27-09-2002 06:38									#151
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Eli, If the occupation can stopped with lesser means, they should be emplyed first.

It appears that everyone is in agreement on this point. So long as a political settlement is acheivable without violence, violence is not justified. If the obstacle to peace, though, is the intention of the occuppied to destroy the occupier's country, the resort to violence to end the occupation is still not justified because the obstacle to peace is not the occupier, but the occuppied.

Arafat has accepted Clinton's Camp David proposal. The Arab League has offered peace consistent with the UN resolutions. Only groups like Hamas and the Iranians have not offered peace. It appears they want all of Israel, which is completely unacceptable.

This means that violence from Hamas in unjustifiable.

Thus Israeli's the primary focus in the short term should be in getting Hamas, and groups like Hamas, to change their position on the destruction of Israel. Only then will a political settlement be possible.

I assume the current/planned Israeli assault on Hamas is intended in part to force Hamas to give up its goal of total conquest of Israel.

	27-09-2002 07:09									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Arafat has accepted Clinton's Camp David proposal.

What? Arafat rejected the Camp David proposal.

	27-09-2002 07:10									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Ned, that is a very good point. But since the actions of Israel are what caused Hamas popularity in the first place, you can't separate the actions of Hamas from the actions of plain freedom-seeking palestinians.

If the occupation ends and Hamas still carries out attacks, then they should be sought out and dealt with as common cirminals.

	27-09-2002 07:12									#154
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

General, that would be classified as 'revenge', wouldn't it?

However, letting Saddam know that if he does it again, he will be nuked, that I think is fine. (well, assuming that practical details such as making sure that the nuke doesn't kill kurds etc etc could be solved. I doubt they could, but in the hypothetical case it would be morally just).

	27-09-2002 07:13									#155
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I think what Ned means is the Oslo accord, where Arafat accepted Israels right to exist.

	27-09-2002 08:11									#156
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Ned, that is a very good point. But since the actions of Israel are what caused Hamas popularity in the first place, you can't separate the actions of Hamas from the actions of plain freedom-seeking palestinians.

That's rather like saying Nazi actions against the Soviet Communist Party can't be distinguished from the actions of freedom seeking Soviet citizens.

	27-09-2002 08:21									#157
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

?

Russian Nazis?

Both Hamas and PLO are palestinians, you know.

It would rather be not being able to distinguish between russian partisans who loved their country and russian partisans who just hated germans...

	27-09-2002 08:38									#158
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I should learn to just ignore him until he learns what a source is, but it is hard.

Interesting.

I'm supposed automatically cast doubt on every thing said by my media, since if it is secretly government controlled, and has a nationalist agenda - it my lie.

However, larger, american (or say, french ) media bodies, are nevere influenced by the goverenment, and never have political agendas.

Furthermore, foreign journalists are always the best sources on minute things that are hapenning beneath the headlines -> they always have the best sources - spokesmen of the local information ministry.

Furthermore, international journalists are never affected by thugs with guns that threaten their life, and never ever edotirialise news pieces. They are never ignorant of the local history or detached from events.


Lesson learnt.

Proceed to teach me some more of your thinking.

However, having learnt critical thinking, I now cast serious doubts on the content of my last lesson.

	27-09-2002 08:50									#159
	Put an end to popups!

You are supposed to automatically cast doubt on every thing said by your media, since it has a nationalist agenda.

However, larger, american (or say, french ) media bodies, are seldom influenced by the goverenment, and seldom have political agendas. While seldom does not equal never, seldom is the best you will ever get, and infinitly preferable to partisanship.

Furthermore, foreign journalists might not always be the best sources on minute things that are hapenning beneath the headlines, but one can only trust that if an event is important enough the foreign journalist will cover it. Between lack of coverage and partisan coverage, lack of coverage is the better choice.

Furthermore, international journalists are can be affected by thugs with guns that threaten their life, and can edotirialise news pieces. They can be ignorant of the local history or detached from events. (Although, assuming that this is the case becasue it could be the case is flawed logicall). If this is a concern, then reading several impartial news agencies is a better choice than relying on partisan coverage.

	27-09-2002 08:50									#160
	Remove this text

Yes, CyberGnu, even before the occupation ends, as soon as a peace agreement is signed, Hamas has to stop their own mini war or else.

	27-09-2002 08:53									#161
	Support Apolyton

Ned, I don't think that is possible. The current intifada started because the Oslo accords didn't lead to the end of occupation, as it was promised. Support for Hamas won't end unless there is a palestinian state, and returning to a status quo (i.e. a peace treaty under continued occupation) won't lead anywhere.

	27-09-2002 08:55									#162
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Also, as a practical matter, how do you expect Arafat to reign in Hamas immediately after a peace treaty, or even immediately after the occupation ends? Israel has systematically destroyed the palestinian police force.

Israel can't do it, or Hamas will get all their support back when the first Israeli soldier crosses the border to palestine...

	27-09-2002 09:17									#163
	Tired of ads?

quote: ? Russian Nazis? Both Hamas and PLO are palestinians, you know. It would rather be not being able to distinguish between russian partisans who loved their country and russian partisans who just hated germans...

That was probably a rather inept analogy. My point is you can and must distinguish between Hamas and PAlestinians who just want to be free. The latter category should either adopt non-violent resistance (it works, you know), or if they have to fight, launch attacks only on soldiers and settlers in the occupied territories.

	27-09-2002 09:36									#164
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Eventually, yes. Until the occupation stops, it is impossible.

Non-violent resistance only works if the occupying power expects to gain something apart from land out of the occupied territories. Perhaps if the palestinians actually starved to death because of their non-violent protests would the rest of the world do something, but just accepting Israeli occupation would only lead to more settlements stealing more land.

BTW, you do know that three out of the four major organizations in palestine DID restrict themselves to soldiers and settlers only. (Until after the incursion in Jenin, when they declared that since Israel was going after civilians, so would they...) Didn't do them any good though, the public opinion didn't separate Hamas from any of the others, partly becuase the Israeli goverments repeated condemnation of Arafat as soon as anything happened.

	27-09-2002 09:42									#165
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Non-violent resistance only works if the occupying power expects to gain something apart from land out of the occupied territories. Perhaps if the palestinians actually starved to death because of their non-violent protests would the rest of the world do something, but just accepting Israeli occupation would only lead to more settlements stealing more land.

If the Palestinians stop the violence at their end, there will be no reason for the Israelis to keep it up at their end.

quote: BTW, you do know that three out of the four major organizations in palestine DID restrict themselves to soldiers and settlers only.

No, I didn't know that. However, one that doesn't is one too many.

quote: Didn't do them any good though, the public opinion didn't separate Hamas from any of the others, partly becuase the Israeli goverments repeated condemnation of Arafat as soon as anything happened.

Why couldn't Arafat have dealt with Hamas? I see no reason why he couldn't have.

	27-09-2002 09:50									#166
	Put an end to popups!

Siro, sorry but I'm really busy right now and don't want to continue writing epics in this thread, but it comes down to this:

The policy of Israel on Palestinian people in its territories, namely the closures and curfews, the trade barriers and other forms of economic exploitation, unfair distribution of water, and constant military presence and interventions constitute extreme violence against the Palestinian people, and they are objectively no better than Palestinian terrorism even if they sound cleaner. Until these policies end, I see no hope of Palestinian terrorism ending.

	27-09-2002 09:55									#167
	Remove this text

quote: If the Palestinians stop the violence at their end, there will be no reason for the Israelis to keep it up at their end.

True, if you assume that Israel wants peace. If this was true, however, why did the Camp David accords break down?

Israel prefers land over peace. The palestinians prefer land over peace. The only difference is that the land belongs to the palestinians, while the Israelis have the military might.

quote: Why couldn't Arafat have dealt with Hamas? I see no reason why he couldn't have.

He could have, if Israel had lived up to their part of the Oslo accords. But as time went on and the occupation continued Araft lost popularity, while Hamas gained. Eventually he was unable to firmly oppose Hamas, or lose all support he had. The Camp David was his last chance. If Israel had offered a fair deal at Camp David, he could have gotten away with it, I think. But as it is, the palestinian people doesn't believe Israel will ever willingly give up the occupation.

	27-09-2002 10:05									#168
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: True, if you assume that Israel wants peace. If this was true, however, why did the Camp David accords break down?

Because Arafat refused to sign the deal he was offerred or to propose a better one.

quote: Israel prefers land over peace. The palestinians prefer land over peace. The only difference is that the land belongs to the palestinians, while the Israelis have the military might.

Your statement is true for Sharon and his supporters, but not necessarily for the rest of Israel. The Palestinians obviously want their land and peace, but it seems Hamas is the thing which is getting in the way the most. And I really want to know what it is that is stopping Arafat from reining in Hamas. He is not benefiting from having Israeli tanks parked outside his office.

EDIT: Nor is anybody else.

quote: He could have, if Israel had lived up to their part of the Oslo accords.

Arafat failed to clamp down on the terrorist groups as he was obliged, hence there was no reason for the Israelis to follow the agreement.

quote: But as time went on and the occupation continued Araft lost popularity, while Hamas gained. Eventually he was unable to firmly oppose Hamas, or lose all support he had. The Camp David was his last chance. If Israel had offered a fair deal at Camp David, he could have gotten away with it, I think.

I'll ask again: Why couldn't he have offerred what he considered a better deal instead of walking out and declaring a new intifada?

	27-09-2002 10:16									#169
	Suffering from ads?

quote: However, larger, american (or say, french ) media bodies, are seldom influenced by the goverenment, and seldom have political agendas. While seldom does not equal never, seldom is the best you will ever get, and infinitly preferable to partisanship.

1) The US government at times admitted to planting CIA agents in the media, thus affecting it, and often planting false news.
2) Newspapers have owners and audiences and thus have political agendas. Even the NYT and the WP are considered somewhat affected by political agendas. I can't remember which is rightist and which is leftist though.
3) I fail to see what is it that you call partisanship. Which media service? Maybe the Syrian one.

You still haven't got a letter from the german newspaper saying that they ran no article about al-qaida operatives.

quote: Furthermore, foreign journalists might not always be the best sources on minute things that are hapenning beneath the headlines, but one can only trust that if an event is important enough the foreign journalist will cover it. Between lack of coverage and partisan coverage, lack of coverage is the better choice.

Ah, but lack of coverage presents a skewed picture.

Biased coverage, can be fixed if it is approached cautiously and the bias is taken into account.

What you prefer is ignore everything that you suspect, or would like to suspect, is even slightly biased.

quote: Furthermore, international journalists are can be affected by thugs with guns that threaten their life, and can edotirialise news pieces. They can be ignorant of the local history or detached from events. (Although, assuming that this is the case becasue it could be the case is flawed logicall)

I don't need to assume this.

I've seen and heard and admission by BBC of "editing out" pieces of news which were bad press to the pals, because threatened.

I've seen and heard BBC reporters which either possessed wrong facts themselves, or let thier interviewee lie without correcting him. (and by wrong facts I mean general knowledge things, like when a war started, when PLO was formed, the existance or lack of bombings for a period of time).

quote: If this is a concern, then reading several impartial news agencies is a better choice than relying on partisan coverage.

This is a statement where you claim something. It should follow with the word 'because' and a logical explanation. You fail to do that everytime.

	27-09-2002 10:51									#170
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by CyberGnu Also, as a practical matter, how do you expect Arafat to reign in Hamas immediately after a peace treaty, or even immediately after the occupation ends? Israel has systematically destroyed the palestinian police force. Israel can't do it, or Hamas will get all their support back when the first Israeli soldier crosses the border to palestine...

Perhaps a peace treaty will authorize a UN "peacekeeping" force to help the PA track down and arrest those who oppose peace. For obvious reasons, this force should be commanded by an Arab.

I don't think there can be a settlement without a credible police force in Palestine.

	27-09-2002 11:02									#171
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Because Arafat refused to sign the deal he was offerred or to propose a better one.

Well, of course he refused to sign the deal, it wasn't viable. and that he didn't offer a better deal isn't true. Even the Israeli negotiatior said as much in the interviews after the accords.

(admittedly, only after Clinton got pissed at him, but still)

quote: Your statement is true for Sharon and his supporters, but not necessarily for the rest of Israel. The Palestinians obviously want their land and peace, but it seems Hamas is the thing which is getting in the way the most. And I really want to know what it is that is stopping Arafat from reining in Hamas. He is not benefiting from having Israeli tanks parked outside his office.

Well, political reality. His political survival isn't much different from any other politicians... He needs the support of his people to stay in power. If he deals with Hamas right now, he is toast, as his way (peace and negotiations) failed to give the palestinians what they wanted, i.e. the end of occupation.

	27-09-2002 11:05									#172
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Arafat failed to clamp down on the terrorist groups as he was obliged, hence there was no reason for the Israelis to follow the agreement.

He actually jailed numerous members of Hamas in the early 90's, but released them after the political situation became untenable. That was in 96 or so, after Netanyahu declared that Oslo was dead.

	27-09-2002 11:19									#173
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: 1) The US government at times admitted to planting CIA agents in the media, thus affecting it, and often planting false news. 2) Newspapers have owners and audiences and thus have political agendas. Even the NYT and the WP are considered somewhat affected by political agendas. I can't remember which is rightist and which is leftist though.

Select words highlighted as you appear to have missed them the first time:

However, larger, american (or say, french ) media bodies, are seldom influenced by the goverenment, and seldom have political agendas. While seldom does not equal never, seldom is the best you will ever get, and infinitly preferable to partisanship.

quote: ) I fail to see what is it that you call partisanship. Which media service? Maybe the Syrian one.

Of course you fail to see it. This is the root of the problem.

quote: You still haven't got a letter from the german newspaper saying that they ran no article about al-qaida operatives.

Nope. I only have so much time to spare, and I figured two letters to the JP would be enough. How about this, you produce the original article, and I write a letter to Die Welt.

quote: Ah, but lack of coverage presents a skewed picture. Biased coverage, can be fixed if it is approached cautiously and the bias is taken into account.

Biased coverage can NOT be taken into account. History and present shows as much. Why do you think so many arabs believe Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks? Why do you think so many israelis say 'there were no arabs in palestine before the jews came'?

So I repeat, no coverage is better than biased coverage.

quote: What you prefer is ignore everything that you suspect, or would like to suspect, is even slightly biased.

Select words highlighted as you appear to have missed them the first time:

However, larger, american (or say, french ) media bodies, are seldom influenced by the goverenment, and seldom have political agendas. While seldom does not equal never, seldom is the best you will ever get, and infinitly preferable to partisanship.

quote: I don't need to assume this. I've seen and heard and admission by BBC of "editing out" pieces of news which were bad press to the pals, because threatened. I've seen and heard BBC reporters which either possessed wrong facts themselves, or let thier interviewee lie without correcting him. (and by wrong facts I mean general knowledge things, like when a war started, when PLO was formed, the existance or lack of bombings for a period of time).

Select words highlighted as you appear to have missed them the first time:

Furthermore, international journalists are can be affected by thugs with guns that threaten their life, and can edotirialise news pieces. They can be ignorant of the local history or detached from events. (Although, assuming that this is the case becasue it could be the case is flawed logicall). If this is a concern, then reading several impartial news agencies is a better choice than relying on partisan coverage.

quote: This is a statement where you claim something. It should follow with the word 'because' and a logical explanation. You fail to do that everytime.

How old are you? 3? But OK, I bite.

Furthermore, international journalists are can be affected by thugs with guns that threaten their life, and can edotirialise news pieces. They can be ignorant of the local history or detached from events. (Although, assuming that this is the case becasue it could be the case is flawed logicall). If this is a concern, then reading several impartial news agencies is a better choice than relying on partisan coverage because only a retard would read and base his views on biased information.

	27-09-2002 11:21									#174
	Suffering from ads?

Ned:

quote: Perhaps a peace treaty will authorize a UN "peacekeeping" force to help the PA track down and arrest those who oppose peace. For obvious reasons, this force should be commanded by an Arab. I don't think there can be a settlement without a credible police force in Palestine.

Agree completely. Do remember that Arafat has asked for an international peace keeping force for ten years now... Mainly to protect the palestinian people from Israel, but also for peace keeping purposes.

	27-09-2002 11:27									#175
	Inflate your Upload Space

They didn't really seriously try to hunt down the terrorists (or freedom fighters if you would prefer) when they did have a reasonably credible police force before. What makes you think that would ever change?

	27-09-2002 11:40									#176
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ming They didn't really seriously try to hunt down the terrorists (or freedom fighters if you would prefer) when they did have a reasonably credible police force before. What makes you think that would ever change?

Like you'd ever change your pro-Israel bias in thread closures?

	27-09-2002 11:50									#177
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Ming, Arafat got a condemnation in 1995 from several human rights groups for his jailing of accused Hamas members. More than 150 people were jailed, and over 500 were detained for prolonged periods of time. the vast majority of these men were jailed without a trial, based mainly on Israeli tipoffs.

And that was still while the occupation was present.

	27-09-2002 11:51									#178
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse Like you'd ever change your pro-Israel bias in thread closures?

Huh... my biggest concern with ME threads is when there are too many of them on the same subject, and personal insults. Due to the heavy emotional attachment many have (which is understandable) they do get out of hand on occasion

Frankly, both sides are right and wrong, and need to sit down SERIOUSLY and talk peace. Because until that happens, more innocent people will die.

	27-09-2002 12:02									#179
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Tee hee.

	27-09-2002 12:04									#180
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The problem of the "occupation" will end by itself in about 20 years, when arabs are a majority in pre-1967 Israel, then the jews will be thrown into the sea unless the arabs are reprogrammed not to revolt.