|
We are going into war!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :( (pg. 20)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Izzy |
i dont have much time either and i am assuming you are addressing me not yoepus
| quote: | Originally posted by evil_bastard
Izzy, do you SERIOUSLY mean to tell me you think that unarmed Western civilians staging a peace protest in Bethlehem is an "armed attack again Members of the United Nations"??????
|
damnit you're missing the point, your mind seems cloudy
*israelis tanks are in ramallah due to the suicede bombers (legaly)
*the protesters are in an area evacuted by israel (who have the right to do so) which is illegal.
| quote: |
Also, you have not, anywhere, proven Amnesty International wrong.
|
agian your mind seems clouded to me. twice now i have said i am not proving amnesty wrong, i am showing you they put forth a bias, unequal, missinformed representation of what is happening.
| quote: |
You say IDF were entitled to their actons then cite this as evidence? I doubt I'm the only one you've confused.
|
now you've confused me... or are you trhe one confused?
i said the IDF are entitled to their actoins BECAUSE of evidence they put forth.
| quote: |
Earlier on you said you cannot compare Israel with Northern Ireland, now you say you do. Firstly, the allegations made against British forces in Northern ireland are NOWEHRE NEAR the scale of allegations made by the same bodies towards the IDF.
I am keeping this post short, but later on I will provide two sources from Amnesty International, and we shall compare the claims.
Secondly, the UK are not going to war in Northern Ireland. Have I said anywhere thus far that I think UK forces should go to war? And overrun the people of Northern Ireland?
Where have I said this? I'd like a direct quote.
|
you missed my point intirely agian!!! this is where my anger at you comes from. i am trying to disprove your logic of presenting enough case for you to warrant losing support of a side |
|
|
| Izzy |
agian tenor i am in kinda a rush,
i enjoyed your post and wanted to say so.
let me just put a agree and disagree with you so i can come back later to it.
| quote: | Originally posted by tenor
yoepus: good post. thanks for being sensible.
|
agree :p
| quote: |
however, i dont see this thread going anywhere.
|
disagree
| quote: |
The cold fact is, that since Israel was created, the reality of Mid-East has changed. People live there, and I recognize the right of Israelis to live in peace and in security. I also recognize that the palestinians have the same right.
|
agree
| quote: |
Since the Israelis are the stronger side, I doubt that any peace can come around before the Israelis want it
|
disagree
| quote: |
attacking the palestinians will only lead to more retaliation, from both sides.
|
agree to some extent... i see no other alternative right now
| quote: |
Thus, we will not see peace before Sharon is voted out of the office.
|
disagree, i see arafat the obsticle to peace not sharon
| quote: |
Peace will also not come until both sides agree 100% on it, it cannot be forced.
|
agree
| quote: |
The Palestinians (as far as I understand) are ready two have two independent states, by each other - they are (as far as I understand) also prepared to demilitarize the whole Palestinian state and bring in international peacekeeping forces, thus eliminating the military risks to Israel.
|
i agree that that is the will of the palestinian people but not their authority. i have not seen enough evidence to prove me the PLO wants as such, contrary actual i have brought forth evidence (from organizations withing the palestinian ares and the PLO themselves) that this is not what they are ready for
| quote: |
However - they have some demands that Israel simply cannot accept, like the return of all palestinian refugees. This is impossible, since the return of 3 million palestinian refugees would make arabs the majority of Israel, which would mean that the reason of existence of Israel would vanish. I have no solution to this problem.
|
agree with everything you said here, except i can think of some solutions but they dont include all refugees allowed back into israel proper
| quote: |
Another problem is Jerusalem. The symbolic value of the town is too big for both sides. Israel wants control of all of the old city, maybe giving control of the muslim quarter to the palestinians, and the palestinians want the control of all of the old city, maybe giving the jewish quarter to palestinians. (At least the case looked liked this during the Camp David negotiations - I find it highly doubtful that either side has changed their mind)
|
agree... but you mean giving the jewish quarter to israel, right?
| quote: |
Neither side can really agree on the final borders either. I have no clue as to what they could, or should be - I believe the Israelis would like some little pieces of Gaza Strip, in the areas where there are plenty of Israeli settlers, and have promised some land in exchange. It's also unclear as to what sort of land would be given in return, and whether the Palestinians would agree to that.
|
agree
| quote: |
One of the few things that I can imagine that could change the balance, is Saddam getting his grubby little hands on nuclear weapons, which would be a disaster. It would require extremely quick changes in Israeli politics, and I'm not sure if even that could save the world from a catastrophe. Hopefully, it doesnt happen, and we wont see too much civilian casualties before these problems are solved in a way that pleases both sides. |
i want to elaborate on this later, but in this we're bringing issues outside of the israel-palestinian conflict |
|
|
| Izzy |
i have just seen the best show i have ever seen dealing with this topic, it was a show called frontline, a series on american public broadcasting system
i recommend you surf around:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/holy
check out the interview with the Islamic Jihad LEADER
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ound/pales.html
i quote Ali Safuri, Islamic Jihad Leader
| quote: |
I will fight until I remove the occupation totally from Palestine.
Right up to the sea?
Palestine from the river to the sea, that is our legitimate right in this homeland. Yes.
You mean all of Palestine?
All of Palestine. And we will not relinquish an iota of soil, because this is pure and sanctified land. ...
|
tenor remember what you said about palestinians not wanting ALL of israel. agian i will accept the fact that this is not the majority but still this is very damaging
also check out what the leaders of the Al Aqsa brigades say... they admit to committing suicide attacks in israel agianst civilians. no wonder they are on the CIA list of terror organizations, remember there is ample evidence connecting them to arafat.
also check out the videos...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front.../etc/video.html
the first deals with israeli rules of engagements
the second shows you that israel is justified in searching for the houses you see there and the demolition of them.
the last one is cool as well and neutral imo, read the dispatch on that one as well.
i ask you guys a question,
faced with the terrorism of suicide bombings agianst innocent israeli citizen, how would you, or your country respond? we saw how america did. as bush has done sharon said
| quote: |
"Citizens of Israel, the state of Israel is in a war, a war against terrorism. Everyone who is peace-loving, everyone who has been educated in the values of liberty and democracy must be aware of the fact that Yasser Arafat is a stumbling block to peace in the Middle East. Yasser Arafat is a danger to the entire region."
"
|
|
|
|
| Inspector_Morse |
Izzy, since you're in a rush, might it be an idea to restrict your posting to just a few lines which are a bit more coherent? I truly am confused as to what it is you're trying to say. This may be my fault, since I too am rushed, but it seems I'm not alone in my confusion.
You say you don't care who is impartial. Surely this is one of the most fundamental questions asked by anyone seeking to become more informed.
The hypothetical quotation you attribute to a parallel Amnesty International is a little unfair, I feel. While I don't deny the potential of ambulances to transport terrorists, it's unrealistic to expect a group such as Amnesty, which seeks to be impartial, to report such a thing without independent verification, which is nigh on impossible in such a situation (ay, there's the rub). What they do report is, presumably, what their own correspondents witnessed, namely ambulances being fired upon. For them to explain the reasoning behind such an act would be to second guess the motives of the IDF, which wouldn't be fair on either party. Nor is it particularly relevant for an organisation whose primary concern is upholding human rights. If it happened, it happened, and attempts by a human rights organisation to justify acts of violence would be a gross breach of their duty to their supporters and their own principles, not least because it would support such reasoning which, when taken to its logical conclusion, can be used to justify most acts, even the most appalling. As a supporter of Amnesty, I'm glad they don't make such statements.
I apologise if this seems like I'm unfairly getting at you, and I understand that you're rushed and cannot take the time to thoroughly scrutinise these postings (a situation I can completely sympathise with). For instance, you even told Evil Bastard you assumed he was addresing you, when in the quotation box he addresses you by name, surely negating any ambiguity. I wouldn't bring up something so petty, except that you went on to accuse him of having a seemingly cloudy mind; a little bold of you given the cirumstances?
Before I end, I'd just like to address the post by tenor, if I may. Level headed sentiments, though I would question whether the thread is going nowhere. Certainly there are correspondents here who aren't exactly about to invite certain others round for tea (I'm sure, for example, I won't be getting a birthday card from Yoepus), and any progress is hard to quantify and undoubtedly small, but if nothing else this whole debacle has led me to redouble my efforts to question the sources presented to me in relation to these events, for which I'm grateful (even though it does leave me even more confused than if I were to take a side :)).
As for the Saddam thing, I'm a little perplexed as to how he'll amass these weapons, given the sanctions we've meant to be imposing for the last decade. Either we're being misled about the weapons, or we've been misled as to the efficacy, and therefore purpose, of the sanctions. Surely the weapons inspectors would have noticed something? If Saddam was able to keep things hidden from them, why the fuss in '98 about getting them back in? Was it just an excuse to launch Opertaion Desert Fox at an opportune time for the then President? Surely not.:eyes: |
|
|
| evil_bastard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
OMG evil_bastard i have really been ticked off about your last post, i am as angry as yoepus is at you but i will do my best to keep the insults bottled in me.
I do not care who is more impartial, when one side brings up undisputable evidence as to an illegal activity and why it takes on such reactions i can not see your point. not only that using your logic i have completely discredited amnesty enough to the point where i will not take amnesties side. ALL my the points i put forth about amnesity in my last post were backed up completely to show that they are missrepresenting the sides. |
I would like to dispute those points, vehemently.
Amnesty International are an organisation who have my greatest respect. I first took out the time to browse their website a few months back, inspired to by a leaflet sent to my home during their "stop the torture" campaign, and have checked back every now and then since.
Not only have they as an organisation been responsible for saving thousands of lives, but the articles on their website address humanitarian issues only. Unlike sympathetic journalists, who are pressurised to enter the political debate in their articles, Amnesty International clearly have deep concern for the real suffering in these conflicts, regardless of which side it is on.
That Amnesty International accuse Israeli Forces of breaching the Geneva Convention every day, every hour and every minute in the past 18 months is very telling.
Your efforts to "discredit" as you put it, Amnesty International, have achieved nothing of the sort. Undoubtedly Ambulances will be used for rogue purposes, just as the Provisional IRA placed bombs in London taxis a few years ago and forced their drivers at gunpoint to specific locations, and fired mortars from the back of Ford transit vans.
Also, none of your points were backed up, they were your opinion and opinion only, that Amnesty International have, as you put it "hastily blamed sides".
| quote: |
my god when you say
"Izzy, I'm most confused by your acceptance that Israeli soldiers shoud tell the truth, yet Amnesty International should tell lies"
it completely frustrates me about you. firstly you have not given A single case where the IDF has lied but more importantly god damnit i never said amnesity lies in my last post, i said:
"now as for the quote you gave from amnestiy, that pissed me off cause apparently it shows they have not done their research and are hastly blamed sides." |
You chopped off the last half of my sentence, and then accuse me of misrepresenting your wording.
We can argue the syntax all day long, it is obvious you think that Amnesty International have tried to decieve the public, by presenting their words in such a way as to portray a legitimate act as a breach of the geneva convention. Chopping off the end of my sentence, where I said "...or decieve the public" is also misrepresenting what I said. But I don't care, because I know that it was just a measley attempt to avoid telling everyone that you judge Amnesty International as deceptive.
| quote: | also your pompously arrogant one sided thinking by as saying:
"I guess you could shoot at every home in Crossmaglen because they have found snipers in some?"
are totally uncalled for and irrelevant. |
For your information, Crossmaglen is an area of Country Armagh, renowned for it's presence of IRA snipers, who've frequently used the windows of homes or cars from which to shoot British troops.
Again, you've tried to weasel your way out of this one, by exploiting my usage or wording, so this time I shall make it harder to do so.
Replace the word "every" with "indiscriminately", and please answer my question this time.
| quote: | | my god no one in the world and even amnesity has said we shoot at EVERY ambulance. we have PROVEN that israel has just reason to do so on ambulances who warrant suspision. |
Your use of the word proof is very liberal, and is frankly bull.
You can prove that one ambulance had a bomb. Hell you might even be able to prove 20 had bombs.
But this is not "proof" that the actions of the IDF in indscriminately firing (as Amnesty International alleged) are warranted.
In your opinion they are warranted, because in your opinion that represents a big enough threat that the risks to civilians in firing at ambulances are worth taking. I would disagree, and this is a disagreement of opinion.
| quote: | going back to the amnesity quote you pulled, i want to show you how insulting your views are:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/eur45.htm http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2001/uk11162001.html
read these, now tell me you are not insulted when i say
"look i have presented enough case which shows me enough wrong doing on part of the UK to lose my support of their side and i am neutral when it comes to the views that UK holds vs that of the palestinian authority"
my god boy take you own advise of
step back and see that one side stands for a greater good. |
The British Army are not killing dozens of people a month, they are not taking the homes of civilians, they are not waging a "war" (by ANY stretch of the imagination) and are not invading anyone.
If they were, then yes I would seriously evaluate their right to do so as well as the fear of war crimes.
But of course none of this is happening, so a link doesn't even exist.
| quote: | | we said that the evacutation was called for even before the peace protesters were there!!! and showed that israel had the right to do this - meaning the protesters were in there illegaly - justifying warning shots to disperse them |
I'll be frank: this is ALL a heap of nonsense.
Firstly, Israel did not, and still have not, the right to be there.
The sanctions and curfews amount to collective punishment, which is a war crime under the 4th Geneva Convention.
| quote: | | ... but wait let me show you how insane those protesters are. not only do they have no right of being in there but they do not take the mear fact of a tank turret pointing in their direction is warning enough. man i would have ran away as soon as i saw the turret swing my way. |
Why? Haven't you the faith in the IDF that they wouldn't intentionally harm an unarmed civilian?
Obviously not...
| quote: | | why did they not heed to that warning and let it come to the tank actually shotting at the ground for them to get the point!!! you see that is logical, rational thinking right there. |
Sorry but a warning shot should have been fired into the air, if one was going to be fired at all. The warning shots were so dangerous that they injured nine people, despite the fact you can see in the video the people fled at the first shot. I've just seen a report which says that a couple of those injured suffered shrapnel wouds to the face. This is why you're supposed to fire into the air.
Face it, their actions were immoral.
| quote: | MY GOD in this current incursion into ramallah no ruling has siad those tanks are in there illegaly. god damnit we quoted geneva saying
where does it say we cant use tanks as a way of self defense!!! are you argueing that no armed attack was taken agianst israel? |
Not by those protestors, no.
By the way, the current incursion into Rammallah, with the dense shooting into residential areas, as well as curfews, restriction of public movement, and sanctions on water, amount to collective punishment. Collective punishment is a war crime under the fourth geneva convention.
The real farcity here is that you claim you back up what you say, yet so far all you've provided is a UN extract which doesn't prove a thing (I'll go back and show this is you want), the IDF charter to try and clear the IDF of many allegations, and you've tried to use a bomb in an ambulance as "proof" that attacks on ambulances are justified.
Amnesty International are one of the most trusted sources out there. If you don't trust them, then it says a lot about the sources which you chose to believe.
[/QUOTE] |
|
|
| tenor |
izzy:
concerning the will of plo and their acceptance of two-state solution:
In Algiers, 1988, PNC met. Present were also the militant groups, who had at this point boycotted PLO for over a decade. Among the proposals made at the conference were: Accept UN resolution 181 (partition plan of 1947), accept Israel as a permanent and legitimate entity, renounce terrorism (PLO had done this before, but not in front of the militant factions), declare the existence of Palestinian state and call for open negotiations with Israel. These proposals passed with a majority of 85%, after days of debating. The militants were not happy about this - they thought Israel didnt want a settlement and Americans couldnt be trusted, but they accepted the proposals. Now, I consider this being as credible as something the Israeli government states, you might not. However, now you should see that they really are ready for a two-state solution.
| quote: | | except i can think of some solutions but they dont include all refugees allowed back into israel proper |
Of course, it cant happen. I'd like to hear your solutions, specifically on what would happen to the areas in Palestine that are now settled by Israeli settlers, and what would happen to Jerusalem.
| quote: | | but you mean giving the jewish quarter to israel, right? |
Yes. It was late at night :D
Concerning Amnesty International, yes, they are biased, but they are only biased towards people. No matter what color or religion. I say this, even tho my country (Finland) is the only country in EU with Amnesty-supported prisoners of opinion. |
|
|
| dj_mdma |
OK I get it. (Thanks to Yoepus)
West Bank and Gaza Strip = Arab Land
In the Past, Arabs tried to get more, and fought Israel.
They lost and inadvertently actually ending up losing more land.
This happened a few more times in the past as well.
So now, the palestininans wantwhat they lost, and (probably) some more too.
To sum up, the palestinians want a lot of land.
Realistically, this isn't going to happen, because their "military" is nothing compared to the israli army.
Since the Palestininians haven't actually achieved any territorial gains, the suicide bombings are futile.
They only anger israel more, in which they will probably end up losing more land, cos Israel will retaliate and invade stuff.
So if Palestininians wanted land, they should take it back in a subtle way so no one notices.
I think the best solution is...
| quote: | | Israel has no plan to reconquer the Palestinian people because they hate Israel so much bascially. Altough in a recent poll 46% would like a transfer of Palestinians (meaning they do want Israel to conquer the area annex it, and those Palestinians who don't like it are welcome to leave). |
Sort of like Northern ISland, but not.
There is no way the palestininians will win this. In essence, Israel is the crucial factor here, and only ISrael can decide the outcome of this conflict. Israel has the better hand. |
|
|
| Inspector_Morse |
Acts of terrorism aren't necessarily calculated to achieve anything. They're often the last desperate act of a minority from a desperate population, eager to strike back, irrespective of the consequences. Often we only see that lashing out, without the slow build up of frustration that precedes it, and so naturally we see these people as cold calculating murderers rather than desperate, trapped individuals. Some are the former, some are the latter, many depend on a mixture of those two driving forces and the majority of the population from which they're drawn are not involved in their activities at all, yet are forced to suffer the consequences.
Yet I'm sure not all suicide bombers draw up a balance sheet of pros and cons; more realistically they are driven to take the irrational and horrible actions they take through sheer blind frustration. Were those who instigated the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto (people I suspect, if he'd been around today with today's geopolitical obsession, Hitler would have labelled as terrorists as a way of justifying his murder) seriously trying to overthrow the Nazis? Or were they grasping onto their one chance to lash out at the gross injustice being visited upon them by killing some Gestapo? Applying calm, considered reasoning to the plights of desperate people is liable to lead to misleading conclusions as to the motives, and therefore solution to, terrorism. If we assume they sit down calmly, work out the military value of murdering Israeli civilians, and then think "Yes, this will further the Paletinian cause" then we're deluding ourselves. Israeli incursions are more likely to play into the hands of the hotheaded few who chose to strap explosive belts to themselves and kill and maim Israeli civilians, because faced with such a powerful, irresistible force occupying their land, it's small wonder that more Palestinians would consider these terrorists and think "Well, at least they're doing something".
Desperate people do desperate things. The Israelis, having suffered terrible carnage at the hands of murderers, are taking drastic steps to try to end this. Many argue that such steps are mistaken, but in the eyes of an Israeli who has lost a relative in the slaughter, at least it's something.
Some Palestinians are taking matters into their own hands and striking back.
Israel has a democratically elected government (in so far as periodic elections can be termed democratic, but that's a whole other issue), so naturally the brunt of the appeals to take the initiative and take committed steps to end this cycle of violence are going Israel's way. This is perceived as a bias, but it's perhaps only an extension of the reasoning that writes off terrorists as psychopathic dissidents; if they're murderous zealots hell bent on destruction, what is the point of appealing to them (and it's a fair assumption that if someone has taken the decision to join Hamas, it'd be hard to persuade him to live in peace with his Jewish neighbours). I really don't think it's a bias, but a reflection of the fact that the IDF is operating on behalf of an elected regime, populated one would hope with a broad spectrum of persuasions, while the terror groups operate as small cells often populated by extremists.
Actions that affect the entire Palestinian people are more often than not going to push them in the direction of the extremists and bolster sympathy for horrific actions. Likewise, sucide bombings and shootings in Israel will strengthen the position of the hardliners behind the incursions, but as discussed earlier, the latter actions are not perpetrated by arms of a democratically elected regime, and so are much harder to stop.
It's tempting to believe that Arafat could stop all this and simply choses not to, hence equating the ability of both sides to unilaterally end their violence. This is perhaps misleading; while Arafat quite probably approves of terrorist actions, there's growing evidence that his weakened position leaves him even less able to control the terrorist cells (which, as even anyone whose knowledge of guerrilla tactics extends little beyond being able to spell the word knows, aspire to operate independently with little guidance from a central command). It's very difficult to know; a recent EU delegation weren't even allowed to meet him. Given we know for sure the Israelis could call of their violence, while on the other side of the equation it is very doubtful, it's inevitable that Sharon will hear more pleas than Arafat will.
Like many people, I'm tempted to put my faith in the two state solution, though I'm buggered as to how exactly it will work. This perhaps will become a moot point as this situation persists, making such a framework for a lasting peace an even more remote possibility than it is.
me, that turned into a bit of an essay. Erm, sorry. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Inspector_Morse
Acts of terrorism aren't necessarily calculated to achieve anything. They're often the last desperate act of a minority from a desperate population |
You come upon the impression that suicide bombers, and future-martyers do so from desperation. This is a wrong assumption.
I encourage you to go take a minute and skip a page or two back in this thread, I posted to you the article Thomas Friedman last wrote in the New York times. If anyone knows a bit of the man, one will understand that he tries to play fairly balancely, and is indeed peace loving. The recent article shows a change in this 'balance', because he believes it is the truth.
It is a misconecption suicide bombers come from desperation, from the fustration of the 'occupation'. Suicide bombers have been used on Israelis/Jews since 1921, way before any 'Zionist Occupation' of sorts. The fact is this is a cultural desire, one becomes a martyr, the people support of such acts, the government encourages, and the organizations make sure it happens.
One doesn't decided 'I am going to blow myself up today in the middle of the street' and do it without knowing how to build an explosivies belt, evade Israeli security and so on. There are organizations and leaders who organize this. It is not a 'gurellia' warfare, as it is indeed centralized. 90% of attacks come from the offical apparati of the Palestinian Authorithy. Saying they have no control to stop this, might be true now (altough they still have a 30,000 strong police force) but is not true if you look back a year or two, in which their was little occupation, and massive control by the Palestinian Authorithy.
Again, if the people would have wanted to rebel, if they would have followed the template of none-violence resistance which already has a very sucessful template they would have had their state by now.
What you just wrote is a nice little false fairy tale. Sucidie Bombers do not come individually or from dispair. Tell me when you heard a bombing in Israel, and then heard "No one has taken responsability.. Police believe this man acted on his own". It doesn't happen because your assumption is wrong. Their are places in the world with much, much worse despair, yet they live in societies that value human life.
I encourage you to visit that frontline link Izzy posted as well.. I watched the show as well and it is very informative on how the 'militant' operations in the Palestinian areas operate.
Yoepus
College is a fountain of knowledge... and the students are there to drink. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by dj_mdma
OK I get it. (Thanks to Yoepus) |
Welcome :)
| quote: | | West Bank and Gaza Strip = Arab Land |
Orginally yes... It = Arab Land, but their was never a Palestinian Country their either. Something worthy to note.
| quote: | In the Past, Arabs tried to get more, and fought Israel.
They lost and inadvertently actually ending up losing more land.
This happened a few more times in the past as well.
So now, the palestininans want what they lost, and (probably) some more too.
To sum up, the palestinians want a lot of land.
|
Basically yup, except the Arabs lost the land, and the Palestinians (who are also Arabs) want all the land they lost (many on that side consider this ALL the land).
| quote: | | Realistically, this isn't going to happen, because their "military" is nothing compared to the israli army. |
The Palestinians are under the delusion that they have some effect with their actions that favors their cause.
| quote: | | Since the Palestininians haven't actually achieved any territorial gains, the suicide bombings are futile. |
Sucide bombings enrage the Israelis further and prove to them that the Palestinians don't want to live next to them, but ontop of them. And the Palestinians have nothing but supported, and helped this cause for some reason.[/quote]
| quote: | | They only anger israel more, in which they will probably end up losing more land, cos Israel will retaliate and invade stuff. |
I don't think so actually, if you notice right now the whole world is crying out that the Israel should withdraw to 1967 lines and let the Palestinians have their own country their. This is exactly what Arafat and his group of thugs hopes to achieve with their suicide bombings and such.
It is very hard for Israel to take more land right now due to the extreme world pressure. But if they come to the conclusions that their can not be a peaceful co-existance between the Palestinians and Israelis, the Israelis might just say damn the world, and take over the Palestinian areas and annex them once and for all.
| quote: | | So if Palestininians wanted land, they should take it back in a subtle way so no one notices. |
Again this is hard for them to do, their is no real subtle way.
The best way they could have demonstarated their desire to live and peace, and obtain their political goals at the same time, would have been through none-violent resistance. They took quiet the 180 approach of this unforteantly though.
Another solution would have been to just attack settlement and such in their territories, this strategy was working for them with the Israeli public's will, but they changed it to attacks on all of Israel and lost it.
| quote: | I think the best solution is...
Sort of like Northern ISland, but not.
There is no way the palestininians will win this. In essence, Israel is the crucial factor here, and only ISrael can decide the outcome of this conflict. Israel has the better hand. |
The Palestinians plan is two of one;
(1)Either to incite the world community to establish the state for them (as they world community is increasingly sympathetic with.. they like to side with the under-dogs no matter their tactics or inhumanity it seems). After they establish a state, according to some official documents they published from many years ago, they will continue to launch attacks on Israel until they either rid them somehow, or do:
(2)Or, to provoke Israel to do something to the Palestinians which will produce a large-scale war with Israel and it's neighbors (armies such as Egypt, Iraq, Syria) attack Israel and conquer it. They then believe under some delusion that the Arabs will just give them that country.
Israel is sort of in a tight spot because of this.
Yoepus
It's morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their money.
Supplement:
A .44 magnum beats four aces. |
|
|
| dj_mdma |
I think an important point is...
Who rightfully deserves the land?
Palestininians gambled, and lost some of htere land. Thus ISrael won it fair and square. It would be natural for the Palestininians to wnat to try and win it back. (they sorta want double or nothing i guess) If they got the support of Equypt and actually treid to conquer ISrael, I'm sure the West would most definately jump in. Although I don't think this will happen since the PAlestininians allies have sdecent relations with the US and wouldn't want to upset things.
The root of the todays troubles are caused by hardline, extreme palasteninians. Arafat, (I assume ) wants peace. I remember he appealed to the extremists for no suicide bombings, but to no avail. You cannit change an extremeists opinion on ideals, cos they have been brainwashed about their own morals. To eliminate the hardliners ( the Hamas group I think) could help, as the opinions of peaceful palestininas would come to light for everyone to hear. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by Inspector_Morse
You say you don't care who is impartial. Surely this is one of the most fundamental questions asked by anyone seeking to become more informed. |
I believe, what Izzy is trying to say, he looks upon the truth before judging who is indeed 'impartial' or not. Saying these people have this motive, and these people have this motive.. and therefore disriminates you from listening to them is just not a correct way to find out the truth.
(1)What Izzy pointed out is that the IDF has never lied, and Amnesty has if not lied, misinterpurted the truth.
Furthermore if one closely scrutinizes Amnesty, one is at shock to see (2)why they don't condemn as forcefully incidents done by the Palestinians (you will see more condemnations of Israel despite the fact that the Palestinians are doing more violations is my point).
| quote: | | The hypothetical quotation you attribute to a parallel Amnesty International is a little unfair, I feel. While I don't deny the potential of ambulances to transport terrorists, it's unrealistic to expect a group such as Amnesty, which seeks to be impartial, to report such a thing without independent verification, which is nigh on impossible in such a situation (ay, there's the rub). What they do report is, presumably, what their own correspondents witnessed, namely ambulances being fired upon. For them to explain the reasoning behind such an act would be to second guess the motives of the IDF, which wouldn't be fair on either party. Nor is it particularly relevant for an organisation whose primary concern is upholding human rights. If it happened, it happened, and attempts by a human rights organisation to justify acts of violence would be a gross breach of their duty to their supporters and their own principles, not least because it would support such reasoning which, when taken to its logical conclusion, can be used to justify most acts, even the most appalling. As a supporter of Amnesty, I'm glad they don't make such statements. |
Altought you might like it when people give you a statement out of context since it makes you feel good, doing such is not repersentative of the truth. Furthermore I understand your own argument of independent verification, and I understand it would be hard to say it is hard to verify that the Palestinians smuggle weapsons and armed personal via Ambulances (despite many media sources that report this to the contrary). However, they can include an assumption in there, just as they have assumed so many things about Israel.. (3)"that it violates geneva convention every minute, hour..etc". This clearly nullifies your argument for independent verification.
Furthermore we are all aware of the situation in the Church of Navitivty, and the fact that armed Palestinians are holding hostages their.
I will quote the Geneva Convention:
| quote: |
Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
|
(5) Why is their no vocal condemnation of this act from Amnesty?
Furthermore they aruge that Israel is abusing the right of designated protected persons and vechilces. (6) It would only be fair to argue that they do the same when the Palestinians do such. http://www.ifrc.org/docs/news/02/040203/
Again, I am also aware that armed Palestinians executed (direct targeting) 11 Palestinian civilians http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...satoday/3989161 I am not aware of any Palestinian investigation conducted into the matter. (7)I guess the bodies and the shots in the head weren't 'independent verification' enough eh? The world-media thought so.
These few facts (the 7) alone just show Amnesty's bias at acussing Israel of doing this, and not applying the same standards to the Palestinians just in these past few weeks. This leads me to indeed come and to question their impartialness, and therefore I take everything I read that they say (which I know is out of context) with at least 3 grains of salt.
The International Red Cross/Crecent society does a much more even-handed approach to accusing sides of Human Rights violations and such. Again though, they did not make any statements regarding the two incidents above either.
I will agree with you, their intentions might be good, and they might have the right desire, but the fact is they are going about it the wrong way. (8) If they are a trusted independent source, I would have expected them not to take politics, or resolution of this conflict into consideration, and instead state the violations as they happen.
| quote: | | I wouldn't bring up something so petty, except that you went on to accuse him of having a seemingly cloudy mind; a little bold of you given the cirumstances? |
The guy can't understand the simple fact that Israel has(had when I posted.. haven't checked the new security council resolutions) the international legal right to proceed with its current military action despite the fact that I posted 2 articles which confirm this (The UN Charter, and the Security Concuil resolution legitimize this), he still calls the Israeli military action into the West Bank 'illegal'. Cloudy minded seems fair to me.
| quote: | | Before I end, I'd just like to address the post by tenor, if I may. Level headed sentiments, though I would question whether the thread is going nowhere. Certainly there are correspondents here who aren't exactly about to invite certain others round for tea (I'm sure, for example, I won't be getting a birthday card from Yoepus), |
Your welcome to a round of tea anytime you come to Texas, Inspector.. Just tell me your birthdate and I'll try not to forget ;)
Truth is, altought I may disagree with you I still value the fact that you argue civily and state your opinion clearly.
And just because I'm a hawk and have a tank as my avatar does not mean I'm against the concept of 'peace' :eek:
| quote: | | and any progress is hard to quantify and undoubtedly small, but if nothing else this whole debacle has led me to redouble my efforts to question the sources presented to me in relation to these events, for which I'm grateful (even though it does leave me even more confused than if I were to take a side :)). |
Hahaha, well it is good.. I think almost all of us are at least learning something. Recommendation on who's side to take; Step away and look at the big picture. Think who is violating what human rights why, and who did it first (the Ambulance example is a good one for instance).
I know you are a pacifist at heart... I think everyone is. Though I still have an opinion of you that you are to idealisticly pacificst. Being a pacifist is all nice and great, but when someone does not just slap your cheek, but tries to kill you, its hard to turn the other cheek and look away (especially since you might be dead by the time you do this).
| quote: | | As for the Saddam thing, I'm a little perplexed as to how he'll amass these weapons, given the sanctions we've meant to be imposing for the last decade. Either we're being misled about the weapons, or we've been misled as to the efficacy, and therefore purpose, of the sanctions. Surely the weapons inspectors would have noticed something? If Saddam was able to keep things hidden from them, why the fuss in '98 about getting them back in? Was it just an excuse to launch Opertaion Desert Fox at an opportune time for the then President? Surely not.:eyes: |
I don't fear that Saddam has nuclear weapons, we all know that he has chems and germs and that is good enough for me. Secondly, we all now that Iran is going full steam a head at trying to develop its nuclear weapons. I can already hear the critisim of the world and outrage when Israel tries to do something to slow that down. By my estimates give them 2-3 years and they should have it done. What is more fearful is the fact that the Iran-Iraq relations are growing tighter and tighter, this means that Iran could then smuggle the nukes to Iraq.
You realize by not doing much to back Israel here we are all just postponing WWIII eh? :) I hope I'm wrong.
Yoepus
I've got a problem for your solution... |
|
|
|
|
