posted
Change to what? We don't know that what is currently happening is completely ineffective - if it is stopping some, it is working on some level. In order to change policies, you need something to change to. Something with a greater probablity of working than the current policy.
quote:A new poll of Palestinians shows most oppose a halt in fighting with Israel, while 64 percent support suicide bomb attacks against the Jewish state.
quote:Yahoo news (www.yahoo.com) reports that a majority (66%) of Palestinians support the murder of unarmed Israeli civilians, including kids, through homicide/suicide bombings.
quote:In the realm of peace and security, the findings show widespread support, reaching 75%, for the suicide attack at the Maxim restaurant in Haifa, where 20 Israelis were killed.
There's hope (found also in the last article), but you can't say that most Palestinians don't support the bombers. It should be true, but it isn't.
[ December 31, 2003, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Bob except that Israeli soldiers still need to be there to carry out anti-terrorist operations and occupied territories could include all of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights which is completely unacceptable. And I don't think we should ever cut off military aid to Israel because at the least they aid us militarily.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, Fugu because we should also take into consideration a Jew might carry out a suicide bombing in a shopping mall. Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is that a state defined as Israeli cannot rule over predominately non-Israeli territory without conflict. Thus, I see three possible solutions:
1. Give up on the idea of an Israeli state. 2. Give up any land that is largely non-Israeli. 3. Accept the existence of some level of terrorism.
I don't believe anything else will work.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: A new poll of Palestinians shows most oppose a halt in fighting with Israel, while 64 percent support suicide bomb attacks against the Jewish state.
Kat, I see that this means there is a lot of frustration among Palestinians about the way Israel is treating them, and doesn't necessarily translate into an active desire to see Israel gone.
Similar polls just a few years ago were overwhelmingly in favor of ending the violence.
What's changed in the interim? Mostly the actions of Israel's own hawkish politicians. They've made things worse and the poll numbers are bound to reflect that.
Do you really think more oppression will improve things?
Will Israelis really be safer???
How much more important is safety than the rights of citizens. Or even just the basic human rights of ordinary Palestinians -- the ones who aren't terrorists.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:4. Destroy those who perpetuate and support the terrorism.
No, that doesn't work because the more of those you kill the more anger you produce and the more terrorists you create. Even killing all the Palestinians won't work, because then all of the Muslim world would be enraged enough to attack (genocide has that effect.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, the long-term solution is to come up with something everyone can live with.
In the short-term, though, Isreali citizens are dying, and the Isreali government has the obligation to do something to protect them in the short term.
I know what Abe Lincoln said about statistics, but we can layer any meaning we want over the numbers handed to us. I'd hesistate to dismiss years of consistent opinions with "They don't really mean that."
I don't believe it is a sign of blood-lust or anything like that, but the fact that Palestinians as a whole have NOT made a concerted effort to stop the murderers among them is a more telling signal than any poll.
quote:How much more important is safety than the rights of citizens. Or even just the basic human rights of ordinary Palestinians -- the ones who aren't terrorists.
That's just it - the Isreali government does NOT have the right or the freedom to decide that Palestinian liberty is more important than the lives of its citizenry. Individuals can decide this, but the government cannot. It is entrusted with Isreali safety. If the members of the government want to put down that responsibility, they may, but if they neglect that obligation to protect while in office, it's treason.
quote:No, that doesn't work because the more of those you kill the more anger you produce and the more terrorists you create. Even killing all the Palestinians won't work, because then all of the Muslim world would be enraged enough to attack (genocide has that effect.)
Not in Rwanda... not in many places.
Sadly, genocide happens all the time, and it is only occasionally defended against.
[ December 31, 2003, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sadly, genocide happens all the time, and it is only occasionally defended against.
So, what's that mean? That it'd be okay? Or at least understandable?
If you can understand genocide perpetrated by a government in response to terror attacks, why can't you "understand" terror attacks in response to government-sponsored oppression (and the threat of genocide)?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is exceptionally difficult to broker peace with someone who insists on not doing anything to deserve it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For instance, that most Palestinians would kill an Israeli if they had a chance. Certainly most Palestinians would like Israelis to, well, leave them alone, but kill? Absurd. Most palestinians work with Israelis daily, yet very few of them ever actually kill any Israelis. Furthermore, there are numerous Palestinians groups which are working towards peace without violence. To characterize Palestinians so viciously and wrongly is bigoted.
Regarding the aforementioned statistics, supporting someone who kills and killing are two very different things. I'd bet the numbers are quite similar for Israelis saying its ok that Palestinian civilians die when Israel missiles a car. This doesn't mean Israelis would kill Palestinians if they had the chance.
On a side note: clearly Palestinian "citizens" are being killed by Israel in high numbers. Does this make Palestine justified in taking action against Israel?
NFL also said that because any Palestinians had voiced support for suicide bombers it was ok to bulldoze where they lived. I am again appalled. Is it then justifiable for Palestinians to destroy Israeli places of residence because Israeli's support killing Palestinians who are merely driving home, and have not been convicted of any crimes in any court of law?
Throwing rocks is NOT a threat. I have not heard of Israeli soldiers being killed by thrown rocks, while I have heard of Palestinian protesters being killed by rubber bullets and live rounds (heck, I've seen it happen on TV live!). Tear gas or other responses at a similar degree of force, ok, but firing on an unarmed crowd that is throwing rocks?!
And not all the protesters were even doing that. Not too long ago a group of Palestinians were protesting the building of the wall, and had approached it and begun dismantling a section of it. They were fired on, and at least one live round was fired (that is the number Israel maintains). Two protesters were killed. Dismantling a wall is a justification for killing someone?
Estimates are that the wall will leave out from 15% to 45% of the territory previously outside Israel's control, notably including large areas of Jerusalem. Also, there are already many smaller walls with checkpoints between Palestinian settlements.
Exactly, I don't expect the Palestinian government to control terror. Israel and the US have made it into too much of a puppet mockery. Yet Israel acts like it can control terror, and stops any negotiation that could promote peace whenever there is any terrorist act. If a country is serious about peace, it must work towards peace.
Kat: regarding your statement that its easy to criticize when it isn't your decision. If what the Israeli government is doing now is resulting in more terrorists attacks, it is their duty to change something about what they're doing now, not stay the course. "It isn't working now, but it will later" is not a very persuasive argument.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
No. I'm giving that as an option that (1) would work, and (2) is completely unacceptable. So this obligation to protect does NOT extend to being able to commit genocide with impunity. Just like the desire to throw off oppresion does not extend to the deliberate murder of children with impunity. But if Tres wants to discuss unfair, unacceptable solutions that would stop all the fighting, an unholy genocide would do the trick.
It's why I don't like discussion of impractical solutions. There are many, many solutions out there that would both bring pring a kind of peace and would never work, but I'd rather hear about practical solutions that might actually happen.
quote: Israel and the US have made it into too much of a puppet mockery.
So Isreal and the US are MAKING Arafat steal all that money? If Arafat didn't have support, he wouldn't be in the position that he is.
quote:stops any negotiation that could promote peace whenever there is any terrorist act.
So, there are peace negotiations, there is a terrorist bombing, the Isrealis pull out of the negotiations to hand over territory to the people can't keep themselves from bombing them long enough to discuss the handout, and it's Isreali lack of patience?
quote:If what the Israeli government is doing now is resulting in more terrorists attacks, it is their duty to change something about what they're doing now, not stay the course.
This would only hold if, in fact, no terrorist attacks are being stopped in the meantime. That's not true.
quote:Meanwhile, Israel Security Agency Chief Avi Dichter told the cabinet on Sunday that 14 suicide bombing attempts had been foiled in the past six weeks and that the number of terror alerts had recently increased from some 30 per day to 50, THE JERUSALEM POST reported. Dichter said two of the 14 suicide bombers had blown themselves up near Israeli targets, without causing casualties. The rest of the bombers were prevented from carrying out their attacks either by initiated Israeli military action, or by various roadblocks or random patrols.
[ December 31, 2003, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting to lump the words Genocide and Israeli together there Tres. You'd think that they'd never been the victims of genocide before...
Let me get this straight:
You want the Jews to give up on an Israeli state, not to mention the rest of the world?
Give up any land that is non-Israeli? Which would mean, by your first statement, give it all back...
And accept the terrorism that murders innocent people because, gosh darn it, the Palestinians and other Muslims have a right to be a bit mad. And hey, they're pretty much only killing Jews right?
I'm sorry but you are soooo out in left field on this one that that post and the previous one (which seems to state that the Israelis might commit some kind of genocide, rather than that they were the most genocidally victimized group in living history, if not all history) that it really does smack not of logic, but of anti-semitism couched in some form of classical liberalism. What an interesting and yet noxious cocktail that makes...
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So Isreal and the US are MAKING Arafat steal all that money? If Arafat didn't have support, he wouldn't be in the position that he is.
No, its that we maintain him in power despite his clear loss of mandate.
quote:So, there are peace negotiations, there is a terrorist bombing, the Isrealis pull out of the negotiations to hand over territory to the people can't keep themselves from bombing them long enough to discuss the handout, and it's Isreali lack of patience?
Lets do a little parable telling. There's one group of people, we'll call them P. Its a big group of people and no one is really in charge. In P there are two sub groups, A and B. Now, another group of people, not in P, lets call this new group I, is negotiating with A for ways to move towards peace between I and P. Someone in group B, unrelated to group A except for being in P, attacks I. I stops talking to A. Why? A has acted in good faith. A never pretended to be able to control what other P did, but exerted all its influence to attempt to do so. Furthermore, since its clear that many P do not want peace, I is playing into B's hands. Whenever negotiations start, B merely has to kill some I, and they stop, preventing there from ever being peace.
Only negotiating when there is peace is a way to guarantee never having peace, and its a clear demonstration that the Israeli leadership isn't interested in peace.
quote:This would only hold if, in fact, no terrorist attacks are being stopped in the meantime. I don't think that's true. Some still get through, but many are stopped. Hold on, I'll research.
This is why I think Israel should continue doing many of the things they are doing. I have been advocating Israel evaluate the results of their actions, and stop taking those actions generating the higher rates of attack, as clearly some of them are. What's unreasonable about this, and why the heck aren't they doing it?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why aren't they coming up with a different solution to replace the one where they are stopping fourteen suicide bombings in six weeks?
That's what I mean about it being easier to criticize than to lead.
You think Arafat is being supported as the leader of the Palestinians against the will of the Palestinians?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sopwith...get a grip, okay? No-one has said that.
And by your statements, you are saying that because of past atrocities perpetrated against jews, the government of Israel gets a pass when they do noxious things to the people in their own country and the territories they control.
I don't buy it for one second.
It's okay to criticize the Israeli government and that does not make one an anti-semite.
In fact, since the Palestinians are also semitic people, I think you are really barking up the wrong tree on this one.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
To protect the Israeli people, the Israeli government has a right to erect a wall at the border, do any manner of police checks, and patrol the streets, no matter if this disrupts the economy. The economy is messed by closing borders, but Israel is desimated without it, so that's okay. This is a solution for the short-term. Calling off the barricades, the soldiers, and the martial state is not an option for Israel's government, because that government has an obligation to protect the people it has been elected to represent. Anything else would be treason.
Is this right? We agree on the above?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nono, the roadblocks and patrols have been effective, so keep them. Many of their other actions, such as the bulldozing, have not, so stop them. Ditto for the missiles into cars (killing the leadership of organizations when there are so many ready and willing to step into the same shoes strikes me as rather ineffective). I'm saying evaluate and stop that which isn't effective.
Also, its about net effectiveness, not total number stopped.
Hmm, I did a little research on Arafat's support just now, and it looks like about 40% support him strongly, with a bit over 30% supporting him "moderately" (the poll's word) and a bit over 20% disliking him. While most of the places I see read that as supporting Arafat as a leader, I don't think so. A person in opposition to Arafat that maintained his less extremist policies could likely net a similar share to Arafat (about 40%). So while a good number do support him, I doubt he could maintain his place as representative of Palestine without all the recognition he gets from Israel and the US.
While it doesn't push a particular position, the general impression I get from it is that Israel is avoiding moving towards peace.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, 70 - 80% of Palestinians support him moderately to strongly, but you still blame Arafat's continued leadership on the United States? I know Sharon declared him irrelevant and cut off dealings with him at least a year ago, so it can't be Isreal's support you're blaming.
That's what I mean about statistics being worthless. If you dismiss the poll numbers where the vast majority of Palestinians both support the suicide bombers and Arafat as "They don't really mean that," then it doesn't matter what the polls say. People will believe what they want to.
quote:A person in opposition to Arafat that maintained his less extremist policies could likely net a similar share to Arafat (about 40%).
Whare are you getting this number? It would be nice if it was true, but wishing something is true doesn't make it so.
[ December 31, 2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Firstly, if Israel is decimated then Palestine is far more so. After all, there are fewer Palestinians AND more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli action that vice versa.
I do support certain actions of Israel, which includes the building of walls in a general sense.
But such things as the particular locations of walls, which seemed designed to lead political and economic advantage rather than safety advantage, the lack of seriousness about the peace process, the use of excessive force on palestinian civilians, these all trouble me greatly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, its a guesswork number, but supported by the current numbers. The 40%, 30% and 20% numbers are roughly mirrored across the recent surveys I've seen. The 30% that moderately support him could likely be snatched away pretty easily, and I think about half the 20-25% that oppose him (the other half oppose him for lack of extremism, I would guess).
This estimate is born out by that around 45% currently support the peace process. Since Arafat isn't doing much for the peace process right now, a strong peace process candidate would garner around that 45%.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, have you ever had a rock thrown at you? You're telling me that's peaceful? Since when is the destruction of property considered peaceful either. Peaceful is what Ghandi did. Peaceful is what Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights activitists (obviously excluding the militaristic ones) did. Staging sit-ins is one thing, throwing rocks, which are perfectly capable killing if they make contact in the right place, is another.
Someone explain to me how either the US or Israel is responsible for keeping Arafat in "power". Isn't it Europe and the Arab world that continually condemns Israel whenever it brings up exile or lays seige to his compound?
posted
If you intend to cause me harm then I have the right to do whatever is necessary to prevent that harm. If I can punch you in the face then I'll due that, but if I can't and I have a gun I'll shoot in the air. Failing that I'll shoot you in the foot or leg. Failing that I'll aim to kill.
Similarly, Israeli soldiers fire in the air in warning first and then shoot. Even then its with rubber bullets which are considerably less lethal than regular bullets.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The contention that Arafat is in power only because the US keeps him there, against the wishes of the Palestinians and the other Arab nations, is baloney.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, you can't claim that throwing rocks is being peaceful.
It isn't being as deadly as with guns, but it isn't peaceful.
You never did answer about Arafat. Do you think that Arafat would be out of power unless he was supported by the United States?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Kat/Javert, I'm curious where this "defense is the highest duty of government" thing comes from. Seems to me like representative government's highest duty is to represent the people, ie do what they want, or at least what they wanted on the most recent election day. So if the people elect a politician who has made clear that he doesn't support defense, or if (simplifying things a bit) they vote that a certain issue is more important to them than defense, it seems like the government's duty to defend them becomes secondary.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't find it in a cursory look back over what I wrote, but I don't think I asserted that protesters throwing rocks were peaceful (stupid typo) -- nfl is the one who asserted they only shot at people throwing rocks (which I still think is a signficant overreaction). I was referring to protests where they were not endangering any people, and not doing general property destruction, but specifically attempting to tear down the wall. Which does qualify as peaceful in my book.
quote: The contention that Arafat is in power only because the US keeps him there, against the wishes of the Palestinians and the other Arab nations, is baloney.
Well, I don't believe any of the Arab states want him dead, but, as I said, he is only alive because of US intervention.
What are the nuances of Israel's immigration policy? I imagine that all Jews world-wide can apply for citizenship, but is it true that any citizen can obtain a writ to settle any of the land that was at any time considered "Greater Israel," independent of the wishes of the people who are currently living in that land?
Are Israel's borders as flexible as I imagine?
If so, if you forcibly occupy a territory, then have the temerity to move civilian citizens there, then there is a high likelihood that the civilians are going to be killed. If this is the case, I'm pretty sure that there is a section of the Geneva convention which expressly deals with the conduct of occupiers.
posted
I know for a fact that any Jew wishing to become a citizen of Israel can do so instantly. I've never heard about being able to settle any part of "Greater Israel". If that were true you'd have fanatical Jews trying to settle land in Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. Well, even if that wasn't on the books they might try that anyways, but that's why they're fanatical. If such a law does exist I would be suprised and upset. Of course, technically in the US you can still go get yourself a homestead courtesy of the US government and keep the land so long as you improve upon it for so many years.
Fugu, if you're tearing down a wall then you're destroying property.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but its specific property destruction that does not represent a threat or likelihood to erupt in violence. Note I said general property destruction. And I consider it a nonviolent act, and certainly not one that would justify the use of violent force in response, including live ammunition.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, Irami stated he already knew any Jew could get citizenship. The thing about property was a question about the ability to unilaterally expell current residents from property within "greater israel".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if I go to your house to protest your stupidity and while I'm there I start putting wholes in your roof you won't feel any need to use a gun if you have one to threaten me? You would just let me tear down your house right? (Don't call the police either because they will use a gun.) Let me guess, a house is different from a wall right? Well, have you thought about what that wall does for Israelis? It significantly increases their chances of living. So why don't you give me your address, I'll rent a Caterpillar and bulldoze your house and I expect you won't complain. And maybe you'll be in that house but that's the risk you take I suppose.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The police wouldn't use a gun, NFL, they'd physically restrain you. And yes, you would be overreacting to use a gun. You would kill someone over things?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl, interesting you should mention that it's okay to use force to stop someone from bulldozing your house. That's been a favored method of the Israeli army since the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Without a trial and without compensation or the right to representation, they bulldoze the houses of Palestinians they suspect of supporting any anti-Israeli sentiments.
Oh, surprise, the rubble makes nice things to throw at the army.
Look, terrorism sucks, but I have to ask if you really think the fence will significantly alter anything but the rights of law-abiding Palestinians.
Determined terrorists will find a way over, under, or through the fence. Israel can't possibly patrol the whole thing effectively. In the meantime, the people who would obey the law anyway are inconvenienced and have this constant reminder of their oppressor stretching across the landscape. That'll make everyone safer, wont it?
Frankly, I think much of what the Israeli government does is deliberate with the aim of provoking a violent response that they can then use to garner sympathy for the inevitable retaliation.
By the way, rubber bullets are more deadly than rocks. Especially when the rubber bullets are aimed at unprotected civilians whereas the rocks are tossed at military types wearing helmets and sitting in army vehicles.
I was in the middle of a rock-throwing protest. It was actually fairly safe. The rocks lost most of their potential power by the time they reached the Israeli sentinels. I walked out in it to ask the guards to let us pass so we wouldn't miss our plane. They were nervous teenagers (the guards) and no doubt thought the situation was more serious than it was.
Basically, they had guns, the protesters didn't. That kept the protesters about 100 yards away. There are few people who can throw anything with an effective range of 100 yards. A gun, on the other hand, even when loaded with rubber bullets, is deadly at that range.
I'd rather take a head shot from a rock tossed 100 yards than a rubber bullet shot that same distance into my head.
Really. Who wouldn't. If you know the physics of the situation.
A lucky shot with a rock and you MIGHT get a concussion. Most likely, you'll have a lump and some bleeding.
A head shot with a rubber bullet is going to be very messy and likely to be fatal. A lucky shot at that distance will go through the temple or eye socket or snap a vertebra and then you're cooked.
The "war" if it is one, is decidedly unequal. The Palestinians could no doubt handle their protests better. But to be honest, I think the current Israeli government wouldn't welcome a sweeping peace movement in Gaza or the West Bank. It would remove one of their best propaganda tools. The misbehavior of a small minority.
The best thing the Palestinians could do is start a peace movement, stick to it, and then embarrass the Israeli government when they don't stop all the provocation anyway.
By the way, the settlements range from really very nice neighborhoods to trailer parks. The government places some very rabid anti-Palestinians in the settlements -- one lady while we were visiting had a habit of going around town passing out leaflets depicting Mohammed's face on the body of a pig. We might think that's laughable and the woman is obviously a crank or a nut, but when the Palestinians complained to the authorities about the woman, they did nothing to curtail her activities and treated the request (or demand) with contempt.
That set off a rock throwing incident while we were there.
The resulting crack down -- the army shut down the entire town -- was way out of proportion to the 20 minutes of rock throwing. And the army had every opportunity to defuse the situation just by taking this obvious nutcase home to her family.
Note that no-one killed the woman. They know she's a nut. They just asked that she be kept back in her compound.
Is that too much to ask?
Is it any wonder that some kids took it upon themselves to throw stones at the army idiots who just laughed their elders off?
Really, the recipe for disaster there is as much contributed to by the Israelis as it is by the Palestinian terrorists.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
You want the Jews to give up on an Israeli state, not to mention the rest of the world?
Give up any land that is non-Israeli? Which would mean, by your first statement, give it all back...
And accept the terrorism that murders innocent people because, gosh darn it, the Palestinians and other Muslims have a right to be a bit mad. And hey, they're pretty much only killing Jews right?
I didn't say anyone should do anything. I'm just saying that those are the only things that Israel can do to solve this - they can choose which one they want. If a major segment of a region's population is ruled by a government that does not represent them, then you can eventually expect rebellion and violence. That's not my idea - it's just how things go.
posted
The point is that the protesters are NOT peaceful.
Fugu, if that property protects people I would value it over the people willing to tear it down.
The fence doesn't just keep people out and it can do that, it delays them. Time is priceless when it comes to anti-terrorist responses.
Bob, wasn't it you who said Israel should just get up and out of Palestine? Wouldn't that inconvenience the same people who are currently inconvenienced by the security fences? Surely you wouldn't expect Israel to continue to allow Palestinians to work and travel to Israel freely once they moved out?
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa, Bob, you've been to the settlements? Do you have the story of your travels posted anywhere?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm just saying that those are the only things that Israel can do to solve this
I'm saying these are NOT the only thing that can be done to solve this - genocide would work just as well. As long as we're flinging about impractical solutions that will never happen, we might as well say we should make every injury inflicted in this conflict be felt by every member of both populations.
Tres, it disturbs that you say Isreal's only choices are to give up everything or get used to terrorism. You mean you don't even want to bother with condenming the suicide bombers? That Isreal deserves it?
You say they are the only things ISREAL can do. Any suggestions for the Palestinians, or do you assume they incapable of constructive action?
[ January 02, 2004, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got some suggestions for the Palestinian authorities, myself. I've got suggestions for the Palestinians in general, as well, but they're unfortunately unrealistic, such as "stop killing israelis because you hate them".
My suggestions include: ditch arafat. Compromise on Jerusalem (from my perspective, the "best" solution would be third party rule, possibly city rule, though that could result in a tyranny of the majority). Round up some of the worst rogue Palestinian elements and have big public trials, being very, very scrupulous about standards of evidence and such. Take a hard nosed stance on the destruction of palestinian residential areas (stand-ins, as has already begun to happen on a small scale).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd just like to point out that it's Israel, not Isreal. It was just bugging me. (Though that isn't the only thing that's been bugging me about this discussion.)
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
j/k .![[Smile]](smile.gif)
