04-04-2002 03:22									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

To answer the original question...

The Camp David talks definitely impacted my view of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The first memories I have of the situation over there were from my childhood - pictures on TV of the 1st intifada. Palestinians throwing stones and being shot with rubber bullets.

I have always been against the Israeli settlements. The settlers are the most radical element of Israeli society, so far as I know (wasn't Rabin shot by a settler?). Consistent Israeli refusal to halt the construction of new settlements indicates (to me) an aggressive mindset and bad faith in negotiations. Then again, I can understand (not relate to, but understand) the siege mentality of Israelis. Suffice it to say they have ample reason to suspect they are surrounded by enemies.

I have never understood those who justify (or actually GLORIFY) the slaughter of civilians. That always made me wary of the Palestinians, despite the fact that I also sympathize with their outrage regarding the 1948 creation of Israel by the UN (I've always wondered why we didn't give them New Jersey - oh, yeah, I forgot, GOD gave them Israel*). One of the most effective resistence/independence movements of all time was non-violent. So successful, in fact, that damn near every educated person in the world knows the name of the leader of that movement: Ghandi, the "great souled man." I see no Palestinian equivalent, and that's sad.

But I digress... ah, yes, Camp David. Sure, the Israeli/American offer may not have been perfect, but Arafat's response was flat refusal. That is not the reaction of a leader who desires peace. The man who wishes to end the bloodshed comes back with a counterproposal.

To sum up, my tendancy to lean toward the Palestinians largely evaporated after Arafat's rejection of the Barak offer. The cheering in the streets on Sept. 11th didn't help. Yes, I know that was isolated, and I try to forget about it, but it did have an effect.

Israel's actions under Sharon, however, have had a similar effect w/regard to Israel. My overall attitude now is "a pox on both their houses." I sincerely wish my country wasn't involved in this mess, but unfortunately we are.

-Arrian

*sarcasm - yeah, I have little respect for the insanity that is religion, particularly when mixed with nationalism. So sue me. As for the question of whether or not Israel has a right to exist, I believe the creation of a haven for Jews after WWII was correct, I merely question why the nations that made the decision didn't offer any of their land. In any case, it is now irrelevant. Israel EXISTS. It will not go away. What needs to be worked out is a practical solution to present day realities, not fantasies about what could/should have been.

	04-04-2002 03:26									#32
	Inflate your Upload Space

The problem with your view, Arrian, is that not only was the Israeli offer a slap in the face, but the Palestinians did make a counter offer. Try re-reading this thread.

	04-04-2002 03:34									#33
	Tired of ads?

chegitz,

You call the offer a "slap in the face." As I recall, both sides have been doing a lot worse than that for years upon years.

As per your suggestion, I went back and re-read the thread. I've been staring at my computer all day, so maybe it's me, but I don't see a discussion of a Palestinian counter-offer. Please understand, I'm not calling you a liar, I just don't know what you're talking about. If you can show me a link to a reputable news agency story about a Palestinian response to Barak's offer, I will check it out. It may impact my opinion.

-Arrian

	04-04-2002 03:39									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Source: "Fictions About the Failure at Camp David," by Robert Malley, New York Times, 8 July 2001. Accessing article may require registration.

Also check the link I previously provided and also: The PLO's FAQ on the Camp David Negotiations

I also suggest you stare at those maps for a while, and try and imagine a viable state based upon them. Consider that the water was going to remain in Israeli hands.

	04-04-2002 03:53									#35
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

chegitz,

I guess I'll have break down and register for the Times (dunno why it annoys me that they require that, but it does). The PLO website, however, interests me not at all. No more than information posted on the official Israeli government site(s) would. Too obviously biased.

As for the question of a viable state, maybe you are right. I frankly don't know, and don't claim to be able to, based upon looking at a (pretty crappy) little color-coded map. I don't know the local geography well enough. Further, I am no expert on nation building.

-Arrian

	04-04-2002 03:59									#36
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

There's nothing wrong with bias as long as you are aware of it so you can account for it. I read stuff from all sides.

	04-04-2002 04:10									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Can I come over to your house and take stuff you don't use? I'll return some of it, eventually. Some of it I need to keep.

A. The Jordan valley (like the rest of the territories) is not, legally, Palestinian territory Israel took. There is no legal boundary between ISrael and Palestine. The 1947 partition was rejected by the Palestinians. The pre-1967 green line is simply the armistice line from the 1948 war. It has never been recognized as a boundary in any treaty. after 1948 it was occupied by Jordan, not Palestine, an occupation that was recognized by almost no one. The Palestinian claim to land is based not on legal title but on the right of self-determination, and the need to end the brutalities of occupation. Logically these claims can only extend to POPULATED areas.

B. The Israelis are not taking land for arbitrary purposes, but for purposes of national security, to deal with concerns largely created by the last half century of Arab rejectionism.


LOTM

	04-04-2002 04:12									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Bill Clinton on the Camp David negotiations:
(January, 2002)


"Yasser Arafat missed a golden opportunity" to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, former U.S. President Bill Clinton said at a Tel Aviv University ceremony on Sunday night in which he received an honorary doctorate degree. "Leaders have to prepare their people for peace saying that compromise is honorable, not shameful - a sign of strength, not weakness," he said.

Clinton, on a two-day visit to Israel, addressed a fund-raising dinner, which also established the "Clinton Program for American Studies" at the university, and spoke about his failed attempts at Mideast peace during the Camp David peace talks in the summer of 2000. "I think we have the outlines of a reasonable settlement. Last year I believe Chairman Arafat missed a golden opportunity to make that agreement. I think the violence and terrorism which followed were not inevitable and have been a terrible mistake," he said.

Clinton called on the Palestinians to take action against
terror, but added that there was no military solution to the conflict. "I think that many of the problems the Palestinians have can be alleviated if their leaders would do what is possible against the terror, but we need a process that will stop the violence and terror," he said.

"I know how difficult this is, but I plead with you not to become so discouraged that you give up the dream of peace and the willingness to be open to it whenever to opportunity presents itself," said the former president, whose speech was broadcast live on Israeli television and radio.



LOTM

	04-04-2002 04:23									#39
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Arrian
To answer the original question...
(wasn't Rabin shot by a settler?). Consistent Israeli refusal to halt the construction of new settlements indicates (to me) an aggressive mindset and bad faith in negotiations.


as info - there have been NO new settlements established by Israel since the Oslo accords. Not under Barak, not under Sharon, not under Netanyahu, not under Peres, not under Rabin.

There have been 2 things that have been controversial

1. Israel has expanded existing settlements, principally under the Likud PM's - Likud insists that these are simply accommodating natural growth (many settlers are young families, no accord can keep them from having kids, they need extra housing, kindergardens, etc) Doves claim that some of this goes beyond natural growth, and significantly extends settlements. This has been addressed in the Mitchell and Tenet accords, which could be implemented if the suicide bombings would stop. In any case I dont think it involves bad faith.

2. Israel has established a new neighborhood at Har Homa. It is within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, and Israel therefore does not consider it to come under the terms of Oslo, which did not address Jerusalem. I beleive this is also addressed in Mitchell and Tenet.


LOTM

	04-04-2002 04:32									#40
	Suffering from ads?

From the article quoted by Guevara.


." As a result, 2 million Palestinians are crowded in enclaves which consist of about 50 percent of the West Bank, and the other 40 percents are blocked by the defense array of some 40,000 settlers. As always, unofficial rumors were spread in the media that Israel intends to evacuate these areas in some future. But all relevant government offices clarified repeatedly that no plan is being prepared for the evacuation of even a single settlement. First, the Palestinians need to prove that our imposed arrangements work, and then we will of course discuss and consider."


Why pray tell, would a govt office come up with a plan to evacuate settlements, when the PA has rejected the plan to turn over the land on which those settlements exist?

You ever buy real estate guevara ?

Person A - I ask $100,000 for this house. The garden comes with it.
Person B - Thats an outrageous price for the house. I reject it,
Person A - What are you willing to pay?
Person B - you have insulted me, slapped me in the face. Theres nothing more to discuss.

Person B, to third party.- They has junk left all over the garden. Their offer made no mention of cleaning up the junk. Oh, yeah, they released some "rumours" that they would clean up the junk, but when i asked there housekeeper if there were any plans to clean up the junk for the sale, he said there were none.


Obviously first the PA and Israel have to agree on boundaries, and then they can discuss the disposition of the settlements. Thats how negotiations happen, in stages, from broader agreements to details. The article you quopted is merely part of a Palestinian attempt to deflect the PR hit they took by rejecting the offer out of hand.

LOTM

	04-04-2002 06:16									#41
	Inflate your Upload Space

Some people are blind because they just refuse to see.

The negotiations were not supposed to be over territory, but over the implimentation of UN resolutions and the Oslo Peace Accords. Israel has no legal right to hold any Palestinian territory under Interntaional law. In other words, what they were supoosed to be discussing was not how much does Israel get to keep but how soon Israel is going to leave.

The occupation is illegal. The annexations are illegal. The settlements are illegal. The theft of Palestinian water for Israeli use is illegal.

	04-04-2002 07:50									#42
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Not only is che correct, but the settlements of Israel violate the Geneva Convention.

	04-04-2002 08:10									#43
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Some people are blind because they just refuse to see. The negotiations were not supposed to be over territory, but over the implimentation of UN resolutions and the Oslo Peace Accords. Israel has no legal right to hold any Palestinian territory under Interntaional law. In other words, what they were supoosed to be discussing was not how much does Israel get to keep but how soon Israel is going to leave. The occupation is illegal. The annexations are illegal. The settlements are illegal. The theft of Palestinian water for Israeli use is illegal.

The binding UN resolution is 227. It was passed in the immediate wake of the 1967 war. It does NOT specify that Israel must withdraw from all the territories - it says israel must withdraw from territories occupied - with no article - the original proposal said "the territories" but was withdrawn to avoid a US veto. The Oslo accords do nto specify the shape of the final settlement - it was always invisaged on the israeli side that they led to discussions of territory.

Now could you please cite for me the international law backing your opinions. In particular could you tell me where in international law the 1948 cease fire line is established as the boundary between israel and palestine?

The occupation is legal. the settlements are legal. the use of water is legal. they may not be good things, since they result in much brutality, and are obstacles to peace, but they are not illegal. You can assert as much as you want that they are not
legal, but you have no legal aruments.


LOTM

	04-04-2002 08:15									#44
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Not only is che correct, but the settlements of Israel violate the Geneva Convention.

No they do not. The geneva convention bans settlements in territory taken from a sovereign state, by another with no claim. No state has sovereign rights as such over the territories. The territories were part of the British Mandate, in which the right of Jewish settlement was guaranteed, as part of the terms of the original League mandate. The 1947 partition was rejected by the arabs and is not legally binding. The 1948 armistice lines are just that. The occupation of the territories by Jordan was not recognized by the world. Palestine has a claim to the territories. Israel also has claims. The territories are disputed, the Geneva convention does not apply.


LOTM

	04-04-2002 08:52									#45
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

LOTM,
You are quite wrong about the legality of the settlements. Check out UNSC resolution 452
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/unres452.html


BTW if 1967 cease fire lines have no validity of any kind then the Palestinians have the right to claim parts of pre-1967 Israel, no?

As for Barak's offer and Camp David the almost unbelievable misrepresentation about it in large sections of the US media played a big role in me ceasing to be pro-Israeli which I was a couple of years ago. It was a quite a revelation how a lot of American media coverage about Israel especially among the commentators is ,frankly, delusional.

Here is another good article by Robert Malley about exactly what happened at Camp David and about how the different parties in different ways were to blame.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380

It should be required reading for everyone interested in the ME.

Last edited by Kautilya on 04-04-2002 at 12:59

	04-04-2002 10:38									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The Geneva Convention bans settlements in occupied territory, which Palestine is.

Here's the quote:

quote: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." —Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949

	04-04-2002 10:41									#47
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui The Geneva Convention bans settlements in occupied territory, which Palestine is.

I might take this comment seriously if it came from someone who actually pretended to care about the content of the Geneva Convention.

	04-04-2002 10:52									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Hey... LOTR said that it didn't.

And for one side claiming 'moral superiority' it should follow the rules? But you just want them to kill some Muslims, right? Not like they are human or anything.

	04-04-2002 11:05									#49
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Hey... LOTR said that it didn't.

Again one, I'm looking at you Imran, can not seriously pretend to care about the content of the Geneva Convention in one instance and completely disregard its text in the very next breath. It only makes you look foolish.

quote: And for one side claiming 'moral superiority' it should follow the rules?

That would be both the PA & Isreal. If they would both follow a few basic moral precepts in thier conflict, I would be immensely happy.

quote: But you just want them to kill some Muslims, right? Not like they are human or anything.

I sincerely have trouble respecting a cause that thinks nothing of forcing thier way by gunpoint into and hiding in sacred ground in order to escape punishment for thier crimes.

	04-04-2002 11:09									#50
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Again one, I'm looking at you Imran, can not seriously pretend to care about the content of the Geneva Convention in one instance and completely disregard its text in the very next breath. It only makes you look foolish.

Israel does it... the US does it. Are those nations foolish then?

quote: That would be both the PA & Isreal. If they would both follow a few basic moral precepts in thier conflict, I would be immensely happy.

I don't claim either side has moral superiority, but LOTR definetly does.

quote: I sincerely have trouble respecting a cause that thinks nothing of forcing thier way by gunpoint into and hiding in sacred ground in order to escape punishment for thier crimes.

Of course, the women and children that took refuge in the Church are criminals . They are sub-human right, all criminals?

Hell, even the Pope backs the Palestinians.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-256651,00.html

	04-04-2002 11:24									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Israel does it... the US does it. Are those nations foolish then?

Stop trying to shift the debate, Imran. You/Imran can not both condemn the Isreali "occupation" and at the same time cheer the deaths of Isreali women and children. Hmmm, what the word I'm thinking of the describes such a condition? Let me look it up...ah, here it is, hypocrisy!

quote: I don't claim either side has moral superiority, but LOTR definetly does.

The PA, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. does as well. Terrorists don't claim to be evil, in fact they really do like to claim the moral highground.

quote: Of course, the women and children that took refuge in the Church are criminals . They are sub-human right, all criminals?

Since when are 300 Palestinian armed gunmen forcing thier way into one of Christianity's holiest sites classified as women and children taking refuge?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...2/bethlehem.htm

quote: Hell, even the Pope backs the Palestinians.

You forgot to mention that he said that attacks on civilians were morally wrong.

	04-04-2002 11:41									#52
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Imran can not both condemn the Isreali "occupation" and at the same time cheer the deaths of Isreali women and children.

And you cannot condone Israeli 'occupation' and at the same time cheer the deaths of Palestinians women and children .

Which leads to the question... why not? Why can't I condemn the Israeli occupation and see little wrong with the suicide bombings of a people who have nothing?

I don't see that hypocrisy at all. Try again .

quote: The PA, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. does as well. Terrorists don't claim to be evil, in fact they really do like to claim the moral highground.

Yes, they might. I don't either has a moral highground. But like I said LOTM believes Israel does, which means the violations of international law by the Israeli side should hit his picture of the world pretty hard.

quote: Since when are 300 Palestinian armed gunmen forcing thier way into one of Christianity's holiest sites classified as women and children taking refuge?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wo...000/1910086.stm

In Bethlehem, Palestinian gunmen are among more than 100 people believed to be taking refuge inside the famous Church of the Nativity - along with priests, nuns and civilians.

Yep, there are some gunmen inside, but look... also civilians! *gasp*

Further more:

Food is said to be running low.

A priest inside the church, Father Ibrahim Faltas, has appealed for international help, saying he fears there may be a massacre.

A priest appealed for international help? Scared the Israelis might massacre Palestinians? Maybe they didn't force there way in at all, but the Church took them in!

But of course, sub-human untermench can't do that

quote: You forgot to mention that he said that attacks on civilians were morally wrong.

That he did, but he blamed the Israelis for humiliating Palestinians. Seems like he had more beef with Israel than with the Palestinians.... and for good reason.

	04-04-2002 12:03									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui And you cannot condone Israeli 'occupation' and at the same time cheer the deaths of Palestinians women and children .

I take no opinion on the moral value of the "occupation." However, the only thing I'm seeing is that one side attempts to negotiate to end it and the other side plans Intifadas while apparently negotiating in bad faith.

quote: Which leads to the question... why not?

Becuase, ironically enough you have condemned whole countries of peoples for condemning attacks on civilians becuase of alleged hypocrisy on thier part.

quote: Why can't I condemn the Israeli occupation and see little wrong with the suicide bombings of a people who have nothing?

For the same reason you feel that one can not intellectually support the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and condemn the bombings of Isreali civilians.

quote: I don't either has a moral highground.

Your opinion is irrelevent and disingenuous in this instance, Imran. The fact is that they feel that they have the moral highground in this conflict and that you have supported thier actions thus far without question.

quote: Yep, there are some gunmen inside, but look... also civilians! *gasp*

It is hardly suprising that gunmen/terrorists would hide among civilians.

quote: A priest appealed for international help? Scared the Israelis might massacre Palestinians? Maybe they didn't force there way in at all, but the Church took them in!

The fact that a priest, of all people, cares about the welfare of human beings, even those that might kill him, is hardly a shocking development and says nothing about the method in which the gunmen gained entry to the church.

quote: That he did,

It is kind of an important detail to merely gloss over if you insist on bringing in his statements.

	04-04-2002 12:14									#54
	Support Apolyton

quote: I take no opinion on the moral value of the "occupation." However, the only thing I'm seeing is that one side attempts to negotiate to end it and the other side plans Intifadas while apparently negotiating in bad faith.

Yes, wonderful negotiations. You mean when Sharon said (about a month ago) that the Palestinians had to be crushed before there could be negotiation?

Palestine negotiated as well, when they were treated reasonably as equals, last during Rabin's administration.

quote: Becuase, ironically enough you have condemned whole countries of peoples for condemning attacks on civilians becuase of alleged hypocrisy on thier part.

quote: For the same reason you feel that one can not intellectually support the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and condemn the bombings of Isreali civilians.

Yep... if you say killing civilians is wrong, then you can't say you support atomic bombings.

I back Palestine for fighting back against colonial oppression. I don't see Israel doing that.

You should REALLY learn your opponents' argument before you rail against it.

quote: The fact is that they feel that they have the moral highground in this conflict and that you have supported thier actions thus far without question.

I don't see how this has ANY relevance whatsoever. Since I don't believe any has moral highground, violations of international law really doesn't matter to my argument. But those that do believe that one side has moral highground have to answer for breaches in international law (whether they believe the Israelis or Pals have moral highground).

quote: The fact that a priest, of all people, cares about the welfare of human beings, even those that might kill him, is hardly a shocking development and says nothing about the method in which the gunmen gained entry to the church.

Of course they might kill him. Because Palestinians aren't human and just kill people for no reason except they like bloodshed, right? After all, sub-people really can't be expected to respect the churchmen .

quote: It is kind of an important detail to merely gloss over if you insist on bringing in his statements.

It is kind of obvious... and I notice you totally try to avoid the fact that he backs the Palestinian cause over the Israeli oppression. Sorry, I won't let you slide away from it by picking at the edges to try to avoid the question.

	04-04-2002 12:32									#55
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Yes, wonderful negotiations. You mean when Sharon said (about a month ago) that the Palestinians had to be crushed before there could be negotiation?

No, I don't mean that.

quote: I back Palestine for fighting back against colonial oppression. I don't see Israel doing that.

You can not back Bush's actions against OBL and Al Qaeda (You have said that it was a casus belli in the past.) and condemn Isreal's actions against Hamas, The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc. at the sametime.

quote: You should REALLY learn your opponents' argument before you rail against it.

There, there Imran. It's OK. Irealize that you are in an untenable position but that is no excuse for presuming ignorance on the part of your oponents.

quote: I don't see how this has ANY relevance whatsoever.

The fact that you without question back the bombings of Jews for the crime of shopping for food tends to give the impression that you believe that one side has the moral highground. If you really do believe that no side has the moral highground, I'd like to see you say that terrorism is wrong.

quote: Of course they might kill him. Because Palestinians aren't human and just kill people for no reason except they like bloodshed, right? After all, sub-people really can't be expected to respect the churchmen .

If you are going to put words in my mouth, at least make it look like that I might have said them.

quote: It is kind of obvious...

Sadly not to everyone on this board.

quote: Sorry, I won't let you slide away from it by picking at the edges to try to avoid the question.

I back the Palestinian quest for a State. That still doesn't keep me from finding the methods they use to "achieve" thier ends completely repugnant.

	04-04-2002 12:45									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: You can not back Bush's actions against OBL and Al Qaeda (You have said that it was a casus belli in the past.) and condemn Isreal's actions against Hamas, The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc. at the sametime.

I condemn Israeli's actions against the Palestinian people. You think these incursions are just hurting Hamas? These attacks are just serving to make the Palestinian people worse off.

quote: There, there Imran. It's OK. Irealize that you are in an untenable position but that is no excuse for presuming ignorance on the part of your oponents.

Nice troll, but I don't bite.

quote: The fact that you without question back the bombings of Jews for the crime of shopping for food tends to give the impression that you believe that one side has the moral highground. If you really do believe that no side has the moral highground, I'd like to see you say that terrorism is wrong.

Terrorism is wrong... happy?

Morals are relative anyway... Both sides believe they are moral and the other is immoral. Who can say who is correct? Unless your morals jive with ones side.

I'm a relativist, my morals don't jive with any side.

quote: I back the Palestinian quest for a State. That still doesn't keep me from finding the methods they use to "achieve" thier ends completely repugnant.

So how would you do it... assuming that the ONLY reason they've gotten noticed by the world community as people deserving a state was terrorism during the intifada.

	04-04-2002 12:56									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I condemn Israeli's actions against the Palestinian people. You think these incursions are just hurting Hamas?

Do you think that US actions in Afghanistan just hurt Al-Qaeda?

quote: Nice troll, but I don't bite.

I didn't expect you to respond to it. It was, for the most part, a statement of fact and further comment on it wasn't needed.

quote: Terrorism is wrong... happy?

Almost. If I could get an admission that killing Jews for the crime of being Jewish is wrong, I would then be happy.

quote: So how would you do it... assuming that the ONLY reason they've gotten noticed by the world community as people deserving a state was terrorism during the intifada.

Either through a true guerrilla war or by following the example of Ghandi.

	04-04-2002 13:07									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Do you think that US actions in Afghanistan just hurt Al-Qaeda?

Nope, there was collateral damage. Happens in war... very unfortunate and really shouldn't ever happen, but I guess we tried to be careful.

Israel's incursion doesn't seem to be solely against Hamas. It seems to also have as motive to humiliate the Palestinian people and destroy their spirits... in short further oppression against the people.

quote: It was, for the most part, a statement of fact and further comment on it wasn't needed.

Oh, but I do have further comment on your simplistic conclusions:

quote: Almost. If I could get an admission that killing Jews for the crime of being Jewish is wrong, I would then be happy.

They aren't being killed for being Jewish (many Christians and Muslims die in the blasts)... they are killed for being part of an oppresive regime.

quote: Either through a true guerrilla war or by following the example of Ghandi.

I doubt either would work.. in the case of Gandhi, you have a colonial regime that wants the same land as the colonized.

	04-04-2002 16:30									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Thank you for your maps Mr Guevara. As anyone looking at them can see, they do NOT cut the West Bank into cantons. The sections of the West Bank are contigous, and access from one to the other would be possible without passing through areas under Israeli control.

This is for you LOTM (and anyone interested) I think you should look at the map below first. Notice existing and planned Israeli throroughtfares... That kind of changes the picture a bit, doesn't it?

http://www.passia.org/palestine_fac..._campdavid.html

	04-04-2002 18:39									#60
	Suffering from ads?

AFAIK Barak offered to give ALL Gaza Strip, so i'm not sure how correct this map is.