know your capable of breaking through the rhetoric of whose right and wrong. I know your capable of understanding what terrorism *is*. Its not a label. Its not a brand name. It is the act of planned attacks on civillian targets of no milatary value whatsoever.

Actually now I understand your ****ed up "logic". If the Israelis had gone out to deliberately kill that family. If they had planned to do it. If having done it they then went out for an absolute bender to celebrate, and not apologised as they did. If having done all that, youd be there to support them. Cos Hamas do that every single day and your cheerleading for them.

what's needed to keep the situation from spiralling into a regional conflict is international monitors on the ground. Even our old friends hamas said they would accept this.

Of course they would accept it. Why the **** wouldnt they? It would be an incredible advantage for them. Instead of having to watch out for Israeli retaliatory strikes they could prepare and carry out attacks on Israel from the safe haven provided by the ineffectual and downright pathetic UN.

It takes a specific type of mentality to live on someone else's land and expect to go shopping with M16s as back up.

But the person who runs up and shoots them because theyre going shopping is a fine upstanding human being right?
Pffft.

gurramok

Sand, your logic to this conflict is baffling to a neutral.
350 israelis killed by terrorists, terrorists they are and get what comes to them. Fair enuff ?
But what i find startlng is your apparent ignorance of the other sides suffering in all of this.
Plz have a read of the bbc's version of the aftermath of the Ramallah turmoil.here.

As we know the bbc in the past is a somewhat surprising balanced version of what is happening over there unless you think its anti-israeli as well ?!?!?!!!
What is disturbing is the amount of children dying in all of this mayhem. Of the 1024 or so Palestinians killed by israelis, mayb 30% of that number were children under 18 ?...anyone got stats to correct/clarify?
Surely all those children were not terrorists ??
just my 2 cents..

DadaKopf

"My two cent".

I think that was potlatch's point, gurramok. If you see them as people, not as terrorists or demons, then you learn to see both sides. That's so important and it's something that, like you say, Sand is conveniently overlooking. There's a definite imbalance going on, of course. As someone once said, it's all about "who's got the power, baby".

bonkey

Originally posted by DadaKopf
If you see them as people, not as terrorists or demons, then you learn to see both sides. That's so important and it's something that, like you say, Sand is conveniently overlooking. There's a definite imbalance going on, of course.

Unfortunately, how you view that imbalance tends to overrule the "both sides are people" view. One side see the imbalance as the oppressive Israeli's persisting an illegal occupation through excessive means, while the other side sees it as unforgiveable actos of terrorism carried out on the poor innocent Israelis.

Me - I like to see it as unforgiveable actos of terrorism conducted against a nation which is illegally ccupying foreign territory. Would the withdrawal of the Israelis from the occupied territories end the violence? No-one knows the answer to this, and anyone who claims otherwise is simply issuing propaganda for one side or the other. On the other hand, does this mitigate the fact that Israel is occupying lands illegally? No - it doesnt, nor does the continued campaign of terror carried out against them.

The Israeli's have every right to defend themselves. However, their occupation of the OTs is not defensive in nature, but expansionist. I find the Israelis using the Palestinian terrorist activity as a justification for the continuation of this occupation to be both callous and ridiculous.

Sand is clearly the most vocal anti-Palestinian (or pro-Israeli, depending on how you read things) person here, but I cant recall one solid argument in favour of why Israel's continued occupation can be justified. In general, the pro-Israeli stance seems to be about "if you support Palestine, then you are a terrorist-loving JPF no matter what you say".

I'm not pro-Palestine or pro-Israeli. I am anti-terrorism, anti-occupation, and basically pro-fair-play - which unfortunately seems to be a concept which both sides in this conflict abandoned right at the beginning.

jc

DadaKopf

Yeah, that's a fair point. It's just that the one major point of connection between the two sides is that they're both human beings. Propaganda and actions on both sides fuel the demonism - which is entirely justified. I just think the "we're all people" approach brings things down to a fundamental level. I think that's really important.

I agree with you absolutely and one thing you connected with there is the whole notion that it's the struggle that keeps them doing what they're doing. If any side completely capitulated, they'd still fight. Like in Northern Ireland, a habit of conflict has persisted in the middle of a positive political climate - there is still violence, hatred and anger. People find ways to preserve their deep-set relations because it's what they know and people need to preserve their identities. It's tough to think outside the square. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is similar in structure fo dysfunctional relationships and marriages.

Of course, that in no way suggests that they should just be left to it - their habit of hatred has to be changed. But how is it capable of changing in its present state of affairs?