Peace Plan - "Accept it or face more violence."

Olmert is in political trouble, and needs to appear tougher than anyone to his right! I already made this same exact point earlier in the thread ---
Post # 59

Look, aup, you indicated in another thread discussing the "Peace Plan"--
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2491895&postcount=8
"How do you know that some people who lost their homes might not just want to go back to them?"

and you have been challenged to put forth some evidence that would back up this amazing supposition. Do you, or don't you, have anything to show that palestinians from 1948, who lost their homes, are prepared now to return to Israel and accept Israeli citizenship?

Here's the deal --- NO palestinian refugees, as far as I have seen, would accept the idea of becoming Israeli citizens. If you have something to show us which indicates that they would, please present those facts.
 
Who cares if it's possible, if the possibility isn't actualized?

That's like saying it's possible an asteroid is going to detroy the Earth in my lifetime. The chances are so miniscule, however, that it probably wasn't even worth the energy expended in typing out the sentence.

If a fact is only theoretically possible, to what benefit is it's inclusion in the discussion?
 
a_unique_person said:
One of the worst terrorist attacks, by a woman, was in repsonse to her brother being summarily shot by the IDF outside their own home while she was sitting inside it.
Click to expand...

At least that was the spin placed on it by the apologists. Is there any evidence of this event or are we just going by the word of people who want us to believe that summary executions by the IDF are an everyday event and that suicide bombings are a completely acceptable and natural thing to do?
 
thinkingaboutit said:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2003/04/29/isrlpa5821_txt.htm (Human Rights Watch)

http://www.btselem.org/english/Firearms/Flechette.asp
more info here
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I thought you would say.

If you look at those links and take the word of the worst of Israel's critics at face value (and B'Tselem certainly qualifies as among the worst of Israel's critics) then you see that the last reported event was in 2002, with most of the events occuring in early 2001.

The Al Aqsa Intifada began late 2000 and largely took Israel by surprise. In those early days there were a number of examples where Israeli units were caught in situations where they were poorly equipped and poorly trained to deal with. Since then the IDF has adapted their training and equipment to better deal with the conflict.

I don’t think it’s fair to characterize the IDF as using flechettes in the Gaza Strip. It would be far more accurate to say they have used them years ago in a small number of instances, but haven’t used them in a very long time.

Now your initial question was if the use of flechettes itself could be construed as punitive intent, and I disagree with that as well. Punitive intent would require much more evidence, such as a policy statement from much higher in the command structure than a mere tank commander.
 
marksman said:
Who cares if it's possible, if the possibility isn't actualized?

That's like saying it's possible an asteroid is going to detroy the Earth in my lifetime. The chances are so miniscule, however, that it probably wasn't even worth the energy expended in typing out the sentence.

If a fact is only theoretically possible, to what benefit is it's inclusion in the discussion?
Click to expand...

Both sides seem to take it seriously. Palestinians ask for it, Israelis say there has to be a strict limit on it.
 
a_u_p sticks to his version:
Palestinians ask for it (return to Israel)
Click to expand...


Name just one, who has publicly said that he/she is willing to return to Israel, and become an Israeli citizen. If "palestinians" ask for it, then it shouldn't be much of a challenge to show a whole bunch of these refugees coming out with statements saying they want to live in Israel, as Israelis.
 
I don't know any, but I have read anecdotes in the paper of Palestinians who want their home back.

As I said before, if it's such a non-issue, why do Palestinians insist on asking for it, and Israeli's insist on enforcing a limit on it. You guess none, I am guessing that the quota will be filled.
 
a_unique_person said:
Both sides seem to take it seriously.
Click to expand...
You've changed your topic. We were discussing whether there was any specific Palestinian who wanted to invoke a right of return.

Now you're discussing the right of return generally as a negotaiting point. They might be related but they are distinct issues and I was only discussing the former.

As to why the Palestinians would ask for it even though there isn't anybody who would invoke it, the Palestinians can use the spectre of people wishing to invoke it as a negotiating position, which they can bargain away for substantive concessions. By refusing to identify how many , if any, Palestinians would invoke such a right, they can use uncertainty to their advantage.

Second, they could be arguing for a principle they feel has independent value, even if there are few or none to invoke it. Similarly, the Israelis could also be staking out a position on principle rather than pragmatism, of refusing to recognize such a right.

I can't read minds, so I have no idea why either side is using it, but there are theoretical reasons that appear much more likely than the idea that there are individual Palestinians who have not made their desires known.
 
thinkingaboutit said:
I think it can be argued that using flechettes in Gaza is punitive intent. Disagree?
Click to expand...
I disagree. Using flechettes is a sign of lethal intent.

There's a difference. Rubber bullets, tear gas, and fire hoses? Possibly punitive intent.

Flechettes? That's shooting to kill.

DR
 
pu·ni·tive play_w("P0661800") (py
oomacr.gif
prime.gif
n
ibreve.gif
-t
ibreve.gif
v)adj. Inflicting or aiming to inflict punishment; punishing.

I don't see why it wouldn't be considered both.
 
thinkingaboutit said:
pu·ni·tive play_w("P0661800") (py[qimg]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/oomacr.gif[/qimg][qimg]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif[/qimg]n[qimg]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif[/qimg]-t[qimg]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif[/qimg]v)adj. Inflicting or aiming to inflict punishment; punishing.

I don't see why it wouldn't be considered both.
Click to expand...

You missed the 'shoot to kill' part?
 
Seriously I don't understand your point. Maybe I am dumb. Flechettes are a lethal and indiscriminant weapon. It's use is punitive in that innocents are hurt when these weapons are fired. The families of the victims are punished and terrorized too. Imagine wondering if you might die every time you go out on the street.

Is it alright for a suicide bomber to target a soldier who is standing among civilians? No. That's called terror. I fail to see the difference when flechettes are used or artillery or when a 'targeted assassination' leaves more innocents dead than militants.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom