 |
| |
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
Which would have a series of consequences. Hurt Israel's standing in the western world a lot more than already,
|
True, however, it still stands that the IDF is not-indescriminate and the Palestinians ARE (they don't even just try to target military targets with suicide bombers) NOTHING excuses hiding combantants within non-combatants. It ultimately makes the PA civilians valid targets BECAUSE of their complicity.
quote:
make "fight against terror" implausible,
|
Ultimately, the Israeli people will not care. You can only stand for this kind of action for so long. A similar act was the use of nuclear weapons at the end of WWII. A lot of similarities to the Israel / Palestinian situation if you think about it; a numerically and technologically superior force against an inferior force, and the known use of an indescriminate weapon to FORCE CAPITULATION. This was ultimately viewed favorably. If you look at any history... the victor writes the history books.
quote:
and risk an explosion throughout the arab world.
|
So what?
Arabs will get mad at Israel? I hate to have to break this to you, but they already are.
Perhaps you mean that Arabs will rise up militarily against Israel. That would be suicide for the Arab forces, and they know it. The Arabs KNOW that there is NO military solution for THEM, otherwise Israel wouldn't exist now, as it would have been overrun in the last century.
mrbaggins
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
IMO, the endless circle of violence originates from two leaders (and two people) who think that eventually they will win against the other.
Israel has the backing of the US and thinks it will win.
Palestine the backing of the arab world and a favorable attitude from Europe and thinks it will win.
Consessions from both sides are obligatory to end this.
Suicide attacks are inexcusable. Israeli occupation and killing is also inexcusable.
As long as they both think they will eventually win this will go on.
I still believe that a Free, independent Palestine, in viable borders and the huge contribution from EU and US for the fast rising of the quality of life of its people will be beneficial.
People who are not hungry and are not oppressed will be less prone to suicide attacks en mass.
Not that the suicide attacks will go away like magic of course. But there will be less and less. And a responsible Palestinian government with the will to crack down on terrorism will be the perfect compliment of Israel's accepting a free Palestinian country.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
Consessions from both sides are obligatory to end this.
Suicide attacks are inexcusable. Israeli occupation and killing is also inexcusable.
As long as they both think they will eventually win this will go on.
I still believe that a Free, independent Palestine, in viable borders and the huge contribution from EU and US for the fast rising of the quality of life of its people will be beneficial.
|
There is NO MORAL EQUIVILANCY comparing blatant terrorist acts to collateral damage of the civilian populace in an attempt to prosecute terrorism. It is regretable, but if the Palestinian people didn't HARBOR TERRORISTS then they wouldn't be subject to this action.
The occupation is a symptom of the violence, not a means to an ends.
I do agree that the SETTLEMENT of the occupied terratories is abhorent. It is so unnecessary. The only viable Israel is a contiguous Israel.
However, this is ultimately the bargaining chip on the Israeli side.
The only other solution is massive force (or complete siege) against the Palestinian people to force capitulation.
quote:
People who are not hungry and are not oppressed will be less prone to suicide attacks en mass.
Not that the suicide attacks will go away like magic of course. But there will be less and less. And a responsible Palestinian government with the will to crack down on terrorism will be the perfect compliment of Israel's accepting a free Palestinian country. |
The magic number of acceptible suicide bombings is ZERO. Not a number greater than zero.
The important thing is a Palestinian people. The government AND the civilian people. Until suicide bombings are unacceptable to the populace and they stop harboring fanatics, they deserve supression.
BTW... Israels concerns in security include something everyone seems to have forgotten; water. If the pre-48 borders are assumed, then Israel loose ultimate control of water sources to Arabs. Understanding the terrorist principals of many of their neighbors, I can completely understand their unwillingness to give this up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
There is NO MORAL EQUIVILANCY comparing blatant terrorist acts to collateral damage of the civilian populace in an attempt to prosecute terrorism. It is regretable, but if the Palestinian people didn't HARBOR TERRORISTS then they wouldn't be subject to this action. |
And from the opposite: if there was no occupation there would be no terrorist attacks.
Works both ways.
Question is what can be done.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
(testing quick reply)
BTW what roland said, that arafat and sharon have been greatly strengthened inside to their own compatriots is true and if they are wise they will utlizie it for the good of the region
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Roland> Yes, the Palestinians killed are valid collateral damage, especially due to their penchant for harboring terrorists. If they kicked them out into the open, then they wouldn't be attacked...
Paiktis> Gandhi didn't incite people to strap explosives to their body and blow up innocent civilians. He recognized the hypocritical nature of violence against occupation.
The Palestinians SHOULD be practicing non-violent protest if they don't like the situation.
Like it or not, treaty through military victory is a unanimously recognized method of legal transfer of territory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
MrBaggins:
"There is NO MORAL EQUIVILANCY comparing blatant terrorist acts to collateral damage of the civilian populace in an attempt to prosecute terrorism."
As such yes. But Israel is not only prosecuting terrorism, it is also defending its occupation and its settlements.
"It is regretable, but if the Palestinian people didn't HARBOR TERRORISTS then they wouldn't be subject to this action."
If Israel wouldn't occupy land beyond the 1949 borders.... etc. It is quite pointless trying to figure out who's right.
"If the pre-48 borders are assumed, then Israel loose ultimate control of water sources to Arabs."
Water will be a crucial point. When we're at it... isn't Israel taking about 80-90 % of the Jordan water at lake genezareth, and limiting palestinian wells in the westbank so that settlers can consume svereal times more water per capita than palestinians ?
If it weren't for Israel's apartheid regime in the occupied territories, there would be no moral question involved at all. |
Settlements contain Israeli's... civilians who need to be defended regardless of their location.
Arabs desire a contiguous Arab presence in their environs. Ultimately this is incompatible with the presence of the Israelis period. Arabs thus desire the destruction of the state of Israel as demonstrated by the numerous military campaigns meant to acheive that aim. The Israelis only want a viable plot of land to live in, and what they perceive as their rightful capital, Jerusalem. (Jerusalem is a debatable point, any way you look at it.)
Were Israel an expansionist state, then they certainly wouldn't have given back the land they subsumed through military action. This would have become defacto Israeli property within several generations, just like any other conquered land. IMO the Israelis would rather have nothing to do with the Palestinians, but thats not a choice that the Palestinians offer them.
Arabs only suffer the Jews because they are powerless in any meaningful military way.
Yes water is a critical point. If the water is just handed over to the control of any Arab state, the Israeli's worry that they would be succeptable to terrorist acts. Justifiably so, due to the Muslim Fanatics recent penchant for terrorist acts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
"Yes, the Palestinians killed are valid collateral damage, especially due to their penchant for harboring terrorists. If they kicked them out into the open, then they wouldn't be attacked..."
Aha... so for example, elderly women, children etc should "kick out terrorists into the open" ? Care to explain how that should work ?
"The Palestinians SHOULD be practicing non-violent protest if they don't like the situation."
And they would have gotten their state ages ago if they did.
"Like it or not, treaty through military victory is a unanimously recognized method of legal transfer of territory."
It isn't since 1945 if a SC resolution stands against it. |
If the Palestinian people demonstrated peacefully for a non-terroristic palestinian regime, then they'd have some moral currency.
Young girls are blowing up innocent civilians now, if you hadn't noticed, btw...
Palestine is full of women, children and elderly celebrating suicide bombings, and burning flags and efigies. Children throw rocks, and are taught to shoot AK-47's.
Schools teach martyrdom.
The population is rife with terroristic attitude. Perhaps you're right... If they are all terrorists, then they should all die.
---
I guess we'll never know if peaceful protest would have worked. The Palestinians seem unwilling to consider such a thing. They seem unwilling to accept anything but the capitulation of Israel on all points.
---
Only because the SC carries a big stick, and fights fire with fire. It would be interesting to see what would happen in the event of China invading Taiwan. The US and the security council may or may not intervene in that case, due to the strength of the protagonist. If they didn't, in any case, within several generations, any conquested land would be subsumed, and the SC resolution made moot. Like, say... Tibet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
The issue of Israel in the 1949 borders and the settlements in the 1967 conquered territories shouldn't be mixed up.
Israel could only take on that land by either expelling the palestinians, or turn all Israel into South Africa. Otherwise the demographics would kill the jewish state.
The crucial water issue is not so much with the PA (IIRC only some small areas south of lake Genezareth) btw, but with Syria and the Golan heights. |
And they certainly had the military muscle to expel anyone that they chose to.
I'll quote from 'The Middle Eastern Environment' by Eric Watkins.
quote:
In bilateral talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the issue of water has been the thorniest factor. Since the water resources of the Occupied Territories have been over-exploited for a long time - as much as 200 million cubic metres/year - many writers believe “it is water that determines the future of the Occupied Territories and thereupon will determine peace and security”. In a final settlement, Israel would have to give up the West Bank which provides about 25 per cent of its fresh water supplies and gives it control of the southern portion of the Jordan River. But Israel seems unlikely to agree to this. The concept of “soft borders”, initiated by Israel’s Foreign Secretary, indicates that Israeli leaders are not ready to return water resources of the West Bank. Instead, they see “soft borders” as “the only way to equitably solve the problem of distributing water, and the most efficient way to develop agriculture and industry that can compete successfully in world markets”. There is no doubt that such a development depends on having access to more water supplies. Extensive economic co-operation between the Israelis and the Palestinians played an important role in the joint Declaration of Principles, signed on September 13, 1993. Needless to say, however, co-operation implies sharing and sharing means that some parties will at times be worse off than they now are. This is what neither the Israelis nor Palestinians are ready to accept. The question now is whether to treat the water resources as a “zero-sum game” or as a means to make all parties much better off. Multilateral negotiations may hold the solution to this question.
|
The water within the Occupied Territories are significant, but over-exploited. The 25% of its water sources within the West Bank is certainly a sticking point for the Israelis with good cause, and little option.
If nuclear driven desalination were a viable option, then this situation would almost certainly be alleviated and peace would be a much more viable.
Water is probably THE sticking point in all of this conflict for all of the other rhetoric.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
what snapped is that Israel was finally ready to deal
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
JFYI
Table 1 Israel’s water supply sources and consumption for 1990/1 (Source: Zarour, 1993)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Million cubic metres
Israel 745
Golan Heights 280
West Bank 415
Lebanon, Syria, Jordan 215
Total 1,655
Israel annual consumption 1,655
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
Silence in what is reported, maybe ? Condemnation of palestinian terrorism isn't really much newsworthy, condemnation of Israeli actions is. Especially in the US media. |
Incidentally, don't you think, if the Arab governements and media would start criticizing the killing of innocent Israeli's as well as they have Palestinians, then we likely wouldn't be in the same mess?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roland
Please darling show me a call for "capitulation". |
Though I think your a nice fellow, I'm spoken for dear boy, please releave your fantasies elsewhere.  quote:
Or does "that the Pals can't bomb their way to a state, and Israel can't bomb its way to peace and security" a call for capitulation in your twisted mind ? |
The only thing twisted is your polyanna view of the world.
When did the jews start the current operation, and why? 
quote:
As long as you seriously think there is a war on terror going on, rather than a "war" on "terror", this is an appropriate counterquestion. |
Air must be pretty thin on that mountain in Bavaria your on, it seems to have cut off your oxygen. 
quote:
Well I guess I'll get a couple beers, my Krompn, and look for a jew to kill. If that makes you happy.... |
Funny, guys with Arnold accents always seem to enjoy that.
I wonder why?
quote:
Now that your silly stereotype is served, you may consider that most attacks happened in france, which has the largest jewish and the largest arab community in europe, and the latter having well-organised islamist cells related to Algerian groups like GIA. |
Silly stereotype...yet none of that is happening in the USA, only in Europe...
quote:
Or do you really think there is more antisemitism in France than in Austria, Britain, Sweden or the US ? |
See above answer, Mein herr.
quote:
Apart from the Sabrah/Shatillah issue ? |
As I continue to tell Irran, that is an accusation that was investigated and found to be without merit, but feel free to keep repeating Hamas propaganda, just proves my point about bias. 
[qoute]Attacks against PA police installatians.
Attacks against PA administrative structures.
Attacks against civilian infrastructure (sewers, airport etc).[/quote]All all the time, armed men, who wern't supposed to be armed or there, fired back...wonder what they were doing there?
quote:
"Liquidations" of supposed terrorists. |
Your the lawyer, burden of proof rests with you, prove that accusation.
And good luck with that.
quote:
And I still give you the benefit of the doubt there that civilian casualties were not accepted or sought, and that the reports about targetting journalists and ambulances in the recent attacks are still not fully confirmed. |
Irael having problems with ambulances....must be because three in random stops (the red cresant kind) had explosives and mutitions in them.
How unsporting of the Jews to not allow the PA to summle arms and explosives in ambulances, you would think they were barbarians.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2002 18:11
|