Bush: "Sharon is a man of peace"

Hobbes

http://israelinsider.com/channels/diplomacy/articles/dip_0195.htm

Bateman

"He gave me a timetable,


Hmn, says a lot for the "most powerful man on earth" doesn't it?

Powell knows infinitely more about this than Bush (although taht wouldn't be hard). The contradictions in the 2 mens' statements are breathtaking. Bush gives us the impression that Arafat has betrayed his own people and led them to terror and misery, while Powell tells us the "road to peace leads through Arafat". In all fairness, with the US at a loss, Europe should be taking the lead, and at least attempting to drag the Americans along behind.
And another thing. Bush says that Powell laid out a plan for peace. This is bollocks. It is blatantly onbious that they have no plan, let alone a detailed strategy for peace, if it was any way comprehensive, we would have heard about it by now, even if it was refused.

Sand

There cant be any plan because at this point its nearly impossible to get them around a table - let alone discuss anything. If you cant get the principles together how can a secondary party like the United States make the peace for them? It can wave a stick at the Israelis maybe over financial aid (highly unlikely any administration will be able to do this- even if they wanted to) but it has very little to influence the palestinians - currently the proposed ceasefire arrangements seem to be the Israelis will withdraw (definite gain for the palestinians) and the Palestinians will see what they can do about those terrorists, no promises mind you (Given Arafats previous track record you can understand the Israelis disbelief).

Seeing as the Israeli milatary action is primarily motivated by palestinian terrorism (Sharons polling has gone from 45% to 62% over the course of the recent West Bank operations) theres not much theres no real reason for them to go by the deal because the attacks will still occur. Personally I agree with what Bush said about Arafat, the fact that the road to peace lies through Arafat is one of the reasons there is no peace and very little chance of peace. The fact that the U.S. has got the cold shoulder from both the Israelis and Palestinians recently should serve to dispel any illussions people might have over the participants doing what the U.S. tells them.

Shinji

Seeing as the Israeli milatary action is primarily motivated by palestinian terrorism

Riiiiight. And the Palestinian "terrorism" is motivated by what? The tooth fairy?

Suicide bombings have increased massively since the Israelis began what can only be described as their terrorist campaign on Palestinian ground. They now have massive support from the Palestinian people at large, and young, educated (even in some cases female) Palestinian people are prepared to take part in these operations because they see no other way out. This isn't how it was five years ago, or even two years ago. Then, suicide bombings were despised by most Palestinians and the groups organising them had massive difficulty finding people prepared to take part.

If you bulldoze houses with the occupants still inside; if you invade the territory of another people with tanks and helicopter gunships and snipers, and kill their civilians; if you force their young men to walk naked in front of your tanks as human shields from counter-attack or landmines... They will fight back however they can. The Palestinians have no army. They have no tanks, no jets, no helicopter gunships. They have home made bombs and a sense of desperation which drives them to give their own lives in order to inflict wounds on their enemy. And I'm sorry, but their enemy IS the Israeli people. It's the Israeli people who put a war criminal responsible for the massacare of thousands of Palestinians in charge of their nation (Bush's "man of peace" - dear god, what is Bush taking these days?). It's the Israeli people who have swung to an increasingly fundamentalist viewpoint, who have ignored the terms of every treaty, who have built more and more settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, who have closed borders and prevented Palestinians from working, who have retaliated to low-level terrorist activity from extremist palestinian groups with high-level military activity against thousands of palestinian civilians.

The very fact that Sharon's approval rating has soared during this despicable, medieval campaign of hatred and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank is proof, if any were needed, that the Israeli civilian in Tel Aviv is as much the enemy of the Palestinian as the Israeli soldier driving a tank over the rubble of a Palestinian home.

I'm sorry, but as an Irish person I can't come down in favour of anyone but the Palestinians. Suicide bombings may seem repulsive to us, but how many young Irishmen - how many people in YOUR ancestry - went out to fight in full knowledge that they would die, for the freedom of their people from occupation and oppression? Would we, had we been born 100 years ago, have stood by and gone "Oh well, really, it's their fault the English sent in the Black and Tans after all, they've only themselves to blame and they really have to make concessions as well!"..... Like hell we would.

Clintons Cat

If anything i am even more pessimistic about the future opportunities for peace.
Even if Arafat is replaced with a more moderate leader from within the PA,and there are more than a few capable candidates,there is no guaruntee that they would be able to contain the extremists of hizbollah.hamas or the more extreme elements of fatah/plo such as the recently (sept 2000) formed al asque martyrs brigade.
Prior to intafada 2000 Arafat was losing support from his people,
His police were prety effective at rounding up the leadership and principle bombmaker of hamas and other rival factions.So much so that he was accused of being a tool of the israelis.
With the descision ( rightly or wrongly)to call for a second intafaeda he released many of the <political> prisoners.Others were released after israeli jets began destroying palistinian police stations and their cells.
Sharon has more or less destroyed the limited infrastructure of the palestinian authority,most of the CIA trained police force has been detained or killed the palestinian authority no longer have the ability to securely detain their own dissidents meaning any new authority would have to turn its prisoners over to the israelis (political suicide) for any new authority.
Thats before any kind of decision can be made over the future of the israeli settlements in the occupied territories/ersatz israel.

Felix Randel

Originally posted by Shinji


Riiiiight. And the Palestinian "terrorism" is motivated by what? The tooth fairy?

Suicide bombings have increased massively since the Israelis began what can only be described as their terrorist campaign on Palestinian ground. They now have massive support from the Palestinian people at large, and young, educated (even in some cases female) Palestinian people are prepared to take part in these operations because they see no other way out. This isn't how it was five years ago, or even two years ago. Then, suicide bombings were despised by most Palestinians and the groups organising them had massive difficulty finding people prepared to take part.

If you bulldoze houses with the occupants still inside; if you invade the territory of another people with tanks and helicopter gunships and snipers, and kill their civilians; if you force their young men to walk naked in front of your tanks as human shields from counter-attack or landmines... They will fight back however they can. The Palestinians have no army. They have no tanks, no jets, no helicopter gunships. They have home made bombs and a sense of desperation which drives them to give their own lives in order to inflict wounds on their enemy. And I'm sorry, but their enemy IS the Israeli people. It's the Israeli people who put a war criminal responsible for the massacare of thousands of Palestinians in charge of their nation (Bush's "man of peace" - dear god, what is Bush taking these days?). It's the Israeli people who have swung to an increasingly fundamentalist viewpoint, who have ignored the terms of every treaty, who have built more and more settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, who have closed borders and prevented Palestinians from working, who have retaliated to low-level terrorist activity from extremist palestinian groups with high-level military activity against thousands of palestinian civilians.

The very fact that Sharon's approval rating has soared during this despicable, medieval campaign of hatred and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank is proof, if any were needed, that the Israeli civilian in Tel Aviv is as much the enemy of the Palestinian as the Israeli soldier driving a tank over the rubble of a Palestinian home.

I'm sorry, but as an Irish person I can't come down in favour of anyone but the Palestinians. Suicide bombings may seem repulsive to us, but how many young Irishmen - how many people in YOUR ancestry - went out to fight in full knowledge that they would die, for the freedom of their people from occupation and oppression? Would we, had we been born 100 years ago, have stood by and gone "Oh well, really, it's their fault the English sent in the Black and Tans after all, they've only themselves to blame and they really have to make concessions as well!"..... Like hell we would.

Well said.

Clintons Cat: the hizbollah dont answer to arafat, and it is extremely unlikely that any more moderate leader would amerge, for the simple reason it would be impossible to be mroe moderate then arafat has been.

Clintons Cat

the hizbollah dont answer to arafat

I concur Hitzbollah is the party of leboese resistance.I said that a new leader would have to contain (ie arrest,kill or deter)hitbollah activities(regarding boarder infiltrations)

simple reason it would be impossible to be mroe moderate then arafat has been.

Technically this is not true,Arafat on a number of occasions has delivered inflamatory speaches .Though i agree no more moderate leader is likely to emerge for the reasons i outlined.
When i say moderate i am of course talking of a leader more "acceptable" to israel and america as well as literally

v. mod·er·at·ed, mod·er·at·ing, mod·er·ates (md-rt)
v. tr.
To lessen the violence, severity, or extremeness of.
To preside over: She was chosen to moderate the convention

PS you dont need to quote an entire post just to add "Well Said"
if you reallymust applaud a well writen post just direct it like this.
Shinji> Well Said

Lemming

Just on the thread heading:

Is it chance, or a pattern that:

a) The highest israeli casualty figures have occured under Sharon's leadership, whether as defense minister or prime minister

and

b) That 2 massacres, and a possible third (Jenin), have also occured under his leadership


"Man of Peace" indeed. Peace through what? Genocide of the other side?

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Shinji


Suicide bombings have increased massively since the Israelis began what can only be described as their terrorist campaign on Palestinian ground.

Your statement is false. Why don't you research the number of Israelis killed in suicide bombings while the Israelis were conducting operations and while they were not?

Sand

And the Palestinian "terrorism" is motivated by what? The tooth fairy?

Seems to be motivated by a desire for revenge against Israelis, any age,gender,health, political persuasion or degree of milatary involvement will do- only good Israeli is a dead one to the terrorists apparently.

They will fight back however they can.

Terrorism isnt fighting back - its just random murder of anyone and everyone, motivated by hatred and exscused by fools.

And I'm sorry, but their enemy IS the Israeli people. It's the Israeli people who put a war criminal responsible for the massacare of thousands of Palestinians in charge of their nation (Bush's "man of peace" - dear god, what is Bush taking these days?). It's the Israeli people who have swung to an increasingly fundamentalist viewpoint,

The same Israeli people who elected Barak to make peace? Who despaired when Arafat refused to *even* negotiate an unprecedented offer? Who in response to palestinian terrorists elected a warlord (Sharon) to win the war when it was clear that Barak could not win the peace? The same Israeli people of whom 38% dont support Sharon?

the Israeli civilian in Tel Aviv is as much the enemy of the Palestinian as the Israeli soldier driving a tank over the rubble of a Palestinian home.

Using your despicable logic the Palestinian living in that home is as much an enemy of the Israeli tank commander as the terrorist in Tel Aviv who blows up a bus stop killing the people waiting to go to work.

I'm sorry, but as an Irish person I can't come down in favour of anyone but the Palestinians. Suicide bombings may seem repulsive to us, but how many young Irishmen - how many people in YOUR ancestry - went out to fight in full knowledge that they would die, for the freedom of their people from occupation and oppression? Would we, had we been born 100 years ago, have stood by and gone "Oh well, really, it's their fault the English sent in the Black and Tans after all, they've only themselves to blame and they really have to make concessions as well!"..... Like hell we would.

Thats a pretty stupid thing to say. If you want to support terrorism fine, dont involve Irishness in it because most Irish people despise terrorism. Got to ask you, if you were there 83 years ago would you be arguing for mass murder of anyone English in your fight to liberate Ireland? Cos thats what the palestinian terrorists are doing.

Shinji

Your statement is false. Why don't you research the number of Israelis killed in suicide bombings while the Israelis were conducting operations and while they were not?

Already have. I'll pull the figures for you as soon as I can find the source (last weeks Time). Suicide bombings began in 1994 as a quite low-level thing, two or three a year; in the late nineties there was even a year when none took place. It's since Sharon took power and began to squeeze the Palestinians massively that the numbers of bombings have gone sky high - 38 last year, almost 30 in this year to date.

Seems to be motivated by a desire for revenge against Israelis, any age,gender,health, political persuasion or degree of milatary involvement will do- only good Israeli is a dead one to the terrorists apparently.

Right. Sounds roughly like the kind of motivation that might lead to your armed forces bulldozing houses with families still inside, really.

You haven't even taken a moment to consider the state of mind that must lead to a suicide bombing. How absolutely, downright desperate must a person be to strap explosive to themselves and try to take out as many others as possible in the explosion? We're not talking wild-eyed religious fundamentalists any more, which is what you're apparently missing; suicide bombers range massively in age, in gender, in education. These are ordinary Palestinian people who feel like they have absolutely no other way out. A suicide bombing gives them a death with percieved pride and a promise from the community of support for their families; better, they consider, than sitting in the West Bank with no prospect of employment, no freedoms, constant humiliation from the Israeli occupying forces and the fear that you or a loved one could be killed at the whim of a trigger-happy Israeli at any time.

Terrorism isnt fighting back - its just random murder of anyone and everyone, motivated by hatred and exscused by fools.

Really. Well then, Sand, answer me one question right now, and I want a clear yes or no answer: Do the actions of the Israelis in the West Bank constitute terrorism?

The same Israeli people who elected Barak to make peace? Who despaired when Arafat refused to *even* negotiate an unprecedented offer? Who in response to palestinian terrorists elected a warlord (Sharon) to win the war when it was clear that Barak could not win the peace? The same Israeli people of whom 38% dont support Sharon?

Who elected Barak to make peace, and then assassinated him? Who claim falsely that Arafat refused to negotiatie offers which they knew full well he could not negotiate, because what they wanted from him (total cessation of palestinian activity in Israel etc.) was not his to give? Who elected not only a warlord, but a war CRIMINAL, responsible for the massacre of thousands?

As for the 38%.... Sorry, people die in wars, and quite a lot of them are innocent. I'm sure a hell of a lot of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and during the firebombing of Tokyo weren't so keen on the war. I daresay a fair few people in Berlin, Dresden or Hamburg didn't fancy Hitler much. But of course, in that instance, although a great many of the people who died were civilians, it was alright to bomb population centres because these evil types had invaded other people's territory with overwhelming military force, had embarked on a ruthless program of ethnic cleansing, and were ruled by a racist and fascist leader who personally ordered the death of thousa.... Hang on, this sounds familiar.

(Were the French Maquis during WW2 "terrorists", out of interest?)

Using your despicable logic the Palestinian living in that home is as much an enemy of the Israeli tank commander as the terrorist in Tel Aviv who blows up a bus stop killing the people waiting to go to work.

That certainly seems to be the opinion being taken by the Israelis at the moment. Interesting that if he destroys a Palestinian township, killing hundreds of civilians, he's still a "tank commander". The guy who blows up the bus in Tel Aviv is a "terrorist". Amazing what a couple of million quids worth of American-financed hardware will do for your public image, eh?

Out of interest, how DO you think the Palestinians should fight back against the Israeli invasion of their land?

If you want to support terrorism fine, dont involve Irishness in it because most Irish people despise terrorism.

Quite right too. I think a fair few Irish people support the right of nations to fight for their freedom in whatever way is open to them, though. There's a fine line between terrorist and freedom fighter, and with every new Israeli atrocity in the West Bank, I think it becomes more apparent which side of that line the Palestinians are on.

Felix Randel

Originally posted by Gargoyle


Your statement is false. Why don't you research the number of Israelis killed in suicide bombings while the Israelis were conducting operations and while they were not?

According to an isreali spokes person, justifying their current campaign, Suicide bombing have increased four fold.
Even to ex isralei leader(cants spell his name, it was benjamine netinyaho) admitted in an interview on bbc2's newsnight that while hes was in power suicide bombings were rare but in recent years they have become all to frequent

Sand

You haven't even taken a moment to consider the state of mind that must lead to a suicide bombing.

I couldnt care less, its still wrong and still should be condemed and opposed by all. Hitler might have had a rotten childhood and I couldnt care less what his "state of mind" was.

Really. Well then, Sand, answer me one question right now, and I want a clear yes or no answer: Do the actions of the Israelis in the West Bank constitute terrorism?

Already dealt with this question in a previous thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=46299&perpage=20&highlight=Israeli%20Arafat&pagenumber=4 . Scroll down to my post at 03/04/2002 19:57 pm. Short answer, no.

Who elected Barak to make peace, and then assassinated him?

Barak is still very much alive last I heard. The killer of Rabin was hardly representitive of the wishes of the Israeli people given the mourning of Rabins death.

but a war CRIMINAL, responsible for the massacre of thousands?

Yeah, hes a good match for Arafat then isnt he?

As for the 38%.... Sorry, people die in wars, and quite a lot of them are innocent.

Yeah which is why most civillised nations target enemy armies not enemy civillians.

(Were the French Maquis during WW2 "terrorists", out of interest?)

See the link above for the answer. Short answer its a tad insulting to compare guerillas like the french to terrorists like the palestinians.

Amazing what a couple of million quids worth of American-financed hardware will do for your public image, eh?

Yeah, that and a certain lack of deliberately targeting civllians.

Out of interest, how DO you think the Palestinians should fight back against the Israeli invasion of their land?

Im sure youll find this controversial but perhaps a daring Palestian patriot might find the bottle to actually attack the Israeli ARMY that is occupying his homeland as opposed to the Israeli WOMAN who is going to work. A shockingly radical tactic i know but desperate times call for desperate measures. Or assuming they dont have the bottle or conviction for attacking people who can fight back perhaps they might try negotiation. Now of course negotiation will actually require some compromises to be made, but thats what we have statesmen for- Im sure the Palestinians will find one some day.

There's a fine line between terrorist and freedom fighter, and with every new Israeli atrocity in the West Bank, I think it becomes more apparent which side of that line the Palestinians are on.

So you judge the morality of the Palestinian actions by the morality of the Israeli actions? Theres a logical breakdown there as you consider the Israeli actions to be wholly immoral and thus how can they be a useful benchmark to measure morality against? And the line between terrorist and freedom fighter isnt that thin- ones a murderer, the others a soldier.

Who claim falsely that Arafat refused to negotiatie offers which they knew full well he could not negotiate, because what they wanted from him (total cessation of palestinian activity in Israel etc.) was not his to give?

Then why were Israel negotiating with him? The whole idea was land for peace- The Israelis gives land, Arafat gives peace- if he cant give peace what the hell was the point in talking to him?

A lot of people criticise the deal was offered because it wasnt 100% of what Arafat wanted - The Irish accepted a deal from Britain that included British milatary bases in Ireland, retaining the Queen as head of state - thus not the aimed for republic and it included an oath of loyalty to the Queen for Dail members which many republicans found unacceptable, remaing a member of the British Commonwealth and thus Empire, and surrendering 6 of the 32 counties and accepting the creation of Northern Ireland as well as taking on a large debt to be paid to Britain, AND the British Parliment would still be able to make laws for Ireland. The deal was extremely controversial and led to a war in which many died but for all Collins other faults he at least had the courage to go for the best deal on offer. Since then through negotiation we have reversed most of the unfavourable aspects of the deal and have done rather well all told. Would all the people who say Arafat shouldnt have taken or at least negotiated the deal on offer at Camp David have been lining up with DeValera when he brought about a civil war over the treaty with Britain?

Felix Randel

Yeah which is why most civilized nations target enemy armies not enemy civilians

Hardly something you could associate with the Israeli army. They targeted civilians by saying if you in X area your a terrorist.

Yeah, he's a good match for Arafat then isn't he

There has been no massacres of Israelis.

Yeah, that and a certain lack of deliberately targeting civilians.

what's your definition of deliberate and targeting? It has been prove in reason days they Israeli troops have targeted civilians.

Im sure youll find this controversial but perhaps a daring Palestian patriot might find the bottle to actually attack the Israeli ARMY that is occupying his homeland as opposed to the Israeli WOMAN who is going to work.

Likes lambs to the slaughter?, how will going up in direct combat gain them what they want. The idea reminds we of the foolish "over the top" notion of 1914, were thousands of men would simply march into death because that was the honorable way to fight a war.

A lot of people criticise the deal was offered because it wasnt 100% of what Arafat wanted

Wrong, allot of people criticized it because it was set up to fail, he was a wise man to reject it.

The Irish accepted a deal from Britain that included British military bases in Ireland, retaining the Queen as head of state - thus not the aimed for republic and it included an oath of loyalty to the Queen for Dail members which many republicans found unacceptable, remaing a member of the British Commonwealth and thus Empire, and surrendering 6 of the 32 counties and accepting the creation of Northern Ireland as well as taking on a large debt to be paid to Britain,

1} That may be true, but there was no conditions that gave the protestant population precedence over the catholic majority, no protestant only roads, no division of resources for protestants.

2} History lesson, remember that little only civil war that this cause, I cannot condemn anyway for not wanting to bring such a war upon his people, which surely would have followed had he excepted.

3} 9 Years trade war. The fighting on the ground was over, but the war continued, and nearly all the conditions you commented on were over tuner.

ones a murderer, the others a soldier.

If only a person couldn't be both, we would live in a far better world.


Sands a question, when a Palestinian who is armed killed defending his home, is that a moral and lawful killing? Is he a Palestinian gunman, deserving his faith?

Lemming

Originally posted by Felix Randel
Likes lambs to the slaughter?, how will going up in direct combat gain them what they want.

If I recall correctly, the Vietnamese also avoided "conventional" battles with the US, and instead dictated combat on their terms (for the most part)

But, in any case, whenever the palestinians HAVE attacked Israeli military installations/personnel they've still been called terrorists more often than not - go figure
[/B][/QUOTE]

Sand

Hardly something you could associate with the Israeli army. They targeted civilians by saying if you in X area your a terrorist.

Read the link- already addressed that point.

There has been no massacres of Israelis.

There have been, daily.

what's your definition of deliberate and targeting?

Read the link - already adressed that point.

Likes lambs to the slaughter?, how will going up in direct combat gain them what they want. The idea reminds we of the foolish "over the top" notion of 1914, were thousands of men would simply march into death because that was the honorable way to fight a war.

Being unable to win a war does not make mass murder acceptable - it does point out negotiation as being the way forward.

Wrong, allot of people criticized it because it was set up to fail, he was a wise man to reject it.

He was an idiot and a coward not to negotiate it. Arafat is responsible for the rise of Sharon and the resulting misery. If he had negotiated and got even *something* at least Barak could have gone back to Israel and had something to show the Israelis for his efforts- all he got was suicide bombings- hence the rise of Sharon the warlord.

1} That may be true.....blah blah...all the conditions you commented on were over tuner.

The point was the Irish accepted a crap deal and made it work and have done extremely well, they recognised that it was light years better than what they had. The Palestinians got a crap deal, rejected it, rejected the possibility of negotiating it with a view to tailoring it more to their way of thinking, failed to recognise that it was light years better than what they had, and have done extremely badly -surprise, surprise.

Ireland saw the treaty correctly as a stepping stone, not an end point. The Palestinians saw the deal as being written in stone- they didnt have the imaginination to think that in 10 years time, Israel (If Arafat hadnt scuttled any possible deal Barak would have remained in power as the man who brought peace and security to Israel by negotiation- leading to a strong case for a non confrontational Israel)would be willing to relax restrictions in the deal, or do away with them altogether.

Right now the palestinians will not get a deal as good as they got in Camp David this side of a blue moon. Already people are thinking of Israel exsisting in a constant state of war with the terrorists (i.e merely accepting the status quo as natural), "walling" off the Palestinians and even going so far as to talk about "solving" the conflict by expelling all Arabs from Israel and the occupied territories into the Sinai or Jordan!!! - a second catastrophe as the Arabs refer to it. Sharon is in power right now thanks to the terrorist attacks and the Israelis disillusionment with negotiations which achieved nothing in the end.

Sharon will never give anything like the Palestinians were offered before. All Arafat has done is doom his people to another 50 years of misery and deprivation, if he had taken a deal from Camp David he could have avoided all of the recent misery and inspired confidence in the Israelis that negotiations do work, that the Palestinians can be trusted to control their own borders and airspace, that the early warning stations are not required, that the jew only roads arent nessassary - i.e he could have reversed the parts of the deal that were the worst much like the Irish did in their own treaty, all without killing anyone- marvelous eh?

On a related note you hear on the news all the time, reporters talking about the conflict escalating- its been escalating for the past 20 months - Im extremely pessimistic that it will de-escalate any time within the next few years.

Felix Randel

Arafat is responsible for the rise of Sharon and the resulting misery

No the israeli people are, as they elected him. So do you beleive they should share the faith of arafat and be bombed to bites?

There have been, daily.

I like the way you weight civilian deaths, 1700 bucthered by the israelis = military action, 24 blown to bites in suicide bombing = massacre

Being unable to win a war does not make mass murder acceptable - it does point out negotiation as being the way forward.

Israel is unable to win this war, but mass murder seems very excpetable to them.

He was an idiot and a coward not to negotiate it. Arafat is responsible for the rise of Sharon and the resulting misery. If he had negotiated and got even *something* at least Barak could have gone back to Israel and had something to show the Israelis for his efforts- all he got was suicide bombings- hence the rise of Sharon the warlord.

Barak was the coward, he offered to little to late. How was arafat an idiot, which one of the two men is still alive today, if he had signed the agreement it would have been his people murdering him instead of the israelis murdering barak.


Sands a question, when a Palestinian who is armed killed defending his home, is that a moral and lawful killing? Is he a Palestinian gunman, deserving his faith?

Sand

No the israeli people are, as they elected him. So do you beleive they should share the faith of arafat and be bombed to bites?

Sharon is in power because Arafat wasnt interested in negotiation, terrorism was on the increase and Baraks policy of negotiation with Arafat had produced nothing - Barak was seen as a Chamberlain, Sharon as a Churchill . Arafat was reponsible for making Baraks position so weak - he brought about the rise of Sharon.

I like the way you weight civilian deaths, 1700 bucthered by the israelis = military action, 24 blown to bites in suicide bombing = massacre

The numbers dont matter- the fashion in which they died do. And Im glad youre recognising the difference that the Israelis utilise milatary action and the Palestinians utilise terrorism. Theres hope for you yet.

Israel is unable to win this war, but mass murder seems very excpetable to them.

The Israelis dont practice mass murder - theyve been relatively selective in their targeting of terrorists, even with Sharon and his record in Lebanon. This is one area where Arafat could learn a lot from the Israelis - Palestinian terrorists as I say dont have a problem with killing *any* Israeli. As for winning the war, they cant win the type of war theyve been fighting so far- its a war, but not a war, there are victories, but no final decisive ones, and as long as the terrorism continues there is no exit for Sharon - he is afterall a warlord.
This is worrying because sharon is more and more likely to come around to the Israeli rights way of thinking- hes brought 2 more right wing parties into his government to cover himself should Labour leave. Should their views, which include "solving" the conflict by driving all arabs out of Israel, become policy (not a remote possibility with Sharon ) everything will change- for the worse. Lets hope Arafat stops giving Sharon the rope he needs to hang the Palestinians

Barak was the coward, he offered to little to late. How was arafat an idiot, which one of the two men is still alive today, if he had signed the agreement it would have been his people murdering him instead of the israelis murdering barak.

First things first, Barak is not dead. He is very much alive - he was voted out of office but Im not aware of any Israeli tradition of executing a deposed leader. If you dont believe me you can tke a look at Barak and recent articles about him (no obitury so far) at http://abcnews.go.com/reference/bios/barak.html .

In fact the only Israeli leader murdered in the last decade was Rabin, who was murdered by a right wing Israeli fanatic - The fact that national mourning accompanied his death and Barak got into office by capitalising on the memory of Rabin does not imply widespread support for his murder.

As for coward you say Arafat imply Arafat was correct because it saved his own skin - brave man putting his own life before the future of his people. As for idiot, take a look at where the Palestinians are now, compared to where they were at the time, and where they could have been now if some sort of deal had been accepted. The only one whose done well out of the failure of negotiations are Sharon and the Israeli right. Smart move Arafat.

Sands a question, when a Palestinian who is armed killed defending his home, is that a moral and lawful killing? Is he a Palestinian gunman, deserving his faith?

Depends on the context - If the Palestinian is attempting to defend his family from being murdered, raped or having his house burgled by crinimals then his death is a murder. Now if the Palestinian gunman starts taking potshots at Israeli soldiers whove come to arrest/capture/kill terrorists then the Israelis have every right to shoot back and defend themselves.

BTW you keep on using "faith" where I assume you mean fate, or destiny? - not being smart about it, just youve done it several times and Im just trying to clarify.

One thing about gunmen defending homes- take a look at Jenin- who chose to fight a battle in that camp, risking civillian casualties? The terrorists/militia did - they trapped every street of the camp, so forcing the Israelis to clear paths for their troops right through the camps buildings, they engaged troops in combat in civillian areas, attempting to use the civillians as human shields. Lets think of something- What was the Israeli objective? To capture/kill the terrorist organisations in the camp. What was the Palestinian objective? Well assume they were trying to defend their homes. So the only reason the Israelis were there was for the terrorists- if the terrorists withdraw the Israelis have no interest being there and thus they leave - homes defended. If the palestinians are valiantly attempting to defend their homes from the Israeli army why did they put their homes and civillians at such risk by fighting a pitched battle in them? Even the Nazis showed more restraint by withdrawing from Paris rather than turning it into another Stalingrad.

Felix Randel

Sands that was sarcasism.

Theres zero point in talking to you, the israelis could shoot dead a child infront of the world and you would call it crossfire as the result of military action to hunt terrorists.

attempting to use the civillians as human shields

The israelis have used palestinians as human shields, to knock on doors and walk infront of tanks.

Now if the Palestinian gunman starts taking potshots at Israeli soldiers whove come to arrest/capture/kill terrorists then the Israelis have every right to shoot back and defend themselves.

Now thats the problem, the israelis few all palestinians as terrorist, so they will shoot anything thats moves. Do you not realize how insane the comments your makign are? The israelis went in to distroy, to turn the cities to rubble, for revenge.

I can't talk to you if you still think after all the recent carnige that the israels were looking for terrorist, if they were why did they leave so many of them to died in the streets

Sand

Theres zero point in talking to you, the israelis could shoot dead a child infront of the world and you would call it crossfire as the result of military action to hunt terrorists.

Id call it crossfire if it was crossfire. If it was just randomly grabbing a kid and blowing her brains out cos she was palestinian Id call it murder. Much as I call the murder of children by suicide bombers terrorism because it is terrorism.

The israelis have used palestinians as human shields, to knock on doors and walk infront of tanks.

Yes they did and I dont agree with that. Its wrong. Seeing as the Palestinians were attempting to defend their community youd wonder why they would use their friends and families as shields- The Israeli use can be explained by a general recklessness with the lives of Palestinians in general- the terrorists use points to a less valiant nature than you give them credit for. They (Israelis) seemed to switch tactics to bulldozing safe paths through buildings for their tanks and getting their infantry to move from building to building through the adjoining walls to avoid the booby trapped streets and doors. More destructive property wise but preserved lives overall. Just a pity the terrorists chose a civillian area as the battleground at all.

Now thats the problem, the israelis few all palestinians as terrorist, so they will shoot anything thats moves. Do you not realize how insane the comments your makign are? The israelis went in to distroy, to turn the cities to rubble, for revenge.

They will shoot anything that threatens them. As for turning cities to rubble the Israelis were forced to clear paths throught the buildings because the Palestinians had booby trapped the streets. They visited Jenin before without levelling it when there was no booby traps on the street so it discounts your theory that they just like to level buildings. As for revenge- given the Palestinains have been murdering people Id assume veangence crazed Israelis would have just bombed the camp from the air with naplam. The fact they sent ground troops in indicates they wanted more than to level buildings which could be done easier and more safely from the air.

I can't talk to you if you still think after all the recent carnige that the israels were looking for terrorist, if they were why did they leave so many of them to died in the streets

See above? Why did they send ground troops in? Im not particularly stressed if you reply or not- doesnt take much to counter your points tbh. Ive got plenty of practice from Typedef and Boston - theyve held roughly similar positions to you previously.

Cowboy George

Yo dudes, if you want to change the World...why not sign the petition below ?.

http://www.petitiononline.com/Israel/petition.html



Best Regards,


Cowboy George.

Sand

Sands that was sarcasism.

I assume youre referring to where you said

How was arafat an idiot, which one of the two men is still alive today, if he had signed the agreement it would have been his people murdering him instead of the israelis murdering barak.

If youre reduced to using sarcasm to provide evidence for your theory then your theory isnt all that watertight is it:)

Felix Randel

youd wonder why they would use their friends and families as shields

I find this comment discussing, people cowarding in the bombed out shells of there home arn't using each other as human shields to suggest such a thing is beyond ignorance and biogotness, it is an afront to anything decent. I am now seeing were your support for israel lies, it is in your own hatred for these people. It is in your believe that they are all, some how monsters,

Just a pity the terrorists chose a civillian area as the battleground at all.

Israel chose the battle ground and it happened to be peoples homes. how can anybody mudered defending their home be called a terrorist, its not like these people were bused in from another country.

They will shoot anything that threatens them.

Or has the potential

As for turning cities to rubble the Israelis were forced to clear paths throught the buildings because the Palestinians had booby trapped the streets.

What would you have them do? clear the streets of all obstructions? I hope when your house gets robbed you have a clear path to where the money is, hate for the thief to fall and hurt himself.

doesnt take much to counter your points

Well if i lived in your world im sure it wouldnt take much either.

One question, past whos fault it is, past weather or no its exceptable, past weather or not its the only option, Is it excpetable for israel to do what it has done in recent weeks, is it right? you keep on saying no matter what the cause terrorism is wrong full stop, And dont give me any of that right to defend themselves bull, that right isnt a free for all.

Felix Randel

It was this

I like the way you weight civilian deaths, 1700 bucthered by the israelis = military action, 24 blown to bites in suicide bombing = massacre

Sand

I find this comment discussing, people cowarding in the bombed out shells of there home arn't using each other as human shields to suggest such a thing is beyond ignorance and biogotness, it is an afront to anything decent. I am now seeing were your support for israel lies, it is in your own hatred for these people. It is in your believe that they are all, some how monsters,

Lol, when all else fails call them a bigot. How can I be bigoted when I expect the palestinians to keep to the same standards of warfare as civillised nations do? Youre the one attempting to make exscuses for the unexscusable, as if they were some special case, or in your own words "monsters" of whom nothing better can be expected. And youve not read the link- I dont support Israel but I oppose terrorists and I support Israels right to kill terrorists.

One question - how is it you seem to get hysterical over Palestinian civillians who arent targeted by the Israelis but merely mumble something under about "state of mind" when it comes to Israeli civillians being bombed? Arent you revealing your own bigotry?

Israel chose the battle ground and it happened to be peoples homes. how can anybody mudered defending their home be called a terrorist, its not like these people were bused in from another country.

The Palestinians chose it because thats where the terrorists were- if the terrorist withdrew then there would have been no battle. The Palestinians wanted a Stalingrad and they created one.

What would you have them do? clear the streets of all obstructions? I hope when your house gets robbed you have a clear path to where the money is, hate for the thief to fall and hurt himself.

Well having decided that they preferred fighting the Israelis in their homes, and were prepared to endanger the lives of their friends and families by booby trapping the streets what exactly did you expect the Israelis to do? March through the streets till they ran out of traps or men? Ordered their engineers forward to try and sweep the streets while under a hail of sniper fire and other booby traps? The Palestinians chose their battlefield - The Israelis merely fought on it.

BTW do you think that if the Palestinians could have predicted that they would kill 23 Israeli soldeirs in Jenin for several hundred dead of their own and the camp levelled do you think they would have withdrawn?

One question, past whos fault it is, past weather or no its exceptable, past weather or not its the only option, Is it excpetable for israel to do what it has done in recent weeks, is it right? you keep on saying no matter what the cause terrorism is wrong full stop, And dont give me any of that right to defend themselves bull, that right isnt a free for all.

Do you mean is it wrong for the Israelis to enter the West Bank to engage and capture terrorists who are bombing Israeli civillians? Yeah, its acceptable imo - right or wrong can only be determined in the future when people have the benefit of hindsight to say whether it was the correct action. But its certainly acceptable to defeat terrorists.

Felix Randel

.

I dont support Israel but I oppose terrorists and I support Israels right to kill terrorists.

And ofcourse anybody that gets in the way, and of course to do so without an evidence, and of course there right not to conform to any rules what so ever.

Well having decided that they preferred fighting the Israelis in their homes

This says it all really, you think they want to fight in close quarters with there family members on the firing line.

You are a bigot to think they are so monsterious, reminds we of the saying "they eat their young there"

do you think they would have withdrawn?

Withdraw to were? you seem to have the inability to realize they have no were else to go, they are allready in refugee camps, and who is they? the defenders? leave their families at the tender mercy of the israeli warload as you call him, responsilbe for the muder of over 1700 men weman and children. Probably the only reason anybody survived in those camps was because of the ferce fighting.

Do you mean is it wrong for the Israelis to enter the West Bank to engage and capture terrorists who are bombing Israeli civillians?

Dont be evasive, i asked you about a pertitcular situation and you answered me about a hypoteical one. Your answer woefully underestimates what happened. The only conclusion i can draw from this is you dont like the answer because it conflicts your logic system.

Ill spell it out, Is it right for Israel to invade and occupy for several weeks nearly every major population centre under Palestinian control. Is it right for them to then unease a campaign of terror on the Palestinian people, to round up hundreds almost randomly and leave scores more dead in there wake, to classify whole cities battlezone, refuse access to the area by the red cross, the un, eu, or even the medical services, to target anybody who was unwilling or unable to abandon their home as terrorist, to destroy infrastructure and worst yet hope, all under the guise of hunting down terrorist.

you claim the ends justify the means right or wrong can only be determined in the future when people have the benefit of hindsight
What if the ends are that even more freedom fighters and suicide bombers emerge from the wreckage, will the ends justify the means a second or a third or a forth time? It hard to imagine a single Palestinian that doesn't hate Israel right now, and not even you have a right to blame them.

mike65

Heart Vs Head, this thread methinks....

Mike.

Sand

And ofcourse anybody that gets in the way, and of course to do so without an evidence, and of course there right not to conform to any rules what so ever.

I didnt say that. But as you said yourself so elegantly

As for the 38%.... Sorry, people die in wars, and quite a lot of them are innocent.

.
Id agree innocent people die in war, the important thing is to not target them deliberately- which is what the Palestinians are doing and the Israelis, though they probably dont cry too much if a Palestinian does die, they dont target them deliberately.

This says it all really, you think they want to fight in close quarters with there family members on the firing line.
You are a bigot to think they are so monsterious, reminds we of the saying "they eat their young there"

Hmmm , its not so much that they wanted to- its that they *did* . Even the Nazis withdrew from Paris. And the only one considering the Palestinians a special case is you.

Withdraw to were? you seem to have the inability to realize they have no were else to go, they are allready in refugee camps, and who is they? the defenders? leave their families at the tender mercy of the israeli warload as you call him, responsilbe for the muder of over 1700 men weman and children. Probably the only reason anybody survived in those camps was because of the ferce fighting.

Withdraw from the camp, so that no battle will be fought in the camp - they can choose where to go after that. And for saying the only reason anyone survived those camps was the fighting thats pretty stupid, the Israelis were in Jenin about a month ago with no massacre so no reason to believe another one was going to happen.

Dont be evasive, i asked you about a pertitcular situation and you answered me about a hypoteical one. Your answer woefully underestimates what happened. The only conclusion i can draw from this is you dont like the answer because it conflicts your logic system.

You asked me an incredibly vague question (What Israel has done recently? Theyve done a lot of things- some of which I have no prob with, others which I do) and I wasnt going to be so foolish as to answer it and then have you take an answer to a vague question and apply it to particular questions -which seems to be your whole method of argument. If you want a precise answer ask a precise question- the fact youre not satisfied with my belief that the Israelis entering the West Bank to attack terrorists was acceptable just makes it more likely you wanted to exploit the vague nature of the question.

As for dodging questions thats quite ironic - care to answer the questions in my last post?

Is it right for Israel to invade and occupy for several weeks nearly every major population centre under Palestinian control.

Yes, if its necessary to defeat terrorism.

Is it right for them to then unease a campaign of terror on the Palestinian people,

I dont believe theyre unleashing a campaign of terror - assuming they are to satisfy you, No.

to round up hundreds almost randomly

*Almost* randomly- theyre looking for suspects- So Id have no prob with that, I mean it why they were there in the first place.

leave scores more dead in there wake

People die all the time -esp in wars as you said yourself, so long as the Israelis didnt massacre them I regret it but I dont see it as morally wrong.

to classify whole cities battlezone

If the cities *are* battlezones it seems only practical.

refuse access to the area by the red cross, the un, eu, or even the medical services,

Nah, Id have let them in if they wanted to go in - would make them sign some form of waiver first though. It was tricky enough for the Israelis that they had to fight a battle within a civillian area- letting in more friendly targets only increases the chance of friendly fires- esp with ppl silly enough to argue with a tank.

to target anybody who was unwilling or unable to abandon their home as terrorist

Again I dont believe they did. When levelling the houses they were a bit less than nice about it- they announced it on a loudspeaker to get out and 10 minutes later they came through

to destroy infrastructure

As I said before the Palestinians chose the battleground, the Israelis merely fought on it - given they only lost 23 (13 of those in one skirmish) men and soundly defeated the terrorists you can argue too much with their tactics of moving through the houses.

you claim the ends justify the means right or wrong can only be determined in the future when people have the benefit of hindsight

Nah, what I said in answer to your vague question was the Israeli milatary operation was morally acceptable, we can judge moral actions now. Only in the future will be able to say whether it was the correct course of action, whether it was right or wrong.

It hard to imagine a single Palestinian that doesn't hate Israel right now, and not even you have a right to blame them.

I agree. All I ask is that dont utilise terrorism, both for the sake of civillians and their own sakes - should they push a warlord like Sharon too far he may answer in kind and, well he has enough men and weapons to level the west bank:( Also the fact thet there probably isnt many Israelis who dont hate the Palestinians right now but still somehow manage not to sink quite to their level of terrorism and murder of civllians.

Felix Randel

its not so much that they wanted to- its that they *did* .

And im telling you they had no choice. What would you have them do, besides abandone their homes. For a man who thinks israel shouldn't give up ilegaly held land in the name of peace, your very quick to condem others for not runing into the hills.

Even the Nazis withdrew from Paris. And the only one considering the Palestinians a special case is you.

Whats this got to do with anything? What has this to do with human shields, i fail to see the connection. Maybe your just using a policy of evasion and mis direction here.

Withdraw from the camp, so that no battle will be fought in the camp - they can choose where to go after that.

Thats extremely vague, its also total stupid. Who is "they" the wemen and children? or just the saps protecting their homes?

And for saying the only reason anyone survived those camps was the fighting thats pretty stupid

Why? Its not like the "warlord" hasnt sent troops in the butcher civilians before when there was no one to protect them.

the Israelis were in Jenin about a month ago with no massacre so no reason to believe another one was going to happen.

First off what are you talking about? If your talking about the recent occupation of jenin, it is believed that several hundreds of ordinary palestinian civilians have been mudered by israeli troops in jenin and the surrounding camps. If they werent murdered then why were the bodies hiden, why did they refuse access to the area by the UN. If they had nothing to hide why are they hiding.?

Yes, if its necessary to defeat terrorism.

So you believe that this will lead to an end of the wars between these two people.

*Almost* randomly- theyre looking for suspects- So Id have no prob with that, I mean it why they were there in the first place.

seems the only criteria to become a suspect is to be palestinian, it is imposible that they have evidence on even a fraction of those arrested.

Yes, if its necessary to defeat terrorism.

People die all the time -esp in wars as you said yourself, so long as the Israelis didnt massacre them I regret it but I dont see it as morally wrong.

I didnt say that and you seem to have a loose understanding of what massacre means.

If the cities *are* battlezones it seems only practical.

Practical but totaly ilegal to do so with a civilian area.

It was tricky enough for the Israelis that they had to fight a battle within a civillian area- letting in more friendly targets

They chose to fight there, and if you believe the israelis refused access form the un and the like for their on safty then you will believe anything.

Again I dont believe they did. When levelling the houses they were a bit less than nice about it- they announced it on a loudspeaker to get out and 10 minutes later they came through

So if i gave you ten minutes to get out of your home, would you do it?

As I said before the Palestinians chose the battleground,

By living there? were would you have them live? cop on and snap out of it.

I agree. All I ask is that dont utilise terrorism

It their only real weapon

Cowboy George

Felix and Sand,


is it not time to move on to the next level and contribute to a ground up peace initiative, rather than concentrating on debating the last atrocity ?.


http://www.petitiononline.com/Israel/petition.html


Are any of you web developers ?.


Cowboy George.

Sand

For a man who thinks israel shouldn't give up ilegaly held land in the name of peace, your very quick to condem others for not runing into the hills.

Now youre just making stuff up. I do belive the Israelis should give up the West Bank in exchange for peace. As for the palestinian choices they decided they would fight the Israelis in the camp and thus made it into a battlefield - if youve got a problem with that then blame the Palestinians. If they wanted to protect their homes they should have withdrawn- no battle, no casualties, no homes destroyed. Relatively simple concept you know.

Whats this got to do with anything? What has this to do with human shields, i fail to see the connection. Maybe your just using a policy of evasion and mis direction here.

Actually Im making the point that between withdrawing and turning Paris into another Stalingrad, making the whole city into a fortress they chose to withdraw. The Palestinians chose Stalingrad.

Thats extremely vague, its also total stupid. Who is "they" the wemen and children? or just the saps protecting their homes?

They=Terrorists , you know, the ones the Israelis were looking for?

First off what are you talking about?

If you took an interest in the news as opposed to the propaganda youd know that Israelis were in the refugee camps previously ( about a month or two before the recent ops) rounding up and arresting terrorists, no massacre occured.

So you believe that this will lead to an end of the wars between these two people.

I believe that for as long as Arafat rejects negotiation in favour of terrorism milatary action is the only option remaining- not the best but the only practical one left. If the Israelis were to answer in the palestinians acts in kind the "war" that would result would most probably "solve" the conflict.

I didnt say that

As for the 38%.... Sorry, people die in wars, and quite a lot of them are innocent.

Yes, you did

you seem to have a loose understanding of what massacre means.

Yes, Im aware that by your understanding (derived from JPF propaganda no doubt) a massacre occurs whenever the Israelis shoot a Palestinian regardless of context its a "massacre". Give me a break.

Practical but totaly ilegal to do so with a civilian area.

Wars have been fought in civillian areas before, except most attempt to evacuate those areas or choose not to fight in them at all - the Soviets evacced most of Stalingrads inhabitants and the Nazis refused to fight in Paris. The Palestininians did neither and hence you have a battlezone. If it is illegal to describe a battlezone as a battlezone can you point me to the relevant legislation?

So if i gave you ten minutes to get out of your home, would you do it?

If you were going to drive a bloody bulldozer through it, ummmm YES! Mind you I wouldnt be hanging around in a battlezone anyway.

By living there? were would you have them live? cop on and snap out of it.

Nah by there being terrorists there who decided not to withdraw and to fight there- hence they chose the battleground- The Israelis werent interested where they fought as they only wanted the terrorists.

It their only real weapon

Another stupidly evil statement.

You still refuse to answer any questions I put to you - throughout the entire thread i think.

Felix Randel

no battle, no casualties, no homes destroyed. Relatively simple concept you know

thats like me saying to you, if israelis dont want to be bombed by suicide bombers they wouldnt go outside there home.

please the arguement is stupid

Actually Im making the point that between withdrawing and turning Paris into another Stalingrad, making the whole city into a fortress they chose to withdraw

That was a tactical decision, and you can possible compare it to this siuation. If you cant see the difference between an army and someone defending their home then your simply being tick.

They=Terrorists , you know, the ones the Israelis were looking for

And back we are to the start, i dont except that israel was solely looking for terrorists they were looking to destroy both the spirit of the palestinian people and their ability to make war.

Whats a terrorist, i do not except that anybody killed in the west bank is a terrorist by the israelis. Merely people resisting occupation which is there right, even you have to agree, And as you ahve said so many times before they were attacking soldiers this time not civilians, so you calling them terorists is groundless.

I believe that for as long as Arafat rejects negotiation in favour of terrorism milatary action is the only option remaining- not the best but the only practical one left. If the Israelis were to answer in the palestinians acts in kind the "war" that would result would most probably "solve" the conflict.

When in doubt, blame arafat, because the israelis god bless them have done everythign to support peace:rolleyes:

Btw do you know how much you sounded like a nazi there, with your final solution.

Yes, you did

No i didnt, i think you will find that was Shinji

Yes, Im aware that by your understanding (derived from JPF propaganda no doubt) a massacre occurs whenever the Israelis shoot a Palestinian regardless of context its a "massacre". Give me a break.

No, my understanding of a massacre is when hugely superior deliberately and without mercy wipe out an un armed or severely ill equipted opposition. This is why i dont bleive SB'ing are massacres, simple because palestinian forces will never be that superior to israel force, also because most israelis, including weman are armed. Few die in cold blood, This is a fact you dont often hear.

Wars have been fought in civillian areas before

Im talking Un law, so your nazi comments dont matter. Of course they have been, but there are certain fules for fighting these battles to minimise civilian deaths, which the israelis ignored.
Like X amount of tiem to evacas well as help in evacuating the area

Mind you I wouldnt be hanging around in a battlezone anyway

Unfortunate for the people who live there then, isn't it.

The Israelis werent interested where they fought as they only wanted the terrorists.

Sorry but you dont know what the israelis wanted.

Another stupidly evil statement.

You have said that israels only option is military action, am i to take it that this to is "stupidly evil"

As for questions, i am unaware of any question put to me by you i have not answered

Felix Randel

Id actually like to stop this before it enters its fifth level of semantics

Lemming

It takes two to tango .....

A definition of terrorism could read as follows:

The terrorising and/or killing of a civilian populace through force of arms for political goals


the Palestinians are certainly guilty of using terrorism on more than one occasion.

The Israelis are also very much guilty of using terrorism on more than one occasion.

The only difference is that one is state-sanctioned, the other is not.

bonkey

How can I be bigoted when I expect the palestinians to keep to the same standards of warfare as civillised nations do?

Because you dont spend half as much effort trying to tell the world that the Israeli's should also keep the same standards of warfare as civilised nations, despite admitting that they dont :

Originally posted by Sand
The israelis have used palestinians as human shields, to knock on doors and walk infront of tanks.

Yes they did and I dont agree with that. Its wrong.

You are frequently coming out on the "Israelis are not terrorists, because their actions are justified military action", and yet every so often you actually admit that their actions are not justified, and are wrong.

So, here's the question : why do these acts which you disagree with and call wrong not constitute terrorism?

jc

Moriarty

Originally posted by Felix Randel
No, my understanding of a massacre is when hugely superior deliberately and without mercy wipe out an un armed or severely ill equipted opposition. This is why i dont bleive SB'ing are massacres, simple because palestinian forces will never be that superior to israel force, also because most israelis, including weman are armed. Few die in cold blood, This is a fact you dont often hear.

Sorry, but that just does not sit right with me. Would you prefer for the IDF send in a company of troops on its own each time, so that its more likely that the palestinians will be able to inflict a higher casuallty rate on the IDF?

Ill put the question to you in a more direct way. If you were living in Israel you would have been drafted like many of the soldiers that are fighting for the IDF right now. Would you want your superiors to send you into a town held by hostile forces without the full backing of the rest of the forces in the area, knowing that there are boobytraps, snipers and many other dangers ahead? Of course you wouldnt. Why are the soldiers currently in the IDF any different from you? Do they not deserve the same protection?

The point of showing such strong overt force, as the IDF has been doing, is to intimidate hostiles and as a result reduce their own casualtys.

Now, lets look at what www.dictionary.com has to say about what the word 'massacre' means..

mas·sa·cre Pronunciation Key (ms-kr)
n.

-The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly.

-The slaughter of a large number of animals.

The IDF are not killing people indiscriminately and cruelly. They are targetting terrorist cells. In fact, palestinian suicide bombers seem to fit into that discription perfectly. Go figure, eh?

Originally posted by Felix Randel

Im talking Un law, so your nazi comments dont matter. Of course they have been, but there are certain fules for fighting these battles to minimise civilian deaths, which the israelis ignored.
Like X amount of tiem to evacas well as help in evacuating the area

The IDF have not ignored these rules. If the IDF didnt care about civilian casualties, they would get the airforce to carpet bomb the entire settlement with napalm. Instead, the IDF sent in troops. They could have done many things far more destructive than what they did.

<Edit: Fixed brackets>

bonkey

Originally posted by Moriarty
The IDF are not killing people indiscriminately and cruelly. They are targetting terrorist cells.

Actually, there hasnt been a shred of proof offered that any, let alone all of the casualties in recent Israeli incursions were terrorists.

The only reason you can say that they were targetting terrorist cells is because you choose to believe the Israeli statements on the issue.

Now, I'm not going to try and claim that every single Palestinian killed in the recent activities was innocent, but imagine what the reaction in an American town would be if (say) the Mexicans came over the border, and said "we're here for some criminals - co-operate and you wont be hurt". Assume that for some reason, the military and police werent around to help these people out. What do you think would happen?

I think you'd find that every single American in the region who had a gun would exercise their constitutional right to bear arms, and would mount resistance against the attacker - much like what we have seen in these refugee camps recently.

Israel has offered no proof, just statements of condemnation. Every single man who raised a gun to defend his home against an incoming army was branded a terrorist. Every single one. I find that amazing - that possession of a gun and fighting against an army who are invading your home again makes you a terrorist.

I'm not sure I like this new world - where the branding of someone as a terrorist in the media is all the due process you seem to need any more to kill them or detain them indefinitely.

In our increasingly media-driven world, I find it slightly worrying that we are increasingly willing to base our opinions on the media's presentation of two sides, or our choice to believe the statements of one side over the other.

The Israelis are the only people reporting that they were careful, went door to door as cleanly as possible, and that all the dead were those who put up armed resistance. The Palestinians, and any other eye-witnesses who happened to be there are telling a very different story.

I'm not saying that this different story is any more of less correct, but what I am saying is that we shouldnt be so quick to just believe the story of one side and dismiss the other. Unless, of course, you've already decided who is right and wrong, in which case, the actual events dont mean anything to you.

jc

Moriarty

Bonkey - I certainly take on board everything you say, and i agree with it. I have noticed though, that there seems to be very pro-palestinian camp (which isnt bad in and of itself) in Ireland in general that thinks they can do no wrong. "They are the downtrodden, and as such all Israelis and the IDF deserve everything that comes to them." I find that sort of thinking very disturbing. Israel and the IDF are no saints - i just detect a distinct bias towards palestinians and suicide bombings from many people here.

The IDF, and hence everyone serving in it, are also being branded as monsters and nazis. I dont believe they are either, they are just an army following very poor and misguided political leadership as best they can. I dont believe any other army in the world would stand up to the scruitiny the IDF is under, in such a tense situation, and come out the other side any better than the IDF are.

<Edited to make sense >

Felix Randel

The IDF have not ignored these rules. If the IDF didnt care about civilian casualties, they would get the airforce to carpet bomb the entire settlement with napalm. Instead, the IDF sent in troops. They could have done many things far more destructive than what they did

Because they only carpet bombed afew square blocks, you think that is evidence that they care about civilians. So it i shot you in the leg instead of the face, that means i care about your well being?

The IDF are not killing people indiscriminately and cruelly.

I disagree, they are, its fact and very soon the UN will say its fact.
But ive not doubt that i havent a chance of getting you to believe that. It some peoples eyes a state can do no wrong.

Ill put the question to you in a more direct way. If you were living in Israel you would have been drafted like many of the soldiers that are fighting for the IDF right now. Would you want your superiors to send you into a town held by hostile forces without the full backing of the rest of the forces in the area, knowing that there are boobytraps, snipers and many other dangers ahead? Of course you wouldnt. Why are the soldiers currently in the IDF any different from you? Do they not deserve the same protection?

Jesus your right, if i was raping, killing and thiefing my way through a city, id want all the protection i could get.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Felix Randel
Because they only carpet bombed afew square blocks, you think that is evidence that they care about civilians. So it i shot you in the leg instead of the face, that means i care about your well being?

They didnt carpet bomb at all. You cant carpet bomb a few square blocks. Carpet bombing infers bombing of a very widespread area with high-yield munitions. This has not happened. Your making less and less sense as you continue to post.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
I disagree, they are, its fact and very soon the UN will say its fact.
But ive not doubt that i havent a chance of getting you to believe that. It some peoples eyes a state can do no wrong.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
Jesus your right, if i was raping, killing and thief my way through a city, id want all the protection i could get.

Wow. Look at that. I entirely pre-empted your post. I refer you to my previous post..

I have noticed though, that there seems to be very pro-palestinian camp (which isnt bad in and of itself) in Ireland in general that thinks they can do no wrong. "They are the downtrodden, and as such all Israelis and the IDF deserve everything that comes to them." I find that sort of thinking very disturbing. Israel and the IDF are no saints - i just detect a distinct bias towards palestinians and suicide bombings from many people here.

Welcome to the Hear-no-evil, See-no-evil club. I presume you paid your yearly sub already?

I also notice you failed to respond to the facts pointing towards palestinian suicide bombing as being a perfect example of a massacre. Im sure it just slipped your mind. Or, maybe, perhaps, i spoke the truth!? (Fancy that eh?)

<Edit: Typos>

Felix Randel

Originally posted by Moriarty
Bonkey - I certainly take on board everything you say, and i agree with it. I have noticed though, that there seems to be very pro-palestinian camp (which isnt bad in and of itself) in Ireland in general that thinks they can do no wrong. "They are the downtrodden, and as such all Israelis and the IDF deserve everything that comes to them." I find that sort of thinking very disturbing. Israel and the IDF are no saints - i just detect a distinct bias towards palestinians and suicide bombings from many people here.

Its like this, Israel represents brutal logic to allot of people. If someone threatens you and you have a gun, shoot him. Its not hard to go from that to if someone might be threatening you shoot him. If one particular group of people are threatening you, well then arrest them, later you might shoot them aswell. Eventually you blame everything on these people. We all have this tiny part at the back of our mind, lets call it "sands" saying "yea this makes sense" but it is our humanity that stops us in our tracks, its out inability to do these things to other humans. Unfortunately due to all the years of war, when an Israeli looks at a Palestinian, all they see is a man that's going to kill them and their family.

Also its not that long ago that we were in the same boat. If the Palestinians in jenin are terrorist then im the grand son of terrorist.

Felix Randel

They didnt carpet bomb at all. You cant even carpet bomb a few square blocks. Carpeting bombing infers bombing of a very widespread area with high-yield munitions. This has not happened. Your making less and less sense as you continue to post.

Dont be anal, you brought up carpet bombing so i continued. IT is safe to say that they flatened in a very short period several square blocks of jenin refugee camp, using one means or the other.

I also notice you failed to respond to the facts pointing towards palestinian suicide bombing as being a perfect example of a massacre. Im sure it just slipped your mind. Or, maybe, perhaps, i spoke the truth!?

I disagree with you observations on that matter.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Felix Randel
Dont be anal, you brought up carpet bombing so i continued. IT is safe to say that they flatened in a very short period several square blocks of jenin refugee camp, using one means or the other.

Its not anal. This is something i really detest. People will say one thing - (carpet bombing; that infers enourmous wanton destruction) - and when challenged about it they will respond "Oh, well it wasnt really carpet bombing, it was infact closer to no bombing, but i decided to say it anyway". This is used to garner even more support for the cause due to totally false allegations. When you debate something like this you dont make broad, sweeping statements - certainly not when theyre innacurate or plain false.

Originally posted by Felix Randel
I disagree with you observations on that matter.

What exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with the interpretation of the word by a dictionary? Can you somehow explain to me why suicide bombing cannot be classified as a massacre, aka killing indiscriminatly and cruely?

Lemming

Originally posted by Moriarty

They didnt carpet bomb at all. You cant carpet bomb a few square blocks. Carpet bombing infers bombing of a very widespread area with high-yield munitions. This has not happened. Your making less and less sense as you continue to post.

Not taking sides on this particular post but .....

To "carpet bomb" means covering an area (doesn't matter how big/small) with ordnance (to detremental effect obviously of said area and its occupants)

Hence the word "carpet" - to cover. At no point is the word "widespread area" or "aircraft" or "naplam" or whatever come into said phrase. You could carpet bomb a pavement with a tank unit if you so choose to do so. It's still carpetting a target area with ordnance of some sort.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Lemming


Not taking sides on this particular post but .....

To "carpet bomb" means covering an area (doesn't matter how big/small) with ordnance (to detremental effect obviously of said area and its occupants)

Hence the word "carpet" - to cover. At no point is the word "widespread area" or "aircraft" or "naplam" or whatever come into said phrase. You could carpet bomb a pavement with a tank unit if you so choose to do so. It's still carpetting a target area with ordnance of some sort.

Fair enough, but when you mention carpet bombing to somone, they usually take it to mean something similar to what happened to dresden - eg the complete and utter destruction of vast swaths of city via bombing. Either way, i think its disingenuous to say that the IDF carpet bombed refugee camps. It implies something that did not happen.

Sand

Because you dont spend half as much effort trying to tell the world that the Israeli's should also keep the same standards of warfare as civilised nations,despite admitting that they dont :

I think Felix, Boston, Type, and a large majority of the other board users do enough arguing/ranting for the Palestinian view of things already - The fact that Im one of the few that dare to criticise the Palestinians is why my views seem so extreme- because compared to the standard Israelis= Stormstroopers, Palestinians = Rebel Alliance viewpoint exspressed by many, it is extreme. Quite simply while the Israelis may not keep to all the rules they dont break them in such wanton fashion as the Palestinians do. If the Palestinians even managed to restrain themselves to the Israelis standard of not deliberately targeting civillians the conflict would be a hell of a lot less bitter.

So, here's the question : why do these acts which you disagree with and call wrong not constitute terrorism?

The act you refer to (Using Palestinians as "minesweepers" ) is wrong (practical maybe but still wrong) but it hardly constitutes terrorism. Stealing is wrong too but it hardly constitutes terrorism. The fact that those who wish to say the Israelis employ a state santioned policy of terrorism against the Palestinians have a harder time looking for examples that indicate the above is because compared to the Palestinians the Israelis are quite selective and restrained.

Felix:

Btw do you know how much you sounded like a nazi there, with your final solution

Ummm, thats not my solution - thats the solution of the Israeli right wing parties who Sharon is drawing into his government more and more. Hence the " "s to indicate disbelief. Muppet.

You have said that israels only option is military action, am i to take it that this

Oh youre right , of course- terrorism is morally equivalent to milatary action, obvious now. I actually cant see why you have a problem with IDF "massacres" in the West Bank, surely using your logic the Israelis are merely using the only weapon they have left? Or is it simply in the end you believe a Palestinian life is worth more than an Israeli life?

As for questions, i am unaware of any question put to me by you i have not answered

Then youve not been reading my posts.

In our increasingly media-driven world, I find it slightly worrying that we are increasingly willing to base our opinions on the media's presentation of two sides or our choice to believe the statements of one side over the other.

I definitly agree.

Eventually you blame everything on these people. We all have this tiny part at the back of our mind, lets call it "sands" saying "yea this makes sense" but it is our humanity that stops us in our tracks, its out inability to do these things to other humans.

Youre talking about the Palestinians here? Theyre murdering Israelis daily and you shrug and go "Its the only weapon they have left". Meanwhile Palestinian gunmen die in a battle and you call it a massacre. Welcome to JPF logic, common sense has left the building.

What exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with the interpretation of the word by a dictionary? Can you somehow explain to me why suicide bombing cannot be classified as a massacre, aka killing indiscriminatly and cruely?

Yeah Im wondering that too. I guess its because "it will teach the Israelis a lesson".

Lemming

Originally posted by Moriarty

Fair enough, but when you mention carpet bombing to somone, they usually take it to mean something similar to what happened to dresden - eg the complete and utter destruction of vast swaths of city via bombing. Either way, i think its disingenuous to say that the IDF carpet bombed refugee camps. It implies something that did not happen.

Oh, I agree Moriarty. The phrase is atrributed to mass air bombardment most often.

But in the case of Jenin, it would appear that the IDF went in and simply blanketed the place in HE rounds

Lemming

Originally posted by Sand


I think Felix, Boston, Type, and a large majority of the other board users do enough arguing/ranting for the Palestinian view of things already

You'd be right.

- The fact that Im one of the few that dare to criticise the Palestinians is why my views seem so extreme- because compared to the standard Israelis= Stormstroopers, Palestinians = Rebel Alliance viewpoint exspressed by many, it is extreme.

You'd be wrong. You don't just criticise the Palestinians ... you place the Israeli's up on a pedestal of "righteousness", and quite blindly too. They're as bad as the Palestinians, possibly worse from the point of view that they are supposed to be signed up to various conventions, etc , etc.

Both sides are, for want of more eloquent language, behaving like thugs and bullies.

Quite simply while the Israelis may not keep to all the rules they dont break them in such wanton fashion as the Palestinians do. If the Palestinians even managed to restrain themselves to the Israelis standard of not deliberately targeting civillians the conflict would be a hell of a lot less bitter.

The act you refer to (Using Palestinians as "minesweepers" ) is wrong (practical maybe but still wrong) but it hardly constitutes terrorism.

Now to what I really wanted to say .....

You're contradicting yourself here. The israelis ARE breaking rules, by your own admission. Therefore they are breaking them in the same wanton fashion as the Palestinians. As I said earlier. The only difference is that they have state-sanction to do so.

As for the Israelis restraining themselves, that statement can be answered by the election of Sharon by the people (of whom the military recruit from).

Regards teh "minesweepers". If those men were captured in armed conflict, and under the rules of engagement, ceased to be civilian upon taking up arms. They are, imho, entitled to the same rules and regulations governing POWs. In that case, the Israeli's are blatantly violating various conventions and treaties on warfare and conduct whilst trying to claim the moral highground.

As for your final words:

The fact that those who wish to say the Israelis employ a state santioned policy of terrorism against the Palestinians have a harder time looking for examples that indicate the above is because compared to the Palestinians the Israelis are quite selective and restrained.

So in your own admission, the Israelis ARE committing acts of terrorism. Being selective and restrained whilst carrying out such an act is STILL carring out said act.

gurramok

Re: Sand

The numbers dont matter- the fashion in which they died do

What a despicable thing to say, thousands have died in this conflict, do you value life at all ?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Oh youre right , of course- terrorism is morally equivalent to milatary action, obvious now.
[/B]

Israel's military action included the mass destruction of people's homes, which allegedly included massive loss of civilian life.

It included using human shields and human mine-sweepers.

It included branding anyone who tried to protect their homes from said invasion as terrorists.

In this case, I would say that the military action in question is morally equivalent to terrorism - even if you refuse to accept that it is terrorism.

The Israelis have a right to defend themselves. However, they do not have a right to tread roughshod over the rights and lives of innocent Palestinians, in the name of "justice".

Can you imagine the outcry if instead of dropping "kick out the Taliban" messages, the US had instead dropped "we will level this town in 3 days" messages over Afghanistan, and then carried out the threat?

They would have given fore-warning to all. It would have been the Taliban who chose the battleground by holing up in the town in the first place. Anyone who fought back would obviously be a terrorist, and any innocent death would not be America's fault because they did give warning.

Does anyone believe that this would have been met with international approval? Somehow I doubt it.

Yet, with the israeli actions, we have a virtually identical situation where people are honestly saying "it is a legitimate military exercise, and every effort was made to avoid innocent deaths".

The question was never whether or not terrorism is equivalent to military action. The question is whether or not this particular military action is any different from terrorism. Personally, I cant see that it is.


jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
Regards teh "minesweepers". If those men were captured in armed conflict, and under the rules of engagement, ceased to be civilian upon taking up arms. They are, imho, entitled to the same rules and regulations governing POWs.

Dont be silly. They took arms against someone who is opposing terrorism. They must be terrorists. What more proof is needed? If we needed proof, they might have to be set free, and wouldnt that be dangerous.

They should be sent to Camp X-Ray or some equivalent, detained indefinitely without legal advice and no guarantee of trial.

Damn - they're lucky they werent just shot on sight, so we shouldnt really complain.

Well - its not a million miles away from the logic used in another recent anti-terrorist campaign

jc