The price of democracy: The Palestinian 'diet' begins

[Hurkyl]

May be my English is not perfect, but I really surprise how you twist my words!

I deliberately (over)simplified your argument for the sake of brevity and clarity. You can talk all you want about the nuances that get disregarded by the simplification, but you'd be missing the entire point of my post: You are completely ignoring issues that matter to others.


Allow me to elaborate.

The government of Palestine is dedicated to the annihilation of one of our friends. Therefore, it would apparently be a terrible thing to allow it aid, so we do what we can to prevent it.

You go on and on about the consequences of that decision, but that's it.


For those who subscribe to a philosophy that acts are justified on their own merits, and not their consequences, your argument means absolutely nothing to them.

For those who subscribe to a philosophy where the ends justify the means, your argument is lacking an essential component: you never seem to even attempt to argue that the evils of denying aid to Hamas outweigh the evils of allowing aid to Hamas.

 

[Hurkyl]

Israel should withdraw first, after that any attack against them is called ‘’terrorism’’.

An act is (correctly) labelled "terrorism" when it satisfies the definition of the word. Whether the actors have a right to resistance is irrelevant.

(And, may I remind you, that Hamas is not dedicated to getting Israel to withdraw: it's dedicated to annihilating Israel)

 

[Bilal]

An act is (correctly) labelled "terrorism" when it satisfies the definition of the word. Whether the actors have a right to resistance is irrelevant.

(And, may I remind you, that Hamas is not dedicated to getting Israel to withdraw: it's dedicated to annihilating Israel)

But already Israel annihilated Palestine and wiped it from the map!

 

[Bilal]

I deliberately (over)simplified your argument for the sake of brevity and clarity. You can talk all you want about the nuances that get disregarded by the simplification, but you'd be missing the entire point of my post: You are completely ignoring issues that matter to others.


Allow me to elaborate.

The government of Palestine is dedicated to the annihilation of one of our friends. Therefore, it would apparently be a terrible thing to allow it aid, so we do what we can to prevent it.

You go on and on about the consequences of that decision, but that's it.


For those who subscribe to a philosophy that acts are justified on their own merits, and not their consequences, your argument means absolutely nothing to them.

For those who subscribe to a philosophy where the ends justify the means, your argument is lacking an essential component: you never seem to even attempt to argue that the evils of denying aid to Hamas outweigh the evils of allowing aid to Hamas.

Hamas declared recently that they will recognize Israel if Israel recognizes Palestine …. Also we are under occupation (not a real state). Around 60% of WB are directly living under Israeli occupation. They are also punished because they are Palestinian?

Actually as a Palestinian, I believe that there is no moral justification of kicking out 60% of Palestinian people to replace them by Jews immigrants in the sake of creation of Israel. However, we are very generous to recognize the right of Israel to exist on 78% of Palestine in 1988, but they did not do the next step by recognizing the right of Palestine to exist on the rest of Palestine (22% of historical Palestine).

 

[Art]

There is a lot of argument about the rights and wrongs of economic sanctions, but it all boils down to one thing even a HAMAS led Govt will not be denied funds if they do one thing _renounce terrorism. It doesn't seem that difficult but the truth is they want this money so they can continue to slaughter civilians and refuse to negotiate.

Hamas has been observing a ceasefire for over a year now whilst Israel has continued merrily with it's program of assassinations (illegal under international law). So who is terrorising who??

Only yesterday Sky News reported jewish settlers near Hebron attacked a group of children aged between 6 and 11 with rocks and concrete blocks injuring 4 of them as the kids were on their way home from school. Despite a large police and IDF presence being called to the scene there were no arrests but nine Israeli peace activists who tried to stop the attack were removed from the scene. If this were palestinians attacking israeli children it would be front page news, there would be worldwide outrage, denouncement of palestinian terrorism and no doubt 'punishment' revenge attacks by the IDF. It is this hypocrisy which irritates me.

Obviously peoples views are formed based on media coverage and ironically following numerous complaints from israeli groups about BBC coverage favouring palestinians the BBC launched an independent investigation which concluded just recently that the BBC was indeed biased but in favour of Israel.

BBC's coverage favours Israelis over Palestinians
Dan Sabbagh, London
May 04, 2006
THE BBC'S coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict implicitly favours the Israeli side, a study for the broadcaster's governors has concluded.
Deaths of Israelis received greater coverage than Palestinian fatalities, while Israelis received more air time on news and current affairs programs.
Only "a small percentage of Palestinian fatalities were reported by BBC News", the analysis noted, while "the killing of more than one Israeli by Palestinians either by gun or bomb was reported on nationally broadcast programs".

At the same time, there was found to be little reporting of the difficulties faced by the Palestinians in their daily lives and a "failure to convey adequately thedisparity in the Israeli and Palestinian experience, reflecting the fact that one side is in control and the other side lives under occupation".

Led by Quentin Thomas, the president of the British Board of Film Classification, the governors' study group analysed a period between August last year and last January, in which 98 Palestinians were killed and there were up to 23 Israeli fatalities.

The findings were seized on by pro-Palestinian groups. Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, said: "When research consistently shows that fatalities from one side of a conflict - the party that has by far the least number - are more frequently covered, then this must raise alarm bells."

Only one criticism familiar to right-wing observers was made by the inquiry, arguing that the BBC should be less cautious over its use of the word "terrorism" because "that is the most accurate expression for actions which involve violence against randomly selected civilians".

The report also reaffirms my view that ANY group who targets civilians should be classified as terrorists.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19015659-7582,00.html

 

[fargoth]

Israel should withdraw first, after that any attack against them is called ‘’terrorism’’.

heh, withdraw where? hamas doesn't even recognize the lines of 67!
withdraw to the 47 lines perhapes? maybe to germany?
when "freedom fighters" bomb themselves in a crouded mall or a dance-club, its an act of terror, even if you don't agree with the boarders of the country you attack.
its not even like most of these attacks are aimed at the people at the "illegaly occupied land", most of the attacks are aimed at citizens inside the internationally accepted territory of israel.

im sorry if this is a little off-topic, i just hate it when these acts are justified.

hamas supports these acts of terror, and the palestinian government supports it, I am not sure holding the money back is the right way... it only made the hamas rely on a crime syndicate for support.

you can't make peace with people that hate you, and if you boycott them they would... then again, they already do... i don't think that resuming the money flow would make any difference in that matter when the government - chosen democratically to reflect the voice of its people, thinks that the right way to deal with the israeli problem is to drive them off of the land to germany by terror.

if only the hamas would aknowledge the right of israel to exist, the money would flow again, the palestinians would be able to get to work in israel, or travel to the west bank... it looks as if the hamas government doesn't care that 30% of their population would starve...

do you think they ask too much of the hamas?
it seems hate and pride are a giant factor in the decision making mechanism of the hamas government.

 

[fargoth]

Hamas declared recently that they will recognize Israel if Israel recognizes Palestine …. Also we are under occupation (not a real state). Around 60% of WB are directly living under Israeli occupation. They are also punished because they are Palestinian?

Actually as a Palestinian, I believe that there is no moral justification of kicking out 60% of Palestinian people to replace them by Jews immigrants in the sake of creation of Israel. However, we are very generous to recognize the right of Israel to exist on 78% of Palestine in 1988, but they did not do the next step by recognizing the right of Palestine to exist on the rest of Palestine (22% of historical Palestine).

well, i think in camp david israel did recognize palestine.
and before you talk about being completely independant, look at the ways things are in those 40%...
the government is building a new army supported by a crime sydicate to overthrow the PA.
governing a small country is easier, first handle that, try building farms instead of burning them... there, i even gave you a hint so you can start.

 

[Art]

its not even like most of these attacks are aimed at the people at the "illegaly occupied land", most of the attacks are aimed at citizens inside the internationally accepted territory of israel.

im sorry if this is a little off-topic, i just hate it when these acts are justified.

Please advise the reference for this remark. I have not seen a single post justifying acts of terrorism by Hamas; In fact the opposite. So now that is cleared up let's see you denounce the acts of terrorism performed by the Israelis. Also do you think Israel should have it's international aid frozen until it cleans up it's act?

An example from today -

Mourning a West Bank wife
By Matthew Price
BBC News, Tulkarm


In a small room on the edge of Tulkarm, they are wailing for 44-year-old Eitas Zalat.

There are tears, screams, and whimpers. Women turn to me in sorrow, and in anger.

Eitas Zalat was a mother of five. She was killed at dawn by an Israeli army bullet while sitting in her living room.

Now she lies on a stretcher on the floor. Women kiss her face, and then collapse.

The same article goes on to say that an Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem. said

The circumstances under which Eitas Zalat was killed, the group says, "raise the grave suspicion that Israeli security forces acted as if they were conducting an assassination rather than an arrest operation".

B'Tselem says that between January 2004 and 1 May 2006, 157 Palestinians were killed in what Israeli forces term arrest operations in the West Bank.

Of these, at least 35 were civilians, whom the military admits were mere bystanders to the operation.

B'Tselem accuses the Israeli army of "demonstrating a pattern of indifference to the safety of Palestinian civilians".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4963598.stm

Here is a good article which provides a good overview of the issue raised in the OP

Abbas urges end to freeze on aid

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has urged Middle East mediators to rethink an international freeze on aid to the Hamas-led administration.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4752777.stm

And this one

Mid-East quartet faces changed times
By Jeremy Bowen
BBC Middle East Editor

The big powers that have taken a strong interest in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians have a problem. Fixed points in the political landscape have changed, and their policies are not keeping up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4971936.stm

 

[fargoth]

i did quote bilal say that any attack againt israeli citizens is terrorism only after israel withdraw... which means he justifies the attacks...
but maybe i got him wrong?

as for israel's army killing bystanders, its very hard to arrest armed people with no one ending up dead, its not a new thing in the world... i can assure you first hand that there are VERY strict restrictions on firing.
i don't think youd find more then 80% success in the US army in iraq, or any other army who has to deal with such situations.

instead of smuggling weapons and things like the half-ton explosives they got from egypt, they could have smuggled food and medical supplies, though it would have been much easier just to say they don't want israel destroyed... is it too much to ask not to send missiles on towns in israel (within the 67 lines), and not to send terrorists to kill civillians whi hang out in the center of israel?

you make it sound like its impossible for them to agree to these terms, so we should just continue to support them while they try to destroy israel and kill random civillians.

oh, and remember you said gaza is the biggest prison in the world? you do know it borders with egypt too right?
they can get out whenever they want.. returning back might be a problem though, and you can't blame israel for not wanting them to come back with all the weapon smuggling that's going on through this border.
anyway, there arent any israeli troops there, its under egyptian control, i think they could even supply them with food and water if they wanted to...
israel has the right to deny potential terrorists to enter its terrirory, with that siad some people are allowed to get in or out from the gaza strip through israel's borders, so its not a giant prison any way you look at it.

 

[Art]

I think you've missed my point so I'll spell it out - again.

Hamas = bad. Israeli gov't = as bad or worse.
Targetting civilians is terrorism. No matter WHO does it.

Ignoring attrocities committed by one side whilst severely punishing the other is NOT a viable policy to bring peace to the ME. Most of us would like to see an end to ALL terrorist actions and a negotiated peace settlement. To achieve this the world community must be seen to be fair in it's dealings with both sides and in so doing isolate and then eliminate the extremists, both israeli and palestinian.

As for my likening the Gaza Strip to a prison here is what an Israeli human rights group says;

29 March 05: One Big Prison: New Report Warns Against Continued Strangulation of Gaza Strip after Disengagement

Israel has cut off the Gaza Strip from the rest of the world to such an extent that it is easier for Palestinians in Israel or the West Bank to visit relatives in prison than visit a relative in Gaza. This is one conclusion of the 100-page report that B’Tselem and HaMoked publish today. One Big Prison documents the ongoing violations of human rights and international law resulting from Israel’s restrictions on the movement of people and goods between Gaza and the West Bank, Israel, and the rest of the world. The report also warns against Israel’s attempt to avoid its responsibility toward residents of the Gaza Strip following disengagement.

Despite the easing of restrictions that Israel declared following the Sharm el-Sheikh summit in February 2005, there has been almost no improvement in the movement of Palestinians to and from Gaza, nor in the movement of goods. The report illustrates the extent to which Israel treats many fundamental human rights – among them the right to freedom of movement, family life, health, education, and work – as “humanitarian gestures” that it grants or denies at will.

http://www.btselem.org/English/Press_Releases/20050329.asp

and here's what the int'l aid agency Trocaire says

» Gaza strip: An open air prison?

by Justin Kilcullen, Trócaire Director - 16 August 2005

Read more about human rights in the Middle East

Last December I turned up at a border crossing
leading from Israel to the infamous Gaza strip as
part of a delegation of Catholic development
agencies. I was looking forward to the visit, to seeing
first-hand the situation in which thousands of
Palestinians were living. But four hours later I walked
away, together with half the group, refused entry by
Israeli security because our papers for entry did
not have the required approvals. While the
Palestinians living within this small piece of land
could not get out, I could not get in.

The other three members of the delegation did,
however, and their subsequent reports of the poverty
and deprivation suffered by the Palestinians were bleak and harrowing. The UN has established that 68% of the residents of the Gaza strip live on less then US$1 per day. These are poverty levels akin to the poorest African states. It was hard to believe driving through Israel to reach the frontier that people were living in such appalling circumstances beyond the barbed wire fence. They were effectively prisoners.

http://www.trocaire.org/newsandinformation/news/gaza.htm

and for an overview on the Gaza Strip which although it pre-dates the disengagement is useful to highlight just how the palestinians are treated by the israeli gov't

The World’s Largest Prison

ANDREW KENNIS

Naema says that her people live in a big, crowded prison. Israeli General Doron Almog concurs, saying that Naema and her people are imprisoned. A little boy draws pictures not of flowers or the nearby beach, but of tanks, fighter jets and bulldozers. These are scenes from the most densely populated territory in the world: the Gaza strip.

The Gaza strip is one of the two occupied Palestinian territories that has been under Israeli military occupation for thirty-six years. A closer look at the history and conditions in the Gaza Strip takes us much closer to an understanding of the conditions described above.

What is the Gaza Strip and Who Lives There?

The Gaza strip is a small piece of land, 360 square kilometers long and no longer than 70 kilometers wide at anyone point (its coastline is only 40 kilometers long). The strip is located in the southwest of Israel and has been under Israeli occupation since 1967.

Some 1.2 million Palestinians live in the Gaza strip, of which three-fourths are refugees from the war of 1948 that led to Israeli control over most of the territory that the UN had intended to split between Jews and Palestinians. Despite the overwhelming majority of Gaza’s residents being Palestinian, 42% of the strip is under the control of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and is reserved for 6,000 Israeli settlers. Settlers and Israeli soldiers, however, only account for 0.5% of the population and are thus at the center of the conflict in the Gaza strip, with their disproportionate land holdings and occupational military tactics.

In addition to disproportionate land holdings, Israeli soldiers and settlers enjoy a number of economic advantages and freedoms that Palestinians are not entitled to. For example, 88% of water, a precious resource in the largely desert climate of the region, is diverted from Palestinian territories by Israel for its own use. Digging wells is illegal for Palestinians, but not for Israeli settlers. As a result, settlers consume 1,000 times more water than do Palestinians in Gaza, while they pay one-fourth the price that Palestinians do.

http://web.gc.cuny.edu/advocate/DEC03ISSUE/dec03 articles web format/Dec03Gaza.htm

Here is a report from british MPs -

Palestinian malnutrition at African levels under Israeli curbs, say MPs
By Ben Russell
Political Correspondent From the UK Independent
February 5, 2004

Malnutrition rates in the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank are as bad as those in sub-Saharan Africa, MPs said yesterday. They warned that the Israeli security fence around the occupied territories was “destroying the Palestinian economy and creating widespread poverty”.

The all-party Commons International Development Committee called for European Union trade sanctions to be imposed on Israel until it allowed the free export of goods from the West Bank and Gaza.

The committee’s report also condemned suicide bombings as “morally abhorrent” and “a catastrophic tactic that has done great harm to the Palestinian cause”.

MPs called on the Palestinian Authority to be more vocal in its condemnation of attacks. “Israel’s security measures are preventing Palestinians from accessing services as well as inhibiting humanitarian and development work,” the MPs said. “They are destroying the Palestinian economy and creating widespread poverty.”

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/malnutrition.html

It is difficult to distinguish between the israelis' treatment of the palestinians today and the nazi party's treatment of the jews in pre-war Germany and behaviour that was vile and abhorrent then is just as vile and abhorrent today..

 

[fargoth]

first of all, your quotes are outdated, israel evacuated the settlements in gaza strip, and handed over the control to the PA, israel no longer occupies gaza strip.

as for traveling between gaza strip and WB, its that hard only because israel has to monitor for smuggles who want to get weapon in\out of the strip and terrorists who wish to bomb themeselves in israel.

its hardly the same reason the natzis had.
when the palestinian police try to control the terror organizations in gaza there were much less restrictions, but now they do nothing to prevent terrorism, they even encourage it.
i don't see how you can blame israel for restricting access to and from the gaza strip in this situation, what would your country do? welcome terrorists into its territory or let them exchange weapons, money and drugs?.
i don't think so.

why is the israeli government worse then hamas? israel agreed to return almost completely to the pre 67 lines, they recognize palestines right to exist as an indepensant state, before the violence began this was the situation... in camp david the PA made it clear that pre-67 lines are not enough, they want pre 47 lines, the call it the refugees right to return to their land.
israel has shown more then once it wants peace.

if israel was as bad as the nazis, believe me, there would have been no palestinians to talk to... the nazis exterminated in their deathcamps more then half million jews per year.
how many palestinans died in two years? 160? and 130 of them had israeli blood on their hands, whiche leaves 15 civilans killed per year, and even if you do count them all... hmm... 500000 deaths vs. 65 deaths...
and they didnt die in death camps, they died because they resisted arrest.

I think youre comparing a fly to something much much bigger then an elephant, try to be more careful with you comparisons.

 

[Art]

first of all, your quotes are outdated, israel evacuated the settlements in gaza strip, and handed over the control to the PA, israel no longer occupies gaza strip.

Try to read what I wrote!

and for an overview on the Gaza Strip which although it pre-dates the disengagement is useful to highlight just how the palestinians are treated by the israeli gov't

I believe the situation has deteriorated further for the palestinians since then.

as for traveling between gaza strip and WB, its that hard only because israel has to monitor for smuggles who want to get weapon in\out of the strip and terrorists who wish to bomb themeselves in israel.

its hardly the same reason the natzis had.

International monitors including jewish human rights groups say the restrictions are far more about punushment than security

when the palestinian police try to control the terror organizations in gaza there were much less restrictions, but now they do nothing to prevent terrorism, they even encourage it.

Source please.

i don't see how you can blame israel for restricting access to and from the gaza strip in this situation, what would your country do? welcome terrorists into its territory or let them exchange weapons, money and drugs?.

As said the restrictions are about punishment not security and could you explain how preventing palestinians from drilling wells for water has anything to do with security.

i don't think so.

why is the israeli government worse then hamas?

Mainly because they have better, more deadly weapons.

israel agreed to return almost completely to the pre 67 lines, they recognize palestines right to exist as an indepensant state, before the violence began this was the situation... in camp david the PA made it clear that pre-67 lines are not enough, they want pre 47 lines, the call it the refugees right to return to their land.
israel has shown more then once it wants peace.

Total bunk! The Camp David Accords resulted in a) a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel and b) only a framework for how negotiations would be conducted with the palestinians. Even this the Egyptians, Israel and the USA shortly after disagreed on what had been agreed on.

if israel was as bad as the nazis, believe me, there would have been no palestinians to talk to... the nazis exterminated in their deathcamps more then half million jews per year.
how many palestinans died in two years? 160? and 130 of them had israeli blood on their hands, whiche leaves 15 civilans killed per year, and even if you do count them all... hmm... 500000 deaths vs. 65 deaths...
and they didnt die in death camps, they died because they resisted arrest.

I think youre comparing a fly to something much much bigger then an elephant, try to be more careful with you comparisons.

Again, try to read what I wrote!

It is difficult to distinguish between the israelis' treatment of the palestinians today and the nazi party's treatment of the jews in pre-war Germany and behaviour that was vile and abhorrent then is just as vile and abhorrent today..

And really inventing make believe statistics adds nothing to the discussion. In 2004 alone there were 818 palestinan civilians killed. Perhaps you're confused because a survey of the New York Times for this period found Israeli deaths were reported at a rate of 149% whilst only 41% of palestinaian deaths were reported.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/nyt-report.html

 

[fargoth]

again, the reasons for what the nazis did in pre-war germany are MUCH different then those of israel, there were no jew terrorists in pre-war germany.

where did they say the restrictions are more of a punishment then a security measure?
if you were a russian in the US back in the cold war, you couldn't visit you relatives and exchange goods either.
israeli planes arent allowed to fly above syria, does that mean they violet human right?
its israel's right to deny access of an enemy to its territory.
and you ignore the fact egypt do the same.

as for camp david, get your facts right:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_campdavid_2000.php

The details were not disclosed formally, but according to media reports Barak's offer included:

* Israeli redeployment from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip
* The creation of a Palestinian state in the areas of Israeli withdrawal
* The removal of isolated settlements and transfer of the land to Palestinian control
* Other Israeli land exchanged for West Bank settlements remaining under Israeli control
* Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, including most of the Old City
* "Religious Sovereignty" over the Temple Mount, replacing Israeli sovereignty in effect since 1967

In return Arafat had to declare the "end of conflict" and agree that no further claims on Israel could be made in the future. Despite the considerable concessions by Israel, Arafat chose not to negotiate, not to make a counter-offer but to just walk out. This was typical of the Palestinian leader's style: offer nothing, just say no and wait for more concessions. In fact, the Palestinian negotiating team did make concessions during the negotiating process, but Arafat himself never agreed. It was not the specific terms that caused the summit to collapse, but rather the lack of a counterproposal. In addition, Arafat continued to insist on the Palestinian demand for a "right of return" of refugees to Israel, a demand that Israel cannot accept under any peace plan since it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

after camp david, barak offered even a better deal at taba:
http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm

 

[Art]

I think you are confusing the Camp David Accords with the Oslo Accords. Arafat wasn't even at the Camp David negotiations.

Terms of the agreements
There were two 1978 Camp David agreements A Framework for Peace in the Middle East and A Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel, the second leading towards the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty signed in March, 1979. The agreements and the peace treaty were both accompanied by "side-letters" of understanding between Egypt and the US and Israel and the US.[1]

The first agreement had three parts. The first part was a framework for negotiations to establish an autonomous self-governing authority in the West Bank and the Gaza strip and to fully implement SC 242. It was less clear than the agreements concerning the Sinai, and was later interpreted differently by Israel, Egypt, and the US.

The second part dealt with Egyptian-Israeli relations, the real content being in the second agreement. The third part "Associated Principles" declared principles that should apply to relations between Israel and all of its Arab neighbors.

The second agreement outlined a basis for the peace treaty 6 months later, in particular deciding the future of the Sinai peninsula. Israel agreed to withdraw its armed forces from the Sinai and restore it to Egypt in return for normal diplomatic relations with Egypt, guarantees of freedom of passage through the Suez Canal and other nearby waterways (such as the Straits of Tiran), and a restriction on the forces Egypt could place on the Sinai peninsula, especially within 20-40km from Israel. Israel also agreed to limit its forces a smaller distance (3 km) from the Egyptian border, and to guarantee free passage between Egypt and Jordan.

The agreement also resulted in the United States committing to several billion dollars worth of annual subsidies to the governments of both Israel and Egypt, subsidies which continue to this day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords

And I think Yitzhak Rabin's “break the bones” policy was an idea any nazi would have been proud of.

people who had been throwing stones – often youths – were held down and their arms broken. On the first day of this policy alone, one hospital in Gaza treated 200 People for fractures

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/

BTW I am still waiting for you to denounce Israeli gov't terrorism or do you have no problem holding double standards.

 

[fargoth]

you keep on giving very outdated links...

youre talking about the year 1978 while i talk about 2000, you should read my links before you reply:

The timeline of the 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum called for final status negotiations to be completed by September 13, 2000. Talks during late 1999 and the first half of 2000 led to President Clinton's invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat for a summit at Camp David, Maryland to be convened July 11, 2000.

its the first paragraph in the page i posted...

stones thrown at you with a slingshot can do more then break your arms, they don't throw tiny stones... its pretty big and if they hit you it could crush your bones at more vital areas then arms... and i think the parrents of the children are more then partly responsible for sending them there to throw rocks, its not as if they haven't warned them first and suddenly started breaking arms (though it still sounds pretty weird to me, i don't recall this policy, have you seen it mantioned in any other place?).

breaking arms is too much, so there, i condamn this act - and i think the courthouse did this too because you don't see it happening now... but there must be some kind of retaliation, right now the most extreme retaliation on rock throwers is smoke granades.and you keep doing irrelevant comparrisons, the nazis hang for no reason people, they let their dogs eat them alive, they experimented on pregnant women, they enslaved their prisoners to work all day with only one bowl of soup per day, nothing israel does can be compared to the horrors of the nazis, so please stop doing these comparisons!

i think youre the opne holding double standards, put your country in the place of israel and think what it would have done.
would your country let its soldiers and civilians get hurt by rocks and do nothing about it?
would your country allow terrorists to conduct weapon smuggling and bomb themeselves in its land?
would your country do nothing to stop terrorists?

all these "terror" acts you mantion israel do are its right to defend itself.

atleast israel has shown unlike the PA its willing to live alongside with palestinian state.

instead of pointing your finger, try to think what would you do if you faced the same situation and you had the command.
its much easier to show what's wrong then to think what's right.

please tell me in you next post what you think israel should do right now to be moral in your eyes, and try to answer yourself with the reaction of the palestinians to these acts.

 

[Art]

First I spoke about the Camp David Accords you responded to that post so I naturally presumed you were talking about the same thing.. There were no such accords from the Clinton meetings.

The justifications you use for brutal Israeli actions are the very same the extremist palestinians use to justify their terror acts and both are wrong! Both sides claim to be responding to acts by the other side and both accuse the other side of trying to annihilate them.

As a member of the world community the onus is on Israel to set a good example. If Israel wants to hold the moral high ground then they need to desist from contravening international agreements such as the Geneva conventions. I have never seen the logic of responding to an attack on one's civilians by simply killing an even greater number of civilians on the other side. This only plays into the hands of terrorist groups and pushes former moderates into the hands of the extremists. The best way to defeat Hamas is to isolate them by bringing the moderates back into the fold of centre politics.

As I said in an earlier post I would like to see the world community exert pressure equally on both sides to come to a fair agreement in which both sides make compromises. Israel's current plan which the US is supporting to give back a patchwork quilt of land to the palestinians whilst maintaing full control of all access and egress points does not leave the palestinians with a viable state and so is doomed to failure.

The point of comparing israeli gov't behaviour today with the behaviour of pre-war nazis is that at the beginning the nazis did not slaughter jews. They first created an illusion that the jews were a sub-species not worthy of normal human considerations.

I see parallels with the way the israeli gov't dehumanises palestinians and so ultimately Israel's current policies could easily lead to them also seeking a 'final solution' to deal with the problem of the palestinians.
It may not be gas chambers but whether it be gas or tanks and missiles the outcome is the same for those on the receiving end.

 

[Gokul43201]

Hamas has been observing a ceasefire for over a year now whilst Israel has continued merrily with it's program of assassinations (illegal under international law). So who is terrorising who??

Over a year ago ?

The only ceasefire agreement I'm aware of was made late in September last year (about 7 months ago).

If they had made a ceasefire agreement much earlier, then the Aug 28 suicide bombing which they claimed responsibility for would have been in violation. Or would it ? I only recall the ceasefire being imposed on rockets attacks.

In any case, there have at least 5 major suicide attacks since then (mostly claimed by Islamic Jihad) that have killed about 25 civilians and injured over 200 Israelis.

Was Israeli retaliation directed at Hamas or the other groups (like IJ) ?

Nevertheless, I think the present US policy regarding aid to Palestine may not be the best way to get Hamas to denounce and crack down on terrorism. I think it takes a little bit of carrot as an incentive, and towards that end, the just finalized plan for direct payment of salaries by funds set up in the World Bank may help some...if executed correctly, and with a strict sunset clause.

 

[Art]

Hamas has been observing an unofficial ceasefire since Jan 2005.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4251591.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3256858.stm

Fargoth you asked if there were any other references to the "break the bones" policy. If you google on - "break the bones" Israel - you will find 9,300 references.

 

[fargoth]

what ceasefire? they fire rockets on israel every day, and send suicide bombers.

and israel's retaliation is not killing even more civilians, its catching those who planned these operations and putting them behind bars - if they resist arrest by shooting at the troops they are being shot at, and may get killed, the civilians who get killed, are less in number then those in the israelli side, and they die by accident.

i didnt get your way to isolate hamas... please elaborate.

i found only 570 links for breaking the bones, and haven't found the thing you talked about so far... i'll keep looking.
ok, found it... and its so old... the first intifada was in the 80's, and rabin got lots of criticism about this policy.
israel acts now much better toward the palestinians.

you'll have to get fresh news if you want me to condamn the "acts of terror" israel do.
the acts in these old news were condamned many time already, that's why you don't see israel repeat them.
infact i liked the latest links you posted, they are more updated and show the current picture better, although they lack details.
you don't see them talking about how israel is evil and you don't see them compare israel to the pre-war nazis...edit:
and for recent development:
-israel will hand over taxes at the sum of 50 million dollars to the PA for humanitary aid.

and another one:

Hamas at the head of Palestinian government and Mahmoud Abbas’s defeated Fatah are spending tens and hundreds of millions of dollars on arming their groups and paying adherents. Not a single Quartet foreign minister called Palestinian leaders to account for diverting funds needed to feed the population to armament. Instead, the US, EU and Russian foreign ministers accepted the claim put before them by Saudi, Egyptian and Jordanian envoys, that the Palestinian people faces humanitarian disaster if international funds continue to be held back.

They even took on trust the Arab foreign ministers' attempt to somehow ascribe the violent Fatah-Hamas violent power struggle raging in the Gaza Strip to the purported lack of funds (sic).

Despite the evidence from Jerusalem that the Palestinians are not short of medicines and essential foods, which Israel allows through to the Gaza Strip, the US surrendered to the majority Quartet view after EU foreign affairs executive Javier Solana’s declared with pathos: “We will not let the Palestinians starve.”

Washington is expected next to allocate $10m urgent medical aid to the Palestinians. IDF allowed another four trucks of medicines and medical equipment for Palestinian hospitals to pass through Gaza crossing Tuesday, in the wake of food convoys.

 

[russ_watters]

Hamas is making small noises about the possibility of accepting the principle of the existence of Israel in a negotiated deal with Fatah. The current wording doesn't apparently accept the concept of peace, nor does it explicitly state that it would accept the existence of Israel, but it does imply that it would accept the existence of Israel.

At the same time, Israel is ready (and has been for a while) to withdraw from much (but no, not all) of the occupied territories.

After months of tensions, senior members of the rival Hamas and Fatah factions have forged a joint platform, including acceptance of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, said Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
However, it was unclear whether Hamas, particularly the group's hardline leaders abroad, will back the program, which would signal a major softening of positions. Until now, Hamas has balked at the West's demands that it renounce violence, recognize Israel and accept existing peace agreements...

The document calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state "in all the lands occupied in 1967," a reference to the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem. Such an implied recognition of Israel would mark a major breakthrough for Hamas, which remains committed to the destruction of the Jewish state.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said he is ready to withdraw from much of the West Bank to create an independent Palestinian state. But he plans on holding on to large blocs of West Bank settlements and holy sites in east Jerusalem. Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza last year...

The draft does not renounce violence. Instead, it says that Palestinians would "focus their resistance on the lands occupied in 1967." Hamas has largely observed a truce since February 2005, but has refused to formally renounce violence. Barghouti has supported continued shooting and bombing attacks against Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza, in contrast to Abbas who opposes all violence.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-05-11-palestinian-politics_x.htm

Again, all that is really required for that process to move forward is for Hamas and its constituents to accept the principle of peace with Israel. And for the world community, accepting the principle of peace is what is required for Hamas's government to be recognized. It seems like such a simple and obvious thing to me - an obvious moral difference:

Accept the principle of peace = good
Don't accept the principle of peace = bad

Until Hamas accepts the principle of peace, though, it is perfectly acceptable - heck, necesary to treat it like the criminal organization it is, and bring the full legal weight of our influence to bear on changing them.

Anyway, Hurkyl has said it before, but it bears repeating. Some of you don't even acknowledge the existence of this issue (the issue of the acceptance of peace and coexistence with Israel). But to the rest of the world, this issue is the critical issue for accepting the Palestinian government as legitimate. The world community considers the desire for acceptance from the rest of the world incompatible - indeed, mutually exclusive - with the desire to annihilate Israel. Is that fair? I think so, but a better question is is the question of fairness relevant? No. Fair or not, it is a reality that Hamas and its constituentes need to deal with.

 

[Art]

And if Israel continues to act as a criminal organisation what should be done with them? It's ironic but in 1947 Israel refused to denounce terrorism as it saw it as a necessary strategy in it's attempt to form a jewish state.

Following is a quote from UNSCOP at that time,

"The right of any community to use force as a means of gaining its political ends is not admitted in the British Commonwealth. Since the beginning of 1945 the Jews have implicitly claimed this right and have supported by an organized campaign of lawlessness, murder and sabotage their contention that, whatever other interests might be concerned, nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of a Jewish State and free Jewish immigration into Palestine. It is true that large numbers of Jews do not today attempt to defend the crimes that have been committed in the name of these political aspirations. They recognize the damage caused' to their good name by these methods in the court of world opinion. Nevertheless, the Jewish community of Palestine still publicly refuses its help to the Administration in suppressing terrorism, on the ground that the Administration's policy is opposed to Jewish interests. The converse of this attitude is clear, and its result, however much the Jewish leaders themselves may not wish it, has been to give active encouragement to the dissidents and freer scope to their activities."

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread190081/pg1

Forgetting the day to day transgressions for a moment and looking at the overall picture;

International law states unequivocally that it is illegal for states to acquire land through conquest yet Israel insists that is precisely what it intends to do.

It also states it is illegal to create settlements on occupied land, a law which Israel breaks daily.

There is also a legal responsibilty for the well being of civilians in occupied land and given the poverty and dire living conditions the palestinians suffer after nearly 40 years of occupation nobody can seriously claim the israelis are fulfilling their obligations

Forgetting about what is or is not fair the question is does the world really want to create a precedent that ethnic cleansing and acquisition of land by conquest are legitimate policies for governments to adopt by rewarding such behaviour? Would europe or the US be happy to support a policy refusing the right of return to Kosovans who fled the conflict there? I think not!

Ultimately we either have international law or we don't. If we do then everybody should be treated equally under it's provisions and if not then chaos and anarchy will reign as demonstrated in Palestine.

 

[russ_watters]

And if Israel continues to act as a criminal organisation what should be done with them?

Let's be clear: the world community recognizes Israel as a legitimate country and does not recognize Hamas as a legitimate government. It doesn't matter how you choose to characterize it - that's the way it is and you'll need to deal with that reality even if you don't accept it as being reasonable. You can't just make Israel a criminal organization just by saying it - not even by arguing it, no matter how strong you may think your argument is (and especially not with 60 year old arguments). And you cannot esecape the fact that Israel desires peace and Hamas does not. The simple reality is that the world at large disagrees with you and because of that, you will need to deal with the issue on those terms, and in the present tense. Otherwise you will simply continue be pushing against a brick wall.

That's what I/Hurkyl have been talking about: you put on the blinders and don't even acknowledge the realities of the situation. Reality does not have to conform to how you wish it would be.

So - there is no need for me to respond directly to that statement or the rest of your post. What you said was pointless because it doesn't address the issue as the world community sees it (which is why I haven't said much in this thread in a few days). Little arguments over how bad each side is are pointelss or even counterproductive for the goal of finding a solution.

And we've pointed this out before as well, but the blinders one side has on means that the negotiating table only has one side sitting at it: Israel. Only Israel (with the support of the world community) is currently attempting to find a peaceful solution to this issue. That's a two-part reality: part 1 is that this is why Israel is considered to be a legitimate government, while Hamas is not. Whether it matters to you or not, the fact that Israel wants peace and Hamas does not matters to the world community. Part 2 is that this makes peace mostly a decision for Hamas: they can have peace if they want it. Right now, they do not.

So, that is why this article was noteworthy: it shows that Hamas may be willing to take the blinders off and start actually negotiating for peace.

 

[Art]

Lets be clear: the world community recognizes Israel as a legitimate country and does not recognize Hamas as a legitimate government. It doesn't matter how you choose to characterize it - that's the way it is and you'll need to deal with that reality even if you don't accept it as being reasonable. You can't just make Israel a criminal organization just by saying it - not even by arguing it, no matter how strong you may think your argument is (and especially not with 60 year old arguments). The simple reality is that the world at large disagrees with you and because of that, you will need to deal with the issue on those terms, and in the present tense. Otherwise you will simply continue be pushing against a brick wall.

That's what I/Hurkyl have been talking about: you put on the blinders and don't even acknowledge the realities of the situation. Reality does not have to conform to how you wish it would be.

So - there is no need for me to respond directly to that statement or the rest of your post. What you said was pointless because it doesn't address the issue as the world community sees it (which is why I haven't said much in this thread in a few days).

The israeli palestinian conflict didn't just pop up out of nowhere yesterday. It is impossible to adjudge the conflict today without reference to it's historical roots.

Palestinians are not genetically inclined to become suicide bombers; there is a reason for their behaviour. Unless those reasons are addressed then it is hard to see how there can ever be a long term solution.

The reality today, much as some may not like it, as expressed by the voiced opinion of the world community is represented by the series of UN resolutions which Israel has steadfastly ignored. I am surprised that some here seem to think that ignoring these resolutions is okay especially as they are the same folk who advocated war with Iraq for purportedly ignoring UN resolutions.

So returning to my point above in the absence of any new UN resolutions any solution to the conflict must be based on the existing UN resolutions or the concept of international law will be seriously damaged. That is the reality much as those who are blinkered do not wish to see it.

i.e. No territorial gains by conquest, no ethnic cleansing and no random or reckless attacks on civilians. So Russ which of these legal principles do you disagree with?

BTW the world community DOES recognise Hamas as the legitimate leaders of the PA, they just don't like them. There's a big difference between these 2 positions.

Edit just read your edit so I'll reply to that.

First your assertion that Israel wants a negotiated peace is, as I have already pointed out to you, simply wrong! Israel is on record as saying they WILL NOT negotiate with the palestinians. They have said they will unilaterally decide where their borders will lie and IMPOSE this on the palestinians. By no stretch of the imagination can this be called negotiating peace.

The palestinians are not war mongering savages, of course they want peace, probably more so than Israel as they are suffering more. The problem is, Israel wants peace okay but entirely on it's terms. Hitler wanted peace too after conquering europe. Did that make those countries who tried to push him back to his borders war mongerers and peace haters?

 

[russ_watters]

The israeli palestinian conflict didn't just pop up out of nowhere yesterday. It is impossible to adjudge the conflict today without reference to it's historical roots.

I was going to comment on that in the above post, but decided not to... It is certainly true, but at the same time, just because things were one way 60 years ago, doesn't automatically make them that way today. The way you cite history implies accusations about how things are today. Ie, the thing about imperialism and Israel. Whether or not it was true 60 years ago, the fact that Israel is unilaterally withdrawing from occupied territories means it is not true today.

Tying that to your next quote: if the reasons don't exist anymore, what then? Should they still be addressed or is it counterproductive to count the bodies of past wars? Sometimes you need to put the past behind you in order to move forward. Remember the lesson of WWI/WWII? Punish your enemy for past actions and all you do is ensure he'll be your enemy tomorrow. It is difficult to let go, but it is essential, and it is a sign of cultural maturity.

Palestinians are not genetically inclined to become suicide bombers; there is a reason for their behaviour. Unless those reasons are addressed then it is hard to see how there can ever be a long term solution.

The problem is much more basic. The problem is: do they want a long-term solution? As long as they continue to hold the official position that they do not want a long term solution, solutions will continue to be imposed on them by the outside world.

You cannot address the particulars of the problem unless both sides actually show up at the negotiating table.

So returning to my point above in the absence of any new resolutions any solution to the conflict must be based on the existing UN resolutions or the concept of international law will be seriously damaged.

Since it is hypothetical anyway, I have no problem stipulating to it. Yes, any solution needs to have a basis in international law and, better yet, be brokered by international mediators. Ok, but so what? How do you get to the point of finding a solution if Hamas continues to say they do not WANT a solution?

 

[fargoth]

i thought id argue with you about your 60 year old news, because they're not accurate.
but they don't even relate to israel, on 1945 israel didnt exist...
and as russ said there's no point in dwelling in the past.

i wanted to say i fully agree with everything russ said in his last two posts (maybe more, but i don't perfectly remember them, so i don't guarantee it ).

 

[Art]

Russ I can say with a lot of confidence if Israel were to abide by and implement the terms of the outstanding UN resolutions the vast majority of palestinians would be utterly delighted and there would be peace. There may well still be extremist leaders of groups such as Islamic Jihad unhappy with the arrangements but I think they would find it very, very hard to recruit their foot soldiers.

Although you do not like my historical references to the conflict it is important to remember for many palestinians actions implemented then are still being implemented today. Entire generations of ethnically cleansed palestinians and their descendants have lived and died in refugee camps. Theirs or their parents displacement may seem like history to you but to them it is their present.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ I can say with a lot of confidence if Israel were to abide by and implement the terms of the outstanding UN resolutions the vast majority of palestinians would be utterly delighted and there would be peace.

Again, so what? Hamas does not want peace under any terms, so what does it matter if the Palestinian people might under the terms you just outlined? Are you saying that Israel should unilaterally give everything it has to give on the chance that Hamas might drop its requirement that Israel be annihilated? What if they don't??! Don't you see how rediculous it is to give all your concessions before negotiating? Don't you see how rediculous it is to require only one side of the conflict to make concessions or follow UN mandates?

And just a note - I'm letting go all of the one-sidedness of what you are posting, but I'll just point out that there are, of course, UN resolutions that the Palestinians/Hamas/neighboring Arabs have violated as well. But that doesn't stop Israel from going to the negotiating table. Again, regardless of the particulars of who has done what to whom (and there is a lot to go around, on both sides), only one side is currently willing to negotiate: Israel. Don't you see how rediculous it is to require that only one side make concessions, and even then without any guarantee that will result in an agreement? That does, however, highlight how truly remarkable it is that Israel is making these unilateral concessions. It shines a spotlight on the contrast between the two parties and again makes it clear why one is accepted by the international community and the other is not.

Although you do not like my historical references to the conflict it is important to remember for many palestinians actions implemented then are still being implemented today. Entire generations of ethnically cleansed palestinians and their descendants have lived and died in refugee camps. Theirs or their parents displacement may seem like history to you but to them it is their present.

You're changing the issue. What is in the present is in the present, and since I said what is in the present is what is important, how could I argue with what is in the present? What I object to (and I was explicit about this) is the historical references that although true at the time are not true now, but by referencing them, you imply that they are. I won't get drawn into a side-argument, but to give one example:

It's ironic but in 1947 Israel refused to denounce terrorism as it saw it as a necessary strategy in it's attempt to form a jewish state.

So what? That isn't true anymore, so what possible relevance can it have to cite it? Do you want me to acknowledge that it was wrong then? I do! It was wrong then, regardless of the reason they held the view. So will you acknowledge that it is wrong now for Hamas to hold a similar position for any reason?

 

[Art]

I thought I had made my position abundantly clear but I shall repeat myself yet again. I do not support Hamas and it's policies so why you expect me to try and defend them is beyond me.

I am talking about the palestinian people. You seem to believe this is one and the same thing as Hamas. It obviously is not as the majority of palestinians did not vote for them.

And I really am tired of having to repeatedly tell you Israel is not looking for negotiations with the palestinians. In fact Israel has stated categorically it will not negotiate with the palestinians. Israel will decide unilaterally where it's borders will lie and the palestinians will have to like it or lump it. Given that the likely outcome will be a patchwork quilt of unviable land with Israel controlling entry and egress from these enclaves I imagine it will be a case of 'lumping' it.

And Russ you are either not reading my posts or are deliberately misrepresenting them.

 

[russ_watters]

I thought I had made my position abundantly clear but I shall repeat myself yet again. I do not support Hamas and it's policies so why you expect me to try and defend them is beyond me.

I am not asking you to defend the policies of Hamas - just acknowledge that you know what they are and why they matter for the peace process!

And while you have said "Hamas=bad", you also said "Israel=bad or worse". In order to claim that, you must substantiate it, and that big elephant in the living room you keep ignoring makes that pretty tough.

I am talking about the palestinian people. You seem to believe this is one and the same thing as Hamas. It obviously is not as the majority of palestinians did not vote for them.

1. Regardless of the vote distribution, Hamas won.
2. Hamas is in power, so they are the ones who must be dealt with on the international level. So what the Palestinian people may or may not think is not relevant to finding a solution.
3. In the second sentence of that post of mine, I was explicit in differentiating the wants of Hamas and the wants of the Palestinian people(indicating I did notice you did the same), then made an argument as to why one is relevant and the other is not. So which one of us is missing the other person's argument?

And I really am tired of having to repeatedly tell you Israel is not looking for negotiations with the palestinians. In fact Israel has stated categorically it will not negotiate with the palestinians.

And you base that assertion on what? It explicitly contradicts the statements of Israel's leaders, posted in this thread. (you said it earlier today as well, and I missed it then.)

And Russ you are either not reading my posts or are deliberately misrepresenting them.

Et tu, Art. At least I quote specific parts and reply to them. If I misrepresented an argument of yours, quote the specific place I did that and explain. You haven't even acknowledged that you've seen most of my arguments - including some of the key points. But please - I want to understand your points: if there is a point that I have misrepresented or missed, please do point out my error. Most of your assertions are one-liners that you don't substantiate anyway. I have responded to quite a number that you have then failed to support.

But by not even acknowledging, much less addressing the specific points/questions of others, you give the impression of trolling. The last section of my previous post, for example. Barring a better explanation, which you haven't provided, I am forced to assume you know it wasn't relevant, but you posted it for the purpose of taking a pot-shot at Israel. That's trolling.

 

[Art]

Let me know when you're finished editing and I'll reply...

 

[russ_watters]

Important enough to re-emphasize:

And I really am tired of having to repeatedly tell you Israel is not looking for negotiations with the palestinians. In fact Israel has stated categorically it will not negotiate with the palestinians.

Please substantiate that. It directly contradicts quotes from Israeli leaders, cited earlier in this thread. Ie:

I wish to move forward with a political process with our Palestinian neighbors.[Sharon, 2003]

 

[russ_watters]

Let me know when you're finished editing and I'll reply...

Finished...sorry, I know that's distracting when I post a work-in-progress.

 

[Art]

I am not asking you to defend the policies of Hamas - just acknowledge that you know what they are and why they matter for the peace process!

Any reasonable interpretation of the following would conclude that I had been supporting Hamas' policies which I have previously stated unambiguously I do not!.

So will you acknowledge that it is wrong now for Hamas to hold a similar position for any reason?

And while you have said "Hamas=bad", you also said "Israel=bad or worse". In order to claim that, you must substantiate it, and that big elephant in the living room you keep ignoring makes that pretty tough.

Elephant?? You've lost me there Russ

But as I already responded when Fargoth asked this same question what makes Israel possibly worse is their access to more and better weapons as evidenced by the civilian bodycount on both sides. Here's a quintessential example

Gaza militants cook up deadly mix
By Matthew Price
BBC News, Gaza

Since the start of the year, Palestinian militants have fired hundreds of home-made rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel, killing two Israeli civilians.

The Israeli army has hit back hard, firing some 6,000 shells into Gaza.
Five Palestinian civilians have been killed in these attacks.

with both sides using very similar justifications - First the palestinians

I ask them why they are doing this.

"To retaliate against Israeli aggression. To create a balance of fear. They shell our houses, so we will shell theirs."

But these rockets are hardly a match for one of the world's most sophisticated armies.

"We have to do something," comes the reply.

and then the Israelis

Army spokesman Captain Jacob Dallal said Israel was responding to Palestinian fire.

But was it acceptable for one of the world's most sophisticated armies to be shelling areas where civilians live, putting lives at risk?

"We can't have a situation where people living in this village here, or that city over there, are under rocket fire," he said. "And this is a border. The border has to be quiet."

For now, neither side is backing down.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4763507.stm

So as I said both as bad as each other. Both justify terrorist acts by claiming they are responding to fire from the other side with Israel having the edge in terms of quantity and quality of munitions with the result Pal 2 Isr 5.

1. Regardless of the vote distribution, Hamas won.
2. Hamas is in power, so they are the ones who must be dealt with on the international level. So what the Palestinian people may or may not think is not relevant to finding a solution.
3. In the second sentence of that post of mine, I was explicit in differentiating the wants of Hamas and the wants of the Palestinian people(indicating I did notice you did the same), then made an argument as to why one is relevant and the other is not. So which one of us is missing the other person's argument?

To answer your last question first - You ,based on your quote above. Just to be perfectly clear I support a dual state solution in line with current UN resolutions not the annihilation of Israel.

Fortunately most of the world also agrees with me that Hamas and the palestinian people are distinguishable and so the palestinians can be dealt with on an international level whilst bypassing Hamas and so if the US stops blocking it aid will be restored. Hopefully a victory for humanitarianism and common sense.

And you base that assertion on what? It explicitly contradicts the statements of Israel's leaders, posted in this thread. (you said it earlier today as well, and I missed it then.)

Sharon's UNILATERAL declaration of where Israel's borders will be drawn which included the UNILATERAL anexation of palestinian land. Note unilateral means no negotiations. http://www.jnul.huji.ac.il/IA/ArchivedSites/Gushshalom291203/www.gush-shalom.org/archives/article282.html

Et tu, Art. At least I quote specific parts and reply to them. If I misrepresented an argument of yours, quote the specific place I did that and explain. You haven't even acknowledged that you've seen most of my arguments - including some of the key points. But please - I want to understand your points: if there is a point that I have misrepresented or missed, please do point out my error. Most of your assertions are one-liners that you don't substantiate anyway. I have responded to quite a number that you have then failed to support.

See examples cited above in this post.

I posted detailed responses to your posts earlier in this thread. Check back and you will see you didn't so much as acknowledge them.

If there are key points of yours you would like me to address list them and I'll respond. Though some such as this

Again, so what? Hamas does not want peace under any terms, so what does it matter if the Palestinian people might under the terms you just outlined? Are you saying that Israel should unilaterally give everything it has to give on the chance that Hamas might drop its requirement that Israel be annihilated? What if they don't??! Don't you see how rediculous it is to give all your concessions before negotiating? Don't you see how rediculous it is to require only one side of the conflict to make concessions or follow UN mandates?

I had already addressed and didn't see the point of repeating myself.

But by not even acknowledging, much less addressing the specific points/questions of others, you give the impression of trolling.

See bolded paragraph above before throwing around accusations of trolling.

The last section of my previous post, for example. Barring a better explanation, which you haven't provided, I am forced to assume you know it wasn't relevant, but you posted it for the purpose of taking a pot-shot at Israel. That's trolling.

Just because YOU think the historical content of the israeli palestinian conflict is irrelevant does not make it so. Past behaviour is often a good indicator of current and future behaviour. Israel has always demonstrated the capacity and the will to achieve it's goals no matter what. For example - it is even today in breach of international law (as previously outlined) and is still flouting UN resolutions.

I have spelt out clearly what I think the resolution of the conflict should be so perhaps it would help if you spell out clearly what you think it should be.

Just to be perfectly clear I support a dual state solution in line with current UN resolutions

Just in case you missed it.

 

[Bilal]

Many thanks to Art for his informative answers.

*******************************
Is it difficult for some people to know the value of the homeland?

Is it difficult to be kicked out of your country to live under miserable conditions for decades as a refugee without any rights?
If USA, Israel and UK left any hope for the Palestinian people, then you will never hear about what so called Palestinian terrorism.
******************************************
No comments:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060514/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinian_unification

((By ARON HELLER, Associated Press Writer Sun May 14, 6:30 AM ET
JERUSALEM -
Israel's high court Sunday narrowly upheld a controversial law that restricts the right of Palestinians to live in Israel with their Arab Israeli spouses and children.
The law, imposed in 2002 at the height of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, is believed to have kept hundreds, and possibly thousands, of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians from moving to Israel to live with their families.))