24-04-2002 03:44									#91
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Jaakko Then what of the Palestinians living in the territories Ned? It's pretty much political reality that there's an ethnic group with their own identity and a very strong nationalist tendency on the territories. What solution, other than an uncompromising ideological standpoint, support of Israel against the Arabs based on historical rationalisation, do you offer for the Euros who are so wrong? Anything? And who exactly are those "Arabs" you accuse of trying to destroy Israel? Most Arab countries have effectively washed their hands of the Pal mess long ago, only making noises to appear as caring about the Pals. The Pals themselves are never going to threaten Israel's existence, as proved quite amply by operation Defensive Shield.

Then why is it that all Cheney heard from Arab leaders on is Mid East trip was Palestine, Palestine, Palestine! The whole region is absorbed in anti-Israel hatred having been egged on by Arab propaganda and the hate preaching of Islamic clergy.

The Arabs are quite encouraged by European support. They increase their demands on Israel to the unreasonable, thus delaying peace.

In Europe, the anti-Semites are also encouraged. The attacks on Jews there are making world headlines.

It would be interesting to see how many Europeans would volunteer to be in Annan's international peace-"making" force. That would take true courage. If the force really tried to keep the peace, they would be blown up just as was the American marine HQ in Lebanon twenty years ago.

No one in Europe can seriously believe that the Palestinian leadership truly want peace and co-existence with Israel. They want blood.

Ned

	24-04-2002 03:57									#92
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Jaako: I admit I'm not a counter-terrorism expert, but it seems to me that these sorts of operations are necessary if you want to arrest terrrorists and confiscate but don't have enough control to safely send out police patrols.

	24-04-2002 04:03									#93
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Ned, of course the Arab nations want to be seen as playing together and for the Pals in the conflict, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that it translates into political will to destroy Israel.

I also doubt that anti-semites are encouraged in Europe like you say. Disturbing attacks perhaps (not to mention shameful), but encouragement? Got a cite or anything?

As for that peacekeeper remark, I'm not sure I understand what relevance it has to the matter at hand.

	24-04-2002 04:10									#94
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Natan, I'm no expert either, but from my POV the current approach just doesn't work. In Northern Ireland things started improving when a more covert and restrained strategy was adopted, so I believe it should be attempted here too.

	24-04-2002 04:57									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Jaakko Dino - that's something I've been thinking about myself, but it's a bit problematic IMO. Most importantly, how do you make Arafat feel the pressure and not just those whom the aid was intended for?

Hamas provides most of the social welfare services in the Territories (That is the source of thier popularity.), so I doubt that there would be much of an impact on the common person if sanctions were placed on the PA.

	24-04-2002 13:54									#96
	Increase Your PM Length

AS:

"Any difference between his political views and those of the Foreign Minister"

I'd hope so. I don't know what Vedrine thinks of Israel in private, but the "annoynig troublemaker" view is quite widespread.

Ned:

Your history line is mostly correct, the legal conclusions are not. But what is a tad more important:

"Incredibly, Europe has now sided with aggression. The Arabs continue to make war on Israel and the Europeans have joined their camp. In order for there to be peace in the region, the Arabs have to be pressured to stop their aggression. Europe is on the wrong side in this conflict."

Excuse me but this is total bullshit. The EU is not allied with the PA or Syria. We are not in the camp of Hamas. And we are not on either side of the conflict - if we are, how come we still have a preferential trade status for Israel ? Rubbish.

Chris:

So I finally managed to sqeeze some arguments out of you.

"Just this morning, a synagoge in Brussels was sprayed with machine gun fire."

Source ? Entirely possible, just haven't heard it yet.

"...your attitude is a chilling parall to the 1930s. You keep insisting that all is fine, yet attacks continue."

Nothing is all fine. I'm just going against the europhobic hyperbole. As to the 1930s, you know perfectly well that the situation is different. Or are you crying "1861" everytime a nutty US "militia" is in a standoff with the federal government ?

"Zionism was condemed by the UN as Racist."

By the GA, to be precise. Which has the exact value of "blah".

"Explain the attacks on jews throughtout Europe. I hear nonsense about it's "anger over Israel's actions". Crowds in Paris yelled "Death to Jews" (not Israelis)."

For them Israel and Jews are one entity. That large jewish "block" has always been a cornerstone of antisemitism. And of course arab antisemitism and violence is related to Israel's actions.

No idea what else you need to have explained. Maybe this article, "Intifada spurs rash of anti-Jewish acts in France" can help you:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...sID=0&listSrc=Y

Before the recent surge, can you give me a source for antisemitic incidents France/US ? Show me. Can you explain why France and Belgium with large arab communities experience that violence, and Austria, that supposed hotspot of antisemitism, does not ? Where is a jew in the biggest danger of being murdered in a racially motivated attack? Israel ? France ? The US ? Show me, or quit the hyperbole.

"Stop being an appologist..."

Have never been one. But throw your trashbin after me, and you'll get some back. Simple as that.

Last edited by Roland on 24-04-2002 at 16:56

	24-04-2002 15:43									#97
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Siro:

What were the limitations to palestinian sovereignty on that 90 or 95 % of the westbank + Gaza as suggested in the Barak's proposal ? Would you refer to the entity created that way as a "state" ?
Natan:

"Well, the issue then Jaako is whether terrorism is best defeated by fighting ir or not..."

What are the options ?
Sharon's way: Destroy and retreat - so you have anarchy and even more hatred.
Or reoccupy - the terror will adapt.
Or keep up the ***-for-tat.
Or do nothing.

All options suck.

My main problem with Sharon is that he refuses to negotiate with Arafat. No other pal leader can negotiate for them, and even he wanted with Arafat now the undisputed hero, he'd have zero support. In other words, Sharon refuses in effect any negotiations. He refuses to consider removing any settlement. He has no plan for a political solution. And I doubt he wants one.
Ned:

"No one in Europe can seriously believe that the Palestinian leadership truly want peace and co-existence with Israel. They want blood."

If the leadership had their way they'd destroy Israel. I have no illusions about that (and I wonder why Israelis and Americans seem to think Arafat is seen as a sort of saint in Europe), although there are enough on the Israeli side who'd wish to annex the westbank and kick the palestinians out. But I think Arafat is aware that he has to make a compromise. The problem is his judgment about where, and his idea that he can somehow bomb his way to concessions.

Dino:

"Hamas provides most of the social welfare services in the Territories (That is the source of thier popularity.),...."

So it would be a good idea to grant Hamas a full monopoly on this, to make it even more popular ?

	24-04-2002 16:07									#98
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Roland What are the options ? Sharon's way: Destroy and retreat - so you have anarchy and even more hatred. Or reoccupy - the terror will adapt. Or keep up the ***-for-tat. Or do nothing. All options suck. My main problem with Sharon is that he refuses to negotiate with Arafat. No other pal leader can negotiate for them, and even he wanted with Arafat now the undisputed hero, he'd have zero support. In other words, Sharon refuses in effect any negotiations. He refuses to consider removing any settlement. He has no plan for a political solution. And I doubt he wants one. Ned: "No one in Europe can seriously believe that the Palestinian leadership truly want peace and co-existence with Israel. They want blood." If the leadership had their way they'd destroy Israel. I have no illusions about that (and I wonder why Israelis and Americans seem to think Arafat is seen as a sort of saint in Europe), although there are enough on the Israeli side who'd wish to annex the westbank and kick the palestinians out. But I think Arafat is aware that he has to make a compromise. The problem is his judgment about where, and his idea that he can somehow bomb his way to concessions.

I am beginning to wonder if it isn't better for Israel to commit the unpardonable sin of expelling the Palestinians and letting them cool off somewhere else. I realize most people see this as worse than murder, but I don't, and I think an even more ominous outcome may be in store if a way out isn't found in the next few years.

	24-04-2002 16:09									#99
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Interesting numbers :

The number of Israelis killed in March : 131. 11 of them were soldiers killed in action. 3.8 Israeli civilians killed per day.


The number of Israelis killed from the 1st till the 14th of April, the most intensive days of operation "Defensive Shield" - 42. 24 of them were killed in action. 1.28 killed civilians per day.

The number of Israelis killed since April 15th until today, the days after operation "Defensive Shield" - 2. Both were killed in action. 0 killed civilans per day.

The numbers speak for themselves.

Source :
http://www.masada2000.org/oslo.html

(ignore the propaganda )

	24-04-2002 16:59									#100
	Support Apolyton

Chris, I haven’t heard anything about an assault on a synagogue in Brussels, but I wouldn’t be surprised. There are enough machine guns and over-heated Moroccan youngsters around here to expect such actions.

I live in Antwerp, there are sizeable Muslim and (orthodox) Jewish communities around here. Synagogues around here a continuously monitored by policemen and armoured vehicles to protect them against assaults and there’s constant consultation between the Muslim and Jewish communities to prevent violence.

There was a pro-Palestinian protest march in Antwerp not so long ago that ended up in riots between a couple of hundreds of Moroccan youngsters and the police. (got to see some of the action myself) However, these are the kind people that are looking for a fight whatever the excuse, be it the Palestine or a couple of friends that weren’t allowed to enter a dancing. Not exactly representative for the entire Belgian society.

I've personally experienced plenty of racism against Moroccans, as well as racism against Negroes, Albanians, East Europeans or whatever, but rarely, and never until the conflict flared up, have I experienced anything that smacks of anti-Semitism.

	24-04-2002 17:28									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Sikander I am beginning to wonder if it isn't better for Israel to commit the unpardonable sin of expelling the Palestinians and letting them cool off somewhere else. I realize most people see this as worse than murder, but I don't, and I think an even more ominous outcome may be in store if a way out isn't found in the next few years.

This certainly the goal of Sharon : Fire the violance in occupied region to let no choice : expelling the pals.

	24-04-2002 19:02									#102
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Roland Dino: "Hamas provides most of the social welfare services in the Territories (That is the source of thier popularity.),...." So it would be a good idea to grant Hamas a full monopoly on this, to make it even more popular ?

The PA, to my knowlege, already doesn't provide those services. So, I would guess that Arafat has already given them something approaching a full monopoly due to his own short-sighted greed.

	24-04-2002 19:27									#103
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

All this serious talk bores me. I come to Apolyton to be a fool not serious.

	25-04-2002 01:22									#104
	Increase Your PM Length

Roland, Sharon has refused to negotiate with Arafat until a cease fire is achieved. That's different from refusing to negotiate with Arafat.

	25-04-2002 04:09									#105
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Rolland said,

"Ned:

Your history line is mostly correct, the legal conclusions are not. But what is a tad more important:

"Incredibly, Europe has now sided with aggression. The Arabs continue to make war on Israel and the Europeans have joined their camp. In order for there to be peace in the region, the Arabs have to be pressured to stop their aggression. Europe is on the wrong side in this conflict."

Excuse me but this is total bullshit. The EU is not allied with the PA or Syria. We are not in the camp of Hamas. And we are not on either side of the conflict - if we are, how come we still have a preferential trade status for Israel ? Rubbish. "

Rolland, What are Israel's views of the EU's position? Neutral? or biased towards the Palestinians?

On the legality issue, why, in your opinion, is Israel's founding of new settlements in the West Bank illegal?

Also, if you know, why is there no democracy in Arabia? Leaders, if elected, never seem to run for re-election. Am I wrong?

If the EU and the US are going to get involved in this mess, we really ought to try to craft a solution that includes true democracy in Palestine. Don’t you agree?

Ned

	25-04-2002 13:13									#106
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

"... to commit the unpardonable sin of expelling the Palestinians and letting them cool off somewhere else. I realize most people see this as worse than murder..."

I don't see it as worse than murder. After all, before deciding the Endlösung, the nazis had all kinds of plans for deporting the jews from europe, to Siberia, Madagascar.... but you're getting close.

Natan:

"Sharon has refused to negotiate with Arafat until a cease fire is achieved."

That was. He's considering expelling him, following Netanyahu there. Even if he wanted, I doubt Sharon could afford this with N. in his neck.

Ned:

"What are Israel's views of the EU's position? Neutral? or biased towards the Palestinians?"

Israel sees us as pro-palestinian. The Pals see us as pro-Israel, just less so than the US. Both are so dug into their selfrightousness that anything short of unconditional support will be seen as bias for the other side. Do you really think the two sides in a conflict are the most objective arbiter ?

"On the legality issue, why, in your opinion, is Israel's founding of new settlements in the West Bank illegal?"

It is illegal under the rules of war to settle occupied land. And IIRC it has also been ruled (or "legislated") being illegal by the one authority that can make such decisions, the SC.

"Also, if you know, why is there no democracy in Arabia?"

The only country getting cose is Lebanon... you can't pin it down to a single reason, but if you look at east asia, democracy usually followed "development dictatorship". This and economic development never took place (and Lebanon is also the economically most vibrant arab society), with national (panarab) issues unsettled, religious unrest and the conflicts with Israel and about oil. Islam is a political religion, much more so than buddhism, confucianism or even christianity.

"...we really ought to try to craft a solution that includes true democracy in Palestine."

There are (or were, now) some democratic elements in the PA. But I do not think this is a requirement for peace, as it worked with Egypt and Jordan - not exactly posterboy democracies. Just as much, a viable pal state at peace is a precondition for developping a working democracy.

	25-04-2002 14:34									#107
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sirotnikov Electronic intifada is filled with lies, made up after the fact, to make better show.

For that it has an awful lot of sources to back itself up.

Perhaps you have not read the article on Barak's offer. I do not see the articles you linked to did much to refute the detailed analysis given. It even agreed that the new PA position does not differ much from the original claims of the PA Camp David delegation.

Furthermore, Assaf Oron agrees with the basic premise of the analysis.

	25-04-2002 14:37									#108
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Ned Roland, Israel was attacked by Jordan in 1967. It took the West Bank from them in a defensive war. That territory is Israel's to do with as it pleases, and no one else's. Their "occupation" is not "illegal."

How is this occupation legal? I recall of no international law that allows one country to indefinitely occupy the territory of another country.

It is not Israel's territory and it definitely cannot "do with as it pleases."

	25-04-2002 18:39									#109
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger How is this occupation legal? I recall of no international law that allows one country to indefinitely occupy the territory of another country. It is not Israel's territory and it definitely cannot "do with as it pleases."

There as so many examples of one country taking land from another as a result of war that I don't even want to begin down that path. If the result of the war is accepted, there can be peace. If the result is not, there is no peace. Example A, World War II.

The stance of the Arab countries to NEVER acknowledge Israel's right to exist and to constantly make war on her has lead straight to unending violence and hatred. If one accepts in principle the proposition you propose that the disputed territories are not Israel's, then one must also accept the corollary that nothing in the region is Israel's because ALL of it was taken from Arab hands.

As to the UN, the SC edicts in this matter are little more than declarations of war on Israel. They are not law.

Ned

	25-04-2002 19:10									#110
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

You Israeli guys celebrate about Palestinian police stations being destroyed by tanks and bulldozers but in the same time demand Arafat to arrest guys that are in connection to suicide bombings. How is he supposed to persecute and arrest criminals without the necessary infrastructure? If you destroy the buildings and computers, burn the files, how are they supposed to persecute the responsibles?

Occupation fo territory is never legal or justified i nany sophisticated person's eyes, for it always leads to suffering for those people that are occupied. It does so for Palestinians as it did for the Slavs in Eastern Europe and later on for Germans in what you'd nowadays call Poland. Israel gained those territories in a defenseive war, as did the Poles in WWII (well, as a vassal of someone who was actually fighting a defensive war with a rather offensive future planning ); in both cases, it led to oppression of innocent civilians. And don't you tell me those Germans were not innocent

	25-04-2002 19:16									#111
	Inflate your Upload Space

PA policman is a good job. If you obey to Israel you're killed by your citizen. If you don't serve Israel your are kill by them.

	25-04-2002 20:24									#112
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

"There as so many examples of one country taking land from another as a result of war..."

1st, war for territorial gain is outlawed unter international law since 1945 at the latest. 2nd, changes of territory require a peace treaty and international recognition (or consuetudo/opinio iuris). 3rd, occupation per se is not illegal.

"The stance of the Arab countries to NEVER acknowledge Israel's right to exist"

Egypt ? Jordan ?

"...one must also accept the corollary that nothing in the region is Israel's because ALL of it was taken from Arab hands."

Israel is acknowledged in the borders of 1949.

"As to the UN, the SC edicts in this matter are little more than declarations of war on Israel."

Oh please, that's silly hyperbole. Or do you mean the GA resolutions ?

"They are not law."

They are.

	25-04-2002 20:40									#113
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Roland "The stance of the Arab countries to NEVER acknowledge Israel's right to exist" Egypt ? Jordan ?

The signatories to the Khartoum Resolutions?

	25-04-2002 20:41									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Roland, If war to gain territory is outlawed, what about territory gained as a result of a defensive war?

With the exception of Jordan and Egypt, has any Arab country recognized Israel?

With regard to the UN, it did recognize Israel. But since the Arabs have not (again excluding Jordan and Egypt), the Arabs are in violation of international law, not Israel.

The UN clearly is not balanced here. It should require, indeed demand! that the Arabs recognize Israel as a precondition for requiring Israel to give up any land it took from the Arabs in its defensive wars.

This gets back full circle to the underlying problem. The UN, the EU and the US have to put pressure on the Arabs to accept and recognize Israel. However, I hear the news from Texas this morning that the Saudi Crown Prince has threatened the United States over its support of Israel. Outrageous!

Ned

	25-04-2002 20:45									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I answered several of your questions...

	25-04-2002 20:59									#116
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

"If war to gain territory is outlawed, what about territory gained as a result of a defensive war?"

That's possible, although some might dispute it. Accordingly the borders of 1949 are recognized. About the territories occupied in 1967 - well, you could argue that Israel may annex them. But Israel would NOT be entitled to expell the population, or subject it to an apartheid system. Under these conditions, Israel does not WANT to annex them....

"With regard to the UN, it did recognize Israel. But since the Arabs have not (again excluding Jordan and Egypt), the Arabs are in violation of international law, not Israel."

Hmm... interesting question. Denying recognition is not illegal, but acting actively against a generally recognised state is an act of agression. A further violation is of course that many arab states sponsor terrorism - Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Or commit genocide (Sudan). Etc.

"The UN clearly is not balanced here. It should require, indeed demand! that the Arabs recognize Israel as a precondition for requiring Israel to give up any land it took from the Arabs in its defensive wars."

The SC resolutions, the EU and the US position are all based on land for peace - and peace means of course recognizing Israel. And this was the deal with Egypt...

	25-04-2002 22:09									#117
	Remove this text

Rolland, We are coming to something like a concensus here. You are beginning to see that it is the Arabs, who have steadfastly refused to recognize Israel, who have repeatedly made war on her, who have no legal basis for conditioning their cessation of hostilities on Israel's agreement to cede land back to them it took in a defensive war. The Arab position is "illegal."

I also like your concession that Israel has the legal right to annex the West Bank. This was the point I made earlier. For example, it was not "illegal" for Americans to emigrate to and found new cities in California after it took California from Mexico in 1848. After enough Americans entered and settled in California, the U.S. made it a state. Up until that time, the U.S. could have returned California to Mexico or made it independent. The same is true today of Puerto Rico, an American "possession." I am sure the EU would not take the position that American emigration to Puerto Rico was "illegal."

I also agree that if Israel annexed the West Bank, it would have to grant full citizenship to the residents there who are not currently citizens. Don't dismiss the possibility of annexation out of hand. It makes a lot of sense.

Ned

	26-04-2002 12:32									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Ned:

"You are beginning to see...."

I've always been aware of the problems with the arab position. But I'm also aware of the problems with the Israeli fundies.

"I also like your concession that Israel has the legal right to annex the West Bank."

Ah.... I said you could argue the case, it's not clear. But it's politically way out of line - "it would have to grant full citizenship to the residents there who are not currently citizens." That would make a state with now 5-6 million jews and then about 5 million Israeli arabs. That option is way out for Israel.

	26-04-2002 12:35									#119
	Suffering from ads?

But back to the original topic - has this been all to support the charge of an anti-israel bias in the EU's position ?

	26-04-2002 20:34									#120
	Put an end to popups!

Roland, I don't think the EU position is anti-Semitic, just biased against Israel. This bias could be for a number of reasons, including the obvious economic self interest or humanitarian concerns for the obviously suffering Palestinians. However, I still contend the solution to the problem is to get tough on the Arabs to accept reasonable deals, such as that offered by Barak, and get on with it.

Ned