With a cease-fire like this, who needs war?

[Mycroft]

Edited by Darat: 

Announcement

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Everything that can be done to stop the slide into anarchy, cynicism, despair and fundamentalism.

Would that include measures to limit violence?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
It requires actual honesty from both sides. It requires the fundies on both sides to realise that people are suffering.

Would "honesty from all sides" include recognizing when one side was breaking the cease fire?

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I can't see that happening, but I can confidently predict people will keep dying.

And as people continue to die, should we just pretend it's not happening so an imaginary "peace process" won't be interrupted?

 

[zenith-nadir]

Palestinian hardliners slam Abbas for meeting Sharon in Jerusalem - June 21, 2005

GAZA CITY (AFP) - Hardline factions united to condemn Palestinian leader Mahmud Abbas for meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at his Jerusalem residence, which followed a wave of militant arrests.

The radical Islamist movement Hamas said Abbas's decision would only help legitimise Israel's sovereignty claims.

"This is a dangerous precedent which could lead to a recognition of the Zionist allegations proclaiming Jerusalem as their capital," a statement said. "The meeting ... will do nothing to change the realities on the ground, for the agenda of the Zionist entity is limited to implementing its retreat from Gaza and mobilising the efforts of all parties to this end, including the Palestinians," the statement added. "All other questions are of no interest to the Zionist entity."

Khaled el-Batsh, a Gaza-based leader of the smaller Islamic Jihad movement, also criticised Abbas for meeting Sharon following the arrest of dozens of the group's members overnight. Batsh also described the decision to meet in Jerusalem as "a very dangerous precedent". "We are afraid this is evidence of official Palestinian recognition of the situation in Jerusalem," he added.

IAF launch airstrike in Beit Lahiya - Jun. 21, 2005

The Israeli Air Force launched an airstrike in Beit Lahiya targeting terror cells responsible for firing Kassam and mortar shell launchers, Palestinians said Tuesday afternoon.

Meanwhile, the IDF received a 'green light' to operate against Islamic Jihad terrorists in the West Bank Tuesday. "Israel will act against any terror organization that is carrying out attacks if the Palestinian Authority doesn't," Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said Tuesday.

Khadr Adnan, an Islamic Jihad spokesman in the West Bank, said if the Palestinian Authority and Egypt don't take action to ensure Israeli commitment to the truce, "then we will consider ourselves to be outside (it), and will call upon all Palestinian factions to do the same."

Meanwhile, Palestinians fired ten mortar shells into Gaza Strip settlements Tuesday morning. There were no injuries but one of the shells damaged three houses and six cars in Kfar Darom.

Just before noon on Tuesday, A Kassam rocket was fired at a settlement in southern Gaza, which caused no injuries or damage.

Gotta love Khadr Adnan's statement that "if the Palestinian Authority and Egypt don't take action to ensure Israeli commitment to the truce, then we will consider ourselves to be outside (it)"...in case you missed it Khadr old buddy the group you are spokesman for - Islamic Jihad - has been launching mortars and rockets at Israelis since the ceasefire was announced in February...

 

[Mycroft]

Edited by Darat: 

Announcement

Let me rephrase:

Fool.

Would you care to offer comments relevent to this century?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
As I don't believe there is any prospect of the current Israeli government voluntarily doing anything that progresses Palestinian statehood....Maybe its time to consider that intervention may be required to force a resolution...

Nothing?

Sharon Offers Abbas Deal on West Bank

Tuesday June 21, 2005 5:31 PM

By STEVE WEIZMAN

Associated Press Writer

JERUSALEM (AP) - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas that Israel would hand over two more West Bank towns if the Palestinians take step to end violence, officials said Tuesday, after the leaders held their first summit since a cease-fire was declared.

The meeting, which lasted more than two hours, was meant to step up coordination of Israel's planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, which is scheduled to begin in less than two months.

This is from the Guardian. The version I heard this evening on NPR said the Palestinian-Arabs were "disapointed" the Israelis expected them to take steps to curb terror. Go figure.

 

[a_unique_person]

Would that include measures to limit violence?



Would "honesty from all sides" include recognizing when one side was breaking the cease fire?

and when the other side was stealing more land.

And as people continue to die, should we just pretend it's not happening so an imaginary "peace process" won't be interrupted?

IIRC, the current "peace process" is unilateraly in the hands of Sharon and Likud. The Gaza pullout was entirely his idea, as is the expansion in other areas.

 

[webfusion]

meanwhile, the cease-fire is holding up by-and-large.

I don't believe there is any prospect of the current Israeli government voluntarily doing anything that progresses Palestinian statehood

The Israeli Prime Minister just announced that he wants the Gaza International Airport to re-open.

The Israelis have given vast assistance to the Palestinian Authority to forge ahead with statehood. Any claim made here to the contrary is without foundation and without factual basis.

Beyond that, I wish to call attention to the Jewish Bible (Tanach) which offers sufficient legitimacy to giving up land:

• King Solomon transferred "20 cities in the land of the Galilee" to Hiram King of Tyre (1 Kings 9:11-13), apparently in order to erase the debt he owed Hiram for his assistance in building the Temple. These were 20 cities with their land and their inhabitants - the entire Acre Valley up to Rosh Hanikra, which became the property of the Phoenicians. This was recorded in the Tanach without any criticism on the part of the writer of the chronicles of Solomon, and the explanation for that is clear: There is no prohibition whatsoever in the Torah against handing over territories to someone who is not a member of the Israelite nation. The ownership of territories in Eretz Israel by the Jewish nation has always reflected the political and military circumstances of the period.

It is not official Israeli government policy to oppose Palestinian Statehood. On the contrary, the stated goal of the Israeli government (including Shimon Peres) to help achieve it.

However, there is no way in H3LL that Israel will allow a terror-state to emerge. Fuggadaboudit.

 

[The Fool]

Let me rephrase:

Fool.

Would you care to offer comments relevent to this century?

sorry Mycroft but when your posts get edited out its difficult to keep a hande on your questions. What were you asking about? Relevent to this century?

 

[The Fool]

Nothing?

Correct...Nothing. An offer to hand over "control" (what does that mean?) of some towns with a load of IFs attached is hardly statehood.

I just have to ask the question...why was it ok to reward jewish "terrorists" with statehood? Why were they not required to end all resistance before statehood was considered? I can tell you my opinion why..... Because the British realised that resistance to thier occupation was not going to end no matter what they promised they would do in the future.... Jewish fighters were not going to roll over and give up. The British understood that the only solution was to address thier aspirations of Nationhood.

 

[webfusion]

historical revisionism at its best

TF, what are you talking about???

why was it ok to reward jewish "terrorists" with statehood?

The formation of a Jewish Homeland was indicated in the Balfour Declaration and that paper itself formed the legal basis for the League of Nations to approve the British Mandate for Palestine in the first place.

What lands did "Palestine" encompass in the early 20th century? How about this:

The 'reward' for the Jews, after the Holocaust, was just a few slivers of indefensible property and the British fully expected (and abetted) the Arabs to completely dispense with the Jews summarily.

The Jews to this day, have no designs and no desire to destroy the Arabs, including the Palestinians. They will be good neighbors and fair partners in any endeavors in the future, so long as the threat of terror is not an issue. If you do not see that, you are totally blind.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I just have to ask the question...why was it ok to reward jewish "terrorists" with statehood? Why were they not required to end all resistance before statehood was considered? I can tell you my opinion why..... Because the British realised that resistance to thier occupation was not going to end no matter what they promised they would do in the future.... Jewish fighters were not going to roll over and give up. The British understood that the only solution was to address thier aspirations of Nationhood.

So now Israel is the British and the Palestinians are the Israelis?....errrr.....ahhhh... I am so confused...

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: historical revisionism at its best

The Jews to this day, have no designs and no desire to destroy the Arabs, including the Palestinians. They will be good neighbors and fair partners in any endeavors in the future, so long as the threat of terror is not an issue. If you do not see that, you are totally blind.

I think that a show of 'good faith' has long been needed, but not forthcoming. Eg, no settlements would be an excellent start. Gush Emunim has been encouraged and funded in it's expansion for years, rather than discouraged. Now that Sharon has decided Gaza is untenable, he is trying to pull out. The actual result of that decision is yet to be seen, but at the same time, other land is being stolen in Jerusalem.

To be fair, you have to act fair.

The circular argument on terror has also been pointed out before. The occupation continues, because it is resisted.

 

[demon]

I bet old Seb Munster could put us all right if he was still around

 

[The Fool]

Re: historical revisionism at its best

TF, what are you talking about???

I am talking about why it would have been stupid to suspend the adressing of Jewish aspirations of statehood until such time as all Jews ceased resisting british occupation. I don't care how powerfull or influential any or all Jewish groups were at the time. I doubt if they would have been able to supress all violence....yet we expect the PA to pull off this stunt as a matter of routine? Before starting to consider addressing thier aspirations for nationhood? I simply feel that this would have been stupid in 1948 and is no less stupid today.

The current cease fire involves numerous breaches.....why is this such a surprise? I can't think of a cease fire that hasn't.

Its time to move ahead folks....if you want to hang back and argue about the reality of the cease fire you will get left behind and become irrelevant. Its in place, whats important is what happens next....sadly, it seems many here want nothing to happen next.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
and when the other side was stealing more land.

You can't steal what's already yours.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
IIRC, the current "peace process" is unilateraly in the hands of Sharon and Likud. The Gaza pullout was entirely his idea, as is the expansion in other areas.

Are you claiming there is no cease fire then? Did Abbas and Sharon not meet today? Are you claiming the Palestinian-Arabs have no obligations in making this work?

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: historical revisionism at its best

....yet we expect the PA to pull off this stunt as a matter of routine?

No. I expect that when there is a problem, it will be recognized and dealt with. I don't believe denial is an effective way to deal with problems.

I also expect that when agreements are made, they are lived up to. That is, if the Palestinian-Authority agrees to crack down on terror, that we don't just pretend they are when they are not.

 

[webfusion]

it's all moot, when this is the norm:


Militant Islam
632-2003 C.E.
by G. Richard Jansen
Colorado State University

===============================
There is no circular argument. As long as Islamic terror continues to be the norm, and a terror-state alongside Israel is the expected outcome of "Palestinian Statehood", then there will be nothing to discuss. Israel will decimate any avowed enemy as needed and leave the world to wring their hands and cry crocodile tears.

As for TF's assertation:
... whats important is what happens next....sadly, it seems many here want nothing to happen next.

We, sadly, as fervent supporters of Israel, are skeptical that "next steps" towards Palestinian independence won't end up being way too costly to the Israelis (again). Would the Islamic terror networks suddenly cease-fire and pack up their operations if the Israelis just withdraw to the last centimeter behind the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Lines? If Israel somehow managed to evacuate every Jew living in a housing-project located within "New Palestine" (West Bank and Gaza) and even walked away from the Golan Heights in-toto (even abandoning the Shebaa Farms Zone), we can then expect a cessation and a complete halt of terror against Israeli targets? An end to Hamas? Islamic Jihad? The break-up of Hezbollah? The Iranians & Syrians opening full diplomatic ties? Iraq as a "good neighbor" ?

We all certainly want all that (and more) to happen next. I cannot speak for ZN, Mycroft or Elind or Skeptic or anyone else, but I would be shocked if any of them argued that Israel must hold onto the occupied territories and reject a proper and legitimate opportunity to end the state of war with the Islamic fundamentalist organizations and nations.

If only...

 

[Mycroft]

Re: it's all moot, when this is the norm:

Originally posted by webfusion
We all certainly want all that (and more) to happen next. I cannot speak for ZN, Mycroft or Elind or Skeptic or anyone else, but I would be shocked if any of them argued that Israel must hold onto the occupied territories and reject a proper and legitimate opportunity to end the state of war with the Islamic fundamentalist organizations and nations.

My oft stated position is I favor whatever solution brings lasting peace and security to both these peoples.

This is of course contradicted by recent statements made about my position, but recent efforts to censor opposing opinions make it problematic for me to go into more detail.

 

[Elind]

Re: it's all moot, when this is the norm:

We all certainly want all that (and more) to happen next. I cannot speak for ZN, Mycroft or Elind or Skeptic or anyone else, but I would be shocked if any of them argued that Israel must hold onto the occupied territories and reject a proper and legitimate opportunity to end the state of war with the Islamic fundamentalist organizations and nations.

If only...

Being honorably mentioned is cause to comment

We can't read everything everyone posts, but I would like to point out that I am on record, many times, saying that not only do I object to the Jewish fundies thinking their god gave them lands; I also seriously resent them dragging us into this cesspool as a result.

Having said that; I have nothing but contempt for the Palestinian fanatics who have destroyed their own society with a primitive culture of death; but I don't think the Jews made them do it, they just provided the excuse, along with the ones their apologists use.

On balance I think there are more Jews who would end this, and act to end this, than there are Palestinians, so that is where my support of the day will go, while maintaining my right to argue that their vision of a "religious" based democracy is also doomed to fail eventually, as the concepts are fundamentally incompatible.

On the plus side, every "Jew" I have ever known has been an atheist, so there is hope yet.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: it's all moot, when this is the norm:

Being honorably mentioned is cause to comment

We can't read everything everyone posts, but I would like to point out that I am on record, many times, saying that not only do I object to the Jewish fundies thinking their god gave them lands; I also seriously resent them dragging us into this cesspool as a result.

Having said that; I have nothing but contempt for the Palestinian fanatics who have destroyed their own society with a primitive culture of death; but I don't think the Jews made them do it, they just provided the excuse, along with the ones their apologists use.

On balance I think there are more Jews who would end this, and act to end this, than there are Palestinians, so that is where my support of the day will go, while maintaining my right to argue that their vision of a "religious" based democracy is also doomed to fail eventually, as the concepts are fundamentally incompatible.

On the plus side, every "Jew" I have ever known has been an atheist, so there is hope yet.

Elind,

I want to take a moment to say that even though you hold some opinions on Israel and the Middle East that I disagree with, I do not consider you to be a bigot. Further, it has never once occured to me that you might be.

I know that sounds like a very strange statement to make, but the issue came up recently in another thread which I would explain in greater detail, except that changes due to recent attempts to censor opposing opinions make explanations problematic.

I trust you are not offended in being told you are not a bigot.