posted
I'm really surprised that nothing has been said on this forum yet (that I found) about the Israel/Palestinian escalation in fighting, due to Israel's airstrike that killed the Hamas leader.
quote:The Hamas leadership said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had "opened the gates of hell".
posted
I predict Palestinians will react to this by calling the Israelis evil, and will strike against them, resulting in the Israelis calling the Palestinians evil, and striking back themselves.
Histocially, I think I'm making a safe prediction.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admit I really don't know anything about the situation. So I guess I'm going to have to say there's a 50% chance of Xap being correct. Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I heard a Palestinian response this morning that basically pointed out that this can't possibly solve anything.
I can understand the whole concept of WANTING to assasinate the opposition''s leaders.. But to actually carry it out, not a good precedent.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Sharon was being ousted on some kind of corruption charge a couple of months ago. It somehow managed to leak through the Dem primary coverage. I agree with Israel's right to survive, but I don't think Sharon's strategies are very good.
twinky, being Palestinian doesn't mean you have to support Hamas any more than being American means you want to have dinner with George W. Bush.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is just fueling the vicious cycle of violence.
The smartest thing the palestinians ca do i go out in the streets in peaceful demonstrations, denouncing the Israelan government and keep on doing them for as long as is necessary. If the Israelans do anything violent to these peaceful demonstrations, they would slowly but surely lose all support from the rest of the world.
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of the problem with non violence is that it is not an ethic shared by every major religion.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christians aren't supposed to. One could say that when one is, one isn't actually being a Christian, whatever one is calling oneself.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just think it would take a good long while before the the Palestinian protests could be seen as non violent. If the Palestinian authority had enough influence on the ranks to implement non-violence, we would be looking at a whole different situation. But it only takes one overly emotional fellow to mess up a non violent protest.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally think the leadership on both sides should be removed from power. Every person I met in Israel & Palestine was mainly interested in peaceful coexistence. There were a few who were pretty unwavering in their dislike of the other side, but even those wanted the violence to end.
There are a few radicals on both sides, of course, and then there are the respective governments who are, I believe, at least 60% of the problem over there.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I agree skrika. It does only take one person to ruin the whole thing. The palestinian leaders really need to preach nonviolence to the people. It's the smartest thing.
But I can't see that happening any time soon.
EDIT: Yeah, Bob. The governments are the biggest problem.
[ March 22, 2004, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: St. Yogi ]
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I personally think the leadership on both sides should be removed from power. Every person I met in Israel & Palestine was mainly interested in peaceful coexistence. There were a few who were pretty unwavering in their dislike of the other side, but even those wanted the violence to end.
One note of hope - it looks like things have finally quieted down in Northern Ireland.
What finally turned the tide more than anything was the noncombatants in that country - Catholic and Protestant alike - to tell the extremists they had had enough of burying children, husbands and wives.
Cautious hope, anyway. The violence hasn't really died down for all that long and there are still people on both sides eager to resume hostilities. And it took a very long time... Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure this is a bad thing. From Israel's point of view they are going to do whatever it takes to stop the suicide attacks on their people. Of course this assassination won't do that, but then neither has anything else they've tried from peace talks to ceasefires etc. The recent Israeli policy of assassinating the leaders of these movements is possibly more effective than other tactics they have tried. These scumbags who send in the suicide bombers to shopping centers, busses etc. richly deserve the violent death they are so willing to inflict on others.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trouble is, all of Israel's options are bad. This is one reason why I generall am pro-Israeli instead of pro-Palestinian, because the Palestinians have one option that is tried, true, and effective: nonviolent resistance and demostrations. The Palestinians (and those who claim to fight for them) have that option, violence against military targets, violence against civilian targets, and just accepting the status quo.
To my mind, they've (terrorists and their supporters) chosen the most odious and least effective means to resolve their problem. Then again, if my kid was killed by the Israeli Army, I might go blow up some Israeli kids too. (I mean this seriously, I can understand the rage felt by many Palestinians and Arabs.)
But what can the Israelis do? They can fight back, try peace talks, or accept the status quo (eventually leading to no more Israel). Peace talks might resolve the problem long-term. Big emphasis on the might, too. (I should mention that Arafat has proven either unwilling or unable to abide by them.) But in the short-term, they won't stop suicide bombers. Short-term can kill suicide bombers and cut the number of attacks against Israeli civilians, but ensures continuation of the long-term problem.
Israelis have at least tried everything, except outright capitulation. Palestinians have still left the biggest, most effective tool unused in favor of coldly targetting civilians for murder.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So -- like American is under the Geneva Convention rules (after the world wars) to say we can't just go in and order the assasination of the leaders of other countries -- so is Israel not part of the Geneva convention? Or are they saying the Palestinians are not another country, therefore the rules don't apply?
Just trying for some clarification since I haven't followed this conflict all the way through...
posted
I'm not sure, Farmgirl. Good question. I can say that Israel more or less follows what international guidelines they feel like; they have flouted some UN decisions in the past, if memory serves.
Which I can understand. Such organizations tend to favor Palestinians and hamstring Israel
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Israelis have at least tried everything, except outright capitulation. Palestinians have still left the biggest, most effective tool unused in favor of coldly targetting civilians for murder. <<
From the Palestinian perspective, when has negotiating ever worked for them? Being the weaker side of the conflict, what exactly have they got to bargain with? Israel already holds all of the cards, and is currently building a wall that cuts Palestinian territory off from its chief water supply.
What the Palestinians see is this: whenever we stop to negotiate, Israel continues to take de facto control of more territory with settlements, roads, checkpoints, and the new wall. It's no wonder Palestinians living in the West Bank see negotiation as a useless waste of time.
The Geneva proposal was certainly not unreasonable, but of course none of those involved have any actual influence on their respective leaders.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think no one's started a thread because quite a few people here (myself included) have gotten into substantial flamewars over this in the past.
*shudders* Boy, do you have a point.
*thinks back to throat-slitting argument*
*gulps*
*returns to reading discussion on this thread, without posting (at least for the time being)*
Posts: 7877 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> *thinks back to throat-slitting argument* <<
o_O
I think I'm glad I missed that one, whatever it was.
I'm definitely willing to discuss this issue with Rakeesh, though, because even though he and I have differing views on this and a great many other things, he's sharp and always logical.
Edit: Plus, maybe I can catch up to his postcount.
posted
Okay, according to This Timeline this is all basically about who owns/occupies a certain piece of land, right? (changed because I found a better timeline)
Well, I guess that isn't what I want to get into in this post anyway.
I mainly want to look forward -- not what caused the past. I want to think about the global implications of this war if it gets "out of region", so to speak.
posted
Farmgirl- The Israeli position is that the Palestinian Authority is not a nation, and therefore not covered by the geneva accords. The Palestinian authority of course disagrees.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just did a Google search and it appears that Israel rejects Version 4 of the Geneva Convention. I gather it has something to do with certain provisions being used against Israel related to building settlements, firing on civilian areas and bulldozing houses.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> And this has been going on (the conflict) since the 1930s?? <<
It got started in the late 1890s and built from there. The 1930s was when it really started to become a major issue for the occupying British.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl, I wonder if the people who wrote that timeline are a little biased in favor of the Palestinians ..?
I'm curious, before this whole hundred-year history of bloodshed and revenge took place, what was the inciting incident? I mean, what were the Jewish immigrants doing that warranted violent uprisings?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
...which is probably why I'm so pessimistic about peace. I just don't see it happening.
Edit:
>> I'm curious, before this whole hundred-year history of bloodshed and revenge took place, what was the inciting incident? I mean, what were the Jewish immigrants doing that warranted violent uprisings? <<
Well, the Zionist movement committed to establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1897. I can imagine that the Palestinians living under Ottoman and British rule in the early 1900s weren't happy, given that the stated goal of Zionist immigrants (not all of the Jewish immigrants were Zionists, of course, but the Zionist movement was certainly a major impetus behind the influx of Jews to Palestine) was to make Palestine their own.
posted
This guy wasn't a member of the Palestinian government. He was the leader of Hamas, which depending on who you are is either Palestine's most prestigious fraternity or a dangerous terrorist organization. If the later, it would make sense that Israel could see this as a police matter that the hosting government (the PA) wasn't dealing with. Much like we went into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. (which, strangely, we haven't done yet).
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:From the Palestinian perspective, when has negotiating ever worked for them? Being the weaker side of the conflict, what exactly have they got to bargain with? Israel already holds all of the cards, and is currently building a wall that cuts Palestinian territory off from its chief water supply.
My response would be, "When has it ever been seriously pursued?" This is just my perspective, but it seems to me that what happens is something like this: there's a cease-fire which holds for awhile. Peace negotiations begin. Things are offered-including virtually everything Palestinians demand, excluding right-of-return and some other issues-and Palestinians (or Arafat, really) reject them as unreasonable and swear to continue fighting.
I think negotiations haven't worked for Palestinians because you're defining it differently for them than you would if, say, you and I were negotiating something. If we negotiated something, we'd start from a list of things we both want, and both lists would get whittled down and shuffled around, and eventually we'd reach a settlement. We'd agree before starting negotiations that neither of us is going to get everything we want.
Arafat and terrorists attacking Israel are simply unwilling to accept that. Look at the Charter, after all. One of the goals is to simply erase Israel from the region. To my mind, Israeli leadership is also very frequently unreasonable, but at least they don't start out with a demand they know Palestinians can never, ever accept.
And as for the new wall...it's being built during continuous suicide bombing attacks. There is no cease-fire, so I think to use it is unreasonable.
Of course, I agree with Bob that the trouble is, the two societies-particularly Palestinian society-reward extremism with leadership, the very people least likely to reach a reasonable settlement. Also that neither Sharon nor Arafat really speak for the majority of Israelis or Palestinians true desires on those issues. (I will, however, point out that Arafat is a legitimate leader much less than Sharon is.)
J4
PS Right back atcha, Twink:) One of the nicest things said to me, I appreciate it very much.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Edit: My post is hard to read. I apologize. I'll work on the formatting, but won't change any content.)
I'm going to have to be careful not to get dragged too far into this, I have large piles of work awaiting me...
>> My response would be, "When has it ever been seriously pursued?" This is just my perspective, but it seems to me that what happens is something like this: there's a cease-fire which holds for awhile. Peace negotiations begin. Things are offered-including virtually everything Palestinians demand, excluding right-of-return and some other issues-and Palestinians (or Arafat, really) reject them as unreasonable and swear to continue fighting. <<
I'd say that it was seriously pursued in 1948, but the UN's partition proposal was ridiculous (there were more Palestinians in the state designated as "Jewish" than there were Jews, by a significant margin). When the partition plan failed, the Zionists conquered by force of arms, declaring their independence and then fending off Arab attacks until their position was consolidated on the Green Line.
I also don't believe that Israel always negotiates in good faith. Ehud Barak's proposal, for instance, was even more absurd than the 1948 partition plan, notwithstanding that settlement construction continued unabated while the negotiations were taking place.
When were the Palestinians ever offered any agreement that would have led to a viable state? It wasn't Oslo. It wasn't Barak's proposal. It certainly wasn't the 1948 partition plan. The "road map" is too vague to call one way or another.
The only reasonable proposal I've ever seen is the Geneva proposal, but of course it was made by people outside of the leadership on both sides.
______________________
>> I think negotiations haven't worked for Palestinians because you're defining it differently for them than you would if, say, you and I were negotiating something. If we negotiated something, we'd start from a list of things we both want, and both lists would get whittled down and shuffled around, and eventually we'd reach a settlement. We'd agree before starting negotiations that neither of us is going to get everything we want. <<
Sure, but neither of us has already taken unilateral action. That is a crucial difference. Too much has already happened between Israel and the Palestinians to just start negotiating with a clean slate as though the last 56 years just didn't happen.
______________________
>> Arafat and terrorists attacking Israel are simply unwilling to accept that. Look at the Charter, after all. One of the goals is to simply erase Israel from the region. To my mind, Israeli leadership is also very frequently unreasonable, but at least they don't start out with a demand they know Palestinians can never, ever accept. <<
The Palestinian Authority has a website of its own on which the Charter is outlined, but sadly it currently appears to be down... not that that's surprising. Google isn't helping me with unbiased sources on that score, unfortunately.
But you're right about the clauses. The PA keeps saying they're going to change the charter but the measures keep getting frozen or stayed or who-knows-what-else, which is just absurd and reveals the influence of extremist elements of Palestinian society at even these high levels.
But when has this ever been asked for at the negotiation table? Over the last 56 years, multiple Israeli leaders have called for the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza strip, and even parts of Jordan, because those are the borders of the "true" Jewish state. Where are the Palestinians supposed to go in such a circumstance, exactly? David Ben-Gurion put it best: "Drive them out."
In other words, the Palestinians aren't the only ones with extremists in their midst.
______________________
>> And as for the new wall...it's being built during continuous suicide bombing attacks. There is no cease-fire, so I think to use it is unreasonable. <<
It's also being built during continuous missile attacks. We can agree to drop the wall with respect to negotiations, but to call it "retaliatory" action is a misnomer, I think. Any "who-did-what-to-whom-first" debate is ultimately going to wind up back in 1948 anyway.
______________________
>> Of course, I agree with Bob that the trouble is, the two societies-particularly Palestinian society-reward extremism with leadership, the very people least likely to reach a reasonable settlement. Also that neither Sharon nor Arafat really speak for the majority of Israelis or Palestinians true desires on those issues. (I will, however, point out that Arafat is a legitimate leader much less than Sharon is.) <<
I think Arafat should have handed over the reins and held a real election about fifteen years ago, but instead he got used to photo ops and trips to Washington and being able to steal lots of money from the PA. Bah.
By the same token, however, how in the heck are the Palestinians supposed to have a real election when Israel continually destroys Palestinian infrastructure?
Basically, I don't agree with your weighting of responsibility.
posted
I don't think Sharon is a great leader, but that's by the by.
I think this was a stupid move - I don't see how it can do anything but escalate tensions, not only in Palestine, but in other Muslim countries. Which isn't really a desirable thing right now.
In terms of veiwing Hammas as a terrorist organisation, the assasination could probably be given some moral justification.* However in terms of the US trying to eliminate Osama Bin Laden, that happened in an out and out war against Afgahnistan. I don't think many people in Israel or Palestine desire the escalation of tensions to an out and out war - yet it seems this is where this move is taking them.
*That is, if you believe it's morally justified to assasinate terrorists.
I just think it's bad news. For everyone involved. Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's basically my problem with it. I certainly don't support Hamas and would dearly love to see their influence on Palestinians utterly purged... but I don't see how any progress can possibly come of a move like this.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hanan Ashrawi is probably about as close as they'll come, but the Palestinian Authority keeps marginalizing her.
(She's a relatively moderate Christian Palestinian who is married to a Jewish man. She's been working with the PA since its inception but has never gotten any real clout. Very sad, IMO.)
Diana Buttu is also an excellent spokeswoman – she's a Canadian-born Palestinian who is currently the PA's legal advisor – but, again, they never let her decide anything or give any important speeches or anything.
posted
Hamas in not a legitimate political organization!!! Its a terrorist group like Islamic Jihad and Al-Queda. How is a nation not justified in executing the leader/founder of a group that murders innocent civilians for the sake of causing terror? Its not even as if Israel took out Yasser Arafat who is half legitimate politician and half terrorist. What makes this "assasination" any different from the dozens Israel has already caried out except that this one was responsible for more murders? In fact considering that he was a religious leader if Muslims are truly angry at the falsification of their beliefs by these terrorists then they should be happy! Besides since when were political leaders considered immune? The CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro a few times for one. Moreover, were Allied attempts during WWII to assasinate Hitler unjustified?
Here's what really bothers me, where was the outrage when the Israeli Minister of Tourism of murdered last year?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine would you prefer Kurds trying to kill Saddam Hussein after he dropped loads of chemical weapons on their villages? How does political office in and of itself guaruntee immunity? Not of course that Hamas's founder is to considered a holder of political office.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
