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

[a_unique_person]

http://www.israel-embassy.org.uk/web/pages/fatal.htm

List 1: Fatalities in Palestinian Terror Attacks Since 1978

1978 -- 12
1979 -- 14
1980 -- 10
1981 -- 5
1982 -- 2
1983 -- 6
1984 -- 7
1985 -- 14
1986 -- 7
1987 -- 5
1988 -- 14
1989 -- 32
1990 -- 23
1991 -- 26
1992 -- 39
1993 -- 64 (38 before Oslo; 26 after Oslo)
1994 -- 73
1995 -- 52
1996 -- 92
1997 -- 29
1998 -- 7

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Ireland had a similar problem. After an intial rise in violence, to derail peace, the death rate dropped. Not 'revisionism' at all.

 

[zenith-nadir]

so as you believe the cease fire is over, or more precisely...never started.....

A ceasefire is not a limitedfire or an occasionalfire, it is a ceasefire. There was never a ceasefire and the mutiple links in this thread of Palestinian militants sending suicide bombers, launching mortars, rockets and anti-tank weapons daily shows that there was never an actual ceasefire... only a declared ceasefire for the media.

... what is your final solution?

I have no final solution to islamofascists sending suicide bombers "on the great jihad" or letting palestinian islamist groups from using Palestinian civilian areas for cover and concealment. That is a culture that I cannot fix.....and after 10 treaties, 12 years and several highly-qualified world leaders tried to find a final solution, none of them were able to either. In fact over the past 80 years no one has been able to come up with a final solution to stop Arab terrorism....not even the Arabs.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
've said it before, and I'll say it again. Ireland had a similar problem. After an intial rise in violence, to derail peace, the death rate dropped. Not 'revisionism' at all.

Then you don't know the difference between the numbers 64, (Israelis killed in 1993), and 73, (Israelis killed in 1994) or 92 (Israelis killed in 1996).

 

[a_unique_person]

A ceasefire is not a limitedfire or an occasionalfire, it is a ceasefire. There was never a ceasefire and the mutiple links in this thread of Palestinian militants sending suicide bombers, launching mortars, rockets and anti-tank weapons daily shows that there was never an actual ceasefire... only a declared ceasefire for the media.

I have no final solution to islamofascists sending suicide bombers "on the great jihad" or letting palestinian islamist groups from using Palestinian civilian areas for cover and concealment. That is a culture that I cannot fix.....and after 10 treaties, 12 years and several highly-qualified world leaders tried to find a final solution, none of them were able to either. In fact over the past 80 years no one has been able to come up with a final solution to stop Arab terrorism....not even the Arabs.

And the occupation didn't end either....

Then you don't know the difference between the numbers 64, (Israelis killed in 1993), and 73, (Israelis killed in 1994) or 92 (Israelis killed in 1996).

Typical of the misrepresentations I would expect of you.

 

[zenith-nadir]

And the occupation didn't end either....

a_u_p, I don't think you are stupid or mean but there are posts in this thread that establish that Palestinian islamist group attacks predate Israel by 20 years and others that establish that Palestinian islamist group attacks predate the occupation by 40 years.

There are other posts that establish that no matter what anyone did - the British, the Israelis, the UN, the E.U. - that Palestinian islamist group attacks never stopped since the first Arab-led anti-jewish pogroms in 1920.

So when you use the occupation as the 'reason' why terror attacks happened in 1993, 94, 95....well lets just say it leaves one with the impression that no matter how much evidence is put before you you shall always blame the occupation.

Typical of the misrepresentations I would expect of you.

92 is more than 73 and 73 is more than 64. That is no misrepresentation.

 

[a_unique_person]

a_u_p, I don't think you are stupid or mean but there are posts in this thread that establish that Palestinian islamist group attacks predate Israel by 20 years and others that establish that Palestinian islamist group attacks predate the occupation by 40 years.

The creation of Israel was an occupation and 'ethnic cleansing'.

Prior to that, it was pretty clear what would be coming.

There are other posts that establish that no matter what anyone did - the British, the Israelis, the UN, the E.U. - that Palestinian islamist group attacks never stopped since the first Arab-led anti-jewish pogroms in 1920.

So when you use the occupation as the 'reason' why terror attacks happened in 1993, 94, 95....well lets just say it leaves one with the impression that no matter how much evidence is put before you you shall always blame the occupation. 92 is more than 73 and 73 is more than 64. That is no misrepresentation.

I made my point, if you choose to ignore, that's up to you.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by The Fool
so as you believe the cease fire is over, or more precisely...never started..... what is your final solution?

What part of "It's not working now" makes you think he's got a solution? That makes no sense.

Originally posted by The Fool
So is it your belief that the PA could, by decree, end all the attacks?

Is it your belief that unless 100% success can be guaranteed that no effort at all should be required?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The creation of Israel was an occupation and 'ethnic cleansing'.

The creation of Israel was a war. A war that didn't have to be. It was Arab led violence that led to the partition plan, and it was an Arab led invasion that led to the war.

Both Jews and Arabs could have done things differently and avoided war, and history could have taken a different course. One of the reasons I think you're a bigot is that you refuse to look at any Arab contribution to the violence, and only credit Jewish contributions.

"Ethnic cleansing" is a perfect example of this. There was ethnic cleansing on both sides, but you only want to remember what happened to Arabs, and even at that you want to take it out of context of the war of survival. (By contrast, the ethnic cleansing of Jews by Arabs was not a matter of survival.)

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I made my point, if you choose to ignore, that's up to you.

What you said:

"There is also evidence that Arafat did try to implement peaceful resistence. It failed, just look at Oslo. Initial violence was reduced. "

You say "initial violence was reduced" then show statistics that clearly show violence went up. Further, you claim that Arafat was trying to implement peaceful resistence at the very same time he was actively working to create the culture of violence that led to suicide-bombing.

This is why I call you a revisionist and a denier. You know all this to be true, yet you continue to deny the incitement saying instead Arafat was trying to implement peaceful resistence and you revise history to fit your prejudices.

 

[Mycroft]

Hang on, classic logical fallacy. You don't have to concede anything, because you say I have a fault with my argument.

There are two logical fallacies I see here.

The first is your claim to have conceded something. Exactly what was that? You still deny Arafat’s contribution to the violence and if you don’t specifically deny the Palestinian-Arabs artificial creation of the culture of violence that promotes terror, you deny its significance. Where is the concession?

The second fallacy is that I should concede something because you have. That makes no sense. I should concede something if I'm wrong and you can demonstrate where I'm wrong. That's what debate is about. I don’t arbitrarily decide some fact is no longer true just because something finally penetrates your skull.

 

[zenith-nadir]

The creation of Israel was an occupation and 'ethnic cleansing'.

The creation of Israel was a democratic vote by the United Nations, ( U.N. Resolution 181 ) to split BRITISH-controlled Palestine into Arab and jewish states. The jews accepted the deal, the Arabs rejected the deal and the armies of Egypt, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria invaded Israel without warning on May 14, 1948. Israel did not invade Egypt, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria nor was it an occupation of Egypt, Transjordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria by Israel. As far as the ethnic cleansing comment how do you explain the 20% of Israelis who are of arab descent today if they were all ethnically cleansed in 1948?

Anyhow, I tire of proving these events to you for the millionth time by providing reputable links and documentation so I conclude you resfuse to be swayed by historical fact and instead cling to tired old rhetoric. Have a nice day...

 

[a_unique_person]

There are two logical fallacies I see here.

The first is your claim to have conceded something. Exactly what was that? You still deny Arafat’s contribution to the violence and if you don’t specifically deny the Palestinian-Arabs artificial creation of the culture of violence that promotes terror, you deny its significance. Where is the concession?

The second fallacy is that I should concede something because you have. That makes no sense. I should concede something if I'm wrong and you can demonstrate where I'm wrong. That's what debate is about. I don’t arbitrarily decide some fact is no longer true just because something finally penetrates your skull.

I have pointed out that Arafat tried peaceful resistance as well as violent. I have never denied Arafat used violence.

You said you would not concede anything because I did not. Something is true if I am wrong or right. That has no bearing on what you should say.

 

[demon]

Mycroft:
"...the point is a cease fire where one side hasn’t ceased firing isn’t a cease fire. Why is that so hard for you to understand?"

quote:
Israeli occupation soldiers have shot and killed a Palestinian man in the southern West Bank town of Hebron, hours after the killing of another Palestinian near the northern city of Jenin. Palestinian sources and witnesses said Israeli soldiers patrolling the streets of Hebron's old town on Sunday killed Omar Mahmoud al-Ghafi Hoshiyeh, 200 metres from the Ibrahimi Mosque.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BC6B834B-DD17-458A-B768-6048049C4BAD.htm

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I have pointed out that Arafat tried peaceful resistance as well as violent. I have never denied Arafat used violence.

You claim he was trying peaceful resistance at the very same time in history he was inciting violence and leading the Palestinian-Authority in creating a culture of death. This is both denial and historical revisionism. We've talked about this before, remember? You said you were going to "look into it" only you never did.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
You said you would not concede anything because I did not.

Don't recall. It doesn't sound like something I'd say. I might have pointed out you don't concede anything in response to your complaining that I don't, but it's unlikely I would have said I don't concede anything because you don't.

Originally posted by a_unique_person Something is true if I am wrong or right. That has no bearing on what you should say.

This makes no sense.

 

[The Fool]

A ceasefire is not a limitedfire or an occasionalfire, it is a ceasefire. There was never a ceasefire and the mutiple links in this thread of Palestinian militants sending suicide bombers, launching mortars, rockets and anti-tank weapons daily shows that there was never an actual ceasefire... only a declared ceasefire for the media.

so sharon is full of it when he refers to the cease fire? Its just you and the loonie Israeli warmongering extremists who are saying the cease fire does not exist. Did you realise who your allied with in this opinion?

I have no final solution .....(snip)

yes you do....
Continued occupation, continued collective punishment, continued checkpoints, continued setlement expansion.....full steam ahead with the occupation and pacification by force of arms of all the land that God gave to you.

 

[Mycroft]

I have no final solution .....(snip)

yes you do....
Continued occupation, continued collective punishment, continued checkpoints, continued setlement expansion.....full steam ahead with the occupation and pacification by force of arms of all the land that God gave to you.

Your habits of "translating" peoples posts to mirror whatever position you wish to argue againsts is the main reason threads you participate in degenerate. I will not tolerate being told that I have expressed an opinion on this forum when I plainly have not and nobody can find where I am supposed to have said them. If you want civil discussion then argue the points people make and not the "translations" you turn them into.

I suggest if you want a civil discussion you should argue the points he makes and not what you want to turn them into.

 

[The Fool]

Your habits of "translating" peoples posts to mirror whatever position you wish to argue againsts is the main reason threads you participate in degenerate. I will not tolerate being told that I have expressed an opinion on this forum when I plainly have not and nobody can find where I am supposed to have said them. If you want civil discussion then argue the points people make and not the "translations" you turn them into.

I suggest if you want a civil discussion you should argue the points he makes and not what you want to turn them into.

Ok mycroft, obviously you feel I misrepresent poor old ZN....so which of the following do you think he does not support..

Here is what I claim he thinks are good Ideas....

"Continued occupation, continued collective punishment, continued checkpoints, continued setlement expansion.....full steam ahead with the occupation and pacification by force of arms of all the land that God gave to you."

so which of these do you think ZN wants to condemn? Maybe he wants to speak out against the occupation? Maybe he wants to condemn settlement expansion? Maybe he wants wind back the use of the IDF in the pacification of Palestinians....which is it?

 

[Mycroft]

Ok mycroft, obviously you feel I misrepresent poor old ZN....so which of the following do you think he does not support..

Here is what I claim he thinks are good Ideas....

You've translated his post to mirror the position you wish to argue against. It doesn't matter if he's said any of these things or not.

The thing is this illustrates the heart of the disagreement. You object to recognizing the obvious, that the truce is not being maintained by one side, not because you don’t think it’s true, but because you think it leads inevitably to conclusions you find unacceptable.

Except it doesn’t.

Denial inevitably will lead to a failure of the peace process. You want decisions to be made on fantasy, you want to just pretend the Palestinian-Arabs are maintaining the truce, even in the face of evidence they are not, in the hopes that eventually they will just decide to stop killing Jews.

The real world doesn’t work that way. Decisions made on false information lead to catastrophe. You believe that if I or Skeptic or Zenith-Nadir point out that firing rockets at busses of children isn’t maintaining a cease-fire, like saying the Emperor has no clothes, will somehow break the magic spell. The truth is just the opposite. The truth is peace requires level-headed assessment of the situation by everyone involved, and full compliance of agreements from both sides.

The truth is the Palestinian-Arabs have not maintained a cease-fire. That’s the reality that needs to be dealt with.

 

[Mycroft]

How about a nice graphic to go with the previous story I printed?

Palestinian children collect body parts of two Palestinian militants of the Al Aqsa Martyrs brigades killed east of Gaza city, Sunday, May 29, 2005. the two militants were killed and three seriously wounded when explosives they were carrying detonated in their car, Palestinians said. (AP Photo/Hatem Moussa)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050529/481/jrl12605291553


My personal opinion:

I think sending children into trees to collect body parts of exploded terrorists does a lot to contribute to the cultural acceptance of death.

 

[a_unique_person]

a_u_p, I don't think you are stupid or mean but there are posts in this thread that establish that Palestinian islamist group attacks predate Israel by 20 years and others that establish that Palestinian islamist group attacks predate the occupation by 40 years.

There are other posts that establish that no matter what anyone did - the British, the Israelis, the UN, the E.U. - that Palestinian islamist group attacks never stopped since the first Arab-led anti-jewish pogroms in 1920.

So when you use the occupation as the 'reason' why terror attacks happened in 1993, 94, 95....well lets just say it leaves one with the impression that no matter how much evidence is put before you you shall always blame the occupation. 92 is more than 73 and 73 is more than 64. That is no misrepresentation.

It is a blatant misrepresenation. You stop the statistics when it suits you. So did CBL4, who posted the list I used first. He conveniently left the final figure off. You are doing it too. An initial rise was followed by a big drop in numbers.

 

[Mycroft]

It is a blatant misrepresenation. You stop the statistics when it suits you. So did CBL4, who posted the list I used first. He conveniently left the final figure off. You are doing it too. An initial rise was followed by a big drop in numbers.

After four years, during which he created the programs of incitement and programmed hate that are still bearing fruit today.

After intense international pressure to comply with the agreements he made, and he still continued the incitement towards hate.

When he fineally did take action, it wasn't to "try peaceful resistance" as you claim, but merely to round up rival terrorists and detain them, only to let them go later without having brought charges or put anyone on trial.

This is the stuff you want to revise out of your history.

 

[a_unique_person]

You've translated his post to mirror the position you wish to argue against. It doesn't matter if he's said any of these things or not.

The thing is this illustrates the heart of the disagreement. You object to recognizing the obvious, that the truce is not being maintained by one side, not because you don’t think it’s true, but because you think it leads inevitably to conclusions you find unacceptable.

Except it doesn’t.

Denial inevitably will lead to a failure of the peace process. You want decisions to be made on fantasy, you want to just pretend the Palestinian-Arabs are maintaining the truce, even in the face of evidence they are not, in the hopes that eventually they will just decide to stop killing Jews.

The real world doesn’t work that way. Decisions made on false information lead to catastrophe. You believe that if I or Skeptic or Zenith-Nadir point out that firing rockets at busses of children isn’t maintaining a cease-fire, like saying the Emperor has no clothes, will somehow break the magic spell. The truth is just the opposite. The truth is peace requires level-headed assessment of the situation by everyone involved, and full compliance of agreements from both sides.

The truth is the Palestinian-Arabs have not maintained a cease-fire. That’s the reality that needs to be dealt with.

Yes, that's the reality that needs to be dealt with. As is the occupation.