Arafat -- Why string him along?

[IceBlaZe]

Originally posted by Pellaken

1>>>that I dont beinve, IMHO, that they will leave.

2>>>Perhaps, but that is because the holy land is just that. a holy land. not only to jews, but to christains and muslims as well. the land "belongs" to no one. where the borders of the naitons are is the modern dillema

3>>>perhaps. I dont know enough, what I've heard isent un-biased enough.

4>>>empty land perhaps, but in the middle of other lands. there's a feild in back of my house. I live on a 1km~square area. there are 4 roads making up each boundary. no one lives in the middle, its farmers fields. if someone, who has historical claim, comes, and 1,000 of them settle between the 4 roads, and form a settlement, then I ask you, is that right?

5.1>>>ooohhhhhhh! so CLOSE
the process is:
begin negotiations in earnest
ceace fire
contine the negotiations
peace


5.2negotiaotns cannot begin after cease fire... they cannot, however, end before cease fire eathier. that will come during, not before or after. you have a grasp on that already though.

5.3and I want to make clear, for IceBlaZe, G-Man, and Eli. I dont leave in Israel. you must face this as a fact of live. I will never know or understand the situation like you. my comments are not directed to insult you, but to make you think. and that despite not being 'in the loop' that sometimes, an outside perspective can breath fresh air into an old debate. this thread has been a good one for debate, and I hope it continues to be so.

1. What you believe doesnt matter. If they want to stay while Israel closes its borders they can do that.
2. I never said it belongs to a certain person. Israel did not have a problem with the dividing of the palestine to 2 countries and national area. But what happened, happened. They opened war and as far as I remember they should face the consequences of that.
3. If you don't know enough dont make false accusations.
4. Middle of others lands? That land belonged to jordan and egypt, and we conquered it through war they started. That land was not bordered, nor recognized, nor an independent state, not 'registered' under someones name. That was just land that was conquered through war we didnt start. And it still belonged to us after the peace agreements with jordan and egypt, so if it belongs to anyone, it belongs to us. I do believe the palestinien should have an independent state there, but we never stole 'their' land. And we will evict the settlements just like we evicted the settlement 'Yamit' when we signed a peace process with egypt.
5.1,5.2. And we only stopped negotiations when the palestiniens didnt follow up their parts of the cease fire or agreements. When we are under attack when we declare a one sided cease fire with hope the palestiniens will follow us, we have the right to defend ourselves. Ask any PM of any country, and he will tell you that when he is attacked he will attack back.

 

[G-Man]

If Israel will decide to withdraw the settlers might resist but they'll still leave the land. That's what heppened in Sinai.

"empty land perhaps, but in the middle of other lands. there's a feild in back of my house. I live on a 1km~square area. there are 4 roads making up each boundary. no one lives in the middle, its farmers fields. if someone, who has historical claim, comes, and 1,000 of them settle between the 4 roads, and form a settlement, then I ask you, is that right? "

Settlers never settled so close to a Palestinian house. They only settled in their own towns and not in any Palestinians town, with the exception of Hebron where jews have lived in 1948 and returned in 1967 to find their homes empty and therefore resettled there.
However, if you live next to an area that's owned by someone else you can't tell him what to do with it. The owner of land has the right to do whatever he wants with it. I don't know who owns that large field but if the goverment will allow him he can build a mega-mall there without you having anything to say about that (not includinge various noise regulations). You might be upset but it wouldn't mean you can kill him, now does it?


"begin negotiations in earnest
ceace fire
contine the negotiations
peace"

I never heard of any country that negotiated for peace while in war. In war you negotiate for a cease fire. In a cease fire you negotiate for peace.


"and that despite not being 'in the loop' that sometimes, an outside perspective can breath fresh air into an old debate"

The problem is that outsiders don't understand the situation enough but still give solutions. Your plan, for example, might be viewed by you as a basic plan. For us it's the same plan everybody's been proposing except it ignores all the hot spots and all the problems. It's nothing personal against you, a lot of people, mainly europeans, just think they know everything. After the attack in Nataya Denmark said they condemn the attack but Israel mustn't act against it. In other words: You're getting killed but you mustn't fight back. In european capitals thousands of people march in anti-Israel demonstrations, but do THEY have a solution? All they're saying is don't do this and don't do that. What they either don't know or just choose to ignore is the fact that Israel has tried not retaliating for three weeks. Did the Palestinians ever tried not to kill Israelis? All they did during these one sided cease fires was spreading disinformation and trying to inflame the area so that CNN will say "Israel claims it's in a cease fire but Palestinian claim Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian" - Well ofcource they killed him! He was shooting at them with a machine gun!!! Or maybe just claims about kids being killed whice they had no proof of but intl. networks still said that Israel claims this and the Palestinians claims that.

 

[Pellaken]

both your points are valid, so I have nothing to say agianst them, except the ceasefire/talk part.

what israel could do, is say "if you stop blowing up our innocent civilians, we'll offer to think about ____ in our negotiaitons"

then see what arafat does.


also

"I never heard of any country that negotiated for peace while in war. In war you negotiate for a cease fire. In a cease fire you negotiate for peace. "

what about WW1? dident germany atleast say they'd be willing to talk about anyhting? if israel came out and said "we will talk now thats TALK, not DO, hear me arafat talk about jerusalem and the right of return... then will you stop killing us" perhaps that'd work? no?

 

[Pellaken]

just for the record... Israel has nuclear weapons?

I dont think that any arab nation can defeat israel. I predict, that is Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Palistine, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Libya were to declare war on Israel, the war would be over very quickley... Israel is undefeatable. they never lost... they just 'dident win', thats all... I think, to be brutally honest, that we need another war. and not only in israel, but a world war. it tends that after wars, most evil is irradicated.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Pellaken
I think, to be brutally honest, that we need another war. and not only in israel, but a world war. it tends that after wars, most evil is irradicated.

Are you SURE you're a leftist? That sounds awfully reactionary to me. Wars are cathartic, to be sure. And I do tend to believe that the problems between Israel and the Palestinians will not end until one side or the other is totally defeated. Personally, I hope it won't come to that. But if it does, I'm expecting (and hoping) that Israel will be the one left standing. I suspect that the Arab nations will not directly intervene in such an all-out war between the Palestinians and the Israelis. If they did, the US WOULD get involved, and they don't want that kind of trouble.

Here is a scenario for a "world war" that starts there.

1) The Israelis and Palestinians decide to settle once and for all who gets the land. Winner take all.

2) The surrounding Arab nations directly intervene militarily in an attempt to destroy Israel.

3) The United States intervenes with direct military action to save Israel from destruction.

4) Crisis at the UN, with nations taking one side or the other. As both sides have friends on the Security Council, countervailing vetoes lock the UN in impotence.

5) Seeing no satisfaction from the now-irrelevant UN, states start taking matters into their own hands. The most important secondary flash-point would probably be India-Pakistan, with Pakistan taking the Arab side and India backing their friends, the Israelis. Probable shooting war on the sub-continent.

6) With the exception of Britain and Russia, Europe is paralyzed by indecision. Britain backs the US and Israel, but Russia is a wild-card as they have interests on both sides of the conflict. They WILL act, but what they will do is a big question. They will probably wait to see what China will do before acting.

7a) Chinese neutrality: If China decides to stay out of the conflict, Russia may intervene on behalf of the Arab states. Not out of love, but out of a perceived necessity to check the expansion US influence.

7b) Chinese intervention: China has scores to settle with Taiwan (protected by the United States) and India, as well as interests in several Arab states. If China decides to get involved, they will do so on the Arab side, and they might use the opportunity to settle those scores. In this case, Russia will back the US/Israelis, as Russia is scared of China.

THAT would be a world war.

I don't know about you, but this whole idea scares the hell out of me.

 

[Citizen_K]

I don't think there will ever be peace in Israel. What we see right now is the result of the passage:

"You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers." Genesis 16:11-12

The Palestinians and Israelis should have their own states, but it's not going to happen anytime soon. And if it does the peace it creates won't last.

Just remember, something already predicted in advance about the scattering of the 12 Tribes, the persecution of them, the re-establishment of the State of Israel, and the "blooming of the desert." It's all happened. Personally, I don't think it's a coincidence.

So what happens next?

 

[Greadius]

I think your world war scenario is a little paranoid and unrealistic. Perhaps in the 19th century nations went to war that casually, but not anymore. The 'jumping in' scenario is a little far fetched and unrealistic, and so is tying together every hotspot or flashpoint on the globe into an uber-war through loose threads.

For example, China has a score to settle with India? Diplomatic, perhaps, but nothing would hurt China more than loosing trade with industrialized nations, specifically the U.S. We're economically codependant even if we're ideoligically opposed. China would have more to loose out of getting involved and winning than staying out and profiting.

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by Greadius
I think your world war scenario is a little paranoid and unrealistic. Perhaps in the 19th century nations went to war that casually, but not anymore. The 'jumping in' scenario is a little far fetched and unrealistic, and so is tying together every hotspot or flashpoint on the globe into an uber-war through loose threads.

For example, China has a score to settle with India? Diplomatic, perhaps, but nothing would hurt China more than loosing trade with industrialized nations, specifically the U.S. We're economically codependant even if we're ideoligically opposed. China would have more to loose out of getting involved and winning than staying out and profiting.

I don't expect this scenario to come true. It's just an intellectual excercise in which I attempted to put together a "world war" out of what is going on today. Frankly, I don't think another "world war" is possible, at least right now.

 

[Pellaken]

well, we are close to WW3 now, closer then we've been since the days of the USSR, thats for sure.

 

[IceBlaZe]

What do you think WW3 is?
Wars are not the conventional all-out you used to see in vietnam and world war two.
How do you call the economic skydive?
How do you call the never-ending palestinien-Israeli situation?
The always-existing threat of terrorists?
The fact that one bomb in the wrong hand can cause the death of millions and the destruction of world economy.
This is more war then you need bud.
WW3 is already here.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Pellaken
what israel could do, is say "if you stop blowing up our innocent civilians, we'll offer to think about ____ in our negotiaitons"

"I never heard of any country that negotiated for peace while in war. In war you negotiate for a cease fire. In a cease fire you negotiate for peace. "

what about WW1? dident germany atleast say they'd be willing to talk about anyhting? if israel came out and said "we will talk now thats TALK, not DO, hear me arafat talk about jerusalem and the right of return... then will you stop killing us" perhaps that'd work? no?

Israel told the Palestinians that we'll negotiate with them about a Palestinian state if they'll stop fighting. They got land and then what? Did they stop killing civilians? They just used the land we gave them in order to kill more civilians.
Israel won't make this mistake again - No one is gonna get anything by attacking us.

 

[Pellaken]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
What do you think WW3 is?
Wars are not the conventional all-out you used to see in vietnam and world war two.
How do you call the economic skydive?
How do you call the never-ending palestinien-Israeli situation?
The always-existing threat of terrorists?
The fact that one bomb in the wrong hand can cause the death of millions and the destruction of world economy.
This is more war then you need bud.
WW3 is already here.

specifically

WW3 is already here.

we think alike after all

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Few reasons:
1. We supply them with resources
2. They have missiles with the range of 8-12km
3. The settlements
4. It is a long and expensive process, and its results are not assured at all

In the real world, when a country attacks you, you try and stop it. You do not build a giant 30 feet high and 5 feet wide wall.
We are not in the 1500's.

On # 1: So stop. They would become their own nation, and yours chooses not to deal with them at all. Let them find their economy through all the rest of the world.

2. So operate on a theory of massive retaliation. If they send a missle, send back 20. Once they have their country, they have no moral backing for making the attack. Even the Europeans would see that. Besides, your other, less than friendly, neighbors have the same missles or better.

3. The settlements have to go. Or more precicely, the people there are given fair notice and support to move out. If they choose to stay, they run the risks.

4. So is about anything else that might result in peace. It also doesn't have to be a large physical wall, just a closed border.

You are right, this is not the 1500's. The 1500's didn't have anywhere near this level of individual power groups that could cause destruction well out of proportion to their numbers.

Don't get me wrong though. I view this as more of a Pro Israeli solution. I would think it would cut down on terror, and at the same time remove most of the emotional support the Palestinians have. They would be forced to make their country a success with out the excuses of Israeli occupation to lean on. If they continued to use terror, they would be revealed to the entire world for what they are.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Disconnection from the palestiniens and leaving them be can cause uprising in the arab-israeli population.
Besides,we already have a 'wall' seperating between Israel and lebanon and we are all seeing how much that helps.
They just use the same thing: fire missiles on us and attack military posts from civilian areas so we cant retaliate. If we cant retaliate to the palestiniens now after they kill 50 of us when we retreat, what makes you think 'Europe' will 'let' us retaliate then? We would still need to target civilian areas. And when our troops are not there doing the job manually, one missile is enough to kill dozens of palestiniens.

As soon as we dont watch them they will also be able to get their hands on better weapons, such as the missiles the hizbullah are using. And i am not talking here about some distant place in the north, im talking here one missile, as un-modern as it maybe, that holds a 12g+ warhead, doing its way to tel aviv, can cause chaos here. And what will israel do then? Exterminate the palestiniens?

Terror doesnt stop by building a wall or things like that.
Bin Laden wasnt a suicide bomber from a neighbouring country and he still found a way to kill thousands. What makes you think this will be any different?
Its clear the terrorists, or at least the organizations, are not doing this because of the occupation because all they do is ignite the area and try to put peace processes into failure.
Unless the palestiniens take control of their own terrorist organizations and put an end to this no wall will be big enough to stop it.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Disconnection from the palestiniens and leaving them be can cause uprising in the arab-israeli population.
Besides,we already have a 'wall' seperating between Israel and lebanon and we are all seeing how much that helps.
They just use the same thing: fire missiles on us and attack military posts from civilian areas so we cant retaliate. If we cant retaliate to the palestiniens now after they kill 50 of us when we retreat, what makes you think 'Europe' will 'let' us retaliate then? We would still need to target civilian areas. And when our troops are not there doing the job manually, one missile is enough to kill dozens of palestiniens.

As soon as we dont watch them they will also be able to get their hands on better weapons, such as the missiles the hizbullah are using. And i am not talking here about some distant place in the north, im talking here one missile, as un-modern as it maybe, that holds a 12g+ warhead, doing its way to tel aviv, can cause chaos here. And what will israel do then? Exterminate the palestiniens?

Terror doesnt stop by building a wall or things like that.
Bin Laden wasnt a suicide bomber from a neighbouring country and he still found a way to kill thousands. What makes you think this will be any different?
Its clear the terrorists, or at least the organizations, are not doing this because of the occupation because all they do is ignite the area and try to put peace processes into failure.
Unless the palestiniens take control of their own terrorist organizations and put an end to this no wall will be big enough to stop it.

Okay, that I can accept. I knew there were reasons, I just wasn't sure what they were. Thanks.

I am becoming more and more of the opinion that the only way this is going to end is when the bloodshed becomes more than one side can bear. When continued carnage isn't worth the price of pride and principles, the people will demand a solution. I don't see this any time soon, and I don't see Isreal being the one to break.

Many Palestinians want war, and Israelisn't going to back down. It took Europe the two largest wars in history to get a 'peace' mindset accross the board, that same mindset isn't going to come easily to either side in this conflict.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Originally posted by knowltok2


Okay, that I can accept. I knew there were reasons, I just wasn't sure what they were. Thanks.

I am becoming more and more of the opinion that the only way this is going to end is when the bloodshed becomes more than one side can bear. When continued carnage isn't worth the price of pride and principles, the people will demand a solution. I don't see this any time soon, and I don't see Isreal being the one to break.

Many Palestinians want war, and Israelisn't going to back down. It took Europe the two largest wars in history to get a 'peace' mindset accross the board, that same mindset isn't going to come easily to either side in this conflict.

I do not share this opinion.
Terrorists do not care about bloodshed.
Personally, arafat and his likes only use the bloodshed to incourage more terrorism. 'I want to be a martyr' is not exactly the sentence that will solve the problem.
In the meantime we saw Israel is willing to make heavy compromises at Camp David.
Israel agreed every Cease Fire term USA and Europe suggested.
But this is it.
Who pulled his troops out before passover to give a chance to cease fire and who did not act to stop terrorism?
Europe should learn that instead of criticsizing only Israel, same thing with the UN, they should put pressure on the palestinien side.
Put pressure on arafat to stop his manipulating education.
Put pressure on arafat to disarm his terrorist organizations and do his best to disarm the others.
Put pressure on arafat, arafat and arafat. And maybe some other palestinien cabinet members also.
When we get slaughtered during passover but the only thing europe does is tell us 'Ermm... dont retaliate' that only helps the terrorists. Europe plays strictly to terrorist hands.
Maybe our military operation wont end all the terror in the world, but escuse me, does any of you have any other solution?
Meanwhile the IDF arrested hundreds of armed palestiniens, found dozens of explosives labs and hundreds on hundreds of illegal weaponry.
I don't know if that wont stop terror, but at least we do not get attacked daily now as we were on passover.

Europe should learn that war hurts, and it should stop playing into the hands of the terrorists by defending them. Basically what europe with all their representives is trying to do is to paralyze our defense forces.
If when we retreat and suffer from that we cant retaliate, what use do we have in a country anyway?
As subjective as it might sound to you, I think that we gave enough chances for arafat to stop terror and he failed.
We already tried out everything, from a far reaching peace offer to a step-by-step numerous cease fires, including numerous one-sided cease fires, and all we got back was terror, terror and terror.

Well, well done europe. If you want to defend that...

What I want to see is:
Action taken against the hizbullah, syria and iran by internetional forces. If this doesnt stop, the northern border is going to get ignited again.
Action taken against Iran, action taken against Iran and action taken against Iran.
While a lot of Europeans here fancy Iran and think they are 'Advancing' towards 'Moderate' they are still the number one country to supply terrorists with weapons, funds and actions towards ignitions.
I don't really give a **** if Iran is talking with european representatives, but as long as they continue to support terror so actively and so intensely they do not deserve to live quietly with their current regime.
Same thing with Iraq.

Maybe Bush's speech sounded stupid to you when he mentioned the axis of evil, but there is a point to his saying.
Iraq and Iran manipulate, fund and arm thousands of terrorists and a lot of terrorist organizations.
Some of you may call the palestiniens freedom fighters (ironically, because their fighting ended every cease fire, lol), but what reason there is for the hizbullah to fight?
A country that supports the hizbullah indirectly interfears to ignite the middle east and supports massacre and killing, or atleast attempts, of innocent citizens.
What would you do to Israel if it publicly, knownly and intensely, supported a MAJOR terrorist organization that acted in, lets say, europe?

Nations supporting terrorist organizations are blood thirsty coward regimes that do their best to kill as many innocent citizens as possible that do not belong to their religion, or of a country they do not like.

While the EU and the UN finds it correct to condemn Israel on every possible opportunity, they also find it correct to not say a word about Iran or Syria supporting the hizbullah unless Israel specifically ask them to. And even then koffi anan goes, says some words to bashar asad, returns and business are as usual, and the hisbullah keeps fighting.

Nations and Organizations that intentionally forget to condemen terrorist organizations and terrorist supporting countries, are just as coward as those nations and also very very hypocrite.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by knowltok2


On # 1: So stop. They would become their own nation, and yours chooses not to deal with them at all. Let them find their economy through all the rest of the world.

2. So operate on a theory of massive retaliation. If they send a missle, send back 20. Once they have their country, they have no moral backing for making the attack. Even the Europeans would see that. Besides, your other, less than friendly, neighbors have the same missles or better.

3. The settlements have to go. Or more precicely, the people there are given fair notice and support to move out. If they choose to stay, they run the risks.

4. So is about anything else that might result in peace. It also doesn't have to be a large physical wall, just a closed border.

You are right, this is not the 1500's. The 1500's didn't have anywhere near this level of individual power groups that could cause destruction well out of proportion to their numbers.

Don't get me wrong though. I view this as more of a Pro Israeli solution. I would think it would cut down on terror, and at the same time remove most of the emotional support the Palestinians have. They would be forced to make their country a success with out the excuses of Israeli occupation to lean on. If they continued to use terror, they would be revealed to the entire world for what they are.

1. This will legitimate more terror attacks. The eurpeans will look at the situation as if Israel came, took everything and now leaves the Palestinians without anything.
2. We also though the peace agreements we have with the Palestinians will take anymoral base for the Palestinians.
3. Why should settlers be forced to leave? If Israel would try to kick 200 thousand Palestinians from their homes it would've been ethnic cleansing but when Palestinians try to kick 200 thousand jews from their homes it should be done? If the Palestinians want Israel to withdraw they'll have to make Israel's citizens agree to that, and killing them is not the way.
4. A closed border? In the middle of our capital city? The Palestinians will just come into a house in one door and come out in Israeli territory from the other side of the building. A border in the middle of a city might be psychologicaly pwerfull but in reality it's very easy to pass it.

 

[knowltok2]

Points taken on 1 and 2. On three, I just don't know enough about the settlements to be sure, but I do know it is a bone of contention with the Palestinians. As far as 4, I don't say it would be easy, and I am not advocating it per se. Remember all of this was originally a question to learn why not. I think I have accomplished that.

IceBlaze:

You are right that the terrorists don't care. I guess I am being pessimistic in that I don't see any solution in the near term. I am talking about a far off peace resulting from exhaustion on one or both groups. The sad part is that I don't see anything happening that will cause such exhaustion. The Palestinians don't have the power to win, and Israel can't use the power it has becuase of public opinion. While I support your current actions to defend yourself, I am afraid that they won't end the problem. A general assault isn't feasable, and anything less than a general assault won't carry the message through the propaganda that it isn't worth it.

I guess what I am saying is that until the 'average' Palestinian looks around him and says, "Damn, this just isn't worth it. I am angry and mad, and grieving, but the only thing that striking back will do is make it worse. Maybe I better work towards peace." When utter devastation breaks past the rhetoric and propaganda, then I can see a peace. It isn't pleasent to contemplate but I don't see anything else working. Maybe that is just me being negative.

 

[Pellaken]

BAH!

eathier:

accept what the palistinains want

or

get rid of them!

you keep complaining about how to solve the problem... well take action!!!

this is what I tell people that ask me about Iraq. all the US does is complain! oy vey! its annoying!

 

[God]

Or we could get rid of Israel, then the Iraqis and Persians can get back to fighting, the US can bomb both, Europe won't need to regeret not solving the situation in the first place, the Arabs will like the Americans tons more, terrorism against America should go down, and chances of WW3 will decrease until China and America both decide to duke it out in about 50-100 years.

And while we are at it we can redo the borders in Africa and Balkans, execute all the drug lords in Colombia

And then we have solved a few of the world problems,

Or ofcourse we can get rid of religions which will solve alot of problems,


OR i can conquer the world and place my iron fisted rule over it, preventing any sort of corruption and skirmishes, with the help of courthouses and a high luxury rate.