Arafat

[AVN]

Mephisto,

I'm unable to couple your statements to the quotes.

Edit : thanks for making your post better readable.

 

[bobgote]

Mephisto: I'm gonna have to say i agree 100% with IceBlaze on this one. No one wants deaths, but you have to protect your own people. Israel has a very very sensitive situation here and IMO they are handling it the best they can. They could go in full force and wipe out everything, but then would be internationally condemned and probably end up with even worse terrorism than they have now. On the other end of the scale, they can't do nothing as innocent people are dying. Their innocent people. I don't care that you're a phd student, as you don't really put forward much of an argument. Sure you can condemn death, but do you have a better idea? One that would actually work?

Sharon is following the law, Arafat on the other hand is not. IceBlaze is quite correct when saying you have a twisted logic. If Arafat is removed, I doubt he would face an international court anyway though (no matter how much he should).

 

[Mephisto]

bobgote:

lets face, whatever they are doing now, it's not working. or is it?

many of your points have been answered by my previous posts, eg, 1. sharon is not following the international law either. 2. about i am a phd student, please read my reply to iceblaze.

here goes my better idea. end occupation, (it's not their land) and restore palestinians state. (or at least negotiate on how to share it) you don't need a phd to see this.

if i understand correctly, he accused me of having twisted logic b/c i think all killings are equally unforgivable; whereas he thinks terrorists killing is worse than those by army.

my response is, if you were killed, do you care how you were killed? probably not. people have equal right to life, that's my point. if you don't agree w/ me, fine, then we have a different opinion, but don't accuse me of having a 'twisted logic' please

sure israle needs to take measure to ensure its security. yet there's a limit on everything. one can not do everything one likes in the name of destroying terrorism. (mind bush) sharon sends people there to crash terrorism in such a fashion that only creates more animosity among the palestinians toward israle.

you may have your opinion, but such a scale of military action does not aim at destroying terrorism, (cause it actually creates terrorism) rather, it aims at revenging. imho.

 

[Mephisto]

more on sharon's 'following the law' what law is he following? sure there's no isralie law that forbids him from taking excess revenge. is there? and lets face it, he is fighting a war on arafat. but when it come to war, there is no law applicable. you may make some artificial laws to make yourself appear legitimate, but there's really no law to war. war makes law, not the other way around. (have you seen a war hero goes to international court?)

i am saying that this war is excessive. and sharon himself should partly be blamed b/c he aggravates the situation by needlessly increases the animosty of palestanian people toward the isralie.

 

[Gerard]

Mephisto, I am with you.
Sharon and the law: Do you remember Sabra and Chatila?

I'm so worry about the lines of thinking of the most: if I qualify as terrorist to my oponent, then I have the right to do anything with him.

I had an experience about that. And I can say you: that is the way to start a dictatorship.

 

[Mephisto]

yeh, gerard, i've read about your experience, it's terrible. personally, i am disgusted by the way bush has been using fighting terrorism as an excuse to achieve his political goals, and the way he has increased presidential power in the name of protecting liberty. it's an insult to those 911 victims imho.

actually everytime i read a bomb goes off in israle, i feel sad. that kind of news basically just ruins my day. though it happens so often, i still feel bad and angry every time it happens.

yet, i don't think the way sharon handling things is helpful imo. though arafat deserves his share of blame, i just don't like the way sharon has copied bush: justifying the excessive military action and civilian casualty in the name of fighting terrorism.

 

[Sanaz]

Originally posted by Mephisto
here goes my better idea. end occupation, (it's not their land) and restore palestinians state. (or at least negotiate on how to share it) you don't need a phd to see this.

if i understand correctly, he accused me of having twisted logic b/c i think all killings are equally unforgivable; whereas he thinks terrorists killing is worse than those by army.

Of course terrorist killing (where the MAIN target is the innocent lives) is much worse than military killing (where the MAIN target is military or political. They can NOT be compared. Someone dying in a car accident is sad, and a tragedy. Someone dying in a drunk driving accident, or a hit-and-run, is criminal. When the IDF kills innocents, they investigate what went WRONG to hopefully improve so it doesn't happen again. They are held accountable. When the terrorist attack is successful, and innocents are killed, they are searched out so they can be PAID. If you can't see the basic moral difference, shame on you. On top of this, the terrorists HIDE BEHIND the innocents. There is a reason that they are never alone. They hide behind their own women and children, DARING the military to take a shot at them. These bastards should be killed by their OWN PEOPLE for betrayal, NOT applauded!! There are plenty of arguments to be made, but comparing military action to terrorism is absurd.

sure israle needs to take measure to ensure its security. yet there's a limit on everything. one can not do everything one likes in the name of destroying terrorism. (mind bush) sharon sends people there to crash terrorism in such a fashion that only creates more animosity among the palestinians toward israle.

you may have your opinion, but such a scale of military action does not aim at destroying terrorism, (cause it actually creates terrorism) rather, it aims at revenging. imho.

This may be true, but is it really the fault of Israel that the extremists use EVERYTHING and ANYTHING as yet another excuse to incite terrorism? The publicly stated goal of the terrorists is ELIMINATION OF ISRAEL (the whole country, not just the settlements). The publicly stated goal of Israel is PEACE and STABILITY. Again, trying to compare the two is absurd.

The people who lose out in the entire situation is the people who want to just live their lives, go to work and school, raise their families. The extremists on both sides need to be acted against, and this is my biggest complaint of the Israeli government. On the one hand, they are right not to negotiate terms as long as active terrorism is occurring. On the other, they need to stop the expansion of, or retract, the settlers in the Palistinean lands. This won't stop the terrorism, but will add to the legitimacy of their situation greatly and may stop the ease of gaining new terrorist recruits. Or not.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Mephisto
bobgote:

lets face, whatever they are doing now, it's not working. or is it?

With arafat in power, there will be no resolution. He is obstructing the path of peace so (back to the topic) he should be removed, preferably by his own people. Until someone who wants peace is leading the palestinians, Israel can pretty much only do damage control until then. It's bad, I know, but it is all they can really do. And in that sense, I think they're doing a good job.

here goes my better idea. end occupation, (it's not their land) and restore palestinians state. (or at least negotiate on how to share it) you don't need a phd to see this.

What land? Just the west bank? I saw a documentry where they went and talked to Israelis, asking them what should be done (IceBlaze, G-Man correct anything here that is wrong). Most if not all said that they wanted peace and that they realised that it would probably result in giving a homeland to the palestinians. The main problem is how this is to be done. So inasmuch as this, I agree with you.

if i understand correctly, he accused me of having twisted logic b/c i think all killings are equally unforgivable; whereas he thinks terrorists killing is worse than those by army.

my response is, if you were killed, do you care how you were killed? probably not. people have equal right to life, that's my point. if you don't agree w/ me, fine, then we have a different opinion, but don't accuse me of having a 'twisted logic' please

If I were killed, and could have the opportunity to know how I was killed, damn sure I would care about how. There isn't a shadow of doubt there. Sure they have an equal right in life, but a terrorist in this case has made themself the enemy of life, for others to live normally you have to prevent the terrorist achieving their aims. There may be some mistakes, and some vengeance, but I think overall, the IDF are doing more a good job than a bad one.

The reference to twisted logic was indeed directed at the fact that you equated a terrorist life with a innocent civilian. If not twisted, it is at least flawed.

sharon sends people there to crash terrorism in such a fashion that only creates more animosity among the palestinians toward israle.

Think of the situation he's in. He wants to stop this threat to his people, but is virtually powerless. He wants to crush them, but he can't. He could be doing a lot worse. In fact I think he's shown good restraint. He's trying to do what's best.

 

[Mephisto]

quote from sanaz

Of course terrorist killing (where the MAIN target is the innocent lives) is much worse than military killing (where the MAIN target is military or political. They can NOT be compared. Someone dying in a car accident is sad, and a tragedy. Someone dying in a drunk driving accident, or a hit-and-run, is criminal. When the IDF kills innocents, they investigate what went WRONG to hopefully improve so it doesn't happen again. They are held accountable. When the terrorist attack is successful, and innocents are killed, they are searched out so they can be PAID. If you can't see the basic moral difference, shame on you. On top of this, the terrorists HIDE BEHIND the innocents. There is a reason that they are never alone. They hide behind their own women and children, DARING the military to take a shot at them. These bastards should be killed by their OWN PEOPLE for betrayal, NOT applauded!! There are plenty of arguments to be made, but comparing military action to terrorism is absurd.

>>> first, i don't think you give a good eg. car accident don't happen over & over again to cause 3000 deaths by the same perpetrator. and yes, i do see the moral difference; i know what you are getting at. still please, allow me a hypothetical question. how would you feel if a country is occupying your land, and keep killing your people 'accidently' b/c some of your country men try to expel them through terrorism? sure your countrymen used a bad method, but how would you feel if one of the guys accidently killed is someone you love? i don't think you would feel more comforted than the families of isralie victims b/c your husband or son were killed accidentally. yes, sanaz, i see your point, but how would those guys feel?

they hide behind the innocents? sure they do, people's instinct is to survive. it's hardly an argument. do you really expect them to go head to head empty handed (well, almost) against one of the best armies in the world?

please also bear in mind, terrorist's action is political too. it's to force the opponent to the negotiating table. i am by no mean agreeing to its method though. but there's always a politcal motive behind every terrorist' act....., still that doesn't make it right. same applies to the military action.

comparing military action to terrorism is absurbed? ok, i see where you are getting at. but do you think hitler's conquering europe is morally more acceptable than that in the 911 attack? if military action is more tolerable, it's because usually only the winners get to interpret the cause of conflict in the case of military action.




quote from sanaz

This may be true, but is it really the fault of Israel that the extremists use EVERYTHING and ANYTHING as yet another excuse to incite terrorism? The publicly stated goal of the terrorists is ELIMINATION OF ISRAEL (the whole country, not just the settlements). The publicly stated goal of Israel is PEACE and STABILITY. Again, trying to compare the two is absurd.

The people who lose out in the entire situation is the people who want to just live their lives, go to work and school, raise their families. The extremists on both sides need to be acted against, and this is my biggest complaint of the Israeli government. On the one hand, they are right not to negotiate terms as long as active terrorism is occurring. On the other, they need to stop the expansion of, or retract, the settlers in the Palistinean lands. This won't stop the terrorism, but will add to the legitimacy of their situation greatly and may stop the ease of gaining new terrorist recruits. Or not.

>>> everything & anything? and in capital letters? people are getting slaughtered, (ok, accidently) and they shouldn't want to revenge? and please, where did i compare the isralie govt w/ the terrorists? i said the killings of innocent people are equally bad for both parties involved. you are starting to get into my nerve by making false accusations.

i think we agree that terrorism should be stoped. but the fact that terrorists are out there hardly makes the isralie's occupation legal. and if there is a reason for the more frequent & more devastating terrorist actions that's happening right now, it's b/c of the occupation and the excessive retaliation by the isralie govt. terrorists do the acts, fair, but the isralie occupation has its share of blame, too.

 

[Mephisto]

quote from bobgote:

With arafat in power, there will be no resolution. He is obstructing the path of peace so (back to the topic) he should be removed, preferably by his own people. Until someone who wants peace is leading the palestinians, Israel can pretty much only do damage control until then. It's bad, I know, but it is all they can really do. And in that sense, I think they're doing a good job.

>>> be fair, sharon has his share of blame too. whatever he is doing, i just notice the whole affair get much messier now than the time before sharon was elected.

yes, arafat should be removed, but ONLY by his people. not preferably. you are an american, you know what that means. it's like saddam saying, bush should be removed, preferably by americans. you don't say that!!!




quote from bobgote:

If I were killed, and could have the opportunity to know how I was killed, damn sure I would care about how. There isn't a shadow of doubt there. Sure they have an equal right in life, but a terrorist in this case has made themself the enemy of life, for others to live normally you have to prevent the terrorist achieving their aims. There may be some mistakes, and some vengeance, but I think overall, the IDF are doing more a good job than a bad one.

The reference to twisted logic was indeed directed at the fact that you equated a terrorist life with a innocent civilian. If not twisted, it is at least flawed.


>>> refer to my previous reply to sanaz.
and please, where do i equate a terrorist life to a innocent life? what a outrageous accusation??? and you proceed to conclude that my logic is false if not twisted??? sorry, but it's your own logic that you need to worry about.




quote from bobgote:

Think of the situation he's in. He wants to stop this threat to his people, but is virtually powerless. He wants to crush them, but he can't. He could be doing a lot worse. In fact I think he's shown good restraint. He's trying to do what's best.

>>>> refer to my first response in this post. he is doing what 'he thinks' is the best, but unfortunately, not the best.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Gerard
Mephisto, I am with you.
Sharon and the law: Do you remember Sabra and Chatila?

>>> Sabra and shatila were Palestinian christians killing Palestinian muslims.

I'm so worry about the lines of thinking of the most: if I qualify as terrorist to my oponent, then I have the right to do anything with him.

>>> So you expect Israel not to do anything to the terrorists? Maybe we should send them aid?

I had an experience about that. And I can say you: that is the way to start a dictatorship.

>>> That is also the way to fight an enemy.

yeh, the fact that the terrorists don't wear a uniform that prints in the front 'i am a terrorist' exculpates isralie's blame for killing innoncent people.

>>> Oh no, it's much better for them to assimilate within the civilian population, forcing ANY anti terroristic measure to hurt Palestinian civilians as well...

which international law? well, israle & palestine are both un members. by un law, one member may not attack another w/o an un resolution.

>>>...Unless being attacked first

indeed, the whole world is condemning this crap except the bush administration

>>> Indeed the whole world has no idea how to fight terrorism. I'm tired of Germans and Russians telling me how to treat minorities, of Brits and Spanish telling me to give land for groups who want land, of Americans telling me how to treat the natives, of arab dictators telling me they consider Israel a facist country. First of all do something yourself, then talk to us. Maybe we really should learn from the rest of the world and implement the british system they used here.

 

[MrPresident]

It is quite clear from the posts that Mephisto doesn't live in an area that has suffered from recent terrorist attacks. Because if he did then he would understand the problems when faced with trying to root out and destroy terrorist organisations. I would like to add that I think it is disgraceful that someone like Mephisto thinks he can attack the Israelis for their conduct by completely ignore the conduct of the Palestinians. During a war both sides do things that they really shouldn't do but it is unavoidable. You can not win a war without doing such actions. However this doesn't mean that both sides are as bad as each other. If one side is trying hard to avoid these actions then they should be applauded. And if the other side is not then they should be condemned. That is the difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That and superior firepower.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by MrPresident
During a war both sides do things that they really shouldn't do but it is unavoidable. You can not win a war without doing such actions. However this doesn't mean that both sides are as bad as each other. If one side is trying hard to avoid these actions then they should be applauded. And if the other side is not then they should be condemned.

That is the difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That and superior firepower.

1.) That does encapsulate the matter precisely.

2.) Which they use very much in moderation. It's not as if they are doing what the rightly did in 82, and pounding Beirut with 175mm and 203mm howitzers, etc.

Also to be taken into account is that Fatah and the PLO were founded before the "occupation" of "Palestinian land" - in the early 1960s.
Their avowed goal, which has never been directly abandoned, is to drive the Jews into the sea. Arafat is trying to pass as an elected statesman, but that act fools no one who knows the man's history.

How can peace be achieved? In order to understand that, we must understand what the nature of the conflict is.
Terrible and bloody as it is, this current intifada does not present an existential threat to Israel. (the proposed right of return IS such a threat, in that it would swamp Israel, and fundamentally alter its nature. Although, some here and elsewhere would not see that as a bad thing, being fundamentally and malevolently opposed to the notion of Jewish national identity, and their right to a state...)

What does is the threat of the surrounding Arab nations. That was why the West Bank was occupied - not out of neo-colonialist Zionism, but primarily because of strategic considerations. (Incidentally, it was also ARAB land, not that of some ephemeral "Palestinian" entity, that was conquered.)
From the heights of Samaria, you can hit anywhere in Israel with a missile.
It also provides high ground for early warning radar for air raids and missiles (and where to the east of Israel have they been fired from before, in an UNPROVOKED act of war? Any guesses?), as well as anti-missile batteries.
Furthermore, we come to the issue of defensive depth. Israel is extremely narrow at its 1948 boundaries, and at the borders prior to the Six Day War. The added depth is needed to give the IDF time to mobilize and strike. Israel cannot trade territory for time.

Until the Arab threat is removed, through complete normalization and unconditional peace, and through the removal of threatening regimes in Iraq and Iran, then there can be no surrender of this territory without fatally compromising Israeli security. With a history of being attacked by neighbours with genocidal intent, it can be understand that Israel is not inanely optimistic on the matter, and willing to give anything and everything for "peace"

The issue of the Palestinians cannot be separated from this wider Arab-Israeli context. Do consider.

 

[IceBlaZe]

I'm still wondering where was the world and the plightful UN when Jordan held the West Bank.

Where was the resolution for retreat untill the 6 day war?

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Mephisto
... you are an american, you know what that means....

I'm going to PRETEND you didn't say that

 

[Steve Winer]

Originally posted by Pillager
Is that a euphamism for having him assassinated?

No, he should not be assassinated, he should deal with his problems his own way hammer: ,:suicide: ) any other ideas?

 

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by MrPresident
It is quite clear from the posts that Mephisto doesn't live in an area that has suffered from recent terrorist attacks. Because if he did then he would understand the problems when faced with trying to root out and destroy terrorist organisations. I would like to add that I think it is disgraceful that someone like Mephisto thinks he can attack the Israelis for their conduct by completely ignore the conduct of the Palestinians. During a war both sides do things that they really shouldn't do but it is unavoidable. You can not win a war without doing such actions. However this doesn't mean that both sides are as bad as each other. If one side is trying hard to avoid these actions then they should be applauded. And if the other side is not then they should be condemned. That is the difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That and superior firepower.

what??? i completely ignore the conduct of palestanian terrorists??? did you read my posts? obviously not!!! and then you proceed to conclude that it's disgraceful i think the way i do???? please, president, read my posts then do the accusation. there are multiple occasions where i condemn terrorism.

how many times do i have to say that i do not equate isralie govt w/ terrorists? did you, mr. president, read my posts??? i said the killings done are as bad, and both are not helpful to the situation. please, the second time, read my posts before making accusation.

avoid the situation??? sorry, but obviously both sides have so far only aggravates the situation.

and yes, i don't live there, neither do most of us. at the same time nobody here is palestinians either. yet we all think we understand. ok, you think you know more than me, but let me tell you, i am just trying to see the situation from both sides.

 

[G-Man]

"not helpful to the situation" - what is the situation and what will help it?

 

[Sanaz]

Originally posted by Mephisto
how many times do i have to say that i do not equate isralie govt w/ terrorists? did you, mr. president, read my posts??? i said the killings done are as bad, and both are not helpful to the situation. please, the second time, read my posts before making accusation.

Please understand that your posts weren't completely clear. I misunderstood as well. It happens to everyone, especially with high emotions and many different languages represented here. By saying that each life lost is equally tragic, it implies that the givers of death are equally guilty. You have now made it clear that you do not equate the givers of death, that you are just saying that the loss of an innocent life is tragic in both cases. I have not seen anyone dispute this. I will say, that I blame the terrorists directly for killing in Israel, and I blame them again for causing the Israelis to kill innocents. Everyone will disagree somewhat on where the lines of morality should be drawn, but not many will disagree that it is sad when innocent children are killed on their way to school.

Having a Middle Eastern family, I see things more from that side of the fence. And it makes me condemn the terrorists and Arafat even more because of it. I may qeustion the wisdom of creating a Jewish state where it is, but that is irrelevant. Two facts remain - where else should it have been, and it is already an established nation that is not going away. I live in a nation that was created on top of an entire culture, that culture was destroyed and buried, and we have an ugly history of genocide. But it's history, and I will not condemn myself and my contemporaries for that history. Just as I won't blame current Germans for atrocities performed by the Nazis, or current Russians for their brutal history.

We all need to move forward, something the terrorists/extremists are not able/willing to understand. From my viewpoint, only a psychopath would want less stability and more voilence in the region. From their viewpoint, it is amoral to not fight back for their homeland. Bad deal all around, and the innocent population will be the ones to pay the price until a solution is found.

 

[Sanaz]

double post