Palestine Or Israel?

[clocker]

more than 'the three major religions' have co-existed in palestine successfully before. the romans ran the region peacefully for centuries after the fall of the first israeli occupation (the siege of Masada & such) the Phoenician empire did a pretty good job too

Wasn't the Pax Romana based primarily on military might and cultural oppression/assimilation? Weren't the Romans in essence the Americans/Borg of 2500 years ago?

newspapers are still huge here, the number of papers continues to shrink though, i've tended to find that american tend to educate themselves about different stuff more, many americans i have know have been very specialist in their knowledge, often at the expense of general knowledge

This may be true. Probably due to the frenetic pace of modern life. If so, I would suspect that the Japanese would exhibit this to a greater extent than we ( but that is sheer supposition).

think that is one of the main problems that anyone has in trying to get across to the US public, the US public is very good at telling [and making sitcoms and movies and music and...] and very good at selling what it tells, but america doesn't culturally consume very much outside it's own production

American culture, to the extent that it can be defined, is more flexible and in greater flux than you may give us credit for. Salsa outsells ketchup. Rap/hiphop outsells grunge/pop. Michael Jordan/Williams sisters outsell everybody.

Because the Pallestinians are, by and large INDIVIDUALS.

The PLO has been organized since the 60's and Yasir Arafat has been the titular head since 1969. He has been included in peace negotiations and treated as a de facto legitimate political figure for decades. He is also a terrorist.
It seems to me that you have to make up your mind- either the Palestinians are an organized political entity ( in which case they must be dealt with and held accountable as such) or they are a unorganized/amorphous rabble and have no place at the world's political forum.

QUOTE 

From my comfy seat on the sidelines I see a totally different picture. 


Well? what picture? Dont keep us in suspenders. Speak up! You usually have no trouble doing this

Out of town till Monday. Then I'm sure we'll all get an earful.

[Rat Faced]

Because the Pallestinians are, by and large INDIVIDUALS.

The PLO has been organized since the 60's and Yasir Arafat has been the titular head since 1969. He has been included in peace negotiations and treated as a de facto legitimate political figure for decades. He is also a terrorist.
It seems to me that you have to make up your mind- either the Palestinians are an organized political entity ( in which case they must be dealt with and held accountable as such) or they are a unorganized/amorphous rabble and have no place at the world's political forum.

I did say "By and Large".

As I understand it, Hammas are the ones that are committing most terrorist actions now.

This is a seperate organisation to the PLO that does NOT regard Arrafat as its leader, in fact Arafat isnt even (and never has been) a member....the PLO as an organisation, have been surprisingly quiet since the Pallestinian Authority was established.

Hammas is much more Religiously organised, whereas PLO was/is a Nationalist movement (PLO charter accepts Jews that were there prior to Israel as Pallestinians...Hammas doesnt)

Hamas.....history and aims

A Quote from that history.....

In Hamas' worldview, Islamic precepts forbid a Jewish state in the area known as Palestine, the Jewish people have no legitimate connection to the land of Israel and Yasir Arafat is a traitor to the Islamic Palestinian cause. As its covenant proclaims, "The land of Palestine is an Islamic trust...It is forbidden to anyone to yield or concede any part of it...Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it..."

I highlighted the phrase of interest to you Clocker

[clocker]

Do most Palestinians support suicide bombings?
Since a second intifada (uprising) broke out in the fall of 2000, polls show that up to 70 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza back suicide bombings. The bombings—and Hamas—were much less popular in the mid-1990s, when the peace process was moving along more quickly. Many Palestinians consider Hamas’ attacks a legitimate way of resisting Israeli occupation and argue that the world pays less attention to Palestinian losses—including about 1,600 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since the second intifada began—than to Israeli ones. Pollsters say Palestinian support for anti-Israel violence hardened further during the spring 2002 Middle East crisis.

Has Arafat taken action to stop suicide terrorists?
The sides differ bitterly. Palestinian officials say that Arafat is doing all he can to crack down and warn that Israel’s spring 2002 incursion into the West Bank devastated the security apparatus Arafat could use to fight terrorism. But Israeli officials say that Arafat has played a double game—arresting militants after bombings but then quickly releasing them; denouncing suicide terrorists in English while praising them as “martyrs” in Arabic; funding secular suicide-bombing groups such as the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades; and using terror as a political tool. In June 2002, the Bush administration concluded that Arafat’s ongoing links to terrorism made him unsalvageable and called for his removal. Middle East experts say Arafat, who dislikes major rifts among Palestinians, was unwilling to risk a showdown with the increasingly popular suicide bombers, especially under pressure from Israel’s right-leaning prime minister, Ariel Sharon, who is reviled by Palestinians.

Seems as if the PLO wants it's cake and to eat it too. If the PA/PLO want to be viewed as the legitimate face of Palestine then any support (covert or otherwise) and any unwillingness to quash Hamas is unacceptable.

The above quote was taken from here

[evilbagpuss]

The bombings—and Hamas—were much less popular in the mid-1990s, when the peace process was moving along more quickly. Many Palestinians consider Hamas’ attacks a legitimate way of resisting Israeli occupation and argue that the world pays less attention to Palestinian losses—including about 1,600 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since the second intifada began—than to Israeli ones.

Looking at it another way, you could argue that the way the US/world ignores Israeli atrocities actually creates the support for suicide bombers. No one seems to give a damn about their innocent dead so why should they care about innocent Israelis? It's not a viewpoint I agree with but you can certainly see how some Palestinians reach that conclusion.

PS I'd still like you to answer my previous post.

[clocker]

@clocker

Try and imagine, if you can, a world reversed....

Palestine is the one favoured by the USA. Jewish people are murdered in their hundreds as laughing Palestinians drop missiles from attack helicopters onto crowded streets. Helicopters and missiles paid for by US tax dollars of course.

The Israelis are laughing as they fire missles?

This single post characterizes your entire approach to this thread.
Whilst making tepid proclamations about your impartiality the underlying current has always been that the Israeli actions are somehow worse because they enjoy US backing.
Fine.
I've already stated that I am pro-Israel.
I would imagine that this statement exposes my bias in the debate.
I think that without American support the continued existence of the State of Israel would be impossible.
When Syria and Iran renounce support for Hezbollah and Hamas respectively, then I'll consider curtailing support for Israel.
Not before.
You however, enjoy throwing low blows from your high horse ("laughing as they drop missiles").
When asked before to state your side in the debate you answered "neither, I'm for justice".
Please drop the Christ impersonation.
If you want to debate a question your first obligation is to pick a side from which to debate.
This whole thread you've been quacking like a duck while claiming to be dove.
I'm not buying into it anymore.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The Israelis are laughing as they fire missles?[/b]

How do you know they are not? Heres a good idea though, in the interests of a healthy debate ignore that one word and try answering the question without throwing a tantrum and stamping your feet.

Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I think that without American support the continued existence of the State of Israel would be impossible.[/b]

Yet again Im forced to repeat myself.... I am not arguing for the US to remove their support, simply for them to put a little pressure on the Israelis instead of ignoring their atrocities.

Originally posted by clocker
When Syria and Iran renounce support for Hezbollah and Hamas respectively, then I&#39;ll consider curtailing support for Israel.
Not before.

So... when these countries, one of which is identified by Bush as being part of the axis of evil, stop supporting the terrorists, you&#39;ll say "NOW the Israelis should stop killing civilians". This smacks of a tit for tat attitude to me. Again the difference between an "axis of evil" country supporting atrocities and the worlds only superpower supporting atrocities flies straight over your head.

Originally posted by clocker
When asked before to state your side in the debate you answered "neither, I&#39;m for justice".

You seem to have missed this part of my post during your tantrum.

Originally posted by evilbagpuss
If that imaginary scenario were happening I would still be here arguing the same points for the Jewish people.

Originally posted by clocker
You however, enjoy throwing low blows from your high horse ("laughing as they drop missiles").
When asked before to state your side in the debate you answered "neither, I&#39;m for justice".
Please drop the Christ impersonation.

Get over the use of one word in what was otherwise a very fair and even handed post. I dont see it as a Christ impersonation either. I see it as being human. You should try &#39;pretending&#39; to be human and see all civilians deaths as atrocities too. Hey, you might even like it.

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker@
If you want to debate a question your first obligation is to pick a side from which to debate.[/quote]

Utter bullshit. You think the "pick a side and then lets go for each others throats" attitude is the way to conduct a debate? It&#39;s been a recurring theme throughout your posts though.

<!--QuoteBegin-clocker
This whole thread you&#39;ve been quacking like a duck while claiming to be dove.[/quote]

Man... you are immature... is the "quacking like a duck" phrase the schoolyard favourite these days? Grow up.

Lets get this back on track... forget this "pick a side" bullshit. If you are going to pick a side, pick the human one and remember we&#39;re all the same species regardless of religeon. Now...

I apologise profusely for using the word &#39;laughing&#39; I hope that placates your rage. Ignore that word and try and answer the post again I want to know what your views would be if the tables were turned.

PS calm down

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by clocker@20 June 2003 - 15:33

Do most Palestinians support suicide bombings?
Since a second intifada (uprising) broke out in the fall of 2000, polls show that up to 70 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza back suicide bombings. The bombings—and Hamas—were much less popular in the mid-1990s, when the peace process was moving along more quickly. Many Palestinians consider Hamas’ attacks a legitimate way of resisting Israeli occupation and argue that the world pays less attention to Palestinian losses—including about 1,600 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces since the second intifada began—than to Israeli ones. Pollsters say Palestinian support for anti-Israel violence hardened further during the spring 2002 Middle East crisis.

Has Arafat taken action to stop suicide terrorists?
The sides differ bitterly. Palestinian officials say that Arafat is doing all he can to crack down and warn that Israel’s spring 2002 incursion into the West Bank devastated the security apparatus Arafat could use to fight terrorism. But Israeli officials say that Arafat has played a double game—arresting militants after bombings but then quickly releasing them; denouncing suicide terrorists in English while praising them as “martyrs” in Arabic; funding secular suicide-bombing groups such as the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades; and using terror as a political tool. In June 2002, the Bush administration concluded that Arafat’s ongoing links to terrorism made him unsalvageable and called for his removal. Middle East experts say Arafat, who dislikes major rifts among Palestinians, was unwilling to risk a showdown with the increasingly popular suicide bombers, especially under pressure from Israel’s right-leaning prime minister, Ariel Sharon, who is reviled by Palestinians.

Seems as if the PLO wants it&#39;s cake and to eat it too. If the PA/PLO want to be viewed as the legitimate face of Palestine then any support (covert or otherwise) and any unwillingness to quash Hamas is unacceptable.

The above quote was taken from here

READ your own post.

In Particular...

The bombings—and Hamas—were much less popular in the mid-1990s, when the peace process was moving along more quickly.

ie

Before the incoming Israeli government tore up the Peace Plan unilaterally, that the previous Israeli government had agreed too (a peace settlement BTW that the USA had been instrumental in acheiving).

The incoming Israeli Government then REVERSED the removal of settlements and re-deployed the military.

Just about any "Country" could have taken this as a declaration of war, however the Pallestian Authority/PLO has tried to stick with the diplomacy that so nearly worked.

The people are getting more and more disillusioned and are now turning to other Terrorist Organisations...due to the REFUSAL of the PLO to take up a major campaign.



Sorry, but it doesnt surprise me.

I lay the huge rise in the recruitment to Hamas in the region firmly at the Door of Sharron and his policies.


I have to admit, if i was in their shoes I would be tempted to get more aggresive...and no one here can accuse me of being any type of warmonger.

Middle East experts say Arafat, who dislikes major rifts among Palestinians, was unwilling to risk a showdown with the increasingly popular suicide bombers, especially under pressure from Israel’s right-leaning prime minister, Ariel Sharon, who is reviled by Palestinians.

You want him replaced?

Are you mad?

Look at your post. Everyone that could replace him as leader of the Pallestinians is leaning more and more into FIGHTING...he wamts peace through DIPLOMACY. Note that the PLO has not, despite the overwelming provocation, started any new campaigns.

He is fighting his own people to stay in power because he believes it will be all out war for some Hamas supporter to get into power there.

Its the attitude of the Right Wing Israeli government and now the USA that is making the Pallestinian people more and more intollerant.

Look at the REASONS that support for Hamas is growing...its a fact that it is, but there are REASONS. Take those reasons away, and support falls off.

[clocker]

EBP, The foot stamping and tantrum throwing are coming from your side in my opinion.
You may characterize your post as "otherwise fair and even handed" I do not.
BTW, "in the interest of a healthy debate" you may first wish to familiarize your self with the definition of the word "debate" which specifically details "Two opposing sides arguing a question". Google it.

Man... you are immature... is the "quacking like a duck" phrase the schoolyard favourite these days? Grow up.

quack.

[evilbagpuss]

Originally posted by clocker+--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>in the interest of a healthy debate" you may first wish to familiarize your self with the definition of the word "debate" which specifically details "Two opposing sides arguing a question". Google it.[/b]

I&#39;m glad you brought that up duck boy Out of the 4 definitions from www.dictionary.com only one of them involves 2 &#39;teams&#39; and that is in the formal context. What you will never grasp is that this debate doesnt have to have 2 &#39;teams&#39; divided into pro-palestinian/pro-israeli.

<!--QuoteBegin-www.dictionary.com

1)A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2)Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3)A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4)Obsolete. Conflict; strife. [/quote]

You start off the post denying acting like a small child having a tantrum, then you end it with "quack". Very convincing.

If you really think your juvenile behaviour either bothers me or does anything to further your &#39;point&#39; in this debate... keep dreaming. Compare Rat faceds post to yours. A world apart eh? I&#39;d like to see your attempt to answer that, it would certainly be more amusing than your farmyard impressions.

Finally... to cater for your narrow mind we could divide this into 2 &#39;teams&#39; pro-peace and pro-hatred. I think that should accomodate us two quite nicely.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by evilbagpuss+20 June 2003 - 23:37--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (evilbagpuss &#064; 20 June 2003 - 23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-clocker
in the interest of a healthy debate" you may first wish to familiarize your self with the definition of the word "debate" which specifically details "Two opposing sides arguing a question". Google it.

You start off the post denying acting like a small child having a tantrum, then you end it with "quack". Very convincing.

If you really think your juvenile behaviour either bothers me or does anything to further your &#39;point&#39; in this debate... keep dreaming. Compare Rat faceds post to yours. A world apart eh? I&#39;d like to see your attempt to answer that, it would certainly be more amusing than your farmyard impressions.

Finally... to cater for your narrow mind we could divide this into 2 &#39;teams&#39; pro-peace and pro-hatred. I think that should accomodate us two quite nicely.[/b][/quote]
This has gone far enough.


If you are "pro-peace" why have you not attempted to find the middle ground with Clocker, who at no time has been "having a tantrum" or has needed to "calm down". I fail to find personal insults, exclamation marks or the words Utter Bullshit in his threads. ( He did tell you to "google it", which I find stunningly condescending&#33;- bad Clocker)

These comments are not conciliatory, but rather the opposite. If you think he is the child, you must take the high road and let him expose himself.


Why do innocent palestineans die, killed by laughing Jews. This is a very telling line, reveals your bias, which you claim not to have. That is one of those things which come out in anger, which can be retracted, but cannot be erased.




To me, this is a discussion forum, and is not about picking a side and sticking with it to the death, carefully twisting or distorting the words of the opponent to suit your side and win points with the judges. This forum is not about formal debate, but an evolving discussion to determine what is "right", not "who" is right.

A discussion requires concession on both sides, not name calling and provacation. A line like.."I see your point there, but here is where I tend to differ with you". This allows the discussion to move forward to the issues that remain, the road of progress paved by the concessions made and the points agreed upon. When I read this thread, page 3 reads much like page 5. It doesn&#39;t progress, it spins. And "spin" is quite apropos for this thread.



In regard to the topic, it seems that the Palestineans can&#39;t keep their extremists in line, leading to suicide bombings and Israels subsequent retaliation. A retaliation, which is less than pinpoint. This is a postive feedback cycle.

It seems that everytime a truce is call, it is the Palestine side which breaks it. Arafat condemns the acts, and declares loss of control. That is my experience, I don&#39;t claim be an expert.

The botton line is that there is a significant Palestinean contingent which does not want peace, they want to kill the Jews. Until this can be resolved, which would require changing the Palestinean charter, peace will never come.

Peace will never come until one group eliminates the other. Each side has its supporters, and if the US were to withdraw support from Israel completely, I feel confident that the Palestineans would eliminate the Jews. I am not as convinced that this would happen if the opposite were to happen.

I think both sides are just a bunch of lunatics, killing each other to defend their belief in a loving God. The irony is so bitterly rich.