<strong>The key to peace is not Arafats but Israels: As long as they demand a periode of non violence before talk can begin or they will end their retaliation those who doesn´t want peace have it their way. As long they can get a couple of persons who are willing to end his life for the cause every week this will continue. And as long as Israel is provoking the common palestinian population like they do now there will be no shortage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What a stupid statement. It's all Israel's fault huh? They're the real problem? The terrorist that target children aren't the "real" problem at all?
So Palestine targets and kills Israeli children day after day and Israel should do nothing about? They should enter "peace talk" with the people who murder children?
This is just dumb. From where I sit and what I read Israel is ready for peace, has been for a long time, and the Palestinians are not. How may times does Israel have to offer a peace agreement and how many times does Arafat have to walk away from it before we start to see things as they are? What the **** did Clinton work so hard on?
Israel wants peace and Arafat walks away from it and sends the terrorist in.
This is not going anywhere... If israel was so ready for peace, why did they murder their own priminister, send his party out (that negotiated the original peace deal) of office, and then elected a former war criminal as the head of state?...
What a stupid statement. It's all Israel's fault huh? They're the real problem? The terrorist that target children aren't the "real" problem at all?
So Palestine targets and kills Israeli children day after day and Israel should do nothing about? They should enter "peace talk" with the people who murder children?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not talking about justice here or whos fault it is but who is able to do anything.
The objective: Peace in the Middle East.
The positions: The terrorists doesn´t want it. Arafat can do sh!t to provide it, especially not as long as Israel is attacking the Palestine people.
That only leaves Israel with the room to do anything. They have a number of chioces: 1) Nuke everyone not jewish in a range of 1000 miles (and the HQ of UN without touching american soil), 2) continue the current campaign or 3) seek peace with the Palestine people. Since 3) is only acceptable for Israel if the terrorists stop doing what they do you have an official deadlock. Now tell me what a way out of it if not that Israel change their position?
Again its not about being fair but about ending the conflict.
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>
This is just dumb. From where I sit and what I read Israel is ready for peace, has been for a long time, and the Palestinians are not.
How may times does Israel have to offer a peace agreement and how many times does Arafat have to walk away from it before we start to see things as they are? What the **** did Clinton work so hard on?
Israel wants peace and Arafat walks away from it and sends the terrorist in.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Some Palestinians don´t want peace and they can have it their way as long as Israel give them the means to continue the conflict. They see the "stop the terror attacks before any talks" as an offer they can´t refuse
2) It is disputed that thats was really what happened in their negotiations in US. A chance was missed but as far as I have read it was the tactics on both sides that spoiled the chance. That the blame was placed on Arafat was really unfair. I will try look for an english online text on this later.
3) From where do you have this strange idea that Arafat has this huge power over the Palestinians? And for what reason should he want to put his own life in risk along with any chance for peace after the turnaround he did in the early 90´s?
3) From where do you have this strange idea that Arafat has this huge power over the Palestinians? And for what reason should he want to put his own life in risk along with any chance for peace after the turnaround he did in the early 90´s?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If Arafat doesn't speak for the Palestinians and represent them as a leader, what the hell is he doing negotiating on their behalf? If he's just a poor, ordinary citizen, tell him to stay at home and let somebody else step up.
The Palestinian role in "peace negotiations" has continued in exactly the same pattern for decades. Comparatively diplomatic-sounding men in suits take part in negotiations for peace, at the same time that terrorists on the streets are blowing up Israelis in cafes and on busses. Then the diplomats plead that they can't stop the extremists, it just can't possibly be helped, and has no bearing on the negotiations. How long does this continue to be a valid argument?
I think the Palestinians have missed their greatest chance at a deal, just by being too wiggly at the negotiating table and playing fast & loose with the extracurricular dynamite-related activities simultaneous to negotiations.
If Arafat doesn't speak for the Palestinians and represent them as a leader, what the hell is he doing negotiating on their behalf? If he's just a poor, ordinary citizen, tell him to stay at home and let somebody else step up. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Who? Noone besides Arafat can both hold the nominal power and talk to Israel. No other will be able to both seize the power and be willing to talk with Israel. Even Israel realize that and thats why Arafat is still alive. Only because Arafat have been the leader of PLO for so many years is he still respected enough to do so. Arafat Is is the most "in charge" person but that doesn´t say a lot. The greatest fault of Arafat was not to build a genuine bureaucracy based on rules and to gain real control over his areas to begin with. Instead neopotism and the thirst for power ruined the opportunity to build a controlable society. Then when the peace process didn´t went on as expected he hadn´t the power to control. He is not in charge of a weberian state.
[quote]<strong>The Palestinian role in "peace negotiations" has continued in exactly the same pattern for decades. Comparatively diplomatic-sounding men in suits take part in negotiations for peace, at the same time that terrorists on the streets are blowing up Israelis in cafes and on busses. Then the diplomats plead that they can't stop the extremists, it just can't possibly be helped, and has no bearing on the negotiations. How long does this continue to be a valid argument?
I think the Palestinians have missed their greatest chance at a deal, just by being too wiggly at the negotiating table and playing fast & loose with the extracurricular dynamite-related activities simultaneous to negotiations.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering the development the last 20 years the PLO really created the chance of peace. Try following the things Arafat have said about Israel from 1980 until now: He didn´t accept its existence back then. Now he even accept Israel keeping parts of the occupied land. According to UN resolutions he didn´t have to do that.
The big fault of Israel have been to put up settlements in occupied territory and not been willing to take the internal fight with the inhabitants and off course to find an agreement about Jerusalem. Until they accept to take the internal fight nothing will be accomplished on the long run.
Some personal experience: I have travelled for about one month in Israel a couple of years ago. My mothers father was jewish and I travelled with an jewish israeliÂ*friend so a lot of guards were down towards me. We visited both very secularised IsraelisÂ*(mostly in Tel Aviv)Â*and very religiousÂ*settlers who saw themselves as claiming land for God. Back then I thought "it will be tough to get these people to back off: fortunetly their goverment is committed in this peace". But the next years told me it wasn´t prepared to take the confrontation and to my best judgement thats was what led to the situation we are in now: The Palestinians went a very long way by accepting Israel and even accepting that parts of the UN resolutions wouldn´t be fulfilled. Israel went a long way by accepting PLO but the ball was still Israel to play by showing will to abandom the settlements but they didn´t (have any of you seen the maps of the Palestinian areas? Its like a swiss cheese with the settlements and road connections as holes everywhere where the palestinians have no authority). And when that created frustration Arafat hadn´t the power over his people.
Now what is the alternative for Israel if it wants peace? Noone have answered me that yet.
Scott H, from your comfortable privileged vantage-point here in America, can you imagine what it is like to be in a land under occupation by a hostile foreign force? Ask a member of the former French Resistance about the Nazis,or the Afghans under the Soviets, or the Tibetans under the iron fist of Communist China. Life for the Palestinian people under Israeli occupation is no better. What would *you* do if a bunch of heavily armed soldiers and a construction crew bulldozed *your* home without notice? This, and worse is happening daily. How would *you* feel? How would *you* respond? (For the record, the current deathtoll since the start of the current unrest nears 1000, and over 75% are Palestinians).
Obviously, from your posts, you are very pro-Israel; considering Ariel Sharon's well-documented record of planning murder, mayhem, and genocide on the Palestinian people in the 1980s, are you not openly supporting a known terrorist here? Just because he courts the US, wears a suit and tie and speaks the "Queens English" doesnt let him off the hook.
I have no respect for Yasser Arafat either, in case you automatically assumed that my criticism of Israel means that I am a supporter of their enemy. His previous record re. the PLO is most gnarly, but to insist, as we keep hearing, that he 'rein in Hamas, Hezbollah etc' is like trying to round up feral cats and get them to perform tricks. Arafat has little or no pull with those crazies.
Life is *short*, and only happens once. All peoples on Earth have a right to freedom and security. or is that too 'hippie' for you? Why do you feel that one side is so 'right' and the other, so 'wrong'? Double standards re. international affairs are one of the evils that perpetuates war, terror, misery etc. From what you say, it sounds like you support the culture of violence, and the attitudes that foment it.
btw, that supposedly 'great deal' that Arafat refused earlier this year was a joke. Just go look at the terms; to sign it would have been political suicide.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Scott H, from your comfortable privileged vantage-point here in America, can you imagine what it is like to be in a land under occupation by a hostile foreign force? Ask a member of the former French Resistance about the Nazis,</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did the French bomb German children? Bomb a German dance hall on a Friday night?
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>or the Afghans under the Soviets</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the Afghans fought the Soviet military.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>What would *you* do if a bunch of heavily armed soldiers and a construction crew bulldozed *your* home without notice? This, and worse is happening daily. How would *you* feel? How would *you* respond? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I would bomb a bus full of old people? Maybe I would bomb a mall full of teenagers? No I wouldn't do that. I'm not a terrorist.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Obviously, from your posts, you are very pro-Israel</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ummmm? Not really. I'm just very very anti terrorist these days. People this is for the sake of the world. We cannot cannotcannot legitimize terrorism as a way to obtain a political objective. It is outside the rules of war to target civilians. But that's what the Palestinian terrorist do day in and day out. If terrorism is able to win in this century we will never see an end to it. It is very important to reject terrorism at every turn. We have to turn a deaf ear to the terrorist complaint. If we give them what they want then we'll never see and end to it. Rather if everyone stands up against it then we have a chance.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>considering Ariel Sharon's well-documented record of planning murder, mayhem, and genocide on the Palestinian people in the 1980s, are you not openly supporting a known terrorist here? Just because he courts the US, wears a suit and tie and speaks the "Queens English" doesnt let him off the hook.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think I've ever heard the Kings English from him. If I remember it's rather poor. Genocide is a load term that gets over used. Be careful how you use when talking to a Jew.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>I have no respect for Yasser Arafat either, in case you automatically assumed that my criticism of Israel means that I am a supporter of their enemy. His previous record re. the PLO is most gnarly, but to insist, as we keep hearing, that he 'rein in Hamas, Hezbollah etc' is like trying to round up feral cats and get them to perform tricks. Arafat has little or no pull with those crazies.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know that person he put under "house arrest"? I heard on the news that he's not under "house arrest". Turns out the PLO people showed up at the house and were told to go away. So they did Keep up the hard work Arafat.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Life is *short*, and only happens once. All peoples on Earth have a right to freedom and security. or is that too 'hippie' for you? Why do you feel that one side is so 'right' and the other, so 'wrong'?</strong><hr></blockquote>
IMO from where I sit and what I read it seem to me that Israel is ready for peace and Palestine is not. From where I sit Arafat is the one that has been running the "infatada". We can play "who did what first" but it seem to me that Israel only reacts to the violence that Arafat starts. (Are we still pretending Arafat is not a terrorist?) I firmly believe that if Arafat called off the terrorism or made a real effort to deal with it Israel would pull back. History proves me right.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Double standards re. international affairs are one of the evils that perpetuates war, terror, misery etc. From what you say, it sounds like you support the culture of violence, and the attitudes that foment it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What? I come down hard on a terrorist and you claim I "support the culture of violence".
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>btw, that supposedly 'great deal' that Arafat refused earlier this year was a joke. Just go look at the terms; to sign it would have been political suicide.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yea because any deal with the Jews is a death sentence for him.
[quote]The attackers, from two Palestinian militant groups, struck shortly before noon at the main bus station in the city's downtown shopping district. Running toward the central market and firing in bursts at clumps of people, they left a trail of victims and sidewalks smeared with blood.
....
Two Palestinian organizations, the militant group Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Brigades, a militia linked to Arafat's own Fatah organization, took responsibility for the attack. In a videotape made in advance, they said the attack was to avenge the deaths of Palestinian militants killed by Israel.
"We hope our people will continue in the path of holy war," said one of the gunmen, identified as Mustafa Abu Srieh of Islamic Jihad. The second assailant, Abdel Karim Abu Nafa, 20, was a Palestinian policeman and Fatah activist.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Hundreds of supporters of the Palestinian militant group Hamas have been protecting the house of their leader since successfully defeating an attempt by Palestinian security forces to arrest him.
Calm returned on Thursday morning as security forces returned to the area of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin's house in Gaza City.
The Hamas leader has been under Palestinian house arrest in the past
The BBC's Kylie Morris says Sheikh Yassin has effectively placed himself under house arrest.
But the Israeli Government says this is insufficient and that Mr Arafat needs to arrest those who are actively involved in planning attacks against Israel.
Late on Wednesday evening, Hamas gunmen and security forces exchanged fire outside the house before the security forces withdrew late on Wednesday evening.
Hamas has said it carried out the suicide bomb attacks on Israelis at the weekend which killed 25 people.
We are all angry at the corrupt Palestinian leadership
Hamas supporterThe arrest attempt came as Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat asked for more time from Israel, which has suspended its retaliatory air strikes, to clamp down on militants.
Supporters poured into the streets of Gaza when an alert was raised on loudspeakers at a nearby mosque.
They came to the home of Hamas's 62-year-old spiritual leader, who is paralysed and virtually blind, by car and on foot from across the city.
"We are all angry at the corrupt Palestinian leadership," one Hamas supporter said, and accused the Palestinian police of trying to provoke a "civil war".
A Palestinian official said that the arrest order had been issued because of the Hamas figure's recent "statements against the Palestinian Authority".
Palestinian security forces succeeded in arresting a number of other Hamas activists but our correspondent says the demonstrations confirm the fears of the Palestinian Authority that carrying out arrests under pressure from Israel will put it on a collision course with its own people.<hr></blockquote>
Now tell me about Arafats great power to make the Palestinians do what he wants. Even by putting the Hamas leader under house arrest which you found laughable Arafat is risking his political life.
[quote]Hamas has gained in popularity among an increasingly radicalised Palestinian population.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian leadership's inability to improve political or economic conditions for its people has seen its approval rating plummet - some polls suggest as low as 20%.
Mr Arafat has let Fatah form links with Hamas
Hamas has capitalised on the Palestinian Authority's failure to establish a functioning infrastructure by setting up a parallel welfare system with millions of dollars of foreign aid - mostly from Saudi Arabia.
Despite the Israeli assassination policy against its leaders, Hamas has also continued to launch deadly attacks on Israel.
Its populist activism has left the old guard surrounding Yasser Arafat behind. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]In putting increasingly intense pressure on Mr Arafat to eradicate Hamas and other Islamic militants, Israel may risk turning the delicate balance between them into an all-out clash.
Whether this is part of an Israeli plan to get rid of Mr Arafat himself is debatable.
What seems probable, though, is that it will further radicalise and harden the attitudes of ordinary Palestinians. <hr></blockquote>
As you propably know the situation went even further yesterday and Arafats police force had to shoot one palestinian man (he later died), one of the hundreds trying to block the house of the Hamas leader.
[quote]"We in Hamas are not going to accept the Palestinian Authority's arrest campaign and we will not keep silent," said one of the protesters, Izzedine Abu Ghaya, a 22?year?old student at the Islamic University in Gaza City.
Abdel Aziz Rantisi, one of the Hamas leaders who has gone underground since the start of the arrest sweep, posted a message to the group's wanted men on a website linked to Hamas, saying they should not turn themselves in to police.
Arafat's Fatah movement later staged a counter?demonstration in support of the Palestinian leader. A senior Arafat aide, Tayeb Abdel Rahim, told the crowd of several thousand that they must stand up to those trying to "sabotage the decisions of the Palestinian leadership," an apparent reference to the Islamic militants.<hr></blockquote>
What would happen if Arafat had to abandon his position or if noone among the Palestines listened to him anymore? Who should Israel try to make peace with? Hamas?
Now tell me about Arafats great power to make the Palestinians do what he wants. Even by putting the Hamas leader under house arrest which you found laughable Arafat is risking his political life.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll tell you that he has 50,0000 rifles that the Israelis gave him so that he could "police" his own people. None of which get used. Better for Arafat to risk his political life than the lives of Israelis and Palestinians. Are you suggesting Arafat should condone the terrorism so he can extend his political career?
I'll tell you that he has 50,0000 rifles that the Israelis gave him so that he could "police" his own people. None of which get used. Better for Arafat to risk his political life than the lives of Israelis and Palestinians. Are you suggesting Arafat should condone the terrorism so he can extend his political career?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would care sh!t about Arafat if it wasn´t because he is the only one who remotely represent the palestinian people and is willing to talk to Israel. If Arafat ordered the police to shoot their way through to the terrorists to seize them he would last less than 1 minute. IT IS NOT A CHOICE as the situation is right now. Not even the combined force of the US and Israel military could create peace without whiping out the the entire Palestinian population as it is right now.
I want peace and I am focusing on that. Who want it too? Israel and Arafat. Who can provide the peace? Israel and the terrorists/Hamas. If I combine those two groups I get Israel as the only one who can and will provide it.
Scott: If we didn´t have Arafat who should Israel talk to? You don´t think Israel could create "peace" (as in security for Israel but certainly not for the common palestine civilian) fighting their way through without becomming terrorists and/or an apartheid country?
What does it matter? You talk to Arafat and you get terror. I'm not sure how not talking to him would make things any worse. How many times does peace with Arafat have to fail before it's given up as useless? Maybe if they expelled him, like Jordan did long ago, maybe it would encourage other voices to speak up.
Is now a good time to mention that IMO terrorist attacks are condoned by many Europeans because they are antisemitic? It's like killing a Jew is understandable but when Israel reacts to destroy a terrorist cell then it's a horrible act. You can almost here people saying, "of couse they killed the Jew. The jew built a house there."
Is now a good time to mention that IMO terrorist attacks are condoned by many Europeans because they are antisemitic? It's like killing a Jew is understandable but when Israel reacts to destroy a terrorist cell then it's a horrible act. You can almost here people saying, "of couse they killed the Jew. The jew built a house there." </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ugh. Wouldn´t it be kind of strange for me to do such a thing? I know several Israelies who I woundn´t want to get hurt and propably quite a large portion of my family live in Israel (but are too far out on the family tree for me to know about). I know no palestineans and those I met in Israel I never fully understood as my Israeli friends.
And if the situation was as bad in Northern Ireland as in Israel I would say the same things about that too.
All I want is peace like in not killing eachother and not having a "repressive" "peace" and I analyse the situation and come to conclusions on what I think is the right way out of the situation. I think of those innocent people who is going to be killed on both sides or having their life chances reduced severely in the future on the actions we take now. Then sometimes you have to focus less on the past. No past actions can justify the future suffering of innocent. I may get my hands dirty but I am willing to let that happen so less people in the future will suffer.
Its almost as Afghanistan: If the war was pure revenge the first Afghan civilian casualty would make US another terrorist. But because it will also prevent some terrorist actions in the future it has to be acceptable. You get your hands dirty but thats what you have to do.
How about Nicaragua everybody? We attacked, the UN and other world courts said it was an illegal invasion (only the US and Israel disagreed), they tried to force us to obey world law (we vetoed) and that is it. The US is the biggest terrorist nation the world ever saw.
I'm proud to be an American. Am I proud of our government? FVCK NO!
[quote]I would bomb a bus full of old people? Maybe I would bomb a mall full of teenagers? No I wouldn't do that. I'm not a terrorist.<hr></blockquote>
You really feel that I support terrorism because I make a post that is non-partisan, and points out the misdeeds of the side that you support. You are so way wide of the mark it is laughable, if it wasn't so sad. In the same breath I could quite easily accuse you of sympathizing with terrorism by supporting Ariel Sharon's current or past behavior also.
Scott H:
[quote]Genocide is a load term that gets over used. Be careful how you use when talking to a Jew.<hr></blockquote>
I am extremely careful when using the term Genocide. I believe it was the term used by the United Nations to describe the systematic massacres of 10s of thousands of unarmed Palestinian refugees (civilians), men, women and children in S. Labanon in the early 1980s by the combined forces of the Israeli military and Christian Phalange; Sharon's part (as Israel's defense minister) in the planning and execution of the massacres is no wild conspiracy theory; even an Israeli Commission of Inquiry found him at least "partly responsible". So in my book, this man is guilty of both war crimes and international mass terrorism. Acts of terrorism have been committed by both sides here.
It is politically incorrect to question Israel's actions or display this ally of the U.S. in a less than favorable light. But, always realize that all those people over there are just that: people, human beings, you know, like you and I. or anyone else on this board. We all live under the same sky. You really just don't seem to get it, do you?
And incidentally, my grandfather happens to be Jewish too.
And on another related topic, an article in the New York Times reports that automatic weapons (AK47s and others) have been supplied to members of terrorist organizations Islamic Jihad and Hamas. These weapons were purchased at gun-shows in Michigan, then exported and have probably been used to kill Israeli civilians. Background checks for people buying weapons at gun-shows have been voraciously lobbied against by the NRA et al. If this Administration is truly against terrorism, then it is time to change the law regarding the ease at which any bunch of yahoos (or Al Qaeda 'sleepers' etc) can arm themselves to the teeth and cause carnage here in busy malls, sporting events etc etc etc. Looks like the NRA is sponsoring terrorism here. Send in the F16s. And lets put Charlton Heston before a military tribunal.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>And on another related topic, an article in the New York Times reports that automatic weapons (AK47s and others) have been supplied to members of terrorist organizations Islamic Jihad and Hamas. These weapons were purchased at gun-shows in Michigan, then exported and have probably been used to kill Israeli civilians. Background checks for people buying weapons at gun-shows have been voraciously lobbied against by the NRA et al. If this Administration is truly against terrorism, then it is time to change the law regarding the ease at which any bunch of yahoos (or Al Qaeda 'sleepers' etc) can arm themselves to the teeth and cause carnage here in busy malls, sporting events etc etc etc. Looks like the NRA is sponsoring terrorism here. Send in the F16s. And lets put Charlton Heston before a military tribunal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What has that got to do with anything in this thread. Just becuase somone supports a constitutional right to keep and bear arms does not make them a terrorist. If they did not get the guns at that show (please provide a link with evidence) they would have gotten them somewhere else. This post was so far off the mark and shows only bias with no thought. Even if it was only meant as sarcasm.
Its an interesting point... You know Taliban and even Bin Ladens own forces where armed by the US... They didn't even have to buy them. They where given weapons by the US, even after Soviet withdrew.
Sadam was armed by the US. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (both dictatorships) are currently beeing armed by the US... This is dilemma...
It does not however have much to do with this discussion, as both sides are supplied with american weapons.
<strong>Its an interesting point... You know Taliban and even Bin Ladens own forces where armed by the US... They didn't even have to buy them. They where given weapons by the US, even after Soviet withdrew.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No they weren't. There's no link between bin Laden and the US. He showed up with his own money and equipment. The Taliban were supported by Pakistan. The US did not give them any money. I guess I'll be fighting this lie for the next 50 years.
Comments
<strong>The key to peace is not Arafats but Israels: As long as they demand a periode of non violence before talk can begin or they will end their retaliation those who doesn´t want peace have it their way. As long they can get a couple of persons who are willing to end his life for the cause every week this will continue. And as long as Israel is provoking the common palestinian population like they do now there will be no shortage.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What a stupid statement. It's all Israel's fault huh? They're the real problem? The terrorist that target children aren't the "real" problem at all?
So Palestine targets and kills Israeli children day after day and Israel should do nothing about? They should enter "peace talk" with the people who murder children?
This is just dumb. From where I sit and what I read Israel is ready for peace, has been for a long time, and the Palestinians are not. How may times does Israel have to offer a peace agreement and how many times does Arafat have to walk away from it before we start to see things as they are? What the **** did Clinton work so hard on?
Israel wants peace and Arafat walks away from it and sends the terrorist in.
<strong>
What a stupid statement. It's all Israel's fault huh? They're the real problem? The terrorist that target children aren't the "real" problem at all?
So Palestine targets and kills Israeli children day after day and Israel should do nothing about? They should enter "peace talk" with the people who murder children?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not talking about justice here or whos fault it is but who is able to do anything.
The objective: Peace in the Middle East.
The positions: The terrorists doesn´t want it. Arafat can do sh!t to provide it, especially not as long as Israel is attacking the Palestine people.
That only leaves Israel with the room to do anything. They have a number of chioces: 1) Nuke everyone not jewish in a range of 1000 miles (and the HQ of UN without touching american soil), 2) continue the current campaign or 3) seek peace with the Palestine people. Since 3) is only acceptable for Israel if the terrorists stop doing what they do you have an official deadlock. Now tell me what a way out of it if not that Israel change their position?
Again its not about being fair but about ending the conflict.
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>
This is just dumb. From where I sit and what I read Israel is ready for peace, has been for a long time, and the Palestinians are not.
How may times does Israel have to offer a peace agreement and how many times does Arafat have to walk away from it before we start to see things as they are? What the **** did Clinton work so hard on?
Israel wants peace and Arafat walks away from it and sends the terrorist in.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Some Palestinians don´t want peace and they can have it their way as long as Israel give them the means to continue the conflict. They see the "stop the terror attacks before any talks" as an offer they can´t refuse
2) It is disputed that thats was really what happened in their negotiations in US. A chance was missed but as far as I have read it was the tactics on both sides that spoiled the chance. That the blame was placed on Arafat was really unfair. I will try look for an english online text on this later.
3) From where do you have this strange idea that Arafat has this huge power over the Palestinians? And for what reason should he want to put his own life in risk along with any chance for peace after the turnaround he did in the early 90´s?
<strong>
3) From where do you have this strange idea that Arafat has this huge power over the Palestinians? And for what reason should he want to put his own life in risk along with any chance for peace after the turnaround he did in the early 90´s?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If Arafat doesn't speak for the Palestinians and represent them as a leader, what the hell is he doing negotiating on their behalf? If he's just a poor, ordinary citizen, tell him to stay at home and let somebody else step up.
The Palestinian role in "peace negotiations" has continued in exactly the same pattern for decades. Comparatively diplomatic-sounding men in suits take part in negotiations for peace, at the same time that terrorists on the streets are blowing up Israelis in cafes and on busses. Then the diplomats plead that they can't stop the extremists, it just can't possibly be helped, and has no bearing on the negotiations. How long does this continue to be a valid argument?
I think the Palestinians have missed their greatest chance at a deal, just by being too wiggly at the negotiating table and playing fast & loose with the extracurricular dynamite-related activities simultaneous to negotiations.
<strong>
If Arafat doesn't speak for the Palestinians and represent them as a leader, what the hell is he doing negotiating on their behalf? If he's just a poor, ordinary citizen, tell him to stay at home and let somebody else step up. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Who? Noone besides Arafat can both hold the nominal power and talk to Israel. No other will be able to both seize the power and be willing to talk with Israel. Even Israel realize that and thats why Arafat is still alive. Only because Arafat have been the leader of PLO for so many years is he still respected enough to do so. Arafat Is is the most "in charge" person but that doesn´t say a lot. The greatest fault of Arafat was not to build a genuine bureaucracy based on rules and to gain real control over his areas to begin with. Instead neopotism and the thirst for power ruined the opportunity to build a controlable society. Then when the peace process didn´t went on as expected he hadn´t the power to control. He is not in charge of a weberian state.
[quote]<strong>The Palestinian role in "peace negotiations" has continued in exactly the same pattern for decades. Comparatively diplomatic-sounding men in suits take part in negotiations for peace, at the same time that terrorists on the streets are blowing up Israelis in cafes and on busses. Then the diplomats plead that they can't stop the extremists, it just can't possibly be helped, and has no bearing on the negotiations. How long does this continue to be a valid argument?
I think the Palestinians have missed their greatest chance at a deal, just by being too wiggly at the negotiating table and playing fast & loose with the extracurricular dynamite-related activities simultaneous to negotiations.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering the development the last 20 years the PLO really created the chance of peace. Try following the things Arafat have said about Israel from 1980 until now: He didn´t accept its existence back then. Now he even accept Israel keeping parts of the occupied land. According to UN resolutions he didn´t have to do that.
The big fault of Israel have been to put up settlements in occupied territory and not been willing to take the internal fight with the inhabitants and off course to find an agreement about Jerusalem. Until they accept to take the internal fight nothing will be accomplished on the long run.
Some personal experience: I have travelled for about one month in Israel a couple of years ago. My mothers father was jewish and I travelled with an jewish israeliÂ*friend so a lot of guards were down towards me. We visited both very secularised IsraelisÂ*(mostly in Tel Aviv)Â*and very religiousÂ*settlers who saw themselves as claiming land for God. Back then I thought "it will be tough to get these people to back off: fortunetly their goverment is committed in this peace". But the next years told me it wasn´t prepared to take the confrontation and to my best judgement thats was what led to the situation we are in now: The Palestinians went a very long way by accepting Israel and even accepting that parts of the UN resolutions wouldn´t be fulfilled. Israel went a long way by accepting PLO but the ball was still Israel to play by showing will to abandom the settlements but they didn´t (have any of you seen the maps of the Palestinian areas? Its like a swiss cheese with the settlements and road connections as holes everywhere where the palestinians have no authority). And when that created frustration Arafat hadn´t the power over his people.
Now what is the alternative for Israel if it wants peace? Noone have answered me that yet.
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>
Obviously, from your posts, you are very pro-Israel; considering Ariel Sharon's well-documented record of planning murder, mayhem, and genocide on the Palestinian people in the 1980s, are you not openly supporting a known terrorist here? Just because he courts the US, wears a suit and tie and speaks the "Queens English" doesnt let him off the hook.
I have no respect for Yasser Arafat either, in case you automatically assumed that my criticism of Israel means that I am a supporter of their enemy. His previous record re. the PLO is most gnarly, but to insist, as we keep hearing, that he 'rein in Hamas, Hezbollah etc' is like trying to round up feral cats and get them to perform tricks. Arafat has little or no pull with those crazies.
Life is *short*, and only happens once. All peoples on Earth have a right to freedom and security. or is that too 'hippie' for you? Why do you feel that one side is so 'right' and the other, so 'wrong'? Double standards re. international affairs are one of the evils that perpetuates war, terror, misery etc. From what you say, it sounds like you support the culture of violence, and the attitudes that foment it.
btw, that supposedly 'great deal' that Arafat refused earlier this year was a joke. Just go look at the terms; to sign it would have been political suicide.
<strong>Scott H, from your comfortable privileged vantage-point here in America, can you imagine what it is like to be in a land under occupation by a hostile foreign force? Ask a member of the former French Resistance about the Nazis,</strong><hr></blockquote>
Did the French bomb German children? Bomb a German dance hall on a Friday night?
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>or the Afghans under the Soviets</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the Afghans fought the Soviet military.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>What would *you* do if a bunch of heavily armed soldiers and a construction crew bulldozed *your* home without notice? This, and worse is happening daily. How would *you* feel? How would *you* respond? </strong><hr></blockquote>
I would bomb a bus full of old people? Maybe I would bomb a mall full of teenagers? No I wouldn't do that. I'm not a terrorist.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Obviously, from your posts, you are very pro-Israel</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ummmm? Not really. I'm just very very anti terrorist these days. People this is for the sake of the world. We cannot cannot cannot legitimize terrorism as a way to obtain a political objective. It is outside the rules of war to target civilians. But that's what the Palestinian terrorist do day in and day out. If terrorism is able to win in this century we will never see an end to it. It is very important to reject terrorism at every turn. We have to turn a deaf ear to the terrorist complaint. If we give them what they want then we'll never see and end to it. Rather if everyone stands up against it then we have a chance.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>considering Ariel Sharon's well-documented record of planning murder, mayhem, and genocide on the Palestinian people in the 1980s, are you not openly supporting a known terrorist here? Just because he courts the US, wears a suit and tie and speaks the "Queens English" doesnt let him off the hook.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think I've ever heard the Kings English from him. If I remember it's rather poor. Genocide is a load term that gets over used. Be careful how you use when talking to a Jew.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>I have no respect for Yasser Arafat either, in case you automatically assumed that my criticism of Israel means that I am a supporter of their enemy. His previous record re. the PLO is most gnarly, but to insist, as we keep hearing, that he 'rein in Hamas, Hezbollah etc' is like trying to round up feral cats and get them to perform tricks. Arafat has little or no pull with those crazies.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You know that person he put under "house arrest"? I heard on the news that he's not under "house arrest". Turns out the PLO people showed up at the house and were told to go away. So they did
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Life is *short*, and only happens once. All peoples on Earth have a right to freedom and security. or is that too 'hippie' for you? Why do you feel that one side is so 'right' and the other, so 'wrong'?</strong><hr></blockquote>
IMO from where I sit and what I read it seem to me that Israel is ready for peace and Palestine is not. From where I sit Arafat is the one that has been running the "infatada". We can play "who did what first" but it seem to me that Israel only reacts to the violence that Arafat starts. (Are we still pretending Arafat is not a terrorist?) I firmly believe that if Arafat called off the terrorism or made a real effort to deal with it Israel would pull back. History proves me right.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Double standards re. international affairs are one of the evils that perpetuates war, terror, misery etc. From what you say, it sounds like you support the culture of violence, and the attitudes that foment it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What? I come down hard on a terrorist and you claim I "support the culture of violence".
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>btw, that supposedly 'great deal' that Arafat refused earlier this year was a joke. Just go look at the terms; to sign it would have been political suicide.</strong><hr></blockquote>
yea because any deal with the Jews is a death sentence for him.
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22672-2001Nov27.html"; target="_blank">Palestinian Gunmen Kill Two</a>
[quote]The attackers, from two Palestinian militant groups, struck shortly before noon at the main bus station in the city's downtown shopping district. Running toward the central market and firing in bursts at clumps of people, they left a trail of victims and sidewalks smeared with blood.
....
Two Palestinian organizations, the militant group Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Brigades, a militia linked to Arafat's own Fatah organization, took responsibility for the attack. In a videotape made in advance, they said the attack was to avenge the deaths of Palestinian militants killed by Israel.
"We hope our people will continue in the path of holy war," said one of the gunmen, identified as Mustafa Abu Srieh of Islamic Jihad. The second assailant, Abdel Karim Abu Nafa, 20, was a Palestinian policeman and Fatah activist.<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Hundreds of supporters of the Palestinian militant group Hamas have been protecting the house of their leader since successfully defeating an attempt by Palestinian security forces to arrest him.
Calm returned on Thursday morning as security forces returned to the area of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin's house in Gaza City.
The Hamas leader has been under Palestinian house arrest in the past
The BBC's Kylie Morris says Sheikh Yassin has effectively placed himself under house arrest.
But the Israeli Government says this is insufficient and that Mr Arafat needs to arrest those who are actively involved in planning attacks against Israel.
Late on Wednesday evening, Hamas gunmen and security forces exchanged fire outside the house before the security forces withdrew late on Wednesday evening.
Hamas has said it carried out the suicide bomb attacks on Israelis at the weekend which killed 25 people.
We are all angry at the corrupt Palestinian leadership
Hamas supporterThe arrest attempt came as Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat asked for more time from Israel, which has suspended its retaliatory air strikes, to clamp down on militants.
Supporters poured into the streets of Gaza when an alert was raised on loudspeakers at a nearby mosque.
They came to the home of Hamas's 62-year-old spiritual leader, who is paralysed and virtually blind, by car and on foot from across the city.
"We are all angry at the corrupt Palestinian leadership," one Hamas supporter said, and accused the Palestinian police of trying to provoke a "civil war".
A Palestinian official said that the arrest order had been issued because of the Hamas figure's recent "statements against the Palestinian Authority".
Palestinian security forces succeeded in arresting a number of other Hamas activists but our correspondent says the demonstrations confirm the fears of the Palestinian Authority that carrying out arrests under pressure from Israel will put it on a collision course with its own people.<hr></blockquote>
Now tell me about Arafats great power to make the Palestinians do what he wants. Even by putting the Hamas leader under house arrest which you found laughable Arafat is risking his political life.
[quote]Hamas has gained in popularity among an increasingly radicalised Palestinian population.
Meanwhile, the Palestinian leadership's inability to improve political or economic conditions for its people has seen its approval rating plummet - some polls suggest as low as 20%.
Mr Arafat has let Fatah form links with Hamas
Hamas has capitalised on the Palestinian Authority's failure to establish a functioning infrastructure by setting up a parallel welfare system with millions of dollars of foreign aid - mostly from Saudi Arabia.
Despite the Israeli assassination policy against its leaders, Hamas has also continued to launch deadly attacks on Israel.
Its populist activism has left the old guard surrounding Yasser Arafat behind. <hr></blockquote>
[quote]In putting increasingly intense pressure on Mr Arafat to eradicate Hamas and other Islamic militants, Israel may risk turning the delicate balance between them into an all-out clash.
Whether this is part of an Israeli plan to get rid of Mr Arafat himself is debatable.
What seems probable, though, is that it will further radicalise and harden the attitudes of ordinary Palestinians. <hr></blockquote>
Another quote, now from Independent ( <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=108667"; target="_blank">http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story= 108667</a> )
[quote]"We in Hamas are not going to accept the Palestinian Authority's arrest campaign and we will not keep silent," said one of the protesters, Izzedine Abu Ghaya, a 22?year?old student at the Islamic University in Gaza City.
Abdel Aziz Rantisi, one of the Hamas leaders who has gone underground since the start of the arrest sweep, posted a message to the group's wanted men on a website linked to Hamas, saying they should not turn themselves in to police.
Arafat's Fatah movement later staged a counter?demonstration in support of the Palestinian leader. A senior Arafat aide, Tayeb Abdel Rahim, told the crowd of several thousand that they must stand up to those trying to "sabotage the decisions of the Palestinian leadership," an apparent reference to the Islamic militants.<hr></blockquote>
What would happen if Arafat had to abandon his position or if noone among the Palestines listened to him anymore? Who should Israel try to make peace with? Hamas?
[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>
<strong>From BBC:
Now tell me about Arafats great power to make the Palestinians do what he wants. Even by putting the Hamas leader under house arrest which you found laughable Arafat is risking his political life.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll tell you that he has 50,0000 rifles that the Israelis gave him so that he could "police" his own people. None of which get used. Better for Arafat to risk his political life than the lives of Israelis and Palestinians. Are you suggesting Arafat should condone the terrorism so he can extend his political career?
<strong>
I'll tell you that he has 50,0000 rifles that the Israelis gave him so that he could "police" his own people. None of which get used. Better for Arafat to risk his political life than the lives of Israelis and Palestinians. Are you suggesting Arafat should condone the terrorism so he can extend his political career?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would care sh!t about Arafat if it wasn´t because he is the only one who remotely represent the palestinian people and is willing to talk to Israel. If Arafat ordered the police to shoot their way through to the terrorists to seize them he would last less than 1 minute. IT IS NOT A CHOICE as the situation is right now. Not even the combined force of the US and Israel military could create peace without whiping out the the entire Palestinian population as it is right now.
I want peace and I am focusing on that. Who want it too? Israel and Arafat. Who can provide the peace? Israel and the terrorists/Hamas. If I combine those two groups I get Israel as the only one who can and will provide it.
Scott: If we didn´t have Arafat who should Israel talk to? You don´t think Israel could create "peace" (as in security for Israel but certainly not for the common palestine civilian) fighting their way through without becomming terrorists and/or an apartheid country?
[ 12-06-2001: Message edited by: Anders ]</p>
Is now a good time to mention that IMO terrorist attacks are condoned by many Europeans because they are antisemitic? It's like killing a Jew is understandable but when Israel reacts to destroy a terrorist cell then it's a horrible act. You can almost here people saying, "of couse they killed the Jew. The jew built a house there."
<strong>
Is now a good time to mention that IMO terrorist attacks are condoned by many Europeans because they are antisemitic? It's like killing a Jew is understandable but when Israel reacts to destroy a terrorist cell then it's a horrible act. You can almost here people saying, "of couse they killed the Jew. The jew built a house there."
Ugh. Wouldn´t it be kind of strange for me to do such a thing? I know several Israelies who I woundn´t want to get hurt and propably quite a large portion of my family live in Israel (but are too far out on the family tree for me to know about). I know no palestineans and those I met in Israel I never fully understood as my Israeli friends.
And if the situation was as bad in Northern Ireland as in Israel I would say the same things about that too.
All I want is peace like in not killing eachother and not having a "repressive" "peace" and I analyse the situation and come to conclusions on what I think is the right way out of the situation. I think of those innocent people who is going to be killed on both sides or having their life chances reduced severely in the future on the actions we take now. Then sometimes you have to focus less on the past. No past actions can justify the future suffering of innocent. I may get my hands dirty but I am willing to let that happen so less people in the future will suffer.
Its almost as Afghanistan: If the war was pure revenge the first Afghan civilian casualty would make US another terrorist. But because it will also prevent some terrorist actions in the future it has to be acceptable. You get your hands dirty but thats what you have to do.
I'm proud to be an American. Am I proud of our government? FVCK NO!
[quote]I would bomb a bus full of old people? Maybe I would bomb a mall full of teenagers? No I wouldn't do that. I'm not a terrorist.<hr></blockquote>
You really feel that I support terrorism because I make a post that is non-partisan, and points out the misdeeds of the side that you support. You are so way wide of the mark it is laughable, if it wasn't so sad. In the same breath I could quite easily accuse you of sympathizing with terrorism by supporting Ariel Sharon's current or past behavior also.
Scott H:
[quote]Genocide is a load term that gets over used. Be careful how you use when talking to a Jew.<hr></blockquote>
I am extremely careful when using the term Genocide. I believe it was the term used by the United Nations to describe the systematic massacres of 10s of thousands of unarmed Palestinian refugees (civilians), men, women and children in S. Labanon in the early 1980s by the combined forces of the Israeli military and Christian Phalange; Sharon's part (as Israel's defense minister) in the planning and execution of the massacres is no wild conspiracy theory; even an Israeli Commission of Inquiry found him at least "partly responsible". So in my book, this man is guilty of both war crimes and international mass terrorism. Acts of terrorism have been committed by both sides here.
It is politically incorrect to question Israel's actions or display this ally of the U.S. in a less than favorable light. But, always realize that all those people over there are just that: people, human beings, you know, like you and I. or anyone else on this board. We all live under the same sky. You really just don't seem to get it, do you?
And incidentally, my grandfather happens to be Jewish too.
And on another related topic, an article in the New York Times reports that automatic weapons (AK47s and others) have been supplied to members of terrorist organizations Islamic Jihad and Hamas. These weapons were purchased at gun-shows in Michigan, then exported and have probably been used to kill Israeli civilians. Background checks for people buying weapons at gun-shows have been voraciously lobbied against by the NRA et al. If this Administration is truly against terrorism, then it is time to change the law regarding the ease at which any bunch of yahoos (or Al Qaeda 'sleepers' etc) can arm themselves to the teeth and cause carnage here in busy malls, sporting events etc etc etc. Looks like the NRA is sponsoring terrorism here. Send in the F16s. And lets put Charlton Heston before a military tribunal.
<strong>And on another related topic, an article in the New York Times reports that automatic weapons (AK47s and others) have been supplied to members of terrorist organizations Islamic Jihad and Hamas. These weapons were purchased at gun-shows in Michigan, then exported and have probably been used to kill Israeli civilians. Background checks for people buying weapons at gun-shows have been voraciously lobbied against by the NRA et al. If this Administration is truly against terrorism, then it is time to change the law regarding the ease at which any bunch of yahoos (or Al Qaeda 'sleepers' etc) can arm themselves to the teeth and cause carnage here in busy malls, sporting events etc etc etc. Looks like the NRA is sponsoring terrorism here. Send in the F16s. And lets put Charlton Heston before a military tribunal.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sadam was armed by the US. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (both dictatorships) are currently beeing armed by the US... This is dilemma...
It does not however have much to do with this discussion, as both sides are supplied with american weapons.
<strong>Its an interesting point... You know Taliban and even Bin Ladens own forces where armed by the US... They didn't even have to buy them. They where given weapons by the US, even after Soviet withdrew.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No they weren't. There's no link between bin Laden and the US. He showed up with his own money and equipment. The Taliban were supported by Pakistan. The US did not give them any money. I guess I'll be fighting this lie for the next 50 years.