Recent Israeli actions and massacres - Page 4

Xugumad · 04-24-2002, 08:20 AM

I believe I've gone on at great length why I believe that a land-for-peace/recognition/etc. deal is the only realistic hope for the middle east. Rather than bore everyone with my point-by-point deductions YET AGAIN (and I know nobody's looking forward to that), could anyone elaborate on alternatives to continuing, ever-radicalized bloodshed?

Since the Jews and Palestinians currently hate each other, and since the Palestinians believe (rightly or wrongly) that they have been oppressed systematically even if they are Israeli citizens, simply due to inherent racism and constitutionalized prejudice in the Israeli system (known as the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1859843778/">Israeli Apartheid</a>), I'm uncertain whether any sort of non-separation (such as a Confederation) would work. (naturally, the distrust is reciprocal: would you accept a Confederation with people who you believe are just waiting to run into your favourite bar with sticks of dynamite strapped to them?)

Regarding the issue of why the people expelled from the West Bank recently have more of a right to it than those who were expelled 2000 years ago: It's fairly simple, really. Some of those expelled 35 years ago (1967) are still alive. They will continue to seek return to what they *remember* as their homeland, and continue to struggle for it. The only claim that Israel has to the West Bank is right by conquest - and they never led a war against a Palestinian state, did they?

Unfortunately, everybody else sides with the Palestinians in that the West Bank ought to be returned to them. The much-babbled-about UN Resolution 242. Since the Palestinians have recent history rights and world opinion on their side, the only thing that's opposing them is unconditional US sponsorship and support of Israel. It's the only realistic hope for peace.

Just as an aside: It's easy to claim that 'right through war' is a justifiable means of conquering and taking over more land, especially if there was aggression of some sort. This is of course true. Smart people, however, recognize that taking over land without having a pretty fucking good idea of how to either expel or kill the local people is a brilliant recipe for fabulous long-term problems. Even if you are 'right'. Even if you were the ones who got attacked. Europe was stuck in feudalist warfare for centuries due to the constant redrawing of borders over such issues.

X.

PS: Maybe <a href="http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war9.html">this</a> will help us gain a change of perspective... (it started back <a href="http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html">here</a>.)

<IMG SRC="http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.053.gif">
<IMG SRC="http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.055.gif">
<IMG SRC="http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.056.gif">

russotto · 04-24-2002, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hubris Boy

Well... we could start by suspending financial assistance and loan guarantees to the Israelis. That'd get their attention.

Sure it would, but if you put Israels back to the wall that way I can guarantee you (with 70% confidence) how they will react: They will become MORE aggressive, believing it to be necessary to move decisively against their enemies NOW before they are slowly bled to death. Not much of a formula for peace.

russotto · 04-24-2002, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dhamsaic
What is to stop the extremist Palestinians from continuing suicide bombing to get even more (such as the removal of Israel)? I know you say that other Palestinians will fight them - er, in theory, anyway. Hopefully, anyway. Logically, anyway.

They've already tried that; that was the whole idea of the Palestinian National Authority. Either the other Palestinians can't fight them, or (as Israel claims) they won't. Given that the PLO never removed the bit about demanding the destruction of Israel from their charter, it seems Israel may have a point.

Griff · 04-30-2002, 07:30 AM

This article from the Sacramento Bee by Ron Unz maintains that a simple fence would have stopped many of the suicide attacks. He charges that Sharons government, because of their adherence to the idea of a Greater Israel will not build a security barrier on the frontier, because that would imply that Israel has no claim to ancient Judea and Sumeria (the West Bank).

"By all accounts, the Palestinians of Gaza are considerably more militant in their anti-Israel Islamic fervor than those of the West Bank, yet Gaza's simple existing fence has prevented the infiltration of even a single suicide-bomber and also kept ordinary terrorist attacks to a negligible level. If a border fence has worked so well in Gaza, why have the Sharonists not considered one for the West Bank as well?"

Does anyone here have specific knowlege of the area in question?

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinio...-2860142c.html

russotto · 04-30-2002, 02:39 PM

I don't know much about Gaza, though there are a few obvious differences (like size and location). There's also the point that the West Bank/Israel border is not (usually) closed; many Palestinians enter Israel on legitimate business.

tw · 04-30-2002, 07:18 PM

Quote:

When a perverted government steals land, taxes unjustly, and subervert rule of law, then even the American Declaration of Independence defines what is right and just response. The 'so called' terrorism is a direct result of injustices intentionally created by Ariel Sharon in particular, and by Likud in general.

elSicomoro · 04-30-2002, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tw
I must ask - if I had not been pointing to waves of Israeli attacks on Palestinians before and during the Sharon reign of terror, then would you have been aware of the reasons for the current massacres?

Yes.

russotto · 05-01-2002, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tw
What it fails to explain is why the bombings have slowed down in the face of these latest invasions.

The obvious reason would be that the infrastructure supporting the bombers has been damaged. If that's so, it appears the invasions have had their intended effect, and Sharon did the right thing.

Undertoad · 05-01-2002, 04:41 PM

Whoa... I originally posted that. Is it a db problem or did I mess up somewhere? I'll edit the post so that my words aren't in TW's post. I think I accidentally edited his instead of starting my own... what a foulup... sorry.

Griff · 05-03-2002, 12:19 PM

HRW's report is in. According to the BBC synopsis, there was no massacre but war crimes, such as using civilians for human shields, were committed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1965471.stm

tw · 05-05-2002, 11:44 PM

Lost in that deleted post are some interesting facts. One is that Israel has constructed at least 39 new and illegal settlements in the West Bank since Feb 2001 - during Intafada 2. One of those recent, illegal settlements is where a Palestinian gunman, dressed as an Israeli soldier, shot some of those occupied territory settlers.

But Nightline's town meeting also suggested that 54 more illegal settlements in the occupied territories are also under construction.

Nightline's town meeting also reminded us who started the first suicide mass killings. It was a right wing extremist Jew who murdered 29 Palestinians before he was finally stopped. Again, Sharon got the murders he wanted.

Nic Name · 05-12-2002, 11:11 PM

Israel's ruling party rejects Palestinian state

Arafat prepared to accept Israeli state

The US government expects that Arafat should control or influence Palestinian extremists ... in the interests of peace.

Likewise, the US government should also expect that Sharon should control or influence Israeli extremists in his party... in the interests of peace.

The American people and their leaders are being asked to choose sides between terrorists and racists, which terms may be applicable to both factions on any given day.

It is said that, in democracies, the people deserve the leadership they elect. Both nations desperately need changes of leadership before peace can be achieved. It is a sad commentary for these peoples if these aging militants represent their best leadership for the future. All their citizens, men, women and children, not just their militaries, will suffer for this world-class lack of leadership.

In the end, both the Israelis and the Palestinians will suffer the failures of their political leaders to structure a political solution for peaceful coexistence in the region.

In the middle east peace process, Sharon has said that Arafat is irrelevant ... So is Sharon, evidently. Is Bush, also? We'll have to see what he says to Israel's government.

04-24-2002, 08:20 AM	#46
Xugumad Punisher of Good Deeds Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 183	Justice, and the Middle East way of life... I believe I've gone on at great length why I believe that a land-for-peace/recognition/etc. deal is the only realistic hope for the middle east. Rather than bore everyone with my point-by-point deductions YET AGAIN (and I know nobody's looking forward to that), could anyone elaborate on alternatives to continuing, ever-radicalized bloodshed? Since the Jews and Palestinians currently hate each other, and since the Palestinians believe (rightly or wrongly) that they have been oppressed systematically even if they are Israeli citizens, simply due to inherent racism and constitutionalized prejudice in the Israeli system (known as the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1859843778/">Israeli Apartheid</a>), I'm uncertain whether any sort of non-separation (such as a Confederation) would work. (naturally, the distrust is reciprocal: would you accept a Confederation with people who you believe are just waiting to run into your favourite bar with sticks of dynamite strapped to them?) Regarding the issue of why the people expelled from the West Bank recently have more of a right to it than those who were expelled 2000 years ago: It's fairly simple, really. Some of those expelled 35 years ago (1967) are still alive. They will continue to seek return to what they remember as their homeland, and continue to struggle for it. The only claim that Israel has to the West Bank is right by conquest - and they never led a war against a Palestinian state, did they? Unfortunately, everybody else sides with the Palestinians in that the West Bank ought to be returned to them. The much-babbled-about UN Resolution 242. Since the Palestinians have recent history rights and world opinion on their side, the only thing that's opposing them is unconditional US sponsorship and support of Israel. It's the only realistic hope for peace. Just as an aside: It's easy to claim that 'right through war' is a justifiable means of conquering and taking over more land, especially if there was aggression of some sort. This is of course true. Smart people, however, recognize that taking over land without having a pretty fucking good idea of how to either expel or kill the local people is a brilliant recipe for fabulous long-term problems. Even if you are 'right'. Even if you were the ones who got attacked. Europe was stuck in feudalist warfare for centuries due to the constant redrawing of borders over such issues. X. PS: Maybe <a href="http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war9.html">this</a> will help us gain a change of perspective... (it started back <a href="http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html">here</a>.) <IMG SRC="http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.053.gif"> <IMG SRC="http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.055.gif"> <IMG SRC="http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.056.gif"> Last edited by Xugumad; 04-24-2002 at 08:40 AM.

04-30-2002, 07:30 AM	#49
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	What about basic security measures? This article from the Sacramento Bee by Ron Unz maintains that a simple fence would have stopped many of the suicide attacks. He charges that Sharons government, because of their adherence to the idea of a Greater Israel will not build a security barrier on the frontier, because that would imply that Israel has no claim to ancient Judea and Sumeria (the West Bank). "By all accounts, the Palestinians of Gaza are considerably more militant in their anti-Israel Islamic fervor than those of the West Bank, yet Gaza's simple existing fence has prevented the infiltration of even a single suicide-bomber and also kept ordinary terrorist attacks to a negligible level. If a border fence has worked so well in Gaza, why have the Sharonists not considered one for the West Bank as well?" Does anyone here have specific knowlege of the area in question? http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinio...-2860142c.html __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

04-30-2002, 02:39 PM	#50
russotto Professor Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 1,788	Re: What about basic security measures? I don't know much about Gaza, though there are a few obvious differences (like size and location). There's also the point that the West Bank/Israel border is not (usually) closed; many Palestinians enter Israel on legitimate business.

05-03-2002, 12:19 PM	#55
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	Human Rights Watch HRW's report is in. According to the BBC synopsis, there was no massacre but war crimes, such as using civilians for human shields, were committed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wor...00/1965471.stm __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

05-12-2002, 11:11 PM	#57
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	Bushwacked Israel's ruling party rejects Palestinian state Arafat prepared to accept Israeli state The US government expects that Arafat should control or influence Palestinian extremists ... in the interests of peace. Likewise, the US government should also expect that Sharon should control or influence Israeli extremists in his party... in the interests of peace. The American people and their leaders are being asked to choose sides between terrorists and racists, which terms may be applicable to both factions on any given day. It is said that, in democracies, the people deserve the leadership they elect. Both nations desperately need changes of leadership before peace can be achieved. It is a sad commentary for these peoples if these aging militants represent their best leadership for the future. All their citizens, men, women and children, not just their militaries, will suffer for this world-class lack of leadership. In the end, both the Israelis and the Palestinians will suffer the failures of their political leaders to structure a political solution for peaceful coexistence in the region. In the middle east peace process, Sharon has said that Arafat is irrelevant ... So is Sharon, evidently. Is Bush, also? We'll have to see what he says to Israel's government.

05-01-2002, 04:41 PM	#54
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Whoa... I originally posted that. Is it a db problem or did I mess up somewhere? I'll edit the post so that my words aren't in TW's post. I think I accidentally edited his instead of starting my own... what a foulup... sorry.

05-05-2002, 11:44 PM	#56
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	Lost in that deleted post are some interesting facts. One is that Israel has constructed at least 39 new and illegal settlements in the West Bank since Feb 2001 - during Intafada 2. One of those recent, illegal settlements is where a Palestinian gunman, dressed as an Israeli soldier, shot some of those occupied territory settlers. But Nightline's town meeting also suggested that 54 more illegal settlements in the occupied territories are also under construction. Nightline's town meeting also reminded us who started the first suicide mass killings. It was a right wing extremist Jew who murdered 29 Palestinians before he was finally stopped. Again, Sharon got the murders he wanted.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)