I wanted to think about my response to the latest bombing for a couple days before posting...just to give it some serious thought and clarity.

I read a bit of Cactus48 the other day...interesting site.

I find myself growing apathetic towards the conflict. I would probably not feel this way if I had more of a personal stake in this (a friend who is a diehard Israeli/Jew or Palestinian). Maybe it's because I watch and read too much news, but I find myself getting desensitized to it all. At this point, I entertain two main streams of thought:

1--Let the Israelis and Palestinians kill each other off...the US can stay out of it.

2--The US should invade Israel and Palestine, beat down both sides, and claim the land as a new colony.

Many of you might be familiar with Congressmen Dick Armey (the House Majority Leader) and Tom DeLay (the House Majority Whip). They're both Republicans from Texas. (I'm putting in the last part for background only. To give an idea of where they MIGHT stand.)

The last time each has been on Hardball, I have been amazed by what has come out of their mouths. Wednesday, DeLay said that there is no need for a Palestinian state, that Palestinians should join Israel.

A few weeks ago, Armey was saying that the West Bank and Gaza are Israel's, and not for the Palestinians...I believe he was advocating a Palestinian state somewhere else on the Arabian Peninsula.

I don't doubt that part of it was soundbiting, but these guys genuinely seem to believe what they are saying.

Although Israel has a 20% or so Arab population, there is no way that the Palestinians would join the State of Israel...not after all the fighting that has been done.

As far as a homeland somewhere else, that won't happen either. Both peoples have been on the land for ages.

How much faith can really be put into Arafat in the end? He's not really a "leader" per se; he's more of a spokesperson a la MLK or Gandhi.

I've been moving away from the "desperation" argument of the suicide bombers. It seems that these bombers simply want to hurt people, and they don't care who (well, they want to hurt Israelis, but no one in particular). The father of Wednesday's (the first one) bomber was like, "He's (the son) a martyr. We can only hope that God will take care of him" (or something along those lines).

As I understand modern warfare, great pains are taken to avoid innocent civilians...you attack military targets. And while the suicide bombers do this on occasion, it's been civilians recently. There is simply no justification for going on buses or into clubs and injuring and killing people. Period.

Perhaps the Palestinian extremists have not heard of, or don't care for, the principles of nonviolence. Maybe they could care less about MLK or Gandhi. At the rate things are going, the Palestinians will never achieve independence...because IMO, they're going about it the wrong way. I would say that the Palestinians have been treated unfairly by Israel, and I'm sure that Israeli soldiers have killed innocent Palestinian civilians. But you can't fight fire with fire.

Arafat could be the great statesman of our time. He could get on television and make grand speeches about his vision of a Palestinian state. He could speak of not "stooping down" to the level of the Israelis. He could speak of Israelis and Palestinians living together side by side in peace...they could hold marches with both peoples walking side by side, hand in hand down the main street in Tel Aviv. He could use a great quote like this, and make it his own:

"We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone."--MLK

I'll be the first to admit that I am a ridiculous optimist and idealist. But we already know that when both sides are peaceable, progress can be achieved (Oslo). Although there are years of anger and hatred between them, I honestly believe that if both sides sit down, talk honestly, focus on commonalities, treat each other as equals, and keep the lines of communication open, we could see two states side-by-side living in peace. They don't have to like each other, but they should be able to respect each other's right to be where they are.

If you're talking about Arafat and Sharon ... I'll be the second to admit that you're a ridiculous optimist and idealist. ;)

Thats why you have to get them wasted first...

Some of you might remember the Sharon-Arafat boxing match.

You're trying ot tell me i can't argue without conceding the point? *sighs*
Anotehr cultural context where people ahve been denied thier right and resorted to armed struggle? No others? LOL. Hmmm letsee Northern Ireland, Vietnam (Franch), Kashmir, Chechnya, do i need to go on? There is nothign ewn about it, nothign new about killing civvies, nothing new about killing kids, nothing unique, nothing any more or less barbaric either.

Bullshit. Tons of kids have been shot protesting by the IDF, its not uncommon. They simply don't care - they have nothing else to live for. Tahts the bit you don't seem to be able to get.

"Don't seem to be able to get" are words that do not flatter you. I encourage you not to use them, or words like them; that sort of approach will not serve you well.

This whole idea of desperation is debunked tonight by USS Clueless. The critical point:

We shouldn't think of our enemies as mindless animals, but we can't assume that they're motivated by the same things that we are. It's important to understand just how much different their culture is from ours, so as to understand how they will interpret our actions entirely differently than how we intend them to be interpreted.

How different is that culture? I keep pointing it out. You keep trying to find the similarities. "If *I* were treated that way, I'd go violent too!" But when pressed with the complete act -- killing the five-year-old -- you stop. You won't go there. You won't even think about it and surely you won't discuss it.

That's how different the cultures are. One of the bombers last week was a 22-year-old graduate student in a well-off family. He was not desperate. He had everything to live for. But his motivation was in his afterlife; in a religious fervor, he truly believed that his act was sacred, and that the more people he killed, the more awesome would be his reward from his god.

One thing that should strike you is that his position is not really negotiable. "Ahmed, what concessions can Israel give to convince you not to continue your violence?" "They can sacrifice several hundred Jews to Allah in my name." "What, no land or charitable contributions??"

There may be differences in culture between Americans and Aussies, too, which might account, in part, for the different interpretations of the debaters.

Ok i have played this out out badly, sorry i haven't had the time to really write anythign decent, the last week i've spent of a 3000 word paper on power relationships between North/South korea and external influences.

Ok lets start over.

Yea there is something rather fucked up about killing 5y.os and no, i cannot understand the mentality, but i can take a fair shot at the logic.

Terrorism like that works on exactly that, terror.'Tactics liek killing random members of the public, or families when peoples backs are turned are remarkably effective. Im not prone to being angry enough to kill kids, but couple decades of indocternated hatred of someone who is runing your life, mix in a little relgious fevour that feeds so easily on repressed people and man, i can see where they are coming from. See what i mean? Of course i can't directly identify, but i can understand the mentality and what causes it and more importantly how fundamentally it is the result of Isreali actions.

Or, perhaps, Israeli actions are the result of Palestinian extremists' actions.

That's why we can argue this all day. Neither side is willing to accept any blame. Couple that with the fact that Arafat will not <b>lead</b> his people to where they want to be... situation normal: all fucked up.

Couple that with the fact that Sharon will not lead his people to where they want to be ...

Well at this point, Jag, you'll have to go over to today's thread in Image of the Day because the topics merged and I put some thoughts in replying to Yelof there. Sorry.

Sharon will be gone soon enough. He is hardly the biggest problem in this mess. He is big, no doubt. But he does not have the longevity of Arafat.

Imagine how much different the middle east would be if Arafat would crack down on militants and lead peaceful, non-violent protests of Israeli occupation. Put Gandhi in as the leader of the Palestinians and see how different it is. Arafat sits back and spews rhetoric, interspersed with the occasional condemnation of suicide bombing which he does hardly anything to stop. There is a world of difference between saying and doing. There is a world of difference between sitting at the top and leading.

Ummm Sharon has been leading zionist groups since the forties and fifties, how much more longevity do you want?

He's been the recognized head of the Israeli government for how long?

One doesn't need to be the head of the government to be influential, and he has been in and out of government positions for at least the last twenty years. A real difference between Sharon and Arafat: One has won the Nobel peace prize and the other is being tried in the Hague for war crimes...

Last thirty years, no doubt. And that's not counting his military time, which goes back to the late 40's. That doesn't mean that he's been the head honcho in Israel. Arafat has headed Fatah since the late 50's and has been on top of the PLO since 1969.

If you could point me to information on Sharon's war crimes trial in the Hague, I'd be greatly appreciative. How's that trial progressing?

Here's another real difference between Sharon and Arafat: Sharon enforces previously agreed-to terms for peace by taking steps to eliminate terrorists while Arafat spits venom about Israel and pseudo condemnations of terror attacks.

Arafat winning the Nobel prize is the single most embarrassing retrospective moment for the Nobel endowment. But nice try. It's not like he ever led a terrorist organization called the P.L.O. which conducted terrorist operations against Jordan and Israel, is it?

As for your pointing out that Sharon is a bad man because he is being tried in the Hagues, since when are people guilty before being convicted? And lastly, who the hell are the Netherlands to try Sharon? Can anyone try whomever they feel like, despite country borders? Cool. I think I'll try the king of Saudia Arabia for jaywalking. The hearing will be held in my apartment. See you there.

9/11

It may not be news to anyone else here, but we might as well clarify that The International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has its seat in The Hague, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.

http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icj002.htm


Details of the case against Sharon can be discovered at: http://www.indictsharon.net/

Actually, the trial is being conducted in a Belgian court, under a "1993 Belgian law, allowing Belgian courts to prosecute foreigners for human rights abuses committed abroad." (BBC) It appears to be similar to what Spain tried to do with Pinochet.

This is the most recent article I can find about it, from October, from the BBC.

Sure as shit doesn't look like a <b>trial</b> is going on. Looks like they've had some <b>hearings</b>. Which is hardly news.

More links to information about his <b>trial</b>? Has he been indicted? I think that needs to happen before a trial occurs.

From the ICJ website:

"Only States may apply to and appear before the Court. The States Members of the United Nations (at present numbering 189), and one State which is not a Member of the United Nations but which has become party to the Court's Statute (Switzerland), are so entitled."

After Nineteen Years: Sabra and Shatila Remembered
 

Posted by Sycamore in IOTD but I think we should pull the discussion back to this part of The Cellar

Bravo Sycamore, I was thinking myself that we ought to try to move to a meta discussion on this topic, as the topic when it rears its ugly head on occasion gets nowhere, I personally have intended to quit the discussion but I then see something posted by a participant with an opposing view and think "that can't go unchallenged", But it is as you noted perhaps interesting if we try to see how it is we have ended up in these two camps seeing as as far as I can tell no Israeli or Palestinian is posting to the boards.


I guess I am a member of the Pro-Palestinian camp, although I think I have to point out that that doesn't mean I support the terrorist actions of Palestinian extremists, in fact I don't think I have seen anyone post support of those tactics, just perhaps comprehension of how such a pointless and inhumane tactic has been chosen, to go partisan for a minute, I have on the other hand seen a fair bit of support for the current oppressive tactics of the Israeli state by the other camp.

I see the position of the Pro-Palestinian camp as being that an injustice was and is being wroth on the Palestinian People and that until a just peace offer is put on the table by Israel and the Palestinian People are offered something that gives then a stake in the future, until that time there will not be Peace in the region. Generally the Pro-Palestinian camp will see current Israeli tactics as an attempt to drown any hope of negotiated settlement in cries of "security first!" despite the likelihood that prolonged frustration will just increase those willing to do anything to destroy Israel, the purpose of this exercise in frustration is to allow settlers to create a reality of an Israeli West Bank.

Ok I have stated, perhaps overstated, my position, who am I and is that determining why I have this opinion?
I am Irish, I live in Portugal, I work (telecommute) in the UK, I guess I should be described as a European. In Portugal and Ireland most people would share similar opinions to mine, most people in the UK, although the Prime Ministers wife Cherie Booth got into trouble politically the other day for saying that the suicide boomers where desperate people, so I guess, as in quite a few other matters, quite a few people in the UK must share an opinion closer to the US than Europe on this issue.
The media in Europe is more likely to report from a Palestinian perspective, but recently I have not been getting most of my information that way. My own opinion on this matter has wavered in the last ten years, as a teenager I saw myself as a political radical, I bet others just saw me as somebody who needed a bath, so clearly I was in the Palestinian camp, however perhaps as a reaction to my father’s mild to annoying anti Semitism, he can't see anyone with even slightly Semitic features come on the TV without giving a "damn Jewboy!" comment..this can be amusing sometimes as it can illustrate just how out of it he is..I saw him stare and stare at the subject of a TV interview the other day until finally he comes out with his revelation "I think Woody Allen is Jewish!", anyway to piss the old man off I went to spend a summer on a Kibbutz and I guess a lot of my resistance to Israel melted away there, from day to day you saw few Arabs, you mixed with Israelis who seemed kind of cool. I guess I left there thinking Israel has a right to defend herself, I guess I'd have found myself comfortable in undertoad's camp if not dhamsaic's. So how did I make the switch again? I think it is the Internet and my love of history, perhaps it is also the media, I tend if I see a thought provoking TV report or online news report (news.bbc.co.uk mostly) I tend to follow it through google, and I think as I began to appreciate the history of the situation I began to see more that an injustice had been done, So that is how I have the opinion I have. I'd be interested to hear how people arrived at their opinions, perhaps more so then the opinions, let us be honest here not a lot of minds or hearts are being changed here.

Good post Yelof. :)

For the record, let me clarify that original post. Rather than say that people are pro-whatever, I think it more appropriate to say that folks may have pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian views. It may sound silly, but to me, there's a difference.

I don't have a personal stake in this dispute. My people aren't from the middle-east. I'm neither Jewish nor Islamic. I've never been to the middle-east, so I can't speak from personal experience, but then again, my viewpoint isn't colored by indoctrination or indigenous perspectives.

As a Canadian, I suppose it's understood that we're peacekeepers not warmongers, if you can take anything from the stereotype. I'm so peaceable, in fact, I find myself spelling colored incorrectly, just to get along with the Americans in the Cellar.

As shown in the political compass, I'm really liberal ... by many Amercian standards ... anti-death penalty, pro gun control, pro choice, free medicare, free love, free speech, agnostic raised in a white, english speaking non-smoking Roman Catholic tradition. I don't care what religion my children profess if any, so I really don't care who else is Jewish, Muslim, Christian or otherwise. I'm very familiar with the law, having done a long stretch of hard time, in university, not in prison. I care about justice, but I don't confuse the concept with revenge, which I'm not inclined toward. I'm a pro-gay rights heterosexual, married man with four kids from two wives, but I'm not a bigamist, although it doesn't bother me at all that some Mormons and Arabs are.

I've always viewed Arafat as a terrorist. Here in the Cellar, one of my early posts was that IotD showing him with the V for victory sign and the tongue in cheek title "Peace Man" since he had the appearance of a "hippie" even though I knew well his salute meant victory in the Winston Churchill sense and that he is a terrorist, even though he is an elected representative of his people.

I'm against terrorism in all it's manifestations. I don't like any governments who view their own or their friends' terrorists as militants. I'm in favor of an apolitical, non-religious definition of terrorism.

Government sanctioned atrocities and genocide is also a crime against humanity in my viewpoint. It is not an antidote to terrorism.

As I've said in other threads, I think that the removal of both Arafat and Sharon from power is the necessary first step toward peace in the middle east. With the imbalance of power, political and military, in the region, I expect that the IDF will "accidentally" kill Arafat with a tank shell while he's sitting on his toilet in his compound. With Arafat gone, Sharon will lose the next election as the US will back a more moderate peacemaker to accept the 1967 borders and a withdrawal from the settlements in the West Bank.

My apologies for using the word "trial," as it is certainly not yet a trial. The case in Belgium is the only one I have found against Sharon. This is the most recent update I can find on that, from May.

I'm not sure if you (or anyone else) is familiar with it at all, but in any case, here is the setup for the Yugoslavia tribunal, which may give you an idea as to how an international tribunal works. I don't think the tribunals have to be held in a certain place (as the Rwanda one is being held in Rwanda and Tanzania), though I would suspect The Hague is being used as it is the home of the ICJ. If (and that's a big IF of course) Sharon is ever charged with war crimes, a tribunal would probably be set up in a similar manner. (Though I personally don't think Sharon will ever face one.)

I think alot more interesting the more it sits on my brain. Looking at the way the discussions have played out as well as my discussions with so many people since sept. 11 I would be considered having a pro-Palestinian view which sounds wierd to me considering I have more friends with ties to Israel than to Palestine (direct connections not sharing a religion, a BIG difference imo. And for a long time I thought more along the traditional American backing of Israel's actions. Then I learned some history of the region. My personal feeling is the real blame should be placed on the UK for most of the killing that has taken place there, as in many other places in the world.

I started to put myself in the shoes of both sides and ya know, they both suck BUT it sucks a whole lot worse on the Palestinian side in my eyes. Now, I have backgrounds in a lot of areas but most of my recent study has been of the the mind/brain. Now, the phenomenon of conditioning is something that has been around for about a century, this is what the bahaviorist school of thought used to "prove" its arguements for fifty years. There are more sophisticated models now that can account for it but back to what I was saying. Most of these suicide bombers are going to be about my age, which means that they were born into this stuggle twenty to twenty five years ago. So, this has been going on for twice as long as they have been alive. Why should they think its ever going to end? And then you have some manipulative bastards out there dangling that pie in the sky, heaven, all they have to do is die in the battle that they were born into, might even seem like fate. They talk about tv desensitizing kids to violence here in the states, imagine what it is like to see that happening to your family and friends for a lifetime, you either go numb or curl up and die. This numbness could manifest itself as simple indifference toward the events around you, or could be the beginnings of an indifference towards the acts of brutality themselves. Now, none of this is absolute but, it sets the stage for a certain percentage of the population to be highly suggestable to thoughts of carrying out a suicide bombing. Think about some of the easily led people you have come across in your life, do you think there are a couple of fanatics in the making there? Do you think that should one or two of them do something that would be abhorrent to you but completely out of your control to stop you should then be punished since you share a common city of origin? I don't want to be punished for the dumbasses I know thats for sure.

On the other side, an Israeli of my age has a leader who makes Newt Gingrich look like a bleeding heart, I sure as shit wouldn't be too happy about it. In fact, I would like to think that my values would prevent me from serving in the occupying forces even at the expense of my freedom, the same as I would hope that I wouldn't become a suicide bomber, either sceniaro looks disgusting to me. Was Arafat a terrorist at one time? No doubt. Do I think he's one now? I don't think so. I don't think Israel would have let him live this long if he was still active in the planning of such acts. Notice that all of the other planners are in hiding from Israeli assassins, while Arafat's moves are pretty clearly known most of the time. He's a sitting duck and he knows it. And the problem is, both sides could hit him whenever they want, so he also can't be too tough on the radicals that once helped him gain power. The problem is, those guys are armed to the teeth, while the PA's security forces have been demolished by the Israelis. What do you want him to do, go in and ask these guys to go to jail, pretty please with a cherry on top? So thats my logical analysis of the situation.

Emotionally, one of my very best friends (and ex-girlfriend) has half of her family over in Palestine, well, did. Many of them were from Jenin. I sat with her while her father told her over the phone, the situation after the occupation there. His family home, which he had been planning to retire to, after spending the last thirty years here to support his family over there, is gone. Many relatives jailed, wounded, or dead. And her voice flat and her eyes somewhere else as she told me this. Now, I can't figure out how they deserved this pain. Her aunt who lives with them is mute, because when she was young she fell down the stairs and knocked her teeth out and there wasn't a hospital to help her. I ask again, is this something she deserved? The problem is, neither side wants to be to first to give up and stop seeking retribution, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. I dunno, I really wish a resolution could be seen on the horizon, but....

[Paragraph breaks added, don't know if they are in good spots but at last they're there]

Aaaaah!

spinningfetus - I haven't read your post yet... but I will. Tomorrow. When I'm more awake. And less prone to getting lost. I just have a question/request, but please don't take it offensively, because it's not at all meant to be...

Can you break up your posts into paragraphs or something? :)

They're generally pretty long and that's fine - I like reading long, well written posts. But man, when I lose my place in one, it takes me FOREVER to find it again. It's also just harder to read.

Anyway... That's a minor nitpick, because it doesn't at all affect how I view your opinions or whether or not I see any validity to your posts... but it's just easier to read if they're broken up a bit. Whaddya say to cutting us dorks here on the Cellar a bit of a break and using the Enter key a little more frequently? :)

I'm with dham, great stuff but big blocks are hard on my tired eyes (i'm reading 4-5 hours a day atm, eyes are killing me)
I wish.

ah well.

I agree the continental division of opinion is indeed very interesting, personally i'd put much of it down to media. Whetiher we like it or not we are influenced by what we watch, whether we view it objectively or not, becase we only hear the side that is played out, beace of school and interest i read a number of more specialist publications on foreign affairs which often help colour my viewpoint, mabye that has an impact too.

I appologise in advance but in the interest of living up to my quip:
http://www.44an.com/montage/big/isrel.gif



http://www.44an.com/montage/big/51_shining.jpg

yes, these were blantantly ripped of fark, but they made me laugh so hard, they had to be posted
thankyou

*ducks*

Up until 9/11, in my life, I had specifically decided that I wouldn't pay any attention to the middle east. This is a typical American perspective: foreign relations is hard and we feel it doesn't affect us. I figured the religious aspects made the whole thing despicable; I'm pretty non-religious. I figured I would never understand it, and you can't follow everything, so I took the easy way out.

After 9/11 I realized that skipping this particular topic was a huge mistake. I set out to try to understand it.

I was also driven by tw and adamzion, whose allegiance followed his name. Adam left the Cellar in a fit of pique after a solid month of arguing with tw. Their discussions helped me to realize that I had no perspective on it all, and that I really should.

BTW, for those who were around then, I had no respect for Adam for leaving like he did. If you don't agree with one other person it really is not a big deal. On the other hand Adam was often quite silly and very obviously biased. At the time I tended to side with tw.

My bias is set up by my sources, which are web logs and CNN. The web logs I read tend to lean neo-conservative and pro-Israel while CNN leans pro-Palestinian. My background thinking is small-l libertarian: pro-freedom, pro-civil rights, pro-human rights, anti-authoritarian.

I admit to huge gaps in my knowledge and understanding. When I make an obvious error, I urge anyone to bonk me over the head with more information.

undertoad?

How come I can't find the archived discussions between tw and adamzion?
Was it was before The Cellar ran on VBBulletin code and is thus unsearchable?

Yelof -

No, you can find them if you look hard enough. Probably the easiest way is to go to Adam's user page, which is here:

http://www.cellar.org/member.php?s=&...tinfo&userid=3

And then click the "Search for all posts by this user" link. Read the discussions that he was involved in.

They're mostly about a year old and were pretty intense discussions. We've also been continually beating this dead horse of a topic ever since. I can dig up links to the big threads if you like.

I too was pretty disappointed that Adam left, but I guess these things happen. I've certainly considered dropping the Cellar from time to time, but not seriously since the beginning of the year. It's too much a rewarding experience for me to give it up. I guess some others don't view it that way.

That is quite scary seeing the vintage of il/ps topic here at The Cellar.

I care about the topic but I wouldn't want to still be here in a years time going in circles.

So I wonder what makes the topic continue? Is it fresh blood like myself, or is the same old warriors?

Some of it's fresh blood, some of it is that the oldies can't leave it alone... some of it is that there's always something inflammatory going on there and it's difficult to leave it unanswered.

Another big part is that it produces a pretty fair number of good or thought-provoking images, and those tend to find their way to IotD.

You know, it can be tiring at times, but the conflict has, at the very least, helped myself and a few others become better writers and flesh out our opinions of the situation. Whereas tw and adamzion were mostly just involved in a lame fight (due mainly to, as Tony said before, Adam's obvious bias, coupled with tw's ability to tweak just about anyone's nerves), we've gotten some really good discussion going here on it. You have the occasional ad hominem attack or lame personal comment (jaguar posted one earlier against me), but other than that, it's fairly civil and intelligent discussion.

Events happen which seem to crystallize different notions.

I don't think it's necessarily circles on this one. Now, if we discussed abortion, THAT would be circles... nobody changes their mind on that or so it seems. But I've seen people change their minds based on what these discussions have said, and I know that I personally have been swayed too, in both directions.

Even sometimes when they come from bias, too. It's like... often I don't agree with someone's personal politics, but they come up with interesting points which make me think.

I think this argument is an important one to have, like Syc mentioned there is a disconnect in the way the situation is viewed in the US vs Europe. I'm not sure how much of the Euro-view is just anti-american feelings taking a different channel. I would say that our governments blind support of Israel is problematic if we really want to help the situation. I started with the belief that the Palestinians were the aggreived party, having been evicted from their homes (not nation). Its easy however to pick any point in time and say if this group didn't do this everything would be cool. The bottom line is both sides need to move beyond grievences and neither side has a statesman in place capable of that.

I also echo the exhaustion feeling, so I leave it alone for awhile, then get sucked back in. The deal with the cellar is people are willing to say what they really mean, whether egos get bruised or not, people get pissed, grumble for a while, leave the subject alone, and eventually get over it, seeing in the emotional response the root of the conflict and maybe coming back to it a little wiser. The other stuff like the entertainment and cities section give people a glimpse of a real person separate from naked opinions and politics, keeping the community human.

In other words, dhamsaic can still think Griff is mega cool 'cause of his house project even though he doesn't agree with his views on the Middle East.

Yeah, I remember that first one...Adam seemed to disappear completely. Every now and then I'll see him post to phl.transportation, but not as often as he used to.

It's amazing how often people come and go, including here at the Cellar.

I think part of the reason that we continually talk about the conflict is because the situation is always changing. Abortion changes every so often, but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict changes almost minute to minute...though the heart of the matter is still the same.

Done.

My bad, unfortuately thats the way that I write everything, I just haven't been bothering to go back and break it up.

The thing about this whole discussion, is its one that I have been having on a nearly daily basis since 9/11. And the thing is no one really cared prior to that, and that is part of why other's shock at what happened is often met by my cynicism. Americans have this thing about the protection of the oceans. The first (or second) world war should have been enough to show us that the world is something we have to participate in actively or else we are going to keep getting caught with our pants down.

I'm not saying paying attentition can stop things but you can at least be prepared. The warning signs were there, two days before the attacks on us, the main military leader of the northern alliance was assassinated. That was big, but only got a 20 mention on CNN. But this is somewhat beside the point.

Israel and Palestine or India and Pakistan have the potental to polarize the world in a way that hasn't been seen since the world wars. And people are already shooting mad, if we don't figure out a solution or at least a diffusion then there is going to be blood in the streets and I don't think just in someone else's neighborhood.

Dham the only reason I said that is you posted the most simplistic conclusion you could from a series of facts with questionable sources.

The reason it isn't flogging is a dead horse is as syc correctly said it continually evolves. It’s going to get worse before it gets better. Bush's speech while Sharon had his hand up his ass controlling his mouth ^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h policy is only going to inflame matters, before there will be any real progress both leaders need to step aside, but that’s not going to happen either. Israelis new range of measures are simply going to inflame things further, the assassinations will create a groundswell inside organisations like hamas, the occupations will drive more suicide bombers to the doors of hamas and Islamic jihad the wall is simply inflammatory. None will solve the problem. The PLO is unable to change while under siege, inertia alone will stop this without the fact they can't even meet thanks to Israeli tanks. If the PLF gains significance you're going to see the possibility of Hezbollah getting into it seriously and that’s just going to be bloodbath all round.

Interesting, word dictionary recognises Hezbollah but not Hamas.

Spinningfetus, i think you're fear of blood on all streets is already coming true in europe where poor marginalised arab communities are thought to be responsible for many firebombs and other anti-semitic attacks in response to Isreali actions. India/Pakistan i don't think really carries the same risk, and is one again quieting down a bit, India has thought better than to corner a nuclear-armed nation. Britan proved at the turn of the centuary that policies of 'Splendid Isolation' , i'm glad the US has finally caught on.

I'm gonna guess that by this you mean America needs to avoid isolationism. Britains isolationism included the baggage of an unraveling colonial empire, thats not isolationism, at least of the kind promoted by Americas old right. Unfortunately, Jag you don't really understand American domestic politics. When Americans are engaged overseas it means militarism and mercantilism. Be careful what you wish for, you'll be protesting our engagement policies next time you catch Rage Against the Machine. Bush is preaching calm to India/Pakistan and Israel/Palestine while pushing for an Iraqi invasion. If America is engaged it will be about America not about some vague global equity.

USS Clueless's theory is that the whole Bush speech was basically saying that the US isn't going to pay much attention to the Palestinians. The US is going to leave the whole thing to Israel so that it can engage Iraq and "encourage" regime changes in Syria, Iran and Saudi.

If that happens, he says, the Palestinians won't have the support of those countries, in the form of arms, bombs, money, and rewards for the families of suiciders. At that point they will begin realistic negotiations.

But USS Clueless is an optimistic hawk who makes it all seem too simple.

This just in ...
 

Wednesday, Jun. 26, 2002

Belgium bars Sharon war crimes trial


BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) -- A Belgian appeals court ruled Wednesday that Belgium cannot investigate war crimes charges against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon related to a 1982 massacre in two Palestinian refugee camps.

The three-judge panel said a case could not proceed against a person who is not in Belgium, despite a 1993 Belgian law granting Belgian courts "universal jurisdiction" over war crimes committed anywhere.

"If a person is not found on the territory, we find it inadmissible," the court said in its 22-page ruling.

http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWS/belgium_jun26-ap.html

Sorry Griff...they broke up almost 2 years ago. Substitute RATM with Ozo or Midnight Oil (especially in Jag's case).

I knew I was taking a chance there.:) I find it hard to believe Midnight Oil still exists though.

Their new CD just came out in February.

The way the interact may have to change too, time will tell.

Heres a damn scary stat out of TIME magazine: 36% of those polled who support Isreal say they do so becasue they beleive in biblical prophosies that jews must control Isreal before Christ will come again.

hey, on the bright side, that means 63% of those supporting Isreal might not be nutcases!

http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle....toryID=3222205

I recognized the name and searched my ass off for the picture (the "search" function never popped into my head).

Anyway, just to resurrect a nice dead thread...

I'm afraid there's no chance of this thread dying anytime soon.:(

I am quoting tw's post from June 2002:

Via history, we now have our answer. This turns out to be incorrect.

For the first time, a Hamas leader has publicly revealed that Arafat personally ordered the Second Intifada. Via a Palestinian reporter:

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1582/abbas-...terror-strikes

What a long memory you have, UT. Well done.

... and mad searching skillz.

Read xoB's post above mine. :D

Palestinians were only doing what they had to do in response to aggressors. After events made Palestinian's reaction inevitable. Even a time line makes that obvious. Why did you ignore history's chronology to endorse lies? Long before Intifada II started, Sharon and the wacko extremists were working to create Intifada II. That timeline is historical fact.

Did Arafat order it? Hearsay from one person says yes. Hudson New York is somehow a responsible fact source? Nonsense. Numerous contradictions in that piece are identified. So many will simply ignore details to believe only what they wanted to hear.

First, *opinion* is not factual source. Second, where is the always required confirmation ? Third, that speculation contradicts history's chronological events. Three reasons demonstrate why some can separate hearsay from responsible news sources.

Point One: Hudson New York entertains any opinion to "Amplify dissident voices worldwide". It does not claim honest, responsible, or credible posts. Publishing even hearsay and lies is its purpose. A forum to entertain urban myths and wild speculation. UT would represent Hudson New York as fact?

To be honest and to possess facts means ignoring hearsay - especially when hearsay violates below points two and three. Hudson New York is where unsubstantiated rumors are advocated and entertained. Wild speculation - same thing that proved Saddam's WMDs.

Point Two: where are the so many responsible news services that confirm those claims? An opinion board is your only source? What kind of logical reasoning is that?

Point Three: One must ignore chronology to believe that lie. Long before Intifada II started - four years before - wacko extremists were aggressively undermining the Oslo Accords. Then publicly encouraging the assassination of Rabin. Intentional opening of a tunnel under Temple Mount to aggravate hate. Sharon even personally desecrating that mosque with 200 of his 'closest friends'. He even said he did so to encourage friendship. Hundreds of intentional actions to create hate long before Intifada II started. Or did you - UT - forget those earlier events to "endorse hearsay as fact"?

Those events were the equivalent of burning Korans to create peace and goodwill. Intentional provocations long before Intifada II started to intentionally undermine the Oslo Accords.

Did Arafat also order Jews to create hate? Sharon and other wacko extremist successfully created hate long before Arafat is *rumored* to have called for Intifada II. How much chronology do you ignore to endorse a Hudson New York accusation?

Responsible source means one can see the difference between facts and an obviously opinionated editorial. Why does the article even include this intentional distortion? One starts by asking some damning and relevant questions. Why did wacko extremist Israelis so repeatedly do things that would only create hate ... long before Intifada II started? Why does UT ignore chronology?

Likud remembers what happened in the Sinai. Likud openly defines the West Bank as their land. #1 threat to Likud's objectives was the Oslo Accords. Likud did things necessary to subvert those Accords. Created hate among the Palestinians by doing what is today called 'burning a Koran'. Even encouraged and got the assassination of Rabin. If Arafat ordered Intifada II, well, according to your own sources, it happened after Intifada II had started. And more than four years after wacko extremists Israelis started actions to create so much hate.

So how many responsible news sources are cited to confirm wild speculation in Hudson New York? Zero.

This is not about some blogger who invented speculation. This is about some so easily manipulated and deceived as to promote unconfirmed speculation - a blog - as fact. Same process also proved Saddam's WMDs. This is about why some people do not entertain lies. And why others cannot separate speculation from hard reality - by ignoring three points.

Nothing is inevitable, even if it's predictable.

Addressing the point would be easier, and less verbiage, than bouncing around making excuses why you sort of weren't really wrong.