Israel Rejects Palestinian Truce Offer

[DuctapeFatwa]

Yasser Arafat wants to reach a truce with Israel, his national security adviser said Tuesday, but Israeli officials brushed aside the offer and demanded that the Palestinian Authority crack down on militant groups.

Arafat himself struck a conciliatory tone, but stopped short of making a specific cease-fire offer. "We say to the peace supporters in Israel that we extend our hand to you to revive peace," Arafat said in a speech to about 2,500 Palestinians at his battered West Bank headquarters....

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030916_610.html

[Jim Sagle]

1. But...but...but...

"Arafat himself struck a conciliatory tone, but stopped short of making a specific cease-fire offer. "

Oh.

Guess there wuzn't much to discuss, Gus.

[rini]

55. Who believes a liar?

Talk is cheap Arafat needs to actually do something besides talk. Everytime he utters the words peace or cease-fire, he needs time to recoup his losses. Believe a lie once shame on you, believe it twice shame on me.

[quilp]

109. Lowering your sword is one thing, throwing away your shield is another.

The "conciliatory tone" you are so scornful of is in stark contrast to the belligerence of the Likudniks. This casualness about killing leaders is going to come back to haunt us.

It must have cost this man a lot to make the statement he did. Perhaps the only words that would satisfy you are "unconditional surrender"? When this is all over, the Israelis will still have to live with the rest of the world. "A decent respect for the opinions of mankind" is still something to be concerned about.

[drdon326]

2. OH GOOD.....HUDNA II

yeah.....hes such a man of peace.:puke:

[Resistance]

22. yeah remember what happened the first ceasefire

Since the commencement of the ceasefire (which applies only to Palestinians) on June 29, Israeli soldiers and settlers have killed 17 people (including 7 children), wounded 437 (including 88 children), arrested 593 people, confiscated 4,457 acres of land for Jewish settlements, bulldozed 987 acres of farmland, destroyed 12,462 trees and destroyed or damaged 253 houses.

source

[Gimel]

51. A balanced approach

The initiation of the violence is clearly by the Palestinian side.


On June 22, the Road Map was initated for the second time by the Quartet:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/21808.htm

the June 54-5 summit in Aqaba was followed by a bus bombing:

Suicide bombing of Egged bus No. 14A in Jerusalem
June 11, 2003


Seventeen people - 11 women and six men - were killed and over 100 wounded in a suicide bombing on Egged bus #14A outside the Klal building on Jaffa Road in the center of Jerusalem.

At around 17:30, the bomber...
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ngn0

On June 11 and 12, Hamas activits were killed by Israeli air strikes:
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Terrorism/hits.html

No further strikes were carried out until Aug 21, three days after the suicide-homicide bombing of a Jerusalem bus full of Jewish worshippers, killing 22 including 6 children and infants.

So you claim (EI source) that from June 29 a list of 17 Palestinians were killed (including 7 children) wounded, etc, etc.

Since the redeployment of June 29 to date, 49 Israelis (37 civilians) have been killed by Palestinian actions, and 266 wounded (232 civilians)
http://www.idf.il/daily_statistics/english/3.doc

The killing and wounding of Palestinians was certainly not without provocation.

[rini]

65. Well said!

[Resistance]

82. once again

I condemn killings of all the innocent civilians, while you condemn the killings of Israeli civilians only. Which, of course, you are free to do - you just lose credibility with the rest of us who are actually concerned for the human rights of all civilians who are victim to the conflict.

[Cassandra]

103. If only you could distinguish between...

actual Palestinian civilians and those who were involved in terror, that might make it easier to sympathize. I assume you also have great sympathy for those Palestinians killed by their "own" side for suspected "collaboration" with Israel.

[Gimel]

104. Then you are superior, of course

That is the proof that Arafat is a true hero. Is that your implication? Why do you think that I don't condemn all killing of innocent people? I even condemn the suicide attacks and I think the young children who are forced to commit this monstrous acts are victims of the terrorist culture that Arafat leads and protects. I've said this several times on this forum.

I condemn the wanton aggression and regret the killing of innocent people in every war. My true wish is for the Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace. That each people should be able to live according to their own traditions and worship in their own way. One way should not be forced upon the other. Neither should the American way be forced upon Israel.

[StandWatie]

3. look for a reaction..

of desperate fear from the Israeli's at the thought of political settlement.

This may seriously get him killed.

[loudnclear]

4. Funny, how the news of such an offer is NOT news to the US media...

but we all know why.

http://english.aljazeera.net/Articles/News/ArabWorld/Arafat+aide+proposes+truce+with+Israel.htm

[Gimel]

70. Hmmm ...broken link

[DuctapeFatwa]

7. Israel murdered the guy who got Hamas to agree to the Hudna

Arafat is definitely playing with fire here.

[Resistance]

24. of course

a cease-fire is the last thing Sharon's regime wants: the goal is to steal the rest of the O.T. using the disguise of "defending from terrorists"

[Gimel]

72. Nada

that's a laugh. Where have you come from all at once?

[Gimel]

71. Nope

He's still in prison.

[Aidoneus]

75. Israel is keeping Shanab's corpse in prison?

That's just unsanitary..

(I know you're referring to Barghouti)

[DuctapeFatwa]

94. Abu Shanab is not in prison, he was murdered

The sharon regime has seized and kidnapped several thousand Palestinians, all of whom they claim are "top Hamas leaders" or some facsimile. Several hundred of them are children.

[Aidoneus]

98. I think he was referring to Barghouti

it may have been Shanab on their end, but it was Barghouti that worked from his cell to get PIJ/HAMAS/al-Aqsa/etc onto the ceasefire, for they don't spit on him like they would the quisling hypocrites that scratch and claw for the privilige of being Israel's jailer. Killing Shanab was quite a message in itself.

[DuctapeFatwa]

100. Gotcha. I posted before refreshing, didn't see your previous ;) (nt)

[Gimel]

105. Of course, there's no offical offer yet

If you read the lead article you will find this paragraph:

Arafat and his designated prime minister, Ahmed Qureia, are not in touch with the Israeli government on a proposed truce, officials said. But there are high-level contacts between the Palestinian Authority and the militant group Hamas on a new cease-fire, a senior Palestinian official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Palestinian officials have said they were given to understand by the United States that it backs the idea of a mutual truce, provided it is followed by some action against the militants, such as a weapons roundup.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030916_610.html

If Arafat is preparing the Palestinian people for peace, and not concluding his talk with calls for jihad, this is a welcome change.

Only there will have to be a change in the Hamas structure as well.

[bemildred]

5. (Haaretz) Israeli officials dismiss Arafat truce proposal as 'deception'

Senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat said
Tuesday that the entire Palestinian leadership
supports a proposal made earlier in the day for a
comprehensive and unlimited cease-fire with
Israel, Israel Radio reported.

Jibril Rajoub, Yasser Arafat's
national security advisor, was
the first to issue the offer
earlier in the day, but Israeli
officials brushed the offer
aside as "deception,"
demanding
instead that the Palestinian
Authority crack down on
militant groups.

Arafat himself struck a conciliatory tone, but
stopped short of making a specific cease-fire
offer. "We say to the peace supporters in
Israel that we extend our hand to you to revive
peace," Arafat said in a speech to about 2,500
Palestinians at his battered West Bank
headquarters.

Palestinian officials have said they were given
to understand by the United States that it
backs the idea of a mutual truce, provided it
is followed by some action against the
militants, such as a weapons roundup.

Haaretz

[forgethell]

6. sounds like

the Israelis are thinking about why it would be to their advantage to deal with Arafat, and finding no reasonable answer.

[StandWatie]

8. because keeping Palestinians as slaves is immoral?

[Gimel]

9. Possibly because

49 Israelis have been killed by Palestinians since June 29, 2003. Some peace hudna.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gimel]

16. You are correct

You don't give a damn. So why discuss it? Most murderers are put in jails in civilized countries.

[StandWatie]

18. Israel doesn't

[Resistance]

25. Gimel said

"civilized countries"

[chapter32]

20. Most murderers are put in jails in civilized countries

So, how come sharon is not in jail?

[Gimel]

49. Must be

that he was not found guilty.

[chapter32]

52. He was not found guilty...

Was there a trial?

[Gimel]

67. Yes.

Actually, he was punished, but not with jail time, as his responsibility was judged to be "indirect".

[chapter32]

68. Thanks for the response and,

your cordiality.

[Resistance]

83. you may wish to ask yourself

what would be the result of an American inquiry into the role Bush has played in various war crimes. How do you think his responsibility would be judged?

[Jackie97]

35. The 49 were probably killed because....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=13840&mesg_id=13881&page=

[Gimel]

50. Are you new to the forum?

EI is not a reliable source, very biased and tends to distort facts. If you actually paid attention to the sequence of events, you would see also that targeted killings did not recommence until after the Israel civilian bus was bombed on Aug 27, killing 23 innocent people including 6 children and babies.

[Jackie97]

56. I followed this from other sources too....

EI is not the only source that reported stuff like this from Israel. I remember specifically when that bombing happened, somebody on this board reported what Israel had been doing the last few weeks prior (taking out even more neighborhoods and other things).

Oh, and are you going to tell me that IDF doesn't kill babies? I don't think so.

[Gimel]

69. One difference

this bombing of civilians was intentional. Considered as a sacred duty by the group the bomber belonged to.

[Jackie97]

90. Let's define intentional.

Couldn't it be argued that killing a whole bunch of Palestinians with a bomb for the sake of killing one Hamas member is intentional killing of Palestinians? How about killing Palestinians intentionally just for breaking a curfew?

In any case, do you think that the fact that the killing is done differently by the Israelis means anything to the Palestinians who are grieving for their loved ones?

[Gimel]

92. Intentional

It's in every dictionary. Please define "a whole bunch". Death from any cause is a reason for the family of the deceased to greive.

You could substitute the words "not on purpose". Bystanders who are not the the object of the attack are killed unintentionally. Suicide bombers with nails and metal objects packed with their bombs are killing and injuring as many people intentionally and on purpose as possible. There is no comparison.

[Violet_Crumble]

96. Killing people 'unintentionally'...

Numbers of people killed has got zero to do with whether the killing is intentional or not, so I'll let Jackie take that one if she wants it. I suspect she's referring to the bombing of an apartment building that killed civilians, including children and babies. The IDF were aware that there were civilians there and bombed it anyway. When something like that is done with the knowledge that civilians will die, it's definately not unintentional...

Violet...

[Jackie97]

106. Intentional

It's where you do something knowing that you're going to hurt innocents in this case.

IDF knows ahead of time that they're going to kill a whole bunch of "bystanders" (at least 12 to 20 people), while killing a Hamas leader. Therefore, it is intentional.

Would you see it any differently if a bunch of Israeli civilians were killed in an attack meant to get just Ariel Sharon? I doubt that you would.

[Violet_Crumble]

95. There's a difference between reliable and biased...

Some biased sources can be reliable e.g. Electronic Intifada and other biased sources can be unreliable e.g. us-israel.org As you have no problems with using us-israel.org as a source, I think claims coming from yr direction of unreliability of other sources can't be taken too seriously, especially as you never explain in a satisfactory manner why the sources are unreliable. Remember, unreliable isn't a label you can conveniently slap on everything that you disagree with...

Violet...

[forgethell]

12. Maybe so,

but obviously the Israelis don't see it that way. Assume the Palestinians have all the right on their side; they still do not have the power to get their way. So as a practical matter only, forget the morality of it for a moment, why should Israel talk with someone who has proven that he either cannot be trusted, or cannot deliver? There is no advantage to them, and, especially if they are slave-owning neo-Nazis, as many people seem to believe, why expect them to be conciliatory towards those who are trying to kill them?? Hitler wouldn't do it.

[StandWatie]

13. They shouldn't expect anything but villainy in exchange then

[forgethell]

14. You're right

, but it hasn't worked out too well for the Palestinians, yet, has it? Perhaps they should try the route of Gandhi, King, and Mandela. Everyone of them got what they were fighting for.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[forgethell]

21. That's a cop-out!!

They've never tried it. It has always been the Arabs were goind to kick Israel into the sea. They have never even come close. You know, one definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. We here on DU like to think that we are smarter than the average Republican or non-voter. So we should use our brains. I think that it is time to change tactics, and maybe moderate the goal to something reasonbly obtainable. The Israelis will never, ever, ever consent to their own national suicide. And right now, they have the power.

If you don't want to try peaceful resistance, what do you suggest the Palestinians do? I am talking about something different, something that will work. More of the same is more of the same, see comment above. Israelis meet Plaestinians demand because it is right, see comment above. So what do you do, other than rant on DU? See comment above.

[StandWatie]

23. not so

the first intifada was largely non-violent and the response was brutal crackdowns and people spent jailtime for things like painting a picture using the colors of the Palestinian flag or were deported and killed for organizing protests.

I think the fact that it was more successful than the second more violent intifada is a consideration but what it eventually got them was expanded settlement and less freedom while Israel "negotiated".

[forgethell]

26. Well

we are just going to have to disagree on this one. I have no horse in this race, except that I truly hate senseless violence. But, Israel has existed for over 50 years now, and has expanded rather than contracted due to a series of wars which their enemies lost. If I were said enemy, I would look for another strategy. I notice that you didn't offer one.

I read somewhere, a long time ago so I can't attribute it properly, that in territorial conquests like the Palestinian situation, it takes about 100 years for the losers to accept it. Itt mentioned the Norman conquest and several others. All the original players and most of the 2nd generation have to die off. so it looks like, if this is correct, which I don't know, that we've got 35 or 40 years left to go. I hope some kind of accomodation can be reached.

[StandWatie]

27. this is the home of the crusades

These people are never going to get over it without some big time pay off. My suggestion would be for the US to pay off the Palestinians for their property (estimated cost $5 billion but still only half of what we are paying Israel) build them all massive estates in the West Bank and Gaza and hope they get too fat and watch too much TV to care.

[forgethell]

28. My understanding

is that several of their religious leaders basically said that anybody who sold thier land to the Israelis would go to hell or whereever infidels go when they die.

but OK, things will probably go on like they are for a long time. The Arabs can't win, the Israelis can't give up, and children will die. Seems pretty senseless to me, but as I said before, I have no horse in this race.

[StandWatie]

29. gross misconception

Kaffaarah (compensation) was actually discussed with Hamas and even they didn't have a problem with it. They would have a problem with selling land willingly but not to compensation from '48.

[forgethell]

30. You still haven't

given me your comprehensive peace plan. However, this is the first I have heard about Hamas being willing to accept compensation for '48. thank you for this information. Do you have a link or other reference??

[StandWatie]

31. what would work?

here is the easiest one. Israel (of course this means the US pays for it) builds it's security fence on the Green line without any negotiation whatsoever with the Palestinians, you could even build a suspended bridge from Gaza to the West Bank.

In very short order Palestinians would be begging to recognize Israel and make peace so they could get work permits.

This could be done in six months and would absolutely prevent all suicide bombings, rocket attacks would of course be dealt with by apache helicopters so I can't imagine anyone really wants to die for the sake of launching some random rockets over the wall.

I would highly, highly, recomend the US paying to rebuild the infrastructure of the West Bank and Gaza (Israel hasn't rebuilt one thing since '67, it's going to hell) and building all the refugee's very nice homes. People with a house and a TV and food in the fridge are unlikely militant political creatures.

[forgethell]

32. They are building

the security fence without any negotiation with the Palestinians, including just where it goes. and, I really hate to bring this up, why should they? they control the ground. What's in it for them? I don't know if you have ever had a business negotiating course, or not. They tell you that successful negotiations involve both sides feeling they won. It's called win/win.

further, you've lost me. why should the US pay?? We aren't there fighting either side. We have done no physical damage to the Palestinians. And think of what it would do to the deficit. should we take the payments out of our subsidy to the Egyptians?

The Palestinians need to solve their own problems once peace is achieved. Help can be given, by Israel, by the USA, by Saudi Arabia, which has plenty of money. The new Iraqi government could go back to contributing to Palestinian families. But in the final analysis, the Palestinians will have to do it because the rest of the world will soon lose interest. Look at Africa and it's problems if you want an example.

[StandWatie]

33. why not?

probably because a Palestine with happy Palestinians is way cheaper than than trying to refight the Crusades over.

Because what they are building is a ghetto and will serve to rightly enrage not just the Muslim world but the whole planet.

[forgethell]

34. Nice map

Who were the West Bank and Gaza captured from?? It wasn't the Palestinians. they didn't have a state in 1967. What about the rest of the British Palestine Mandate? where did it go??

[StandWatie]

36. what does it matter?

Why would the people that live there give a damn about what the British, the Hashemite Dynasty or any of the various Egyptian governments thought about their rights to the place?

[forgethell]

41. It matters

because the Hashemites control more Palestinian land than Israel does.

[StandWatie]

46. how do you figure?

Note the position of the Jordan river, none of it is currently in Jordanian hands.

[forgethell]

57. try this

http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/jordan.html#didthe

[StandWatie]

61. ummm, yeah..

I really don't give a piss about yahoodi's "God is a real estate broker" insanity and Palestinians don't either.

[forgethell]

64. You're missing the point

but that's OK. The Palestinians can going on killing children. Right now the leading murderers are squealing for another "truce", but they seem unlikely to get it. arafat will be gone in a few weeks or months, but he will no longer be around by the end of next year.

what do the Palestinians have to show for 55 years of war?? Damn little in my opinion. But if that's the way they like it, who am I to complain??

[StandWatie]

74. Israel can't win either

and the Palestinians have hardly been "at war" with anything for fifty years other than with starvation and annihilation.

[forgethell]

76. If israel can't win

what was 1967 about??? Sure they can win. What they may have to do in order to accomplish this may be horrific. but those Nazi Jews are capable of anything aren't they?? If they are not Nazi Jews, maybe then this situation will go on forever. More children dead. Mostly Palestinian children, if you believe their statements.

I have an idea. If Hamas leaders would quit hiding behind their women and children, Palestinian casulaties would go way down.

The Palestinians do not have the power to destroy Israel. Israel does have the power to destroy the Palestinians but has not yet used it. Maybe they never will. But in the meantime, the violence goes on and on and on and on. This is not a question of right and wrong, but who has all the cards.

so I suggest a new strategy. Of course, they didn't sk my opinion, and neither did you, but so far I have seen nothing in this discussion to demonstrate that I am wrong. I truly wish that someone on this board would show me the way, and show it to Arafat and Sharon, too.

[StandWatie]

77. Black South Africans prevailed in the end

vs. the same sort of "them vs. the terrorists" claptrap that was sold around here at the time about our "ally" South Africa.

[forgethell]

78. see my comments

on Nelson Mandela. Israel does not have the kind of international pressure on it that SA did. George Bush was not president. so at the least there is no chance till early 2005. Get outthe vote. Finally, I might well be mistaken here, but white SA's did not have the moral authority of a victim that Israel did and still does in many quarters.

The Christian right supports Israel, and it is a powerful force in American politics. without the support of the USA for overthrowing Israel, what chance do the Palestinians have?? I'm sorry to have to say it, but I think you are living in a fantasy world. Certainly peace will not be achieved unless the Palestinians are willing to give up their cherished right of return as Israel can see that would be national suicide. Please don't reply with comments about apartheid. I'm looking at it from what I think is realistically likely or possible to happen in the near future. and I just don't see a Palestinian victory.

You know, according to the Palestinians, and many Israelis, the Jews pre-1948 wanted a lot more than they actually got. But they settled for what they could get. they were able to expand on that later, thanks to some truly stupid agression by some of the Arab leaders. why shouldnt the Palestinians do the same, rebuild their lives, and build a nation, and then see where it goes from there???

OR is murder better???

[StandWatie]

79. How do you propose they do this?

I'll leave apart your simplistic analysis of "Arab agression" leading directly to Israel's expansionistic behavior because people and their mythology part ways with enormous dificulty, but I would be very interested in how refugees in Lebanon, Jordan, the West Bank, Gaza, could "rebuild their lives" all on their own.

[forgethell]

80. Naturally

they would be helped to a certain extent once the violence had ceased. but about agression: What is it that you call Arab armies invading or preparing to invade Israel? But I do agree that people and their mythologies are not easily parted. the myth of the invincible Arab warrior is one that springs to mind. The myth that Israel is weak and will not defend itself is another

The refugee problem could be solved in short order if their "brother" Arab nations would just do like America and Western Europe and accept them in as citizens. However, they are not prepared to do that for whatever reason. So the poor Palestinians go on suffering as other people's pawns.

[StandWatie]

81. a short history of "arab agression"

Leaving aside 1948 because the motivations of Israeli acceptance, Arab resistance, and exactly what this would have meant to Jews and Arabs in the wrong area they were partitioned into make it too complex a subject to assign a category of "aggressor, you can start with the Suez War where Israel not only clearly was the agressor but an eager agent of the French and British vs. Egypt.

1967 was also an instant where Israel attacked first, you can argue that it was "pre-emptive" but there is contradictory evidence including a Soviet ambassador who led Nasser to believe that he be cut off if he attacked Israel and gave Nasser assurances that Israel was being given the same message by his American counterpart.

1973 was without a doubt aggressive but it's a very misunderstood war. Yom Kippur or the Rammadan war was viewed in Egypt as a great victory because in the aftermath Israel and the US revised their calculus that Egypt and the rest of the Arab states wishes could be written off because the Arabs couldn't fight.

Lebanon was without a doubt a particularly nasty piece of Israeli aggression and it's widely speculated that it was motivated by a hysterical fear that the PLO would be able to hold it's two year long ceasefire and Israel would have to negotiate with the Palestinians it had thus far claimed didn't exist and wasn't party to the conflict in the middle east.

Since your premise is that non-violence would be successful (and I'm not really arguing, I don't know the answer to that question) take a look at the last two wars. Egypt didn't get anything out of Israel by being nice, they made their point with force and later on completely discredited the Egyptian intellectuals and columnists who were completely behind a peace agreement because Israel just used as a wedge to seperate Egypt from the rest of the region and attack Lebanon without a worry from Egyptian force so they could crush the new, more dangerous PLO for the sin of being passive.

As far as why they just don't leave for other Arab nations, that's precisely the position of Hamas: The Jews came from Europe, there are many European nations, they were the ones who created Hitler, let them take care of their fellow europeans. It's a measure of insane pro-Israeli bias in this country that Hamas are insane fanatics but the position you have taken would be seen as quite moderate.

[forgethell]

84. OK

I'm not going to convince you; you're not going to convince me. So I shall just concede that the Palestinians have their grievances. But I don't see that they are getting anywhere. they can kill a few civilians, and fewer soldiers, but eventually they will grow tired of dying. The Jews will not return to Europe, can you blame them? They are on the ground in the Mid-East, and there they are determined to stay. So the violence will continue. It's all rather sad.

[StandWatie]

85. oh, I agree

Although I think the human bomb attacks are completely pointless, I do think the Palestinians could win militarily though if they would just make a concerted effort to target the IDF in the West Bank and Gaza. If Hezbollah could do it in Lebanon than they certainly could in the territories.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. What right does Gaza have to connect to the West Bank

Why should Israel allow such a thing?

[StandWatie]

47. do you want them driving across Israel?

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. No, why should they?

There is this ongoing assumption that Israel has to facilitate a Palestinian state, why? If the Palestinians want to get from Gaza to the West Bank, perhaps they need to go the long way around.

[StandWatie]

62. the long way around?

like through the Red Sea?

[Muddleoftheroad]

63. Through their friends

Like Egypt and Jordan.

[StandWatie]

73. take a look at a map..

How are they supposed to connect Gaza and the West Bank?

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. I don't see why they need to

Perhaps the Palestinians should more accurately have not one, but two states in a loose confederation.

Either way, both should be walled off and travel into Israel should be banned until a peace is attained. Depending on the peace, I'm still not convinced that travel between the two should be permitted through Israel.

[Equinox]

43. LOL..forgethell

I read somewhere, a long time ago so I can't attribute it properly, that in territorial conquests like the Palestinian situation, it takes about 100 years for the losers to accept it. Itt mentioned the Norman conquest and several others. All the original players and most of the 2nd generation have to die off. so it looks like, if this is correct, which I don't know, that we've got 35 or 40 years left to go. I hope some kind of accomodation can be reached.

'cept we live in a world where Geneva Conventions apply and prohibit the aquisition of territory during war. It's also confirmed in resolution 242 among others.

Geez....Norman conquests? Damn...well we should have never went to War with Germany then since the occupyees would just have to live a few generations speaking German until the "accept" their fate!

Bizzaro world in reality.

[forgethell]

58. LOL yourself

I am not arguing what is right, or what is wrong in the Middle East. I amonly arguing that the Palestinians do not have the power to change things in the currrent situation. Therefore they should change their strategy.

[Equinox]

86. They don't have power?

Tell that to the Israelis...

[forgethell]

101. They have the power

to murder. Not to defeat Israel

[forgethell]

59. Also

I am looking at what has historically happened in the past. let me repeat, here, that I do not know if this thesis is correct. But if it is, maybe predictions can be made. in addition, who is going to enforce any conventions on Israel?? The US has a veto, so the UN can't. The US won't. Who is going to do it?

[Equinox]

87. You're right...the US is Israel's bitch...and vice versa.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jackie97]

38. Mostly non-violent?

It's been said that thousands of people (Arabs and Israelis put together) have died since the first infidata.

[StandWatie]

39. it was mostly non-violent on the Palestinian side..

no suicide bombs, it was just kids with rocks vs. the IDF for the most part.

[Jackie97]

37. What do you mean by that?

They won't see themselves as anything but supreme victims as Jews, victims as Israelis, or something else?

Actually, I do have to point out that aside from this Roadmap to Peace that just pretty much fell through, the Palestinians are not known for ever have even trying the peaceful approach. In the eyes of most Israelis, they got the Infidata in return for trying to give them some of their land back (Contiguous offer and uncontigous plan to offer aside). A while back, I believe it was somebody on this board that presented an article stating that the Hamas would keep attacking Israel in response to Israel asking for a one year ceasefire. In the eyes of many Israelis, trying to negotiate is making things worse. On that note, shouldn't the Palestinians at least try the peaceful approach?

I'm not trying to be condemning in this post. I'm simply saying that the peaceful approach towards Israel hasn't been tried enough to even analyze. Plus, the more bombings that come, the more the Israelis and Jews will think of themselves as the supreme victims and will be less willing to comprimise.

[Violet_Crumble]

99. What do you mean by 'peaceful approach'?

Do you mean the Palestinians should be good, cowed, occupied people and just take whatever Israel throws at them without trying to resist? I think that's been done. Or that there should have been more in the way of negotiating between Israel and the Palestinians? If it's the second, I don't know why yr blaming the Palestinians for it when it was consistantly Israel that refused to negotiate with the Palestinians for so long....

Through the eyes of most Americans the Sept 11 attacks happened due to envy at their freedom, democracy, and way of life. That's what the govt and the media peddled, much the same as it's peddled to Israelis that they're offering everything and getting kicked in the teeth in return. In both cases, any cries of being supreme victims falls really flat. It kind of reminds me of those guys who bash the shit out of their partners and then when they get busted for it, start blaming their partner for provoking them and trying to wrap themselves in the mantle of victim...

Violet...

[forgethell]

102. It is wrong

to negotiate with murderers, extortionists, and blackmailers. It simply encourages them to continue their crimes.

[Jackie97]

108. In that case...

Nobody should negotiate with Israel and the United States then.

[Jackie97]

107. I'm mostly going by a bunch of stuff that I've read.

The way that I understand and have read it, Arabs in the area had been violent towards the Jews in the area for a long time, even before Israel's war in the forties. Then, you have the war in the 60's, where all those countries tried to destroy Israel (although we now know that there was good reasons for their wanting to start such a war, not that I agree with it). I've just read so many accounts of Arabs being violent towards Israelis/Jews that I haven't really been aware of any real peaceful resistance. I am going to read up more on the first infidata to find out more about how that went, but up until now, I've mostly only read about violent resistance.

I want to make it clear that I'm not condemning anybody still. It's just that until now, I wasn't really aware that there was any way of analyzing whether or not peaceful resistance against the Israelis worked.

[Equinox]

42. forgethell,

some do go the route of Gandhi, King, and Mandela. They also get run over by bulldozers or receive US made bullets to the head.

[forgethell]

60. Yeah there will

be a few casualties. Think of the 4 little girls in the church in Birmingham. But they got their way in the end. and in a lot less than 50 in King's case. took a while in Mandela's. I'm not sure about Gandhi. But there will be a lot less than the current situation.

[Equinox]

88. The first uprising was not violent...

and Israel grabbed more land. Trust is definitely an issues. If Israel can't abide by resolutions (the one's that the US actually doesn't veto), how are the Palestinians supposed to see this?


I mean really!

[Violet_Crumble]

97. Mandela was a terrorist...

Or so the US govt would have had us believe....

As for Gandhi, did he really get what he was 'fighting' for? I doubt his vision of an independent India included partition that caused so much bloodshed and the largest displacement of people in history. And I suspect that in the case of India, independence would have happened with or without Gandhi. Some people seem to think that because of Gandhi the Indian struggle for freedom from Britain was a non-violent thing, but it wasn't. There were riots and massacres, and when Gandhi was imprisoned, groups he led like the Quit India Movement would spiral into more and more violence...

Violet...

[Gimel]

93. Israel

has decided to reduce their dependency on Palestinian labor because of the security risks.

[rini]

66. slaves?

Is English not your first language?

[Gimel]

17. Also

Israel suspended all diplomatic efforts on Sept 1 due to the Aug 27 suicide bomb attacking a bus killing 23 people including 6 children.

[ET Awful]

19. Which attack occurred after Israel violated the ceasefire

and staged raids on Hamas leaders.

Israel is no innocent.

I'll just refer you to:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engMDE151452002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\ISRAEL/OCCUPIED+TERRITORIES?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\ISRAEL/OCCUPIED+TERRITORIES

Then, after you've read the complete AI report, think about this:
as of September of last year, in the current conflict, 250 Palestinian CHILDREN have been killed. In the same time period (23 months is the period counted), 72 Israeli children. Think about that. Israel has killed more than 3 times as many CHILDREN as have Palestine actions. That is leaving out the entire time period from then until today.

Israel is no innocent party.

[Gimel]

53. Up to age 18

I would like to extract 15-18 year olds who are militants from that talley of children in the AI report. This would reduce the number considerably I imagine. If a 16 or 17 year old is carrying an automatic rifle, or wearing a bomb belt, he isn't an innocent child any longer.

[Tinoire]

10. The last think Sharon wants is peace

There will be no peace in Israel until that Right-wing Bull-dozer, his cohorts, and the people actively enabling them are gone.

[LastDemInIdaho]

44. And arafat and his hamas soldiers want what?

Peace? Land? Israel into the sea? Which is it?

[Equinox]

45. LDII

And arafat and his hamas soldiers want what?


Peace? Land? Israel into the sea? Which is it?

His Hamas soldiers? You have got to be kidding. The PA has always been at odds with Hamas.

Attempting to blur the lines once again I see. It failed again and it failed atrociously.

[Tinoire]

48. Idaho

:shrug: