Who doesn't want a Palestinian state? Palestinian leaders, that's who

[spinningfetus]

Originally posted by dhamsaic


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.

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?

[spinningfetus]

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.

[jaxomlotus]

Originally posted by spinningfetus
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...

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.

[Nic Name]

since when are people guilty before being convicted?

9/11

[Nic Name]

Originally posted by jaxomlotus

And lastly, who the hell are the Netherlands to try Sharon? Can anyone try whomever they feel like, despite country borders?

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/

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jaxomlotus
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.

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.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Nic Name
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.

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."

[Nic Name]

Written by Ellen Siegel, who was there:

Nineteen years ago I volunteered to go to Beirut to work as a nurse. I wanted to use my profession to help the Lebanese and Palestinians who had been wounded in Israel's invasion of Lebanon. As a Jew I wanted to show that not all Jews supported this action. So it was that during the September 1982 massacre in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, I was there, working in a hospital in Sabra. Afterwards, I went to Israel to testify before the official commission of inquiry whose task was to "investigate all the facts connected with the atrocity."

...

In the long run, one hopes that nations and leaders will become accountable for human-rights abuses. Violations must be documented, and violators must be punished. Justice must be done for all.

[Yelof]

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

You guys are a microcosm of sorts.

We have a few people that seem to be pro-Israeli, from the US. We have a New Zealander, an Australian, and a Brazilian that seem to be pro-Palestinian. (And my apologies to all if I am mistaking your views here).

But this seems to be the case in the world as a whole. The US are staunch supporters of the State of Israel, while most of the world seems to favor the Palestinians.

So...what are we not connecting on here? Are we just seeing it through different eyes? Are we affected by our media sources (on both sides)? To me, it just seems that there is more to it than our own personal statements (even if loaded with facts).

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.

[elSicomoro]

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.

[Nic Name]

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.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
Sure as shit doesn't look like a trial is going on. Looks like they've had some hearings. Which is hardly news.

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.

Originally posted by jaxomlotus
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.

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.)