American position on the PA - Page 3

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 04:27

Quote:

She was speaking of her firstborn, Mohammed, 19, who was killed in March during a one-man raid on an Israeli settlement in the southern Gaza Strip. Armed with an assault rifle and grenades, Mohammed killed five students at a military school for religious Jews and wounded 23 other settlers at Gush Katif before he was gunned down.

Atrocity? Have you ever read a condolance letter from the US army? 'You should be proud to know that your son was killed defending the United States of America'.

Now, if you'd picked an example where the mother of a suicide bomber who killed civilians in Israel applaouded him, you might at least have grounds for debate. As it is, the guy killed a settler... And that is reprehensible how?

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 04:31

Quote:

When exactly has Sharon stated that he wishes to destroy Arab states? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't heard the Likkud advocating the mass genocide of the Palestinians, or calling them the sons of Satan.

Neither did Hitler. AFAIK, there is not a single public speach where Hitler calls for the extermination of the jews. Only a solution of the 'jewish question', which most people took to mean deportation to work camps.

The parallels to Sharon are quite clear, don't you think?

Roland · June 26, 2002, 04:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander
Let them publicly and prominently declare what the hell they stand for, rather than allowing the PA and the terrorist organizations continually cloud the issue so that everyone sees what they want to see.

And when they reelect Arafat we are exactly where we started.

The other thing is that the same goes for Israel. Sharon is every bit as much the problem as is Arafat. But as long as the US government shoves a couple billion $ to Israel and says "do what you want", there will be no solution.

morb · June 26, 2002, 04:33

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu

You might want to read up on some history... (real history, not the Israeli-invented kind).

After the Oslo treaty, palestinians thought they were eventually getting a real state. They had hope in their future. Polls show that Palestinians were accepting the state of Israel, basically wanting a state of their own and not much else.

Three years later, it was clear that Israel never intended to keep their word, and the palestinians became more cynical, more filled with hate, more extreme...

I'm sure the fact that the israelis have free/state independent press hasn't made a dent in your clouded judgement or should I call it hate of Israel.

my point was that Arafat simply refused to even consider anything. perhaps i was incorrect in saying that a fully independent state has been offered. but that's hardly the issue when Arafat has all but refused to even descuss most of the proposals put forth by either Israel or UN or whomever. how could an independent state have been offered, when was the opportunity to offer it when much simpler ideas/proposals were met with complete refusal. It comes down to Arafat not willing to negotiate. The hard truth is that both parties will have to compromise, and israelis have been ready to compromise (not bend over backwards but compromise) for a long time now, but it is cirteinly safe to say that compromise is not a word in Arafat's vocabulary.

Quote:

Didn't read that one. Could you summarize? (Kind of curious. I thought Natan was the only true fascist on these forums... Even Siro acknowledged that the french resistance were justified in their actions...)

no. especially since you've already called me a nazi. if you're that interested, go read.

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 04:33

Quote:

If they choose to continue their war on the innocent civilians of Israel only the Mobius and Cyber-Gnu brand of Israel haters will support them internationally, and the Pals can put their insane fundamentalism to the test of a trial by combat.

Well, there we're back to that oxymoron again: innocent civilians of Israel ...

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 04:36

Quote:

I'm sure the fact that the israelis have free/state independent press hasn't made a dent in your clouded judgement or should I call it hate of Israel.

'free and independent' isn't the same as true. Ever read National Inquirer? That one is also free and independent.

If you want facts stick to real news. NYT, WP, LAT, CNN, BBC, etc.

morb · June 26, 2002, 04:39

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu

Atrocity? Have you ever read a condolance letter from the US army? 'You should be proud to know that your son was killed defending the United States of America'.

Now, if you'd picked an example where the mother of a suicide bomber who killed civilians in Israel applaouded him, you might at least have grounds for debate. As it is, the guy killed a settler... And that is reprehensible how?

to me any killing for the sole purpose of hate, let alone condoned killing, in war time and in peace is reprehensible. in the civilized world there are trials for this sort of thing, civil and military. just the suggestion of your statment tells me that the people he killed you do not view as people. they are just some "settlers." but more so, Jewish settlers.

Sikander · June 26, 2002, 04:40

Cyber-Gnu,

Because it is much more rational than trying to pursue a military solution against a much more powerful foe? What chance do the Pals have of bringing about their goals (and what are their real goals anyway?) militarily? IMO a great deal less chance than they have negotiating a livable compromise with the Israelis. The critical link here is the U.S. If the Pals can convince the U.S. that they are serious about peaceful coexistence then Israel will be isolated completely if it tries to drag it's feet.

As long as the PA is amorphous, all things to all people because it doesn't actually do anything but talk out of both sides of it's mouth the U.S. and the Israelis are not going to trust it. Keep in mind that both the U.S. and Israel have a pretty damn good idea what is being said by Arafat and company when the news cameras are not rolling. The mistrust is the child of a vast amount of experience with Arafat by both countries. The Israelis need a partner for peace that is an honest reflection of the society he represents as well as a trustworthy party to any contracts / treaties which are negotiated. At least a Hamas government would be capable of enforcing it's will to some extent, and Hamas has shown a capacity to meet it's people's needs much more readily than the PA has.

Roland · June 26, 2002, 04:40

"The parallels to Sharon are quite clear, don't you think?"

Sharon is no Hitler.

"The hard truth is that both parties will have to compromise, and israelis have been ready to compromise (not bend over backwards but compromise) for a long time now, but it is cirteinly safe to say that compromise is not a word in Arafat's vocabulary."

Of course Arafat knows that he has to compromise. And he was quite close with Barak, even though the Barak offer has more resemblances to Bantustan than a sovereign state.

morb · June 26, 2002, 04:40

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu

'free and independent' isn't the same as true. Ever read National Inquirer? That one is also free and independent.

If you want facts stick to real news. NYT, WP, LAT, CNN, BBC, etc.

i don't think i even have to say anything here.

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 04:46

Quote:

my point was that Arafat simply refused to even consider anything. perhaps i was incorrect in saying that a fully independent state has been offered. but that's hardly the issue when Arafat has all but refused to even descuss most of the proposals put forth by either Israel or UN or whomever. how could an independent state have been offered, when was the opportunity to offer it when much simpler ideas/proposals were met with complete refusal.

I guess the Oslo accords never happened in your world...

Quote:

no. especially since you've already called me a nazi. if you're that interested, go read.

Nazi? Are you aggressively dyslexic?

Still curious what your views are. Natan declared that the french resistance were unjustified in their actions, since the french goverment capitulated. The idea that might gives right is inherently fascist. Your own views declare your political beliefs, not I.

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 04:50

Quote:

to me any killing for the sole purpose of hate, let alone condoned killing, in war time and in peace is reprehensible. in the civilized world there are trials for this sort of thing, civil and military. just the suggestion of your statment tells me that the people he killed you do not view as people. they are just some "settlers." but more so, Jewish settlers.

Hate and 'settlers not being people' have nothing to do with it.

US soliders were never prosecuted for shooting german soliders on the battlefied. I haven't heard anyone advocating it, either. But somehow you equate a palestinian killing someone occupying their land a hate-crime?

A settler is an occupying soldier, nothing else. An occupying soliders is by any definition a legal target. Are you going to argue with that?

Sikander · June 26, 2002, 04:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland

And when they reelect Arafat we are exactly where we started.

The other thing is that the same goes for Israel. Sharon is every bit as much the problem as is Arafat. But as long as the US government shoves a couple billion $ to Israel and says "do what you want", there will be no solution.

If they re-elect Arafat then they obviously are satisfied with the status quo, or more worried about the other candidates. So be it. Assuming that this is not just an elected dictatorship for life type of thing (which is assuming too much for an Arab state perhaps) but a functioning democracy and / or republic the Palestinian people will have plenty of opportunity to change their mind as well as their direction.

As for Sharon, he will go away in a flash like so many Israeli leaders before him. As soon as there is a reason for the members of his coalition to think that a war government is no longer necessary / popular the coalition is finished. One of the problems with the Palestinians is that you end up with the same incompetent leader with the same policies all the time. If you cannot make a deal with him, you cannot make a deal at all until he is gone, and by gone I mean dead. There is no loyal opposition waiting to come into power with new ideas. The only reason Sharon managed to become PM in the first place is because the Israelis felt that they had to send a message to the Pals, and that message is, "We will fight fire with fire.", or in this case, "We will match your incompetent war criminal with one of our own."

Sikander · June 26, 2002, 04:54

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu

Well, there we're back to that oxymoron again: innocent civilians of Israel ...

I was a tad bit worried that I was overstating your position of hatred for Israel. Thanks for bailing me out.

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 04:56

Quote:

Because it is much more rational than trying to pursue a military solution against a much more powerful foe? What chance do the Pals have of bringing about their goals (and what are their real goals anyway?) militarily? IMO a great deal less chance than they have negotiating a livable compromise with the Israelis.

Israel has occupied palestine for 50 years. During that time, it has been shown repeatedly that Israel doesn't honor their word. I don't think there is a single palestinian who trusts Israel...

So in the mind of the palestinians, they hope that continued resitance will lead to either an arab invasion or EU intervention. The chances might be slim, but they exists. The chances if the only hope is trusting Israel are zero... And better a small chance than none.

Which is again why I keep saying that the only way this 'plan' would have a sliver of a chance would be for Bush to personally guarantee to force Israeli to keep its word. But he can't do that, of course, being a good bought boy.

Roland · June 26, 2002, 04:57

"If they re-elect Arafat then they obviously are satisfied with the status quo, or more worried about the other candidates."

Rather the latter.

"... but a functioning democracy and / or republic"

How can you have that under the current occupation regime ?

"One of the problems with the Palestinians is that you end up with the same incompetent leader with the same policies all the time."

I think you can make a deal with Arafat, while you can't make one with Sharon. Nothing to do with character, just relative power.

And Netanyahu would be even worse.

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 04:58

Quote:

The critical link here is the U.S. If the Pals can convince the U.S. that they are serious about peaceful coexistence then Israel will be isolated completely if it tries to drag it's feet.

I'm afraid that the US might have played their card... Who is going to believe them now? Do you think Saudi will be able to deal with a US that has given up the pretense of fairness?

And why on earth would the palestinians believe a US that has declared for the enemy?

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 05:01

morb:

Quote:

i don't think i even have to say anything here.

Quite likely. better to shut up and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 05:02

Quote:

I was a tad bit worried that I was overstating your position of hatred for Israel. Thanks for bailing me out.

What is your view on the bombing of Hiroshima?

GeneralTacticus · June 26, 2002, 05:03

Quote:

Neither did Hitler. AFAIK, there is not a single public speach where Hitler calls for the extermination of the jews. Only a solution of the 'jewish question', which most people took to mean deportation to work camps.

The parallels to Sharon are quite clear, don't you think?

Quote:

"In the course of my life I have very often been a prophet, and have usually been ridiculed for it. During the time of my struggle for power it was in the first instance only the Jewish race that received my prophecies with laughter when I said that I would one day take over the leadership of the State, and with it that of the whole nation, and that I would then among other things settle the Jewish problem. Their laughter was uproarious, but I think that for some time now they have been laughing on the other side of their face. Today I will once more be a prophet: if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!"

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar...t/h-threat.htm

This was a speach Hitler made to the Reichstag on the 30th of January, 1939.

The Mad Monk · June 26, 2002, 05:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Sikander

I was a tad bit worried that I was overstating your position of hatred for Israel. Thanks for bailing me out.

Quote:

As it is, the guy killed a settler... And that is reprehensible how?

This was another good one. Both sig material, I'd say.

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 05:05

Monk, fine with me. You might want to add the clarification that settler = invading soldier, unless you prefer it out of context.

Roland · June 26, 2002, 05:06

Cybergnu, do you think Israel should be destroyed ? Or exist in the borders of the UN partition plan?

GeneralTacticus · June 26, 2002, 05:10

Quote:

Well, there we're back to that oxymoron again: innocent civilians of Israel ...

In what way does being Israeli make them guilty? Do you believe that they should have to leave the country that a lot of them have been born in solely because the Aplestinians don't like it? Are the Palestinian civilians therefore also 'guilty' for the suicide bombings, thereby meaning that Israel can kill them and be in the right?

Quote:

Israel has occupied palestine for 50 years.

Only if you count it has having begun the occupation 1949, in which case you are denying the right of Israel to exist at all.

morb · June 26, 2002, 05:12

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu

Hate and 'settlers not being people' have nothing to do with it.

US soliders were never prosecuted for shooting german soliders on the battlefied. I haven't heard anyone advocating it, either. But somehow you equate a palestinian killing someone occupying their land a hate-crime?

A settler is an occupying soldier, nothing else. An occupying soliders is by any definition a legal target. Are you going to argue with that?

first of all soldiers are people too and I would say are civillians when in training or not on active duty. second your idea that a US soldier is comparable to a terrorist is pretty sick. US soldiers were not driven by hate in WW2. nore did they target civillians. The nazis, however, were and did. and their hate didn't just extend to jews either. thirdly, it says in the article that his reason for doing this was mainly hate driven. oh and also the promise by allah of paradise and virgins.

Sikander · June 26, 2002, 05:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland

"... but a functioning democracy and / or republic"

How can you have that under the current occupation regime ?

This is a question which actually begs another larger question. Under what sort of conditions could the Palestinians ever put together a government capable of not only negotiating a peace agreement but implementing one? As radicalized as the Palestinian electorate is I am not sure it is possible for many years, especially when one looks around at the other Arab states in the region which are all corrupt Monarchies or Dictatorships and which have only with the greatest trepidation managed in two instances to sign peace treaties for wars that ended decades ago. I have serious doubts about anyone's ability to make peace in this region, and my doubts are trebled with the Palestinians who have been raised under occupation and a staggeringly viscious diet of propoganda.

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland
"One of the problems with the Palestinians is that you end up with the same incompetent leader with the same policies all the time."

I think you can make a deal with Arafat, while you can't make one with Sharon. Nothing to do with character, just relative power.

And Netanyahu would be even worse.

I certainly agree that Netenyahu is the pits. As for being able to make an agreement with Arafat, I agree completely that you can make an agreement with him. Unfortunately he won't keep that agreement. As for Sharon, even if he refuses to deal you know exactly where you stand, which is a vast improvement IMO. But I also think that Sharon is only in power as long as the Israeli public feels that it has no other choice. It's an interesting situation, in that both countries have the power to change the other's leader.

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 05:14

General, the german word Vernichtung also means destruction, and was interpreted as deportation. As even a mediocre historian could tell you, few germans and basically no non-germans realized that the 'final solution' meant extermination.

Only in hindsight did we understand the hideous meaning of his words...

GeneralTacticus · June 26, 2002, 05:17

Quote:

US soliders were never prosecuted for shooting german soliders on the battlefied. I haven't heard anyone advocating it, either. But somehow you equate a palestinian killing someone occupying their land a hate-crime?

Technically speaking, if it was OK for American troops to kill German ones, then it is also OK for Israeli settlers to kill Palestinian militants. Remember that the Germans never even touched American soil; all of the fighting against them was in Europe, and it was all directed at eighter stopping the German advance or conquering Germany.

CyberGnu · June 26, 2002, 05:19

Roland, I'm a realist. Israel is there to stay, there is no question about that.

And a deal is a deal. If the palestinians accept a peace plan that gives them a viable state, I think they will have to live with the deal and accept Israel.

Would the world be a better place if Israel was dissolved and the jews relocated to the US? Of course. But it is not going to happen...

Roland · June 26, 2002, 05:20

"Under what sort of conditions could the Palestinians ever put together a government capable of not only negotiating a peace agreement but implementing one?"

Difficult but not impossible. If we develop the Barak proposal a bit to lift restrictions on sovereignty on a timetable if the terms are upheld as decided by an impartial side, it could work.

Somehow you have to break the circle of failed negotiations leading to vilanece leading to failed negotiations....

"...especially when one looks around at the other Arab states in the region which are all corrupt Monarchies or Dictatorships"

Lebanon.

"As for being able to make an agreement with Arafat, I agree completely that you can make an agreement with him. Unfortunately he won't keep that agreement."

Either side will only keep agreements if they see it being in their interest. Make it Arafat's interest and he'll keep it.