08-05-2002 05:58									#61
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Grrr Blowing up a Billiard hall isn't going to stop Israeli tanks, but it shows that no matter what Israel does, it is going to have casualties. It shows that Israel will never win.

No, all it does is push the entire confrontation closer to the brink. Israel can win, as Natan has mentioned, but the consequences would be terrible, especially for the Pals. Do you really want an all-out war for survival to break out in the ME? Such a war would destroy the Palestinian people. The idiotic violence of the suicide bombers is destroying any hope the Pals have for an independent state and may well destroy the Pals. Those "brave martyrs" are the worst enemies the Palestinian people have...

	08-05-2002 05:59									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Natan, time is definetly on israels side, and has been for years. for every year that goes by, the eternal israeli line that 'we must stop looking to the past' fools more and more idiots, particularly in the U.S.

what the hell are those 'human rights' arguments about?

how do you defend occupying palestinian land (and i'm jsut referring to the settlements now), and justify keeping it becuase if you give it back, the people who moved in won't have human rights protected? If you give the land back, the people who moved in should go as well!!!!


KrazyHorse, one of the problems with the settlements, which the Israeli apologists are very careful never to mention, is the quality of the trade. Looking at what was suggested in the camp David accord, Barak essentialy offered to settlements around jerusalem for pretty much useless lan in the Negev. it would be like trading manhattan for an equally large piece of arizona... not exactlya fair trade. but when presented to idiots, it looks really good on paper. 'see, we're giving them almost all the land they want. They are horribly ungrateful for not accepting'.

	08-05-2002 06:02									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Natan, my comments at least have always been made with the assumption that Israel is not willing to commit the atrocities required to end Pal resistance permanently. Take it as a sign of respect for the country.

Do you think that Black September involved atrocities? Were any atrocities which occured in the Syrian intervention in Lebanon vital to the success of that intervention? I don't think so. Feel free to disagree; this is a lot more interesting than the typical ME thread fare.

Cyber: So you think that most Palestinians in Jordan and Lebanon opposed the PLO?

	08-05-2002 06:04									#64
	Got spare money?

Drake, are you aware that your sentiments were once echoed by Petain, the leader of vichy France?

Luckily, the rest of the French didn't agree, and Petain was eventually sentenced for treason...

the palestinian people feel they have to choices right now: Live like second class citizens under Israeli domination, or to fight to their best trying to free themselves. For many of them death is preferable to the conditions in the camps... and the only way to make them stop is to provide a hope for a better situation.

of course, Sharon knows this, and is desperately trying to stop any kind of peace process...

	08-05-2002 06:06									#65
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

While not opposed, neither did they support them.

Look at northern Ireland. while the catholic inhabitants of NI supported the IRA, britain made no headway at all. As soon as they wized up and reduced the popular support of the IRA the situation imporved rapidly...

	08-05-2002 06:06									#66
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Natan Because their residents aren't going to experience anything even resembling civil and human rights in a Palestinian state maybe? Or because they're in areas vital to Israel's security?

Natan, if I move to Nigeria with 25 of my friends and start a colony, I don't expect my government to step up and enforce my civil/human rights by maintaining a defensive perimeter around my house (i.e. annexing Nigerian territory). The settlers shouldn't have moved in under that assumption, and Israel shouldn't attempt to do so.

quote: Israel evacuated Yamit, didn't it?

Population in settlements has shown a sustained growth rate of greater than 10% for the last 30 years, IIRC. Withdrawing from a scattering of the settlements doesn't mean anything as new ones are going up even faster.

quote: Time isn't on Israel's side though. For one, Israelis are more likely to and leave the country when the economy turns sour and buying groceries is a combat mission than the Palestinians are. Then there's all the international pressure, which makes Israeli voters and politicians uncomfortable. And of course, everyone in Israel knows that the Palestinians are going to outnumber them in a few years

That's the thing, though; IMO, reasonable people would have left ages ago. What's left is the conclusion that the people living on both sides of the line aren't reasonable.

Also, from what I've seen Israelis don't give a damn about international pressure. They've got the attitude that nobody can lecture them on things that aren't their business.

	08-05-2002 06:13									#67
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

God, I hate ME debates. This does it for me.

	08-05-2002 06:14									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I don't know how to get it into your head, but the Palestinian leadership (and probably the majority of the population) doesn't want peace. The Israelis gave their best offer ever and Arafat just walked away. I know that you'll claim that the deal wasn't fair, but if you don't like a deal, you give a counter-offer. Arafat didn't accept Israel's offer and didn't give a counter-offer of his own. He walked away from the peace process, not the Israelis. You're probably right about Sharon not really wanting peace, but he was elected because the Israeli population knew the peace process was dead after Arafat abandoned Camp David. The Pals killed the peace process, restarted the violence and are continuing it even now. Why should I feel sorry when the Pals get their nose bloodied when they are the ones who started all this?

On another note, I don't know what the hell Petain has to do with any of this. You seem to like to use France during WWII in all of your examples, which is the only reason I can see for you to bring Marshal Petain up...

	08-05-2002 06:16									#69
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Cyber: What are you basing that belief on?

	08-05-2002 06:27									#70
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Argh, I shouldn't post when I'm tired. Natan, I can't really extend my last post to anything else except Israel/Pals, as there's a world of difference between each of the conflicts you mentioned.

Israel can't win the conflict by "legitimate" use of force (ie. without resorting to atrocities), because it has itself restricted the possible outcomes to exclude full integration of the Palestinians territories into Israel.
And the other option, Palestinian independence, cannot be achieved without changing the Pal popular opinion to favour a compromise acceptable to Israel, which obviously cannot be achieved through force, as demonstrated by recent developments.
Mass expulsion of the Pals is right out.

	08-05-2002 07:23									#71
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Drake, are you aware that your sentiments were once echoed by Petain, the leader of vichy France? Luckily, the rest of the French didn't agree, and Petain was eventually sentenced for treason... the palestinian people feel they have to choices right now: Live like second class citizens under Israeli domination, or to fight to their best trying to free themselves. For many of them death is preferable to the conditions in the camps... and the only way to make them stop is to provide a hope for a better situation. of course, Sharon knows this, and is desperately trying to stop any kind of peace process...

why aren't they told that they can make peace??

Jon Miller

	08-05-2002 07:53									#72
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Natan, could you be more specific?

Drake, so?

John, because Israels line echoes prety much every fascist state in history: We want peace, as long as our victims bow down in subjugation.

The palestinians want peace. the first intifada ended when they got hope that they would get their own state through negotiations. Subsequent actions showed that Israel never intended to honor the oslo process, and the palestinians learned their lesson. They won't settle for promises of 'security now, land later'. They want an ironclad treaty guaranteeing a viable palestinian state, and with the US guaranteeing that when Israel breaks the treaty, the US will force them to give in.

if you were in their place, would you settle for anything else?

	08-05-2002 08:06									#73
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

hmm

ISrael offered a deal

sure it was not good enough

doesn't it show that they were trying to come up with a resolution (albiet to their advantage)?

how was that action showing that they never intended to make peace?

while I understand those who don't like Israel, I don't understand apologists for Palestine at all

JOn Miller

	08-05-2002 08:20									#74
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Israel offered a deal that was actually WORSE than was agreed on in the Oslo peace accords.

And this was pretty much my point in the previous thread. Sure, sharon is a man of peace, as long as he gets his way. Hitler would have been a man of peace too, if only Churchill and Stalin had caved.

It's easy to be a man of peace when you have the upper hand and you offer to retain the status quo... Of course, it is usually harder to get people to proclaim you a man of peace, but luckily the world is full of morons like Chamberlain or Bush. Not to mention complete raving lunatics like Dashle...


The actions: Increasing the number of settlers from 120.000 in1993 to 200.000 in 1998. To renege on previously decided deadlines, particulary in regards to military 'redeployment'. To divert more water from palestinian areas to settlements and Israel proper. To bulldoze 'illegal' palestinian homes, mainly because the Israeli system is set up thus that a palestinian cannot obtain the permits, while at the same time provide military escorts for the far more illegal settlements...



A simple question for you, John: what would you do in their stead?

	08-05-2002 08:36									#75
	Increase Your PM Length

I don't think sharon is a man of peace

I think he is a response to war

Jon Miller

	08-05-2002 08:59									#76
	Remove this text

You didn't answer my question.

	08-05-2002 09:14									#77
	Suffering from ads?

I would act peaceful until given a nation

then seek redress in diplomacy or war

what is going on now is not working far more than anything else has not worked

what is being showed is that a state of war exists, while palestians need peace so that Israel will no longer have a position that they need to continue the occupiation

nations (now) always do better at peace then at war

Jon Miller

	08-05-2002 09:19									#78
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Reading this gives me immense sadness. The Palestinians say they want freedom, but act in a manner that makes freedom impossible. One does not let a mad dog out of its cage next to one's children.

The Palestinians need real leadership committed to non violence and peace. Otherwise, they will require military occuppation either by the Israeli's or some other country for some time to come. I can only hope that both parties do not insist that that be the U.S. IMHO, the Jordanians need to re-occupy and re-annex the West Bank and Gaza.

Ned

	08-05-2002 09:30									#79
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu John, because Israels line echoes prety much every fascist state in history: We want peace, as long as our victims bow down in subjugation.

Isn't that the line of almost every state in history that has engaged in a war? Wanting to ensure that your enemy is no longer a threat before making peace with them is certainly not the sole province of fascist government, but is practiced by all governments. For example, in WWII the democratic Allies (plus the USSR) kicked the crap out of the fascist Axis, occupied their territory, tried and killed many of their leaders, and moved ethnic populations around to form new borders after the war. They certainly didn't sit back and take the attacks launched by their enemies, as you seem to want Israel to do. I don't see how you can call Israel "fascist" when they act like any other country would in their situation.

quote: And this was pretty much my point in the previous thread. Sure, sharon is a man of peace, as long as he gets his way. Hitler would have been a man of peace too, if only Churchill and Stalin had caved.

Sharon is not anything like Hitler. If he is like anyone you mentioned, he is like Churchill, a warrior elected to lead his country in a war for its survival.

	08-05-2002 09:49									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

John. Fascinating. You really believes that might gives right, even if you are on the recieving end of it? Do you think the french resistance did the wrong thing in WW2 too?

Ned, no, but one takes responsibility if one has tormented a dog enough to make him insane... Treating him humanely is the first step. (Of course, I don't condone equating palestinians to dogs, although that seems to be the official israeli line).


Drake, not at all. At what point in ww2 is it that you think Churchill said 'we can have peace now if the status quo i maintained'? That line is reserved for the (momentarily) victorious aggressor... Hitler, on the other hand, DID actually say something like this after the fall of France, offering the British peace.

What you seem to have confused the situation with is the Allied statement 'we'd be willing to have peace as soon as germany capitulates', which would of course have entailed returning all occupied land.

Which, incidentally, is also the words of Saudi-arabia as well as arafat.


BTW, I think you seriously insult churchill. One of the greatest men of all time, compared to a genocidal war criminal... A disgrace.

	08-05-2002 09:58									#81
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu John. Fascinating. You really believes that might gives right, even if you are on the recieving end of it? Do you think the french resistance did the wrong thing in WW2 too? Ned, no, but one takes responsibility if one has tormented a dog enough to make him insane... Treating him humanely is the first step. (Of course, I don't condone equating palestinians to dogs, although that seems to be the official israeli line). Drake, not at all. At what point in ww2 is it that you think Churchill said 'we can have peace now if the status quo i maintained'? That line is reserved for the (momentarily) victorious aggressor... Hitler, on the other hand, DID actually say something like this after the fall of France, offering the British peace. What you seem to have confused the situation with is the Allied statement 'we'd be willing to have peace as soon as germany capitulates', which would of course have entailed returning all occupied land. Which, incidentally, is also the words of Saudi-arabia as well as arafat. BTW, I think you seriously insult churchill. One of the greatest men of all time, compared to a genocidal war criminal... A disgrace.

no, but sometimes I think that you should give up (and try other mechanisms), like Italy, Germany and Japan in WW2

yes Palestine would have to trust Israel for a while, but they are not going anywhere now so that is what would be best

the going against citizens in Israel shows that this is a war

Jon Miller

	08-05-2002 10:03									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I don't quite follow what you mean when you refer to the Axis in ww2...

quote: yes Palestine would have to trust Israel for a while, but they are not going anywhere now so that is what would be best

They did, in 1993!!!! And this is what this intifada is all about!!!!! Israel has shown two things: It can't be trusted to keep its word, and it will only give something up if forced to. The uprising won't end until Israel actually agrees to give back the occupied land (including settlements) and the palestinians has a viable state to live in. Hopefully, this treaty will be guaranteed by someone more trustworthy than Israel... And the US is unfortunately the only power with the strength to do so.

	08-05-2002 10:06									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu What you seem to have confused the situation with is the Allied statement 'we'd be willing to have peace as soon as germany capitulates', which would of course have entailed returning all occupied land.

The Allies didn't return all the occupied German land. Almost all the ethnic Germans in Silesia and Pomerania were expelled and that land was given to Poland. Same thing happened in Konigsberg and the surrounding portions of East Prussia, which were annexed by Russia.

As for Israel, the Arab powers have never capitulated. Egypt and Jordan are the only ones who even acknowledge Israel's right to exist, something the Saudis are only now offering. How can the Allies' occupation after their enemy had surrendered be alright, but Israel's occupation while a state of war still exists be wrong? Until the Arabs show that they are serious about peace, Israel shouldn't give them any land back.

quote: Which, incidentally, is also the words of Saudi-arabia as well as arafat.

Arafat's English words or his Arabic words? There's a big difference.

quote: BTW, I think you seriously insult churchill. One of the greatest men of all time, compared to a genocidal war criminal... A disgrace.

You must not know much about Churchill. The similarities between him and Sharon are pretty numerous. While I respect the hell out of Churchill and consider him one of the greatest men of the last century, he was also a downright mean bastard and a warrior to the core. You call Sharon a war criminal, but Churchill approved things that make Sharon's supposed war crimes look like a picnic. You don't think Dresden was very respectful of human rights, do you?

	08-05-2002 10:11									#84
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu I don't quite follow what you mean when you refer to the Axis in ww2... They did, in 1993!!!! And this is what this intifada is all about!!!!! Israel has shown two things: It can't be trusted to keep its word, and it will only give something up if forced to. The uprising won't end until Israel actually agrees to give back the occupied land (including settlements) and the palestinians has a viable state to live in. Hopefully, this treaty will be guaranteed by someone more trustworthy than Israel... And the US is unfortunately the only power with the strength to do so.

so what was Israel talking peace about

yes it wasn't fair and no I am not suggesting Palestine should have taken it, I am just suggesting that while peace was being discussed (and Israel just suggested the best deal ever) was not the time to throw it all away by going back to war

Jon Miller

	08-05-2002 10:13									#85
	Got spare money?

human rights donot matter the same way in war as they do in peace

in the end, in war the point is to survive

Jon Miller

	08-05-2002 10:20									#86
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Subsequent actions showed that Israel never intended to honor the oslo process, and the palestinians learned their lesson. They won't settle for promises of 'security now, land later'.

Exactly... like the Who said, "We Won't Get Fooled Again". They know that they aren't getting the land if they just start acting nice, no matter what the rhetoric is now. If Palestine bows down now, they will lose everything in the long run.

	08-05-2002 10:24									#87
	Tired of ads?

Don't besmirch the good name of The Who by associating them with the Pals.

	08-05-2002 10:35									#88
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

They'd probably back the Pals, actually .

	08-05-2002 13:11									#89
	Remove this text

I see. So when the US gets attacked by the same extremists in what is probably the worst act of terror, the US declares war on all terror, it gets massive support and in any case declares if worst comes to worst it will act unilaterally anyway. But we're the US, so we can do that.

Israel has acts of terror being commited against it on a daily bases for whatever reason, they launch a campagn to fight terror (basicly doing the same thing US is doing) and the world and ESPECIALLY the US slaps their wrist and tells them, "hey, you can't do that!" jews aren't supposed to kill muslims, even in self-defence.

what I find puzzling is, if the US won't let the Israelis take care of business, why won't we do it ourselves? we went to the philipiens to help them out. we gorged out the taliban. why won't we fight terror in Israel?

this is like patching all the holes of a sinking ship except one or two and hoping that if you ignore them long enough, they will patch themselves.

I want to know when will we finally tell the palestinians that ITS NOT OK TO DO THAT???

final words. its been proven throughout history, that making claims without having the physical means to back them up (or being unwilling to use them) is pointless. talking to the palastinians and asking them if they would kindly stop killing people (jews as well as their own) is obviously not working. I don't see how anyone can even suggest that negotiating with terrorists could lead to peace. as in the case of afghanistan or iraq, nothing except a military action can get the job done or deliver the message.

P.S. if we go into iraq trying to eliminate a perceived future threat, we will probably kill more civilians (i don't know if you can call all of them innocents) than israel would if we just let them do their job and eliminate a current and real threat. and in any case, as I made the point before, what level of hypocrisy is this?

	08-05-2002 13:31									#90
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Israel has acts of terror being commited against it on a daily bases for whatever reason, they launch a campagn to fight terror (basicly doing the same thing US is doing)

If you think what Israel is doing in Palestine is even CLOSE to what the US is doing in Afghanistan, then you are blind... or purposely have closed you eyes. We aren't humiliating the Afghan people or brutally occupying them against their will. We aren't saying we are simply fighting terror and then randomingly killing any of the 'other' (whether it be terrorist or civilian) that we see.