Israeli Army Kills 8-Year-Old Palestinian Boy

[Felch]

Eli, would you accept the Oslo accords if you were guaranteed actual security? Or would you reject them in favor of more terrorism and war because you want to take more territory?

I'm asking because CyberGnu seems to have an unrealistic notion of Israeli public opinion, and I'm just trying to get the truth from the people who know.

[Felch]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Well, if the status quo is maintained, what need is there to re-evaluate the conclusions? If no new data is presented, the logical conclusion reached yesterday is the same as the logical conclusion reached today.

But present new facts, and a re-evaluation is always warranted.

Right, auto-pilot. Re-evaluation is important though because nobody can know or understand all sides to a dispute. The best we can hope for is greater understanding and wisdom. To say that the conclusion you reached yesterday will be the same one that you reach today is to say that you've just wasted a day of your life.

Felch, the vast majority of palestinians were driven out of Israel at the moment of its conception. Some of them by violence, many of them by the threat of violence, most of them by fear of violence. None were allowed to return. None of them recieved compensation for their confiscated land or property. None of the people responsible ever recieved a punishment. To claim that their "rights were respected" is a bit far fetched, don't you think?

The circumstances under which the Palestinians left are in dispute. One side says they fled Israeli wrath, the other says that they left on orders from the Arab powers, and intended to return once the Jews had been wiped out in some sort of final solution to the Zionist problem. I don't know the truth of that. What I do know is that Israel won the war, the Israeli-Arabs who remained were not brutally massacred, and they have lived for the most part peacefully with the Jewish people, even participating in the democratic government, sending members to the Knesset. That tells me that their rights were respected.

Well, this was the situation before 1920, before zionism reared its ugly head... But once Pandorax box was opened, nothing could close the lid again.

The Arabs were not blameless in the initial violence. And it's not a crime to move somewhere fleeing repression and extermination elsewhere. Remember that the Jews moved to Palestine because they were being slaughtered and oppressed in Russia, Germany, France, and other places.

So what do you call the Oslo accord?

The Oslo accord. What's your point? The Palestinians didn't try hard enough. They made pandering motions, and now they're paying the price.

I'm sorry, but I can't do anything but aggressively reject this view. You're advocating that might gives right. Once a neighbour is subjugated, they should bend their necks in all perpetuity.

You said that the Palestinians have the right to armed uprising. I said they'll get their butts kicked. How can you realistically reject that view? You know full well the current body count, you know that Israel can shut the PA down at any time. Armed uprising without hope for victory is slaughter - no better than what Haig did at the Somme.

I've had this discussion before, but I don't think I've heard your view: DeGaulle, criminal or hero?

I think he's French, and that's enough to hold him in custody until we can present something to the grand jury.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
ravagon:\

The question is, what do you base that view on? Sharons atrocities, Netanyahus public statements, the assassination of Rabin, all of them show that a peaceful solution is not what Israel wants. Israel preferes to extend the conflict indefiently, and incrementally steal more and more palestinian land. The population and square milleage of the settlements have more than doubles since Israel agreed to freeze them in the Oslo accord - If Israel truly wanted peace why would they not only accept the expansion of the settlment but actually encourage them?!

In order - firstly I disagree with the atrocity reference - subjective and inflammatory.
Public statements, on both sides to be fair, aren't worth considering. Politicians the world over have always made such claims. If all were truthfull then, ... well I can't imagine exactly what sort of an effect it'd have on the universe but it probably wouldn't be physically possible.
You might be surprised at how quickly rhetoric can change if both sides see an advantage to it.
The assassination, by a single student, had far less reflection of the opinions of the majority of Israeli citizens than does a suicide bombing reflect the mindset of the Palestinians. By all accounts the masses were horrified to learn that one of their own was responsible.
Lastly the settlements - useful as a bargaining chip but hardly indicative of ethnic cleansing of the sort or scale discussed elsewhere. Settlements account for a tiny fraction of the Jewish population. Not nearly enough to appreciably alter the ethnic balance. They aren't illegal per se (or at least not all of them) - witness the Palestinian Authority imposing a death sentence on any who sell land to Israeli settlers - due to such sales in the past.
I have no info whatsoever re: deeds/ownership/status of all or even any of them but this does refute broadband statements of illegality.
The Oslo accords have been repeatedly violated by both sides AFAIK, and in a number of ways. One would be hard-pressed to trace circumstances back to who did what first. Expanding said settlements is a relatively minor infringement and is hardly irreversible.
Take this in context and it doesn't spell out Israels annexation of Palestine - Much progress towards a true state was made up until '98 when the latest uprising began.

I can't help but feel that a total segregation between the two - with a total absence of bombings against Israeli citizens - would see much more reason prevail on both sides. If this were to happen the IDF would have no mandate whatsoever for incursions into Palestinian territory and doing so would be seen for what it was. I doubt they'd see it differently.

[CyberGnu]

I'm asking because CyberGnu seems to have an unrealistic notion of Israeli public opinion, and I'm just trying to get the truth from the people who know.

Ahh, come on! Why do you expect them to answer anything but "yes" to your question? If they are dastardly enough to say "no", they are certainly dastardly enough to lie...

Right, auto-pilot. Re-evaluation is important though because nobody can know or understand all sides to a dispute. The best we can hope for is greater understanding and wisdom. To say that the conclusion you reached yesterday will be the same one that you reach today is to say that you've just wasted a day of your life.

Au contraire. If you every day reevaluate your stance on every important issue you will spend all your time doing nothing but.

I'll say again: if nothing new has been presented, there is no reason to re-evaluate. Sure, you should do it from time to time, jsut in case you've missed something the first times, but doing it every day out of habit is ony a luxury teenagers can afford...

The circumstances under which the Palestinians left are in dispute. One side says they fled Israeli wrath, the other says that they left on orders from the Arab powers, and intended to return once the Jews had been wiped out in some sort of final solution to the Zionist problem. I don't know the truth of that. What I do know is that Israel won the war, the Israeli-Arabs who remained were not brutally massacred, and they have lived for the most part peacefully with the Jewish people, even participating in the democratic government, sending members to the Knesset. That tells me that their rights were respected.

IIUIC, it is undisputed that several palestinian villages were massacred in '48. Regardless of the reason they left, however, they are still entitled to return.

The Arabs were not blameless in the initial violence. And it's not a crime to move somewhere fleeing repression and extermination elsewhere. Remember that the Jews moved to Palestine because they were being slaughtered and oppressed in Russia, Germany, France, and other places.

No, but it is a crime to move somewhere and then carve out that piece of land as your own, and in the process displacing the rightful owners.

The Oslo accord. What's your point? The Palestinians didn't try hard enough. They made pandering motions, and now they're paying the price.

Pandering motions? Because they couldn't stop Hamas? At the same time England couldn;t stop IRA, spain couldn;t stop ETA, etc etc?

You said that the Palestinians have the right to armed uprising. I said they'll get their butts kicked. How can you realistically reject that view? You know full well the current body count, you know that Israel can shut the PA down at any time. Armed uprising without hope for victory is slaughter - no better than what Haig did at the Somme.

Well, of course. But I still respect their right to conduct armed resistance. If I would rather die free than live in bondage, isn'tt that my right?

I think he's French, and that's enough to hold him in custody until we can present something to the grand jury.

Well, I agree comepletely with that, but the question should still be answered....

[Eli]

Originally posted by Felch X
Eli, would you accept the Oslo accords if you were guaranteed actual security? Or would you reject them in favor of more terrorism and war because you want to take more territory?

If terrorism ends, if incitement ends and if the PLO generation leadership ends, I will support another Oslo process whose conclusion will be in the almost total withdrawal from the territories.

[Ned]

CyberGnu, Just from memory it seems to me that every time peace was near, the PALs would commit some act of terror that would make peace negotiations impossible. The party that is disrupting the peace process are the PALs. There appear to be certain parties there who want to wipe Israel from face of the planet, not simply liberate the Palestinian people.

But that said, Sharon is one of the leaders of expanding the settlements. He obvioulsly is setting Israel up to at least have a stronger negotiating position during any peace talks. It is not however obvious that Sharon wants to delay peace "forever." All that would bring is continued violence against Israel that may eventually grow to a level where Israel is wiped out. It also will increasingly involve Israeli solders firing live amunition into crowds of truant children. This is unfortunate in the extreme. The army itself may revolt against such actions.

[Felch]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ahh, come on! Why do you expect them to answer anything but "yes" to your question? If they are dastardly enough to say "no", they are certainly dastardly enough to lie...

You thought you knew Israeli opinion. I'm testing if what you thought you knew was true. A scientist should accept his hypothesis being tested by someone else, and we'll simply have to have faith that Eli won't lie.

Au contraire. If you every day reevaluate your stance on every important issue you will spend all your time doing nothing but.

I'll say again: if nothing new has been presented, there is no reason to re-evaluate. Sure, you should do it from time to time, jsut in case you've missed something the first times, but doing it every day out of habit is ony a luxury teenagers can afford...

Socrates, Plato, Lao Tzu, Descartes, and Winnie-the-Pooh did nothing but reevaluate their opinions on every important issue day after day, and they presented more thought and clarity in their statements than you have. Taking part in the luxury of teenagers might do you some good.

IIUIC, it is undisputed that several palestinian villages were massacred in '48. Regardless of the reason they left, however, they are still entitled to return.

Villages get wiped out a lot in wars. It's sad, but when a vast number of invaders pour in seeking the extermination of a newborn nation, the ensuing firefights kill a bunch of people. Too bad the Arab states initiated the war that killed those villagers and forced the Palestinians to live in exile.

But yes, they do have a right to return. On the terms that the government of Israel sets out for them, and so long as they don't carry out acts of violence.

No, but it is a crime to move somewhere and then carve out that piece of land as your own, and in the process displacing the rightful owners.

That's happened innumerable times in history. It doesn't excuse murdering children in their homes or civilians riding the bus.

Pandering motions? Because they couldn't stop Hamas? At the same time England couldn;t stop IRA, spain couldn;t stop ETA, etc etc?

The UK and Spain tried to stop their respective terrorists. The Palestinian Authority simply proved that it held no authority over Palestine.

Well, of course. But I still respect their right to conduct armed resistance. If I would rather die free than live in bondage, isn'tt that my right?

Not if you kill innocent people in your hopeless war. How just would it be if every Native American picked up an assault rifle and went for a rampage. Sure, they wouldn't win, but they'd cause a lot of suffering for no reason. If you want to die in a hopeless struggle, fine. But if you want to kill a bunch of innocent people while you die, that's not fine.

Well, I agree comepletely with that, but the question should still be answered....

I don't know or care. De Gaulle faught Nazis, which is good, but I hear he was an intolerable *****, which is not good. As far as him committing any crimes, I really can't say.

[Robert Plomp]

The children gathered in the center of the city, hurling stones at an army jeep

The Israeli army said troops fired to disperse stone-throwers, and that two explosive devices were thrown toward soldiers.

innocent?
nah.

justified to kill, of course not.
But I'm sure that when explosives are trown at me, I won't be shy to shoot back either.
Why are those kids among terrorists?

If a palestinian kid is killed, it's an accident. A terrible accident, but not on purpose.
If an israelian kid is killed it's on purpose.

[Felch]

Well lads, it's been a nice scrimmage, but I think I'll call it a night.

[CyberGnu]

Ned,

CyberGnu, Just from memory it seems to me that every time peace was near, the PALs would commit some act of terror that would make peace negotiations impossible.

Not the PALs, Hamas. Just like Sharon will make sure to start an incursion in palestinian territory every time an american envoy is flying over...

There are two parties that do not want peace. Hamas and Likud. Note, however, that only one people has democratically elected the warmongering party to lead them.

The party that is disrupting the peace process are the PALs. There appear to be certain parties there who want to wipe Israel from face of the planet, not simply liberate the Palestinian people.

And that party is Hamas. Come on, Ned, you are supposed to know more about the conflict than this!

But that said, Sharon is one of the leaders of expanding the settlements. He obvioulsly is setting Israel up to at least have a stronger negotiating position during any peace talks. It is not however obvious that Sharon wants to delay peace "forever."

Actually, those two are synonomous. But more than that, there is the contiued attacks on Arafat, the deliberate destruction of the PA, the constant degradation of the palestinian population in general etc etc.

All that would bring is continued violence against Israel that may eventually grow to a level where Israel is wiped out.

Please. That argument is the equivalent of me dragging out the global zionist conspiracy... It's not going to happen, we all know it is not going to happen, but it still pops up every once in a while.

It also will increasingly involve Israeli solders firing live amunition into crowds of truant children. This is unfortunate in the extreme. The army itself may revolt against such actions.

Maybe a few... But judging from the current protests, only a token few.

[CyberGnu]

ravagon:

In order - firstly I disagree with the atrocity reference - subjective and inflammatory.

Less inflammatory than shooting a 8 year old kid... When Sharon puts a stop to that, then we can discuss whether the use of the word atrocity is fitting or not.

Public statements, on both sides to be fair, aren't worth considering. Politicians the world over have always made such claims. If all were truthfull then, ... well I can't imagine exactly what sort of an effect it'd have on the universe but it probably wouldn't be physically possible.

In one sense, I agree completely with you. But when a politicians statement is fully in line with his political stance, his past behavour and his subsequent actions, I tend to believe him...

The assassination, by a single student, had far less reflection of the opinions of the majority of Israeli citizens than does a suicide bombing reflect the mindset of the Palestinians. By all accounts the masses were horrified to learn that one of their own was responsible.

Today? Yes. In the early '90s? Nope.

Lastly the settlements - useful as a bargaining chip but hardly indicative of ethnic cleansing of the sort or scale discussed elsewhere. Settlements account for a tiny fraction of the Jewish population. Not nearly enough to appreciably alter the ethnic balance.

? So if I, a single swede, would drive all the jews into the ocean and walled of all of current Israel into Gnu-land, where only I live, it wouldn;t be ethnic cleansing, since I am only one person? This doesn;t seem to make sense.

The fact of the matter is that the AREA of the settlements are steadily increasing. Whether the settlers themselves breed like rabbits or not I don't care about. It's that the settlements expand and multiply, with the express consent of the IDF and the (oxymoronically called) Israeli legal system.

They aren't illegal per se (or at least not all of them)

Actually they are. Then again, so is shooting UN employes.

I have no info whatsoever re: deeds/ownership/status of all or even any of them but this does refute broadband statements of illegality.

Doesn;t matter one bit. You are claiming that buying a piece of land means it can be transfered to another country. You might want to rethink that position.

The Oslo accords have been repeatedly violated by both sides AFAIK, and in a number of ways. One would be hard-pressed to trace circumstances back to who did what first. Expanding said settlements is a relatively minor infringement and is hardly irreversible.

Ackording to whom? But yes, there are other infractions as well. Regardless, the second intifada didn;t start until it became clear that Israel was never intending to honor Oslo.

Take this in context and it doesn't spell out Israels annexation of Palestine - Much progress towards a true state was made up until '98 when the latest uprising began.

What progress was that? The doubling of settlements? The refusal to follow the handover of political authority to the PA? The statements in '96 that "Oslo is dead"?

I can't help but feel that a total segregation between the two - with a total absence of bombings against Israeli citizens - would see much more reason prevail on both sides. If this were to happen the IDF would have no mandate whatsoever for incursions into Palestinian territory and doing so would be seen for what it was.

And I agree. Fact of the matter is, though, that Arafat hsa repeatedly asked for international intervention and the presence of UN troops. Israel vehemently opposes it. Why do you think this is?

I doubt they'd see it differently.

And I claim they would. So far, I've shown numerous examples why this is so. You have, as far as I know, no backing for your view except a general hope that Israel will behave as a civilized nation....

[CyberGnu]

Felch:

You thought you knew Israeli opinion. I'm testing if what you thought you knew was true. A scientist should accept his hypothesis being tested by someone else, and we'll simply have to have faith that Eli won't lie.

But a scientist should not take ANYTHING on faith. Your proposed test doesn't actually give conclusive result.

Socrates, Plato, Lao Tzu, Descartes, and Winnie-the-Pooh did nothing but reevaluate their opinions on every important issue day after day, and they presented more thought and clarity in their statements than you have. Taking part in the luxury of teenagers might do you some good.

Sadly, no one is willing to pay me for my opinions. I'm paid to think about how to convert methane to methanol. (and this is why it is called the luxury of being a teenager)

Villages get wiped out a lot in wars. It's sad, but when a vast number of invaders pour in seeking the extermination of a newborn nation, the ensuing firefights kill a bunch of people. Too bad the Arab states initiated the war that killed those villagers and forced the Palestinians to live in exile.

? These villages were wiped out BY ISRAEL. With the express purpose of scaring other arabs into lfeeing the country!

But yes, they do have a right to return. On the terms that the government of Israel sets out for them, and so long as they don't carry out acts of violence.

No terms. It is their land, they have the legal and moral right. If they carry out violence, they should be tried in a court of law.

That's happened innumerable times in history. It doesn't excuse murdering children in their homes or civilians riding the bus.

Not if you kill innocent people in your hopeless war.

I've been through this argument a hundred times by now... I don't have the energy, but can cut and paste if you want.

The UK and Spain tried to stop their respective terrorists. The Palestinian Authority simply proved that it held no authority over Palestine.

The PA arrested hundreds of Hamas members in the early to mid nighties, to the point where Amnesty International condemned the PA for jailing people without due process and for indefinite times. Check the EB, for example.

How just would it be if every Native American picked up an assault rifle and went for a rampage. Sure, they wouldn't win, but they'd cause a lot of suffering for no reason. If you want to die in a hopeless struggle, fine.

Not applicable. The native americans are a strawman.

I don't know or care. De Gaulle faught Nazis, which is good,but I hear he was an intolerable *****, which is not good. As far as him committing any crimes, I really can't say.

?

OK, let me elaborate. De Gaulle led the armed struggle against the occupying germans. Under his leadership numerous german civilians were killed by the french resistance fighters, even more french collaborators were killed.

The vast majority of people consider De Gaulle and the french resistance heroes, since they fought for their independence from the occpying power. The palestinians are doing the EXACT SAME THING, but are condemned. For many years this was due to collective guilt over the holocaust, but most of the world has finally gotten over that part and realizes the moral right to resistance the palestinians have.

[Sikander]

Bad parenting!

[Al'Kimiya]

Originally posted by Eli
There were cases of children with real suicide belts.

Do you want to volunteer to check every child whether he carries a real gun or a plastic one? A real suicide belt or not?

No, I want to transfer every child into the Sinai desert at birth. At least until the birth rates fall below acceptable levels.

[CyberGnu]

There were cases of children with real suicide belts.

Source?

[ravagon]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

Less inflammatory than shooting a 8 year old kid... When Sharon puts a stop to that, then we can discuss whether the use of the word atrocity is fitting or not.

If you'll reread that article, what little substance it actually has, there is no mention of "intent" whatsoever.
Whether the IDF meant to shoot the 8-year old because he was throwing explosives, whether the explosives were a threat or simply a firecracker, whether he was shot accidentally in an attempt to surpress those who were throwing explosives or whether he was purposely murdered by the IDF with no cause whatsoever (and I'm only including this last for completeness sake) is complete hearsay - based on that article anyway.
Lets leave the rhetoric for something with some sort of concrete substance to it as said article doesn't really have any.

? So if I, a single swede, would drive all the jews into the ocean and walled of all of current Israel into Gnu-land, where only I live, it wouldn;t be ethnic cleansing, since I am only one person? This doesn;t seem to make sense.

The fact of the matter is that the AREA of the settlements are steadily increasing. Whether the settlers themselves breed like rabbits or not I don't care about. It's that the settlements expand and multiply, with the express consent of the IDF and the (oxymoronically called) Israeli legal system.

My point here was that Israel is democratically based. As is the substance of the Palestinian charter. Those settlers have no ability whatsoever to influence a government in any state of Palestine with their numbers.
I don't cede the point that they aren't merely negotiating chips either and a fair portion of what you refer to as their expansion hasn't actually been such at all but rather a clearing/demolition of their surroundings. Given recent attacks made against many settlements this seems more prudence than anything else...

Doesn't matter one bit. You are claiming that buying a piece of land means it can be transfered to another country. You might want to rethink that position.

I didn't intend it to be taken in such a way at all. AFAIK Israel hasn't ever tried to annex such territory? Various political speeches may indicate otherwise but such have very little substance.

Ackording to whom? But yes, there are other infractions as well. Regardless, the second intifada didn;t start until it became clear that Israel was never intending to honor Oslo.

I would date it to the official visit by Sharon to a certain site, the temporary closure of which sparked off riots, the subsequent crackdown and the eventual decline into the present. But this may be starting to split hairs I feel...

What progress was that? The doubling of settlements? The refusal to follow the handover of political authority to the PA? The statements in '96 that "Oslo is dead"?

The PLO went from nothing in '91 to being a fully recognized semi-autonomous government. Perhaps unrealistic expectations regarding the speed of turning that into something more contributed to the decline but I'm still inclined to date the most significant breakdown to the event above.

And I agree. Fact of the matter is, though, that Arafat hsa repeatedly asked for international intervention and the presence of UN troops. Israel vehemently opposes it. Why do you think this is?

Quite honestly the Israelis have no faith in the UN whatsoever. Look at things from Israels perspective for a moment. UN forces have been in place in the past on the Lebanese border and were completely unable to prevent small-scale militant incursions into Northern Israel and resulting Israeli deaths. Ultimately they had to act themselves. Then came the Israeli occupation in which they had to muscle through the UN lines and were widely condemned for it. This is much the same problem Israel faces right now wrt Palestine and they have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe it would resolve any differently.
ie: Israel has abolutely nothing to gain from such a course - other than perhaps a faint hope that a UN presence might change the militants mindset?
Now if they had reason to believe the UN were able to prevent such incursions it might be a different matter entirely...

And I claim they would. So far, I've shown numerous examples why this is so. You have, as far as I know, no backing for your view except a general hope that Israel will behave as a civilized nation....

Up until recently Israel has (IMO of course) acted with great restraint. When they have injured or killed civilians in the course of hunting down militants they have apologized and even tried to make amends. With the increases in violence against them and a mounting toll in Israeli lives this has changed somewhat and they have used more force than they had previously.
The US reacted the same way in Afghanistan after 3000-odd American deaths. They were much less discriminating when striking enemy targets and prepared to accept more collateral deaths than in the Gulf war for example.
Not terribly noble mind you but with more dead on your own side comes a greater urgency in surpressing those responsible. I very much doubt other countries would behave differently if faced with a similar situation.
Let us hope this remains unproven either way though...

[CyberGnu]

ravagon:

If you'll reread that article, what little substance it actually has, there is no mention of "intent" whatsoever.
Whether the IDF meant to shoot the 8-year old because he was throwing explosives, whether the explosives were a threat or simply a firecracker, whether he was shot accidentally in an attempt to surpress those who were throwing explosives or whether he was purposely murdered by the IDF with no cause whatsoever (and I'm only including this last for completeness sake) is complete hearsay - based on that article anyway.
Lets leave the rhetoric for something with some sort of concrete substance to it as said article doesn't really have any.

The very fact that there is an Israeli solider firing live ammo in palestine is an atrocity. Doesn't matter whether the kid was killed intentionally or not - the IDF has no right to be anywhere in palestine, even less firing guns.

My point here was that Israel is democratically based. As is the substance of the Palestinian charter. Those settlers have no ability whatsoever to influence a government in any state of Palestine with their numbers.

I don't understand what the point is. I don't care whether there is one settler or one million settlers living in the settlements. I don't think the palestinians care either. What matters is the area of the settlements, and it is steadily increasing.

I don't cede the point that they aren't merely negotiating chips either and a fair portion of what you refer to as their expansion hasn't actually been such at all but rather a clearing/demolition of their surroundings. Given recent attacks made against many settlements this seems more prudence than anything else...

Prudence? Do you know how the settlements expand?

A settlement is founded. The army is called in to defend the settlers from those nasty arabs who have the temerity of defending their own land. The area around the settlement is cleared by army bulldozers to create a empty zone to protect from inflitration. The settlement expands into the emtpy zone until the outermost houses are close enough to the edge of the cleared zone for the palestinians to reach them. The army clears a larger area as a safe zone. The settlement expands. The clearing expands. Continue ad infinitum.

And when your olive grove has been demolished to make room for some more landtheft, then what do you do? Lie down quitly and die? Hardly...

I didn't intend it to be taken in such a way at all. AFAIK Israel hasn't ever tried to annex such territory? Various political speeches may indicate otherwise but such have very little substance.

Then why did Barak refuse to eliminate the settlements in the Camp David accords? Even the Israelis on this site admits that the settlements expand as chits in the barganing... Where I personally think that israel should lose land for every single square meter they expand.

I would date it to the official visit by Sharon to a certain site, the temporary closure of which sparked off riots, the subsequent crackdown and the eventual decline into the present. But this may be starting to split hairs I feel...

If you fill a garbage can with gasoline and throw a match in it, what caused the fire? The simple answer is of course the match, but without all that gasoline the match would just have fluttered and died... Sharons visit was the final straw, nothing else.

The PLO went from nothing in '91 to being a fully recognized semi-autonomous government. Perhaps unrealistic expectations regarding the speed of turning that into something more contributed to the decline but I'm still inclined to date the most significant breakdown to the event above.

You need to elaborate that. So far you have only sweeping claims. (btw, you are off on your dates. PLO proclaimed the "State of Palestine" on Nov 15, 1988.)

Quite honestly the Israelis have no faith in the UN whatsoever. Look at things from Israels perspective for a moment. UN forces have been in place in the past on the Lebanese border and were completely unable to prevent small-scale militant incursions into Northern Israel and resulting Israeli deaths. Ultimately they had to act themselves. Then came the Israeli occupation in which they had to muscle through the UN lines and were widely condemned for it.

What lines? The UN has only an observation force in Lebanon, not a peace keeping force. And the observation force does exactly what it has mandate for: observe and report infractions. According to the treaty written when Israel withdrew from Lebanon are those reports then handed to the respective goverments, which in Lebanons case is too weak to deal with the Hezbollah. If Israel truly wanted to end Hezbollahs incursion they would make sure the US went in to rebuild lebanon from scratch...

So Israel has absolutley no reason to qhine about the UN, apart from the fact that the UN regularly condemns Israels atrocities. Usually this only happens when Israels actions are so thoroughly disgusting that even the US can't defend them...

ie: Israel has abolutely nothing to gain from such a course - other than perhaps a faint hope that a UN presence might change the militants mindset?
Now if they had reason to believe the UN were able to prevent such incursions it might be a different matter entirely...

As you said earlier: The separation from palestine, which in itself would bring about the greatest measure of peace. Furthermore, an independent body to ensure that Israel keeps its end of the bargain would be as valuable as physically stopping Hamas. Anyone who has studied Northern Ireland should know as much.

Up until recently Israel has (IMO of course) acted with great restraint.

Restraint, because they haven't executed everyone who crossed their path? I'm sorry, but nothing short of the full and unconditional withdrawal from palestine constitutes "restraint" when Israel is an occupying power.

When they have injured or killed civilians in the course of hunting down militants they have apologized and even tried to make amends.

Apologies are cheap. What are those amends you speak of?

Furthermore, it is well known that the IDF's internal investigations are complete white-washes. Less than a handful of soliders have been punished for killing civilians during the second intifada...

The US reacted the same way in Afghanistan after 3000-odd American deaths. They were much less discriminating when striking enemy targets and prepared to accept more collateral deaths than in the Gulf war for example.

Well, the US did work WITH a small part of the afgan goverment. I don't know how legal this goverment was, but it is clear that it is more popular than the talibans....

Not terribly noble mind you but with more dead on your own side comes a greater urgency in surpressing those responsible. I very much doubt other countries would behave differently if faced with a similar situation.

Maybe, but a civilized country doesn't invade another country to steal its land either, does it? The last european country to do so was Nazi Germany, and most of us widely condemn the german aggression.

[Illyrien]

Felsh X

"because Europeans have taught Palestinians that violence is okay"


Oh, sure all Evil is the fault of the Europeans....lol, haha, now that is a "automatic response" if there ever was one.

Could you perhaps explain that point.

[Viking Berserk]

The israelians are the true terrorists. Time for people to finally get it!

[Felch]

Originally posted by Illyrien
Felsh X

"because Europeans have taught Palestinians that violence is okay"


Oh, sure all Evil is the fault of the Europeans....lol, haha, now that is a "automatic response" if there ever was one.

Could you perhaps explain that point.

Europeans have refused to condemn the Palestinians for their criminal undertakings, and have instead sided with them, even after they have murdered Israeli civilians intentionally.

If you offer moral support to a side that is using terrorism to acheive its aims, you are teaching them that violence is okay.

I admit that the US has done this a lot, in just about every country we meddle in. But the Palestinians are being supported by Europe, and Europe has to take the blame in this case.

[Viking Berserk]

LOL!!! America is the one to take the blame, they have supported israel with weapons. Have Europe supported Palestine with weapons? NO!

And the israelis are the true terrorists, so keep your fingers off your keyboard felch!

[DinoDoc]

You are a wierd one, Olaf.

[Viking Berserk]

who the f*** is olaf?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Viking Berserk
who the f*** is olaf?

You silly! Your name is Olaf Fezorsonn. You are the Norwegien Fez after all and it only fair that you get a name befitting your title.

[Felch]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
But a scientist should not take ANYTHING on faith. Your proposed test doesn't actually give conclusive result.

Wow, who didn't see this stock answer coming out?

Sadly, no one is willing to pay me for my opinions. I'm paid to think about how to convert methane to methanol. (and this is why it is called the luxury of being a teenager)

It's not about doing this for a job, it's about doing this to be a better person. If you don't have the time to reconsider your opinions, then I fail to see how you can waste so much time posting the exact same responses over and over again.

? These villages were wiped out BY ISRAEL. With the express purpose of scaring other arabs into lfeeing the country!

Yep. So what's your point? The Arabs started the war, they bear the blame for anything that happened during the war. If they didn't want those villages destroyed, they shouldn't have invaded a militarily powerful country like Israel.

No terms. It is their land, they have the legal and moral right. If they carry out violence, they should be tried in a court of law.

Moral and legal rights have no meaning outside of Europe and the UN. The only way they can get their land back is by proving to the Israelis that it is in the Israeli best interest to allow them to return. They aren't about to convince the Israelis of that by killing Israeli civilians.

I've been through this argument a hundred times by now... I don't have the energy, but can cut and paste if you want.

Gee, thanks for disregarding the entire point behind what I said. You cut and pasted my comments so they would be out of context and impossible to understand, and then you said you'd heard them all before. Good job showing how mature you are in this debate, CG.

The PA arrested hundreds of Hamas members in the early to mid nighties, to the point where Amnesty International condemned the PA for jailing people without due process and for indefinite times. Check the EB, for example.

Every despot anywhere, who wants to show that he means business about terrorism, or the drug war, or anything else the United States cares about, just goes and arrests a bunch of political enemies. The fact that Amnesty International is condemning them for their failures in due process and indefinite jail terms proves many things.

• Arafat is a criminal dictator, and does not deserve any recognition as a leader.
• There is no way to be sure the prisoners were actually terrorists, since they were not given fair trials.
• Israel is not the only source for misery among the Palestinian people.

Not applicable. The native americans are a strawman.

They are not a strawman, they are an example of useless resistence against overwhelming military force. Don't try to debate with me, unless you're going to be serious, and actually read what I say.

OK, let me elaborate. De Gaulle led the armed struggle against the occupying germans. Under his leadership numerous german civilians were killed by the french resistance fighters, even more french collaborators were killed.

The vast majority of people consider De Gaulle and the french resistance heroes, since they fought for their independence from the occpying power. The palestinians are doing the EXACT SAME THING, but are condemned. For many years this was due to collective guilt over the holocaust, but most of the world has finally gotten over that part and realizes the moral right to resistance the palestinians have.

Israel is a democracy, Nazi Germany was not.

The Third Republic was a democracy, the Palestinian Authority is not.

A deal with Israel can be counted on, there could be no negotiation with the Nazis. This is because of a difference in motive - Nazis sought global conquest, Israel seeks security.

The Free French had the chance to win militarily, the Palestinian terrorists do not.

And - most importantly since you seem so dead set to ignore this - the French resistence did not intentionally target innocent German civilians. A German civilian who was assisting in the domination of France was not the same as an Israeli who tries to board a bus.

If you see no difference in fighting Nazi Germany and fighting Israel you are a sick and twisted individual, and I hope you grow up sometime.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Viking Berserk
LOL!!! America is the one to take the blame, they have supported israel with weapons. Have Europe supported Palestine with weapons? NO!

And the israelis are the true terrorists, so keep your fingers off your keyboard felch!

Everytime you post anything you just prove what a gigantic tool you are. You know jack about America and you prove it everytime you come here. Please, leave the debate to people who have successfully kept their heads out of their asses.

[Ming]

Hey DinoDoc... read my warnings in this thread. You are one more post away from a restriction.

Added by Ming...
And that includes you too Felch X... I didn't see your post when I originally did this one.

[Sandman]

Why does Israel never use normal crowd control methods?

As an interesting side note, the new wall they're building is not entirely along the green line, but 'dips' into Palestinian territory, taking prime land away from them. No doubt the land will be confiscated due to it's 'underuse', when it's users can't even get to it without going through an Israeli Army checkpoint.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Felch X
Everytime you post anything you just prove what a gigantic tool you are. You know jack about America and you prove it everytime you come here. Please, leave the debate to people who have successfully kept their heads out of their asses.

Well I don't know about labelling Israelis terrorists over and above anyone else or laying all of the blame on Americas door but as an American I am upset about giving 3 billion dollars in aid to Israel yearly without any sort of revision process in place like in Britain where if equipment given is used outside of certain guidelines then a portion of that aid can be revoked. Actually I think we have a law on the books that does this in theory but I don't ever remember it being dusted off. It certainly would have been helpful to use when Bush was having trouble, or finding it impossible to reign in Sharon's actions.

I think American policy has placed a good amount of the blame on our doorstep.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Felch X
Yep. So what's your point? The Arabs started the war, they bear the blame for anything that happened during the war. If they didn't want those villages destroyed, they shouldn't have invaded a militarily powerful country like Israel.

By the declaration of Israeli independance, Israeli forces had already entered and stayed in arab partition areas. Arab nations only entered Palestine after the declaration and then only arab partition areas, except maybe Syria, not sure on this point. I can't say for sure whether further conflict led the Syrians or Egyptians into Jewish partition land but Jordanian forces stayed within the lines of the arab partition deliberately. We can argue of course but the point is the "facts" you spout are arguable and you seem guilty of many of the faults you claim CyberGnu has.

Deir Yassin, was a village that never resisted, it had in fact had a pact of peace with its neighbours. It was also in the arab partition. It was very deliberately wiped out.

What exactly are you arguing. You say palestinians deserve their fate because of bad moral choices made(?), ie, bombing civilians, refusing the 47 partition plan while you are willing to wave aside Israeli atrocities (I hope we can agree Deir Yassin happened and a number of other massacres) as par for the course (deliberate targeting of civilians?). Clarify your argument or admit that targeting of civilians doesn't really bother you as long as the side doing it has the power.