[article] Palestinians New Weapons..

Meh

Originally posted by daveirl
I think you're making the same point as I did. I was saying that the Palestinian suicide bombers were wrong!! read my post again!

Yeah, I was agreeing with you

Originally posted by Memnoch:
why don't you instead suggest what they SHOULD do? something practical that they have the ability to do that will gain them their rights as human beings?

The most immediate, practical thing that the Palestinians could do right now to improve their prospects for the future would be to stop attacks on Israeli civilians. Every dead Israeli civilian makes a peace settlement less and less likely. (And on the other side of the coin, the most immediate, practical thing that Israel could do to improve its prospects for peaceful, secure borders would be to stop killing Palestinian civilians.)

halkar

Originally posted by Meh
..The most immediate, practical thing that the Palestinians could do right now to improve their prospects for the future would be to stop attacks on Israeli civilians. Every dead Israeli civilian makes a peace settlement less and less likely. (And on the other side of the coin, the most immediate, practical thing that Israel could do to improve its prospects for peaceful, secure borders would be to stop killing Palestinian civilians.)

And none of it will happen. The way the country divided right now if Palestinians agrees to peace they will be surrounded with Israeli lands with no contact to other world and we probably see Israel putting more walls and barriers around them. How can be Palestine country if their cities scattered all over Israel? How will the people move between cities with so strick Israeli check points. Israel even wnats to control their Egypt borders which I think they do at the moment. It's a total mess with lots of dead ends and I am afraid worst yet to come.

You can compare todays Israel to the original UN map of Israel of 1947 from here http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Facts%20About%20Israel/Israel%20in%20Maps/The%20Partition%20Plan-%20UN%20Resolution%20181%20-%2029%20Nov%20194 and you can ask yourself what happened to the Palestinians and Arabs of the lands they have taken by Israel.http://www.stanford.edu/class/history187b/ismap.htm

Meh

Originally posted by halkar
And none of it will happen. The way the country divided right now if Palestinians agrees to peace they will be surrounded with Israeli lands with no contact to other world and we probably see Israel putting more walls and barriers around them. ow can be Palestine country if their cities scattered all over Israel? How will the people move between cities with so strick Israeli check points. Israel even wnats to control their Egypt borders which I think they do at the moment.

But all of that stuff (and much worse) is going on right now, as you admit yourself. I'm told above that "for the majority of palestinian's their life is not much better than being dead, which is why they so readily commit suicide. They have no jobs, no money, no food, no future, no freedom". So the Palestinians have much more to gain than to lose from peace.

Given that they can never hope to defeat Israel militarily, as you say yourself above, it seems that a peace settlement is their only way forward.

Memnoch

Originally posted by daveirl
I think you're making the same point as I did. I was saying that the Palestinian suicide bombers were wrong!! read my post again!

I never said they were, I'm just simply pointing out that if that happened in Israel you'd argue it was justified because the Palestinians are oppresed. I'm saying that because you agree with the Palestinian cause you think Palestinian terror is OK, but you don't agree with Bin Laden so you don't think that's OK.

its not so much so an issue of cause... palestinian terror isn't terror, its "defence" against Israeli invasion in the only way that they can. Again I ask you, why is Israel's illegal occupation of palestine "legitimite" in your view as long as they only kill combatants, while palastinian's retaliation is terrorism?

Israeli's are the one's commiting the real aggression through occupation of palestinian terriroty. The palestinian's are just fighting back in any way that they can.

Memnoch

Originally posted by Meh
But all of that stuff (and much worse) is going on right now, as you admit yourself. I'm told above that "for the majority of palestinian's their life is not much better than being dead, which is why they so readily commit suicide. They have no jobs, no money, no food, no future, no freedom". So the Palestinians have much more to gain than to lose from peace.

Given that they can never hope to defeat Israel militarily, as you say yourself above, it seems that a peace settlement is their only way forward.

What kind of peace settlement? The israeli's will not give what the palestinian's deserve, its that simple. If the palestinian's stop fighting and capitulate to whatever the iraeli's choose to throw their way then yes in the short term things might be better for them, however in the long term, the palestinians need a sovereign state that is recognised internationally, and freedom for their people. Not to live of israeli scraps.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

Originally posted by daveirl
You believe that blowing up restuarants, Bar Mitzvahs, Buses, Trains whatever, is a legitimate 'fight back' I don't. Now I could agree with attacking Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories but I can't agree with their current method of 'fighting back'

err, lets see, so you want the palestinian's to only attack Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories when those soldier's are better armed, with equipment, armor, have backup's in terms of tank's, airsupport etc etc. Where the palestinian's have pretty much a 0 chance to inflict any sort of damage whatsoever to these guys, would prolly take 5 palestinian deaths to 1 israeli soldier's death. What is that going to achieve for the palestinians? I find it hard to believe that you really think this is a viable practical alternative.

Also answer one question, does the Israeli occupation of palestine harm only combatants?

If the Israeli occupation of palestine harms civilians as well as combatants, then in my opinon the Israeli civillians are fair game for the palestinians.

Come on man, wake up, this is war, Israel has a lot more strenght and U.S. backing, so they can pretend to only take out "military" targets, because thats all they need to to do exert the control, while they oppress and dehumanise the occupied population. This does not in any way, shape or form entitle the Israeli's to the moral high ground that so many people seem to bestow upon them.

BattleBoar

Originally posted by Memnoch
edit: Also - I couldn't help but notice how none of the people who replied to my previous replied to the murder of over half a million iraqi children by the americans. So by your silence I assume you agree that the American's are terrorists for comitting such atrocities?

The sanctions were imposed by the UN when Iraq invaded Kuwait and were left in place as a condition of disarmamant. The blame for those children lies totally with Saddam. He knew the conditions, and he didn't give two $hits about those kids. He merely used them as pawns to try to gain the sympathy of the world, and sadly, much of the world followed right along rather than condemning Saddam for allowing his population to die because he wouldn't comply with what the UN wanted. Even now we read that the oil for food programme was in reality nothing more than a tool used by Saddam's government to fleece the UN of more than 10 billion US dollars. Here was a programme enacted as a response to the complaints about the sanctions and meant to ease the suffering of the Iraqi children by allowing unlimited oil to be sold, provided the money was used for humanitarian goods and food. And what happened? Saddam basically stole the money from his own people, how many of those children would some 10+ billion US dollars have saved if it was spent in the way in which it was intended to be spent? And yet, blame for this still falls to the US? Why?

I'm completely against military intervention in all but a select few cases and I do not believe the US should have invaded Iraq, but I have no problem with economic measures, especially in this case because of the circumstances under which they were enacted. So anyway, to answer your question, I don't believe that the US was responsible, in any way, for a single child that died as a result of sanctions imposed on Saddam.

halkar

So lets look at the picture here. Saddam invaded Kuwait and went against UN and punished with sanctions, Israel goes and puts illegal settlemenst on Palestine lands and goes against UN many times they get no punishment. Iran tries to build Nuclear facilities (not only Iran but anyone in Middle East) they get mouthfull from UN and US. Israel won't let anyone to inspect their nuclear capabilities so breaking rules again. Why no sanctions to Israel for so many years? Why not teach them a lesson or two if rest of the world has to be told what to do what not to do by UN and US? What is so speacial about Israel that they get away with many things while rest of the Middle East countries dare to do? And now with the new laws past in Iraq (US laws in Iraq), they are prepearing to send kurdish jews back to north Iraq and guess what they will do there with the support of Israel? Buy lands and drink the oil. So we will see soon that Israel get their oil, legaly or not legaly who cares. Black gold after all and people kill for money, sooooooo true.

I am sure you know the answers to these and maybe it give you some idea why Middle East is full of US and Israel haters then supporters.

Meh

Originally posted by Memnoch
err, lets see, so you want the palestinian's to only attack Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories when those soldier's are better armed, with equipment, armor, have backup's in terms of tank's, airsupport etc etc. Where the palestinian's have pretty much a 0 chance to inflict any sort of damage whatsoever to these guys, would prolly take 5 palestinian deaths to 1 israeli soldier's death. What is that going to achieve for the palestinians?

What is blowing up civilians going to achieve for the Palestinians?

Also answer one question, does the Israeli occupation of palestine harm only combatants?

If the Israeli occupation of palestine harms civilians as well as combatants, then in my opinon the Israeli civillians are fair game for the palestinians.

I learnt in junior infants that two wrongs don't make a right. I guess you must have been out sick that day.

bonkey

Originally posted by Memnoch
err, lets see, so you want the palestinian's to only attack Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories when those soldier's are better armed, with equipment, armor, have backup's in terms of tank's, airsupport etc etc.

If they're set on armed resistance to whatever they see as being wrong with Israel, then I personally want them to do just that, yes.

Where the palestinian's have pretty much a 0 chance to inflict any sort of damage whatsoever to these guys, would prolly take 5 palestinian deaths to 1 israeli soldier's death.

I'm sorry - but what is considered acceptable conduct is entirely independant of what is considered successful tactics. I fail to see how you're making a connection.

Are you saying that once you're on what clearly would be the losing side, the rules can and should go out the window, and that everything should be acceptable because you don't want to lose?

Thats a pretty scary philosophy to me.

What is that going to achieve for the palestinians?

Personally, I don't care what it would achieve for the Palestinians. If it wouldn't achieve anything, then they shouldn't do it....but that still doesn't mean that they are in any way excusable or right to resort to terrorism as an alternative approach.

I can understand why it is done, but thats no different to saying I can understand why some people rob banks. It doesn't make it right, or excusable.

I find it hard to believe that you really think this is a viable practical alternative.

I find it terrifying that you could be even suggesting that the bombing of innocent children is a "viable practical " anything.....which is what you're saying if you reverse the perspective.

It reverses to say "Bombing innocent men, women and childrenis far more practical than attacking military targets as an alternative".

Do you really think that is a good argument to be making? Because whether you intend to or not, you are making that argument.

If the Israeli occupation of palestine harms civilians as well as combatants, then in my opinon the Israeli civillians are fair game for the palestinians.

So you believe that both sides are right in what they do then? Would it be so hard to say instead that they are both wrong?

Israel has a lot more strenght and U.S. backing, so they can pretend to only take out "military" targets, because thats all they need to to do exert the control, while they oppress and dehumanise the occupied population. This does not in any way, shape or form entitle the Israeli's to the moral high ground that so many people seem to bestow upon them.

Hang on a second. A minute ago you were talking about "effective alternatives". YOu've admitted this is a war, so offer an effective alternative for teh Israeli actions? Otherwise, they - by your own "whatever it takes" logic - are as correct in their actions as you are arguing that the Palestinians are.

I may not agree with your beliefs and standards, but I would say that if you want an argument to have any weight, you should apply those standards equally to both sides. You are not doing that.

jc

Boston

Would you not agree that settlers, of all types, as well as solders are viable targets bonkey? Because I would.Most Palestinitians groups used to restrict attacks to settlers and soldiers, until things escalated.

bonkey

Originally posted by Boston
Would you not agree that settlers, of all types, as well as solders are viable targets bonkey?

I can see the logic, but I personally wouldn't agree that they are "viable" targets.

To do so, one would have to consider why they are viable, and teh conclusion is because they ahve settled in disputed territory. Note - not Palestinian territory (as Palestine is not a nation) but disputed.

Now if its ok for Palestinians to target Israeli civilians for living in the disputed areas, then the reverse would also be true - the Israeli's would have the right to attack any Palestinian living in the same area, for exactly the same reasons.

Would you accept that in return for your stance? Would you not object if the Israeli's sent in tens of thousands of military to remove all Palestinians from the disputed terriroties?

jc

halkar

Israel already took those disputed lands, they are all settled by Israelis (or jews that came from abroad) and that is where the problem is. They have settled those lands and I don't see them giving up. You can look at the maps I have posted earlier for a clearity of what was Israel and what it became off. Palestinians can not form a nation there with their current status as they are pretty much prisoned by Israel in the lands they have.

bonkey

Originally posted by halkar
Israel already took those disputed lands, they are all settled by Israelis (or jews that came from abroad) and that is where the problem is.

Yes, I know that. What I'm saying is that saying only one side has the right to disputed lands kinda ignores the fact that they're disputed.

Either both sides should be allowed settle there in peace, pending resolution, or neither should. But for someone to say that its OK for Palestinians to settle there, but not for Israeli's shows that they don't consider the territories to be disputed at all - they consider them to be Palestinian.

So, if a Palestinian considering them to be his people's land gives him the right to kill Israeli's who settle there (or excuses it in any way), then the same logic must hold true for Israeli's settling there - they are entitled to consider it their people's land, and having done so are rigt to kill any Palestinians who try to settle there.

Thats not really a good way to find a peaceful solution to who gets what land.

They have settled those lands and I don't see them giving up.

"I don't see" is hardly grounds to justify terrorism.

jc

halkar

So why do you think they have the refugee camps in Israel now? Where are these people coming from? You seem to be missing the point that those lands were taken by Israelis, not given to them. Look at the original UN map. What are they disputing? You can't increase a population of country by buying people from abroad and giving them lands of others. What was the population of Israel then and what is it now? If one is a jew , they can go there and they will be given a land, house money taken from others to settle and if you are palestinian or anyone else you will get a boot and sent to the refugee camps and then they will turn against you.

The only way to piece there is to go back to the original UN maybe with some modifications but this will not happen as long as US is vetoing everything that is against Israel. It does not look like there will be a Palestine nation anytime soon and I doubt Israel wants a Palestine nation there either. As most of their actions will be attacking a sovereign nation and not acceptable by UN, not that they care about UN or anyone else.

Boston

Originally posted by bonkey
I can see the logic, but I personally wouldn't agree that they are "viable" targets.

To do so, one would have to consider why they are viable, and teh conclusion is because they ahve settled in disputed territory. Note - not Palestinian territory (as Palestine is not a nation) but disputed.

Now if its ok for Palestinians to target Israeli civilians for living in the disputed areas, then the reverse would also be true - the Israeli's would have the right to attack any Palestinian living in the same area, for exactly the same reasons.

Would you accept that in return for your stance? Would you not object if the Israeli's sent in tens of thousands of military to remove all Palestinians from the disputed terriroties?

jc

I'm talking about land given as the palestinian state at the time isreal was established. This is the area the isreali's seized during wars and which belong to the palestianians, and the syrians. Isreali's have no right ot be there. As for your last point, isnt that what already happened?

Hobbes

Didn't read the whole thread but apprantly the whole incident has been reported as staged.

mike65

Originally posted by halkar
You can't increase a population of country by buying people from abroad and giving them lands of others.

*Ahem, White Austrailia Policy....*

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Originally posted by mike65
*Ahem, White Austrailia Policy....*

Mike.

, America, South Africa, Ireland.....etc etc...