Arafat

[Guest GatesFTW]

Why do we bother negotiating with terrorists? Arafat and the PLO are among the biggest culprits out there. Did our President not say either you are with us, or you're with the terrorists? So, does that mean we are with the terrorists? Every day is 9/11 in Israel. We need to put an end to organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. They are granted soveirngty from Arafat. No negotiations. Just lock him up. And maybe eat his flesh. Thanks You.

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

blah blah blah......I'm a good American citizen....blah blah blah......George W is my savior.......blah blah blah......the world is in black and white.....blah blah blah

[Guest Bruin]

Though I can't say I agree with your canabalism ..

GatesFTW, don't worry, you haven't killed enough cops or civilians to get any respect by Zappa here. ::rolls eyes::

 

Y'know, you get your ass handed right back to you in nearly every single post you make. IE: fk teale, TheMikeSC.. Why do you even bother? Every one of your points is countered, so in response you change the topic just enough so that you can come up with a new argument.

 

BTW: Nice use of the word "blah" and spacing. Not to mention not even countering posts with atleast some sort of intelligence.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<blah blah blah......I'm a good American citizen....blah blah blah......George W is my savior.......blah blah blah......the world is in black and white.....blah blah blah >>

 

 

You know, if you studied the issue and didn't always resort to knee-jerk...nah, that's too easy.

 

It FITS, but it's too easy. You ask people to give the assorted pablum you post respect and intelligent thought, Chris, but you seem SO unwilling to do it for posts you don't agree with.

 

Anyway, back to the shredding of your theories. Since you didn't state any, I'll just assume that they're the same as they always are.

 

Arafat and the PLO actively and fervently support Hamas and NUMEROUS other militant Muslim groups---yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking:

 

Are there NON-militant Muslim groups?

 

Well, let's stick with the topic for moment.

 

In the midst of PEACE NEGOTIATIONS, the Palestinians have unlaunched TWO suicide bombers against Israel.

 

DURING PEACE NEGOTIAIONS.

 

Try and wrap your brain around that one.

 

Israel is willing to sit down and discuss with Arafat his problems with Israel and how to resolve said conflict---but Arafat won't STOP the friggin' suicide bombers for a day?

 

Just checking---PALESTINE is the wronged party here, right? THEY'RE the ones being mistreated, right?

 

If Palestine becomes a state, it will be cut out of the same cookie-cutter mold that every Muslim state in that Godforsaken hellhole is cut out of. Rights will be eliminated. Women will be subjugated. The people will remain dirt-poor and horribly uneducated.

 

Oh, and they'll continue with the suicide bombings because it's all Arafat knows.

                  -=Mike

 

...One should ponder how bad a place has to be to live in for so many people to willingly choose suicide over survival.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

Yay, a topic that I actually feel that I know enough to argue about.

 

<<Why do we bother negotiating with terrorists?>>

 

Eh, are you referring to Israel or the Palestinians?  Hyuk hyuk.

 

<<Arafat and the PLO are among the biggest culprits out there.>>

 

Another one of the biggest culprits out there is the Israeli army.  Arafat is gutless and unwilling to stand up against his own radical groups, which helps to create an endless cycle of violence.  He's no worse than Sharon, though, who's "retaliation" to terrorist attacks is to unleash the Israeli army to launch "retaliatory" terrorist attacks of his own, which very often result in massive civilian death.  Arafat is horrible, but Sharon is equally so.

 

<<Did our President not say either you are with us, or you're with the terrorists? So, does that mean we are with the terrorists?>>

 

That only works if it's clear which side is the terrorists.  Yeah, the Palestinians are much more willing to intentionally target civilians, which sucks, and is going to prevent them from getting too much sympathy from anyone.  However, the Israeli army, which retaliates by illegally occupying Palestinian territories, putting huge numbers of Palestinian civilians under house arrest and therefore preventing them from earning the money they need to support themselves, are just as bad.  Oppressing huge numbers of civilians in response to a terrorist attack that they had nothing to do with is terrorism.  And while the Israeli army doesn't intentionally target civilians, they certainly don't seem to mind killing plenty of them.

 

<<Every day is 9/11 in Israel.>>

 

Yeah yeah yeah.  That's why three times as many Palestinians have been killed in this fighting as Israelis, right?  I condemn suicide bombing, but I'd sure as #### feel safer in Israel than Palestine.  I'd rather deal with terrorists with small bombs than terrorists with huge ass tanks and missiles.

 

<<We need to put an end to organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.>>

 

No argument here.  Saying that we need to eliminate radical, violent Palestinian organizations isn't the same as saying that we need to support Israel, however.  Sharon's government is just as bad as Hamas or Hezbollah, and all need to be eliminated before there can ever be peace in the region.

 

<<They are granted soveirngty from Arafat. No negotiations. Just lock him up.>>

 

Granting sovereignty to independant terrorist organizations isn't nearly as bad as giving the direct order to commit terrorist acts, as Sharon does.  I'm not actually going to argue for Arafat, as it's really impossible to support him, he's awful.  However, there is certainly no need to fight a holy crusade against him and in support of Israel, because Israel is every bit as bad.  It's going to be really hard to come up with a solution to this conflict, because there's only villians on both sides.

 

-----

 

<<Arafat and the PLO actively and fervently support Hamas and NUMEROUS other militant Muslim groups---yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking:>>

 

So what?  Sharon supports the Israeli military, which is, obviously, a militant group.  Why is it such a sin for Palestinians to fight?  Israelis fight all the time, and with bigger weapons.

 

<<Are there NON-militant Muslim groups?>>

 

Of course, they just don't get press because they're not newsworthy.  The only thing we ever hear about over here is violence in the region, so peaceful groups, on either side, are going to be ignored.

 

<<In the midst of PEACE NEGOTIATIONS, the Palestinians have unlaunched TWO suicide bombers against Israel.>>

 

Well, all you can really say is that there were two suicide bombers.  There wasn't some general entity known as "the Palestinians" that "unleashed" them.  They unleashed themselves.  All that really proves is that there are some Palestinians that don't want peace.  We already knew that.  There are also some Israelis that don't want peace.

 

Suicide bombers trying to stop peace negotiations is really bad, but everyone knew it would happen.  Sharon knew it would happen.  However, he's still going to use it as an excuse to unleash massive counterattacks and back out of peace negotions, because *gasp* Sharon doesn't want peace.  This is very easy to see, but we don't want to see it since Israel are the "good guys".

 

<<DURING PEACE NEGOTIAIONS.

 

Try and wrap your brain around that one.>>

 

How about the Israelis that assassinated THEIR OWN PRIME MINISTER during peace negotiations to avoid peace?  Let's be fair here, there are *lots* of Israelis that don't want peace.  There are both Palestinians and Israelis that won't be happy until the other group is exorcised from the region, it does not just go one way.

 

<<Israel is willing to sit down and discuss with Arafat his problems with Israel and how to resolve said conflict---but Arafat won't STOP the friggin' suicide bombers for a day?>>

 

Oh come on!  Israel isn't even willing to pull out of the land that they've occupied since this fighting began.  Let's at least have a show of good faith on their side before we expect one from Arafat.

 

You honestly think Sharon *wants* peace?  Sharon is a warmonger who believes completely in the moral right of Israel to control the entire region.  He will concede nothing to Arafat, he's flat out said so.  What are they going to negotiate?  Oppressed, poor Palestinians want territory of their own without having to worry about it being occupied by the Israeli army at a moment's notice.  Sharon won't concede that.  That's not negotiation.  Until Sharon offers some reasonable concession, you can't say that he actually wants peace.

 

And yes, I know I'm setting myself up for the "but Barak offered massive concessions and Arafat didn't take them" argument, and I know.  Arafat fucked up.  He should have taken Barak's offer, and his refusal to do so may have been the cause of all this.  Arafat doesn't particularly desire peace either, and he's certainly not a hero here.  He's just not the only villian.

 

<<Just checking---PALESTINE is the wronged party here, right? THEY'RE the ones being mistreated, right?>>

 

Well, I certainly think so, because Israel doesn't have any right to exist in the first place, but that's a whole new bag of worms.

 

Anyway, you've got to look at it from the Palestinian's side.  They'd lived in the region for hundreds of years, and then all the sudden, they are forced to concede their land to these incoming strangers (in their eyes, invaders) because of some UN decree that they weren't at all involved in.  Over time, that foreign power, backed up by the US and other countries, has pushed even further into Palestinian land, forcing out Palestinians to allow for more Israeli settlers.  All the Palestinians are suddenly without a place to live, and many of them end up in concentration camp level establishments, at the complete mercy of the Israeli army.  Many of them have little opportunities to make money for themselves, and are just perpetually trapped in their horrible, poverty ridden ghettos, while they watch the oppressing invaders prosper.  If I was in their situation, I'd be pissed off.  The fact that some of them are so desperate that they'll kill themselves for their cause should show the desperation of their situation.

 

<<If Palestine becomes a state, it will be cut out of the same cookie-cutter mold that every Muslim state in that Godforsaken hellhole is cut out of. Rights will be eliminated. Women will be subjugated. The people will remain dirt-poor and horribly uneducated.>>

 

Well, it certainly won't be any worse than it is now.  At least they'll be oppressed by their own government instead of by a foreign invader.

 

<<Oh, and they'll continue with the suicide bombings because it's all Arafat knows.>>

 

You're giving Arafat too much credit when it comes to suicide bombings.  He doesn't sit around and authorize them.  If a suicide bomber wants to blow themselves up, they will, with or without Arafat's consent.

 

<<...One should ponder how bad a place has to be to live in for so many people to willingly choose suicide over survival.>>

 

Wow, neat, I just said that a few lines back.  I agree completely.  And who is making it that bad?  How about the army that occupies terroritories and slaughters dozens of innocents with big tanks?  The country that forces them into horrible ghettos and then sends in the army to keep them there?  The suicide bombings aren't against themselves, they're against Israel, because it is Israel that is making their lives a living ####.

 

*Note*, I'm not supporting Palestinian terrorism, it is just as bad as Israeli terrorism.  My overall view on the region is that both sides are horrible, ruthless terrorists, and they'll likely never be peace without a complete overhaul to the leadership of both sides.  I see it as a completely depressing, hopeless situation.  I don't think the US should support either side, since neither side is morally right.  They should just be unbiased negotiators if anything, although they need to be realistic and realize that no matter what they do, there's unlikely going to be peace anytime soon.

[Guest DrTom]

We should leave Arafat and the PLO to twist in the wind.  Let them hammer out their own peace agreements over there.  If they can't, then they keep killing each other, and we stay out of it.  

 

I'm not a big Israel fan, but they ARE the only thing close to a democracy over there.  As such, they're basically our first line of defense against wacko Muslim terrorist cells.  For that reason, we should continue to support them; this is basically "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" principle.  Israel has its uses to us, and if we have to pay for that, so be it.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Yay, a topic that I actually feel that I know enough to argue about.

 

<<Why do we bother negotiating with terrorists?>>

 

Eh, are you referring to Israel or the Palestinians?  Hyuk hyuk.

 

<<Arafat and the PLO are among the biggest culprits out there.>>

 

Another one of the biggest culprits out there is the Israeli army.  Arafat is gutless and unwilling to stand up against his own radical groups, which helps to create an endless cycle of violence.  He's no worse than Sharon, though, who's "retaliation" to terrorist attacks is to unleash the Israeli army to launch "retaliatory" terrorist attacks of his own, which very often result in massive civilian death.  Arafat is horrible, but Sharon is equally so.

 

 

I vehemently disagree.

 

Sharon is responding to attacks. How can he hope to minimize civilian deaths when the terrorists hide AMONGST the civilians? The terrorists are just as responsible for the deaths as Sharon.

 

And, Sharon is trying to negotiate peace amidst this.

 

 

<<Did our President not say either you are with us, or you're with the terrorists? So, does that mean we are with the terrorists?>>

 

That only works if it's clear which side is the terrorists.  Yeah, the Palestinians are much more willing to intentionally target civilians, which sucks, and is going to prevent them from getting too much sympathy from anyone.  However, the Israeli army, which retaliates by illegally occupying Palestinian territories, putting huge numbers of Palestinian civilians under house arrest and therefore preventing them from earning the money they need to support themselves, are just as bad.  

 

 

They're not illegally occupying anything as---and this might be a technicality---Palestine is not a recognized country. The land, by all accounts, BELONGS to Israel.

 

Had Palestine lived up to their side of the bargain, they might have SOME claim to the land---but they don't.

 

Israel has no other option to deal with the terrorist attacks than massive house arrests. The government's PRIMARY concern should be the security of the Israeli citizens, not the economic security of a bunch of terrorists who hide amongst civilians.

 

 

Oppressing huge numbers of civilians in response to a terrorist attack that they had nothing to do with is terrorism.

 

 

When the terrorists hide amongst and come from the civilians, there are very few options left. What else SHOULD Israel do? Just accept loss of life of Israeli civilians?

 

 

And while the Israeli army doesn't intentionally target civilians, they certainly don't seem to mind killing plenty of them.

 

 

When you don't know who is a terrorist and who is a civilian, you'd best take precautions to protect yourself.

 

 

<<Every day is 9/11 in Israel.>>

 

Yeah yeah yeah.  That's why three times as many Palestinians have been killed in this fighting as Israelis, right?

 

 

Well, the Israeli army's interested in surviving the assault, so they'll fight. The Palestinian terrorists WANT to die, so they end up shooting their load (so to speak) very quickly.

 

 

I condemn suicide bombing, but I'd sure as #### feel safer in Israel than Palestine.  I'd rather deal with terrorists with small bombs than terrorists with huge ass tanks and missiles.

 

 

The Israeli army is RESPONDING to attacks.

 

They're not initiating them.

 

Thus, they're innocent.

 

 

<<We need to put an end to organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah.>>

 

No argument here.  Saying that we need to eliminate radical, violent Palestinian organizations isn't the same as saying that we need to support Israel, however.  Sharon's government is just as bad as Hamas or Hezbollah, and all need to be eliminated before there can ever be peace in the region.

 

 

I disagree again.

 

We have no clue what it's like to live in a region where every single state surrounding you's expressed goal is your annihilation.

 

 

<<They are granted soveirngty from Arafat. No negotiations. Just lock him up.>>

 

Granting sovereignty to independant terrorist organizations isn't nearly as bad as giving the direct order to commit terrorist acts, as Sharon does.

 

 

Again, world of difference between initiating conflict and responding to it.

 

 

I'm not actually going to argue for Arafat, as it's really impossible to support him, he's awful.  However, there is certainly no need to fight a holy crusade against him and in support of Israel, because Israel is every bit as bad.  It's going to be really hard to come up with a solution to this conflict, because there's only villians on both sides.

 

 

Shockingly enough, I disagree again here. Israel IS the good guy here. They tried to negotiate and got attacked. They fought back and the people who initiated the violence cried. Israel attempted to negotiate peace and the Palestinians unleash suicide bombers AGAIN.

 

 

-----

 

<<Arafat and the PLO actively and fervently support Hamas and NUMEROUS other militant Muslim groups---yeah, yeah, I know what you're thinking:>>

 

So what?  Sharon supports the Israeli military, which is, obviously, a militant group.  Why is it such a sin for Palestinians to fight?  Israelis fight all the time, and with bigger weapons.

 

 

Israel responds to attack. They haven't initiated any of this.

 

 

<<Are there NON-militant Muslim groups?>>

 

Of course, they just don't get press because they're not newsworthy.  The only thing we ever hear about over here is violence in the region, so peaceful groups, on either side, are going to be ignored.

 

<<In the midst of PEACE NEGOTIATIONS, the Palestinians have unlaunched TWO suicide bombers against Israel.>>

 

Well, all you can really say is that there were two suicide bombers.  There wasn't some general entity known as "the Palestinians" that "unleashed" them.  They unleashed themselves.  All that really proves is that there are some Palestinians that don't want peace.  We already knew that.  There are also some Israelis that don't want peace.

 

 

There is also considerable reason to believe that Arafat could STOP the bombers---if he wanted to.

 

Why negotiate with a man who doesn't desire peace? Sharon was willing to negotiate.

 

Clearly, Arafat was not.

 

 

Suicide bombers trying to stop peace negotiations is really bad, but everyone knew it would happen.  Sharon knew it would happen.  However, he's still going to use it as an excuse to unleash massive counterattacks and back out of peace negotions, because *gasp* Sharon doesn't want peace.  This is very easy to see, but we don't want to see it since Israel are the "good guys".

 

 

It's a terrible idea to placate terrorists. It makes one look like a sap.

 

 

<<DURING PEACE NEGOTIAIONS.

 

Try and wrap your brain around that one.>>

 

How about the Israelis that assassinated THEIR OWN PRIME MINISTER during peace negotiations to avoid peace?

 

 

Israel also CAUGHT the assassins and PUNISHED the assassins.

 

Haven't seen much out of Palestine in terms of deterring suicide bombers---unless you count Arafat calling them "martyrs" an attempt to deter them.

 

 

Let's be fair here, there are *lots* of Israelis that don't want peace.

 

 

Absolutely---but they WILL negotiate---no matter how idiotic negotiations are.

 

 

There are both Palestinians and Israelis that won't be happy until the other group is exorcised from the region, it does not just go one way.

 

 

Israel's concern is self-preservation. The PLO wants them dead.

 

If Palestine didn't attack Israel, I don't believe that Israel would attack Palestinians.

 

If Israel didn't attack Palestine, is there any gurarantee that Palestinians wouldn't attack Israelis?

 

Recent history suggests no.

 

 

<<Israel is willing to sit down and discuss with Arafat his problems with Israel and how to resolve said conflict---but Arafat won't STOP the friggin' suicide bombers for a day?>>

 

Oh come on!  Israel isn't even willing to pull out of the land that they've occupied since this fighting began.

 

 

It's ISRAELI land. Palestine violated the Peace Accords and, thus, lost the land.

 

 

Let's at least have a show of good faith on their side before we expect one from Arafat.

 

 

Why in the world should Israel provide a show of good faith? They said they'd negotiate and have yet to retaliate for the last 2 attacks. THAT is good enough faith for me. If Palestine does it again, I have no problem with Israel wiping the PLO off of the face of the earth.

 

 

You honestly think Sharon *wants* peace?  Sharon is a warmonger who believes completely in the moral right of Israel to control the entire region.  He will concede nothing to Arafat, he's flat out said so.  What are they going to negotiate?  

 

 

Arafat has said that he wants Israel to cease to exist---yet people criticize Israel's behavior?

 

It's time we step back and LET these two groups fight to the death.

 

 

Oppressed, poor Palestinians want territory of their own without having to worry about it being occupied by the Israeli army at a moment's notice.  Sharon won't concede that.  That's not negotiation.  Until Sharon offers some reasonable concession, you can't say that he actually wants peace.

 

 

Sharon wants a guarantee that Palestine will stop unleashing suicide bombers.

 

Arafat won't do that.

 

 

And yes, I know I'm setting myself up for the "but Barak offered massive concessions and Arafat didn't take them" argument, and I know.  Arafat fucked up.  He should have taken Barak's offer, and his refusal to do so may have been the cause of all this.  Arafat doesn't particularly desire peace either, and he's certainly not a hero here.  He's just not the only villian.

 

 

He's the biggest villain.

 

 

<<Just checking---PALESTINE is the wronged party here, right? THEY'RE the ones being mistreated, right?>>

 

Well, I certainly think so, because Israel doesn't have any right to exist in the first place, but that's a whole new bag of worms.

 

 

Israel has as much right as any other country. If we decide to respect all ancient claims to land, we'll have a huge problem.

 

 

Anyway, you've got to look at it from the Palestinian's side.  They'd lived in the region for hundreds of years, and then all the sudden, they are forced to concede their land to these incoming strangers (in their eyes, invaders) because of some UN decree that they weren't at all involved in.  Over time, that foreign power, backed up by the US and other countries, has pushed even further into Palestinian land, forcing out Palestinians to allow for more Israeli settlers.

 

 

Let's keep one thing in mind. Every inch of land Israel has "pushed" into was actually the SPOILS OF WAR. They were attacked and WON.

 

If a country attacks another, they DESERVE to lose territory.

 

 

All the Palestinians are suddenly without a place to live, and many of them end up in concentration camp level establishments, at the complete mercy of the Israeli army.  Many of them have little opportunities to make money for themselves, and are just perpetually trapped in their horrible, poverty ridden ghettos, while they watch the oppressing invaders prosper.

 

 

You do realize that should Palestine be made independent with Arafat in charge, they'd be just like every other backwards country in that hellhole? They'd hate Israel because it's the only country that is doing well.

 

 

If I was in their situation, I'd be pissed off.  The fact that some of them are so desperate that they'll kill themselves for their cause should show the desperation of their situation.

 

 

No, it shows how absurd their religious notions are.

 

 

<<If Palestine becomes a state, it will be cut out of the same cookie-cutter mold that every Muslim state in that Godforsaken hellhole is cut out of. Rights will be eliminated. Women will be subjugated. The people will remain dirt-poor and horribly uneducated.>>

 

Well, it certainly won't be any worse than it is now.  At least they'll be oppressed by their own government instead of by a foreign invader.

 

 

It will be worse. It'll be MUCH worse.

 

 

<<Oh, and they'll continue with the suicide bombings because it's all Arafat knows.>>

 

You're giving Arafat too much credit when it comes to suicide bombings.  He doesn't sit around and authorize them.

 

 

He absolutely does.

 

 

If a suicide bomber wants to blow themselves up, they will, with or without Arafat's consent.

 

 

Just how prevalent are strap-on bombs in Palestine?

 

 

<<...One should ponder how bad a place has to be to live in for so many people to willingly choose suicide over survival.>>

 

Wow, neat, I just said that a few lines back.  I agree completely.  And who is making it that bad?  How about the army that occupies terroritories and slaughters dozens of innocents with big tanks?  The country that forces them into horrible ghettos and then sends in the army to keep them there?  The suicide bombings aren't against themselves, they're against Israel, because it is Israel that is making their lives a living ####.

 

*Note*, I'm not supporting Palestinian terrorism, it is just as bad as Israeli terrorism.  My overall view on the region is that both sides are horrible, ruthless terrorists, and they'll likely never be peace without a complete overhaul to the leadership of both sides.  I see it as a completely depressing, hopeless situation.  I don't think the US should support either side, since neither side is morally right.  They should just be unbiased negotiators if anything, although they need to be realistic and realize that no matter what they do, there's unlikely going to be peace anytime soon.

 

 

I think Israel has responded to attack---they have not INITIATED them.

 

That creates a world of difference.

                     -=Mike

[Guest teke184]

I don't blame Sharon for the current problems as much as I blame Ehud Barak.  Sharon wouldn't have ever been elected as Prime Minister if Barak had let the elections take place at the scheduled time.  

 

By calling for early elections, Barak hoped to retain his position as Prime Minister by running against the hard-line Sharon instead of the more popular former Prime Minister Ben Netanyahu, who was ineligible to run during the special election because he was not a member of the Israeli parliament at the time.

[Guest TJH]

Someone has to be held accountable for the actions of these terrorist organizations. Arafat claims to be the leader of the Palestinians, so the buck stops with him. Can he stop suicide bombers? Of course. He is the one the Palestinians look up to.

Has he condemned these terrorist organisations?

No

Has he had leaders of these organisations rounded up?

Again, no.

Why doesn't he get an Islamic leader to issue a "Fatwa" condemning these groups?

Why, because he is part of them.

How can the Israelis negotiate with a man who doesn't want a peace, and is the puppet for a pack of crazies?

[Guest gthureson]

There are two possibilities regarding Arafat:

 

1) He has control over Hamas, and is giving the okay for suicide bombings and attacks.  It is therefore pointless to negotiate with him.

 

2) He no longer has control over Hamas, and negotiating with him is pointless because he could not stop the attacks even if he wanted to.

 

Either way, it is pointless to negotiate with Arafat, because it will not lead to peace.

 

If you want to discuss the legitimacy of the Israeli state, you can go back to one of the fundamental principles of politics and state building to defend it.  That being the right of conquest.

 

In our modern touchy-feely age of politics, nobody likes to admit this anymore, but the right of conquest has always been a legitimate means of aquiring land.   Yes, the UN created the state of Israel.  Then they left them on their own to defend it.   And they did.   Then they sought out allies, and continued to defend it.  In 1967, the Arab League was preparing to attack Israel, and the Jews got wind of it and attacked them first.

 

And they won.  Then they got suckerpunched in 1973, but they rallied and won again.

 

They have earned their right to exist.   How did the state of Turkey come to exist?  The Ottomans conquered it.   How did the United States expand from ocean to ocean?  The beat everybody from one side to another.  

 

It just so happens that this is not nearly as popular a method of state building as it used to be.

 

Israel responds to terrorist attacks with military reprisals.  Much the same as the Americans do.   The only real difference is that Arafat hasn't been demonized by the press.  The press also doesn't want to ask hard questions about the peace process in the Middle East either.   Like why Arafat is unwilling or unable to stop his bombers.

 

Palestinian attacks are directed at civilians.  Every single one of them.   Nightclubs, street crossings, busses, towns.   They are not going after military targets.  This should be enough to label them terrorists.

 

Israel counter attacks are directed at Palestians Authority government houses, police stations, and other pseudo-military targets.  Yes, they are killing civilians as well, but that is not their primary target.  

 

I'm fascinated with how alot of people are willing to excuse the American military their civilian casualties in Afghanistan as 'It happens in war.' but are more than willing to jump all over Israel when they are in an actual war of survival.

 

It likely has something to do with the fact they are Jews, but that is a whole other discussion.

 

Bottom line:  Until the Palestians push forward someone either than Arafat to discuss peace, there will not be any.   Arafat has lost all credibility with the Israeli government, and even the moderates and the doves know this now.   Arafat has managed to turn the side of the government that was willing to deal land for peace against the Palestinians.   As long as he is put forward as the leader, this has escalated into a blood-fued, where it won't end until one side or the other is dead.

[Guest GatesFTW]

Oh, for those keeping track at home, this is the third day in a row we have seen a Palestinian suicide bomber. Peace talks stalled.

[Guest DrEvil]

Well, I certainly think so, because Israel doesn't have any right to exist in the first place, but that's a whole new bag of worms.

What bag of worms would that be.  I agree that Israel has no right to the occupied territory that they invaded, but to say they don't deserve existence??? Hitler anyone??

 

In our modern touchy-feely age of politics, nobody likes to admit this anymore, but the right of conquest has always been a legitimate means of aquiring land.

Yes, but you must be prepared for the consequences of enacting the right of conquest.

 

You can use high-yield non atomic weaponry to level and kill all occupants of the territory, or you can use ground forces and kill all occupants of the territory.  Doing so prevents attacks from expelled rebels, but you do have to deal with any reprisals from the international community.

 

Another course would be to use ground forces to expell all occupants out of the territory.    To make an analogy of this, suppose someone busts down your door, roughs you up, and shoves you down into your basement.    Someone does that to me, the motherfuckers dead, no hesitation, no questions asked.  And if he's too strong for me to do it head on, then I'm attacking when he's sleeping, while he's at his weakest.

 

The Palestians were forcibly removed from their homeland.  Armed with only small arms and rudimentary bombs, they are too far overpowered and overmatched to wage a conventional, "knoble" war.  Thus they fight back with the only means at their disposal, by attacking the weakest targets.  It is far from honourable and acceptable by North American standards, but it is understandable.  Given a choice of accepting a conquest, and hoping that your people can survive and rebuild, or fighting back by any means necessary, most choose fighting back.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

I'll probably reply to Mike's over the weekend, too tired now though.

 

<<What bag of worms would that be.  I agree that Israel has no right to the occupied territory that they invaded, but to say they don't deserve existence??? Hitler anyone??>>

 

Let me rephrase that.  They have no right to existance in the place where they are right now.  Yeah, all the European Jews needed somewhere to go after the holocaust, there wasn't a safe place for them in their old countries anymore.  However, the place for them to go wasn't right smack dab in the middle of Palestinian land.  I don't care if the Palestinian land was technically under some other countries' control or not, it was morally wrong to displace one group in favor of the other.  I consider Zionism to be terrorism, since it was Palestinian civilians who suffered most from Israel's occupation of their land, so in a sense all Palestinian attacks since then can be said to be in response to Israel's original terrorist occupation.  Palestinians may be the ones starting various battles, but Israel's original occupation is what started the war.

 

Legally, Israel is in the right in most ways.  Since Palestine was never technically a country, technically they had no say as to what was to happen with their land, and technically Israel can keep pushing them further and further out and putting more and more Israeli settlers in, and there's nothing wrong with that, since Palestine technically isn't a country.  Tecnically Israel has also won it's territory, by using US weapons against the much more poorly armed Palestinian army.  However, from a moral standpoint, Israel just plopped down in the middle of land that wasn't theirs and used big, expensive US weapons to kill those who opposed them.  I certainly don't think they have any moral right to do that.

 

All this could have been avoided if a friendly country had just been willing to give some unoccupied land to the Jews after WW2 so they could have a safe haven, heh.  It was very stupid to put a supposed safe haven in what clearly was not going to be friendly territory.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

The idea that the Israeli army is purely defensive is ludicrous. Under general Isreal Tal, they developed one of the most highly trained tank attack armies in the world (relative to their regional opponents, comparable to the German Wehrmacht in superiority). Sharon in particular has authorised some particularly brutal attacks (during his period as an army general). Other Israeli prime ministers have been similarly aggressive, such as Barak during his time at Massoud, or Begin who essentially ran a fundamentalist terrorist organisation before becoming prime minister. ####, when the Iraqis bought a nuclear reactor from the French, the Israelis flew in 2 F-16 Fighting Falcons and destroyed it (something they were totally correct in doing in hindsight, but an action that was militarily aggressive nevertheless and some might argue helped lead to the gulf war).

 

I'm not defending Arafat, since I think he is ineffective, irrelevant, and incapable of resolving anything. However, the Israelis are just as bad and there are just as many elements within Israel that are opposed to the peace process (demonstrated quite clearly by the murder of Rabin, the greatest of all Israeli leaders). At this point I've simply had enough of the issue and am basically ready for someone to tell both groups to go fuck themselves.

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

personally  say leave them alone to figure it out themselves if palestine and Israel really want peace it'll happen, but it's the only thing the countries have known for a LONG time. if we leave them on their own maybe they'll figure things out.

[Guest teke184]

Cobain, that's what I said when Clinton's efforts at a peace accord there failed horribly, which was caused, IMHO, by Clinton's selfish want to make a HUGE mark on the history books by putting together a peace during his last few months in office.  

 

Unfortunately, as bad as Clinton screwed up the Middle East by trying to accellerate a peace that no one wanted, Bush's pullout early in his term is supposedly one of the reasons-of-the-week behind 9-11.  

 

Hence, we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't because no one over there really wants to have the situation resolved, yet we get blamed for NOT resolving it if we sit on the sidelines and let the Israelis and Palestinians fight it out.

[Guest TJH]

Zinni has been in Israel for a week now, attempting peace negotiations.

There have been 3 suicide bombings this week, murdering a total of 12 Israelis.

Let me repeat that: 3 suicide bombings, 12 murdered, and all this happening while the Israelis are trying to acheive a peace.

Quite frankly, I've had enough of the Palestinians, for all I care, destroy it.

[Guest]

"Zinni has been in Israel for a week now, attempting peace negotiations.

There have been 3 suicide bombings this week, murdering a total of 12 Israelis.

Let me repeat that: 3 suicide bombings, 12 murdered, and all this happening while the Israelis are trying to acheive a peace.

Quite frankly, I've had enough of the Palestinians, for all I care, destroy it."

  Sure, 2 of those 3 bombings targeted Israeli soldiers at a time when Israel is undertaking the biggest military operation since the '67 war in violation not only of the Oslo agreements they signed but any number of international human rights conventions.  But let's not talk about that.  Or the fact that if Bush wasn't half-assedly leaning on Sharon he wouldn't be "talking peace" at all.  Sharon got elected by using the rhetoric of genocide (kind of like another tarnished ex-ally of the west who's on trial right now in the Hague), and legitimate peace talks have never, EEEEEVER been on his agenda.  But let's not talk about that.

  Oh, and I'd just like to throw out an issue- why does everyone assume that the Israelis have some right to the land they occupy because of the historical treatment of Jews in Eastern Europe?  If suffering is the currency that a people can trade in for a homeland, shoulden't the Palestinians get one too?  And the Kurds, they get shat on all the time, but I don't see anyone colonializing them up a nice homeland.  People want to pretend that Israel was won by force of arms, but it was really a gift from the British, stolen out from under their rule by terrorism and defended from the start with superior Western military equipment.  If the Israelis chose their homeland and chose not to live in peace with their neighbors, I have a hard time when people blame "the Arabs" or the Palestinians for the current crisis.  As for the people who want to let them fight it out, I say fine, but strip the Israelis of all of the arms and aid we've given them in the past first.

[Guest GatesFTW]

####, when the Iraqis bought a nuclear reactor from the French, the Israelis flew in 2 F-16 Fighting Falcons and destroyed it (something they were totally correct in doing in hindsight, but an action that was militarily aggressive nevertheless and some might argue helped lead to the gulf war).

Whoa- when did this happen? And why the fuck would the French sell Iraq a nuclear reactor? I fucking hate the French. they remind me of Jason Lee's character in dogma. They don't join in the battle, they wait it out and support the winning side. Why did we economically revive them agter WW2?

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

Whoa- when did this happen? And why the fuck would the French sell Iraq a nuclear reactor? I fucking hate the French. they remind me of Jason Lee's character in dogma. They don't join in the battle, they wait it out and support the winning side. Why did we economically revive them agter WW2?

 

To be fair, at the time it probably wasn't seen as such a big deal, since Iraq hadn't really done much to piss off the west at that point (this is PRE gulf war) and the Soviet Union was still basically the major opponent of the west at the time (after all, with the Soviets having thousands of nukes pointed at NATO, who would have cared about Iraq?). This is why I said it was smart of the Israelis in hindsight. Obviously at the time, the Israelis felt more threatened by Iraq than the west.

[Guest Vyce]

Yeah yeah yeah.  That's why three times as many Palestinians have been killed in this fighting as Israelis, right?  

 

Hey, Israel can't help it if the Palestinians suck shit compared to the Israeli army.

 

I'm not going to debate who's right or wrong here.  But I will offer my opinion - for all the Palestinian talk about peace negotiations, I don't believe for ONE SECOND that they will ever uphold them, should an agreement ever be reached.  Palestine will not be happy until every Jew in Israel is dead.

 

I admire Israel a great deal.  For ever suicide bomber that the Palestinians throw at them, the next day Israel responds with a few tanks on their enemies' doorstep.

[Guest TJH]

"Sure, 2 of those 3 bombings targeted Israeli soldiers at a time when Israel is undertaking the biggest military operation since the '67 war in violation not only of the Oslo agreements they signed but any number of international human rights conventions."

 

Biggest military operation since the '67 war? That is just plain wrong. Ever heard of the Yom Kippur War? Or the conflict in Beirut? And the Israelis are hunting for terrorists, who kill innocent civilians in Israel proper.

 

"Sharon got elected by using the rhetoric of genocide"

At least he was elected, unlike a former Communist anti-west leader now on trial in the Hague.

 

"People want to pretend that Israel was won by force of arms, but it was really a gift from the British, stolen out from under their rule by terrorism and defended from the start with superior Western military equipment."

 

Firstly, Israel was created by a U.N mandate, and didn't really have anything to do with the British. As for defended by superior military equipment, the entire Israeli Air Force during the war of independence consisted of 4 Avia S-199 fighters, which were Messerschmitt 109's produced in Checkoslovakia after WW2. The Arab's actually did have Western equipment, as it was ex British army equipment left after the British pulled out.  

 

"stolen out from under their rule by terrorism" What the hell are you talking about????

[Guest KOR420]

here's another reason why we shouldn't bother and just get rid of this retard i found this interesting news story

 

TEL AVIV American and Israeli intelligence officials have concluded that Yasir Arafat has forged a new alliance with Iran that involves Iranian shipments of heavy weapons and millions of dollars to Palestinian groups that are waging guerrilla war against Israel.

 

The partnership, officials said, was arranged in a clandestine meeting in Moscow last May between two top aides to Mr. Arafat and Iranian government officials. The meeting took place while Mr. Arafat was visiting President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, according to senior Israeli security officials who declined to describe the precise nature of their information.

 

The new alignment is significant for several reasons, American and Israeli officials said. In recent years, Iran's support for terrorism around the world has been on the wane, with the notable exception of its ties to Hezbollah, the militant group that fought for 18 years to expel Israel from southern Lebanon.

 

Israeli officials say they are alarmed by Mr. Arafat's alliance with Iran because they say it gives the Palestinians a powerful and well-armed patron in the increasingly violent conflict with Israel. American officials echoed that concern and said they were also worried by intelligence reports that say Tehran is harboring Al Qaeda members, including one leader who recently tried to mount an attack against Israel from his sanctuary in Iran.

 

Questions about Iran's relationship with the Palestinians came into public view early this year when Israel seized a ship carrying 50 tons of Iranian-supplied arms, including antitank weapons that could neutralize one of Israel's main military advantages over the Palestinians and rockets that could reach most cities in Israel.

 

Both the Palestinians and Iranians deny they are working together, but American and Israeli officials say they now see the shipment as part of a broader relationship. They say that began with several smaller attempts by Iranian-backed groups in Lebanon to supply arms and was cemented in the Moscow meeting. Officials of Israel and the United States say they believe that Mr. Arafat personally approved the dealings with Iran.

 

American officials said that Israeli intelligence reports about the Moscow meeting were at the heart of secret briefings that Israel provided to the Bush administration after the arms shipment was intercepted.

 

"There's plenty of evidence to show that it wasn't a rogue operation," a senior State Department official said of the ship that Israel seized in early January.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

I've seen that story, but I don't see why there's anything wrong with what the Palestinians are doing/trying to do.

 

The gist of the story is what, that the Palestinians are buying/working out a deal for weapons that might negate the current military advantage of the Israelis?  Why is that news?  Why is there anything wrong with that?  How is that any different than the Israelis getting weapons from us?  Every time we import weapons to the Israelis, it's the exact same thing.

 

I personally see nothing wrong with Palestinians using Iranian rockets against Israeli tanks.  If they do that, then they are attacking an Israeli military target, and are likely doing so in response to that target invading their land.  Sharon and the Israeli army use their big weapons in order to contain Palestinians (by shelling their homes, among other things), and now the Palestinians are trying to obtain strong enough weapons to fight back.  Nothing wrong with that.  Now if there's another war, at least both sides will be on somewhat more equal footing...

[Guest]

Hey, nice "news story".  I like how there isn't a single name or verifiable fact in it at all.  If the exact converse of this story were circulated by, say, an Egyptian newspaper, all of you would be crying about how it's propaganda.  But it's anti-Arab so you love it.  

 Feh.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Hey, nice "news story".  I like how there isn't a single name or verifiable fact in it at all.  If the exact converse of this story were circulated by, say, an Egyptian newspaper, all of you would be crying about how it's propaganda.  But it's anti-Arab so you love it.  >>>

 

 

Seeing as how the U.S press tends to be sympathetic to Arafat while the Egyptian press is a cauldron of anti-Semitism and completely false story-telling, your analogy doesn't quite work.

                    -=Mike