Israel

nick_riviera

Not an unfair point,but suicide bombings are hardly going to work
either.International law and moral argument is on the side of Israeli withdrawal and a Palestinian state,but blowing up pizza restaraunts and buses is not likely to increase international sympathy.Aside from the fact that it is counter-productive,it's also
just plain wrong.

Celt

TypeDef and Sand arguing on a thread about Israel, how shocking!

Me, it's rather obvious that neither side should be in control in israel, whichever one was in power, I'm quite sure the status quo would not change.

Fidelis

Originally posted by Neil3030 That is a human being lying dead on the ground. Someone's son. And those 3 sick individuals treating him like a prize

Don't be so naive. Using the term 'human being' doesn't portray the Palestinian gunman in any higher regard then the Israelis. I agree that the image is disturbing to look at, but that's only because you don't see powerful images like that very often. As has been said in this thread before; it's nothing special when in the context of warfare.

Soldiers with years of training and the latest weapons versus a gunman trying to protect his city

Ugh, I've said this before. They're mostly conscripts, something like 6 weeks basic training - off to the front & serve your country.

Bizarely, I find myslef agreeing with Sand on this topic.

Boston

give it a minute, you soon wont

JustHalf

I'm shocked the level of muppertry on this thread has remained at "moderate" or below.

Here's something of interest.

http://www.underash.com/emessage.htm

It's great when people use the Q'oran to back their opinion, when I was SURE there was only one Satan in the book...

Typedef

As much as I hate repeating myself and making enemies of people in political posts, I have to say that it is quite easy for a bunch of comparitavely middle class < 30 year old males to regard Israeli actions as somehow 'balanced' when viewed in the context of some kind of supposedly moral qualification that is exponenciated by 'war'.

Interesting how people can seem to feel themselves objective in labeling Israel and Palestine as the flip side of each other. This is a fallacy of politically correct thought. You see in the act of trying to promote your 'political correctness' you actually miss the fact that if what is perpitrated against the Palestinian people were perpirtated against you against us the Irish in the Republic by anyone the response of people on this Island would be much the same as the Palestinian people.

To my mind either people are ignorant of the years of repression by the Israelii state of the Palestinian people since 1948 and the miasma of filibustered UN resolutions with regard to Israel since 1948 or people simply choose to feel a kind of self gratification and subliminal qualification and intellectual smugness that they have come to a 'balanced' view, when in fact you have come to a view that is not based on objective evaluation of the facts to any great extent.

If you do the slightest search on UN resolutions as regard Israel you will find a wealth of information regarding this issue. Search for information on the law of return, on the 'displacing' of 750,000 people by Israel, the demolition and colonization of 'occupied territories' (to use the sanitized vernacular), and then realise that a balanced view seeks to equate the last 54 years of Israeli expansionist militarism and the resistance of the Palestinian people to this repressive nuclear power.

How many different tangents and angles and litonies, accusations of nazi, accusations of terrorism of the Palestinian side without the slightest mention of it's context and reason for being must people ascribe to such a fecicious 'balanced view' before it feels logical and comfortable?

I've given up posting to threads like this, there comes a point where pointing out 54 years of brutal repression just to be countered by 'Palestinians blow up pizza parlors' becomes futile. The logic is 'well Palestinian's resist repression and I don't like their tactics so that must mean Israel is in the right', which for me is perhaps too boolean, too simplistic and too easy for people to simply sit back hold up their hands and say 'oh well they're all mad in the Middle East and sure the news tells me how Palestinians are terrorists, so it must be true'.

Yeah right, so this is the picture, Palestinian born, grows up, goes about his/her business and decides that instead of becoming a doctor he/she wants to become a suicide bomber, because the news says so, so it must be true.
QED.

Yeah hello, I'd like to order a brain for my friend..... second thought better make that two

PS:
It's at times like this I wonder what did Europe fight the two world wars over? It was supposed to be ideology and 'freedom' and some isms presumably, but clearly these isms were a comfortable vehicle for a neo-Imperialism, if not then why is it the case that the isms 'we' fought for can so easily be forgotten for example when we reference Israel? Clearly if the wars were about freedom, then we lost, if they were about *ism then those isms seem like comfortable clothes that 'we' can slip on and off at will.

Sand

Type Im assuming as a child prodigy youre reasonably intelligent. Why then do you miss the point?

How many different tangents and angles and litonies, accusations of nazi, accusations of terrorism of the Palestinian side without the slightest mention of it's context and reason for being must people ascribe to such a fecicious 'balanced view' before it feels logical and comfortable?

Type dont be offended but you sound like Sinn Fein/32 countiy sovereignty comittee exscusing IRA attacks - "Sure, we regret the deaths but its really the brits fault for forcing them to plant that bomb at omagh- you have to remeber the context". I dont want to offend you. I can already guess youre pissed off at being compared to SF on that. Like I said I dont believe you support that sort of theing. But given that how can you exscuse suicide bombings with talk about context etc?

The palestinians might have a valid case. Indeed I believe they do have a valid case. But talk about UN resolutions and Israelis bulldozing homes and so on does not give anyone the right or the justification for carrying out suicide attacks against civillians. It accomplishes *nothing* except misery and suffering which is the true evil of terrorism.

there comes a point where pointing out 54 years of brutal repression just to be countered by 'Palestinians blow up pizza parlors' becomes futile. The logic is 'well Palestinian's resist repression and I don't like their tactics so that must mean Israel is in the right', I don't like their tactics so that must mean Israel is in the right'

The palestinians tactics is terrorism. The bombing of women and children for no other reason than theyre Israeli women and children. I hate terrorism with a passion. I despise apologists for terrorism. It is the most futile, petty and insane evil Ive ever seen. Every SF person Ive seen fumbling, trying to dodge the word "condemn" makes my skin crawl. The fact that youre still playing "Whose most evil" shows you dont understand.

What you dont understand is I recognise the 54 years of repression etc. I accept that. What you dont get despite me saying it again and again and again is that it is *no* justification whatsoever for bombing women and children. None. Every common murderer has his sad tale to tell.

if not then why is it the case that the isms 'we' fought for can so easily be forgotten for example when we reference Israel? Clearly if the wars were about freedom, then we lost, if they were about *ism then those isms seem like comfortable clothes that 'we' can slip on and off at will.

Incredibly ironic.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
What you dont understand is I recognise the 54 years of repression etc. I accept that. What you dont get despite me saying it again and again and again is that it is *no* justification whatsoever for bombing women and children. None. Every common murderer has his sad tale to tell.

But are you not equally missing Typedef's point? He is not saying that the bombing of pizza parlers is right (at least, not by my reading), but that it is somewhat understandable.

You have a nation which has been oppressed for 54 years, by an aggressor which the rest of the world (led by the US) are generally portraying as "the good guy".

When does resistance turn into terrorism? This is the morally difficult question we find ourselves having to ask. On one hand, it is fair to say that the Palestinian targets appear civilian, and therefore the acts are not of resistance but of inflicting terror.

On the other hand, is it not true that all adults (or all adult males) in Israel are required to be members of the military. In short - there are no civilian adult males (or adults, if its an "equal rights" society"). By extension, every child is a soldier in the making - they *will* become a member of the military. In this respect, one could argue that these are therefore valid targets, or that the valid targets (the adult men) are shielding themselves behind a curtain of innocents - something which the world superpowers seem to be able to use as justification, but obviously the bad guys cant.

I would also suggest that before we condemn the Palestinians we look at the reasoning for their actions. The "arabs hate Israelis" argument is ridiculous - because the attacks are coming from one of several neighbouring arab nations.

The simple fact is that we have a state resisting oppression from an aggressor who is vastly more technologically advanced, and who has the military backing of the most powerful army in the field today. Exactly how can you resist such oppression? Negotiations have repeatedly failed, woth both sides blaming the other, but at the end of the day, the Israeli's have never once simply offered to give back what they took. So before someone tries saying "give peace a chance, use diplomacy", please explain why there is any credible reason to believe it will result in an acceptable solution for both sides?

So, what do we have. We have a nation who is oppressed, and who has some of its land categorised as "occupied territory". We have failed negotiations where the occupier has refused time and time again to simply withdraw to its original borders. We have twe nations so imbalanced in military might that a war between them is a laughable concept. So - what does that leave the Palestinians as options? I see two :

1) Give up your lost land. Given that it Ireland spent several hundred years refusing to give up our lost land (before ultimately getting most of it back), I think we should at least realise the hyprocacy of us advocating this to anyone.

2) Fight in whatever way you can. Given that this is what the Irish did for hundreds of years against our militarily superior aggressor to regain our freedom, I think we should be very careful about condemning this as an unacceptable practice.

Terrorism is horrific. Yes, the Palestinian terrorists should be condemned. But Israel should be equally condemned for creating and perpetuating the situation which created these very terrorists. Hatred of Jews did not create the terrorists - because if that were the case, why are they all coming from one nation? The occupation of land has created these terrorists.

Give back the territories, and wait. Afterwards, any significant continued terrorism is enough to justify walking back in, but really - do these occupied territories hold *any* benefit to Israel today? I dont think so, other than avoiding the "loss of face" of being seen to capitulate to terrorists.

jc

Sand

But are you not equally missing Typedef's point? He is not saying that the bombing of pizza parlers is right (at least, not by my reading), but that it is somewhat understandable.

He said the palestinians were only defending themselves. So I assume hes sees nothing wrong with the bombing of targets like pizza parlours. It is in self defence after all.

When does resistance turn into terrorism?

When they start carrying out terrorist atrocities.

By extension, every child is a soldier in the making - they *will* become a member of the military. In this respect, one could argue that these are therefore valid targets

Bonkey I dont even know where to begin with a statement like that. Suffice it to say I disagree wholeheartedly that that could be used as a valid justification for terrorism.

1) Give up your lost land. Given that it Ireland spent several hundred years refusing to give up our lost land (before ultimately getting most of it back), I think we should at least realise the hyprocacy of us advocating this to anyone.

You overestimate Irelands resistance and the determination of that resistance. We just recently surrendered our territorial claim on Northern Ireland. So I dont see how its hypocritical.

2) Fight in whatever way you can. Given that this is what the Irish did for hundreds of years against our militarily superior aggressor to regain our freedom, I think we should be very careful about condemning this as an unacceptable practice.

Theres a difference between warfare, even guerilla warfare- and outright murderous terrorism. We should be very careful that we *always* condemn terrorism as an unacceptable practice.

Canaboid

Sand will never accept that violence is sometimes both necessary and justified.
That is why he repeatedly ignores the core point in others arguments.
The Palestinians are fighting an occupying army for their homeland. I don't see how they can do anything less.
To listen to Sand, I would swear there is some kind of terrorist gene which has tainted the Palestinian people. "They just can't help commiting atrocities".

My views on this may be polarised by the fact that I'm Irish and as a nation we've been down this road before. I'm sorry to say violence played a huge part in every painful step towards establishing a Republic.

Once again Sand, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter so please stop making that particular distinction. You sound like GW Bush.

Lemming

Well .. time to throw in my 2p worth

I must say that I have to agree with Bonkey and TypeDef (yes folks .. you read that last name right First time for everything, eh Type? )

I don't completely agree, but most of what they've said does ring true. Yes, I despise terrorism for whatever reason its been committed, but if you understand the problem, then you can resolve the problem. The current israeli administration seems to be perfectly content with the status quo, which would imply that they see no reason to talk when they have such overwhelming military superiority. That is an affront to not only humanity, but to their own people as they are happy to sit back and watch more die.

I do not excuse the Palestinian terrorist actions one bit Sand, but I do see *why* they think that they [the actions] are needed.

JustHalf

Genius:

http://www.overclockers.com/tips861/

You have two people, one land, and there's enough people on either side who don't want to share to keep those who do from doing that. That's the Israeli-Palestinian problem in one sentence.

And when one of those sides has a couple hundred nuclear weapons; they ain't going away and nobody else is going to make them go away, no matter how unfair or unjust or unanything else it is. No matter how many martyrs you make or rocks you throw.

Rocks and world opinion can get you to a negotiating table. They'll never get you a white flag. The most the Palestinians can expect for the foreseeable future is to get a West Bank state. Forty years ago, Israel didn't have the West Bank. Thirty years ago, Israel probably would have agreed to a West Bank state, no problem. Twenty years ago, they probably could have been persuaded to agree to a viable West Bank state without too much fuss. Today? If a reasonably viable West Bank state hasn't already become a fantasy, that day is soon approaching.

You Have To Know When To Hold 'Em, Know When To Fold 'Em

In chess, you can't always play to win. When you're in a hole, you fight for a draw, because the only other alternative is losing. The Palestinians are in a hole, hell, they're in quicksand, and Israel keeps leaning on them, and the more some of them struggle for total victory, the quicker they sink.

Some Palestinians realize that for a start, they have to stop sinking. Probably most. The problem is enough don't to preclude any sort of long-term deal or peace. They're only strong enough to defeat peace, not the Israelis.

You and your people live in a valley. Little Sprout shows up and buys some of it. Most of you don't like this idea, so you try to chase him out of it. Instead, he chases you out of a lot more of the valley.

You get some of your friends to chase him out, and Little Sprout keeps whipping both their butts and yours, each time grabbing more. Your friends get tired of this and get the hell out of the valley. Then Little Sprout starts showing up with the Jolly Green Giant, who tut-tuts every once in a while as Little Sprout keeps grabbing more from you, but always backs up Little Sprout when push comes to shove.

Sure, you can try to set fire to the valley and try to chase Little Sprout away, but you can't do too much with just a Bic. You can hurt him a bit here and there, but he can always hurt you more, and every once in a while, Little Sprout has the Giant (or at least his machines) accidentally step on you. If by some miracle, you ever got Little Sprout in real trouble, imagine how much foot-stomping the Giant can do if he means it.

Even if the Giant someday gets mad at Little Sprout and walks away from the valley for good, Little Sprout can blow up the valley out of sheer spite.

This is not exactly a scenario for total victory.

This is like the old computer cartoon that shows a programming flowchart and the single link between the rest of the flowchart and its completion has as its description "And then a miracle happens." In either case, it's not something you can count on.

If I wanted to someday eradicate Little Sprout (which I certainly don't), the smart thing to do is to first realize I've been getting my ass kicked for over fifty years and maybe it's time for a new approach. Right now, Little Sprout is a lot likelier to throw me and mine out of the valley sometime soon than the other way around.

While the Giant doesn't especially want Little Sprout chucking me, he definitely wants me and mine to stop trying to evict or even bother Little Sprout.

So make the best deal with the Giant you can get, then leave Little Sprout alone for a long time and work to improve yourselves and your country until another, better time and place.

Mr. Arafat realized at least the first part of this quite a while back. His problem is that too many of his countrymen won't swallow even the first part for him to control, and they're too strong for peace, too weak for victory.

One of the great ironies of our time is that the biggest friend of Israeli expansionism have been those who have fought it and hate it the most.

What does all this has to do with the game? The problem is not that this game being played as a fantasy; it's that reality is being played that way.

Do you know what would be a useful and truly dangerous intifada game? It wouldn't be a shoot-me-up. It would be like SimCity. In order to win, you have to stay quiet and build up your resources for a long, long time, maybe for a hundred years. Then maybe you start thinking about kicking butt.

Now that would be a game that would scare the bejezus out of Israel. Hell of a lot more than some fantasy rock throwing.

Boston

sands arguement is that nothing makes the bombing of "innocent"(i could argue that point) right.

you seem to be missing this typedef, of course we all agrea that killing anyone is a terrible thing and in no way is it anything but wrong. But the realist has to fact the fact that sometime needs must and there is no room for the moral high ground when fighting for your life let alone your freedom

bonkey

Originally posted by Canaboid
Sand will never accept that violence is sometimes both necessary and justified.

Not true. Did he not support the "necessary and justified" violence in Afghanistan?

See, its a question of how the violence is carried out. Sand argues that

We should be very careful that we *always* condemn terrorism as an unacceptable practice

which seems like a reasonable comment. Its not violence which we necessarily oppose, but rather the use of violence for terrorist activities. The problem is the question of what constitutes terrorism. There seems to be no clear definition. Therein lies the problem.

Why can we not clearly define terrorism beyond a glib assertion that it is an action designed to achieve its goal through the use of terror.

For example, if a military target is attacked, how do we define the difference between "guerilla", "resistance" and "terrorist" activities? The IRA bombed many "valid" targets, but it was always a terrorist act. Why?

So, its obviously not the target which matters. How about the act itself. Well, I fail to see how a mortar bomb from the Northern Alliance against the Taliban was "freedom fighting" or "resistance", but a mortar bomb from (say) the Palestinians would be terrorist in nature.

So, perhaps, the difference lies elsewhere. But if so, then where? Is it that freedom-fighters et al are all "official military of an unofficial government", where terrorists are no-ones military? Well, then, what distinguishes between criminals (say extortion rackets) and terrorists.

The simple fact is that terrorism is an ill-defined concept, which can be selectively applied, depending on the standpoint of the observer.

As for my assertion which Sand disagreed with that all Israeli's could arguably be considered legal targets....your disagreement only goes to prove my point that it is dependant on the standpoint of the observer. Did you condemn the US for bombing government buildings (during the Gulf War, IIRC), filled with non-military targets, with a creche out the front, when they justified it as people who were guilty by association and who could not be let hide behind a deliberately placed human shield - actions which prompted Timothy McVeigh to "return the favour" in his bombing in Oklahoma City (and be condemned for it). If not, I would really ask you to look again at what I'm saying about standpoints. Why do we condemn one and not the other? The human cost is the same, regardless of political ideology.

Again, I would remind people that I do not claim the Palestinians are right. I simply claim that almost every other nation in the world would act as they do if put in their situation, and that they are in a situation which is perpetuated not by their choice.

I would also argue that the condemnation of them is very simple, but if we condemn them, there should be a moral imperative on us to apply such condemnation unilaterally, rather than on a "who performed it" case-by-case situation, which is what we have at present.

It is not terrorism which we should condemn, but rather barbaric acts of violence. I see no difference in 100 innocent deaths caused by one conscious act or another - regardless of who perpetrated the act. Condemning terrorism only condemns one set of perpetrators. I condemn them all, but equally seek to understand why each of them made the choices they did.

Oh - one last thing....

Why does Israel need to keep the annexed land? What is so damned important about it that they cant just give it back? Or is the price of land more important then the chance of peace?

jc

Sand

Sand will never accept that violence is sometimes both necessary and justified.

Correction: Ill never accept that terrorism is sometimes both necessary and justified. I imagine we differ here.

The Palestinians are fighting an occupying army for their homeland. I don't see how they can do anything less.

Heres a clue. Instead of targeting civillians (terrorism) they could actually target the Israeli milatary (milatary/guerilla). I know about now your picking your jaw up off the floor at the simplicity of the concept of waging *war* as opposed to waging *terror*. This actually works however because you can actually win a war.

Once again Sand, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter so please stop making that particular distinction. You sound like GW Bush.

There is a distinction. If it makes you uncomftable to be reminded of it just go to a few JPF meetings. Theyll set you straight.

But the realist has to fact the fact that sometime needs must and there is no room for the moral high ground when fighting for your life let alone your freedom

The realist should also recognise that terrorism doesnt work. Its only goal is pain and misery and its only result is pain and misery.

Why can we not clearly define terrorism beyond a glib assertion that it is an action designed to achieve its goal through the use of terror.

For example, if a military target is attacked, how do we define the difference between "guerilla", "resistance" and "terrorist" activities? The IRA bombed many "valid" targets, but it was always a terrorist act. Why?

I define terrorism as an attack against civillian targets, with the intention of maximum civillian casualties and impact on other civillians. Terrorism is not a milatary action. Maybe you dont agree with that definition? I cant help you then.
I will help you with the IRA question. The reason IRA attacks were always terrorist attacks was because the IRA was a terrorist organisation. Attacks on the British army were not terrorist in and of themselves. They were milatary (guerilla) actions. However, these attacks were fairly rare, the bread and butter of the IRA and other terrorists being abducting and murdering civillians, or leaving bombs in busy streets and calling it a blow for a free ireland (reminded of the palestinians? ). Because the attacks on the Army were carried out by terrorists they were called terrorist attacks.

Did you condemn the US for bombing government buildings (during the Gulf War, IIRC), filled with non-military targets, with a creche out the front, when they justified it as people who were guilty by association and who could not be let hide behind a deliberately placed human shield

My own belief was that the gulf war was a war. It was a milatary operation. Civillian casualties were not the target. In fact US planners in the Afghan war for example often aborted attacks because the risk of civillian casualties was too great. For a terrorist the civillian casualties *are* the target. Of course civillians die in wars. No one wants that. Those deaths are not intentional however, unlike terrorism.

Why does Israel need to keep the annexed land? What is so damned important about it that they cant just give it back? Or is the price of land more important then the chance of peace?

Dammed if I know. I assume it has something to do with their own version of manifest destiny - settlers going out to reclaim their homeland as the chosen people blah blah blah. One however cant forget that the palestinians put a high enough price on that land as well. In blood.


As a general point Im a bit saddened by the fact that I see again and again on this thread "I dont support terrorism BUT..." .

The Gopher

For whoever asked it about 40 posts ago the thousandth Palestinian died since September 2000 yesterday.In the same period 288 Israelis died.From TV3 text.Imagine because an arsehole politician tried making a point 1288 people are dead.At least Drumcree never got that out of hand.

Celt

So Sand you agree that the Israeli government and military are also terrorist's and that there whole nation aids and abet's them?

Winning Hand

At the moment it would appear that there are 14 israeli soldiers cornered in a refugee camp (how did they get there?). Im just curious to know your (generic address) reaction if none of the soldiers leave there alive.
Although its not gonna happen, it would be a massive statement to the world to make by the palestinians if they let them go, following up on Saudia Arabias promising proposal this week.
Today one israeli soldier was killed, 8 palestinians

Victor

I will help you with the IRA question. The reason IRA attacks were always terrorist attacks was because the IRA was a terrorist organisation. Attacks on the British army were not terrorist in and of themselves. They were milatary (guerilla) actions. However, these attacks were fairly rare, the bread and butter of the IRA and other terrorists being abducting and murdering civillians, or leaving bombs in busy streets and calling it a blow for a free ireland (reminded of the palestinians? ). Because the attacks on the Army were carried out by terrorists they were called terrorist attacks.

On a point of information, approximately half the deaths (but not injuries) caused by the IRA were civilians. With Loyalists the figure was about 80% civilians. I'm not sure of the figures for the Security forces. This reduces the ability to call the IRA terrorists when compared to Loyalists.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Victor
This reduces the ability to call the IRA terrorists when compared to Loyalists.

Im sorry, but no it dosent. It means they are both terrorists, with different objectives.

Lemming

Originally posted by Winning Hand
Although its not gonna happen, it would be a massive statement to the world to make by the palestinians if they let them go, following up on Saudia Arabias promising proposal this week.
Today one israeli soldier was killed, 8 palestinians

That's not a measured response .. that's slaughter.

Incidentally ... what proposal was put forward in Saudi Arabia?

The Gopher

That the Israelis pull out of West Bank/Gaza in return for the Arab nations recognising Israel as a legitamate country.

Lemming

Originally posted by The Gopher
That the Israelis pull out of West Bank/Gaza in return for the Arab nations recognising Israel as a legitamate country.

Ooooo .. that's got teeth!

Somethign along the lines of what garett fitzgerald did with thatcher over Ireland's constitutional claim to the 6 counties ??

Victor

Originally posted by Lemming
Incidentally ... what proposal was put forward in Saudi Arabia?

Essentially Arab recognition of Israel (peace treaties, diplomatic
ties) in exchange for the evacuation of the occupied territories, another strand of 'land for peace'

• Gaza Strip (Egypt),
• West Bank (Jordan),
• Golan Heights (Syria)
• and a tiny part of Lebanon.

See also : http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2002/0226/2123729678FR26JANSEN2.html
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2002/0228/3808524110FR28MIDEAST.html
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2002/0227/breaking52.htm

This is quite disturbing:
Pregnant women are shot in Mideast
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/world/2002/0226/2320362905FR26MIDEAST.html

bonkey

The new peace initiative is quite interesting, but it should be noted that there are already several issues with it.

The Israeli's have said that they will not conduct *any* negotiations on the issue until the violence stops. The Palestinians maintain that the only way to stop the trouble is to begin meaningful negotiations. (As an aside - how many situations have we seen this particular impasse in?)

In the meantime, the Saudi proposal needs to be backed by all 22 (?) arab nations at their next meeting (cant remember what the group is called, but its effectively an Arab League of Nations). Unfortunately, that would require the presence of Arrafat - which would mean that the Israeli's would have to grant him his freedom of movement - which is tantamount to saying that they will negotiate....which they will only do if the violence ceases.

So, this leaves us in a catch-22 situation. A major player in the arab world is proposing a formula to end the violence, but it cannot even be pregressed without all 22 arab nations agreeing, which cannot happen unless Arafat is present, which looks like it wont happen unless the violence ends. But if the violence ended, then what need would the Israeli's have to even want a peace-settlement!

I have seen one theory where analysts reckoned what the Saudis really wanted was for the US to get on board, so they could get into talks with them, and then let the US put pressure on Israel to support the idea. However, the US seem (at present) to be the most skeptical of the interested parties - even more so than the Israelis.

If we look at the progression in NI, it took a declaration of a cease-fire to start the initiative, which progresses slowly, and yet we still have splinter "extremist" groups conducting campaigns of terror from both sides. However, the willingness to see peace led major players from both sides to make a beginning, and few people would say that there hasnt been *some* improvement in the quality of life as a result.

The same level-headedness is needed in the ME. Yes, the Palestinians should be looking to curb violence, but the Israeli's should also recognise that regardless of what ties Arrafat has with the terrorist (or resistance, or whatever euphemism you want) organisations, he is not personally arranging and controlling everything, and that even if he asks for peace, there is pretty much no chance of getting "complete" peace.

Looking for a complete cessation of violence prior to negotiations is idiotic because it would require a rigidly structured and controlled single organisation to be behind the attacks, and this is simply not the case.

Using this lack of peace as an excuse is pointless - and history has shown us that "tit-for-tat" approaches will never quell violence, only escalate it.

I think the Saudi offer should be seriously considered, but personally I cant see anyone willing to actually trust each other even remotely enough to start discussing it, let alone to try implementing it.

jc

Boston

Originally posted by bonkey
If we look at the progression in NI, it took a declaration of a cease-fire to start the initiative,

jc

this is not correct, there were talks, several in fact going on behind closed doors, were sinn fein were promised certain things in return for a case fire, the english goverment then didnt meet with this agreement and that is why the cease fire fell apart.

bugler

Eh, this is really old hat. How many times have I seen this type of thread on boards over the last couple of years? Several times or something. Well, the rampant short sightedness of both sides in their various endeavours would be laughable were it not so costly in human terms. eg Sharon: "So Hamas said they'll stop suicide attacks, and they have done so for the last week, what an opportune time to kill one of their top leaders!" Not to mention the actual suicide attacks themselves. But when a situation is as desperate as can be then I suppose good PR for extremists is easy enough to come by locally. I wouldn't get too upset over any particular photographs. In conflict, soldiers will always be utter bástards. You can't learn too much from a video clip of an Israeli soldier stamping on a Palestinian teenagers testicles (as was to be viewed widely early in this intifada) nor of Palestinians celebrating the death of Israeli kids from a suicide attack.

It's pathetic that Sharon got elected. He truly is utterly unsuitable to run the country. Soon enough, the Israeli public will tire of him if he continues down a similar path as thus far, and he will be rid of. What hope is there for peace in a region where the domiant military power/most notable aggressor has a foreign policy based on Old Testament mythology? Unfortunately it will take a big change in the opinion of secular Israelis to rid the governments of Israel of the extreme right wing settler/Zionist factions. Or as Ha'aretz called them "parasites who neither work in the economy nor serve in the army".

It is Israel who holds the key to peace in the region, because it is Israel who holds most of the cards. Israel needs to try and draw some of the heat out of this conflict, because the Palestinians are getting alot more effective military in recent operations, and indeed focusing more on purely military targets. Not to mention their Merkava-3 melting mines, which if they can be developed reliably could have a huge impact. The Hezbullah bled the Israeli army in South Lebanon until it became intolerable to bother occupying it anymore. Lessons can be learnt from that, it all depends on whether it is the Israelis or the Palestinians who learn first.

Clintons Cat

http://www.wrmea.com/html/usaidtoisrael0001.htm

This year, the U.S. Congress approved $2.76 billion in its annual aid package for Israel. The total amount of direct U.S. aid to Israel has been constant, at around $3 billion (usually 60% military and 40% economic) per year for the last quarter century. A new plan was recently implemented to phase out all economic aid and provide corresponding increases in military aid by 2008. This year Israel is receiving $2.04 billion in military aid and $720 million in economic aid there is only military aid.

In addition to nearly $3 billion in direct aid, Israel usually gets another $3 billion or so in indirect aid: military support from the defense budget, forgiven loans, and special grants. While some of the indirect aid is difficult to measure precisely, it is safe to say that Israel¹s total aid
(direct and indirect) amounts to at least five billion dollars annually.

Confirmation or repudiation of these figures would be appriciated.

Boston

21 isrealis dead today, i see that the palestians are finaly gettign the message they cant fight back.

So actually think killing arafat will stop the violence, without him there i can see this little war spreading to neighbouring arab states and then to europe and america.

The Gopher

I dont see this land for peace thing working.The Israelis wouldnt except it.Arab recognition of Israel?Big swinging mickey say the Israelis.Like thats going to benefit them in any way.The Japenese recognised the Roosevelt government in the US but it didnt stop them attacking Pearl Harbour did it?In the same way that the Iraqis recognising Israel[which they wont do as Saddam has huge support in Palestine]wont stop them firing Scuds at them in the event of another gulf war.Im no Israel supporter but one reason that the Israelis dont want to give back the West Bank,Gaza,is that the Palestinians could use this area to base foreign troops[e.g Iraqis]who would be able to invade Israel from the West Bank.Also with independance the Arabs would equip and train a potentially huge Palestinian army well armed and determined to get back the land lost in 1947.