Hamas Vows Revenge but It May Be Too Weak to Follow Through | NYT

[Ediacara]

Hamas Vows Revenge but It May Be Too Weak to Follow Through

By GREG MYRE
Published: April 18, 2004

GAZA, April 18 — Palestinian men and boys clogged the streets of Gaza City today, chanting "revenge, revenge," at the funeral of Hamas leader Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi. Masked gunmen filled the air with bursts of gunfire. Israel should expect "100 unique retaliations," Hamas warned.

Despite the ominous message, Israel has significantly weakened Hamas over the past two years, and it is not clear whether the most dangerous Palestinian faction can deliver on its pledge to launch a renewed wave of suicide bombings, as it has done frequently in the past.

Israel's killing of Dr. Rantisi in a Saturday night missile strike, and a similar attack on March 22 that took the life of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, founder of Hamas, are the two most dramatic examples of the sustained Israeli offensive against the group. While the Israeli military actions have generated retaliatory bombings in the past, the overall number of Palestinian attacks has dropped substantially since they peaked in the spring of 2002.

More at the New York Times

[forgethell]

1. israel is finally getting

serious about defeating terrorists, and they are squealing about it.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. The best revenge the Palestinians could take

The best revenge the Palestinians could take against the Israelis is a change in tactics away from terrorism. It's totally ineffective. Israeli civilians die in cafes and recreation halls in Haifa and Tel Aviv and the bulldozers run in Ramallah and Nablus and settler violence goes unpunished in Hebron.

That doesn't mean ending the resistance. That would be foolish. It means taking direct action against those things that perpetrate the injustice of the occupation.

So far, the Palestinians seem to have modeled their resistance after the FLN in the Algerian war of independence. That's not going to work for a number of reasons, not least of which that Israeli Jews, unlike the pieds noirs in Algeria, have no place else to go. Israel isn't going away; the Palestinians would be wise to settle for the more modest goal of establishing a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza. They should therefore fight against the Israeli presence in those areas, not against an Israeli presence in what the rest of the world recognizes as Israel.

Thus, the proper model for resistance should be something more like the South African anti-Apartheid movement. The Palestinians should make the territories ungovernable. Defy authority: break curfews; travel on forbidden roads. Target figures of occupation authority: IDF troops on patrol and settler paramilitaries; destroy bulldozers; apprehend violent settlers vandalizing olive orchards. Do not allow Israel to build housing or infrastructure for settlements: block the roads; vandalize water projects that pipe water to the settlements; sit in front of bulldozers that have come to clear land for settlements. Any and all of this will do far more than a thousand acts of terrorism.

Hamas and the other terrorist organizations have failed the Palestinian people. They have directed the resistance on Israel's turf against people who are not fighting against them. That is not a war the Palestinians can win. The struggle should be fought on Palestinian turf against those who directly harm the Palestinian people. That is a struggle than can be won.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. I doubt that'd work either...

Thus, the proper model for resistance should be something more like the South African anti-Apartheid movement. The Palestinians should make the territories ungovernable. Defy authority: break curfews; travel on forbidden roads. Target figures of occupation authority: IDF troops on patrol and settler paramilitaries; destroy bulldozers; apprehend violent settlers vandalizing olive orchards. Do not allow Israel to build housing or infrastructure for settlements: block the roads; vandalize water projects that pipe water to the settlements; sit in front of bulldozers that have come to clear land for settlements. Any and all of this will do far more than a thousand acts of terrorism.

And each and every one of those acts would be labelled as acts of terrorism by Israel. That doesn't mean that I don't think that those forms of legitimate resistance should be used over the killing of innocent civilians in Israel. The sooner the suicide-bombings in Israel stop, the better. But I don't really think any form of resistance, no matter how legitimate it is, is a struggle that can be won by the Palestinian people. The Israeli govt PR machine and those who support everything Israel does will swing into overdrive trying to label every act of legitimate resistance as an act of terrorism, and if that doesn't seem to be doing the trick, they'll bring up past suicide bombings and assure everyone it will happen again if they don't crush the resistance under their heels. So on a moral level, yes, a cessation of attacks on civilians in Israel would be a big win, but that's about all...

Violet...

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Yes, the Likudists will call them terrorists

They will call them terrorists just like the white supremacists in South Africa called the ANC Communists.

And, just like it was in the struggle against Apartheid, the only people who will buy it are those who are already sold on the idea that one people simply have some natural or divine right to rule over another.

Targeting civilians inside Israel is not only criminal and ghastly, it is stupid. It achieves nothing in either the short term or the long run. Obviously, for more than one reason, something else needs to be tried.

That something else is not simply saying please. Sharon would love that. He could simply ignore it. The Palestinians would have to do something Israelis cannot ignore, but at the same time not threaten most Israelis. Terrorism is a tactical mistake because it unites the Israelis in a common bond of fear. The Palestinian resistance needs to drive a wedge in Israeli public opinion between those who would gladly reach a settlement with the Palestinians and those who would shed every last drop of blood for every last acre of land.

[tinnypriv]

6. The people currently in Washington

Called the ANC "terrorists".

In any case, attention is only focused on the region when innocent citizens of US-clients are dying - nobody else. In fact, substantial sectors of western opinion would defend Israel even if the Palestinians decided to stop all their resistance.

Then they'd say the territories are "stable" and "calm" while they continue to look the other way while the U.S and Israel continue to destroy the hopes of the Palestinians whilst keeping them under military tyranny (worse in some respects under Labor than Likud).

An end to Palestinian terrorism may swing some Israeli opinion, but probably not much - try and find a political party (blaming Likud soley is disingenuous) that has a platform acceptable to the Palestinians (then assess the level of their support).

After that experiment, try and imagine if you were a Palestinian what you would say to your fellow countrymen who argue that peaceful means are hopeless, and diplomacy a sham.

As for "something else needs to be tried", it was tried in Intifada I, and it failed because we looked the other way, and supported Rabin as he authorised the crushing of the uprising (or "riots" - again called "terrorism" by the U.S).

And the same (non-violence) is being tried, right now. Look at the reaction - savagery from the IDF, silence from the west.

That's our problem - not theirs. We should be concerned with that, and not their "tactics", however ghastly they are, because we can change the former, and do little about the latter.

[elsaamo]

23. I disagree

I think that the dirty secret of this conflict is that if the Palistineans try to protest non-violently, the Israelis will start sprinting togive them every concession they can. This is a progressive nation. It has better laws concerning gays than America does (they're allowed to serve inthe army, for example), it has universal health care, etc. If you don't believe me, think of American Jews. Socially very liberal, economically progressive (even though, objectively, considering their wealth, they should have become Republicans a long time ago), foreign policy, moderates, absolutely unwilling to risk the security of Israel or America. Give them the chance to be progressive byt aking security out of the equation, and a Palistinean state will be created instantaneously. But I don't know of a single Palistinean leader who will do that.

[Classical_Liberal]

26. I think they have drifted right over the years ecnomically and socially

because the charcter of immigration to Israel has changed.

The settlers are mostly right wingers from the US. The working class in Israel are most Sephardics, and the Russian immigrants are a bunch of neoliberals.

NII chief: 30% of Israeli children living below the poverty line

By Ruth Sinai, Haaretz Correspondent



Almost 30 percent of Israeli children live below the poverty line, the head of the National Insurance Institute, Dr. Yigal Ben Shalom, said on Wednesday.



Speaking at the Inter-Disciplinary Center (IDC) in Herzliya, Ben Shalom said that some 40,000 children had slipped below the poverty line in 2003. There were now approximately 660,000 poor children in the country.

Ben Shalom said that he decided to publish the figures now, rather than in the annual NII report on poverty due out in November, in an attempt to influence the Finance Ministry in its decisions on the 2005 budget.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/417969.html

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. That wouldn't be the case

If Israel weren't under constant attack.

[elsaamo]

28. Well, perhaps you're right

but I don't know if we'll ever get the chance to test that thesis out.

[Djinn]

47. really

do you mean like if they stood in front of bulldozers or had peaceful street demonstrations??? Both actions have been met with nothing but violence from the IDF

[forgethell]

4. I agree that they

should stop the terrorism. Life would immediately get better for them. Still, they must renounce the false, so-called 'right of return'. Further, becasue they ahve proven that their leadership cannot be trusted, Israel will have to have secure borders. But the violence will have to cease before any 'peace process' has a chance of succeeding. IMO

[tinnypriv]

7. Please clarify

Do you include Israeli violence in that definition?

[forgethell]

8. israeli violence will

cease when Palestinian violence ceases. Not before.

[tinnypriv]

9. So, if I understand you correctly

Palestinians have to cease all resistance to the occupation, or else Israel is justified in inflicting violence on them?

Do I understand you correctly?

[forgethell]

10. No, you certainly do not.

Non-violent resistance would be OK.

But what they do have to do is realize that they will never drive Israel into the sea, taht there is no one-state solution, that they must renounce the so-called right of return, and that Israrel must have defensible borders, not the 1967 ones that invited aggression by the Arab states. The Palestinians have gambled and lost, but their leaders are too weak, cowardly, and evil to admit it and try to salvage what they can for their people.

Now, do you understand me correctly? Probably not.

[tinnypriv]

11. So

If non-violent resistance is ok, do you condemn the IDF actions against the recent fence demonstrations?

[forgethell]

13. Demonstrations OK.

Obstructing is not. The IDF can certainly remove the resisters if they are interfering with the construction.

[tinnypriv]

16. What if

The construction is in violation of Israeli court rulings?

i.e. the Palestinians have tried legal means, and the IDF is violating even Israeli law by taking the land before the case is decided?

Does the IDF have a right to "remove" the "resisters" with violence in that event?

[forgethell]

19. Well,

I would say that the Israeli courts need to look to that to make sure their rulings are obeyed. In the meantime, think of this:

You are driving home from work. YOu are pulled over by a police officer. You do not think that you have done anything wrong, and try to argue. The police officer directs you to kneel on the ground and raise your hands. You take a swing at him. Who is going to have to go to jail for resisting arrest. Sure, you may be able to sue for false arrest, of, if you are lucky enough to be a minority, and someone has a video camera, maybe you can find something in the officer's actions. In the meantime, your head has deservedly been busted open for taking a swing at a police officer. Stupidity always is rewarded.

Best they keep it in the courts and let the courts enforce their orders.

[tinnypriv]

20. Just Israeli courts?

Since the Palestinians do not have a state, and their land is held under military occupation, does Israel have a right to remove "resisters" with "violence" if they attempt to stop fence construction that is known (and admitted) to be completely in contradiction of International law, not just Israeli law?

What if the IDF is in brazen violation of Israeli law (again, admitted, and even lauded) - do the Palestinians have the right to appeal to a higher authority?

If so, should we wait and "let the court enforce their orders" (i.e. the World Court), or pre-empt the decision with violence?

If the latter, what is the justification? The World Court is "biased"? Security for Jews is worth more than Arabs? Both?

As for the analogy, not even the IDF pretends that is the form of events. Try reading the 2 part investigation into this by Lavie, in Ha'aretz.

[forgethell]

21. International law is a joke.

Nobody obeys international law, unless it suits them to. Not even the French. So, yes, just Israeli courts.

[tinnypriv]

22. How about

If the Israeli courts refuse to hear the case (as has happened a few times), and then direct the victims to the military courts of Judea and Samaria for redress?

Should the Palestinians accept those court rulings? (i.e. the legal instruments of a military occupation)?

Before you answer, you should be aware that those same courts give 20-month sentences to Palestinians for throwing stones, and suspended sentences to Jews who murder Palestinians.

As for international law, here is a quote from you:

"UN resolutions are great things"

Was that sarcasm?

[forgethell]

24. To answer your

last question first: Yes. In general UN resolutions are worthless, especially from the General Assmebly. But unless the US is willing to enforce them, so are Security Council resolutions. There are dozens of resolutions against the Israeli 'occupation', and damn all against Palestinian terrorism. There is no enforcement mechanism for international law. International law is a JOKE.

Now as for the Israeli courts. In 1967, the Arab nations were preparing, once again, to attack, in the hopes of destroying, Israel. Israel, not being a nation of fools, attacked first. They won. Throughout history, land has changed hands in consequence of war. And this happened this time, too.

Now, we could argue all day about the rights and wrongs of Israel being there. You may want to go back to 1948. As a Christian, I might want to go back to the Roman Empire. The Jews want to go back further. But here is a little scoop for you. When survival is at stake, issues of right and wrong take on a much reduced significance. And that is the case, here.

The Palestinians were offered 97% of the land they claimed (when they weren't claiming all of Israel out loud). They turned it down, launched the 2nd intifada, and more or less have nothing now. and they have no one to blame but themselves. Why, because they could not, would not renounce the fantastical 'right of return'.

So the Israeli courts are the legitimate courts to take this to. As for the sentences, naturally to say it is just, or unjust, I would want to look at each case, individually, something I have neither the time, inclination, resources, or authority to do. But as a general rule, I would say for assault with a deadly weapon (i.e., throwing a stone at somebody) 20 months is a very lenient and compassionate sentence. And any conviction for shooting someone throwing stones at you is way too harsh. Frankly, I have aabsolutely no sympathy for rioters of any stripe or political complexion.

And, yes, while Israel maintains the occupation, they are the legal authority and the Palestinians can accept their rulings or pay the price, same as you or I would in the USA if we thumbed our noses at the courts.

I will be glad to answer any other questions.

[tinnypriv]

30. Fair enough

last question first: Yes. In general UN resolutions are worthless, especially from the General Assmebly. But unless the US is willing to enforce them, so are Security Council resolutions. There are dozens of resolutions against the Israeli 'occupation', and damn all against Palestinian terrorism. There is no enforcement mechanism for international law. International law is a JOKE.

Putting aside the fact that there are resolutions condemning all terrorism and a recent one condemning Palestinian terrorism specifically, and that 'occupation' should not be in scare quotes, I agree - international law is a joke insofar as regards enforcement. The expression of world opinion via the institutions of international law, however, is not - a distinction that you do not seem to recognise the existence of.

Now as for the Israeli courts. In 1967, the Arab nations were preparing, once again, to attack, in the hopes of destroying, Israel. Israel, not being a nation of fools, attacked first. They won. Throughout history, land has changed hands in consequence of war. And this happened this time, too.

Sure, but it so happens that after the Nazi conquests, the world decided that acquisition of territory by force was not to be tolerated. That applies to Western Sahara, East Timor, the lands captured by Israel and many others. If you want to argue that Israel is held to a higher standard than, say, the U.S when it invaded Mexico ("throughout history, land has changed hands in consequence of war"), fair enough, for whatever that observation is worth.

By that logic, Israel could enslave the Palestinian population, and you'd argue in justification that the West indulged in literal human slavery for hundreds of years.

The simple fact is that practices that were once tolerated no longer are. Conquering and retaining territory by force is one of them.

Oh, and "once again" should not be there. The only pre-1967 Arab attack on Israel did have the intent of destroying Israel, but that was not the only significant factor involved (maybe not even the most significant) - preventing Jordanian expansion into Syria and stopping refugee flight was a greater consideration in the minds of several of the Arab states. Certainly Jordan's involvement in 1948 was aimed at destroying a Palestinian state, not an Israeli state. Syria's intervention was (obviously) largely against Jordan, not Israel.

As usual, the world is more complex than the comic book images of Pure Evil (Arabs) and Pure Good (Jews), who do battle, David and Goliath-style.

Now, we could argue all day about the rights and wrongs of Israel being there. You may want to go back to 1948. As a Christian, I might want to go back to the Roman Empire. The Jews want to go back further. But here is a little scoop for you. When survival is at stake, issues of right and wrong take on a much reduced significance. And that is the case, here.

Nobody even pretends Israel's 'survival' was at stake in the 1967 war anymore. No surprise - U.S. and Israeli intelligence predicted at the time that if Israel was attacked first it would win a war in 10-14 days. If it initiated a preventative strike, the time to win would be shorter - 7 days.

Those estimates were borne out, and the lack of a 'survival' threat was later admitted by dozens of high-ranking and credible Israelis, say, Gen. Peled, Chief of Central Narkiss, Chief of IDF Ops Weizman, historian Van Creveld etc. Even the lack of a threat (never mind anything else) was admitted to be a sham by Begin.

Now, we can discuss the fine print of the 1967 war if you like (in general, I have an ambivalent view, for whatever that is worth) but serious discussion is impossible if you're going to cling to ridiculous myths, long ago discarded even by the IDF and the Israeli right-wing.

The Palestinians were offered 97% of the land they claimed (when they weren't claiming all of Israel out loud). They turned it down, launched the 2nd intifada, and more or less have nothing now. and they have no one to blame but themselves. Why, because they could not, would not renounce the fantastical 'right of return'.

Well, "97%" is a lie, as you surely know, but the rest is roughly accurate is you discard the venom. Regardless, I fail to see the relevance, unless you're arguing that an entire nation can be assumed to have lost all human rights and legitimacy, on the basis that part of the leadership turned down a (fabricated) offer we deem gracious, whilst the population refuses to renouce claims backed by the highest international authorities (including the U.S. at the time).

So the Israeli courts are the legitimate courts to take this to.

Are the Indonesian courts the appropriate forum for East Timorese? If not, why not?

As for the sentences, naturally to say it is just, or unjust, I would want to look at each case, individually, something I have neither the time, inclination, resources, or authority to do.

So, you are prepared to declare the courts "legitimate", without bothering to take the time to investigate their institutional structure, their judgments, etc. Fair enough, that should disqualify you from serious comment on any issue related to that topic, but I'll put that aside.

But as a general rule, I would say for assault with a deadly weapon (i.e., throwing a stone at somebody) 20 months is a very lenient and compassionate sentence.

Your definitions have internal contradiction. Throwing a stone is not "assault", because then the charge would be assault, and it is not. Moreover, a stone is not a "deadly weapon" in of itself, so that would be removed from the charge sheet (as it is, in this case).

So you would have to decide on a sentence for say, attempted assault. Bear in mind you would have to prove intent - hard, given that the distances involved are usually over 100 metres, and even the IDF admits the throwing is usually "symbolic", to quote military correspondents.

With that in mind, and assuming you had a case for intent, you would still hold that a 20 month sentence is "lenient"? I'm assuming you will answer yes, so answer this:

Please define a maximum sentence for the crime of "throwing stones" - not "assault" or even "attempted assault", because they are irrelevant (as in the case of tanks, BG jeeps etc).

And any conviction for shooting someone throwing stones at you is way too harsh. Frankly, I have aabsolutely no sympathy for rioters of any stripe or political complexion.

The case I was referring to was not at a "riot". The Palestinian was shot a few dozen feet away with an automatic weapon, with no provocation. Regardless, can I take your position to mean that any stone throwing whatsoever (in occupied territory, but put that aside) should be met with deadly force?

What if there is "no danger to life" (IDF rules of engagement)? Say, a child throwing a stone from 500 metres away, when the person involved is in full riot gear?

Has that child thereby renounced their right to existence? More specifically, has that child renounced their right to existence and also bestowed immunity upon their killer?

And, yes, while Israel maintains the occupation...

Internal contradiction again. I assume you meant to write 'occupation', and not occupation, sans scare quotes.

...they are the legal authority and the Palestinians can accept their rulings or pay the price, same as you or I would in the USA if we thumbed our noses at the courts.

Fair enough, though your comparison is flawed. A more accurate version would be for Russia to invade the United States and occupy the country, whilst establishing military courts to enforce diktats from the Kremlin.

Then your comparison comes into effect: we should obey those rulings or "pay the price". Not only that, we presumably should recognise the justice and benevolence of that arrangement.

If you say so.

[forgethell]

33. OK

It's late at night, I've had a hard day, I'll address your points a little later. However, one thing that always gets me is the constant references here as to how "complex" this or that situation is. So what? solutions, real solutions, are always fairly simple. Somebody wins, somebody loses. I suggest that you study the story of the Gordian knot. As few people seem to study the 'dead, white males' anymore, I have taken the liberty of enclosing a short link


http://www.geocities.com/~jlhagan/fineart/gallery3.htm

Good night, and as MacArthur once said, "I shall return".

[Aussie_Hillbilly]

50. Please!

Solutions, real solutions, are always fairly simple. Somebody wins, somebody loses.

You evidently are unfamilliar with the concept of a negotiated win-win settlement. Real solutions are those were both sides feel they have something to gain from complying with it. "Justice" is a factor too.

Other famous simple solutions:

Kill the poor, solve crime.
Kill the Jews, Save Germany.
"Fertilize the Bush, Bulldoze a Greenie"
Log the forests, end wildfires.

Remember the Gordian Knot?
Remember who cut through it with a sword instead of puzzling it out?
Remember what happened to him?

For those who don't read "dead white males" like Arrian's Campaigns of Alexander, Alexander the Great conquered half the world, but went mad with fear and paranoia, killed some of his friends and died horribly, poisoned by one he'd wronged.

That's not a path Israel should follow any further.

[forgethell]

34. I'm Baaaacccck!

The expression of world opinion via the institutions of international law, however is not - a distinction that you do not seem to recognize the existence of.

Now where did you get such a silly idea as that. I recognize the distinction, I just thin that it is a joke also. Why on earth do I care what the various dictators, genocidal monsters, corrupt crooks, and other various malefactors that form the basis of 'international opinion" think? why do you, for that matter. We are different cultures, and have different ideas about things, including right and wrong. I would venture to guess that my opinion is a valid as theirs, and I do not see that I should change my opinion on the basis of the votes of people with whom I have nothing in common.

...but it so happens that after the Nazi conquests, the world decided that the acquisition of territory by force was not to be tolerated.. Sure they did. That's why Germany is smaller than it was before Hitler came to power. That's why Tibet is a free and independent country http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/occu.html .
That's why Lithuania became a part of the late, lamented Soviet Union. A lot of mistakes were made after WW2. One of the biggest, IMO, is during de-colonization it was decided that the colonial boundaries were sacrosanct. So a lot of people that hated each others guts were placed together in the same nation. I think a lot of poor, bleeding Africa's problems stem from this.

If you want to argue that Israel is held to a higher standard,...fair enough, what whatever that observation is worth. At the minimum, the observation is worth the fact that a lot of people are hypocrites. Now I don't care, myself, if they are. Hypocrisy is the single most over-rated vice, IMO. We are all hypocrites about something. What it is, and why we are hypocrites about it determine whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony, so to speak.

Israel is not trying to enslave the Palestinian population, but to survive. The Palestinians have shown over and over that they cannot be trusted. If Israel picked up tomorrow and withdrew to the 1967 borders, the violence would not cease, because their own state on the West Bank and Gaza is not what they want. They want the total destruction of Israel. It is not necessary to listen to the self-justifications of such people.

The simple fact is that practices that were once tolerated no longer are. Conquering and retaining territory by force is one of them. Yeah?? When did human nature change? I must have missed that headline. Who is going to enforce this? The UN? Listen, you mentioned enslaving the Palestinian population. Where is slavery rampant today? That would be various Islamic-ruled countries. Places where Christians are kidnapped and sold into slavery. Jews probably would be, too, except there aren't many Jews in these places. Why would that be, do you suppose? Because the Jews were either killed or fled to some place else. Where would that be, do you suppose? And having fled there, do you think the Jews should just give up and die? Well, there are a lot of people who do. But they don't, and I don't suppose pious words about things not tolerated any longer are going to convince them.

As for pre-1967 Arab attacks not having the intent to destroy Israel, even * couldn't tell such a whopper with a straight face. Although I will grant you that other motives were in place. Ever heard of killing two birds with one stone?

I think, in my previous reply, that I mentioned 'complexity'. But let's not make it more complex by putting irrelevant material into the discussion. So what if intelligence predicted that Israel would win even if attacked first? According to you, and I have no reason to doubt you, it would win faster if it struck first. So, in order to assure its survival it should, and did. Look, even if it wasn't going to be wiped off the map, this time, why should it incur additional casualties to spare its enemies?? And, what is wrong with looking at the long-term picture? The Palestinians want to destroy Israel.

I don't know that the 97% is a lie. I do know that the Palestinians claim it is less, but they are including Israel in their calculations as part of 'Palestine'. Yeah, I believe that a nation can lose territory based on the decisions of its leadership. Territory is not the same as human rights. I also believe that in time of war, rights will get suspended.

I've already said what I intend to say about the courts. If you live under the authority of certain entities, including courts, whether it is right, or wrong, you should adjust yourself to the reality of them.

'Legitimate'?? What the hell is that, anyway. Whether or not the are de jure, they are de facto.

Throwing a stone is not "assault"????? What are you smoking? Don't play word games. You cannot possibly be serious.

Maximum sentence for throwing stones?? at somebody? 10 years. OK?

If attacked with deadly force, and I assure you that being 'assaulted' with a large rock or a brick IS deadly force, then yes, it can be met with even deadlier force. No one should have to put up with a rock on the head for a minute. did you know that often the Palestinians throw those rocks with slings? Probably not. I refer you to another tale of the 'dead,white males', i.e. David and Goliath.

500 yards away is a long way. Which incident was this child killed in?? Do you have a link? Were there other people, perhaps this child's loving father, shooting at the Israels at the same time? Was it possibly accidental?

Internal contradiction my ass!! When you have run out of valid arguments, do you always try distraction? Inquiring minds want to know!!! I left the quotes off because it was a typographical error, OK?

As for your comments about Russia invading the US. Once they had established themselves here, we would HAVE to obey, or pay the price. We might whine and moan and complain to Kofi, but Russia would pay far less attention than Israel does. I never, never, said the Palestinians have to recognize the justice and benevolence of the situation, but they should recognize the fact of it.

It might not be right, but it would be. And this is really what I find most objectionable about the Palestinian cause. They rage and murder, but they accomplish nothing. So they should stop, act like grown-ups, and try to get what they can peacefully.

[tinnypriv]

35. If you could remove the italics

I'll gladly reply. I can't tell what I wrote and what you are responding with.

[forgethell]

36. Sorry about that. My bad.

Up through these two sentences, "The simple fact is that practices that were once tolerated no longer are. Conquering and retaining territory by force is one of them. " as near as I can tell, italics were you. I think that is the last direct quote that I have from you that is not in quotation marks. But if I have mad a mistake, try it like this, if the statement seems reasonable to you, I probably didn't make it. I say this because we do seem to have a very basic disagreement in our views of this issue.

Regards,

:smoke:

[forgethell]

37. Here's a link that perhaps

you and I could agree presents a feasible solution??



http://iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmplh&ArticleId=516242

:kick:

[tinnypriv]

42. Well

It doesn't really present a "feasible solution", more of a series of interesting questions and (quite reasonable) observations.

Putting that aside, virtually everyone outside of the U.S. and Israel agree on the basic outlines of a solution - acceptance of some responsiblity for the Nakba, symbolic or limited return with mostly compensation, annexation of settlement blocs with a 1-1 land swap (of at least equal, perhaps greater quality), end of the occupation, establishment of an independent, viable, Palestinian state alongside Israel and full peace treaties between Israel and the Arab world.

The above is rejected flat-out by the United States and Israel (no responsibility, no return, no compensation, annexation and further expansion forever, withdrawal from the WB as they detemine, establishment of a 'state' in name only).

The PNA/PLO is quite close to accepting it - as are the Arab states. Everybody else accepts it virtually without exception - e.g. Europe, Asia, Russia, UN institutions, etc.

Further, the rejectionism of the U.S. and Israel (the above barely scratches the surface) is eroding the chance of a 'feasible solution' right at this moment. It was simple to find a solution 15 years ago, a lot easier to find one 5 years ago, and easier 1 year ago. It gets harder with every day that passes.

Sooner or later, no solution outside of war will be possible.

[forgethell]

43. OK

i]It was simple to find a solution 15 years ago, a lot easier to find one 5 years ago, and easier 1 year ago. It gets harder with every day that passes.

Yes, it was

Sooner or later, no solution outside of war will be possible

Israel and the Palestinians are at war now! This is the basis of my objections, the Palestinians wish to wage war without being attacked in turn. Can't be done. Vietnam taugtht the world the foolishness of giving the enemy a 'sanctuary'.

I am still working on my other response to you. The week-end wasn't as leisurely as I had expected.

[tinnypriv]

44. Vietnam

Taught the world than unless stopped a rampaging superpower will kill a million plus innocent people and some useful idiots will always be around to justify it.

In any case, I don't agree that the Palestinians and Israel are at war. That is a complex opinion, the reasons for which I've explained elsewhere.

I will admit that position is a minority one, however, though honest people can disagree on such things. For example, one of the best Hebrew correspondents on the military in Israel - Alex Fishman - believes that the sheer number of daily incidents in the Intifada 'constitutes a war'.

Regardless, maybe I should clarify - when I say "no solution outside of war will be possible", I mean a war outside the context of the occupation and the resistance - i.e. the Intifada. In other words, a general war, resulting in either the destruction of Israel or the destruction of the Palestinians. The former is not very likely in my view, but the latter is on the present course, and has to a large extent already happened.

[tinnypriv]

38. Reply

First off, considering the context of the discussion, before responding to each of your points I will list the points or observations you did not respond to in your reply. I'll assume the reason for that is either:

a) tacit acceptance your previous assertions were incorrect or
b) an unwillingness to address them, for whatever reason.

1. You failed to answer the question of whether the Indonesian courts are appropriate forum for East Timorese, instead preferring non-specific evasion.

To quote:

"If you live under the authority of certain entities, including courts, whether it is right, or wrong, you should adjust yourself to the reality of them".

Fair enough - so are the Indonesian courts the appropriate forum for East Timorese or not? Considering your previous lamentations about "complexity" and the ease of simple discussions, you seem to be indulging in a long-winded, generalised answer("entities", "authority", "right or wrong", "reality") in response to a simple question. I can only guess the reason for that is that you do not wish to apply your insights to real world situations - understandable, since that would betray complete contempt for the East Timorese, and nobody wants to do that in public.

2. You stated: "there are dozens of resolutions against the Israeli 'occupation', and damn all against Palestinian terrorism".

I responded: "there are resolutions condemning all terrorism and a recent one condemning Palestinian terrorism specifically". Clearly your statement was false, if my statement (which you ignored) was correct, which indeed it was. For documentation, consult S/RES/1435, which states:

"Condemning all terrorist attacks against any civilians, including the terrorist bombings in Israel on 18 and 19 September 2002 ... (The Security Council) reiterates its demand for the complete cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement and destruction"

This is by no means the only UN resolution to condemn "terrorist bombings", including some which mention suicide attacks specifically. Say, S/RES/1402, which expresses "its grave concern at the further deterioration of the situation, including the recent suicide bombings in Israel".

With the above taken into account, I'll respond to your answer.

Now where did you get such a silly idea as that. I recognize the distinction, I just thin that it is a joke also. Why on earth do I care what the various dictators, genocidal monsters, corrupt crooks, and other various malefactors that form the basis of 'international opinion" think?

You seem to be under the impression that the UN is filled with "various dictators, monsters, crooks, and malefactors". Not only that, but that they "form the basis of international opinion". Now, this might be a common refrain among hawkish Israeli and U.S. partisans, but that doesn't make it any more true. In fact, for future reference, you should assume such statements are lies, until demonstrated otherwise.

For the facts, the UN actually has a majority of either democracies or developing democracies. That is even putting aside the fact that international law in terms of borders is based on treaties (accepted by all), and makes no provision regarding the internal structure of the state within those borders. Nor should it, since that is a matter for other instruments of international legislation, public pressure, internal struggle, etc.

why do you, for that matter. We are different cultures, and have different ideas about things, including right and wrong. I would venture to guess that my opinion is a valid as theirs, and I do not see that I should change my opinion on the basis of the votes of people with whom I have nothing in common.

I doubt you have "nothing" in common with the rest of humanity. I would wager you have a great deal in common. Of course, you should make your own decisions about matters - I'm not sure where I ever stated otherwise, and fail to see how I could have given that impression.

Sure they did. That's why Germany is smaller than it was before Hitler came to power. That's why Tibet is a free and independent country http://www.friends-of-tibet.org.nz/occu.html. That's why Lithuania became a part of the late, lamented Soviet Union.

Putting aside the "lamented" slur, none of the above has any bearing whatsoever on the matter at hand: the rejection in international law of the concept of conquest of territory by force. The fact that territory has been conquered in spite of the illegality is another topic - enforcement.

A lot of mistakes were made after WW2. One of the biggest, IMO, is during de-colonization it was decided that the colonial boundaries were sacrosanct. So a lot of people that hated each others guts were placed together in the same nation. I think a lot of poor, bleeding Africa's problems stem from this.

Borders are not "sacrosanct". They can be changed by talks, mutual consent etc as long as those talks are recognised as legitimate by the international community. Take the creation of Israel - it is only a state because other nations recognised it to be so. There are many other cases.

We can agree about Africa, though I fail to see why we should discuss it, or anything related to what you said, since it is plainly irrelevant. If Africans want to mutually change their borders, and we recognise that, fair enough. If some African state wants to conquer more territory by force, we should reject that. The same principles hold in the Middle East.

The fact that the existing system is not perfect does not mean that the states and actors in the existing system do not have rights. This is so obvious as to be virtually a logical necessity.

At the minimum, the observation is worth the fact that a lot of people are hypocrites. Now I don't care, myself, if they are. Hypocrisy is the single most over-rated vice, IMO. We are all hypocrites about something. What it is, and why we are hypocrites about it determine whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony, so to speak.

Sure, but if you don't care, you should probably cease making the observation.

Israel is not trying to enslave the Palestinian population, but to survive.

The point was a hypothetical one, and if anybody is trying to "survive", it is the Palestinians, who have already experienced the disaster that Israelis fear (though the fear is exaggerated, given the comparative power of Israel).

The Palestinians have shown over and over that they cannot be trusted.

As have the Israelis, the Americans, the Chinese, in fact, every government or liberation movement in history. So what?

If Israel picked up tomorrow and withdrew to the 1967 borders, the violence would not cease, because their own state on the West Bank and Gaza is not what they want.

I see. You determine what "they" want, and opinion polls, personal testimony, decisions of the leadership - in fact, all evidence to the contrary - is irrelevant?

Here we see the wonder of political orthodoxy - the conclusions are required, so are true, by definition.

Hence, according to your argument, if the Palestinians express their willingness to have open borders and mutual recognition with Israel, full peace treaties, demilitarization next to one of the most powerful states on earth and the like, they're don't really want that. They actually (whatever the facts) want the destruction of Israel.

They want the total destruction of Israel. It is not necessary to listen to the self-justifications of such people.

And high officials in the Israeli leadership have already achieved the destruction of most of Palestine, and want to destroy what is left. Moreover, this opinion is considered a legitimate position within Israel. Therefore, the rights of Jews (or "such people") are abrogated?

Yeah?? When did human nature change? I must have missed that headline. Who is going to enforce this? The UN?

Putting aside the tantrum, I can explain my views on enforcement if you like, but again, that has no bearing on the fact that in principle the conquest of territory by force is rejected, without exception, by every state on the planet.

You are arguing that such conquest is legitimate, while at the same time lamenting that nobody could enforce compliance with UN resolutions on conquest in any event. While the latter is true, given the relations of power in the world, you don't seem to understand that the former contributes a great deal to perpetuating that unacceptable situation in world affairs.

If you decide that conquest is not legitimate, then perhaps you can discuss enforcement. Until then, you should have the decency drop the matter.

Listen, you mentioned enslaving the Palestinian population. Where is slavery rampant today? That would be various Islamic-ruled countries. Places where Christians are kidnapped and sold into slavery. Jews probably would be, too, except there aren't many Jews in these places. Why would that be, do you suppose? Because the Jews were either killed or fled to some place else. Where would that be, do you suppose? And having fled there, do you think the Jews should just give up and die? Well, there are a lot of people who do. But they don't, and I don't suppose pious words about things not tolerated any longer are going to convince them.

Actually, several tens of thousands of Jews live in "Islamic-ruled countries". It is true that a large proportion of Jews do not live in Islamic countries, but that is hardly surprising, given that:

1. The U.S. is not Islamic
2. Neither is Israel
3. Israel is in the Middle East, where most Islamic countries are (not necessarily the same as population, but that is another matter).

The rest of your observations on kidnapping, the internal state of Islamic societies, slavery etc I will address if you provide some evidence for the accusations, rather than a stream of hysterics.

As for pre-1967 Arab attacks not having the intent to destroy Israel..

To quote:

"The only pre-1967 Arab attack on Israel did have the intent of destroying Israel"

I added the italics this time, since you seem to have missed what I wrote in plain english the first time around.

I think, in my previous reply, that I mentioned 'complexity'. But let's not make it more complex by putting irrelevant material into the discussion. So what if intelligence predicted that Israel would win even if attacked first?

This barely rises to the level of hilarity.

In short then, your position is that when I assess claims regarding whether the 'survival' of Israel was at stake in 1967 I should not engage in the heresy of -shock- examining evidence from the Israeli intelligence agencies themselves, nor the army involved in the war, nor even the political leadership's subsequent statements?

Since that is complete nonsense, I can only assume your true objection to all this is my crime of assessing whether or not Israeli (by now actually U.S.) claims are accurate, insofar as regards the factual and documentary record. Again, political orthodoxy - it is convenient to believe that Israel's survival was at stake, so it was, whatever the facts.

According to you, and I have no reason to doubt you, it would win faster if it struck first. So, in order to assure its survival it should, and did. Look, even if it wasn't going to be wiped off the map, this time, why should it incur additional casualties to spare its enemies??

So, "even if it wasn't going to be wiped off the map", Israel should have "struck first", to "assure its survival".

A logic problem arises - if it was not going to be "wiped off the map" (which is the case), how could it be that the pre-emptive strike "assured" the survival of Israel, given that survival was not as stake (as admitted by everyone sane).

And, what is wrong with looking at the long-term picture? The Palestinians want to destroy Israel.

And that has precisely what to do with attacking Egypt, Jordan and Syria?

You could at least pretend to be serious by bringing in the (pathetic) cross-border attacks by the PLO at the time, though if you did, that talking point could be roundly demolished as well.

I don't know that the 97% is a lie.

Okay, let's see a map.

I do know that the Palestinians claim it is less, but they are including Israel in their calculations as part of 'Palestine'.

Actually, everyone claims it is less, including Barak, and the Palestinians did nothing of the sort.

Yeah, I believe that a nation can lose territory based on the decisions of its leadership.

Okay, but since the territory in question had no "leadership" beyond Jordan, the point is irrelevant.

Territory is not the same as human rights. I also believe that in time of war, rights will get suspended.

Fair enough, though that is barely relevant to the matters under discussion.

'Legitimate'?? What the hell is that, anyway. Whether or not the are de jure, they are de facto.

What the hell is that? Well, the word you used, for a start:

"..the Israeli courts are the legitimate courts to take this to"

If you want to withdraw that statement, go ahead, though I think it is a bit rich to denounce me for quoting you.

Throwing a stone is not "assault"????? What are you smoking? Don't play word games. You cannot possibly be serious.

If you want to pretend stone throwing is assault, fair enough. Here is a quick game:

Is throwing a stone at a tank "assault"?

If not, you might want to withdraw your definitions, and re-read mine, since the latter are accurate, and the former have internal contradiction, as I said.

Maximum sentence for throwing stones?? at somebody? 10 years. OK?

Well, that'd put the entire Palestinian population in an Israeli jail, but if you say so ;-)

If attacked with deadly force, and I assure you that being 'assaulted' with a large rock or a brick IS deadly force, then yes, it can be met with even deadlier force.

Why a ten year sentence (above) if the offense is punishable by death?

Internal contradiction again. In any case, I asked you if deadly force should be used if there is no threat to life. You've failed to answer this. I can only assume that you actually believe stone-throwing in of itself merits a quick death. Okay, I'm not sure many will agree with that, but its your dime.

No one should have to put up with a rock on the head for a minute. did you know that often the Palestinians throw those rocks with slings? Probably not.

Yeah, I usually comment on matters I know nothing about.

For the facts, the slings were used because the occupation forces would often shoot to maim via sniper scopes at long distances with impunity - for sport (as alleged), intimidation, etc. As is understandable, the people on the other end of the club did not see fit to rejoice in this, and attempted to compensate. Of course, that resulted in further brutality, but that is hardly their fault, since brutality is the consequence, whatever their actions.

500 yards away is a long way. Which incident was this child killed in?? Do you have a link?

The child case was hypothetical - perhaps that was not obvious. For the incident, see below.

Were there other people, perhaps this child's loving father, shooting at the Israels at the same time? Was it possibly accidental?

Well, I can only tell you the way Israeli military correspondents look at it. To quote Alex Fishman from Yediot Aharonot:

'Warning shots' that were fired from a distance of 500 meters (!!) with a machinegun. The Palestinian was killed. The officer who did the shooting was indicted on two counts: causing death by negligence and the illegal use of a weapon. He was given a suspended sentence and had his promotion stalled.

The (!!) appear in the Hebrew. The article in an in-depth look at IDF investigations that occur after shootings of Palestinians, Internationals, etc. Title: "Poorly investigated, Forgotten, and Buried". Link can be provided if you want to read the entire thing (basically concludes the investigations are joke, and politically motivated).

Internal contradiction my ass!! When you have run out of valid arguments, do you always try distraction? Inquiring minds want to know!!! I left the quotes off because it was a typographical error, OK?

There was no criticism implied, and I wrote that I "assumed" you meant the opposite.

As for your comments about Russia invading the US. Once they had established themselves here, we would HAVE to obey, or pay the price.

Not sure many Israelis would agree with that with regards to a Syrian invasion, but fair enough.

It might not be right, but it would be. And this is really what I find most objectionable about the Palestinian cause. They rage and murder, but they accomplish nothing. So they should stop, act like grown-ups, and try to get what they can peacefully.

They accomplish nothing because the west invents fanciful lies to justify oppressing them and stealing their land - some of which you've repeated. Unless that is stopped, we have no business telling them how to resist that oppression - in fact, such advice should be dismissed with contempt.

[forgethell]

39. Ah, damn

Now, in order to avoid addressing simple questions, you once again resort to diversions, obfuscations, etc, then claim the problems as 'complex'. Ok, I can play too. However, I will have to get back to you. Hang on.

I would like to address the problem of East Timor, though. Number one, I do not see it as relevant to an I/P discussion. Number 2, I am ashamed to admit, I have not been following the problem at all lately, so I cannot address it as I would like at this time. I'll have to refresh my memory. I will get back to you. Number 3. If the Indonesian courts have control and authority, legitimate or not, the the wise East Timorian will obey them. Otherwise, as happens in all courts, something horrible will happen to him. Now he can rebel, disobey, throw stones, whatever. Maybe even he will be right. But will that keep him out of jail or the grave, or whatever? So if he does, it is his decision. And the consequences are his, too, and I don't want to hear him whine. So let him fight for independence, jsutice, or whatever. But, and here is the important part, do not let him kill innocent women and children, and then claim this is an act of 'legitimate resistance'. No matter how often you keep going off this subject, I am going to return you to it.

Yes, I would like for perfect peace and justice to reign throughout the land, for women and gays and various people who have been unjustly balh blah for all these years to receive equality and their inheritance and blah, blah. But I also live in the real world, with real people, who do not intend to let various dissatisfied elements kill them or their innocent children.

Furthermore, you throw so much diversion out there that I find it impossible to find time to get to it all and refute it. I will try, as long as I can, but every single argument that you make does not have to be refuted in order for me to determine that you are wrong. and I never avoid questions. If I don't want to answer them, I'll just say so.

So while I am thinking about my more complete answer to your post, chew on this. Fact: Israel will not voluntarily go away.
Fact: Palestinians, and most Arabs, want to destroy
Israel.
Fact: All of them together do not have the military
might to do so.
Fact: Being otherwise helpless, the P's have decided
on a strategy of murder in order to force
Israel to meet their demands.
Fact: Israelis do not like being murdered.
Fact: The Palestinians want, and have said that they
want, their own state in order to continue
their attempts to destroy Israel.

Now based on these facts, what should Israel do? Please do not refer me to East Timor, or to trusting the UN, or any thing other than how Israel should ensure its own survival as a Jewish state. If it can do that, then complex it up all you want with justice for the Palestinians. But get the bottom line first: survival of Israel as a Jewish state.

Because unless that condition can be met, Israel is going to continue to 'occupy', or occupy, your choice, the West Bank. And the cause of the Palestinians will make no progress. This is not a moral judgement, but a practical one. I look forward to your reply.

[tinnypriv]

40. Since you have a problem with complex

I'll make it simple (though of course I never claimed anything was 'complex', period. I said the world is more complex than comic book images - I trust we can put this aside). In any event:

1. The end of terrorism should not be made a precondition to the advance of a political process. This is very important.

2. That process should be the eventual withdrawal from most of the West Bank, acceptance of the right of return in principle (in practice, will be symbolic), the end of the occupation (and the brutality, oppression and constant humiliation that goes with it), and the establishment of two states for two peoples.

Assuming that occurred, it is almost a universally held view that such a chain of events would reduce tension and violence, laying the basis for a long-term resolution.

That's the short version. Of course, I can make it longer if you like, in response to specific questions (say, counter-terror).

Now, before you disagree with (1), please bear in mind that these are not my opinions - I'm drawing this almost verbatim from former heads of the Shin Bet, ret. IDF, political commentators (mostly right-wing) etc. - hardly doves or crazy heretics. In the case of the first category, I can quote one of them:

"Only one thing interests me: how to have a Jewish democratic state here in the Land of Israel."

If you are interested in the same, you would do well to listen to what he and others like him have to say. To quote another former head of the Shin Bet, with regards to your view that the occupation is necessary, for the security of Israel as a Jewish state:

"We must, once and for all, admit that there is an other side, that it has feelings and that it is suffering, and that we are behaving disgracefully. Yes, there is no other word for it. Disgracefully.

It is all disgraceful. We debase the Palestinian man individually to all and sundry. And nobody can take this. We too would not take it if it were done to us. And neither do they take it, why should they suffer? And we are incapable of taking even a small step to correct this ... after all, this entire behavior is a result of the occupation. We have turned into a people of petty fighters using the wrong tools. And if we don't change this, there will be nothing here." ¹

Assuming you read the human rights reports, the views of Israeli doves, serious political commentators (Kaspit, Shahar, Levy, Barnea, Lavie, Fishman, Margalit, Michael etc), you should of course not find this opinion of his shocking or surprising.

This is of course putting aside whether or not, say, Pals should be subject to being treated literally like animals for no reason other than the fact that they're Arabs, trespassers in the Land of Israel (the latter is a consequence of maintaining control over the WB).²

-----

1. Yediot Aharonot, 14 Nov 2003.

2. 'Animals', see almost any report by Machsom Watch, or some recent articles in Kol Ha'ir. To pick one from each, IDF soldiers sometimes practice reading Arabic sentences on bewildered Palestinians. Say, 'hands on your head', or 'lie down'. No security reason - just for kicks and hilarity. They also sometimes savagely beat prisoners for 'looking' the 'wrong way' at them. Complaints are ignored if the soldier involved does extra shifts. They're on the receieving end of both of these as we speak. ('Bartaa', MW, 11 April 2004, Amnon Birman, Kol Ha'ir, 16 Jan 2004). 'Land of Israel', see virtually any testimony by IDF soldiers serving in the WB. An interview with one recently Ma'ariv (in Hebrew) revealed that he sincerely believed Jewish settlements to the east of Nablus were in Israel. See also any personally testimony of international activists, or Israeli human rights monitors (one example: 'flo'. ISM, 31 March 2004 - relates to the border police).

[forgethell]

41. I've got no problem

with complex. I've got a problem with needlessly complex. with complexity for the sake of complexity alone. I will get back to you sometime this weekend. I'm still working on East Timor.

[forgethell]

45. My reply

First off, considering the context of the discussion, before responding to each of your points I will list the points or observations you did not respond to in your reply. I'll assume the reason for that is either:

a) tacit acceptance your previous assertions were incorrect or
b) an unwillingness to address them, for whatever reason.

Assume nothing of the sort. You know what they say: Assume makes an “ass” out of “u” and of “me”. I might have considered them irrelevant, or even frivolous. More likely I either overlooked them and considered them subsumed into one of my other answers.

I am unsure of the relevance of East Timor to this discussion. My understanding is that they became independent in 2002. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/timor_05-20-02.html I believe they still are independent. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1530&ncid=721&e=12&u=/afp/20040425/wl_asia_afp/timor_australia_oil Check the date on this story. Do you have a specific example in mind? However, as a general rule, I would say that the power in control of a territory is ‘legitimate’ enough. But it would depend, I suppose, on what the definition of ‘legitimate’ is. So while East Timor was part of Indonesia, I would say that the Indonesian courts were the proper authorities. That doesn’t mean that their every act was legitimate. For instance, a little effort would find dozens, if not hundreds, of court decision in the United States that were incorrectly decided (for instance, it is widely known that * would not be President if the USSC had not illegitimately decided to stop the vote count). Family court alone, a true den of sloppy jurisprudence, should yield a mother lode of illegitimate decisions, if by that you mean they had no relation to justice. But the authority of these courts is undeniable. Does this answer your question as to my thoughts on this matter?

People in such territories have several choices, none of them necessarily pleasant. One, they can leave the area. Two, they can comply with the authorities. Three, they can rebel.

The Palestinians have chosen rebellion. OK. I have absolutely no problem with that. But, having chosen rebellion, they seem curiously unwilling to accept the consequences. In other words, they want the Israelis to allow them to murder them until they go back to Europe, or are killed, or “driven into the sea”. They say if the IDF stops its very effective actions (targeted assassinations), they will only kill IDF forces and “settlers”, i.e. civilians in the West Bank. Israel quite rightly rejects that. The Palestinians want to be at war while at the same time reaping all the benefits of Israeli civil society.

Concerning you little UN resolution, I noticed these clauses in it

Demands that Israel immediately cease measures in and around Ramallah including the destruction of Palestinian civilian and security infrastructure;
3. Demands also the expeditious withdrawal of the Israeli occupying forces from Palestinian cities towards the return to the positions held prior to September 2000;
I also notice that even the clause that you quoted “reiterates its demand for the complete cessation of all acts of violence, including all acts of terror, provocation, incitement, and destruction”. Great. I was wrong. Who’s going to enforce this resolution on the Palestinians? What is Israel supposed to do when the Palestinians send their suicide bombers? Stand there and take it? The UN is totally biased against Israel. There is no moral equivalency between Israel and the Palestinian terrorists. Yes, I do think that the UN is composed of dictators and thugs. Being the simple-minded fool that I am, I can see and recognize evil in the world. “Developing democracies”? What the hell is that? Cuba?? Zimbabwe?? Now, I don’t have a link handy, but the UN hasn’t even been able to define terrorism. Why? That would be because the US won’t allow an exception for ‘legitimate resistance’.

you seem to be under the impression that the UN is filled with "various dictators, monsters, crooks, and malefactors". Not only that, but that they "form the basis of international opinion". Now, this might be a common refrain among hawkish Israeli and U.S. partisans, but that doesn't make it any more true. In fact, for future reference, you should assume such statements are lies, until demonstrated otherwise.

Actually, I stand by my opinion of the UN and international opinion. I will, for future reference, assume all statements to the contrary are lies. I mean, do you see what I just did? I contradicted you with absolutely no evidence, offering only opinion. Exactly what you did. Oh, and I am, just for future reference, on the Israeli side.

You state, I doubt you have "nothing" in common with the rest of humanity. I would wager you have a great deal in common. Of course, you should make your own decisions about matters - I'm not sure where I ever stated otherwise, and fail to see how I could have given that impression

You doubt that I have nothing in common with the rest of humanity?? Damn decent of you!! Here is another little example of picking at nits to avoid the major questions. Of course I have something in common with the rest of humanity. But guess what? It is not our similarities, but our differences that cause the problems. I, for example, believe that no matter how just your cause, you are evil if you deliberately target and try to kill innocent women and children. I am unwilling even to discuss grievances that people might have until they have stopped and turned over those who have committed such acts to justice. This does not seem to be as much of a problem for you.

The UN does not have the interests of the United States at heart. Neither do its constituent governments. This is as it should be. But it means we must look out for our own interests. Being blown up is not in our interests.

the rejection in international law of the concept of conquest of territory by force. The fact that territory has been conquered in spite of the illegality is another topic - enforcement.

You seem to have your own simplistic view of “international law”. No matter what people agree, it is useless, meaningless, and worthy only of contempt unless someone is willing, and authorized, to enforce it. The only someone willing to do that is the United States, and then only occasionally. A law that is not enforced is no law at all.

Borders are not "sacrosanct". They can be changed by talks, mutual consent etc as long as those talks are recognized as legitimate by the international community. Take the creation of Israel - it is only a state because other nations recognized it to be so. There are many other cases.

Israel is a state because they won their battle for independence from the British. Recognition followed.

We can agree about Africa, though I fail to see why we should discuss it, or anything related to what you said, since it is plainly irrelevant. No more irrelevant that that crap about East Timor. Neither have much to do with the I/P situation. There is one remarkable similarity though: In all three of these areas, Muslims are on one side of the conflicts. Coincidental, no doubt. But then I am reminded of another old saying, “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time it’s enemy action.”

The fact that the existing system is not perfect does not mean that the states and actors in the existing system do not have rights. This is so obvious as to be virtually a logical necessity.

Oh? My opinion is that the international situation is quite Darwinian in nature. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to improve it, but I think we should recognize it for what it is.


At the minimum, the observation is worth the fact that a lot of people are hypocrites. Now I don't care, myself, if they are. Hypocrisy is the single most over-rated vice, IMO. We are all hypocrites about something. What it is, and why we are hypocrites about it determine whether it is a misdemeanor or a felony, so to speak.
Sure, but if you don't care, you should probably cease making the observation

Now, why would I do that? There are hypocrisies bad enough to care about, and these I should point out. Besides, just because I don’t care about a particular one, why should I deny myself a weapon with which to beaat you over the head? Yeah, I told you, I don't mind some hypocrisies.

The point was a hypothetical one, and if anybody is trying to "survive", it is the Palestinians, who have already experienced the disaster that Israelis fear (though the fear is exaggerated, given the comparative power of Israel).

We are just going to have to disagree about whose survival is at stake. I insist that it is the Israelis. But the comparative power of the two sides is irrelevant to who is the aggressor and who is the victim. If the Israelis really wanted the Palestinians destroyed, they would be so by now. The Palestinians can survive by behaving themselves, capturing and imprisoning their radicals who engage in death, and sitting down with the Israelis to come to a mutually satisfactory arrangement. But they must realize they won’t get a ‘right of return’, and I doubt they will get Jerusalem.

The Palestinians have shown over and over that they cannot be trusted.
As have the Israelis, the Americans, the Chinese, in fact, every government or liberation movement in history. So what?

Trust. You may be right that every liberation movement in history has proven that it isn’t worthy of trust. You may also be right about every government. Let’s get back to complexity for a minute. Would you trust the Rube Goldberg ( http://www.rube-goldberg.com/html/gallery.htm )policy recommendations of someone who cannot even follow simple thoughts? I wouldn’t. “So what,” you say, if the Palestinians cannot be trusted? This: don’t trust them. Make them give up something when they break their word that they will keep the peace. Something tangible, something that they can never get back if they default. In other words, each time an agreement is made and the Palestinians continue terror, the final boundaries should change in Israel’s favor. If the Palestinians are unwilling to keep their agreements, please tell me why the agreements should be made in the first place. If they are unable to keep the agreements, who should the agreements be made with? I would like a serious answer and not the blather about past history. Who, on the Palestinian side can both make and keep an agreement?? An agreement that the Israelis can also live with.

I see. You determine what "they" want, and opinion polls, personal testimony, decisions of the leadership - in fact, all evidence to the contrary - is irrelevant

Oh, you “see” that “I” determine what “they” want? What planet do you come from? I pay attention to the remarks of the Palestinians themselves. I lread www.yellowtimes.org , www.arabnews.com , www.memri.org , I read and post on www.islamicity.com , and half-a-dozen other Islamic and Arabic web sites. Plus other liberal, Democratic, and progressive websites. And I pay attention to what they say. And they say they want to throw the Israelis into the sea. I don’t know what you read, but the only one of the above sites that I mentioned that could even remotely be considered pro-Israel is Memri. I’m just wondering, do you suppose a losing side in a war might be willing to use lies to advance its agenda? By the way, opinion polls mean nothing, personal testimony means nothing. Decisions of the leadership, now that means something. When Arafat decides that he is willing to stop all terrorism against Israel, you be sure and let me know, ya hear.


Here we see the wonder of political orthodoxy - the conclusions are required, so are true, by definition You know, I can say exactly the same about you. So does that make me right, or you right?
You are arguing that such conquest is legitimate, while at the same time lamenting that nobody could enforce compliance with UN resolutions on conquest in any event. While the latter is true, given the relations of power in the world, you don't seem to understand that the former contributes a great deal to perpetuating that unacceptable situation in world affairs

Please do not misunderstand me: I do not lament the fact that nobody can enforce UN resolutions. I can think of nothing worse for the world that the current thugs having real power outside of their own countries. As for rejection of the conquest of territory by force, I admit that I am not an expert on international law, but somehow I was under the impression that was for ‘aggressive war’. As previously stated, the Arab states were the aggressors in 1967. Oh, and please stop the personal attacks. I’m willing to match my own decency against yours any day. Who gets to judge? That would be God. Are you He?

Listen, you mentioned enslaving the Palestinian population. Where is slavery rampant today? That would be various Islamic-ruled countries. Places where Christians are kidnapped and sold into slavery. Jews probably would be, too, except there aren't many Jews in these places. Why would that be, do you suppose? Because the Jews were either killed or fled to some place else. Where would that be, do you suppose? And having fled there, do you think the Jews should just give up and die? Well, there are a lot of people who do. But they don't, and I don't suppose pious words about things not tolerated any longer are going to convince them.
Actually, several tens of thousands of Jews live in "Islamic-ruled countries".

Let’s just skip over for the minute your evasion of my statements about slavery. There is no relevance to your statements about only 10,000s of Jews living in the Muslim dominated Mid-East. There used to be many more. Why did they leave? May I suggest that their peaceful Muslim neighbors made it uncomfortable for them? Now slavery: here’s a link. They are all over the Net, so if you are as intellectually honest as you make out, check them out. http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/856.cfm

To quote:
"The only pre-1967 Arab attack on Israel did have the intent of destroying Israel"
I added the italics this time, since you seem to have missed what I wrote in plain english the first time around.

My mistake: you are correct that I misquoted you. However, here is the complete quote The only pre-1967 Arab attack on Israel did have the intent of destroying Israel, but that was not the only significant factor involved (maybe not even the most significant) - preventing Jordanian expansion into Syria and stopping refugee flight was a greater consideration in the minds of several of the Arab states. Certainly Jordan's involvement in 1948 was aimed at destroying a Palestinian state, not an Israeli state. Syria's intervention was (obviously) largely against Jordan, not Israel. This may be true, but the intent to destroy Israel WAS a significant factor, and to pull this other stuff into it seems to me to be quite similar to saying the American Civil War was about state’s rights, or tariffs, or something other than slavery. And, why is it that the Jordanians did not want an independent Palestinian state? They are their Arab brothers, aren’t they (sarcasm)?

If intelligence predicted that Israel would win if they struck first, and if a good possibility existed that Arab countries were preparing to strike, the Israel should, on both moral and practical grounds strike first. Laugh your ass off.

I said, “even if it wasn’t going to be wiped off the map, Israel should have ‘struck first’, to ‘assure its survival’. Well, yes. Again, assuming that war was going to be inevitable, naturally Israel would want to minimize its own losses. Also, you are making a very foolish mistake. As we are finding out in Iraq, intelligence can often be wrong, or misinterpreted. Suppose Israel was attacked and lost. Again, you are picking at nits. Israel is in the situation that it can win a hundred times, but can only lose once. And nothing that you have said negates the fact that Israel had to look at the worst-case scenario.

Attacking Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Well, these were the armies amassing to destroy Israel. There was no Palestine. The West Bank was part of Jordan. Hell, the ‘Palestinians’, as such, hadn’t even been invented yet.

I think that we have already discussed ‘survival”. The amount of land offered, percentage wise, varies, of course, with who is talking. Still, my understanding is that Israel, and Bill Clinton, offered 97% of the land occupied in 1967. The Palestinian wanted it all. But I am willing to be convinced on this one. You got a link??

So, you are prepared to declare the courts "legitimate", without bothering to take the time to investigate their institutional structure, their judgments, etc. Fair enough, that should disqualify you from serious comment on any issue related to that topic, but I'll put that aside.

A government in charge of the territory has the right and duty to enforce its laws. The government may be ‘illegitimate’, whatever we have defined that to mean. For instance, the current government of the USA is considered illegitimate on this board. How many of us just start disobeying the laws? If we do, can we cry about going to jail? Shouldn’t we expect to. I think that I have mentioned that legitimate courts don’t always arrive at the right judgments. As far as institutional structure, are you saying that Israeli courts are not properly instituted? I don’t think so, but maybe I’m wrong. Explain you position more fully, please?

Your definitions have internal contradiction. Throwing a stone is not "assault", because then the charge would be assault, and it is not. Moreover, a stone is not a "deadly weapon" in of itself, so that would be removed from the charge sheet (as it is, in this case). Sure, it’s assault. Name of charges can vary, but here is the www.dictionary.com definition of “assault” Law.
a. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
b. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.
If the stone actually hit a soldier, that would be ‘battery’. I stand by my comments about assault. And if you really don't think that a stone is a deadly weapon, then ask somebody to throw a few at your head.
Now here is a problem that I have with your arguments. Let’s take your question about throwing a rock at a tank. If it is thrown at a soldier riding exposed on the tank, or in any circumstances where it might harm a human being, then yes, it is assault. If at a closed tank, that would be vandalism.

You ask why a ten year sentence if the offense is punishable by death? Sorry, I don’t recall saying that the offense was ‘punishable’ by death. I said that it could be met with deadlier force. No punishment is involved.

You talk about if the child is 500 feet away; if the soldier has full riot gear; if immunity is bestowed upon the killer. No matter what I say, you can always find a specific instance where I wouldn’t have covered all the circumstances. So I am just going to say this, I hope that you can find a way to figure out what my answer would be. Even soldiers have the right to self-defense. The immediate level of violence would probably influence his choice to fire. Rioters and ‘demonstrators’ have no chain of command to which they responsible. Soldiers in the IDF do. This tends to restrain them somewhat more that the rioters or demonstrators. It is very easy to decide that life was not at risk after the fact. I tend to believe that the guy on the ground probably has a better idea about the real risk than a court several months later. If soldiers fire during a civil disturbance, there should definitely be an investigation. If there was reasonable risk of death, or a reasonable belief in that risk, then I think the soldier should not be punished. Which means, if you go to demonstrate and throw rocks at armed soldiers, you do so at your own risk.

Finally, I don’t know everything; neither do you. I have my biases, so do you. I try to get sufficient information to make sound decisions and try to put aside my prejudices. I am going to asume that you do, too. However, I also look at the people feeding me information. If I don’t trust them, if they have lied to me before, I may discount what they say if there is no corroborating material. If they are braggarts, constantly promising what they do not perform (that would be controlling terrorism), given to bombastic threats (that would be Arafat, Hamas, all the mighty warriors of Allah, etc.) and murderers (the suicide bombers and those that send them) then I don’t trust them.

I guess I’m just judgmental.

I have undoubtedly not answered all your points. However, they were simply overlooked. Please feel free to ask for any clarifications that you desire.

[tinnypriv]

46. n/t

Just keeping this topic out of the archive (PM message still stands) :)

[forgethell]

48. OK, n/t

[forgethell]

49. kick n/t

[tinnypriv]

12. Another question

Would you have condemned the activists of the Zionist movement against British soldiers, justifying British violence against Jews?

[forgethell]

14. Absolutely.

The Irgun was a horrible organization.

[tinnypriv]

15. No, I mean all Zionist violence

i.e. 99% of the struggle against the British. Including the Haganah (IDF).

You condemn that?

[forgethell]

17. Yes n/t

[tinnypriv]

18. Interesting - noted (nt)

[elsaamo]

29. Do you therefore condemn

Palistinean terrorist violence?

[tinnypriv]

31. Obviously

You may want to do a search on my unwavering condemnation of that terrorist violence, even going so far as to criticise "pro-Palestinian" posters who condemn the image problem resulting from that terror, and then the terror itself.

I have also criticised posters who change the subject in threads related to Palestinian terrorist atrocities, making clear my complete repugnance at such behaviour whilst the victims lie smoking.

[elsaamo]

32. Good

[Classical_Liberal]

25. exactly

.