Palestinian update

[Mycroft]

Yes, every society needs a chance to create its own future. I’m sure Zenith-Nadir can give you a long list of agreements and negotiations, each of which represents an opportunity to create a future of peace, security, economic prosperity, and independence. They have had many chances, they will have many more. What they need is the will to take the chance and make something of it.

 

[Jim Bowen]

Interesting article in the Independent yesterday about the Israeli army deliberately destroying Palestinian homes for no reason other than that they belonged to Palestinians. Although I daresay that a few members of this forum will probably have already decided that these homes housed suicide bombers, Osama Bin Laden, a couple of nerve gas plants and all sorts of other nasties, rather than face the fact that the Israelis are guilty of anything approaching an atrocity.

Jim Bowen (in sarcasm mode)

 

[Giz]

Interesting article in the Independent yesterday about the Israeli army deliberately destroying Palestinian homes for no reason other than that they belonged to Palestinians. Although I daresay that a few members of this forum will probably have already decided that these homes housed suicide bombers, Osama Bin Laden, a couple of nerve gas plants and all sorts of other nasties, rather than face the fact that the Israelis are guilty of anything approaching an atrocity.

Jim Bowen (in sarcasm mode)

Whereas in your unbiased eyes it's obvious that it was those e-e-evil IDF types deciding to expend some ordanance on civilians just for kicks. Cause that's what disciplined soldiers with a clear chain of command, in a democratic state, with a civilian supreme court overseeing, and a vocal peace/human rights movement go around doing yeah?
Burden of proof? Reasonable doubt? Naah - they're eeeevil!

Seems safe to me, c'mon skeptic's! There's no way there coulda been a reason...

(I need a smiley, but there doesn't appear to be one big enough for the job...)

 

[a_unique_person]

First, if there is a word for "breakdown in society" it is not "genocide. No matter what "special insight" your fever produces, it does not take a word that describes the systematic attempt to kill every member of an ethnicity and transfer it to "breakdown in society".

Society and culture are delicate things, built up over time. As your sig demonstrates, you celebrate the destruction of Palesinian culture.

Second, in absolutely no way do I celebrate Palestinian-Arab suffering. I agree the breakdown in their society is something that was imposed upon them, but the ones doing the imposing are the Imams who twist Islam into a death cult, the Palestinian-Arab "politicians" who loot their economy and teach their children they have no future except to struggle in a war they cannot win, or the foreign governments who keep the refugees in camps for generations without granting them basic rights. Next to this, checkpoints and military operations are nothing.

The Imams are who the desperate turn to. Look at Iraq, in times of fear and desperation, people turn to god for help. He may not be there, he may not do anything, but, when there is nothing else, that appears to be human nature.

Ah, I see you're getting confused on the time scale again. We were talking about pre-independence Zionism, suddenly we're fast-forwarding several decades to post six-day war.

I have made several references to the quote from Sharon, mainly because neither you nor ZN seem to have much to say about it.

The reason it is important is that it is defining policy for the past 40 years, and current policy. The 'useful idiots' of Likud don't seem to realise they arent required in gaza any more, and still believe in it.

Don’t you ever feel embarrassed by these things you say? You’re so eager to bash everything Israeli that you’re willing to hold 1920’s immigrants to 2004 environmental standards. Gone is your concern for the Palestinian-Arabs you were weeping for just a few paragraphs ago who were the ones dying of disease. No, their deaths are unimportant when your insight offers you another excuse to bash the Zionists.

Eighty years ago people had barely figured out it was a bad idea to dump sewage into their drinking water, and you’re criticizing the Zionists for not doing an environmental impact study before draining malarial swamps. What a bigot.

You're the one called it a sh!thole, not me. Bigot.

Right, you never claim it outright, you just imply it with statements like, "I don't see why the Palestinians had to pay for the sins of the Europeans."

I still don't

Yes, every society needs a chance to create its own future. I’m sure Zenith-Nadir can give you a long list of agreements and negotiations, each of which represents an opportunity to create a future of peace, security, economic prosperity, and independence. They have had many chances, they will have many more. What they need is the will to take the chance and make something of it.

Oslo had to be made to fail. The conservative of Israel were every bit as much behind it's failure as any Palestinian terrorist. Note again, Sharon's claim, the government was facilitating settlers, even when Oslo was meant to have stopped them. And if you were an Israeli PM and were prepared to remove them, well, you know the rest.

 

[zenith-nadir]

The Palestinian-Arab hardships have been a result of war. Wars they have played a key role in creating. Your statement ignores that reality. All your statements ignore that reality.

I've noticed that about a_u_p, Davefoc, Demon, the Fool, Carpel Dodger, etc. They never mention the wars.

Not the war in 1948 - which the arabs started when the forces of Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Transjordan and Syria invaded.

Not the war in 1956 - which Egypt started when it sponsored raids on Israeli civilians by fedayeen, closed the Strait of Tiran and blockaded Israeli shipping.

They never speak about the reason Gaza and the West Bank are occupied, because of a war in 1967 - which the Arabs started when Syrian aircraft-shelled Israeli border villages as Nasser forced the withdrawal of UN peace keeping forces from Gaza and Sinai while he massed his troops at Israel's border and once again blockaded Israeli shipping at the Straits of Tiran. To a_u_p, Davefoc, Demon, the Fool, Carpel Dodger, etc. the war in 1967 was solely to occupy Gaza and the West Bank...period.

If they mention the wars - and the causes of the wars - then they have to admit that Israel was the party who was attacked time and time again.

Note again, Sharon's claim, the government was facilitating settlers, even when Oslo was meant to have stopped them. And if you were an Israeli PM and were prepared to remove them, well, you know the rest.

Now Sharon is responsible for the failure of Oslo seven years before he was elected Prime Minister... ....you're really reaching a_u_p....

[edited to add]

Oslo said nothing about a freeze on settlements. It did say;

It is understood that, subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal, Israel will continue to be responsible for external security, and for internal security and public order of settlements and Israelis.

Jurisdiction of the Council will cover West Bank and Gaza Strip territory, except for issues that will be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations: Jerusalem, settlements, military locations and Israelis.

 

[a_unique_person]

I've noticed that about a_u_p, Davefoc, Demon, the Fool, Carpel Dodger, etc. They never mention the wars.

I have mentioned it plenty of times, a war of resistance to an colonialist invasion.

Not the war in 1948 - which the arabs started when the forces of Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Transjordan and Syria invaded.

Not the war in 1956 - which Egypt started when it sponsored raids on Israeli civilians by fedayeen, closed the Strait of Tiran and blockaded Israeli shipping.

They never speak about the reason Gaza and the West Bank are occupied, because of a war in 1967 - which the Arabs started when Syrian aircraft-shelled Israeli border villages as Nasser forced the withdrawal of UN peace keeping forces from Gaza and Sinai while he massed his troops at Israel's border and once again blockaded Israeli shipping at the Straits of Tiran. To a_u_p, Davefoc, Demon, the Fool, Carpel Dodger, etc. the war in 1967 was solely to occupy Gaza and the West Bank...period.

If they mention the wars - and the causes of the wars - then they have to admit that Israel was the party who was attacked time and time again.
Hey if that is what you need to believe then that's fine with me.... F.Y.I. you're wrong and know nothing about Islamic fundamentalism.


Now Sharon is responsible for the failure of Oslo seven years before he was elected Prime Minister... ....you're really reaching a_u_p....

[edited to add]

Oslo said nothing about a freeze on settlements. It did say;

I said the government policy was around, and Sharon was a part of that policy. Note what he said, the Government put the settlers into Gaza. How long have the settlements been in Gaza?

 

[The Fool]

I've noticed that about a_u_p, Davefoc, Demon, the Fool, Carpel Dodger, etc. They never mention the wars.

Why do you do it ZN? Is lying compulsory for all those who give the Israeli Government thier unquestioning support in whatever they choose to do...

Many of the people who post here, particularly Capel Dodger have been very patient explaining various aspects of the Arab Israeli wars to you....It appears to be pointless as you cannot stop yourself from returning to your default position which is to simply make up whatever position you wish to disagree with... Why is the straw man so important to you? Why not just get a mirror to debate with?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Society and culture are delicate things, built up over time. As your sig demonstrates, you celebrate the destruction of Palesinian culture.

I can’t say I understand what your statement about society and culture has to do with your inappropriate use of the word "genocide", but I doubt you really understand it either. The bottom line is you want to use a word where it doesn’t fit because it’s got an emotional punch that fits your agenda. Facts don’t matter to you.

There is nothing in my sig that celebrates anything. There is a rather ugly and graphic slideshow about the Palestinian-Arab phenomena known as "car swarms", where whenever a car exploded hundreds of young men dig through the wreckage apparently for souvenirs. The question, "What is a car swarm" is meant literally, I don’t understand why they do that. There is also a link to a poster with a political message that illustrates a truth about many peoples world-view, and there is a rather nice (in my opinion) quote from the Quran illustrating what I think is one of the more positive aspects of Islam. I guess you could call that last part celebratory, but I doubt that’s what you had in mind.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The Imams are who the desperate turn to. Look at Iraq, in times of fear and desperation, people turn to god for help. He may not be there, he may not do anything, but, when there is nothing else, that appears to be human nature.

Many people, especially in the ME, turn to religion anyway. It doesn’t excuse the Imams, who happen to be more comfortable than the average citizen, from turning Islam into a death-cult, nor does it alter its effect on Palestinian-Arab society. To ignore both their culpability and their potential for using their influence for the good is disingenuous at best.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have made several references to the quote from Sharon, mainly because neither you nor ZN seem to have much to say about it.

That’s because there is not much to say about it. He is a politician trying to win support for a plan.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The reason it is important is that it is defining policy for the past 40 years, and current policy. The 'useful idiots' of Likud don't seem to realise they arent required in gaza any more, and still believe in it.

You losing track of your time-lines again. A statement made today can not define policy 40 years ago. Time flows forward, not backward.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You're the one called it a sh!thole, not me. Bigot.

Right. I make a comment about land and somehow that’s bigoted against people. Nice try.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I still don't

And they still don’t. It’s still the Jews, not the Arabs, that paid for European sins. Unless you hold the rather bigoted view that someone of a different ethnicity buying up land next to you is some sort of penance. The sins they are paying for are the sins of certain Arab leaders who decided to wage, and then had the misfortune to lose, a race war.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Oslo had to be made to fail. The conservative of Israel were every bit as much behind it's failure as any Palestinian terrorist.

Nope. You and I have discussed this before. Oslo was a staged plan. Israel lived up to it’s first stage obligation, Arafat did not.

When you continue to ignore the text of the agreement even when they’re presented to you time and time again, you only demonstrate the depth of your denial.

 

[Jim Bowen]

Whereas in your unbiased eyes it's obvious that it was those e-e-evil IDF types deciding to expend some ordanance on civilians just for kicks. Cause that's what disciplined soldiers with a clear chain of command, in a democratic state, with a civilian supreme court overseeing, and a vocal peace/human rights movement go around doing yeah?
Burden of proof? Reasonable doubt? Naah - they're eeeevil!

Seems safe to me, c'mon skeptic's! There's no way there coulda been a reason...

(I need a smiley, but there doesn't appear to be one big enough for the job...)

Considering the huge numbers of Palestinian civilians that are being shot/blown up, etc, it seems that either the Israeli army are extremely bad shots and trigger happy, or something is very wrong over there.

Jim Bowen

 

[zenith-nadir]

Considering the huge numbers of Palestinian civilians that are being shot/blown up, etc, it seems that either the Israeli army are extremely bad shots and trigger happy, or something is very wrong over there.

Jim Bowen

The thing that is "wrong" is that the Palestinian Authority allows terrorists and militants to use Palestinian civilians and civilian areas for cover and concealment from the IDF. Why the Palestinian Authority does not protect civilians under it's control from being used as human shields by Hamas, Al Aksa and Islamic Jihad militants is a mystery that can only be explained by the fact that the Palestinian Authority supports the militants. Perhaps there would be less Palestinian civilian casualties if the militants were not allowed to use civilian areas as bases of operation. Another mystery is why the U.N.doesn't stop Hamas, Al Aksa and Islamic Jihad militants operating from within the UN-run refugee camps like Balata, Tulkarm, Jenin, Jabalia, Khan Younis, Bureij....

 

[a_unique_person]

Right, you never claim it outright, you just imply it with statements like, "I don't see why the Palestinians had to pay for the sins of the Europeans."

I meant nothing more, and nothing less, than what I said. Any implications are purely your own fabrications, and I would like you to stop making them, and attacking me for what you have invented.

Argue with me for what I have said, for what are facts, but this constant attacking me for what you think I really mean and think is just abusive.

 

[Mycroft]

I meant nothing more, and nothing less, than what I said. Any implications are purely your own fabrications, and I would like you to stop making them, and attacking me for what you have invented.

Argue with me for what I have said, for what are facts, but this constant attacking me for what you think I really mean and think is just abusive.

I am arguing with you for what you said. When you say, "I don't see why the Palestinians had to pay for the sins of the Europeans" you're saying that immigration of another ethnicity is inherently bad for the ethnicity already there.

With any other ethnic groups, the racism would be self-evident.

Suppose the United States started welcoming refugees from Darfur, and they came to my neighborhood and started buying land and building communities. If I said, "I don't see why I should have to pay for the sins of the Sudan government." and organized riots and pogroms against these refugees, you would correctly label me as a racist.

If later on these riots and pogroms which I organized escalated into a race war, it wouldn't be fair to place the blame for that conflict on the immigrants. Yet somehow when the ethnicities involved are Arab and Jew, it’s taken for granted, "Oh, well of course they want to kill the immigrants!"

Incidentally, it’s disingenuous of you to claim I’m attacking you for things you haven’t said when you’re claiming I’m celebrating Palestinian-Arab misery or consider them to be animals. If anything, you’re the one who denies their humanity when you claim they’re only capable of reaction and have no responsibility in creating their own fate.

 

[a_unique_person]

I am arguing with you for what you said. When you say, "I don't see why the Palestinians had to pay for the sins of the Europeans" you're saying that immigration of another ethnicity is inherently bad for the ethnicity already there.

With any other ethnic groups, the racism would be self-evident.

Suppose the United States started welcoming refugees from Darfur, and they came to my neighborhood and started buying land and building communities. If I said, "I don't see why I should have to pay for the sins of the Sudan government." and organized riots and pogroms against these refugees, you would correctly label me as a racist.

If later on these riots and pogroms which I organized escalated into a race war, it wouldn't be fair to place the blame for that conflict on the immigrants. Yet somehow when the ethnicities involved are Arab and Jew, it’s taken for granted, "Oh, well of course they want to kill the immigrants!"

Incidentally, it’s disingenuous of you to claim I’m attacking you for things you haven’t said when you’re claiming I’m celebrating Palestinian-Arab misery or consider them to be animals. If anything, you’re the one who denies their humanity when you claim they’re only capable of reaction and have no responsibility in creating their own fate.

If that was all Sudanese did, I would agree. What if they bought land off you, and said they would never sell it back to anyone, but would reserve for the use of who they saw fit to use it. Then they said they intended to set up a Sudanese state, with it's own government, and they would do it without any consultation or regard for those living there already. And, to ensure that this Sudanese paradise worked for Sudanese, they would 'ethnically cleanse' many non-sudanese from the area, so that the sudanese were a majority.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
If that was all Sudanese did, I would agree. What if they bought land off you, and said they would never sell it back to anyone, but would reserve for the use of who they saw fit to use it.

If to facilitate Sudanese immigration an agency was set up to buy land for Sudanese refugees, I would not find it remarkable at all if their policy was to reserve this land for the use of Sudanese people. If they stated their intention was to never sell it to a non-Sudanese, I wouldn’t take that seriously, forever is a long time. Today, this very same Jewish Agency you refer too does indeed lease land to Israeli Arabs just as it does to Israeli Jews.

Originally posted by a_unique_person Then they said they intended to set up a Sudanese state, with it's own government, and they would do it without any consultation or regard for those living there already.

I wouldn’t support such a thing today in the United States. We have a pretty good constitution that protects our rights and allows everyone representation. It would be expected, however, that a large influx of immigrants would shape the local governments to come. It’s very likely that future mayors and city councilmen would be Sudanese, and I can see no problem with that.

If there were no United States government, then it would be different. If a nationalist government were to be organized in the future, these immigrants would have the same rights in forming that government as anyone else. Possibilities include a government that includes both ethnic Americans and ethnic Sudanese, or even a small Sudanese state in a larger ethnic American region. Neither of these possibilities seems very frightening, certainly not worth killing over.

In any case, if these refugees proposed something I didn’t agree with, my response would not be to kill them.

Originally posted by a_unique_person And, to ensure that this Sudanese paradise worked for Sudanese, they would 'ethnically cleanse' many non-sudanese from the area, so that the sudanese were a majority.

If the ethnic cleansing happened as a result of a race war waged against the Sudanese immigrants, I would not hold the Sudanese responsible for it, nor blame them too harshly when they didn’t invite the white refugees back afterwards.

 

[Jim Bowen]

The thing that is "wrong" is that the Palestinian Authority allows terrorists and militants to use Palestinian civilians and civilian areas for cover and concealment from the IDF. Why the Palestinian Authority does not protect civilians under it's control from being used as human shields by Hamas, Al Aksa and Islamic Jihad militants is a mystery that can only be explained by the fact that the Palestinian Authority supports the militants. Perhaps there would be less Palestinian civilian casualties if the militants were not allowed to use civilian areas as bases of operation. Another mystery is why the U.N.doesn't stop Hamas, Al Aksa and Islamic Jihad militants operating from within the UN-run refugee camps like Balata, Tulkarm, Jenin, Jabalia, Khan Younis, Bureij....

Considering that the might of the American army can't control terrorists/resistance fighters in Iraq, I'm not sure that the Palestinian authority would have much luck in stopping the various organisations in Palestine. However, the Israeli army is the force of a state and is more answerable for its actions. So the question is why doesn't Israel do something about its violence?

Jim Bowen

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
Considering that the might of the American army can't control terrorists/resistance fighters in Iraq, I'm not sure that the Palestinian authority would have much luck in stopping the various organisations in Palestine.

Back in '94 Israel agreed to train and arm a Palestinian-Arab security force of some 50,000 with the understanding that they would act as police for the autonomous Palestinian-Arab regions and act to track down and arrest terrorists. During the next three years they arrested exactly zero terrorists, and it was later learned that these Israeli trained security officers were actually planning and staging terrorist attacks from their police stations.

It’s not all that surprising when you consider that the Palestinian Authority, the political body that is supposed to represent the Palestinian-Arab people, is formerly the terrorist organization known as the PLO. Imagine if someone tried to bring "peace" to 1920’s Chicago by making Al Capone Mayor and letting him hire his gang as city paid police officers, would anyone be surprised if crime increased and these police officers were involved?

More recently, Arafat’s headquarters was raided and documents were seized that showed records of Arafat using Palestinian-Arab tax moneys to support terrorist organizations.

So to answer your question, if the Palestinian Authority were to make an honest effort to arrest terrorists and bring them to justice, one could be understanding if they were not 100% successful. There is no law enforcement anywhere that is. The issue, however, is not that they can’t stop terrorism, but that (at best) they look the other way and (often) actively encourage it.

Add further Arafat’s (and other Palestinian-Arab leaders) open praising of suicide-bombers on Palestinian-Arab television and that Arafat called for this most recent intifada, and you have a situation that is very, very different from the US forces battling insurgents in Iraq.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
However, the Israeli army is the force of a state and is more answerable for its actions. So the question is why doesn't Israel do something about its violence?

What we have here is a weird double-standard applied to this conflict. The reality is that the Palestinian-Arabs have been waging a low intensity guerrilla war against Israel. Critics of Israel expect Israel to ignore this reality and to behave as though there was a state of peace between these two peoples. They believe Israel should throw open its borders so Palestinian-Arabs who want to seek employment (or mayhem) in Israel can do so, they should negotiate with the Palestinian-Arab leadership, and any defensive measure they take is considered to be the moral equivalent of any normal war action made in a time of peace.

Simultaneously, when these same critics look at the Palestinian-Arab side of the conflict, they recognize there is a state of war and expect the Palestinian-Arabs to behave accordingly, only without any of the internationally recognized standards of war. They don’t seem to care, for example, when they target civilians, use children as soldiers, use their own people as human shields, use ambulances to move combatants or weapons, use UN vehicles to move combatants or weapons, or place military targets such as weapons caches or bomb factories in densely populated civilian areas.

It’s my personal opinion that this refusal to hold the Palestinian-Arabs to the same standards of behavior the rest of the world is held to represents a kind of anti-Arab racism. Patronizingly, their very own supporters consider them as children, not responsible for any of their actions and incapable of any response other than violence.

 

[Jim Bowen]

Interesting stuff, but I guess after all the ill treatment that the Palestinians have received from the Israelis they had a lack of interest in exerting themselves over much on behalf of Israel. The problems of the government of the areas of Palestine that Israel hadn't yet pinched in controling these people still remains a factor. How does one persuade a dissaffected people to change their ways? As the American hearts and minds campaign in Falluja shows, with a lot of difficulty.

As regards the state of war that exists in Palestine and the Palestinian guerilla tactics, I'm assuming that the only acceptable option to many is for them to fight an open conflict with Israel and so march about on the plains and get bombed or run over by tanks rather than fighting back in the way that they do.

Jim Bowen

 

[Mycroft]

As regards the state of war that exists in Palestine and the Palestinian guerilla tactics, I'm assuming that the only acceptable option to many is for them to fight an open conflict with Israel and so march about on the plains and get bombed or run over by tanks rather than fighting back in the way that they do.

Either rules of war apply or they don't. You can't say they apply to one side and not the other, or that they only apply to the stronger side and the weaker side is free to ignore them. If we accept any other reasoning, then any atrocity anywhere can be justified, and that defeats the purpose of having standards of civilized behavior.

Aside from that, your statement presents a false dichotomy. It is not a choice between targeting civilians and using your own citizens as human shields or marching on the open plain where you can be slaughtered by a superior force. A successful guerrilla campaign can be waged without doing either of those things. The Geneva Convention does take into guerrilla warfare into account and allows for it.

In addition, there are non-violent avenues that can be explored. Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luthor King Jr. did show the world that passive resistance and non-violent protest can be effective in achieving peaceful goals, and recent peace proposals include the Roadmap and the Camp David proposal under the Clinton administration.

 

[Jim Bowen]

Rules in warfare are a good idea, yet in this case rules of engagement are cited whenever the Palestinians break them and not when the Israelis do. I guess that in this case the only honourable thing for the Palestinian resistance is to launch a guerilla campaign from the plains and hope that they don't get bombed into oblivion.

The road map was a good notion, but it takes both sides to follow it and there are faults on both sides.

Jim Bowen

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
Rules in warfare are a good idea, yet in this case rules of engagement are cited whenever the Palestinians break them and not when the Israelis do.

If that's your impression, then you don't follow the news much. The Israeli/Arab conflict is under the microscope of world media, getting attention way out of proportion to its significance.

Have you ever heard of a bus bombing referred to as a war crime? No, it's terrorism done by terrorists, that's what they do. Even when the media refuses to call them terrorists.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen
I guess that in this case the only honourable thing for the Palestinian resistance is to launch a guerilla campaign from the plains and hope that they don't get bombed into oblivion.

I specifically said otherwise. They have many honorable alternatives.

Originally posted by Jim Bowen The road map was a good notion, but it takes both sides to follow it and there are faults on both sides.

There is fault on both sides, but what does that mean to you? Does it inspire you to look into it futher and discover what the faults are? Or is this your way of dismissing the whole issue by settling into a comfortable but ill-informed they're both equally to blame position?